I paladini dell’antiterrorismo

March 31st, 2015 by Manlio Dinucci

Tunisi, come a Parigi in gen­naio, una mani­fe­sta­zione di popolo che, dicendo «basta odio e morte», rifiuta non solo il ter­ro­ri­smo ma la guerra di cui esso è il sot­to­pro­dotto. Al cor­teo di Tunisi, come a quello di Parigi, hanno par­te­ci­pato però alcuni dei prin­ci­pali respon­sa­bili delle poli­ti­che di guerra che ali­men­tano la spi­rale di odio e morte.

In prima fila Hol­lande, pre­si­dente di quella Fran­cia che ha fino all’ultimo soste­nuto la dit­ta­tura di Ben Ali, garante degli inte­ressi neo­co­lo­niali fran­cesi in Tuni­sia, che sotto la pre­si­denza di Sar­kozy (oggi tor­nato in auge) ha con­tri­buito con la guerra di Libia alla dif­fu­sione del ter­ro­ri­smo. Non a caso gli autori dell’attacco al museo del Bardo sono stati adde­strati in Libia. E, accanto a Hol­lande, c’era a Tunisi il pre­mier Renzi, in rap­pre­sen­tanza di quell’Italia che ha con­tri­buito a incen­diare il Nor­da­frica e Medio­riente par­te­ci­pando alla demo­li­zione dello Stato libico. Ope­ra­zione per la quale gruppi isla­mici, prima clas­si­fi­cati come ter­ro­ri­sti, sono stati armati e adde­strati da Usa e Nato, che oggi espri­mono a Tunisi il loro appog­gio nella lotta al terrorismo.

Pre­sente alla mar­cia di Tunisi con­tro il ter­ro­ri­smo anche il vice primo mini­stro Kur­tul­mus, in rap­pre­sen­tanza del governo turco che – oltre a for­nire anche all’Isis armi e vie di tran­sito per la guerra in Siria e Iraq – ha fir­mato il 19 feb­braio un accordo con gli Stati uniti per adde­strare ed equi­pag­giare ogni anno 5mila «ribelli» (ossia ter­ro­ri­sti) «mode­rati» da infil­trare in Siria, la cui pre­pa­ra­zione viene curata da 400 spe­cia­li­sti delle forze spe­ciali Usa.

A fianco della Tuni­sia con­tro il ter­ro­ri­smo anche la monar­chia sau­dita, noto­ria­mente primo finan­zia­tore di gruppi ter­ro­ri­stici: il suo mini­stero degli esteri ha inviato un mes­sag­gio in cui sot­to­li­nea che «i prin­cipi di tol­le­ranza della reli­gione isla­mica proi­bi­scono l’uccisione di inno­centi». Men­tre Human Rights Watch docu­menta nel 2015 che «i nuovi rego­la­menti anti­ter­ro­ri­smo, intro­dotti da Riyad, per­met­tono di cri­mi­na­liz­zare come atto ter­ro­ri­stico qual­siasi forma di cri­tica paci­fica alle auto­rità sau­dite», in un paese dove – riporta «The Tele­graph» (16 marzo 2015) – ven­gono ese­guite ogni anno circa 80 con­danne a morte per deca­pi­ta­zione e molti altri sono puniti con la fusti­ga­zione, come il blog­ger Raif Badawi con­dan­nato a 1000 fru­state (50 ogni venerdì). Quanto l’Arabia Sau­dita eviti l’uccisione di inno­centi lo con­ferma nello Yemen, dove sta facendo strage di civili con i suoi cac­cia­bom­bar­dieri for­niti dagli Usa: in base a un con­tratto da 30 miliardi di dol­lari, con­cluso nel 2011 nel qua­dro di uno più ampio da 60 miliardi, Washing­ton sta for­nendo a Riyad 84 nuovi F-15, con rela­tivo arma­mento di bombe e mis­sili, men­tre pro­cede all’upgrade di altri 70. Con que­sti e altri cac­cia­bom­bar­dieri made in Usa, l’Arabia Sau­dita e i mem­bri della sua coa­li­zione con­du­cono, in nome del «comune impe­gno con­tro il ter­ro­ri­smo», una guerra sotto regia e comando Usa per il con­trollo dello Yemen, paese di pri­ma­ria impor­tanza stra­te­gica sullo stretto di Bab al-Mandab (27 km) tra Ara­bia e Africa, da cui pas­sano le rotte petro­li­fere e com­mer­ciali tra l’Oceano Indiano e il Mediterraneo.

E Washing­ton, men­tre cerca con tutti i mezzi di bloc­care il pro­gramma nucleare ira­niano, ignora che l’Arabia Sau­dita ha uffi­cial­mente dichia­rato («The Inde­pen­dent», 30 marzo 2015), per bocca del suo amba­scia­tore negli Usa, che non esclude di costruire o acqui­stare armi nucleari, con l’aiuto del Paki­stan di cui finan­zia il 60% del pro­gramma nucleare mili­tare. In nome, ovvia­mente, della lotta al terrorismo.

Manlio Dinucci

  • Posted in Italiano
  • Comments Off on I paladini dell’antiterrorismo

عدم الإستقرار في اليمن لا يسببه فقط إيران أو الحوثيين ولكن التدخل الأمريكي والسعودي في اليمن – من الغزو السعودي في 2009 إلى هجمات الدرون الأمريكية- والعقود من الدعم الذي قدمته السعودية للحكم السلطوي وغير الشعبي في اليمن.

قالت مجلة فورين بوليسي يوم 6 مارس “يتم رسم خطوط المعركة في اليمن، أفقر الدول العربية وأحدث المرشحين في الشرق الأوسط لفشل الدولة. إذا إندلعت الحرب المفتوحة قريبا، كما يبدو بإزدياد أنه متوقع، لن تجعلها المنافسة على التفوق الإقليمي بين السعودية وإيران أسوء. ثبت أن كلا القوتان متحمستان لتسليح المجموعات التي يعتقدون أنهم يستطيعون السيطرة عليها”.

التحالف الحوثي مع إيران: براجماتية أم طائفية؟

الحوثيون ليسوا وكلاء للإيرانين. حركة الحوثيون لاعب سياسي ظهر نتيجة  للإضطهاد. تسمية الحوثيون وكلاء للإيرانين هو أمر يوحي بقلة الملاحظة ويتجاهل تاريخ وسياسة اليمن. حتى فورين بوليسي تعترف أن “إذا إنتدلعت الحرب على أسس طائفية لن يكون ذلك لأن هذا هو الإنقسام في اليمن، سيكون لأن ممولي الحرب الأجانب يشعلون إنقسامات لم تكن مهمة من قبل”.

أنكر القادة الحوثيين إدعائات بأنهم يأخذون أوامر من طهران. لم يوقف ذلك المسؤولين والإعلام السعودي والخليجي الذين إستخدموا وإستغلوا بيانات المسؤولين الإيرانين، مثل مقارنة الحوثيين للبسج في إيران، عن تصوير الحوثيين على أنهم وكلاء لإيران.

وكما أن الحوثيون ليسوا وكلاء لإيران لا يوجد تحالف شيعي بين طهران وبينهم في اليمن. الحديث الذي يتركز على هذا السرد الطائفي البسيط يخفي الطبيعة السياسية والدوافع للصراع في اليمن ويلغز صراع الحوثين ضد الإضطهاد بشكل مهين. حتى السبعينات كان آل سعود بالفعل مساندين كبار للفصائل الملكية في اليمن ويغلب عليها المسلمين الشيعة.

ولكن المسلمين الشيعة في اليمن ليسا جعافرة (إثنى عشرية)  مثل معظم المسلمين الشيعة في إيران وجمهورية أزاربيجيان ولبنان والعراق وأفغانستان وباكستان ومنطقة الخليج الفارسي. وبغض النظر عن جيوب صغيرة للشيعة الإسماعيلية – الذين يمكن المجادلة وتسميتهم سبعية – في محافظات صعدة حجة وعمران المحويت وصنعاء وإب والجوف أغلب الشيعة في اليمن زيدين. الإسماعيلين في اليمن في أغلبهم أعضاء في الداودين والسليمانين وهي فصائل من الإسماعيلية المستعلية التي إبتعدت عن الإسماعيلية النزارية الأكبر.

العداء الأمريكي والسعودي لحركة الحوثيين هو ما جعل الحوثيون بشكل براجماتي يلجؤن لإيران كي تساعدهم لعكس الميزان. حسبما قالت وول ستريت جورنال “المليشيات الحوثية المسيطرة على العاصمة اليمنية تحاول بناء روابط مع إيران وروسيا والصين لمجابهة الدعم الغربي والسعودي للرئيس المخلوع”.  يقول الوول ستريت جورنال يوم 6 مارس “الحكومة الحوثية الإنتقالية أرسلت وفدا لإيران بحثا عن الموارد النفطية ولروسيا بحثا عن إستثمارات في مشاريع الطاقة حسبما قال أثنان من كبرا المسؤولين الحوثيين. ويخطط وف أخر لزيارة الصين في الأسابيع القادمة حسبما قالوا.

نتيجة لمد حركة الحوثيين يدها فإن إيران واليمن أعلنتا يوم 2 مارس أنه سيكون هناك رحلات جوية يومية بين طهران وصنعا. إن هذا هو خط حياة مهم لدعم الحركة الحوثية.

السرد الطائفي وكارت الطائفية

لا تتسبب إيران أو الحوثيون في عدم الإستقرار في اليمن ولكن يتسبب فيه تدخل الولايات المتحدة والسعودية في اليمن – من الغزو السعودي عام 2009 إلى هجمات الدرون الأمريكية- والعقود من الدعم الذي قدمته السعودية للحكم السلطوي وغير الشعبي في اليمن.

اليمن ليست دولة مقسمة ضمنيا. وبجانب رعاية السعودية والولايات المتحدة للقاعدة لا يوجد هناك إنقسام أو توتر شيعي سني. لمنع اليمن من الإستقلال ساند السعوديون والأمريكيون الطائفية على أمل خلق إنقسام سني شيعي.

على عكس السرد المزيف فإن تحالفات إيران في الشرق الأوسط ليست طائفية في الحقيقة. جميع حلفاء طهران الفلسطينين مسلمون سنة في أغلبهم بينما في العراق وسوريا وبعيدا عن الحكومات تساند إيران مقطعا من المجموعات العرقية والعقائدية تتضمن غير العرب والمسيحيين. يتضمن ذلك المسلمون السوريون وأغلبهم سنة والأكراد العراقيون وجناح سوتورو الأشوري في حزب الإتحاد السيرياني (SUP) في سوريا. في لبنان وبغض النظر عن حزب الله فإن الإيرانين متحالفين أيضا مع مسلمين سنة ودروز وأحزاب مسيحية بما فيها التيار الوطني الحر بقيادة ميشيل عون – وهو أكبر حزب مسيحي في لبنان.

إذا كان لدى أي طرف سياسة الإشتباك الطائفي فهي الولايات المتحدة وحلفائها من ممالك البترو دولار. الولايات المتحدة والسعودية إشتبكوا مع الحوثيين في وقت سابق وإستخدموهم ضد الإخوان المسلمين في اليمن. بالإضافة إلى ذلك وخلال الحرب الباردة  حاولت واشنطون وآل سعود أن يستخدوا الشيعة في اليمن ضد الجمهوريين في اليمن الشمالي والجمهورية اليمنية الشعبية في الجنوب. وقد أصبحت الولايات المتحدة والسعودية عدائيتان ضد الحوثيين فقط بعد أن أبدت حركة الحوثيين  أنها لن تصبح عميلة لواشنطون أو الرياض.

التحضير لغزو اليمن

يوم 20 مارس هاجم إنتحاريان جوامع البدر والحشوش خلال صلاة العصر. قتل حوالي ثلاثمئة شخص. وإتهم عبد الملك الحوثي الولايات المتحدة وإسرائيل بدعم الهجوم الإرهابي ودعم داعش والقاعدة في اليمن. وقد لام السعودية أيضا.

شجبت مرزية أفخام المتحدثة الرسمية بإسم وزارة الخارجية الإيرانية الهجمات الإرهابية في اليمن بينما كان هناك صمت في المغرب والأردن وممالك البترو دولار. بطريقة أو أخرى شجبت سوريا والعراق وروسيا والصين الهجمات الإرهابية في اليمن أيضا. لإبداء دعم طهران لليمن أرسلت طائرتا بضائع محملتان بالمعونات الإنسانية إلى اليمن وجلب الهلال الأحمر الإيراني خمسين من ضحايا الهجمات الإراهابية إلى داخل إيران لتلقي العلاج

فشل آل سعود في اليمن

إن حركة الحوثيين نتيجة لسياسات السعودية في المن ومساندتها للحكم السلطوي. في هذا المجال فإن الحوثين رد فعل لوحشية السعودية ودعم آل سعود للسلطوية في اليمن. لقد ظهروا جزء من تمرد قاده حسين بدر الدين الحوثي في 2004 ضد الحكومة اليمنية.

إدعى النظام اليمني زورا أن الحوثين يريدون إنشاء إمامة زيدية في الجزيرة العربية كوسيلة لشيطنة الحركة. ولكن ذلك فشل في إيقفهم إزدياد قوتهم. لم تستطيع القوات المسلحة اليمنية أن تتعامل معهم في 2009 مما نتج عنه تدخل سعودي أطلق عليه عملية الأرض المحروق والذي بدأ شنه في 11 أغسطس 2009.

فشلت السعودية في هزيمة الحوثين عندما أرسلت قواتها إلى اليمن لمحاربتهم في 2009 و2010 وقد فشلت في إجبار اليمن وحركة الحوثيين على الركوع في طاعة. عندما طالبت بأن يعزف الحوثيون والحكومة الإنتقالية اليمنية  على نغمة السعودية ويذهبون إلى الرياض للتفاوض رفض الحوثيون والمجلس الثوري اليمني ذلك لأن المفاوضات وأي خطة لإقتسام السلطة تدعمها السعودية ستهمش الحوثيون والقوة السياسية الأخرى في اليمن. لهذا السبب فإن إتحاد القوى الشعبية والمؤتمر الشعبي العام الذي ينتمي له الهادي وحزب البعث في اليمن، جميعها دعمت موقف الحوثيين ضد السعودية.

تقسيم اليمن؟

لقد شهدت اليمن عدة إنتفاضات وتدخلات عسكرية من الولايات المتحدة والسعودية وحركة إنفصالية تقوى في المحافظات الجنوبية. لقد أصبحت القوات المسلحة اليمنية مقسمة وتوجد حساسيات قبلية. كما كان هناك حديث عن التحول إلى دولة عربية فاشلة.

في 2013 عرضت النيو يورك تايمز تقسيم ليبيا وسوريا والعراق واليمن أن تنقسم. في حالة اليمن كان العرض أن تقسم إلى قسمين مرة أخرى. قالت النيو يورك تايمز أن ذلك يمكن أن يحدث أو سوف يحدث بعد إستفتاء محتمل في المحافظات الجنوبية. كما عرضة النيو يورك تايمز “أن جميع أو أجزاء من اليمن الجنوبي يمكن أن تصبح جزء من السعودية. جميع تجارة السعودية تقريبا تحدث عبر البحر والمنفذ المباشر لبحر العرب يمكن أن يقلل الإعتماد على الخليج الفارسي – والمخاوف من قدرة إيران على قطع مضيق هرمز”.

السعودية والهادي يغازلون الإنفصاليون في الجنوب اليمني الذي يملكون دعم عشر السكان. الإختيار التالي للولايات المتحدة والسعودية قد يكون تقسيم اليمن لطريقة لتقليل الإنتقال الإستراتيجي الناتج عن إنتصار الحوثين. هذا سيؤكد أن السعودية ودول مجلس التعاون الخليجي لديها نقطة إنتقال جنوبية إلى المحيط الهندي وأن الولايات المتحدة تحافظ على موطئ قدم في خليج عدن.


 

بقلم: المهدي داريوش ناظم رعایا / المهدي داريوس نازيمروايا

لمصدر:غلوبال ريسيرتش

مصدر الترجمة: فريق ترجمة موقع راقب 

الثلاثاء, مارس ٣١ , ٢٠١٥

  • Posted in Arabic
  • Comments Off on الجغرافية السياسية وراء الحرب في اليمن: هل تريد كل من السعودية والولايات المتحدة تقسيم اليمن ؟

After Iraqi security forces and Shiite militias backed by Iran were unable to liberate the Iraqi city of Tikrit from Western-backed ISIS forces in a swift manner, the US military establishment is now gloating in a rather obvious and even childish fashion that the Iraqi military has been forced to return like a battered wife to the arms of the abuser yet again.

According to the Military Times, nearly 20,000 Shiite militias withdrew from the Tikrit battleground after the Iraqi government agreed to pause its cooperation and coordination with the Iranian government. The Iraqi government agreed to take control of all the military operations from here on.

The United States imposed two conditions on the Iraqi government before it would agree to provide any assistance in the fight against ISIS that the Iraqi government end cooperation with Iran and that the Iraqi government assume command over forces on the ground.

Yet it could easily be seen that whatever successes were being witnessed on the ground were theresult of the lack of US involvement, not the result of it. The Iraqi military/government and the United States had been in the planning stages of an assault against ISIS-held positions inside Iraq since January 2015. Yet, despite “assistance” coming from the most militarily advanced nation on the face of the earth, Iraqi officials had complained that preparations for military plans were moving much too slow or either not at all. It appeared, for all intents and purposes, that the US was not as interested in eliminating strategic (to the Iraqi government) strongholds of ISIS as it was pretending to be in its press conferences and international speeches.

What is interesting, however, is the fact that, months before any such operations were ever launched, U.S. General Lloyd Austin, head of the US military’s CENTCOM, told the Wall Street Journal that the US and Iraq were planning a summer offensive to retake Mosul and cut supply lines to the ISIS fighters that control it. In other words, US General Austin revealed the war plans long before the actual operation took place, thus tipping off the potential targets to the upcoming military assault and creating even greater odds for the weak Iraqi forces to surmount.

Although failing to retake Tikrit, the Iranian military provided tanks, personnel, arms, and artillery assistance to the Shiite militias fighting against ISIS.

However, as the bulk of the work in the fight against ISIS was done by Shiite militias, some Sunni militias, Iraqi forces with various forms of Iranian assistance, the United States stepped in and began to whine about its fears that Iraq was falling under the influence of Iran, a real fear of the US since the Shiite crescent and Iranian arc of influence is exactly what the US, NATO, and Israel have been fighting so hard against.

Thus, the US demanded that, if Iraq was going to continue to work with Iran, then America would take its ball and go home and leave Iraq to its own devices, at least on this particular battlefield. After the Iraqi government agreed to America’s terms, the US engaged in airstrikes over Tikrit that saw the destruction of a number of bridges and railroads as well as alleged ISIS checkpoints and facilities.

Secretary of Defense Ashton Carter explained his “concern” with the joint Iraq-Iran operation “because it could inflame sectarian tensions that are driving support for Islamic State militants,” despite the fact that Sunnis and Sunni militias have fought alongside the Shiite militias and Iraqi security forces. Obviously, the biggest possibility of inflaming sectarian tensions comes from the United States and Israel as recent history has clearly shown.

Army Col. Steve Warren also took the opportunity to gloat about the effectiveness and importance of US forces in the fight against ISIS despite the fact that the US is entirely responsible for the creation and the facilitation of the terrorist group. Warren stated,

When Tikrit operations kicked off … we heard quite a bit from the Iraqis and some even from the Iranians, some fairly high-confidence statements about how rapidly the operation in Tikrit would go. Obviously they were incorrect.

I think it’s important that the Iraqis understand that what would be most helpful to them is a reliable partner in this fight. Reliable, professional, advanced military capabilities are something that reside very clearly and very squarely with the [American-led] coalition.

General Lloyd Austin, the man who leaked the military assault plans before the Iraqi military was able to implement them and who is partly responsible for the difficulty experienced by the Iraqi-Iranian forces even if for no other reason than his untimely revelation, admitted that the Iranian forces have a vested interest in seeing the destruction of ISIS. He also repeated his and the US’ rejection of cooperation in that goal.

Austin pointed out that, only a few years ago, American soldiers were fighting these same Iraqi Shiite militias. “I’d just like to highlight sir, after three tours in Iraq commanding troops in Iraq who were brutalized by some of these Shia militias I will not and I hope we never coordinate or cooperate with the Shia militias,” he said.

Austin, of course made no mention of the motivation behind these Shiite militias who, along with Sunni fighters, were dealing defeat to the sophisticated US forces until David Petraeus and Robert Ford among others devised a plan to divide the Iraqi resistance. Indeed, the reason they were doing so was because the US illegally invaded their country, murdering their friends and family and destroying their infrastructure. Unfortunately, Americans, who have a history of this type of behavior across the entire globe, remain confused as to why they are not universally loved and greeted as heroes and liberators wherever they go.

For now, Austin and his imperialist commanders have gotten their wish. The militias have been halted yet again, Iran’s influence has been weakened in Iraq, and ISIS is now escaping what was its imminent destruction in Tikrit.

In the end, however, the recent nudging of Iranian influence in Iraq by the US is not only an example of the geopolitical struggle between Iran and the US, but also how the US consistently rides in on a white horse at the last minute to save ISIS from defeat in Iraq and Syria. This alone should cause many to question the true nature of the relationship between the United States and ISIS.

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 Freedom7 Real ConspiraciesFive 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. 

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on US Military Gloats Over ISIS Victories In Iraq, Rushes In To Save It From Iran

El pasado 20 de marzo del 2015, la Comisión Interamericana de Derechos Humanos (CIDH) celebró una audiencia para escuchar los alegatos de comunidades de Costa Rica víctimas de los efectos de la producción de la piña en Costa Rica (ver  nota de prensa  del 3 de marzo así como nota en el Tico Times del mismo día 20). Un reciente reportaje audio de la emisora Voces Nuestras (marzo 2015) permite dar una idea de la magnitud del problema;  un reportaje de febrero del 2014 “No nos tapen la boca: hablemos de la contaminación piñera” en homenaje Mayra Eugenia Umaña, ilustra el tipo de presiones a los que son sometidos líderes comunales que osan alzar la voz (reportaje del canal universitario Canal15, disponible aquí). Se trata de las comunidades del Cairo, Francia, Luisiana y Milano (de la región de Siquirres) cuyos acuíferos fueron contaminados por empresas dedicadas a la producción de la piña. Desde el mes de julio del 2007, más de 6000 personas en estas comunidades rurales toman agua proveniente de camiones cisternas proveídos por una entidad pública costarricense, Acueducto y Alcantarillado (AyA). A la fecha, el Estado costarricense no ha ordenado sanciones contra las empresas; tampoco se registra acción penal alguna del Estado contra los responsables de las empresas causantes de dicha contaminación.  En todo estos años, el Estado no ha proveído a las comunidades afectadas con un nuevo acueducto en agua potable ni saneado las aguas, pese a dos sentencias de la Sala Constitucional de la Corte Suprema de Justicia exigiéndole hacerlo “de inmediato” del 2009.  El ente encargado del agua en Costa Rica mantuvo incluso durante más de un año en sus manos un estudio técnico  sobre los alcances de dicha contaminación (ver nota  de prensa de Elpais.cr titulada “AyA oculta información revelada sobre contaminación de agua con agroquímicos”).  Por su parte, la reacción de la entonces titular del Ministerio de Salud, al evidenciarse por parte de un laboratorio universitario (independiente) niveles mucho mayores a los indicados por monitoreos realizados por las autoridades en el 2007-2009  fue la siguiente : “Les damos agua en cisterna porque la gente tiene miedo de tomar la del lugar, y la psicosis ha sido tal, que hasta asocian manchas en la piel que son producidas por un hongo, diciendo que se bañaron en agua con bromacil” (ver nota  de prensa titulada “Laboratorios de la UNA comprobaron contaminación de piñera”, Semanario Universidad 26/05/2009). Cabe recordar que el 5 de junio del 2008, Día Internacional del Ambiente, la Cámara Nacional de Productores y Exportadores de Piña (CANAPEP) había suscrito en Casa Presidencial una larga lista de “Compromisos Socio Ambientales”: se leyó en aquel momento en la prensa que “Según Abel Chávez, presidente de Canapep, respetarán las normativas nacionales e internacionales y garantizarán la pureza del aire, del agua y la sostenibilidad del suelo. Además minimizarán los impactos ambientales de la agroindustria en las comunidades vecinas a las fincas productoras” (Diario La Extra, 6/06/2008, “Piñeros se comprometen a no contaminar”).

Una actividad objeto de especiales favores:

Las festividades del Día del Ambiente en Casa Presidencial con el gremio de la piña del 2008, la actitud del AyA y las declaraciones de la Ministra de Salud años después no deben sorprender mayormente. La persistente polémica entre laboratorios universitarios y laboratorios privados sobre los resultados de niveles de contaminación que recoge el último Informe del Estado de la Nación publicado en el 2014 tampoco (Nota 1). Costa Rica es el primer exportador de piña a nivel mundial desde el 2007. En el 2008 exportó 1.458.980 toneladas métricas (mientras que en el 2004 exportaba 693.107 toneladas): su competidor más cercano (Filipinas) exportó en el 2008 a penas 261.338 toneladas métricas contra 204.887 (2004) según se aprecia en este recuadro del “Top5”. La tabla 3 de este estudio de la UNCTAD revela, con base en datos de la FAO, el aumento vertiginoso de toneladas exportadas por Costa Rica en el período 2008-2009-2010. En el 2011 alcanzaron 1.722.200 toneladas,  1.875.813 (2012) y 1.939.680 (2013) (según datos oficiales de las estadísticas de la Promotora de Comercio Exterior – PROCOMER). En el 2011, según estas mismas estadísticas de PROCOMER (ver informe, p. 50), el 45% de la piña fue exportada a Estados Unidos, el 13% al Reino Unido, el 12% a Holanda, el 9% a Bélgica, el 8% a Italia, el 4% a Alemania y el 3% a España: en ese mismo año 2011, un país como España importó  67.866 toneladas de piña costarricense (ver nota).

En el 2010, Costa Rica representaba el 60% de la piña exportada a nivel mundial, seguida por Filipinas (con 12%), Ecuador (4%), Costa de Marfil (4%), Estados Unidos (4%) y otros países con un porcentaje menor al 3%, tal como se aprecia en el cuadro 2 en el siguiente estudio  titulado “Análisis del Mercado de la Piña” elaborado por el Consejo Nacional de Producción (CNP).  Datos sobre los cuales el CNP es mucho más discreto, recogidos por organizaciones sociales  en un informe denominado “El sabor amargo de la piña”  (en alusión al primer documental crítico  – disponible aquí -sobre la piña producido en Costa Rica en el 2005), indican que el sector de la piña en Costa Rica se reparte la producción de la siguiente manera: “De acuerdo con la Cámara Nacional de Productores de Piña CANAPEP, el área sembrada de piña en Costa Rica aumentó un 675% entre 1990 y 2009, pasando de menos de 10.000 a más de 50.000 has. Las empresas Del Monte y PINDECO concentran el 50% de la producción piñera en Costa Rica, y 31 empresas concentran el 96% de la producción total de esta fruta. El 4% restante está en manos de aproximadamente 1200 pequeños agricultores que venden su producción a las grandes empresas, especialmente Dole, Del Monte, Fyffes y Chiquita”.

Desde el 2008, el Programa del Estado de la Nación (el cual, como bien se sabe, constituye un esfuerzo de las universidades públicas de Costa Rica), advertía los efectos de un modelo depredador del ambiente y señalaba la ausencia de mecanismos distributivos de la riqueza generada: “la producción piñera intensiva extensiva, altamente desarrollada en Costa Rica /…/ tiene una serie de implicaciones directas sobre el activo ecológico, que se convierten en un tipo de subsidio eco-social del Gobierno a las empresas piñeras. Los ingresos económicos concentrados en los empresarios y dueños de la compañías no han garantizado un beneficio social. El deterioro ambiental generado provoca serios daños en la estabilidad social de las comunidades, ya que reduce las condiciones que permiten el uso de los servicios ambientales como el agua, el suelo, la biodiversidad, etc. ” (Estado de la Nación, Informe XV (2008), p. 220).  Siete años después, el mismo Informe indica de manera enfática que: “El cultivo de la piña ha destacado por su alto grado de conflictividad, tal como se ha señalado en las últimos ediciones  del Informe del Estado de La Nación. Las principales preocupaciones versan sobre la contaminación de aguas superficiales y subterráneas, cambio de uso de suelo, generación de la plaga de la mosca Stomoxys calcitrans, desvío y sedimentación de los ríos, erosión del suelo, concentración de la tierra, desplazamiento de las familias campesinas, pérdida de la soberanía alimentaria, irrespeto de los derechos laborales y posibles consecuencias en la salud debido a la exposición a los agroquímicos” (Estado de la Nación, Informe XX (2014), p. 192).

Lo que podríamos denominar una “sordera institucionalizada” pareciera entonces haberse adueñado de varias entidades estatales de Costa Rica desde el 2008, cuando de cuestionamientos relacionados con la piña se trata, so pretexto del desarrollo que aporta.  No obstante, las regiones de Costa Rica en las que se produce la piña siguen con los peores índices en cuanto a Desarrollo Humano (IDH) se refiere, poniendo así en entredicho el tan pregonado “desarrollo” que genera dicha actividad.  Hace unos meses, un proyecto de ley (19.371) tendiente a gravar cada caja de piña exportada, presentado en noviembre del 2014, se interesó por este indicador en los cantones productores de piña y añadió que: “… en el marco de la expansión piñera, el modelo de Certificados de Abono Tributario (CAT), la liberación de impuesto bajo la Iniciativa de la Cuenca del Caribe (ICC) y el Tratado de Libre Comercio (TLC) con los Estados Unidos, se ha liberado a la producción de piña de toda responsabilidad tributaria. Por ejemplo, bajo el régimen de zonas francas, la mayor parte de insumos requeridos para el cultivo de piña reciben exenciones completas” (Gaceta Oficial, expediente 19.371, 25/11/2014, p. 2, texto del proyecto y recuadro con el IDH cantonal disponible aquí). Ante mecanismos  fiscales tan favorables para el sector piñero y actitudes tan complacientes por parte de las autoridades políticas (en particular la de los entes responsables de la salud y de la potabilidad del agua, pero también del ambiente como veremos a continuación), era muy difícil que se pudiera contener la voracidad de este sector.  Tempranamente, la expansión piñera en Costa Rica fue tal que obligó a algunos responsables a externar criterios en los siguiente términos: en el mes de junio del 2009, el Presidente del Tribunal Ambiental Administrativo (TAA) escribía en un artículo de opinión “Tribunal Ambiental y producción piñera” que: “ No es el Tribunal Ambiental quien contamina, destruye bosques, humedales y nacientes; lamentablemente estas prácticas irresponsables son las que nos llevan a aplicar la legislación. Pero hay algo más grave que los propios daños ambientales –a veces irreparables– y es la conciencia con la que se perpetran estos actos. Aquí no estamos ante una simple infracción ambiental, sino que estamos jugando con el futuro de los/las costarricenses”. Días después, la expansión piñera fue calificada en un muy completo artículo del 2009 del El Financiero como “insensata” (ver artículo  de El Financiero, del 1/07/2009, Edición 724).  Nos permitimos en unas ediciones posteriores de El Financiero hacer ver la contradicción de los datos oficiales sobre la realidad laboral y la extensión real de la piña en Costa Rica (ver nuestra breve nota: “Moratoria piñera“, El Financiero, Edición 743).

Pese a los famosos “Compromisos Socio-Ambientales” suscritos  por CANAPEP  para celebrar en gran pompa el Día del Ambiente, extrañas maniobras de la Secretaría Técnica Nacional Ambiental (SETENA) con relación a piñeras en la región de Siquirres  fueron denunciadas por congresistas como el diputado Rafael E. Madrigal del Partido Acción Ciudadana (PAC): en su artículo publicado en La Nación “Las piñas y Setenas del señor Sancho” se dejan ver aspectos de gran interés que todo lector un tanto familiarizado con las sutilezas de la SETENA sabrá interpretar. En uno de los pocos foros académicos a los que participó CANAPEP con comunidades afectadas, su representante se defendió indicando que “No sé de cual país nos está hablando” (ver nota sobre foro realizado por la UCR en julio del 2009). No fue sino con la visita de una Misión de la Unión Europea a finales del 2009 que (de pronto …) las buenas prácticas agrícolas y ambientales parecieron interesar al sector productivo y a las autoridades: al respecto,  la abogada Gabriela Cuadrado no dudo en titular un valiente artículo publicado en La Nación de la siguiente forma “Una visita que mueve más de mil denuncias” cuya lectura también recomendamos.  Quiérase o no, estas iniciativas gremiales y estatales se enmarcaron dentro del Gobierno del Presidente Oscar Arias Sánchez que inició en el 2006 proclamando una “Paz con la Naturaleza”, calificada al final de su administración como como una verdadera guerra contra el ambiente  (ver artículo del Semanario Universidad de junio del 2010: “Administración Arias le declaró la “guerra a la naturaleza”). En junio del 2008, nos habíamos permitido sugerir que algunas de las notas de aquella “paz” recordaban extrañamente las de un verdadero Réquiem (véase nuestro artículo: ”¿Paz o Réquiem para la Madre Tierra?, publicado en La Nación).

Una larga lista de daños

Estudios, diagnósticos, planes de acción, compromisos de unos, manuales de buena prácticas de  otros  conforman una larga lista de publicaciones en Costa Rica desde el año 2008, unos como parte de un doble discurso, otros como parte de un esfuerzo sincero de algunos productores.  En el 2013 el diputado Manrique Oviedo, de la zona Norte, región que concentra más del 50% de la producción de la piña en Costa Rica, expresó que: “Desde el año 2005 vengo insistiendo en este tema, el MAG siempre dice que está desarrollando un plan de manejo integral. Tenemos siete planes diferentes que han presentado y dicen que están desarrollando otro” (ver nota del 10/6/2013 de CRHoy). Un humedal internacionalmente reconocido por su importancia como el de Caño Negro ( declarado por Costa Rica sitio RAMSAR en 1991) en la zona Norte de Costa Rica sufre los embates de las piñeras en la mayor impunidad: pese a informes, como el del TAA  titulado “Humedal de Caño Negro bajo seria amenaza Ambiental” (2010), reportajes como por ejemplo “Refugio Caño Negro debate su vida entre la ilegalidad y la indiferencia”,  los vecinos organizados en defenderlo (ver su página en FaceBook) documentan una tras otra las denuncias y su archivo posterior por parte de las autoridades, pese a tomas aéreas contundentes. La comunidad y la escuela de El Jobo en Caño Negro (ver foto) con sus 150 niños “sitiados” por las piñeras (en alusión a título usado en este reportaje audio)  de igual manera no han logrado que las autoridades de educación y de salud frenen el avance de los productores y suspendan las fumigaciones. Por su parte, las misiones técnicas de la Unión Europea que cada cierto tiempo visitan a Costa Rica (y las cadenas comerciales en el viejo continente) centran su atención en la calidad de la fruta ofrecida, y no en la salud de los trabajadores o la de las comunidades, ni los efectos de la producción de la piña en los suelos y en la prodigiosa biodiversidad de Costa Rica. Durante la visita de la Misión europea DG SANCO en octubre del 2009 a Costa Rica, las organizaciones sociales  debieron “perseguir” a los visitantes europeos, ante el intento por parte de las autoridades de Costa Rica a cargo de la visita de impedir contacto alguno: se lee en el reportaje “Representantes de comunidades lograron entregar información a los europeos en el último momento” que “ Cuadrado reclamó el hecho de que el MAG solo permitiera que los productores entregaran su versión a los inspectores, mientras comunidades que no pueden tomar agua potable desde hace dos años y medio, debieron “perseguirlos” para exponer sus problemas” (ver nota del Semanario Universidad, octubre del 2009).Como se precisa de manera bastante acertada en un informe publicado en Suecia  en el 2013 sobre la piña de Costa Rica, “The study shows that the requirements set by the Swedish companies are predominantly aimed at protecting the health and safety of the Swedish consumers, not the plantation workers. The workers and farmers interviewed by Swedwatch in Costa Rica attest to how they and their direct environment is affected by health issues caused by the continuous usage of pesticides on the plantations. The employees on the pineapples plantations in Costa Rica, and the local communities, suffer from dizziness, headaches, nausea and rashes. The chemicals have also adversely affected the environment and caused a decrease of fish and animal life in the area” (ver nota).

La reciente “Plataforma Nacional de  Producción y Comercio  Responsable de Piña en Costa Rica” (ver sitio oficial) promovida en el 2011 por el entonces Vicepresidente de Costa Rica Luis Lieberman, auspiciada por el Programa de Naciones Unidas para el Desarrollo (PNUD) es otro esfuerzo para intentar mitigar internacionalmente la mala imagen de la  piña costarricense. Tratándose de un país como Costa Rica, en el que abundan reconocidos profesionales en gestión ambiental, la escogencia para coordinar esta Plataforma de un ex directivo del sector exportador de piña fue denunciado por activistas y académicos, calificando esta Plataforma como un burdo intento de “maquillaje verde” internacional (ver por ejemplo  pronunciamiento de la Coecoceiba.org).  Independientemente de las motivaciones reales detrás de este y de anteriores esfuerzos, ninguno ha logrado regular esta actividad en aras de limitar sustancialmente los daños ocasionados por la piña: informe tras informe, el Estado de La Nación desde el 2008 así lo evidencia. El peso cada vez mayor de los expedientes en el TAA y en la Sala Constitucional reflejan la total inoperancia estatal en la materia y la poca receptividad a prácticas menos dañinas que algunos productores de piña han intentado implementar a pequeña escala.

Se trata en efecto de una actividad productiva que, por lo general, y con muy pocas excepciones, genera una serie de efectos negativos. En materia ambiental, los daños  son muy graves, algunos de carácter irreversible, en la medida en que, a diferencia de la piña criolla costarricense, o de las variedades “Hawaiana” primero, “Cayenne” luego, producidas a finales de los años noventa para el mercado internacional, la variedad “MD2” (también conocida como ”Dorada” o “Golden” o “Sweet Gold”) implantada en Costa Rica en los primeros años de los 2000, requiere de una gran cantidad de pesticidas y plaguicidas para ser producida, incluyendo sustancias químicas, algunas de ellas prohibidas en la Unión Europea  (Nota 2). Varias de estas sustancias químicas se caracterizan por su carácter altamente persistente, como por ejemplo el bromacil o el diurón, usados para deshierbar las vías férreas en Europa por ejemplo. El uso del Bromacil es prohibido en Alemania, Eslovenia y Suecia. El carbofurán es prohibido en Estados Unidos, Canadá, y en la misma Europa, debido a su alto grado de toxicidad, pero su uso en piñeras de Costa Rica fue denunciado en su momento (ver nota de prensa). Recientemente (mayo del 2014), Costa Rica prohibió mediante Decreto Ejecutivo el uso del carbofurán, con excepción de los cultivos de piña y de banano, sin mayor justificación (ver texto del Decreto 38713) cuyo considerando 7 se lee así: “7º—Que en Costa Rica el uso de carbofurán está autorizado en varios cultivos, de ciclo corto, anual y perenne, dentro de los cuales están los de consumo fresco, así como los de consumo con cocción. Para estos el carbofurán actualmente puede ser sustituido por otros plaguicidas, a excepción de su uso en los cultivos de piña y banano”. En el 2006, la discusión en la Unión Europea para reducir los niveles del Ethephon (un químico usado para madurar y colorear artificialmente la MD-2) de 2 miligramos/kg a 0,05 mg/kg causó una alerta máxima del sector piñero en Costa Rica (ver nota). De manera a tener una idea del conjunto de sustancias químicas requeridas para producir la MD-2, remitimos al lector a la tabla del Anexo XXII (página 57) del informe denominado ”Crop Production Protocolo Pineapple MD2 (Ananas comosus)”, disponible aquí. Un número especial de la Revista Ambientico (Universidad Nacional – UNA) describía en detalle los daños ambientales que ocasionaba la piña MD-2 en Costa Rica (Número 177 de junio del 2008 disponible aquí). Los productores de ganado vecinos de una plantación de piña también pueden sufrir daños severos, debido a la proliferación de la mosca de establo que acarrea el mal manejo de los rastrojos de la piña (ver artículo de La Nación del 12/07/2010): sobre este punto, un documento que lleva el sello del MAG y de la Universidad Nacional UNA), “Boletín de Parasitología”, alerta sobre el riesgo de proliferación de este insecto, y lo más notorio es que su fecha de edición es del … 2003. Seis años después, un grupo de ganaderos cansados ante tanta inoperancia estatal interpuso una demanda contra el Estado (ver nota del Semanario Universidad, julio 2009). Diez años después de la edición de aquel boletín, la mosca sigue azotando a muchos ganaderos (ver nota de CRHoy del 27/6/2013). Desde el punto de vista de la cobertura mediática a las denuncias hechas por activistas y organizaciones sociales, son varios los reportajes hechos fuera de Costa Rica destinados a la opinión pública internacional en torno a la situación que impera en muchas piñeras de Costa Rica (en particular en el ámbito laboral) y en torno a los efectos sociales del modelo productivo adoptado: véase por ejemplo los reportajes de Suisse Romande, 2007, “Les ananas de la colère“, del Miami Herald, 2008, “Costa Rica’s pineapple boom raises environmental questions“, de Radio Canada, 2009, “Les ananas du Costa Rica“,  de The Guardian, 2010, “Pineapples: Luxury fruit at what price?“, de The Guardian, 2010, “Bitter fruit: The truth about supermarket pineapple” o el más reciente publicado en Der Spiegel en julio del 2014. Algunos de ellos buscan alertar a los consumidores en consonancia con algunas campañas internacionales realizadas a partir del 2007 (Nota 3). A estos reportajes, hay que añadir artículos de opinión en la misma dirección como (para dar algunos ejemplos), los leídos en El Pais (España) en el 2008, “La piña se amarga en Costa Rica” (disponible aquí) o en La Stampa (Italia) en el 2011, “Costa Rica: il sapore amaro degli ananas sulla nostra tavola” (ver artículo). Para completar el panorama, en cada país existen sitios especializados  sobre consumo libre de pesticidas que, cuando se busca la piña de Costa Rica,  advierten sobre la presencia de sustancias químicas en la piña, como por ejemplo: “Ananas sweet du Costa-Rica, vous reprendrez bien un peu d’éthéphon !” o “Les ananas sont-ils gangrenés à l’acétylène ?” o “L’ANANAS : je vous en remets une tranche?” (Francia).

Un reciente estudio publicado por la UNA sobre la situación sociolaboral de los migrantes en las piñeras de la zona Norte concluye que: “En este sentido, la actividad piñera en la zona ha basado su dinamismo y evolución reciente a partir del concurso de factores como el uso (y abuso) intensivo de la tierra (con sus consecuencias ambientales y geográficas) y la inserción supernumeraria de personas trabajadoras que, debido a su condición de irregularidad migratoria, presentan cierta vulnerabilidad y son proclives a experimentar experiencias deficitarias en sus condiciones sociolaborales” (pp. 91- 92).Hace ya unos años, en una nota de prensa sobre un foro realizado en la UCR al que no llegaron quiénes debían hacerlo,  titulada “MINAET rehuye debate sobre Caño Negro en Universidad de Costa Rica”, una de las juezas del TAA indicaba que al llegar sorpresivamente a investigar piñeras por presuntos delitos ambientales, “cuando nos ven llegando de sorpresa en una barrida, muchos operarios salen corriendo, pensado que somos de Migración”: señal inequívoca de un sistema de explotación laboral a los que están sometidas personas en situación migratoria irregular en muchas de las piñeras, y que no parece en lo más mínimo interesar a las autoridades del Ministerio de Trabajo.

La actitud del Estado costarricense

La falta de controles adecuados en materia laboral, en materia de salud ocupacional y las campañas internacionales contra la comercialización de la piña no parecieran haber dado lugar a algún tipo de reacción por parte del Estado costarricense, como tampoco en otros ámbitos, como el ambiental. Todo lo contrario. En un artículo titulado “La cuestionable sostenibilidad ambiental de la piña” publicado en septiembre del 2011 en La Nación, el Dr. Allan Astorga, experto en gestión ambiental, y Ex Secretario General de la SETENA, precisa el alcance de una grave modificación hecha a la normativa ambiental por las mismas autoridades estatales (en particular la Comisión Plenaria de la SETENA) para favorecer la expansión de la piña en el período 2006-2010: “Como por arte de magia, y en contravención con lo que establece el reglamento general de evaluación de impacto ambiental y la misma Ley Orgánica del Ambiente, surgió dentro de la Setena una nueva modalidad de instrumento, de tipo voluntario, que se denomina Estudio de Diagnóstico Ambiental (EDA), hecho para que las actividades ya en ejecución que no hubieran cumplido el trámite de evaluación de impacto ambiental que exige la ley y que la misma ley establece como un requisito indispensable para el inicio de las actividades, pudieran “ponerse al día” con sus permisos ambientales, muchos de los cuales son requeridos desde el exterior por los países que importan piña. La sustitución operada en la resolución 2286 – 2009 Setena del 25 de setiembre del 2009 del EDA por el EIA (por una Setena intervenida, como bien se sabe, por el Ministerio de la Competitividad) contradice nuestro ordenamiento jurídico y los principios de prevención que incluye nuestra normativa”.  Un ejemplo más de directrices normativas que violan el principio de no regresión en materia ambiental, a las que nos hemos venido acostumbrando en los últimos años por parte de las autoridades a cargo del ambiente en Costa Rica. El autor de este artículo, que no dio lugar a ninguna refutación luego de ser publicado, es contundente en sus conclusiones: ” Es urgente reorientar una producción piñera que, lejos de ser un orgullo para la imagen verde de nuestro país ante el mundo, se ha convertido en una vergüenza nacional“. En el precitado número 177 de Ambientico, Gabriela Cuadrado analiza en detalle otra “innovación” por parte de las autoridades: la inaudita propuesta de Decreto Ejecutivo elaborada por el Ministerio de Salud de Costa Rica tendiente a legalizar la contaminación de agua potable por parte de las empresas.  Su artículo: “Legalización de la contaminación de aguas para consumo humano (caso del diurón y el bromacil)” no deja duda alguna sobre la intención de las autoridades de salud de aquella época. Más recientemente (noviembre del 2014), un estudio publicado en Francia describe otro efecto de la expansión de la piña ante el que el Estado costarricense demuestra su complacencia: la concentración de tierras en detrimento del pequeño y mediano agricultor costarricense (artículo de Edgar Fernández “L’accaparement des terres au Costa Rica : le cas des entreprises productrices d’ananas” (disponible aquí).

Con relación al dato exacto de hectáreas de piña sembradas en Costa Rica dado por las autoridades del MAG, el último informe del Estado de la Nación precisa que “En 2013 y por quinto año consecutivo, la superficie sembrada de piña se estimó en 45.000 hectáreas, cifra que una vez más generó dudas, en vista de los aumentos registrados en la producción bruta y el monto exportado” (Estado de la Nación, XX Informe (2014) p.190). Además de innovar en muchos ámbitos, la piña de Costa Rica pareciera querer revolucionar la regla de tres: oficialmente, en el 2007, para generar 487 millones de dólares por concepto de piña exportada, se contaba con una extensión de 38.000 hectáreas. Para generar 834 millones de dólares (2013), oficialmente el MAG registra únicamente 45.000 hectáreas de piña en Costa Rica.

La advertencia de la UCR desoída

El liderazgo mundial obtenido por Costa Rica en el 2010 al que refiere el CNP coïncide con la administración del Presidente Oscar Arias Sánchez (2006-2010) y su marcada política de apertura irrestricta de Costa Rica a la economía mundial, política que se mantuvo durante la administración de la Presidenta Laura Chinchilla Miranda (2010-2014): durante este último período, el auge prosiguió con relación a la piña, tal y cómo lo indican las cifras de PROCOMER antes mencionadas. Se pudo observar cuán influyente puede ser este sector económico con ocasión de una inédita acción de Casa Presidencial que pidió suspender una “barrida” (control sorpresivo)  del TAA en plantaciones de piña en la zona Norte (Nota 4). Se mantuvo de igual manera la negativa de las autoridades ministeriales a participar en foros públicos auspiciados por las universidades con organizaciones sociales y comunidades afectadas (Nota 5).  Cuando lo hicieron, fue para rehuir los cuestionamientos y dejar la silla vacía, tal como ocurrió con el representante del Ministerio de Agricultura y Ganadería (MAG)  durante un foro auspiciado por el Tribunal Latinoamericano del Agua (TRAGUA) a finales del 2013 en Costa Rica (Nota 6). Las autoridades de Salud por su parte se mantuvieron mudas ante periodistas interesados en conocer su punto de vista (Nota 7).Es de recordar que debido a la cantidad de denuncias y de recursos de amparo recibidos por parte de la Sala Constitucional en los años 2006 y 2007 y a numerosos cuestionamientos realizados por activistas, ONGs y académicos ante el crecimiento vertiginoso del sector de la piña,  la máxima instancia de la Universidad de Costa Rica (UCR), su Consejo Universitario, solicitó a las autoridades de Costa Rica frenar su expansión. Con fecha de diciembre del 2008, el Consejo Universitario instaba a las autoridades a establecer una moratoria para nuevas plantaciones de piña, en los siguientes términos:

“3. Instar al Gobierno y a las municipalidades mencionadas anteriormente a declarar y aplicar, de acuerdo con la legislación una moratoria a la expansión de la actividad piñera, hasta tanto se den las siguientes condiciones:

a. Se cuente con la debida planificación del territorio en el que se determinen las áreas críticas en relación con la vulnerabilidad del recurso hídrico superficial y subterráneo, así como la biodiversidad existente en la zona.

b. Se ejerzan los controles necesarios y se cuente con los estudios que demuestren, fehacientemente, que la actividad piñera está causando el menor impacto posible al medio ambiente y a la salud ambiental, incluida la de las personas que habitan en el entorno de los cultivos.

c. Se cuente con una propuesta de gestión interorganizacional e intersectorial, que garantice el estricto acatamiento de las empresas a la legislación ambiental, sanitaria y laboral del país”.

El texto completo del Pronunciamiento del Consejo Universitario de la UCR está disponible aquí,   y también se recomienda su lectura dado que poco se ha logrado desde el 2008 para limitar los daños que causa la piña, tal y como lo evidencia la lectura del informe del Estado de la Nación desde el 2008. La molestia que causó este documento a CANAPEP era de esperar (ver nota): siete años después, las buenas prácticas que alegó el gremio piñero acatar en el 2008 también quedan en espera.  Con relación a la discusión en la arena política, un periodista costarricense había publicado  en España uno de los pocos artículos críticos publicado en ese país a mediados del 2008 sobre la amargura de la piña (ver artículo  de Alvaro Murillo, “La piña se amarga en Costa Rica” El Pais (España),17/06/2008 disponible aquí)  precisando, entre otros que: “El principal partido de la oposición, Acción Ciudadana (PAC), ha convertido en un debate político los efectos ambientales de las 40.000 hectáreas cultivadas donde trabajan unos 20.000 peones en condiciones cuestionadas por organizaciones laborales. El auge de la piña en Costa Rica es tal que el último intento de las autoridades por reactivar el cultivo de granos básicos topó con que la mayoría de las tierras están dedicadas ahora a la fruta que servirá de postre para estadounidenses y europeos”. En un artículo  reciente (septiembre del 2014), la docente Geanina Amaya recordaba los compromisos de campaña de la actual administración del Presidente Luis Guillermo Solis Rivera que inició en mayo del 2014: “En campaña política el PAC aseguró que “Debe establecerse una moratoria a la expansión de la producción piñera de acuerdo al principio precautorio, hasta que se establezcan los mecanismos y controles adecuados por parte de las instituciones estatales con competencia en la materia“. En octubre del 2014, fue el legislador de otra bancada, el diputado Edgardo Araya (Frente Amplio) quién propuso establecer una moratoria nacional por 5 años y gravar con un impuesto especial la piña (ver nota de prensa): la segunda iniciativa dio lugar al proyecto de ley 19.371 antes mencionado.  Habiéndose convertido el PAC en caja de resonancia a los fundados reclamos de las comunidades afectadas desde el 2008, habiendo además participado de forma activa (con la entonces unipersonal bancada del FA) para que la piña sea parte de la discusión política desde el 2008 en Costa Rica, y habiendo los académicos de la UCR nutrido parte de esta discusión, resulta lógico que la paciencia de comunidades, organizaciones, activistas y académicos empiece poco a poco a mermarse en estos meses del 2015.

Instancias internacionales y piña de Costa Rica

Más allá de advertencias desoídas, de los vaivenes de la política nacional, y de las promesas de campaña (que parecieran ya muy lejanas para algunos…), desde la perspectiva del derecho internacional, es la conducta del Estado la que se evalúa de cara a sus obligaciones internacionales. El tema de la piña en Costa Rica no es del todo nuevo para las instancias interamericanas: en el año 2009, la Comisión Interamericana de Derechos Humanos fue solicitada para ordenarle a Costa Rica medidas para proteger la vida y la integridad física de un activista y reconocido opositor a la expansión de la piña en la Zona Sur, Aquiles Rivera (ver nota): ello debido a amenazas de muerte recibidas  por este líder comunal en mayo del 2009 (ver nota de la Asociación Nacional de Empleados Público, ANEP). Dichas medidas de protección fueron ordenadas por la Comisión al Estado costarricense. En este mismo año 2009, la relatora especial de Naciones Unidas sobre Derecho Humanos, Agua y Saneamiento, Catarina Albuquerque, visitó Costa Rica (ver texto). En su informe incluyó lo siguiente: “71. La Experta independiente desea expresar su preocupación respecto del empleo de Bromacil, Diurón y otros plaguicidas en las explotaciones agrícolas, en especial en las plantaciones de piña tropical, habida cuenta de que esos productos han sido relacionados con diversas formas de cáncer en caso de ser consumidos en grandes cantidades durante un período prolongado ” (p. 22, punto 71). La misma experta recomendaba en su informe del 2009 lo siguiente: “85. La Experta independiente recomienda que Costa Rica apruebe, como medida prioritaria, los proyectos de decreto ejecutivo destinados a reglamentar el uso de Bromacil y Diurón en las explotaciones agrícolas” (p. 26, punto 86). Notemos que no se encontró similar recomendación en los informes de misión posteriores de la experta de Naciones Unidas con relación a otros monocultivos (ver informes de misión disponibles en este enlace de Naciones Unidas).  En respuesta a este informe de Catarina Albuquerque,  la Misión de Costa Rica ante las Naciones Unidas en Ginebra hizo circular una nota oficial (ver texto del documento HRC/12/G/3, con fecha del 7/9/2009) que detalla las presuntas carencias del Informe. Con relación al tema de la piña, el punto 4 precisa que “sería importante conocer cuáles son las opciones que se les podrían brindar a los productores de piña en lugar de bromacil y diurón”: una crítica frontal a la experta de Naciones Unidas entendible si proviniese del sector productivo, pero que sorprendió a muchos observadores al provenir del mismo Estado. Más allá de esta airada reacción, se esperaría del Estado acatar lo recomendado sobre este punto preciso en el 2009. En un reciente reportaje del mes de marzo del 2015 sobre la contaminación en Siquirres que incluye una entrevista a un funcionario del Ministerio de Salud,  se lee que “El funcionario también rescató que el país no cuenta con reglamentos específicos, que dicten cuáles son los parámetros permitidos de agroquímicos en el agua para consumo humano”.

Conclusión:

Como se puede apreciar, a lo largo de estos últimos 8 años, la actitud del Estado costarricense con relación a la producción de la piña ha sido sumamente cuestionable. La CIDH oyó este 20 de marzo (en las vísperas de la celebraciones del Día Mundial del Agua) los descargos de las valientes comunidades de Siquirres, quiénes han agotado pacientemente, una tras otra, todas las vías legales existentes para hacer valer su derecho al agua desde el 2007 (derecho consagrado como tal por la Sala Constitucional de la Corte Suprema de Justicia de Costa Rica). Dos sentencias de la Sala Constitucional del 2009 (ver nota) que exigían a las entidades recurridas del Estado “que en forma inmediata se inicie el proceso de saneamiento y eliminación de residuos de plaguicidas, de las fuentes de agua” demuestran de manera fehaciente el desinterés del Estado en resolver el problema.  Ni que decir de este sector productivo, reacio a reconocer su responsabilidad (y a proceder por ejemplo a la creación de algún mecanismo – fideicomiso, fondo de compensación u otro – para compensar e indemnizar a comunidades afectadas y a particulares), proclive a presentar acciones penales por presunta difamación contra líderes comunales (Nota 8) y poco expresivo en algunas ocasiones en que el periodismo de investigación ha intentado obtener información de su parte (Nota 9). El marco de la demanda se circunscribe  únicamente a los efectos en el agua de la contaminación de las empresas piñeras en Siquirres y a la conducta de las autoridades estatales desde el 2007 en esta zona, y no entra a analizar otros aspectos como los brevemente descritos. Pese a ello, es muy probable que otras comunidades afectadas por la expansión piñera desde muchos años, en particular las de la zona Norte de Costa Rica y de otras partes del país (como Buenos Aires de Puntarenas o Chomes), observaron con mucha atención esta audiencia: la sustancias químicas usadas en Siquirres son muy similares a las que se usa en el resto del país para producir la MD-2; además, la capacidad de absorción de los suelos así como la vulnerabilidad de los acuíferos no son peculiaridades propias a la región de Siquirres. Por parte del Estado, no hay mucho que se pueda hacer ante los comisionados en Washington: el mismo Presidente del TAA fue recientemente bastante enfático con relación a la conducta estatal en el caso que se ventilará ante la CIDH: “Vergüenza debe darle todo esto al Estado” (ver artículo de La Nación de septiembre del 2014).

La profunda sensación de impunidad que evidencia el reciente reportaje del Semanario Universidad (Nota 10) y la inoperancia demostrada por el Estado costarricense por hacer valer en la hermosa tierra de Siquirres principios (bastante básicos) como el principio precautorio o el principio  “el que contamina paga” constituyen, entre otros, argumentos de peso de difícil refutación que ahora colocan a Costa Rica en una situación extremadamente delicada desde el punto de vista internacional.

Nicolás Boeglin

Notas

Nota 1: Se lee en el XX Informe del Estado de la Nación (2014) que “En mayo del 2014 el Laboratorio Nacional de Aguas del AyA recomendó suspender  el abastecimiento por camiones cisternas, ya que desde el 2012 los laboratorios privados contratados no han encontrado residuos de plaguicidas en las fuentes de agua para consumo humano en las comunidades involucradas. Sin embargo estudios efectuados por el  Laboratorio de  Análisis de Residuos de Plaguicidas (Larep) del IRET-UNA, en marzo del 2014, detectaron concentraciones de 2,8 Mg/L de bromacil, 0,1Mg/L de triadimefón y otros plaguicidas”  (p. 192).

Nota 2: Es, por ejemplo, el caso de un pesticida altamente tóxico para los suelos y la salud humana como el Paraquat (ver ficha del 2011 sobre efectos en suelos y en la salud humana disponible aquí). Informes de ONG internacionales habían denunciado los daños a la salud humana de quiénes se ven expuestos a este químico en todo el mundo, incluyendo los operarios de fincas en Costa Rica (ver informe). Luego de una intensa batalla judicial liderada por los países escandinavos, se logró en julio del 2007 que la Directiva de la Comisión de la Unión Europea que permitía su uso fuera anulada por el Tribunal de Primera Instancia de la Unión Europea (ver comunicado de prensa del TPI de la Unión Europea). No obstante, a los meses, una trasnacional operando en Costa Rica adujo que aplicaría la moratoria mundial exigida por la UE en cuanto a su uso en todas sus operaciones en el mundo, con excepción de sus fincas de piña en Costa Rica hasta mediados del 2008, indicando que “… it is discontinuing the use of paraquat in its agricultural operations worldwide by implementing an immediate phase-out program, except in Costa Rica for Dole’s pineapple operations where the targeted phase-out program extends to June 30, 2008” (ver nota de noviembre del 2007). En un comunicado de prensa de octubre del 2007 al que se le añadió una actualización del 2012, se indica que el uso de Paraquat se mantendrá, con la autorización de las autoridades de Costa Rica, para luchar contra la proliferación de la mosca hematófaga que provoca el mal manejo de los rastrojos de la piña: “Update to October 8, 2007 press release (effective November 20, 2012). The Costa Rican government requires growers to take measures to control stable fly infestations. Stable flies are drawn to the moist leaves and other residue left after pineapple harvest, and use of paraquat to dry this residue helps to control these infestations.

Nota 3: Algunas organizaciones han intentado hacer ver al consumidor lo que no se dice de la piña costarricense: el informe “‘The story behind the pineapples sold on our supermarket shelves: A case study of Costa Rica’ preparado por Consumers International y Bananalink constituye uno de estos intentos. En el 2008, la ONG británica OXFAM de igual manera lideró una campaña contra la comercialización de la piña de Costa Rica en los supermercados de Alemania (ver nota de prensa de La Nación, 2008 y una nota de DW titulada “Explotación laboral en Latinoamérica: Alemania no es inocente” de abril del 2008).

Nota 4: En esta nota  de prensa publicada por ElPais.cr se indica que: ”La Casa Presidencial estaría presionando a jueces del Tribunal Ambiental Administrativo (TAA), para que levante la orden de cierre a tres empresas productoras de piña en Los Chiles y Guatuso. De acuerdo con fuentes cercanas a la Presidencia, dos jueces abandonaron una gira por la Región Huetar Norte, y fueron llamados de urgencia por altos funcionarios de Casa Presidencial y del Ministerio del Ambiente, Energía y Telecomunicaciones (Minaet)”.

Nota 5: Véase por ejemplo la nota de prensa titulada por Elpais.cr: “Salud rehuye debate sobre agua potable y contaminación de piñeras en Siquirres” (disponible aquí).

Nota 6: En el informe de prensa (disponible aquí) de la actividad realizada por el TRAGUA en San José a finales del 2013, se incluye el siguiente artículo de ElPais.cr titulado: “Costa Rica: Funcionario de Agricultura huyó de Foro sobre efectos negativos del cultivo de piña”.

Nota 7: Se lee en este reportaje del Semanario Universidad de septiembre del 2011 y titulado “Otra comunidad se resiste a las consecuencias de la expansión piñera” que, en la subnota titulada “Plantación opera junto a Escuela en Caño Negro” la posición de la Ministra de Salud resulta inalcanzable: “Este Semanario intentó conocer la opinión de la Ministra de Salud, Daysi Corrales; sin embargo, no fue posible obtener su posición sobre la denuncia de los habitantes de El Jobo de Caño Negro”.

Nota 8: Fue el caso de Carlos Arguedas, en Siquirres. Leemos en un largo recuento publicado por la FECON (ver nota) que: “El ambientalista y sindicalista Carlos Arguedas fue acusado por una piñera de difamación por haber asegurado que la compañía “contamina el agua y sigue sembrando piña a 50 metros de la naciente”. El juicio se ha suspendido en dos ocasiones (febrero y julio, 2010) y no fue convocado antes de la muerte de Carlos el 31 diciembre del 2010. La demanda interpuesta buscaba 10 millones de colones como reparación por las declaraciones dadas por Arguedas en el Consejo Municipal de Siquirres en febrero del 2009. Ese día, un grupo de vecinos estaba solicitando concretar una moratoria a la siembra de piña en el cantón de Siquirres por la contaminación con agrotóxicos desde el 2007, contaminación que afecta a unas 6 mil personas hasta el día de hoy. Para Carlos Arguedas, esta acción legal “no era más que la intención de la empresa Hacienda Ojo de Agua de salir librada de un daño tan grave que ha hecho a la comunidad.” De igual manera Erlinda Quesada, regidora de Guácimo, fue llevada por los empresarios de Siquirres a los tribunales por denunciar el irrespeto a la legislación ambiental (ver su presentación durante el foro del TRAGUA en noviembre del 2013). Añadamos también (ver nota de Kioscos Ambientales) el caso de cinco regidores de Guácimo: “Tico Verde acusa a los cinco regidores de prevaricato, luego de que la Municipalidad le retirara la patente a su planta empacadora en el 2008. La piñera se encuentra sobre áreas de recarga acuífera en La Perla, parte alta del cantón de Guácimo, donde se ubica la fuente de agua más importante para el abastecimiento público de los cantones de Guácimo y Pococí. Por la importancia del área la Municipalidad decretó una moratoria a la siembra de piña”. En otros casos, son trabajadores de piñeras los que han sido (y posiblemente sigan siendo …) despedidos por participar en protestas comunales, como el caso de  Jeffrey López hecho público en el 2009 (ver Subnota” “Perdí mi trabajo por protestar” del artículoComunidad exige derecho a tomar agua potable” (Semanario Universidad, Junio 2009). Todas estas demandas por presunta difamación o prevaricato presentadas en Costa Rica por empresas piñeras contra líderes comunales fueron desestimadas después de largos años ante los tribunales penales de Costa Rica, y forman parte de acciones legales a las que recurren con frecuencia empresas, que la doctrina anglosajona denomina SLAPPs (Strategic Legal Action Aainst Public Participation). Sobre este particular, ver este  estudio publicado en Canadá al respecto, que las califica de la siguiente manera: “SLAPPs are often threatened or filed with the intent of silencing participation and stifling public debate. SLAPPs function by harassing and intimidating individuals, in essence creating a “chill” in public participation. Defending a SLAPP involves a substantial drain of resources (namely money, energy and time) even if victory on the legal front is assured. The end result is that the suit may not be successful in court, but it has served to delay, silence and harass protestors. Whole communities can often become silenced out of fear of being dragged into a lawsuit”(p. 3). En el caso del proyecto minero ubicado en la localidad de Las Crucitas, la empresa minera canadiense Infinito Gold presentó acciones penales por presunta difamación contra cinco profesionales en Costa Rica, incluyendo al suscrito. Sus repetidas ausencias a las audiencias nos llevaron a publicar en el año 2012, el siguiente artículo: “Audiencias con el Infinito: ausencias…” De estas cinco demandas de la empresa canadiense, solo dos concluyeron en el 2013, a favor de los demandados. La muerte de Jairo Mora en el 2013 en un playa del Caribe de Costa Rica en la que monitoreaba la llegada de tortugas ha llenado de luto a Costa Rica, y llevó a un especialista costarricense como Alvaro Sagot a preguntarse en un artículo: “¿Es peligroso ser ambientalista en Costa Rica?”. La polémica decisión de los tribunales de Costa Rica del 2015 sobre este el caso de Jairo Mora ha sido denunciada por el sector ambientalista de Costa Rica. Recientemente The Guardian usó, con relación a esta decisión, el siguiente titular: “Conservationist murders threaten Costa Rica’s eco-friendly reputation(ver artículo del 19/03/2015).

Nota 9: Por ejemplo, se lee en el artículo titulado “Comunidad exige cierre de piñera en Guácimo”  (Semanario Universidad, octubre del 2007) que “Se intentó conocer el criterio de la empresa Agroindustrial Tico Verde S.A., pero durante la visita a la finca se informó que su administrador y representante, Federico Aguilar, no se encontraba. Posteriormente se le trató de entrevistar por teléfono, pero indicó que respondería las consultas por correo electrónico; sin embargo, al cierre de esta edición (lunes 22) no había contestado”.  De similar manera, se lee que “UNIVERSIDAD se contactó con a la empresa Upala Agrícola, donde se indicó que dirigiendo un correo electrónico a Estíbaliz Rodríguez se evacuarían las dudas relacionadas con el tema, sin embargo al cierre de edición no se obtuvo respuesta” en el reportajeDiez piñeras acumulan ¢276 millones de deuda con la Caja” (Semanario Universidad, agosto del 2012). Esta misma actitud ante la prensa se desprende a la lectura del artículo Vecinos de la Perla de Guácimo están molestos por sentencia leve contra piñera que contaminó” (Semanario Universidad, febrero 2013) en el cual se recoge que : “Se intentó recoger el criterio tanto de Alfonso Sancho, presiente de la Sociedad Agroindustrial Tico Verde S.A., así como de Abel Chaves, presidente de la Canapep; sin embargo, al cierre de la edición no se recibió respuesta”. Se lee en el artículo titulado “Milano de Siquirres sigue esperando un acueducto ocho años después” (Semanario Universidad, marzo del 2015)   que: “UNIVERSIDAD intentó conocer el criterio de dicha empresa sobre la situación actual de las comunidades afectadas por la contaminación del agua con Bromacil, para lo cual se enviaron por correo electrónico una serie de preguntas al director de relaciones corporativas, Luis Enrique Gómez, luego de intentar localizarlo por teléfono. Las preguntas enviadas, y no contestadas al cierre de esta edición son las siguientes: 1. Los últimos análisis de aguas realizados a la naciente y acueducto de Milano de Siquirres, realizadas por el Centro de Investigaciones en Contaminación Ambiental de la Universidad de Costa Rica el año anterior, revelan una “presencia constante” del químico bromacil en el agua, aún 8 años después de los incidentes que obligaron a limitar el consumo de agua en la Asada de esta comunidad. ¿Aún aplica su empresa el químico bromacil en la finca La Babilonia?, ¿cómo se puede explicar la presencia aún del químico en el agua? 2. ¿Ha colaborado la empresa en las labores de saneamiento de las fuentes de agua contaminadas? ¿Pagó la empresa por los daños ambientales causados? ¿Piensa la empresa compensar a las comunidades afectadas de alguna forma? ¿Qué responsabilidades asume la empresa por este caso, que ahora será expuesto por las comunidades ante la Comisión Interamericana de Derechos Humanos?”

Nota 10: Nos referimos a la edición del 11 de marzo del 2015 que incluye los siguientes reportajes, muy completos sobre el caso en discusión: “Milano de Siquirres sigue esperando un acueducto ocho años después” (disponible aquí) y  “Xinia Briceño, presidenta de Asada de Milano: “¡Ya nos hubieran construido tres acueductos con lo que han gastado en cisternas!(disponible aquí).

 

Nicolás Boeglin, Profesor de Derecho Internacional Público, Facultad de Derecho, Universidad de Costa Rica (UCR).

 

  • Posted in Español
  • Comments Off on La piña de Costa Rica ante la Comisión Interamericana de Derechos Humanos

The U.S.’news’ media are so censored and controlled, so that even America’s ‘media watchdog’ organizations — mediamatters.org and fair.org on the left; and aim.org and mrc.org on the right — have hidden from the American public President Barack Obama’s Ukrainian coup in February 2014 that violently overthrew Ukraine’s democratically elected President and replaced him with a Ukrainian nazi (racist-fascist) rabidly eliminationist anti-Russian, police-state regime in Kiev, which, ever since America’s coup there, has been ethnically cleansing the Ukrainian Donbass region that had voted 90% for the man, Viktor Yanukovych, whom the Obama Administration overthrew.

None of this is reported in the U.S. ‘news’ media — and America’s ‘media watchdog’ organizations hide the media’s hiding of it, though these events could bring on a nuclear war with Russia, which is America’s real target in Ukraine, right next door to Russia.

On 14 January 2015, I headlined “The Most-Censored News Story of 2014 Was What…?” and reported that, after an investigation, I had found that, by far, the most-censored news story of 2014 in America was Obama’s coup and U.S.-supported ethnic-cleansing in Ukraine. Links were provided there to videos of the the U.S.-backed massacre in the Trade Unions Building in Odessa on 2 May 2014, and the following ethnic cleansing in the Donbass region. However, the U.S. even sponsors firebombings of Donbass in order to get rid of the residents there, and our ‘media watchdogs’ are even silent about the ’news’ being silent about that. And, here is a good video of America’s Ukrainian coup, which overthrew Yanukovych. Here is more about that coup.
America is trying to conquer Russia, and the placement of nuclear missiles right next door to Russia, in Ukraine seems to be Obama’s objective. America’s ‘news’ media, and their ‘watchdogs,’ are doing a terrific job of hiding all of this from the American people. They wouldn’t do that if these events weren’t enormously important to the American aristocracy, who, it seems, have bought up all of the major mainstream and alternative news media. Scandals far less important than this ongoing one are routinely receiving much attention from the American press. However, even America’s ‘media watchdogs’ ignore this scandal of America’s press. Thus, there aren’t peace-marches and other public demonstrations about this, even though America’s bringing nazis to power in Ukraine is shocking. But you can find out all about it by clicking on the links here, and on the links within those linked-to news reports. It’s all history now, which was unfortunately never reported by U.S. media while it was still very hot and bloody news.
  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Even America’s “Media Watchdogs” Hide Washington’s Ukraine Nazification and Ethnic Cleansing Program

Islamophobia in the USA: The Case of The Arabic Language

March 31st, 2015 by Sufyan bin Uzayr

On March 18, a student in Pine Bush High School near New York City recited the American Pledge of Allegiance in Arabic. This was done as part of the school’s Foreign Language Week, which was conducted to celebrate the “many races, cultures and religions that make up [the US and the Pine Bush] School District.”

One would expect the multicultural and cosmopolitan American society to appreciate such gestures. However, the reactions to the recitation of the Pledge in Arabic spoke otherwise: the language in itself was described to be meant for terrorists, and associated with Islam. Such bigotry once again highlighted everything that is wrong with USA: xenophobia, racism, ignorance, violence and above all, Islamophobia.

The Controversy

Pine Bush is a small town located roughly 85 miles from New York City. It is predominantly white, with Arab and/or Muslim-American populations being negligible.

The Foreign Language Week was an attempt undertaken by Pine Bush High School to foster cultural integration and interaction. It was an occasion to celebrate the multiple tongues, cultures and events that make up the human civilization in total.

Sadly, this praiseworthy teaching exercise received nothing but criticism from the American nation. One student claimed, “The Pledge should always be said in English.”

Also, certain parents were offended because they had “family members killed in Afghanistan.” Apparently, they overlooked two basic things:

  1. Arabic, as a language, did not kill any of their family members.

  2. Arabic, as a language, hardly has any proper speakers in Afghanistan.

On any given day, such opposition to Arabic would sound ridiculous. However, a good portion of the American media as well as political outfits described the recitation of the Pledge in Arabic as a threat to USA, thereby incorrectly viewing Arabic as the language of terrorism, spoken by enemies of freedom. The Clash of Civilizations rhetoric was propagated once again: Arabic, much like every other Asian language, is theirs, not ours.

However, even more unfortunate was the fact that instead of ignoring such baseless talks, the Principal of Pine Bush High School decided to apologize for the recital. Will not this apology convey to the students a wrong idea that reciting the Pledge in Arabic was indeed an unpatriotic and unlawful act?

Is the USA Really Multicultural?

The Pine Bush controversy once again sparked discussions about the old question: is USA truly multicultural? Have the Americans actually embraced the pluralism that exists within their country, or is xenophobia and racism the norm in their society?

Furthermore, this controversy did not occur in isolation. Recently, New York City decided to observe some Muslim holidays as well, and the responses to this decision too were a mixed bag.

The opposition to the Pledge in Arabic shows one key point: in spite of its multicultural nature, America does view garments, languages and probably even cuisines as not merely cultural symbols, but signs of religious, ethnic and racial identities. Arabic was just one side of the coin: Chinese, Japanese, Russian and even Spanish would be considered foreign. On the other hand, languages such as Italian or French would not have stirred such a big controversy.

Why?

Because no matter what you say, racism is selective and biased. Arabic and Chinese are foreign because anything related to the Orient is suspicious for the American masses. Russian is foreign because Russia in itself is suspicious for Americans. Spanish is foreign (even though a good number of Americans speak Spanish as their first language) because of deep-rooted racism and xenophobia in the American society.

This is precisely why the recital of the Pledge in Arabic led to nationwide hysteria and outrage. A sense of hostility is deep-rooted in the American system: Afghanistan, a country that does not speak Arabic, can be blamed for Arabic, if need be. Islamophobia is on the rise in USA, and the Pine Bush incident only affirms this fact. As such, NYC’s decision to acknowledge Islamic holidays, as good as it might sound, will still continue to be overshadowed by such Islamophobic and ignorant gestures.

Sufyan bin Uzayr writes for several print and online publications, and regularly blogs about issues of contemporary relevance at Political Periscope (www.politicalperiscope.com). You can connect with him using Facebook (http://facebook.com/sufyanism) or Google+ (https://plus.google.com/+SufyanbinUzayr?rel=author) or email him at [email protected]

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Islamophobia in the USA: The Case of The Arabic Language

Saudi Arabia, GCC Launches Bombing Campaign in Yemen

March 31st, 2015 by Abayomi Azikiwe

On March 26 the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC), under the direction of Saudi Arabia, announced that it began to bomb Ansurallah (Houthi) positions in Yemen.

This Shiite-led movement has been in conflict with the western-backed Yemeni government for over a decade.

The capital Sanaa was lost to the Ansurallah fighters in September 2014. Recently Taiz was taken by the Houthis and the southern port city of Aden is under siege.

Saudi Arabia has framed the current conflict as a battle against Iranian influence in Yemen. A series of aerial bombardments have killed and injured dozens of Yemeni civilians.

The International Organization for Migration (IOM) announced on March 30 that 45 people were killed and 65 others wounded in air attacks on the northwest of the country. Those who suffered in the bombings were taking refuge from the ongoing conflicts which have intensified in the last six years. (AFP)

Another humanitarian organization, Doctors Without Borders, also known as Médecins Sans Frontières (MSF), reported that the airstrike killed at least 15 people. MSF’s manager of programs in the Middle East, Pablo Marco, indicated that the corpses of the civilians and those injured in the airstrike were taken to Haradh Hospital near the al-Mazrak camp in the province of Hajja.

“It was an airstrike,” Marco declared, noting that he was anticipating that “more dead are at al-Mazrak camp.” The al-Mazrak camp has been providing shelter to the people dislocated by the struggle pitting the Houthi fighters against the central government since 2009.

Press TV stated on March 30 that the bombing of al-Mazrak camp represented an escalation of the Saudi operation. The monarchy has intervened in Yemen before seeking to bolster the previous government of former President Saleh who was forced to resign after a nationwide uprising in 2011.

Recent reports suggests that Yemeni military forces loyal to former leader Ali Abdullah Saleh have opposed the Saudi airstrikes and are working with the Ansurallah fighters. This alliance has given the Houthi forces a decisive advantage in their offensive in the south of the country. (New York Times, March 25)

According to Press TV

“The airstrikes began late Sunday (March 29) and continued unabated for almost nine hours, with Saudi bombers targeting positions of the Houthi fighters and the soldiers from the Republican Guard around the presidential palace. A base operated by the Republican Guard in southern Sanaa was also targeted by the strikes.”

This same articles goes on to note that

“Riyadh says it has launched the airstrikes, the first round of which was carried out on March 26, to defend the ‘legitimate government’ of Yemen’s fugitive president, Abd Rabbuh Mansur Hadi, who fled to the Saudi capital on the same day. Riyadh has vowed to press ahead with the bombing until Hadi is reinstated.”

Ansarullah (Houthis) are a Zaidi Shia group operating in Yemen. The movement takes its name from Hussein Badreddin al-Houthi, who launched an uprising in 2004 and was said to have been killed by Yemeni army forces that September. Led by Abdul-Malik al-Houthi, the movement made substantial gains beginning in Sept. 2014 continuing through the current period.

At present Ansurallah controls of the Yemeni capital Sanaa including the parliament. Saudi Arabia took action when the movement was on the verge of a major offensive in the southern port city of Aden.

United States Foreign Policy Destabilizes Yemen

This bombing operation by the GCC represents the collapse of US foreign policy in Yemen. The Pentagon withdrew 100 special forces and diplomatic personnel in recent weeks.

U.S. State Department spokesman Jeff Rathke was quoted by the British Broadcasting Corporation as saying that “Due to the deteriorating security situation in Yemen, the U.S. government has temporarily relocated its remaining personnel out of Yemen.” (BBC, March 25)

He went on to stress that the Obama administration would continue to support Yemen’s “political transition” and monitor “terrorist threats” emerging from the Middle Eastern state, the most underdeveloped in the region. Nonetheless Rathke added that “There is no military solution to Yemen’s current crisis.”

The Pentagon’s withdrawal from the al-Anad air base took place after an alleged offensive by al-Qaeda fighters in the nearby city of al-Houta. Additional reports said that al-Qaeda was soon forced to retreat from the city as a result of the defensive operations carried out by Yemen’s military forces.

Pentagon military forces stationed at the base, including special forces, were conducting training operations for Yemeni soldiers to allegedly support their fight against al-Qaeda. The U.S. has engaged in drone attacks, targeted assassinations and other counter-insurgency efforts for several years.

The struggle in Yemen involving the Ansurallah movement is being framed by the western media as being representative of a proxy war between Saudi forces seeking to curb Iranian and other Shiite influence in the region. Washington is closely allied with the Saudi monarchy and supplies weapons, military and intelligence support to the ruling family.

In addition to the struggle between the Ansurallah fighters against the Hadi government, a secessionist movement is also rising in the South where a socialist-oriented republic existed between 1967 and the late 1980s. Large demonstrations have been held in recent months where the flag of the People’s Democratic Republic of Yemen has been flown.

Egypt Calls for Ground Intervention at Arab League Summit 

Egyptian military leader turned civilian president, Abdel-Fattah al-Sisi, presented a proposal to the Arab League Summit in Sharm el-Sheikh on March 28 to establish a regional military force that would intervene in states facing internal conflicts.

It is quite obvious that Saudi airstrikes will not be enough to halt the advances of the Houthi fighters or to stabilize the security situation in the country based on U.S. interests. Al-Manar Television of Lebanon said in a report that thousands of Islamic Sunni rebels are being deployed by Saudi Arabia to fight against the Ansarullah movement.

The report said that

“Five Persian Gulf States — Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates (UAE), Bahrain, Qatar and Kuwait — backed by the U.S. have declared war on Yemen in a joint statement issued earlier Thursday (March 26). U.S. President Barack Obama authorized the provision of logistical and intelligence support to the military operations, National Security Council Spokesperson Bernadette Meehan said late Wednesday night. She added that while U.S. forces were not taking direct military action in Yemen, Washington was establishing a Joint Planning Cell with Saudi Arabia to coordinate U.S. military and intelligence support.” (March 29)

At the same time there is the ongoing war of regime-change in Syria where Islamic State fighters and other opposition groups are continuing to seek the overthrow of President Bashar al-Assad. In Iraq, the Pentagon has carried out aerial bombardments alongside those taking place in neighboring Syria, as well as the deployment of over 3,100 U.S. troops under the guise of providing training to Iraq forces.

“The challenges facing Arab national security are immense,” Egyptian President Abdel Fatah al-Sissi said during the final session of the Arab League summit. The Egyptian leader said such a regional force was essential to “defend our [Arab] nation­. . . and gives it an active role in the future of human civilization.” (Washington Post, March 30)

Objectively such a regional military force would be compelled to carry out the foreign policy aims of Washington and Wall Street since the bulk of arms and intelligence sharing is provided by the U.S. in both Egypt and the GCC states. With the U.S. military being tied up through airstrikes and ground operations in Iraq and Syria, the Obama administration is attempting to utilize pro-western regimes in the region to implement both aerial campaigns and ground invasions designed to support imperialist interests.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Saudi Arabia, GCC Launches Bombing Campaign in Yemen

By bombing Islamic State targets in Syria, Canada is breaking international law and is in violation of the United Nations Charter, says a former Canadian ambassador.

There are a number of reasons why Canada’s military mission in Iraq should be extended and there seems to be wide public support for doing so. However, there is one more powerful reason why that extension should not involve the bombing of Islamic State targets in Syria.

The reason is that by doing so Canada is breaking international law and is in violation of the United Nations Charter. Cynics may react to this by saying, “So what?” They may argue that our responsibility to stop the horrors committed by this terrorist group overrides our obligations to follow the rule of law. The cynics would be wrong.

The principles of territorial integrity and state sovereignty are basic principles that have governed the relations between states since the Treaty of Westphalia in 1648. While the treaty has been violated many times in the intervening years, usually by acts of aggression by the more powerful countries, they remain the essential components of international law.

After the cataclysmic events of two world wars and the use of the atomic bomb against Japan, the framers of the United Nations incorporated the principles of territorial integrity and state sovereignty into the United Nations Charter. The charter was seen as the primary safeguard of peace and security in a nuclear age. The Helsinki Final act of 1975 reinforced these principles by adding to them the principle of the inviolability of borders.

These are fundamental principles and they have universal application. They cannot be set aside because of special cases or because they present an obstacle to the policy objectives of a powerful nation. The message is simple and clear: sovereignty cannot be violated without United Nations Security Council authority.

When a democratic nation such as Canada breaks international law and acts against the UN Charter it not only loses its moral standing in the world but sets a dangerous precedent to be followed by other countries, especially those who do not boast of their respect for law and order. It becomes even more serious when a democratic country violates international law more than once as Canada will have done if we bomb the Islamic State in Syria.

Fifteen years ago this month Canada joined NATO countries (Greece excepted) in the bombing of Serbia, thus violating international law, the UN Charter and NATO’s own Article 1 prohibiting NATO from using force to resolve international disputes and to act always in accordance with the UN Charter. Later, Canada again broke the law by following the U.S. in recognizing the unilateral declaration of Kosovo’s independence from Serbia (there was no referendum).

The illegal bombing of Serbia and the recognition of Kosovo were justified on the grounds that genocide and ethnic cleansing were taking place in Kosovo by Serbian security forces. These charges were later proven by the United Nations to be highly exaggerated. Forensic experts were unable to find any evidence of mass killings and the refugee exodus out of Kosovo took place after the bombing started.

Nevertheless, NATO’s support of the Albanians in Kosovo continues to be heralded in the West as a model of how humanitarian intervention should work. Not everyone agrees.

The current President of Russia, Vladimir Putin, warned that recognizing Kosovo’s independence would set a bad precedent and would encourage others desiring independence to ignore international law and follow the Kosovo example. He indicated that he, too, might like to see a number of Russian minority groups in the former Soviet Union become independent.

President Putin’s warnings were ignored. His incorporation of Crimea into Russia should not have come as a surprise.

We hear very little today about NATO’s intervention in the Balkans and Canada’s role in the bombing of Serbia. However, it was then that the western democracies first violated the UN Charter and international law. A precedent was set and the framework of international security suffered a serious breach. It was set back again with the United States invasion of Iraq and will be again if we take part in the bombing of Syria.

James Bissett is a former Canadian ambassador to Yugoslavia, Albania and Bulgaria.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Canada’s Military Mission: Why Bombing Syria Breaks the Law

The First Round of Negotiations

Almost a month after the agreement of the 20th of February between the new Greek government, the European Institutions and the IMF, we need to know where we stand. “We” in this case is not the government. It is not even Syriza’s members and voters. “We” includes all those who understand the necessity of a strong democratic reply to aggressive neoliberalism and the austerity it imposes on the people of Europe, and who perceive the victory of Syriza as a gleam of hope against a conservative and reactionary turn of Europe. It extends to all democratic and politically liberal citizens who worry about the fate of democracy and who want to continue fighting for a better future for the working people in Greece and in Europe. For that reason it is important that we understand what exactly is happening and why it is happening.

A lot has been written during the last three weeks on the content and the interpretation of February’s agreement. Many rushed to shout that Syriza had betrayed its electoral promises and moved away from the vision of social change that has inspired the Left in Greece and in Europe over these difficult years. This couldn’t be farther from the truth.

First of all, one needs to be clear about the difficulties the government has been facing during this time. On the one hand, it must meet its payment obligations – internally and externally – under harsh liquidity conditions. On the other hand it must prioritize and apply its reform program, starting from the principle of comforting those most in need (the first and – so far – the only law passed by the government concerns the humanitarian crisis), and moving to the restoration of social rights and social justice, restarting the economy, and understanding the workings of the state as a necessary condition for its transformation. And it has to do so in the context of mounting political pressure constantly pointing to the fact that there is no other way Europe can go, than continuous, blind-folded consolidation.

This is how we have to look at February 20th – as a hard compromise reached from an unfavourable position.

The Second Round of Negotiations

Let us now turn to what has happened this month. The main goal of the government was to stand on its ground. Politically, this meant defending its position that all past agreements connected to failed austerity policies (including the conclusion of the 5th review of the Second Adjustment Program) should be abandoned, and that the basis for cooperation between Greece and its creditors would be the list of reforms sent by the Greek Finance Minister, Yanis Varoufakis, as a complement to the political agreement of the 20th. It also meant that the scope of cooperation would be a common concern about creating the conditions for Greece to grow, and that any evaluation would be in line with the spirit of this common target.

Unfortunately, this is not how some of our creditors interpreted the intentional ambiguity of the decision. What we have seen during the last week is the explicit violation of its political spirit and a concerted effort to restore the status quo ante, both in literal terms as well as in terms of process, taking advantage of the fact that neither time nor money played on the Greek side. This is how we can interpret the constant reference of [German Finance Minister] Wolfgang Schauble (and others) to the “Troika,” the “closing of the current agreement” and the “respect of the obligations of the Greek state.” Vagueness thus became a double-edge sword: on the one hand it gave the government breathing space in order to organize and push forward its own agenda, but on the other hand it left the field open for objective difficulties to work their way into the process. Resistance to this demands a great deal of decisiveness as well as hard work.

Democratic Control and Solidarity

Two things are indispensable in this process: solidarity on the one hand, and an honest, realistic and constructive perception of democratic control, on the other. The questions arising for the Left at this time are very serious and complex. And they are rightly being brought into the debate as a mechanism of maintaining our orientation regarding the strategy and the tactics of social transformation. What we have claimed is that Europe can be transformed into a fairer, more equal and more prosperous economic and political area, inextricably connected and accountable to its citizens. Whether this claim is correct, we cannot say yet. It is true that the indications don’t look very promising. But ruptures are there and coalitions are possible. What we say is that we should go to the limits of this strategy, and try to take advantage of everything that democracy and politics allows us to.

Honest and constructive criticism is one thing, but abandoning the project while it is taking its first steps is a whole other. For better or for worse, Syriza at this point is a big bet for the Left in Europe and it needs all the support it can get. For the government to stand on its feet, it has to keep its forces together. This requires constant availability of information regarding the dilemmas and the difficulties it faces, open discussion of the reasons for moving one way or the other in crucial circumstances, and closeness to its social and political allies both in Greece and abroad.

Challenges Ahead: “New Conditions, New Tasks”

The breathing space won by Syriza last month is not sufficient for its success. Syriza’s strength in its short march to power has been its effectiveness to provide a voice for the popular social alliance that was formed during the crisis, to inspire and mobilize it. As the party moves into power, given its relatively weak organizational structure, its major challenge is to sustain and even expand its presence in the social field.

“As the party moves into power, given its relatively weak organizational structure, its major challenge is to sustain and even expand its presence in the social field.”

The danger for Syriza is to be subsumed by its governmental duties and to abandon the major component of the strategy that led it into success. The dangers of the electoral success of the left parties are well known. Governmentalism and parliamentarism are the foremost documented causes of the deradicalization of the left in power. However, in the Greek case there are more concrete concerns that Syriza should be vigilant about: The transferring of the party cadres into the state apparatus has not only further weakened the party’s organization but it is bound to contribute to the cartelization of the party and therefore runs the danger of reproducing post-democratic trends. At the same time, since the main focus of the political debates are the negotiations with the debtors, the possibility of public discourse turning more technocratic, will move us straight to the strategic trajectory of the other side. This in turn, unless challenged, can lead to de-politicization and to the marginalization of the political and ideological coordinates of the party. As long as the base of Syriza’s rhetoric remains confined to the arguments around the country’s fiscal and economic problems, this undermines the mobilizing capacity of the party. Finally, the social crisis has created such expectations that the pressures to bypass the existing networks of solidarity and find solutions away from collective structures and relations will become acute.

Furthermore, as the short march to power and especially the forced government coalition with the Independent Greeks has inevitably resulted in the last few months in a watering down of the class rhetoric in favour of a more “national” one, the danger of undermining the radical profile of Syriza becomes visible. This, in combination with the fact that there is not enough time for the new members to get socialized within the party’s radical culture, are issues that need to be confronted before the latter get alienated. Here the educating functions of the party have to be beefed up now more than ever before.

The Party – Government Relation

As the new conditions have brought forward a number of challenges, the question of the relationship of the party to the government has become more timely than ever before. The debate within the party has heated up, as for example in the first meeting of the Central Committee (CC). The CC elected its new secretary (T. Koronakis, a very promising cadre of the younger generation) and a new sparsely populated Political Secretariat and in a sense opened the debate on the party’s “new tasks.” In addition to numerous technical arrangements, the major challenge of the party is to not abandon the strategy that brought Syriza into power: namely to continue and even advance its presence in the social field. To many, the success in this task will solidify the social alliance among the subordinate social classes (working class, unemployed, the poor) with the traditional and the new petite bourgeoisie, which are being squeezed dramatically by the new patterns of accumulation intensified by the crisis. This is the key to maintaining Syriza’s radical orientation and will guarantee not losing sight of the goal of social transformation.

In this sense, the role and the everyday practice of the party should not change. Syriza should continue to push for the democratization of public institutions, building upon the experiences and innovative advances of the social movements and keeping technocratic restraints to a minimum. In addition, the crisis has given rise to nationalist feelings which have left their imprint on the governmental coalition of Syriza with the Independent Greeks. The party should continue to maintain its internationalist perspective and fight parochialism. As the continuation of aggressive austerity in the EU is pushed by the dominant social interests under the hegemonic influence of Germany, the danger of fueling nationalism in the country is real. Syriza should be more than vigilant in this regard.

One of the key tasks of Syriza’s government is the restoration of the rule of law. Civil rights and liberties as well as legal and constitutional arrangements have suffered dramatically over the last five years from the memorandums. The party’s task is not simply to justify and support the incoming democratic reforms of the government but to find ways to connect and ground them in class issues. Finally, the discourse and the practice of Syriza’s presence in the institutions of social and political representation should continue to be socially-centered. As Syriza’s participation in various collectives and social and political institutions expands, provisions should be made for breaking away from the established pattern of statism. This is the only way to undermine the old habits and patterns of the old regime before the latter proves dominant and infiltrates Syriza’s own new radical ways.

All these, in addition to some fine tuning of the party’s constitution that is needed, are some of the major challenges Syriza faces in the current conjuncture. These are not easy tasks. However, no one ever said that social transformation and the democratization of state – society relations is a picnic. With the radical party culture of Syriza as a guarantee, it is something that can be done, so long as we are conscious that class struggle does not stop at the door step of the party.

Elena Papadopoulou is an economist and Scientific Advisor to SYRIZA.

Michalis Spourdalakis is a Professor for Political Science, University of Athens.

 

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on SYRIZA’s Two Months in Government: Difficulties and Challenges

“Data Retention” and Australia’s Police State Consensus

March 31st, 2015 by Dr. Binoy Kampmark

The Telecommunications (Interception and Access) Amendment (Data Retention) Bill 2014 is now law. Despite a few loud voices, the police state consensus barged its way through the lower house and senate.  An act that is poor in terms of scope, uncertain in terms of cost ($400 billion is but a figure), and dangerous in creating unnecessary pools of data, is now part of the surveillance furniture of the Australian landscape.

While Australia forges ahead into the barren scape of policy that is data retention, other countries and institutions are finding little to merit it.  The Court of Justice of the EU (CJEU) ruled in April 2014 that European Union laws requiring telecommunication providers to retain metadata for up to six months, and a maximum of twenty-four months were, in their scope and purpose, invalid as a breach of fundamental privacy rights.

Austrian and Irish applicants challenged the respective transpositions of the directive into domestic law, uncomfortable with the fact that the retained data could be used to identify the person with whom a subscriber or registered user has communicated with, and by what means; identify the time and place of the communication; and know the frequency of the communications of the subscriber or registered user with certain persons over a periods of time.

The central law in question was the EU’s Data Retention Directive 2006/24(EC), which replicated, in a sense, the language of the Australian bill.  Retaining traffic and location data including material necessary to identify the subscriber or user would amount to a breach of privacy and the right to protection of personal data under the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the EU.

In the Court’s view, the data, “taken as a whole, may provide very precise information on the private lives of the persons whose data are retained, such as the habits of everyday life, permanent or temporary places of residence, daily or other movements, activities carried out, social relationships and the social environments frequented.”[1]  In bold emphasis, the Court argued that the data retention directive, which also enabled access by national authorities, “interferes in a particularly serious manner with the fundamental rights to respect and private life and the protection of personal data.”

We could all be in some agreement, suggested the Court, about the fact that retaining data might satisfy an “objective of general interest” – the “fight against serious crime and, ultimately, public security.”  But notwithstanding this interest, the EU legislature had still exceeded its powers.  Limits must be provided on attaining such data.  The principle of “strict necessity,” a point that has totally escaped officials in Canberra, is what is required.  The directive, for instance, made no “differentiation, limitation or exception” to the traffic data in question.

In the United States, an eclectic grouping ranging from the American Civil Liberties Union to the World Press Freedom Committee urged the White House, Congress and the various officials in an open letter (Mar 25) to stop bulk collection as permitted by the USA PATRIOT Act section 215, including records retained under the provision and similarly section 214 covering “pen registers and trap & trace devices.”  In the event that these should occur, “appropriate safeguards” were to be put in place.[2]

The gods certainly do have a sense of humour.  With the Australian bill still freshly passed through the upper house, it was reported that a high profile data breach had taken place before the G20 Summit in Brisbane.  Passport and visa details, including date of birth of 31 international leaders were mistakenly emailed by an official in the Immigration Department office to a member of the Asian Cup Local Organising Committee November 7th last year.[3]  The Guardian Australia, after obtaining an email sent from the Immigration Department to the privacy commissioner under Freedom of Information, revealed that the breach was noted 10 minutes after the incident.[4]  The Asian Cup Local Organising committee claimed to have no access to the email, or have it stored anywhere in its system.

Stunning indifference accompanied the response to what was deemed an “isolated example of human error,” with minimal consequences.  The then immigration minister Scott Morrison was notified, but department officials, in their wisdom, decided to stay numb on the subject. The G20 leaders would be kept in the dark.

Even by Australia’s own paltry standards, this posed a serious breach.  In the words the Information Commissioner, a data breach occurs “when personal information held by an agency or organisation is lost or subjected to authorised access, modification, disclosure or other misuse or interference.”  Australian Privacy Principle 11 imposes an obligation on agencies and organisations to take reasonable steps to protect the personal information they hold from such misuse, interference or loss, not to mention unauthorised access, modification or disclosure.  With rather cheeky disdain, the Australian immigration department decided to conveniently sidestep the relevant provisions, wishing the matter to assume the form of an ostrich and vanish deep beneath the sand.

Such attitudes bode ill for the data retention program.  Modification and unauthorised disclosures are genuine risks that only increase as the burdens on agencies increase. If officials of the agency dismiss the disclosure of personal details of world leaders on a summit attendance list as minor aberrations, we can only imagine how contemptuously private citizens will be treated.

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

Notes

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on “Data Retention” and Australia’s Police State Consensus

The scientists behind a recent World Health Organization study which concluded the herbicide glyphosate “probably” causes cancer, say they stand behind their assessment. The comments come in response to criticisms from Monsanto Co., who said the study was based on “junk science”. The main ingredient in Monsanto’s Round Up product is glyphosate. Monsanto executives said they are reviewing their options as they move forward.

Aaron Blair, a scientist emeritus at the National Cancer Institute and lead author of the study, told Reuters,“There was sufficient evidence in animals, limited evidence in humans and strong supporting evidence showing DNA mutations and damaged chromosomes.” The WHO’s International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) published their study of glyphosate on March 20, finding that the popular herbicide may contribute to non-hodgkins lymphoma.

IARC report was published in The Lancet Oncology detailing evaluations of organophosphate pesticides and herbicides. The report concluded that there was “limited evidence of carcinogenicity in humans for non-Hodgkin lymphoma.” The evidence for this conclusion was pulled from studies of exposure to the chemical in the US, Canada and Sweden published since 2001.

RELATED: Lobbyist Claims Monsanto’s Roundup Is Safe To Drink, Freaks Out When Offered A Glass

The researchers found “convincing evidence that glyphosate can also cause cancer in laboratory animals.” The report points out that the United States Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA) had originally classified glyphosate as possibly carcinogenic to humans in 1985. The IARC Working Group evaluated the original EPA findings and more recent reports before concluding “there is sufficient evidence of carcinogenicity in experimental animals.” Despite the WHO’s findings, the EPA approved Monsanto’s use of glyphosate as recently as 2013.

The battle around glyphosate is also closely linked to the debate around Genetically Engineered or Modified foods. The herbicide is typically used on GM crops such as corn and soybeans that have been specifically modified to survive the harmful effects of the herbicide. Corporations like Monsanto are heavily invested in the success of the chemical. The herbicide has been found in food, water, and in the air in areas where it has been sprayed.

In 2014 Anti-Media reported on a study published in the International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health which claims to have found a link between glyphosate and the fatal Chronic Kidney Disease of Unknown origin (CKDu), which largely affects rice farmers in Sri Lanka and other nations. In response Sri Lanka has banned glyphosate and Brazil is considering doing the same.

Sri Lanka’s Minister of Special Projects S.M. Chandrasena stated that President Mahinda Rajapaksa issued a directive to ban glyphosate sales in the country. “An investigation carried out by medical specialists and scientists have revealed that kidney disease was mainly caused by glyphosate. President Mahinda Rajapaksa has ordered the immediate removal of glyphosate from the local market soon after he was told of the contents of the report.”

The researchers believe glyphosate could be helping carry toxic heavy metals present in certain agri-chemicals to the kidneys. Chronic kidney disease of unknown etiology (CKDu)  was first seen in the north central areas of Sri Lanka in the 1990s and has taken an estimated 20,000 lives. Before being pushed by Monsanto for use as herbicide, glyphosate was a de-scaling agent to clean mineral deposits in hot water systems.

Although the paper did not offer new scientific evidence, the researchers proposed a theory for how CKDu is spread. The researchers believe that glyphosate is contributing to a rise of heavy metals in drinking water. Dr. Channa Jayasumana, lead author of the study said, “glyphosate acts as a carrier or a vector of these heavy metals to the kidney.” Glyphosate itself is not the toxic agent, however when combined with metals in the ground water the herbicide becomes extremely toxic to the kidneys.

In recent years there has been a spike in CKDu patients in farming areas of El Salvador, Nicaragua, and Costa Rica.

The Minister stated that a new national program would be launched encouraging Sri Lankan farmers to use organic fertilizer. The Ministry of Agriculture is hoping to plant 100,000 acres of land throughout the country using organic methods.

Monsanto spokesman Thomas Helscher stated,“There are no epidemiologic studies suggesting that exposures to glyphosate-based products are associated with renal disorders either in Sri Lanka or elsewhere. The paper presents a theory, the theory has not been tested, and there are a significant number of publications supported by data that make the Jayasumana hypothesis quite unlikely to be correct.” Despite promises from Monsanto, the evidence indicating dangers related to glyphosate continue to pile up.

With the USDA’s decision late last year to approve a new batch of genetically modified corn and soybean seeds designed to be resistant to glyphosate, we should expect to see an increase in herbicide use overall, and with it, many disastrous health effects. In fact, the approval by the USDA now partners DOW Chemical and Monsanto together, a move which will only further entrench the control that corporate entities have over governments.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on World Health Organization Won’t Back Down From Study Linking Monsanto to Cancer

The rubble of a home reportedly hit by a U.S.-led coalition airstrike in Kafar Daryan in Syria. (Photo: Sami Ali / AFP/Getty Images)

How do you calculate the human costs of the U.S.-led War on Terror?

On the 12th anniversary of the invasion of Iraq, groups of physicians attempted to arrive at a partial answer to this question by counting the dead.

In their joint report— Body Count: Casualty Figures after 10 Years of the ‘War on Terror—Physicians for Social Responsibility, Physicians for Global Survival, and the Nobel Prize-winning International Physicians for the Prevention of Nuclear War concluded that this number is staggering, with at least 1.3 million lives lost in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Pakistan alone since the onset of the war following September 11, 2001.

However, the report notes, this is a conservative estimate, and the total number killed in the three countries “could also be in excess of 2 million, whereas a figure below 1 million is extremely unlikely.”

Furthermore, the researchers do not look at other countries targeted by U.S.-led war, including Yemen, Somalia, Libya, Syria, and beyond.

Even still, the report states the figure “is approximately 10 times greater than that of which the public, experts and decision makers are aware of and propagated by the media and major NGOs.

In Iraq, at least 1 million lives have been lost during and since 2003, a figure that accounts for five percent of the nation’s total population. This does not include deaths among the estimated 3 million Iraqi refugees, many of whom were subject to dangerous conditionsduring this past winter.

Furthermore, an estimated 220,000 people have been killed in Afghanistan and 80,000 in Pakistan, note the researchers. The findings follow a United Nations report which finds that civilian deaths in Afghanistan in 2014 were at their highest levels since the global body began making reports in 2009.

The researchers identified direct and indirect deaths based on UN, government, and NGO data, as well as individual studies. While the specific number is difficult to peg, researchers say they hope to convey the large-scale of death and loss.

Speaking with Democracy Now! on Thursday, Dr. Robert Gould, president of the San Francisco Bay Area chapter of Physicians for Social Responsibility and co-author of the forward to the report, said:

“[A]t a time when we’re contemplating at this point cutting off our removal of troops from Afghanistan and contemplating new military authorization for increasing our operations in Syria and Iraq, this insulation from the real impacts serves our government in being able to continue to conduct these wars in the name of the war on terror, with not only horrendous cost to the people in the region, but we in the United States suffer from what the budgetary costs of unending war are.”

According to Gould’s forward, co-authored with Dr. Tim Takaro, the public is purposefully kept in the dark about this toll.

“A politically useful option for U.S. political elites has been to attribute the on-going violence to internecine conflicts of various types, including historical religious animosities, as if the resurgence and brutality of such conflicts is unrelated to the destabilization cause by decades of outside military intervention,” they write. “As such, under-reporting of the human toll attributed to ongoing Western interventions, whether deliberate of through self-censorship, has been key to removing the ‘fingerprints’ of responsibility.”

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Body Count Report Reveals at Least 1.3 Million Lives Lost to US-Led War on Terror

The sordid sequence of events that opened the floodgates for the genetic takeover of the American food supply — that is, the mass introduction of untested genetically-engineered (GE) food ingredients on the sly — is outlined in an eye-opening new book by American public interest lawyer Steve Druker, entitled Altered Genes, Twisted Truth.

Drudging up several decades’ worth of historical facts surrounding genetically-modified organisms (GMOs) and the way biotechnology companies got them onto the market without proper testing, Druker tells the true story about “Frankenfood” that you’ll never hear about on any of the major corporate new networks. From the very beginning, GMOs came to be a thing not because they are superior or safe, but because powerful interests got them there illicitly.

In the book’s foreword, award-winning humanitarian and leading primate expert Dr. Jane Goodall lauds Druker for bringing to light a number of important truths about GMOs, including that they have never undergone appropriate safety testing; have never been shown to be safe for human consumption; and were not even approved in accordance with federal law.

GMOs are illegal: Their secret introduction into the food supply was an illicit con from the very start

When they were first being developed back in the early 1980s, GMOs were hailed as the solution to world hunger. Their proponents argued, and still do, that conventional and organic food crops are inferior, and that GMOs address the problems of drought and pestilence that lead to reduced yields, and in some cases food shortages.

But the science behind these claims is lacking, and many scientists and researchers at the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) who were tasked with reviewing GMO safety and effectiveness prior to their commercial approval vocalized this. As explained in Druker’s book, the concerns of these FDA scientists were largely ignored, and GMOs were rammed through the system illegally.

“[I]nformation that Druker pried from the agency’s files through a lawsuit revealed that [the agency] apparently ignored (and covered up) the concerns of its own scientists and then violated a federal statute and its own regulations by permitting GE foods to be marketed without any testing whatsoever,” writes Dr. Goodall.

Genetic engineering isn’t the same as cross-breeding and hybridization

Another popular, but unsubstantiated, claim about GMOs is that they are substantially equivalent to their non-GMO counterparts (except when it comes to patent protection; in this case, GMOs are regarded as substantially different in order to accommodate obscene corporate profits). As explained in the book, biotech companies have intentionally misled the public on the differences between artificial genetic engineering and cross-breeding, resulting in mass confusion.

“This very real difference between GM plants and their conventional counterparts is one of the basic truths that biotech proponents have endeavored to obscure,” says Dr. Goodall. “As part of the process, they portrayed the various concerns as merely the ignorant opinions of misinformed individuals — and derided them as not only unscientific, but anti-science.”

“They then set to work to convince the public and government officials, through the dissemination of false information, that there was an overwhelming expert consensus, based on solid evidence, that the new foods were safe. Yet this, as Druker points out, was clearly not true.”

GMO skeptics aren’t anti-science — the biotechnology industry is!

In its most recent issue, National Geographic magazine brazenly asserted that anyone who questions the safety or benefits of GMOs is “anti-science.” The mainstream media and government health authorities are constantly throwing around this buzzword in an attempt to silence anyone who opposes the golden calves of modern society, whether they be GMOs or things like pharmaceuticals, vaccines, and fluoride.

If you take the time to investigate the supposed “science” backing GMOs, you will quickly realize that none of it holds any water. Nearly every published study that supposedly backs the safety of GMOs, in fact, can be directly traced back to the industries pushing GMOs. Evidence of long-term GMO safety is non-existent, and the only trials conducted for longer than 90 days were pioneered by independent scientists, many of whom have reported serious risks associated with GMOs.

“Contrary to the assertions of its proponents, the massive enterprise to reconfigure the genetic core of the world’s food supply is not based on sound science but on the systematic subversion of science — and it would collapse if subjected to an open airing of the facts,” maintains Druker about this highly corrupt industry.

Criminal TTIP trade agreement will allow more illegal GMOs to enter Europe from US

Druker’s book is an evidence-based goldmine that counters all the prevailing myths about GMO safety using actual science. Contrary to what the “experts” often claim, altering plant organisms with foreign genes and toxic bacteria is an imprecise “science” (if you can even call it science), and the risks of this largely undefined technology are vast.

And to make matters worse, the spread of GMOs is continuing all around the world, even in places like Europe where GMOs are largely banned. The so-called “Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership”, or TTIP, for instance, threatens to bypass European law by creating a special trade partnership between Europe and North America.

According to The Centre for Research on Globalization, one of the key points in the ongoing TTIP negotiation process (which is largely taking place in secret, without public scrutiny) involves reducing the existing barriers that prohibit North American grains and other foodstuffs (many of which are GMO) from being exported to Europe.

“TTIP is an attempted corporate coup d’etat where big business on both sides of the Atlantic is trying to achieve in secret negotiations what it could not get in open and democratic processes — from watering down food safety standards to rolling back regulations in the financial sector,” reads a cited quote by Pia Eberhardt from the lobby-watchdog group Corporate Europe Observancy.

To learn more about the dangers of TTIP, visit:
https://stop-ttip.org

You can also purchase Altered Genes, Twisted Truth at:
http://www.amazon.com

Sources:

http://www.beyond-gm.org

http://www.dailymail.co.uk

http://www.beyond-gm.org

http://www.theglobalist.com

http://www.globalresearch.ca

https://stop-ttip.org

http://www.amazon.com

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on GMO Critics Vindicated: Biotech Corporations Were Pushing Fraud All Along

NATO Weaponizes Social Media In Latvia

March 31st, 2015 by Kurt Nimmo

NATO has put the finishing touches on an information warfare office in Riga, the capital of Latvia. The office is staffed with propaganda technicians formerly deployed in Kabul, Afghanistan.

In July Latvia, Estonia, Germany, Italy Lithuania, Poland, and the UK signed a memorandum agreeing upon the establishment of a StratCom Centre of Excellence in Riga.

The latest effort will compliment a social media propaganda war against Russia run out of the State Department.

Last week Infowars.com reported on remarks by the Supreme Commander of NATO, Gen. Philip Breedlove, who said the West must engage in an information war with Russia in order to counteract its “false narratives” on social media.

CIA front Voice of America interviews NATO boss on alleged Russian threat in Eastern Europe.

The latest effort will compliment a social media propaganda war against Russia run out of the State Department.

Last week Infowars.com reported on remarks by the Supreme Commander of NATO, Gen. Philip Breedlove, who said the West must engage in an information war with Russia in order to counteract its “false narratives” on social media.

“We need as a western group of nations or as an alliance to engage in this informational warfare. The way to attack the false narrative is to drag the false narrative into the light and expose it,” Breedlove said.

Prior to the rollout of NATO’s social warfare and propaganda effort, Latvian Defense MinisterRaimonds Vejonis accused the Russians on March 18 of engaging in “misinformation, bribery, economic pressure,” which are designed to “undermine the nation.”

“The first stage of confrontation is taking place — I mean informational war, propaganda and cyber attacks. So we are already under attack,” added Lithuanian President Dalia Grybauskaite.

The Chatham House think-tank believes Russia is involved in hybrid warfare “designed to cripple a state before that state even realizes the conflict has begun.

“It’s a model of warfare designed to slip under NATO’s threshold of perception and reaction.”

The Chatham House is a British think tank operating like the Council on Foreign Relations and the Brookings Institute in the United States. Corporate members include Goldman Sachs International, Morgan Stanley, Lockheed Martin, Bloomberg, GlaxoSmithKline, Coca-Cola, and other transnational giants and bankster operations. This elite membership, writes Tony Cartalucci, “is involved in coordinated planning, perception management, and the execution of its corporate membership’s collective agenda.”

US-NATO-Russian Confrontation Worst International Crisis since Cuban Missile Crisis

Professor Stephen Cohen, a scholar of Russian studies at Princeton University and New York University, believes a premeditated war with Russia is on the horizon and the situation is worse than during the Cold War.

Cohen says a “winner-takes-all” policy adopted during the Clinton administration after the fall of the Soviet Union has dominated U.S. foreign policy.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on NATO Weaponizes Social Media In Latvia

Just as Natural News publicly predicted in a widely-circulated article entitled Germanwings jetliner catastrophe: The first antidepressant drug-induced mass murder of the skies?, psychiatric drugs have now been located and identified by law enforcement authorities searching the home of the murder-suicide co-pilot.

As the Straits Times now reports:

Investigators made the discovery in a search of the home of Andreas Lubitz in the western city of Duesseldorf and seized a number “of medicines for the treatment of psychological illness”, Welt am Sonntag weekly said.

“The 27-year-old has been treated by several neurologists and psychiatrists,” it quoted an unidentified high-ranking investigator as saying, in excerpts released ahead of Sunday’s edition…

The same story goes on to report:

On Friday they said searches of his homes netted “medical documents that suggest an existing illness and appropriate medical treatment”…

In today’s global system of pharma-dominated health care, so-called “appropriate medical treatments” for depression consist almost entirely of mind-altering medications which have been repeatedly linked to mass school shootings.

“The police found antidepressants during a search of his apartment here on Thursday,” reports The New York Times, further confirming that the SSRI drug link to Lubitz.

Reuters story also explains, “German newspaper Welt am Sonntag quoted a senior investigator as saying the 27-year-old “was treated by several neurologists and psychiatrists”, adding that a number of medications had been found in his Duesseldorf apartment.”

18 months of psychiatric “treatment” on medications, but still allowed to fly

According to the Daily Mail, Lubitz “…reportedly received a year and half of psychiatric treatment and was at one point recommended to be examined by a doctor before flying.”

As I noted in a previous Natural News article, SSRI drugs are considered so dangerous by the FAA that U.S. pilots are not allowed to fly commercial or private airplanes if they are currently taking antidepressant medications. (The FAA knows SSRI drugs can make pilots suicidal.)

It now appears Andreas Lubitz was attempting to hide his psychiatric treatment and medications from authorities, and he may have stopped taking SSRI drugs in order to pass a urine test or blood test.

“[T]he other possible explanations for Lubitz’s actions are that he may have stopped taking his medication so it would not be detected in any medical tests…” reports the Daily Mail. Other behavior demonstrates by Lubitz is also consistent with this idea, such as his tearing up of doctors’ notes to avoid submitting them to his employer.

“Regularly collected a prescription from the pharmacy”

Also from the Daily Mail:

He reportedly received a year and half of psychiatric treatment and was at one point recommended to be examined by a doctor before flying. But, incredibly, he passed his psychological assessments and was later considered fit to fly.

German police are now investigating whether Lubitz had stopped taking any medication he was on and have questioned chemists at the Apotheke am Breidenplatz close to Lubitz’s Dusseldorf flat.

Lubitz regularly collected a prescription from the pharmacy, MailOnline understands. A chemist at the Apotheke confirmed she had spoken to the police but declined to offer any details.

As with all such stories, there will be enormous pressure exerted on the mainstream media by the pharmaceutical industry to downplay any link between SSRI drugs and this mass murder tragedy. But given the repeated pattern of mass murder carried out by people who are either currently taking SSRI drugs or have recently quit taking them, we must ask the obvious question: Can psychiatric meds transform a normal person into a mass murderer?

Until society honestly asks this question, many more people might unnecessarily die from acts of violence which are induced by psychiatric medications.

Learn more about the dangers of psychiatric medications at www.CCHR.org

And learn about how psychiatric drugs are killing our soldiers at www.CCHR.org/military

 

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Psychiatric Medications found in Home of Germanwings Pilot Andreas Lubitz, who underwent 18 Months of Psychiatric “Treatment”

A senior member of the Yemeni Ansarullah movement warned that his country’s crushing response to the Saudi aggression will devastate the Arab kingdom and change the geopolitics of the region.

“The Yemeni nation will change the map of the region,” Al-Alam Arabic-language TV quoted Nasreddin Amer, member of Ansarullah’s Information Dissemination Committee as saying on Monday.

“We will respond to Saudi King Salman bin Abdel Aziz in the battlefield and unexpected events will take place in the coming days,” he added.

He reiterated that the Al Saud regime have embarked on attacking Yemen in order to prevent Yemen from becoming a free country which will not be under the control of the Saudi regime.

On Sunday, a senior member of Ansarullah movement’s Political Council Mohammad al-Bakhiti warned that the movement will give a crushing response to any possible ground invasion of Yemen.

“Any ground attack on Yemen will receive a rigidly harsh response,” al-Bakhiti said.

“We have not responded to the Saudi aggressions in the past five days because we wanted to allow the Arab countries to reconsider their action and stop their attacks,” he said, and added “but from now on everything will be different.”

Al-Bakhiti described the Saudi-led alliance against Yemen as a moral crisis, and said, “Whatever the Arab conference decided about Yemen will end in serious crisis.”

He underlined that the Yemeni people have confidence in their resistance and are confident that they will win.

On Saturday, a senior member of the popular Ansarullah movement warned of immediate attacks on Saudi territories if the latter refrains from putting an immediate halt to its aggression against Yemen.

“As the Ansarullah movement has promised collapse of some Arab regimes supporting the terrorists, if Saudi Arabia continues its aggressions against the oppressed Yemeni people the Ansarullah fighters will pave the way for the Saudi regime’s destruction by conducting martyrdom-seeking (suicidal) operations inside Saudi Arabia,” member of Ansarullah Executive Committee Abdel Mon’em Al-Qurashi told FNA.

He reiterated that Israel and Al Saud are on the same front and Saudi Arabia is taking orders from Washington and Tel Aviv.

“The main cause of the Saudi aggression is the failure of Riyadh’s policies in support of fugitive Yemeni President Mansour Hadi and Takfiri groups and its disappointment at them,” Al-Qurashi added.

He reiterated that the Yemeni army and people will give a crushing response to the Saudi aggressors.

Saudi Arabia has been striking Yemen for five days now, killing, at least, 70 civilians and injuring hundreds more.

Five Persian Gulf States — Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates (UAE), Bahrain, Qatar and Kuwait — and Egypt that are also assisted by Israel and backed by the US have declared war on Yemen in a joint statement issued earlier Thursday.

US President Barack Obama authorized the provision of logistical and intelligence support to the military operations, National Security Council Spokesperson Bernadette Meehan said late Wednesday night.

She added that while US forces were not taking direct military action in Yemen, Washington was establishing a Joint Planning Cell with Saudi Arabia to coordinate US military and intelligence support.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Yemen’s Response to Saudi Aggression “Will Devastate the Arab Kingdom, Change the Map of the Region”

No Deal on Iran’s Nuclear Program – So Far

March 31st, 2015 by Stephen Lendman

Reports of a deal reached over the weekend were way premature. As of Monday morning Lausanne time, key unresolved issues remain ahead of a March 31 deadline.

It could be extended days or weeks if all parties agree. Deadlines aren’t written in stone. They’re easily changed based on circumstances.

The latest as this is written comes from a senior Iranian negotiator, saying:

“No agreement has been achieved, and there are still issues which need to be resolved.”

“Instead of launching a media hype, the concerned parties should quit their excessive demands and take the strategic decision if they want an agreement or continued pressure.”

On Sunday, John Kerry said he’s uncertain if a deal can be reached during current talks.

Lifting sanctions, Iranian nuclear R&D allowed, and control of its enriched uranium stockpile remain key sticking points.

An unnamed source said “(b)oth sides will do their best (Monday) to find solutions for these issues.”

According to Iranian Foreign Minister Javad Zarif:

“We have made progress in reaching acceptable solutions, but we still have to work on some important issues.”

“The key to striking an agreement lies in this strategic choice that the other side should make: pressure and sanctions or interaction and agreement by the other side.”

Throughout 18 months of talks, Washington is the main obstacle to resolving what never should have been negotiated in the first place.

The whole world knows Iran’s nuclear program is peaceful. It has no military component.

No evidence suggests Tehran intends pursuing one. Its program is no different from dozens of other countries operating nuclear facilities.

Yet it alone is singled out for unacceptable pressure and demanded restrictions because of a combination of 36 years of US hostility plus the power of Israel and its Lobby influencing America’s policy.

Iran showed great flexibility during talks. It’s gone way out of its way to negotiate in good faith.

Concessions it made way exceed what it got back in return so far. It justifiably demands the right to operate its nuclear program as Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) provisions allow.

It won’t surrender its legitimate rights to unreasonable US demands. Nor should it.

Over the weekend, Zarif said Iran is “ready to make a good deal for all. We wait for our counterparts’ readiness.”

He and Deputy Foreign Minister Seyed Abbas Araqchi said Iranian negotiators will stay in Lausanne as long as needed.

Current talks began last Thursday. They continued over the weekend into Monday.

“Iranians have already made their choice: Engage with dignity,” Zarif stressed.

“It’s high time for the US and its allies to choose: pressure or agreement,” he added.

The ball is clearly in Washington’s court. It’s up to Obama to decide if he wants a deal or not.

A previous article said his tenure so far has no positive achievements – nothing besides advancing America’s ruthless agenda, handing the nation’s wealth to rich elites already with too much, and cracking down hard on nonbelievers.

It’s now put up or shut up time. Come to terms or walk away.

Even if agreement is reached, US history shows Iran has no guarantee it would stick.

America doesn’t bargain in good faith. Its word isn’t its bond.

It can’t be trusted. Duplicity defines its agenda. It says one thing. It does another.

As long as Iran remains independent, US hostility won’t change.

It’s just a matter of time before Washington invents reasons to rescind terms agreed to.

Months of good faith Iranian efforts will have been wasted.

It’s leadership knows what it’s up against. Decades of deplorable US policy leave no doubt what to expect going forward.

Imperial powers are all take and no give. Washington wants unconditional Iranian surrender to US demands.

They’re written in stone. They’re longstanding. They won’t change.

Chances for normalized US/Iranian relations ahead are virtually nil – not as long as neocons infest Washington and Israeli Lobby power owns Congress.

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. 

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on No Deal on Iran’s Nuclear Program – So Far

Despite concerns voiced by its close ally the United States, Britain, a conventional Atlantic force, will become the first major Western economy to join a China proposed financing mechanism, which will explore investment opportunities in, mainly, Asia.

Downing Street believes its decision to apply to be a founding member of the China-backed Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank (AIIB) is “in the U.K.’s national interest.”

Domestic interests may not always be compatible with a country’s allies’ and, in this case, the ally of Britain chose to air concerns over, allegedly, looser lending standards for the environment, labor rights and financial transparency of the proposed bank.

The “unrivalled opportunity” for the United Kingdom, as seen by British Chancellor of the Exchequer George Osborne, is enviable, as financiers and industrialists widely expect total infrastructure investment of 8 trillion U.S. dollars in the coming decade in Asia. Not to mention the anticipated stable and handsome returns associated with infrastructure projects.

Other than the U.K., there are at least 27 bidders intending to be AIIB founding members, spanning East Asia, South Asia, Southeast Asia, Central Asia, the Middle East, to Oceania. All have shared the vision of faster-than-average growth in the years to come in Pacific Asia.

The AIIB, and similar organizations, have, understandably, left the U.S. uneasy, with the incumbent power choosing to use the rhetoric that the AIIB will undercut institutions such as the World Bank.

The idea of circumventing existing financial organizations, such as the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund (IMF), will pose a threat, if any, to the international economic and political pattern shaped after World War II, seven decades ago.

The Bretton Woods agreement depicted a global financial and monetary landscape, consolidating the U.S. dollar’s supremacy, which is still valid.

Currencies in the IMF Special Drawing Rights (SDRs) basket of reserve assets represent post-WWII U.S. allies — the pound sterling, the yen and the euro, in addition to the dollar.

One major winner of WWII, the Soviet Union and then Russia, never won its fair share with its currency, the ruble, in the IMF basket, partly due to its voluntary disengagement from Western mechanisms.

Rising to become the second largest economy in the world, China is advocating and working on revising the current international system, almost unchanged in the past 70 years, and as a system it is inadequate as lower income countries largely miss out on equal opportunities.

Its immense size and robust market have seen China sustain the appeal for the outside world, particularly as it frees its huge services market and encourages the outbound investment of surplus funds.

Following 30 years of reform and opening up, China is no longer heavily dependent on foreign capital and exporting money as well, with overseas direct investment of 102.9 billion U.S. dollars in 2014, only 16.7 billion U.S. dollars less than foreign direct investment the country attracted.

Besides the AIIB, China initiated and has taken a leading role in the BRICS development bank, the Silk Road Fund and a development bank for the Shanghai Cooperation Organization, all of which focus on infrastructure.

Designing financing tools that are complementary to the current international financial system, China has no intention of knocking over the chessboard, but rather is trying to help shape a more diverse world playing board.

With further liberalizing the yuan in floating exchange rates and cross-border transactions, China wishes to see its currency included in the IMF basket, in accordance with the weight the yuan now exerts on international goods and services trade.

China welcomes cooperation from every corner of the world to achieve shared prosperity based on common interest, but will go ahead anyway when it believes it is in the right.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Britain Joins China’s Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank (AIIB) Despite “U.S. Concerns”

Despite concerns voiced by its close ally the United States, Britain, a conventional Atlantic force, will become the first major Western economy to join a China proposed financing mechanism, which will explore investment opportunities in, mainly, Asia.

Downing Street believes its decision to apply to be a founding member of the China-backed Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank (AIIB) is “in the U.K.’s national interest.”

Domestic interests may not always be compatible with a country’s allies’ and, in this case, the ally of Britain chose to air concerns over, allegedly, looser lending standards for the environment, labor rights and financial transparency of the proposed bank.

The “unrivalled opportunity” for the United Kingdom, as seen by British Chancellor of the Exchequer George Osborne, is enviable, as financiers and industrialists widely expect total infrastructure investment of 8 trillion U.S. dollars in the coming decade in Asia. Not to mention the anticipated stable and handsome returns associated with infrastructure projects.

Other than the U.K., there are at least 27 bidders intending to be AIIB founding members, spanning East Asia, South Asia, Southeast Asia, Central Asia, the Middle East, to Oceania. All have shared the vision of faster-than-average growth in the years to come in Pacific Asia.

The AIIB, and similar organizations, have, understandably, left the U.S. uneasy, with the incumbent power choosing to use the rhetoric that the AIIB will undercut institutions such as the World Bank.

The idea of circumventing existing financial organizations, such as the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund (IMF), will pose a threat, if any, to the international economic and political pattern shaped after World War II, seven decades ago.

The Bretton Woods agreement depicted a global financial and monetary landscape, consolidating the U.S. dollar’s supremacy, which is still valid.

Currencies in the IMF Special Drawing Rights (SDRs) basket of reserve assets represent post-WWII U.S. allies — the pound sterling, the yen and the euro, in addition to the dollar.

One major winner of WWII, the Soviet Union and then Russia, never won its fair share with its currency, the ruble, in the IMF basket, partly due to its voluntary disengagement from Western mechanisms.

Rising to become the second largest economy in the world, China is advocating and working on revising the current international system, almost unchanged in the past 70 years, and as a system it is inadequate as lower income countries largely miss out on equal opportunities.

Its immense size and robust market have seen China sustain the appeal for the outside world, particularly as it frees its huge services market and encourages the outbound investment of surplus funds.

Following 30 years of reform and opening up, China is no longer heavily dependent on foreign capital and exporting money as well, with overseas direct investment of 102.9 billion U.S. dollars in 2014, only 16.7 billion U.S. dollars less than foreign direct investment the country attracted.

Besides the AIIB, China initiated and has taken a leading role in the BRICS development bank, the Silk Road Fund and a development bank for the Shanghai Cooperation Organization, all of which focus on infrastructure.

Designing financing tools that are complementary to the current international financial system, China has no intention of knocking over the chessboard, but rather is trying to help shape a more diverse world playing board.

With further liberalizing the yuan in floating exchange rates and cross-border transactions, China wishes to see its currency included in the IMF basket, in accordance with the weight the yuan now exerts on international goods and services trade.

China welcomes cooperation from every corner of the world to achieve shared prosperity based on common interest, but will go ahead anyway when it believes it is in the right.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Britain Joins China’s Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank (AIIB) Despite “U.S. Concerns”

The Empire of Chaos

March 31st, 2015 by Anthony Freda

Propaganda is designed to promote paranoia by attributing barbarism to the enemy and righteousness to your cause.

The barbaric beheading videos purported by Western media to be part of “ISIS recruitment propaganda” have had quite the opposite effect.

The videos have done nothing but foment worldwide hatred for the group and a blood lust for revenge.

Public support for new US led “humanitarian” wars to stop these beheading madmen has never been greater.

Clearly, ISIS  has a terrible public relations department.

Is ISIS really seeking to promote their own cause, and demonize their enemies or do they want the might of Western military pointed at them?

If so, wouldn’t they document the atrocities of their enemies, instead of their own?

Wouldn’t they compile the footage of children slaughtered by western forces and drone attacks all over the region?

A highlight real of recent torture, mass slaughter and chaos caused by US intervention in the region could easily be produced.

“The Greatest Hits of US Imperialism, 2001-2015” could go viral and maybe even get more hits on YouTube than Gangnam Style.

A video like that might actually help shift the public’s desire for war and retribution towards a yearning for peace and reconciliation.

If only ISIS had a better marketing strategy, I’m sure mainstream media would promote such a campaign with the same enthusiasm they showcase their popular beheading series.

But, then again, no rational power would use it’s media to promote it’s enemy’s propaganda.

That would be insane, wouldn’t it?

Anthony Freda www.AnthonyFreda.com

Your private data is being stolen by a criminal government.

Have a nice day.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on The Empire of Chaos

The instability in Yemen is being caused not by Iran or the Houthis, but by US and Saudi interference in Yemen — from Saudi Arabia’s 2009 invasion to US drone attacks — and the decades of support that Saudi Arabia has provided for authoritarian and unpopular rule in Yemen.

«Battle lines are being drawn in Yemen, the Arab world’s poorest country and the Middle East’s latest candidate for state failure. If, as looks increasingly probable, open warfare breaks out soon, it will only be made worse by the contest for regional supremacy between Saudi Arabia and Iran. Both powers have proven eager to arm groups they believe they can control, despite the legacy this destructive rivalry has already wrought in Syria and Iraq», the magazine Foreign Policy claimed on March 6.

The Houthi Alliance with Iran: Pragmatism or Sectarianism?

The Houthis are not Iranian proxies whatsoever. The Houthi movement is an independent political actor that emerged as a result of repression. To call the Houthis Iranian proxies is unempirical and ignores the history and politics of Yemen. «If a war breaks out along sectarian lines, it will not be because that is where historical divisions have lain in Yemen; it will be because the war’s foreign funders are inflaming previously unimportant divisions,» Foreign Policy even admits.

Houthi leaders have admittedly rejected claims that they take orders from Tehran. This has not stopped Saudi and Khaliji (Gulf) officials and media, who have used and manipulated the statements of Iranian officials, like the comparison of the Houthis to Iran’s Basij, from portraying the Houthis as Iranian agents or clients.

Just like how the Houthis are not Iranian proxies, there is no Shia alliance between Tehran and them in Yemen either. Talk that focuses on this simplistic sectarian narrative hides the political nature and motivations of the conflict in Yemen and insultingly obfuscates the struggle of the Houthis against repression. Until the 1970s the House of Saud had actually been a major supporter of the royalist factions in Yemen, which were predominately Shiite Muslims.

Moreover, the Shiite Muslims in Yemen are not Jaffaris (Twelvers) like the majority of Shia Muslims in Iran, the Republic of Azerbaijan, Lebanon, Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, and the Persian Gulf region. Aside from pockets of Ismaili Shiites – which can arguably be called Seveners – in the governorates of Saada, Hajja, Amran, Al-Mahwit, Sana, Ibb, and Al-Jawf most the Shia Muslims in Yemen are Zaidis/Zaydis. The Ismailis in Yemen are mostly members of the Dawoodi (Davidian) and Sulaimani (Solomonian) sects of Mustali Ismailism that moved away from the larger Nizari Ismailis.

The US and Saudi hostility towards the Houthi movement is what has inadvertently made the Houthis pragmatically turn to Iran for help as a counterbalance. In the words of the Wall Street Journal, «Houthi militants controlling Yemen’s capital are trying to build ties with Iran, Russia and China to offset Western and Saudi support for the country’s ousted president.» «The Houthis’ interim government has sent delegations to Iran in search of fuel supplies and to Russia to look for investment in energy projects, according to two senior Houthi officials. Another delegation is planning to visit China in the coming weeks, they said», the Wall Street Journal also reported on March 6.

As a result of the Houthi movement’s reaching out, Iran and Yemen announced that daily flights would take place between Tehran and Sana on March 2. This is an important lifeline of support for the Houthi movement.

The Sectarian Narrative and Sectarian Card

The instability in Yemen is being caused not by Iran or the Houthis, but by US and Saudi interference in Yemen — from Saudi Arabia’s 2009 invasion to US drone attacks — and the decades of support that Saudi Arabia has provided for authoritarian and unpopular rule in Yemen.

Yemen is not an inherently divided country. Aside from the nurturing of Al-Qaeda by Saudi Arabia and the US, there is no real Shia-Sunni split or tensions. To pre-empt Yemen from being independent, the Saudis and US have supported sectarianism with the hope of creating a Shia-Sunni divide in Yemen.

Unlike the false narrative, Iran’s alliances in the Middle East are actually not sectarian. All of Tehran’s Palestinian allies are predominately Sunni Muslims while in Iraq and Syria, aside from the governments, Iran supports a cross-section of ethnic and faith groups that include non-Arabs and Christians. This includes the predominately Sunni Muslim Syrian and Iraqi Kurds and the Assyrian Sutoro wing of the Syriac Union Party (SUP) in Syria. In Lebanon, aside from Hezbollah, the Iranians are also allied to Sunni Muslim, Druze, and Christian parties, including Michel Aoun’s Free Patriotic Movement—which is the largest Christian party in Lebanon.

If anyone is engaged in sectarianism as a policy, it is the US and its Arab petro-sheikdom allies. Both the US and Saudi Arabia had engaged the Houthis earlier and used them against the Muslim Brotherhood in Yemen. Additionally, during the Cold War both Washington and the House of Saud tried to use the Yemeni Shiites against the republicans in North Yemen and the People’s Democratic Republic of Yemen in the south. It is when the Houthi movement demonstrated that it was not going to be a client to Washington or Riyadh, that the US and Saudi Arabia became hostile towards it.

Preparing the Invasion of Yemen

On 20 March, suicide bombers attacked the Al-Badr and Al-Hashoosh mosques during asr salat (afternoon prayers). Over three hundred people were killed. Abdul Malik Al-Houthi accused the US and Israel of supporting the terrorist attacks and both the ISIL/ISIS/Daesh and Al-Qaeda in Yemen. Saudi Arabia was also blamed.

While there was silence in Morocco, Jordan, and the Arab petro-sheikhdoms, Iranian Foreign Ministry Spokeswoman Marziyeh Afkham condemned the terrorist attacks in Yemen. In one way or another, Syria, Iraq, Russia, and China all condemned the terrorist attacks in Yemen too. To show Tehran’s support for Yemen, two Iranian cargo planes with humanitarian aid were sent to Yemen and the Iranian Red Crescent Society flew over fifty Yemenis victims of the terrorist attacks to hospitals inside Iran for medical treatment.

The House of Saud’s Failure in Yemen

The Houthis movement is the result of Saudi Arabia’s policies in Yemen and its support for authoritarian rule. In this regard, the Houthis are a reaction to Saudi brutality and the House of Saud’s support for Yemeni authoritarianism. They emerged as part of a rebellion that was led by Hussein Badreddin Al-Houthi in 2004 against the Yemenite government.

The Yemeni and Saudi regimes falsely claimed that the Houthis wanted to establish a Zaidi imamate in Arabia as a means of demonizing the movement. This, however, failed to stop them from getting stronger. The Yemeni military could not handle them in 2009, which resulted in a Saudi intervention, called Operation Scorched Earth, being launched on August 11, 2009.

Saudi Arabia failed to defeat the Houthis when it sent its military into Yemen to fight them in 2009 and 2010. It has failed to force Yemen and the Houthi movement to kneel in obedience. When it demanded that the Houthis and Yemeni transitional government play to the Saudi tune and go to Riyadh for negotiations, it was flatly rejected by the Houthis and Yemen’s Revolutionary Committees, because the negotiations and any Saudi-supported power sharing scheme would really sideline the Houthis and other political forces in Yemen. This is why the Popular Forces Union, Al-Hadi’s own General People’s Congress, and the Baath Party of Yemen have all supported the Houthi position against Saudi Arabia.

Dividing Yemen?

Yemen has seen numerous insurrections, military intervention by the US and Saudi Arabia, and a separatist movement strengthen in its southern governorates. Yemen’s military has become fragmented and tribal tensions exist. There has been increasing talk about it becoming an Arab failed state.

In 2013, the New York Times proposed that Libya, Syria, Iraq, Yemen be split. In the case of Yemen, the proposition was that it be divided into two again. The New York Times said that this could or would happen following a potential referendum in the southern governorates. The New York Times also proposed that «all or part of South Yemen could then become part of Saudi Arabia. Nearly all Saudi commerce is via sea, and direct access to the Arabian Sea would diminish dependence on the Persian Gulf — and fears of Iran’s ability to cut off the Strait of Hormuz».

Saudi Arabia and Al-Hadi are now courting the southern separatists in Yemen, which have the support of about one-tenth of the population. The next option for the US and Saudi Arabia may be to divide Yemen as a means of mitigating the strategic shift from a Houthi victory. This would ensure that Saudi Arabia and the GCC have a southern transit point to the Indian Ocean and that the US would maintain a foothold in the Gulf of Aden.

Click here to read part one of this article.

The Germanwings air catastrophe is now being widely reported as a murder-suicide, based on audio evidence that paints the picture of a co-pilot locking everyone else out of the flight deck while he calmly flew the plane onto a collision course with a mountain.

Our hearts and prayers go out to all those lost in this horrible tragedy, yet we must also ask: Could this have been prevented? Was it caused by mind-altering prescription medications?

UPDATE: It is now confirmed that Andreas Lubitz was taking psychiatric medications. He underwent 18 months of “psychiatric treatment” and mind-altering medications have now been found in his home by law enforcement authorities. Click here for full details.

The Mirror (UK) is now reporting that “Germanwings co-pilot Andreas Lubitz ‘suffered burnout or depression’ a few years ago, a former classmate has claimed.”

The reported behavior of Andrea Lubitz is eerily similar to SSRI-drug-induced school shooters who carried out mass murders in the United States (see detailed list below). In case after case, school shooters have been found to either be on prescription antidepressant drugs or recently taken off them, causing withdrawal side effects.

What U.S. school shootings and the Germanwings mass murder have in common is a dissociation from reality where individuals often think they are “playing a video game” and don’t realize their actions are literally harming other people in the real world.

As the Mirror reports:

The mother of an ex-classmate of Lubitz told how the co-pilot – who deliberately flew the passenger jet into the Alps killing 150 people – had confided in her daughter a few years ago.

She said: “He apparently was suffering from burnout or depression.”

These days, almost everyone who is described as suffering from “depression” is on mind-altering prescription medications which are marketed in a deceptive way that glosses over the murder-suicide risks associated with such drugs. Antidepressants literally alter brain chemistry and cause people to think and act in ways they would not normally exhibit.

It’s not unusual for pilots to fly planes into terrain in flight simulators

Here’s something else most non-pilots don’t realize. Although it’s not a condoned practice, all of us who are trained to operate aircraft have trained at one time or another in flight simulators. And all of us — including myself — have done things in those flight simulators that we would never do in real life. I’ve performed loops and barrel rolls with a Cessna, for example, even though I would never be crazy enough to try such a thing in a real airplane.

Attempting these maneuvers in a simulator has legitimate training value that saves lives in the real world, because these “games” help pilots learn the limits of aircraft power, stability and maneuverability. To know the limits of an aircraft, it’s useful to exceed those limits in the safety of a simulator where you DON’T die…

At the same time, I’ve also seen other pilots in simulators intentionally fly aircraft into mountains as a way to end the current scenario with a surge of excitement. Again, this is undoubtedly frowned upon in the commercial aviation industry, but I’ve seen it happen with my own eyes. I’ve never done this myself, it turns out, but plenty of other pilots have.

In a simulator, of course, it’s perfectly safe to fly your airplane into a mountain. What if Lubitz thought he was in a flight simulator? Could antidepressant drugs have caused him to confuse reality vs. simulation? It’s speculation, of course, but it’s consistent with other SSRI-related mass murders we’ve seen over the years.

FAA bans pilots from flying while on antidepressant drugs

Antidepressant drugs are so dangerous that the FAA bans U.S. pilots from taking them. They are considered a danger to the pilot and passengers. I’m not certain whether antidepressants are illegal for pilots to consume in various European countries, but it wouldn’t be difficult for someone to be acquiring them and taking them covertly, even if it were illegal.

Here’s a list of other mass murderers who were taking antidepressant drugs:

Eric Harris age 17 (first on Zoloft then Luvox) and Dylan Klebold aged 18 (Columbine school shooting in Littleton, Colorado), killed 12 students and 1 teacher, and wounded 23 others, before killing themselves. Klebold’s medical records have never been made available to the public.

• Jeff Weise, age 16, had been prescribed 60 mg/day of Prozac (three times the average starting dose for adults!) when he shot his grandfather, his grandfather’s girlfriend and many fellow students at Red Lake, Minnesota. He then shot himself. 10 dead, 12 wounded.

• Cory Baadsgaard, age 16, Wahluke (Washington state) High School, was on Paxil (which caused him to have hallucinations) when he took a rifle to his high school and held 23 classmates hostage. He has no memory of the event.

• Chris Fetters, age 13, killed his favorite aunt while taking Prozac.

• Christopher Pittman, age 12, murdered both his grandparents while taking Zoloft.

• Mathew Miller, age 13, hung himself in his bedroom closet after taking Zoloft for 6 days.

• Kip Kinkel, age 15, (on Prozac and Ritalin) shot his parents while they slept then went to school and opened fire killing 2 classmates and injuring 22 shortly after beginning Prozac treatment.

• Luke Woodham, age 16 (Prozac) killed his mother and then killed two students, wounding six others.

• A boy in Pocatello, ID (Zoloft) in 1998 had a Zoloft-induced seizure that caused an armed stand off at his school.

• Michael Carneal (Ritalin), age 14, opened fire on students at a high school prayer meeting in West Paducah, Kentucky. Three teenagers were killed, five others were wounded..

• A young man in Huntsville, Alabama (Ritalin) went psychotic chopping up his parents with an ax and also killing one sibling and almost murdering another.

• Andrew Golden, age 11, (Ritalin) and Mitchell Johnson, aged 14, (Ritalin) shot 15 people, killing four students, one teacher, and wounding 10 others.

• TJ Solomon, age 15, (Ritalin) high school student in Conyers, Georgia opened fire on and wounded six of his class mates.

• Rod Mathews, age 14, (Ritalin) beat a classmate to death with a bat.

• James Wilson, age 19, (various psychiatric drugs) from Breenwood, South Carolina, took a .22 caliber revolver into an elementary school killing two young girls, and wounding seven other children and two teachers.

• Elizabeth Bush, age 13, (Paxil) was responsible for a school shooting in Pennsylvania

• Jason Hoffman (Effexor and Celexa) – school shooting in El Cajon, California

• Jarred Viktor, age 15, (Paxil), after five days on Paxil he stabbed his grandmother 61 times.

• Chris Shanahan, age 15 (Paxil) in Rigby, ID who out of the blue killed a woman.

• Jeff Franklin (Prozac and Ritalin), Huntsville, AL, killed his parents as they came home from work using a sledge hammer, hatchet, butcher knife and mechanic’s file, then attacked his younger brothers and sister.

• Neal Furrow (Prozac) in LA Jewish school shooting reported to have been court-ordered to be on Prozac along with several other medications.

• Kevin Rider, age 14, was withdrawing from Prozac when he died from a gunshot wound to his head. Initially it was ruled a suicide, but two years later, the investigation into his death was opened as a possible homicide. The prime suspect, also age 14, had been taking Zoloft and other SSRI antidepressants.

• Alex Kim, age 13, hung himself shortly after his Lexapro prescription had been doubled.

• Diane Routhier was prescribed Welbutrin for gallstone problems. Six days later, after suffering many adverse effects of the drug, she shot herself.

• Billy Willkomm, an accomplished wrestler and a University of Florida student, was prescribed Prozac at the age of 17. His family found him dead of suicide – hanging from a tall ladder at the family’s Gulf Shore Boulevard home in July 2002.

• Kara Jaye Anne Fuller-Otter, age 12, was on Paxil when she hung herself from a hook in her closet. Kara’s parents said “…. the damn doctor wouldn’t take her off it and I asked him to when we went in on the second visit. I told him I thought she was having some sort of reaction to Paxil…”)

• Gareth Christian, Vancouver, age 18, was on Paxil when he committed suicide in 2002, (Gareth’s father could not accept his son’s death and killed himself.)

• Julie Woodward, age 17, was on Zoloft when she hung herself in her family’s detached garage.

• Matthew Miller was 13 when he saw a psychiatrist because he was having difficulty at school. The psychiatrist gave him samples of Zoloft. Seven days later his mother found him dead, hanging by a belt from a laundry hook in his closet.

• Kurt Danysh, age 18, and on Prozac, killed his father with a shotgun. He is now behind prison bars, and writes letters, trying to warn the world that SSRI drugs can kill.

• Woody __, age 37, committed suicide while in his 5th week of taking Zoloft. Shortly before his death his physician suggested doubling the dose of the drug. He had seen his physician only for insomnia. He had never been depressed, nor did he have any history of any mental illness symptoms.

• A boy from Houston, age 10, shot and killed his father after his Prozac dosage was increased.

• Hammad Memon, age 15, shot and killed a fellow middle school student. He had been diagnosed with ADHD and depression and was taking Zoloft and “other drugs for the conditions.”

• Matti Saari, a 22-year-old culinary student, shot and killed 9 students and a teacher, and wounded another student, before killing himself. Saari was taking an SSRI and a benzodiazapine.

• Steven Kazmierczak, age 27, shot and killed five people and wounded 21 others before killing himself in a Northern Illinois University auditorium. According to his girlfriend, he had recently been taking Prozac, Xanax and Ambien. Toxicology results showed that he still had trace amounts of Xanax in his system.

• Finnish gunman Pekka-Eric Auvinen, age 18, had been taking antidepressants before he killed eight people and wounded a dozen more at Jokela High School – then he committed suicide.

• Asa Coon from Cleveland, age 14, shot and wounded four before taking his own life. Court records show Coon was on Trazodone.

• Jon Romano, age 16, on medication for depression, fired a shotgun at a teacher in his New York high school.

Sources for this story include:
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/world-news/germ…

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Germanwings Jetliner Catastrophe: The first Antidepressant drug-induced “Mass Murder of the Skies”?

Following on from last week’s Word Health Organization (WHO) report on glyphosate, which confirmed the world’s most used herbicide probably causes cancer, Sustainable Pulse has discovered documents from 1991 that show how the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) themselves were fully aware of glyphosate’s carcinogenic potential.

GMO Crops

On February 11, 1985 the carcinogenic potential of glyphosate was first considered by an EPA panel, called the Toxicology Branch Ad Hoc Committee. The Committee, in a consensus review dated March 4, 1985, then classified glyphosate as a Class C Carcinogen. A Class C Carcinogen has  ”Suggestive evidence of carcinogenic potential” according to the EPA.

This Class C classification was changed by the EPA six years later to a Class E category which suggests “evidence of non-carcinogenicity for humans”. Mysteriously this change in glyphosate’s classification occurred during the same period that Monsanto was developing its first Roundup-Ready (glyphosate-resistant) GM Crops.

It is now 2015 and WHO has put glyphosate’s cancer causing ability back in the spotlight. The question is who is to blame for this shocking lack of protection for public health? The answer is the U.S. government, who have pushed glyphosate around the World as part of their campaign to support the U.S. biotech industry in their attempt to dominate global agriculture.

The thirty-year glyphosate cancer cover up will go down in history as yet another failure, by the U.S. government, the EPA and worldwide regulators, to put the health of the general public before the need to protect and expand company profits.

Copyright Sustainable Pulse  2015

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Monsanto’s Roundup Herbicide: The WHO Glyphosate Report Ends A Thirty Year Cancer Cover Up

Throughout 2014 and into 2015, Russia has been under relentless assault by the Western elite who have engaged in economic, strategic and information warfare in a bid to force regime change in Moscow, a fact that is well documented by this point. What has been less well documented is the ability of the Russian people to withstand such tremendous economic hardships and full-frontal assaults down through history, whilst still remaining a strong and cohesive people. Russia is a one of the most unique countries on the planet who has responded to sanctions and demonization in a way no other country could have. Overthrowing the Russian government is a far greater challenge to the West than ousting any other regime on earth, a challenge that has as much chance of boomeranging and fracturing the West as it has of being successful. 

In a December 2014 article titled: Viewing Russia from the Inside by George Friedman, the founder and CEO of the geopolitical intelligence firm Stratfor, (which is also known as the shadow CIA), Friedman details Russia’s ability to “endure things that would break other nations” as well as noting that “Russians don’t respond to economic pressure as Westerners do”:

“Russians’ strength is that they can endure things that would break other nations… Therefore, the Russians argued, no one should expect that sanctions, no matter how harsh, would cause Moscow to capitulate…. It would explain why the increased sanctions, plus oil price drops, economic downturns and the rest simply have not caused the erosion of confidence that would be expected. Reliable polling numbers show that President Vladimir Putin is still enormously popular. Whether he remains popular as the decline sets in, and whether the elite being hurt financially are equally sanguine, is another matter. But for me the most important lesson I might have learned in Russia — “might” being the operative term — is that Russians don’t respond to economic pressure as Westerners do.”

The characteristics of the Russian state and the Russian people mean that imposing sanctions on the nation fails to have the effect the aggressor desires. The effectiveness of placing sanctions on Moscow was the topic of an article written by Clifford G. Gaddy and Barry W. Ickes for the Washington based thinktank, the Brookings Institution, titled: Can Sanctions Stop Putin? Gaddy and Ickes write:

“The motivation for sanctions is to impose hardship in order to change behavior. But the likelihood that this would apply to Russia is very weak. History tells us that Russians can endure enormous hardship. Coping and survival are part of Russian history and the Russian national identity. We do not need to go back to dramatic events like the Siege of Leningrad in World War II to understand that Russians can survive difficult situations. Less than two decades ago, during the 1990s, Russia suffered one of the biggest negative economic shocks ever by a country in peacetime. National and household incomes dropped by at least 40 percent. That experience shows that Russia’s households and enterprises can endure significant dislocation thanks to bottom-up, informal mechanisms of mutual help and self-survival.”

The article continues to detail how Russia is much stronger than it was in the 1990’s partly due to Moscow’s low government foreign debt and high foreign exchange reserves.  Gaddy and Ickes also interestingly note in their June 2014 piece that to weaken Russia’s position further would “require drastic reductions [in] the world oil price”, shortly before the US and Saudi Arabia orchestrated the free-fall in world oil prices.

Despite sanctions and the engineered lowering of the oil price designed to weaken Moscow’s resolve, Russia has responded to the economic warfare in a different manner than what was intended by the Western elite. The pressure on the country has worked to galvanize the Russian spirit as oppose to eviscerate it, in what F. William Engdahl dubbed a “renaissance”. History has shown us time and time again the resolve of the Russian people when confronted with hardship. Russia in the 21st century is by no means the exception to the rule.

Steven MacMillan is an independent writer, researcher, geopolitical analyst and editor of  The Analyst Report, especially for the online magazine “New Eastern Outlook”.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Russia “Can Endure Things that would Break other Nations”, Stratfor

The Cop Is On the Take

Government corruption has become rampant:

  • Senior SEC employees spent up to 8 hours a day surfing porn sites instead of cracking down on financial crimes
  • NSA spies pass around homemade sexual videos and pictures they’ve collected from spying on the American people
  • Investigators from the Treasury’s Office of the Inspector General found that some of the regulator’s employees surfed erotic websites, hired prostitutes and accepted gifts from bank executives … instead of actually working to help the economy
  • The Minerals Management Service – the regulator charged with overseeing BP and other oil companies to ensure that oil spills don’t occur – was riddled with “a culture of substance abuse and promiscuity”, which included “sex with industry contacts
  • Agents for the Drug Enforcement Agency had sex parties with prostitutes hired by the drug cartels they were supposed to stop
  • Warmongerers in the U.S. government knowingly and intentionally lied us into a war of aggression in Iraq.  The former head of the Joint Chiefs of Staff – the highest ranking military officer in the United States – said that the Iraq war was “based on a series of lies”. The same is true in Libya and other wars
  • The government-sponsored rating agencies committed massive fraud (and see this)
  • The former chief accountant for the SEC says that Bernanke and Paulson broke the law and should be prosecuted
  • The government knew about mortgage fraud a long time ago. For example, the FBI warned of an “epidemic” of mortgage fraud in 2004. However, the FBI, DOJ and other government agencies then stood down and did nothing. See this and this. For example, the Federal Reserve turned its cheek and allowed massive fraud, and the SEC has repeatedly ignored accounting fraud. Indeed, Alan Greenspan took the position that fraud could never happen
  • Paulson and Bernanke falsely stated that the big banks receiving Tarp money were healthy, when they were not. The Treasury Secretary also falsely told Congress that the bailouts would be used to dispose of toxic assets … but then used the money for something else entirely

The biggest companies own the D.C. politicians.  Indeed, the head of the economics department at George Mason University has pointed out that it is unfair to call politicians “prostitutes”.  They are in fact pimps … selling out the American people for a price.

Government regulators have become so corrupted and “captured” by those they regulate that Americans know that the cop is on the take.   Institutional corruption is killing people’s trust in our government and our institutions.

Indeed, America is officially no longer a democracy or republic … it’s an oligarchy.

But the private sector is no better … for example, the big banks have turned into criminal syndicates.

Liberals and conservatives tend to blame our country’s problems on different factors … but they are all connected.

The real problem is the malignant, symbiotic relationship between big corporations and big government.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Government Corruption Has Become Rampant. America is an Oligarchy. Big Banks are Criminal Syndicates

During a recent ‘On-Air’ news report on Sunday 29 March 2015  from Tikrit, Iraq, Press TV war correspondent Rahshan Saglam was providing a ‘LIVE’ update when an explosion occurred approximately 150 meters from her position.

The camera technician was able to capture the plume of chlorine gas rising above the explosion from the ISIS fired rocket. It appears ISIS was firing on the hospital in Tikrit.

Correspondent Saglam went on to describe the explosion and the fact that she has witnessed the increased usage of chemical weapons by ISIS militants on the Iraqi citizens.

In the video report below, the chemical weapon explosion occurs at approximately 3min. 15sec.’s

Video courtesy of: Rahshan Saglam and Press TV

This is not the first time ISIS has used chemical weapons on innocent civilians.

Just two weeks ago ISIS was discovered having used chemical weapons against Kurdish civilians.

The use of chemical weapons is in direct violation of the Geneva Convention and constitutes a war crime under United Nation protocol. Of which, Iraq is a member state, which permits UN oversight and adherence to the Convention’s resolutions.

The UN must immediately send in investigators and UN Peacekeeping troops to bring a halt to this horrific display of crimes against humanity, investigate these occurrences and bring charges against those responsible.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on US Sponsored ISIS Using Chemical Weapons on Iraqi Civilians (Captured on Video)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Change versus Continuity in the Philippines. Insurgency, “Counter-Terrorism” and the Mamapasano Incident

A broad based coalition of Detroit organizations is fighting for a moratorium on property tax foreclosures where 62,000 homes, apartment buildings, small businesses and lots are slated for seizure by Wayne County. Another 15,000 are also scheduled for the broader county.

In addition, tens of thousands more will revert back to foreclosure since they were not able to keep up with payment plans established last year. The Wayne County Treasurer’s office has encouraged people to come forward and sign agreements to make payments in installments.

However, with declining properties being over assessed by the city government and at least 40 percent of Detroit residents living in poverty, it is highly unlikely that these agreements will be honored.

One woman living with disabilities told this writer on conditions of anonymity that she receives $769 per month in benefits. Nonetheless, in a desperate attempt to stave off homelessness, she signed an agreement with the Treasurer’s office to pay $500 a month until her delinquent property taxes are paid off.

A State of Emergency Should Be Declared

On Thurs. March 19, members of the Moratorium NOW! Coalition, Detroit Eviction Defense and others took the issue to the Wayne County Commissioners meeting demanding an immediate halt to the foreclosures. Over a dozen people testified before the elected legislative body placing a human face on the crisis.

Many households have had delinquent water bills placed on their property taxes. Oftentimes the water bills are in excess of the tax payments that are in arrears.

The following week on Tues. March 24 a rally and press conference was held outside the Coleman A. Young Municipal Center (CAYMAC) prior to an intervention at the City Council meeting where dozens testified about the crisis also calling for a moratorium. During the public comment section of the meeting people came forward to discuss their plight under these repressive tax laws.

Speaking before the City Council were representatives of the Russell Woods Neighborhood Association, Moratorium NOW! Coalition, Detroit Eviction Defense, Michigan Welfare Rights Organization, Detroit People’s Platform, We the People, as well as unaffiliated residents of Detroit seeking some guidance and relief from their elected representatives. Although several City Council members express concern and discussed a resolution they were preparing for the following Mon. March 30, the ultimate decisions lie with the County treasurer and Gov. Rick Snyder.

Moratorium NOW! Coalition members emphasized numerous points spelled out in a fact sheet distributed to all members of the City Council that:

“The funds are sitting in Lansing to stop these foreclosures. According to the Jan. 2015 Helping Michigan’s Hardest Hit Homeowner report, $251 million of the $498 million in federal Helping Hardest Hit Homeowner funds that were provided to the state in 2010 remain unspent.”

This same statement goes on to stress that:

“These funds could be used to pay off delinquent property tax bills for occupied homes and prevent thousands of foreclosures which will further destroy our neighborhoods. Release of these funds will not only stop the destruction of our communities, but go a long way to resolving the financial crisis in Wayne County and Detroit which in large part is a result of declining revenues as a result of tax foreclosures.”

After the Council meeting people marched from City Hall to the Wayne County Treasurer’s Office. The deputy treasurer came out to respond to the demonstration saying they are doing more than anyone else to stop the foreclosures.

Community Outreach Continues

A demonstration organized by the clergy in honor of the 50th anniversary of the Selma to Montgomery March was leafleted on March 28 calling for people to take political action.

Another demonstration was scheduled to take place at the Wayne County treasurer’s office on Tues. March 31, the deadline for the payments on taxes three years behind to be made.

After March 31, if delinquent taxes for 2012 are not paid or arrangements made, residents will lose title to their homes. Within six months, the homes could be sold in an auction where unscrupulous so-called “developers” are given priority over the residents who may seek to repurchase the properties lost to foreclosure.

The scene at the Wayne County Treasurer’s office was chaotic on March 27 as members of Detroit Eviction Defense, the Detroit Active Retirees and Employees Association (DAREA) and Moratorium NOW! Coalition distributed thousands of leaflets to people crowding into the building in a desperate attempt to avoid foreclosure. The following Sun. March 29, members of Moratorium NOW! Coalition and DAREA walked door-to-door leafleting for the March 31 demonstration in the Boston Edison Historic District, one of the hardest hit residential sections of the city where many of the homes are vacant due to mortgage and tax foreclosures.

Plans undertaken by the quasi-governmental agency, the Detroit Land Bank Authority and the Detroit Blight Removal Task Force, headed by billionaire banker and corporate mogul Dan Gilbert, has failed miserably in their program aimed at auctioning or demolishing homes throughout the city. Tens of millions of dollars have already been wasted by the bankers’ initiatives on blight removal, where federal funds which should have been utilized to keep people in their homes are being misappropriated to tear down structures creating more flight and abandonment across key neighborhoods.

Moreover, Wayne County is being threatened with emergency management and bankruptcy later this year, similar to what Detroit went through in 2013-14. Consequently, the massive foreclosures will not prevent a state takeover of the operations of Wayne County.

Under emergency management and bankruptcy in Detroit, billions in healthcare benefits, pensions and public assets were seized by the State of Michigan and turned over to private interests. March 1 represented the first month of pension payment cuts for 32,000 City of Detroit retirees and their families, whose healthcare benefits were severed one year ago, months prior to the approval by the federal court of a post-bankruptcy “plan of adjustment.”

The so-called “plan of adjustment” is already unraveling with retirees facing foreclosures resulting in pension cuts, rising healthcare costs and the failure of corporate-imposed white mayor, Mike Duggan, the first in forty years, to attract the necessary investment that could create jobs and economic opportunities for the African American majority, some 82 percent of the overall population.

Duggan on March 24, the day where hundreds of people rallied and attended the City Council meeting demanding a moratorium on tax foreclosures, attempted a diversionary tactic by announcing a program to provide supposedly “interest-free” loans to city residents up to $25,000 to carry out home repairs. Such a project will not be effective since approximately 37,000 of the 62,000 properties slated for foreclosure are owner-occupied.

Nonetheless, by March 29, Duggan was already crying broke saying that the blight removal funds were drying up and that more money was needed from Washington to tear down vacant homes in Detroit.

In a front page article published in the Sunday Free Press it says:

“with 40,000 structures meeting the Detroit Blight Removal Task Force’s definition of blight — structurally unsound, fire-damaged or open to the elements — and another 38,000 unoccupied, abandoned and likely to become blighted in the future, the city still has a very long way to go. Even if Duggan finds the $400 million he’s looking for, at an estimate of $12,000 per demolition, he could still pull down only 33,000 properties, leaving tens of thousands remaining.”

Obviously, the banks, corporations and their surrogates in government have no real plans to revitalize Detroit. Only a coalition of neighborhood and mass organizations rooted in the working class can create the conditions for the overturning of the bank-led Snyder-Duggan program of fiscal austerity, mass impoverishment and forced removals.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Social Crisis in Detroit: Wayne County Facing Massive Tax Foreclosure Affecting Home Owners and Small Businesses

A study published in the journal Science found government biofuel policies rely on reductions in food consumption to generate greenhouse gas savings. Now, the question is: Whether to seek greenhouse gas reductions from food reductions?

The study looked at three models used by U.S. and European agencies, and found that all three estimate that some of the crops diverted from food to biofuels are not replaced by planting crops elsewhere.

About 20 percent to 50 percent of the net calories diverted to make ethanol are not replaced through the planting of additional crops, the study found.

Shrinking the amount of food that people and livestock eat decreases the amount of carbon dioxide that they breathe out or excrete as waste. The reduction in food available for consumption, rather than any inherent fuel efficiency, drives the decline in carbon dioxide emissions in government models, the researchers found.

“Without reduced food consumption, each of the models would estimate that biofuels generate more emissions than gasoline,” said Timothy Searchinger, first author on the paper and a research scholar at Princeton University’s Woodrow Wilson School of Public and International Affairs and the Program in Science, Technology, and Environmental Policy.

Searchinger’s co-authors were Robert Edwards and Declan Mulligan of the Joint Research Center at the European Commission; Ralph Heimlich of the consulting practice Agricultural Conservation Economics; and Richard Plevin of the University of California-Davis.

The result is that less food is available, and, according to the study, these missing calories are not simply extras enjoyed in resource-rich countries. Instead, when less food is available, prices go up. “The impacts on food consumption result not from a tailored tax on excess consumption but from broad global price increases that will disproportionately affect some of the world’s poor,” Searchinger said.

The emissions reductions from switching from gasoline to ethanol have been debated for several years. Automobiles that run on ethanol emit less carbon dioxide, but this is offset by the fact that making ethanol from corn or wheat requires energy that is usually derived from traditional greenhouse gas-emitting sources, such as natural gas.

Both the models used by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and the California Air Resources Board indicate that ethanol made from corn and wheat generates modestly fewer emissions than gasoline. The fact that these lowered emissions come from reductions in food production is buried in the methodology and not explicitly stated, the study found.

The European Commission’s model found an even greater reduction in emissions. It includes reductions in both quantity and overall food quality due to the replacement of oils and vegetables by corn and wheat, which are of lesser nutritional value. “Without these reductions in food quantity and quality, the [European] model would estimate that wheat ethanol generates 46% higher emissions than gasoline and corn ethanol 68% higher emissions,” Searching said.

The paper recommends that modelers try to show their results more transparently so that policymakers can decide if they wish to seek greenhouse gas reductions from food reductions. “The key lesson is the trade-offs implicit in the models,” Searchinger said.

Story Source:

The story is based on Materials provided by Princeton University.

Journal Reference:

T. Searchinger, R. Edwards, D. Mulligan, R. Heimlich, R. Plevin. Do biofuel policies seek to cut emissions by cutting food? Science, 2015; 347 (6229): 1420 DOI: 10.1126/science.1261221

Source:

Princeton University. “Do biofuel policies seek to cut emissions by cutting food?.” ScienceDaily. ScienceDaily, 27 March 2015. www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2015/03/150327201710.htm 

Copyright Sciencemag.org 2015

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on The Development of Biofuel Disrupts Agriculture, Results in “Reductions in Food Consumption”

A decade ago the late great comedian George Carlin saw what America had turned into:

 Politicians are put there to give you the idea that you have freedom of choice. You don’t. You have no choice. You have owners. They own you. They own everything. They own all the important land. They own and control the corporations. They’ve long since bought and paid for the Senate, the Congress, the state houses, the city halls. They got the judges in their back pockets and they own all the big media companies, so they control just about all of the news and information you get to hear. They got you by the balls. They spend billions of dollars every year lobbying. Lobbying to get what they want. Well, we know what they want – they want more for themselves and less for everybody else. But I’ll tell you what they don’t want – they don’t want well-informed, well-educated people capable of critical thinking… They want obedient workers, people who are just smart enough to run the machines and do the paperwork. And just dumb enough to passively accept all these increasingly shittier jobs with the lower pay, the longer hours, the reduced benefits, the end of overtime and vanishing pension that disappears the minute you go to collect it. And now they’re coming for your Social Security money. They want your fuckin’ retirement money. They want it back so they can give it to their criminal friends on Wall Street. And you know something? They’ll get it. They’ll get it all from you sooner or later ’cause they own this fuckin’ place. It’s a big club and you ain’t in it. You and I are not in the big club…

The table is tilted folks. The game is rigged and nobody seems to notice… Nobody seems to care. That’s what the owners count on. They don’t give a fuck about you. They don’t care about you at all! The fact that Americans will probably remain willfully ignorant of the big red, white and blue dick that’s being jammed up their assholes every day, because the owners of this country know the truth… It’s called the American Dream, ’cause you have to be asleep to believe it.

Ten years later, the veracity of Carlin’s words rings truer than ever. Next year the richest 1% of humans on this planet will own more wealth than the rest of us 99% earth inhabitants combined. And in the ensuing years since Carlin uttered those words, the oligarchic “owners” of this nation care even less about us. Last year a joint Princeton-Northwestern study confirmed Carlin’s blunt assertion, making it official – the United States government is an oligarchy. Our elected representatives serve the interests of the controlling elite that years ago Carlin astutely pointed out owns the government, the Fortune 500 transnational corporations, us and virtually the entire world.

Moreover, further evidence corroborating Carlin’s contention that US citizens are being systematically dumbed down is the fact that every year Americans are testing lower in IQ intelligence.  Results from a recent adult competency test given to young people aged 20-34 in 22 different developed nations show that the US came in dead last in both tech proficiency and numeracy and just two from the bottom in literacy. High school graduates in Finland, Japan and the Netherlands equaled the test performance of America’s college graduates. Sadly, the nation once known for its “Yankee ingenuity” that led the world in innovation and technology is lagging further behind the modern world that’s long since caught up and passed us.

How did America get so dumbed down as to always be the last ones to know? In large part Carlin already answered this question in passing. With just six oligarchs owning and controlling the biggest media corporations in the world, already co-opted and merged with the US crime syndicate government in power, controllers of what gets disseminated to the masses as news and information in effect controls how people are perceiving and reacting to the world around them. And as long as the continuous propaganda brainwash keeps bombarding the masses on a daily 24/7 basis with nonstop lies and disinformation, Americans will only continue to be kept in the dark as the last to know what’s really going on. The oligarchs are simply utilizing what’s worked so well for them in the past – in the words of Nazi Minister of Propaganda Joseph Goebbels:

If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it. The lie can be maintained only for such time as the State can shield the people from the political, economic and/or military consequences of the lie. It thus becomes vitally important for the State to use all of its powers to repress dissent, for the truth is the mortal enemy of the lie, and thus by extension, the truth is the greatest enemy of the State… The most brilliant propaganda technique will yield no success unless one fundamental principle is borne in mind constantly – it must confine itself to a few points and repeat them over and over.

No more is that last statement true than during this last year when Putin has been demonized by Washington and Western Mainstream Media. The repeated lies against Putin completely overlook the all too obvious fact that it was the US that broke international law [again], this time in Ukraine pumping $5 billion in NGO’s to hire neo-Nazi thugs into committing street violence to overthrow another democratically elected government. Just as the US in its subversive opportunistic power grab was about to strategically seize control over the Black Sea Russian naval base in Sebastopol, Crimea, right after the Crimean population as ethnic Russians who for centuries were part of Russia voted overwhelmingly to be annexed by Russia, Putin beat US Empire to the punch and defensively moved his troops in place to protect Crimean citizens and his naval base. Yet the lies being repeated ad nauseam by the US and MSM that Putin is the aggressor refusing to comply with international law accompanied by more false flag lies (i.e., Putin shot down MH17 and that Putin sent Russian soldiers into Ukraine) have effectively brainwashed most Americans into believing Putin is once again our cold war enemy who needs to be stopped with yet more war.

Thankfully the US rush to war in Ukraine is not deterring European nations like Germany and France from trying to pursue a peaceful resolution through negotiation and diplomacy in Ukraine. They depend too much on Putin’s gas and oil and don’t want potential World War III killing their soldiers fighting in their own backyard.

Recently Europe and Australia are also breaking ranks from US Empire’s dominance economically by seeking to become members of China’s Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank. They clearly see the writing on the wall that China is fast replacing the United States soon emerging as the number one economic power. The age of US global hegemony as the sole global superpower bullying the rest of the world into submission and defeat is gradually coming to an end. The United States no longer is calling all the shots in the world. Its longtime strongest allies Europe, Australia and Japan are not so willing to act as US Empire puppets anymore. Long recognizing that the militarized US foreign policy destabilizing and impoverishing the Third World has imperialistically caused so much global destruction producing only failed state after failed state, much of the world sees the US has made the planet more armed and dangerous than ever before in human history. As such, in the eyes of much of the world’s nations, America has lost considerable respect, global influence and power.

It’s time for Americans to realize this humbling truth. The US Empire has had its full ride of conquering glory and domination, and now is experiencing the downswing of its historical decline. We Americans need to take a hard look at ourselves in the mirror, beginning with 9/11 as the most heinous false flag in US history. The evidence exposing 9/11 as an inside job is just too much in our face to continue to ignore. Albert Einstein once said, “Blind belief in authority is the greatest enemy of truth.” Denial is a self-lie that will only expedite more mass killing. The overwhelming pile of facts are now just too plainly visible to continue believing Washington’s false narrative.

The freefall of the towers that violates all laws of physics alone disprove the official whitewash. Then the BBC announcing Building 7’s fall 20 minutes prior to the event proves insider foreknowledge. Nano-thermite residue left in the rubble and multiple eyewitness testimony hearing the series of explosions prior to the freefall further showing the buildings did not come down from planes flying into the upper floors of the towers. Identification of the 19 suspects just three days after the attack after a mere day after 9/11 miraculously finding an unblemished, intact passportbelonging to the lead terrorist a couple blocks from the steel and molten ashes is simply too unbelievable to be taken seriously as the truth. At least a half dozen of the Saudi nationals blamed as the terrorist stooges have shown up alive and several are even suing the US government.

George H. W. Bush senior meeting with Osama bin Laden’s brother in DC at the same time the 9/11 attacks were going down and then the bin Ladens riding in the only plane allowed to fly in the sky afterwards. The (missile-sized) hole ripped into the Pentagon being too small to be caused by the alleged commercial airliner. The highly questionable, even unbelievable odds that the entire US air defense support system would take the day off on 9/11 to be conveniently diverted to undergoing training exercises that effectively prevented the most sophisticated and powerful military in the world from defending the nation from outside attack seems even more implausible. The Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff was flown out of the country on 9/11 and then immediately replaced by his deputy who on 9/11 was the “acting Chairman.” The evidence of various advance insider trading just prior to 9/11 and the millions made from that criminal enterprise. The WTC leaseholder Larry Silverstein cashing in huge dividends from his insurance policy. The Silverstein uttered phrase “pull it” commonly used in building demolition as the signal to detonate pre-planted explosives.

The CIA assistance given the “terrorists” to ensure they were trained at flight schools in Florida, California and Arizona and then the FBI purposely sitting on knowledge of this suspicious red-alert activity. A US State Department official in Saudi Arabia claiming the CIA furnished the Saudi “terrorists” with passports for free passage to and from the US. Incriminating fingerprints of both Saudi intelligence and Israeli Mossad’s active participation in both the planning and executing. The Israeli government’s collusion with the neocons in the Bush regime (many of whom hold dual Israeli-US citizenship) chiefly responsible for killing 3000 of its own US citizens in order to use the 9/11 false flag to commit further crimes against humanity by creating their forever “war on terror” and then invading (based on propaganda WMD lies) and occupying for over a decade while destroying the nations of Iraq and Afghanistan. The Wesley Clarke revelation revealing the neocon pre-9/11 plan to take down 7 sovereign nations in the Middle East and Africa before it happened. And after all this demonically-driven devastation and despair wrought on the Middle East and spreading to the entire planet, those same players responsible for committing 9/11 are still walking freely as card carrying elitists protected by the same neocon crime syndicate still in power.

The psychology of denial that has so many Americans still unwilling to face the truth of course gets reinforced daily by the constant barrage of MSM-government lies and propaganda. Because the vast majority of Americans love the country they grew up in, to realize that their homeland they’ve always cherished and loved turns out to be a villainous Empire that’s the enemy of the entire world, betraying and enslaving its own people and beyond, sacrificing Americans’ well-being for global hegemony and full spectrum dominance is a very hard and bitter pill to have to swallow. It’s very similar to finding out your own father is a mass murderer.

Denial can understandably become the automatic reflexive reaction and prime defense mechanism used to squelch the cognitive dissonance (inner conflict when reality clashes with world-view) that arises when fathoming and learning how our own government can murder its own expendable citizens for its own sinister purposes. Facing this grim reality becomes so anxiety-provoking and so destabilizing to one’s world-view, it simply cannot be believed. So refusing to accept that our leaders can be capable of such evildoing becomes their blinded response by which millions of Americans maintain status quo of living their daily lives. Of course the diabolical system has them additionally addicted, distracted and bamboozled by their infinite means of escapism – dehumanizing toy gadgetry, video games, the Kardashians’ latest antics, or the hype of big money sports like March madness instead of heeding the very real March madness that has us robotically marching off doomsday cliff straight into world war, most Americans are either too preoccupied, too afraid or too stressed out just trying to survive to even notice.

After all, once one accepts the dirty lowdown truth, one is then forced into taking action in good conscience to do something about it. It’s a lot easier to lazily succumb to the feds’ brainwashing strategy of dismissing anyone who believes 9/11 was an inside job as a mere “conspiracy theorist” rather than look at the mountains of hard evidence. Those of us who realize the US government is constantly lying to us in its efforts to keep us dumbed down, controlled and obedient are not so easily dumbed down, controlled and obedient despite risking increasing negative consequences for speaking out against the oppressive government. Though we are the true patriots and many Washington insiders are the true traitors, as courageous dissidents for the sake of humanity we must resist and oppose the fascist totalitarian US government now targeting us as potential homegrown terrorists.

Because we refuse to accept the federal crime syndicate’s official dogma of lies and propaganda, and oppose its desecration of our civil liberties guaranteed us before 9/11 by our Constitution, we are now on growing watch lists that could easily turn into FEMA camp roundup lists once Obama declares martial law in America. As law-abiding citizens who know and accept the truth, we must hold the criminals accountable for betraying the very Constitution that they all swore oaths to protect and uphold. It’s a federal crime to violate their oaths while in office and treason is a high crime punishable up to death according to 18 US Code 2381:

Whoever, owing allegiance to the United States, levies war against them or adheres to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort within the United States or elsewhere, is guilty of treason and shall suffer death, or shall be imprisoned not less than five years and fined under this title but not less than $10,000; and shall be incapable of holding any office under the United States.

According to the above cited law, those criminals in Washington who are waging war against their own people now are guilty of treason giving the people plenty of reason for arresting and putting them on trial.

Every week we’re seeing ominous signs that the US dollar-petrodollar will soon be dropped as the standard international currency. As that ongoing process further erodes the dollar, the US economy could soon collapse. The doom and gloom warnings of the coming crash abound. Though this inevitable reality is more than probable, it may well produce the next false flag that provides the excuse Obama will use to implement martial law in America even during peacetime. Of course under the pretense of national emergency, Obama has executive order rights to shut down all internet access and activity, rendering us citizens even more susceptible to the abuses of unfolding tyranny.

Meanwhile the mounting violence in Yemen after the US handed over more than a half billion dollars’ worth of war making machinery to another supposed enemy, and now with both Saudi and Israeli air strikes bombing Yemen against the alleged Iranian-backed Houthi Shiite rebels that overthrew the US puppet government two months ago, another US proxy war on the Arabian peninsula is underway further destabilizing the region. Similar to creating, arming and funding al Qaeda/ISIS for decades, as backers of al Qaeda in Yemen the US has set up yet another hotspot war against yet more Moslems. The death and destruction just continue.

At the same time, recently reelected war criminal Netanyahu is mouthing his typical crying foul chant with the “dangerous accord with Iran worse than Israel feared” over the prospect of the US coalition team negotiating an amicable treaty over Iran’s nuclear status as the March 31st deadline fast approaches. Despite all evidence in recent years pointing to Iran not developing nuclear weapons, Israel, Saudi Arabia and US Empire acting as the axis-of-evil is using the unraveling civil war now raging in Yemen to conveniently blame Iran for causing yet more insidious and relentless efforts to initiate war against Iran. Between sending NATO and heavy arms into Ukraine and this latest geopolitical chessboard aggression in Yemen, the evil crime syndicate representing the psychopathic sub-human species of Western oligarchs currently losing their power appears determined to instigate World War III.

What we are now witnessing in 2015 are the American Empire’s lies finally catching up to its Western oligarch puppet masters. The Western central banking cabal that runs the crime syndicate governments of the US-EU-NATO-Israel-Saudi axis-of-evil is all about promoting perpetual war. It has the earth drowning and suffocating in a cesspool of radiated ocean and poisoned freshwater, Monsanto saturated soil producing GMO-disease causing, chemical foods devoid of all nutrition, and increasingly unbreathable megalopolis air across the planet. For centuries it’s perpetrated a morally corrosive, predatory, unsustainable, broken economic and political system driven by the profit-greed motive that has enslaved the entire global population in irreversible debt. The race for World War III that this evil axis of power currently has the planet freefalling towards is out of sheer desperate diabolical madness in the grips of losing its absolute power. It’s finally time that the American citizens wake up from this post-apocalyptic Orwellian nightmare that’s befallen us before the oligarchs’ eugenics soft- and hard-kill final solution exterminates 13 out of 14 of us currently living and breathing on this earth.

The same propaganda tools that have been controlling the people for centuries are still being successfully used against us. Because Americans have been so conditioned into accepting lies as the truth, false flags have effectively begun every war the US has fought 217 out of its 239 years in existence. All these years later, it’s time for the misinformed, misled American population to finally smarten up once and for all and recognize that all life on planet earth is in very serious and grave danger now. Most of the world’s known this tragic reality for a long time as victims of the US Empire’s brutality. The very future survival of the human species hangs in the balance. It depends on us throwing off the shackles of ignorance that’s enslaved us, and as informed, committed, mindful and empowered citizens of the world to come together in solidarity to advance human evolution rather than allow it to be extinguished by a handful of criminal killer psychopaths.

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

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Breaking through Americans’ Dumbed Down Layers of Deception and Denial

The United States has no genuine interest in accountability or reconciliation in Sri Lanka, but is seeking a strategic military base in Asia, says Tamara Manimekhalai Kunanayakam, onetime Sri Lanka’s Permanent Representative to the United Nations Office at Geneva and Sri Lanka’s Ambassador to Holy See.

In a wide ranging interview with Ceylon Today, Kunanayakam said, the US would demand more concessions using the resolution as a tool and charged the UN Human Rights Commissioner  as a ‘US instrument’  serving Washington’s interests.

Kunanayakam also alleged the resolution was aimed at demonstrating Sri Lanka’s alleged failures and to portray Sri Lanka as a failed State. Humanitarian Intervention under “Responsibility to Protect” (R2P) is invoked.  Washington’s intent is to eventually create a US military hub in Sri Lanka.

Excerpts from the interview:

By Dilrukshi Handunnetti

Q: What could be the ramifications of the US-sponsored resolution on Sri Lanka being adopted by the UNHRC?

A: We need to consider the contents of the resolution. It clearly confers powers on the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights to investigate, without mentioning an ‘international’ investigation. But, the Office of the High Commissioner is international and so the reference is to an international investigation.

It also gives three clear mandates. First is to assess progress towards accountability and reconciliation and a second – stemming from the previous resolution – to monitor national processes. The third and the new inclusion is a mandate to investigate alleged violations of human rights and related crimes.

The resolution is clear on the High Commissioner’s new mandate – to conduct an international investigation here. It is not important whether it is by a commission of inquiry or one carried out by the High Commissioner. But the latter will be worse than the former. The UNHRC consists of three members and there could be some balanced position-taking as they would reflect at least three regional perspectives.

But, the High Commissioner is an instrument of the United States. The mechanism that is to be introduced will be worse than collective UNHRC action. It would not be surprising to find the forthcoming report to be a Washington draft.

The resolution also focuses on demonstrating systemic state failure in Sri Lanka. The entire text shows Sri Lanka as a failed State, adding that the State has failed to assume responsibility for the protection of religious and ethnic minorities, to implement recommendations on domestic mechanisms, highlights consistent failure of national mechanisms including the judiciary in addressing accountability issues, failure to establish credible investigative mechanisms to the past and present violations and to hold perpetrators accountable to end impunity. The text shows continued broad range of violations, not just in the past. Finally, it emphasizes on the failure of duty to co-operate with the UN mechanism, including implementation of the High Commissioner’s recommendations.

It reiterates a need for a comprehensive approach to restore confidence in the institutions of the State. The entire resolution seeks to demonstrate Sri Lanka as a failed State. This is part of the Right to Protect (R2P) logic.

Q: R2P in principle requires State parties to protect their people. How does it contribute to showcasing Sri Lanka as a failed State?

A: The UN Secretary General’s August 2013 report on R2P is clear that when a government fails to protect its own citizens, an external body could replace the functions of that government. This is what the High Commissioner’s Office is seeking to do – substitute itself for the government.
It is some kind of tutelage, the state of placing a country under the direction of a superior mechanism. Tutelage is clearly included in the Secretary General’s report, which calls for revisiting the UN trustee system to make it more current.

Many countries were under colonial powers and their domination. The idea conveyed now is that these States were unable to take care of themselves and were immature so they need another institution to govern until they become fully dependent. The new call is to review this system and make it relevant.

This idea is espoused by US Ambassador Edward Marks, who was once the Deputy Head of Mission in Colombo and is a senior adviser to various military commands in the US. He emphasizes on the need for an international system of tutelage linked to the third pillar of R2P to exercise governmental authority over failed States as these States create enormous dangers for a large number of people. In his paper, he argues: ‘Transition from colonial rule to economic and political independence in the nation State model may prove too difficult for fragile multi-ethnic countries.’

Sri Lanka is right in the middle of his definition as a ‘fragile multi-ethnic society.’ We are moving towards a tutelage system when the important functions of State institutions can be taken over by the High Commissioner.

Q: What are the possibilities of sanctions being imposed on Sri Lanka?

A: There is no necessity for Security Council approval to impose unilateral sanctions. If the US were to push such a position, it would mean, the US requiring more concessions from us.

The concessions, I feel, would be more of a military character. They would want a foothold in a strategic location. The US will soon evacuate Afghanistan and would require a regional military base. Maldives has refused. They are now exploring the Sri Lankan possibility and would exert pressure to force us to concede. They don’t want human rights or rights for the Tamils, but a foothold here.

It is also part of President Barak Obama’s Pivot to Asia Policy 2012, which seeks to contain China and prevent a hegemonic alliance between China and India. The US wants its access and domination in the region guaranteed. This is an emerging new region and an emerging power, but though wanting a foothold, they are still without it.

Seeking domination over Sri Lanka, the US might eventually seek to partition the country. If they cannot control a regime, they would seek its replacement. The US desires a regime they can have full confidence in and full control over.

Q: As in Afghanistan?

A: Yes. But unlike there, here the idea may be partition. If we don’t act and take our future into our own hands by internal democratic transformation through fundamental changes, they will seek control.

It is very clear that they will control Eelam. All the Eelam forces are out there – in the West, the UK, Norway and elsewhere. The US can bring these groups under their control as in South Sudan. They can then control that part and might even insist on a referendum.

Ultimately, it won’t help India either. But Sri Lanka is not playing her cards too well. We have isolated ourselves and are losing support among friends. We have lost India’s support and other allies are turning aloof.

Q: What could avert Sri Lanka from being internationally isolated in the long run and how can the island survive the UNHRC resolution?

A: There is no miracle at this stage and no magic wand. The resolution is here and we have to deal with it. There is no quick fix here.

What is disturbing is that we have lost our credibility. We therefore, need long and medium-term genuine efforts to achieve unity within and unearth the Sri Lankan identity. We need to find a solution that accords equal status to the minorities and ensure democratic transformation. We must eliminate privileges for a single group to create such equality.

The Executive Presidency poses serious problems. It creates problems in devolving power not just to the Tamil-dominant areas, but everywhere. It is not a problem affecting minorities alone. Our political parties are dysfunctional and so is our Parliament. We should review the presidential system and perhaps call for a national conference to address all connected issues, including a new Constitution, that fully embraces the values of a republic. Fundamental changes in the political institutions are necessary.

We also should reinvent economic and social policies that foster equality. To create a genuinely independent foreign policy, there should be a genuinely independent economic policy. We should focus on our domestic economy and address our external dependence. We should not only rely on Europe and North American markets for our trade. In the next decade, Africa will become a major power. There are merging powers such as Brazil, India and South Africa. If we focus on one region for trade, an independent foreign policy also becomes unachievable.

I am of the view that Sri Lanka has some military deal with the US. We are going to be dependent on them and we will have to keep making concessions. The ruling elite will try to survive by making every possible concession, they can make and might even agree on partition.

Q: Isn’t it a question of sound negotiations?

A: It should be, but Sri Lanka negotiates from a position of weakness. We don’t have the full backing within or outside the country. We work bilaterally as weak countries do. The US is a dominant global power. If we are negating bilaterally, we are bound to lose. We should negotiate within a multilateral framework, which will give us the strength to push things through.

Q: Where do you think we have failed the most in terms of negotiations?

A: Look at the concession already made. In 2007, when Louise Arbour was the High Commissioner, only it was first proposed to introduce a monitoring mission to Sri Lanka. We defeated that move. But in 2013, monitoring by the High Commissioner has been incorporated into the UNHRC resolution. In 2013, they finally got what they wanted.

Today, we have accepted monitoring as the lesser evil. It is portrayed as the mere monitoring of domestic processes and highlights the investigating mechanism as a potential concern. But, tomorrow and thereafter, we will accept international investigations, as long as there are no sanctions. One day, we might accept sanctions and even partition, claiming it is better than bombs falling on our heads – or as opposed to military interventions.

It is the logic that the government is adopting in its negotiations that emboldens Washington. We are constantly pushed to a corner to accept what appears as the lesser evil and we continue to made concessions. They have internationally isolated us as part of this process.
Sri Lanka is being gradually isolated and during this session, what the Americans would want to see is not whether the resolution is won or not. They would count the votes in favour and the abstentions. That is to take a count on how far they could go in isolating Sri Lanka.

Q: Does the US seek a regime change through the pursuit of an isolation policy? Is it part of the agenda?

A: No. What they want is a government in place which they can control. Regime change is only a means to achieving something else and that something else is a foothold here. So, it is not regime change for the sake of regime change.

For example, if a government fully accepts the US conditions and does what they want, there won’t be a need to influence a regime change. R2P is only a means to achieving that. It only legitimizes interventions from the outside. It is a new re-colonization tool.

Q: You said Sri Lanka is not paying her cards well and India in particular is unhappy with the neighbour. How do you see India voting and its overall influence on the resolution?

A: I believe Sri Lanka needs to mend its bilateral relations with India. It is extremely important.

But, India has little choice, but to support the resolution. One can clearly identify India’s hands in the draft. There is a call to strengthen the Northern Provincial Council (NPC) and the implementation of the 13th Amendment. Anything to do with devolution – that’s India writing it.

India’s concerns are twofold. It is caught in a bind. There is Tamil Nadu pushing the separatist argument and here, India needs to play the role US wants India to play. It is election time and the Centre has to take that into account.

On the other hand, India is extremely concerned about a US foothold in the region. India does not want that. They don’t want to go too far, but they also want to appease the Tamil Nadu voters. Probably in the long-term, they feel the answer to the problem is significant power devolution. As a regional power, they also want to see agreements reached with them respected.

If extremist positions in Tamil Nadu can be quelled, as well as Sri Lanka Tamil separatist forces, the situation would be very different. Delhi will not want partition ever because it can provoke separatist forces within India. They are genuine about wanting devolution here.

Take the Provincial Council system. Nobody seems to be happy with it. There is no money and little authority. There are lots of problems with it and that is probably what India wants Sri Lanka to address.

We have this anti-Indian stance here. It only helps the American cause because we insist that India is the problem. The US is very happy with that. All those who support the US approach may adopt an anti- India line. It consolidates the US position.

When I was in office during 2011 and July 2012, we enjoyed India’s complete support up until two days before the final vote. Indians would go with me everywhere, attend meetings and showed considerable solidarity in word and action. It was made very clear that they would not abandon Sri Lanka.

During bilaterals, they told us not to make it public that they would support us due to the sensitivities in Tamil Nadu. A couple of hours after the final bilateral discussion, our head of the delegation issued a public statement that India fully backed Sri Lanka. Within a matter of hours, Tamil Nadu was up in arms. Lok Sabha had adjourned. Delhi’s Charge d’Affairs called me and said: “Ask those guys in the delegation that they should know where they stand. Do they want to re-impose US imperialist presence in the region or do they want to control the destiny of the country and defend Sri Lanka’s national interest?” I immediately conveyed the message to the President and the Foreign Ministry.

Over dinner, it was clearly conveyed to us that it was over. The Indian Ambassador arrived and said:

“Up until a member of your delegation made a public statement, creating a problem for the Central Government, we were to support Sri Lanka. But now it has moved from the control of the External Affairs Ministry directly to the Prime Minister. It has become a political issue not a matter of foreign policy. India has a principled position and we do not vote in favour of country- specific resolutions. This has now become a political issue due to the public statement made.”

How India responds to Sri Lanka now is something we did to ourselves. I don’t know why we did it. I think there are forces that work against the interests of the country. That issue had not been resolved yet. That delegation member is still there.

Q: Reference is made in the resolution to the LLRC’s implementation. It acknowledges success in several areas, but also refers to areas where progress is less than satisfactory. To move forward as well as garner international support in the future, what critical areas in the LLRC should be urgently addressed, in your opinion?

A: I said this in 2012 and I reiterate that the LLRC is important for Sri Lanka. We should move ahead with its implementation.

But it is not the main reason why the US moved the resolution. Whether the resolution is passed or not or whether the LLRC recommendations are implemented or not, the US position is unlikely to change.

In the draft resolution, there is a shift to the continued violations with references being made to Weliweriya incident and so on, to demonstrate that Sri Lanka has failed to deal with perpetrators and to remain accountable. It is an argument that supports the call to identify Sri Lanka as a failed State.

Building up on the failed State argument, it shows that another 2009 situation may arise in the future and that should be prevented. So it has shifted from the past to present and predict a future in which the High Commissioner’s Office is likely to be deeply interested.

LLRC is necessary for the island to unify our people. Sooner we do that the better for us. But it is not going to change the position of the world or that of the US. What they are looking for is accountability not reconciliation, which is the third pillar of R2P.

That is where we have a problem and that where they will focus on. We should simply go ahead and implement it, because it is important for us, not to appease the international community or to defeat a US-sponsored resolution. There are countries still grappling with reconciliation and accountability issues such as South Africa and Latin American nations. But no, they do not browbeat them because it is not their current interest.

They have strategic interest in entering this region and Asia has become the centre of action for the US. We should remove any pretext they have and demonstrate our willingness to work with the rest of the world and stand by countries that value our support.

We need long-term co-operation from others such as Africa, Latin America and Asia. It depends on the relationships we build with them. There should be economic and technological exchange. We need to stand by the developing countries and defend multilateralism against US unilateralism. That will help us internationally and not this political patchwork within Sri Lanka.

Take our mistakes. Iran is a country that supports us but is very upset with us. To appease the US, we stopped buying petrol from Iran when US imposed unilateral sanctions.

Iran was ready to sell fuel on rupees not US$. We don’t stand by these countries against unilateralism and we lack a foreign policy that is independent and fair.

Copyright Ceylon Today, 2015

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on US Seeks to Eventually Partition Sri Lanka. Humanitarian R2P Intervention Contemplated

Geopolítica da guerra dos EUA no Iêmen e Novo Front contra o Irã

March 30th, 2015 by Mahdi Darius Nazemroaya

Os EUA e o reino da Arábia Saudita ficaram muito ansiosos quando o movimento iemenita dos houthis, ou Ansarallah (ar. “pilares de Deus”) conquistou o controle sobre a capital do Iêmen, Sanaa/Sana, em setembro de 2014. O presidente do Iêmen Abdrabbuh Manṣour Al-Hadi, apoiado pelos EUA, foi humilhantemente forçado a dividir o poder com os houthis e a coalizão de tribos do norte do Iêmen que haviam ajudado os houthis a tomar Sana. Al-Hadi declarou que haveria negociações para a formação de um governo de unidade nacional do Iêmen, e seus aliados – EUA e Arábia Saudita tentaram usar um novo diálogo nacional e mediaram conversações, no esforço para cooptar e pacificar os houthis.

A verdade foi virada de pernas para o ar, em tudo que tenha a ver com a guerra no Iêmen. A guerra e a derrubada do presidente Abdrabbuh Manṣour Al-Hadi no Iêmen não são efeito de algum “golpe houthi” que tivesse acontecido no Iêmen. É o contrário disso: Al-Hadi foi derrubado porque ele tentou um golpe, apoiado por sauditas e EUA, para escapar das regras de partilha do poder que o presidente havia assinado; e para devolver o Iêmen à regra autoritária de antes. A derrubada do presidente Al-Hadi pelos houthis e seus aliados políticos foi reação não prevista à tentativa de golpe, para voltar ao poder autoritário de antes, empreendida por Al-Hadi com apoio e planejamento de Washington e da Casa de Saud.

Os houthis e seus aliados representam como uma “fatia” exemplar da diversificada sociedade iemenita e da maioria dos iemenitas. A aliança doméstica dos houthis contra o presidente Al-Hadi inclui muçulmanos xiitas e também muçulmanos sunitas. Os EUA e a Casa de Saud jamais supuseram que os houthis insistiriam em fazer valer os acordos firmados com o governo, a ponto de derrubar o presidente que se recusava a honrar aqueles acordos, mas a verdade é que essa reação estava em preparação há uma década.

Com a Casa de Saud, Al-Hadi, já desde antes de tornar-se presidente, envolveu-se na perseguição aos houthis e na manipulação da política tribal no Iêmen. Quando se tornou presidente, fincou os pés e pôs-se a trabalhar contra a implementação de tudo que fora fixado consensualmente nas negociações do Diálogo Nacional do Iêmen, realizado depois que Ali Abdullah Saleh foi obrigado a deixar o poder em 2011.

Golpe ou contragolpe: o que realmente aconteceu no Iêmen?

Primeiro, quando tomaram a capital Sana no final de 2014, os houthis rejeitaram as propostas de Al-Hadi e suas novas ofertas para um acordo formal de partilha do poder, acusando Al-Hadi de ser homem sem moral que estava, de fato, renegando tudo que se comprometera a fazer quando assinara os acordos de partilha do poder. Naquele momento, a atitude submissa e subalterna do presidente Al-Hadi frente a Washington e à Casa de Saud já o havia tornado terrivelmente impopular no Iêmen, detestado pela maioria da população. Dois meses depois, dia 8/11/2014, o próprio partido do presidente Al-Hadi (Congresso Geral Iemenita do Povo), também já o destituíra do posto de líder do partido.

Os houthis chegaram a prender o presidente Al-Hadi e, dia 20/1/2015, tomaram o palácio presidencial e outros prédios do governo. Com apoio popular, cerca de duas semanas adiante, dia 6/2/2015, os houthis constituíram formalmente um governo iemenita de transição. Al-Hadi foi obrigado a renunciar. Dia 26/2/2015, em declaração oficial, os houthis denunciaram que os EUA e a Arábia Saudita preparavam-se para atacar e devastar o Iêmen.

A deposição de Al-Hadi foi duro golpe contra a política exterior dos EUA. A tal ponto que resultou em operação militar de emergência da CIA e do Pentágono, forçados a retirar do Iêmen, às pressas, todo o seu pessoal militar e de inteligência.

Los Angeles Times noticiou dia 25/3/2015, citando funcionários dos EUA, que os houthis haviam confiscado grande quantidade de documentos secretos quando tomaram o prédio do Gabinete de Segurança Nacional do Iêmen, que trabalhava em íntima coordenação com a CIA, documentos que comprometiam as operações de Washington no Iêmen.

Al-Hadi fugiu da capital Sana para Aden, dia 21/2/2015 e dia 7/3/2015 declarou Aden capital do Iêmen. EUA, França, Turquia e seus mais íntimos aliados europeus fecharam suas embaixadas. Pouco depois, em movimento que provavelmente foi coordenado com os EUA, a Arábia Saudita, o Kuwait, o  Bahrain, o Qatar e os Emirados Árabes Unidos reabriram as respectivas embaixadas, já em Aden. Al-Hadi cancelou sua carta de renúncia à presidência e declarou que estava formando um novo governo no exílio.

Os houthis e respectivos aliados políticos recusaram-se a conceder as exigências de EUA e Arábia Saudita, que estavam sendo articuladas através de Al-Hadi em Aden, com a participação de uma Riad cada dia mais histérica. Resultado, o Ministro do Exterior de Al-Hadi, Riyadh Yaseen, pediu que Arábia Saudita e os petro-emirados árabes interviessem militarmente para impedir que os houthis alcançassem, dia 23/3/2015, o controle sobre o espaço aéreo do Iêmen. Yaseen disse ao jornal Al-Shark Al-Awsa, porta-voz dos sauditas, que era absolutamente necessária uma campanha de bombardeios e que tinha de ser imposta sobre o Iêmen uma zona aérea de exclusão.

Os houthis perceberam que começaria a guerra e que seriam atacados – e esse é o motivo pelo qual os houthis e seus aliados no exército do Iêmen correram a ocupar a maior quantidade possível de campos de pouso e bases aéreas do país, o mais rapidamente que puderam, como, dentre outras, Al-Anad. Para neutralizar Al-Hadi, dia 25/3/2015 os houthis invadiram Aden.

Quando os houthis e aliados entraram em Aden, Al-Hadi já fugira para um porto iemenita. E só ressurgiria para o mundo já na Arábia Saudita, quando a Casa de Saud começou a bombardear o Iêmen, dia 26/3/2015. Da Arábia Saudita, Abdrabbuh Mansour Al-Hadi voaria até o Egito para uma reunião da Liga Árabe, convocada para legitimar a guerra contra o Iêmen.

Iêmen e a mutável equação estratégica no Oriente Médio

A tomada de Sana pelos houthis aconteceu no mesmo cronograma que uma série de outros eventos, todos de vitórias regionais para o Irã, o Hezbollah, a Síria e o Bloco da Resistência e esses e outros atores locais formam coletivamente. Na Síria, o governo sírio conseguiu firmar-se em suas posições, enquanto no Iraque o movimento ISIL/ISIS/Daesh estava sendo forçado a retroceder pelo Iraque, com uma muito visível ajuda do Irã e de milícias iraquianas aliadas de Teerã.

A equação estratégica no Oriente Médio começou a mudar, quando se tornou claro que o Irã ia-se convertendo em item central da arquitetura de segurança e da estabilidade na região.

A Casa de Saud e o Primeiro-Ministro israelense, Benjamin Netanyahu, puseram-se a gemer e a reclamar que o Irã já controlava quatro capitais regionais – Beirute, Damasco, Bagdá e Sana – e que algo teria de ser feito para conter a expansão iraniana. Resultado da nova equação estratégica, os israelenses e a Casa de Saud tornaram-se perfeitamente alinhadas, em termos estratégicos, com o objetivo de neutralizar o Irã e seus aliados regionais. “Quando israelenses e árabes estão na mesma página, todos devem prestar atenção” – disse à Fox News o embaixador israelense Ron Dermer, dia 5/3/2015, comentando o alinhamento Israel-Arábia Saudita.

A construção frenética de medo promovida por israelenses e sauditas não deu certo. Segundo pesquisa do instituto Gallup, apenas 9% dos cidadãos norte-americanos consideravam o Irã como o pior inimigo dos EUA, no momento em que Netanyahu chegou a Washington para falar contra qualquer acordo entre EUA e Irã.

Objetivos geoestratégicos de EUA e sauditas, por trás da guerra no Iêmen

Embora, por seu lado, a Casa de Saudi sempre tenha considerado o Iêmen como província subordinada e parte da esfera de influência de Riad, os EUA querem assegurar o controle sobre o estreito de Bab Al-Mandeb, o Golfo de Aden e as ilhas Socotra. Bab Al-Mandeb é importante ponto estratégico para o comércio marítimo internacional e embarques de energia, que conecta o Golfo Pérsico, pelo Oceano Índico, com o Mar Mediterrâneo via o Mar Vermelho. É tão importante quanto o Canal de Suez para as rotas marítimas comerciais entre África, Ásia e Europa.

Israel também se envolveu, porque com o Iêmen controlado por houthis, Israel perde o acesso ao Oceano Índico via o Mar Vermelho e deixa de poder mandar seus submarinos para o Golfo Pérsico para ameaçar o Irã. Essa é a razão pela qual o controle sobre o Iêmen foi um dos pontos sobre os quais Netanyahu discursou no Capitólio quando falou ao Congresso dos EUA sobre o Irã, dia 3/3/2015, no que o próprio New York Times, logo quem, chamou de “o discurso nada convincente de Mr. Netanyahu ao Congresso.”

A Arábia Saudita visivelmente temia que o Iêmen viesse a alinhar-se formalmente ao lado do Irã, e que isso, naquela área, viesse a resultar em novas rebeliões contra a Casa de Saud na Península Arábica. Os EUA também visivelmente temem que isso aconteça, mas pensavam, mais, em termos de rivalidades globais. Impedir que Irã, Rússia ou China consigam firmar algum pé estratégico no Iêmen, como meio de impedir que outras potências venham a poder controlar o Golfo de Aden e se posicionem no estreito de Bab Al-Mandeb era uma das maiores preocupações dos EUA.

Além da importância geopolítica do Iêmen na supervisão de corredores marítimos altamente estratégicos, há também seu arsenal de mísseis militares. Mísseis do Iêmen podem alcançar qualquer navio no Golfo de Aden ou no estreito de Bab Al-Mandeb. Quanto a isso, o ataque saudita contra os depósitos de mísseis estratégicos do Iêmen interessam muito aos EUA e a Israel. O objetivo não é só impedir que os mísseis sejam usados para retaliar contra forças avançadas do exército saudita, mas, também, impedir que os mísseis estejam disponíveis para algum eventual governo iemenita que se alie ao Irã, à Rússia ou à China.

Numa posição pública que contradiz totalmente a política de Riad para a Síria, os sauditas ameaçaram usar força militar se os houthis e seus aliados políticos não aceitassem negociar com Al-Hadi. Resultados de mais essas ameaças dos sauditas, dia 25/3/2015 irromperam protestos de rua por todo o Iêmen contra a Casa de Saud. E assim as engrenagens foram postas em marcha para mais uma guerra no Oriente Médio, quando EUA, Arábia Saudita, Bahrain, Emirados Árabes Unidos, Qatar e Kuwait começaram a preparar-se para reinstalar Al-Hadi no governo.

Os sauditas vão à guerra no Iêmen e Novo Front contra o Irã

Por mais que se fale da Arábia Saudita como potência regional, não é potência suficiente para confrontar, sozinha, o Irã. A estratégia da Casa de Saud tem sido formar ou reforçar um sistema de aliança regional para qualquer confronto contra o Irã e o Bloco da Resistência. Para isso, a Arábia Saudita precisa de Egito, Turquia e Paquistão – mal identificados pelo nome de aliança ou eixo “sunita” – para ajudá-la a enfrentar o Irã e seus aliados regionais.

Dia 17/3/2015, o príncipe coroado Mohammed bin Zayed bin Sultan Al Nahyan, o príncipe coroado do Emirado de Abu Dhabi e o Vice-Comandante Supremo do exército dos Emirados Árabes Unidos visitou o Marrocos, para falar sobre alguma resposta militar coletiva contra o Iêmen, dos petro-emirados, Marrocos, Jordânia e Egito. Dia 21/3/2015, Mohammed bin Zayed reuniu-se com o rei saudita Salman Salman bin Abdulaziz Al-Saud, para discutir também uma resposta militar ao Iêmen. Tudo isso enquanto Al-Hadi conclamava a Arábia Saudita e o Conselho de Cooperação do Golfo (CCG) para que o ajudasse com uma intervenção militar no Iêmen. Depois das reuniões, houve conversas sobre um novo pacto regional de segurança para os petro-emirados árabes.

Dentre os cinco membros do CCG, o Sultanato de Omã manteve-se à parte. Omã recusou-se a participar da guerra contra o Iêmen. Muscat tem relações amistosas com Teerã. Além disso, os omanitas desconfiam do projeto saudita e do CCG de usarem sectarismos para incendiar um confronto com o Irã e seus aliados. A maioria dos omanitas não são nem muçulmanos sunitas nem muçulmanos xiitas; são muçulmanos Ibadi e temem o incêndio que os EUA, a Casa de Saud e os outros emirados árabes estão tentando soprar sobre toda a região.

Os propagandistas sauditas trabalharam muitas horas extras para disseminar a ideia, falsa, de que a guerra seria uma resposta às tropas que o Irã estaria deslocando para as fronteiras da Arábia Saudita. A Turquia anunciaria, em seguida, apoio à guerra no Iêmen. No dia em que a guerra começou, Erdogan na Turquia disse que o Irã estaria tentando dominar toda a região, e que Turquia, Arábia Saudita e o CCG estavam gravemente incomodados.

Durante esses eventos, Sisi do Egito declarou que a segurança do Cairo, da Arábia Saudita e dos petro-emirados é una e indivisível. Na verdade, dia 25/3/2015, o Egito declarou que não se envolveria em guerra no Iêmen, mas, no dia seguinte, Cairo uniu-se à Arábia Saudita no ataque de Riad contra o Iêmen (o Egito enviou jatos e navios para o Iêmen).

Nessa mesma linha, o Primeiro-Ministro do Paquistão, Nawaz Sharif, distribuiu declarações, dia 26/3/2015, segundo as quais qualquer ameaça à Arábia Saudita geraria “resposta forte” do Paquistão. A mensagem tacitamente estava dirigida ao Irã.

Papéis de EUA e Israel na guerra no Iêmen

Dia 27/3/2015, foi anunciado no Iêmen que Israel estava ajudando a Arábia Saudita no ataque ao país árabe. “É a primeira vez que os sionistas unem-se em operação conjunta com árabes” – Hassan Zayd, líder do partido Al-Haq do Iêmen, escreveu pela internet, chamando a atenção para os interesses convergentes entre Arábia Saudita e Israel.

Mas essa aliança Israel-sauditas contra o Iêmen não é novidade. Os israelenses ajudaram a Casa de Saud durante a Guerra Civil do Iêmen do Norte, iniciada em 1962; naquela ocasião, Israel forneceu armas à Arábia Saudita para ajudar os monarquistas, contra os republicanos do Iêmen do Norte.

Os EUA também estão envolvidos, liderando “dos fundos”, ou à distância. Ao mesmo tempo em que querem um acordo nuclear com o Irã, trabalham para manter uma aliança contra Teerã, usando os sauditas. O Pentágono garantirá o que chamou de “apoio logístico e de inteligência” à Casa de Saud. Que ninguém se engane sobre esse ponto: a guerra contra o Iêmen também é guerra de Washington. O CCG atirou-se contra o Iêmen obedecendo ordens dos EUA.

Há muito se fala sobre a formação de uma força militar pan-árabe, mas as propostas voltaram à mesa, renovadas, dia 9/3/2015, com o selo da Liga Árabe. As propostas de uma força militar árabe unificada interessam aos EUA, a Israel e aos sauditas. A conversa sobre um exército pan-árabe foi motivada pelos preparativos desse mesmo trio para atacar o Iêmen, repor Al-Hadi no governo e confrontar regionalmente o Irã, a Síria, o Hezbollah e o Bloco da Resistência.

Mahdi Darius Nazemroaya

Continua: Clique aqui para ler segunda parte.

Artigo em inglês:

Salman wa Hadi (MDN)

The Geopolitics Behind the War in Yemen: The Start of a New Front against Iran

A Geopolítica por trás da guerra no Iêmen (I), Fundação de Cultura Estratégico, 30/3/2015.

Traduzido por cabelo Pessoal da Vila Vudu.

Mahdi Darius Nazemroaya E Cientista social Premiado escritor, colunista e Pesquisador. Suas Obras São reconhecidas internacionalmente em UMa Ampla Série de Publicações e were traduzidas Pará Mais de Vinte idiomas, incluíndo Alemão, árabe, italiano, russo, turco, Espanhol, Português, Chinês, coreano, polonês, Arménio, persa, holandês e romeno. Seu Trabalho em Ciências geopolíticas e Estudos Estratégicos TEM Sido USADO POR VÁRIAS Instituições Acadêmicas e de Defesa de teses em Universidades e escolas preparatórias de Oficiais Militares. E Convidado Frequente em Redes Internacionais de notícias Como analista de Geopolítica e Especialista em Oriente Médio.

 

 

  • Posted in Português
  • Comments Off on Geopolítica da guerra dos EUA no Iêmen e Novo Front contra o Irã

In a report published today entitled “Trapped and Punished: The Gaza Civilian Population under Operation Protective Edge”, FIDH presents evidence consistent with the commission of war crimes and crimes against humanity by the Israeli military during Operation Protective Edge (July-August 2014).

Our organisation, the first international human rights NGO to have gained access to the Gaza Strip since the ceasefire was agreed in August 2014, also asserts that the indiscriminate firing of rockets by Palestinian armed groups, causing civilian deaths, may also amount to international crimes.

Most of people we met with, all of whom have lived through previous attacks on Gaza, told us that the summer offensive in 2014 was the worst they had seen. Bombs fell entirely indiscriminately, on men, women and children alike.” declared Gaëlle Dusepulchre, one of the members of the FIDH delegation who visited Gaza strip.

The report was submitted this morning to the ICC, three days before Palestine’s ratification of the ICC Statute goes into effect (1 April 2015). While a preliminary examination by the ICC prosecutor into the situation in Gaza was initiated in January 2015 at the request of Palestine, FIDH hopes that in submitting the report, the ICC will take the case even further.

It’s now time for ICC to move from a mere preliminary examination of the conflict to a full investigation. The Prosecutor must go to the field in order to appreciate the magnitude of the crimes committed“, declared Shawan Jabbarin, FIDH Vice-President. “We all hope that April 1st will be a milestone in the fight against impunity in Palestine and Israel. Palestinian have been waiting for justice for far too long”.

The report compiles examples of indiscriminate and direct attacks against civilians and civilian objects, disproportionate to any concrete military advantage, as well as deliberate attacks targeting medical services, among other potential crimes. The report also presents several testimonies collected during field visits undertaken by the FIDH delegation. The team visited Rafah, Khan Younis, Beit Hanoun, and Gaza City, including Shuja’iya, where they took stock of the situation and met with victims of the military offensive.

In addition to possible war crimes and crimes against humanity, the situations documented, such as the refusal of access to humanitarian relief, the targeting of residential areas, operational healthcare facilities and transport, and life-sustaining civilian infrastructure are consistent with violations of international humanitarian and human rights law.

Impunity is nothing but an invitation to commit further such crimes. It’s time for international justice to prevail over an unwilling national justice system“, concluded FIDH President Karim Lahidji.

Download the report “Trapped and Punished: The Gaza Civilian Population under Operation Protective Edge”

Palestine : New report documents international crimes committed during Operation Protective Edge

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Evidence of War Crimes and Crimes Against Humanity Committed by Israeli Military During Operation Protective Edge: International Federation for Human Rights (FIDH)

“Welcome to phase two of US regime change operations,” Sputnik states. “After Yemen’s 2011 revolution failed and Houthi militias overthrew President Hadi, forces trained and sponsored by the US government are being activated as a separatist movement.” How many projects were financed by USAID in Yemen and what role do they play in the current war? “The truth has been turned on its head about the war in Yemen,” according to Mahdi Darius Nazemroaya. “The war and ousting of President Abd-Rabbuh Manṣour Al-Hadi in Yemen are not the results of a ‘Houthi coup'”.  Learn more in the following articles. 

VIDEOS: War Propaganda Corporate Media Steers World Toward Disaster

Yemen and Syria – Two Different Rebellions, Two Different Stories, Same Belligerent West, Brandon Turbeville, March 30, 2015

As al-Qaeda forces seize power over the city of Idlib in Syria and begin to install a reign of Sharia terror on what is left of the population that was unable to evacuate, bombs rain down upon Houthi rebels in…

damage-left-in-sanaa-after-clash-between-houthi-rebels-and-yemen-military

US-Sponsored Slow-Motion Genocide in Yemen, Stephen Lendman, March 30, 2015

Bush and Obama administrations murdered Yemenis for years – through drone terror-bombings and internal subversion killing mostly civilians. Yemen is the region’s poorest country.

Before leaving to participate in Iranian nuclear talks in Lausanne on Sunday, Russian Foreign Minister Sergey…

Salman wa Hadi (MDN)

The Geopolitics Behind the War in Yemen: The Start of a New Front against Iran, Mahdi Darius Nazemroaya, March 29, 2015

The Houthi takeover of Sana took place in the same timeframe as a series of successes or regional victories for Iran, Hezbollah, Syria and the Resistance Bloc that they and other local actors form collectively.

iraq

Obama’s Up-Side-Down “War on Terrorism”: US Warplanes Strike Iraqi Popular Forces Fighting ISIS, Fars News Agency, March 29, 2015

The US fighter jets once again struck the positions of Iraq’s popular forces during their fierce clashes with ISIL terrorists near Tikrit, injuring a number of fighters. The US and coalition forces conducted eight airstrikes near Tikrit, but they hit…

Yémen carte

Israeli Fighter Jets Join Saudi Arabia in War on Yemen, Fars News Agency, March 29, 2015

Israel’s fighter jets have taken part in the Thursday Saudi-led airstrikes on Yemen, sources in Sanaa disclosed on Friday. “This is for the first time that the Zionists are conducting a joint operation in coalition with Arabs,” Secretary General of…

Yémen carte

The Money Trail: How the US Fostered Yemen’s Separatist MovementSputnik, March 29, 2015

As Saudi Arabia and its allies have begun the bombing campaign against Yemen, in the south, a separatist movement calling for a “State of South Arabia” is emerging. Fostered by the US, it will leave the Houthis with two hostile…

Yemen-Houthi-militia-Taiz

Saudi Invasion: Yemeni Forces Arrest 40 Saudi Military Men, Fars News Agency, March 29, 2015

“The fighters of the Yemeni Ansarullah and popular committees held, at least, 40 Saudi military personnel as captive in heavy clashes in Razeh district of Al-Tawila region,” informed sources told FNA on Friday. Saudi Arabia launched airstrikes against Yemen early…

yemen-USA

Invading Yemen: Criminality in Support of Hegemony, Ajamu Baraka, March 29, 2015

Wednesday evening Adel Al-Jubeir, Saudi Arabia’s Ambassador to the United States announced that Saudi Arabia had commenced military operations against the Ansarullah fighters of the Houthi movement in Yemen. The Saudi intervention was not unexpected. Over the last few weeks…

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Wars in Yemen, Syria and Iraq: U.S. Imperialism and Regime Change Operations

Yemen, Ukraine, and the Hypocrisy of ‘Aggression’

March 30th, 2015 by Eric Draitser

The military intervention in Yemen by a US-backed coalition of Arab states will undoubtedly inflame the conflict both in Yemen, and throughout the region. It is likely to be a protracted war involving many actors, each of which is interested in furthering its own political and geopolitical agenda.

However, it is the international reaction to this new regional war which is of particular interest; specifically, the way in which the United States has reacted to this undeniable aggression by its Gulf allies. While Washington has gone to great lengths to paint Russia’s reunification with Crimea and its limited support for the anti-Kiev rebels of eastern Ukraine as “aggression,” it has allowed that same loaded term to be completely left out of the narrative about the new war in Yemen.

So it seems that, according to Washington, aggression is not defined by any objective indicators: use of military hardware, initiation of hostilities, etc. Rather, the United States defines aggression by the relationship of a given conflict to its own strategic interests. In Crimea and Ukraine, Russia is the aggressor because, in defending its own interests and those of Russian people, it has acted against the perceived geopolitical interests of the US. While in Yemen, the initiation by Saudi Arabia and other US-backed countries of an unprovoked war with the expressed goal of regime change, this is not aggression as it furthers Washington’s interests.

Language Versus Reality

On March 25, 2015 a coalition of Arab states initiated an aerial bombardment (as of writing there has yet to be a ground invasion, though it is expected) of Yemen for the purposes of dislodging the Houthi rebel government which had weeks before toppled the US and Saudi-backed puppet government of Abed Rabbo Mansour Hadi. The war initiated by Saudi Arabia, along with its fellow Gulf monarchies and Egypt, was motivated purely by Saudi Arabia’s, and by extension the United States’, perceived interests.

Within hours of the commencement of the bombardment, reports from Yemen indicated that dozens, if not scores, of Yemenis had been killed in the airstrikes. Despite the immediate loss of life, to say nothing of the destruction of infrastructure, buildings, homes, and communities, the United States praised the operation as necessary for regional security. Indeed it has been confirmed that, while not providing direct military support in the form of troops or air support, the United States has been intimately involved in the operation.

Speaking directly on behalf of the White House and the Obama administration, the National Security Council spokesperson announced:

Saudi Arabia, Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) members, and others will undertake military action to defend Saudi Arabia’s border and to protect Yemen’s legitimate government…In support of GCC actions…President Obama has authorized the provision of logistical and intelligence support to GCC-led military operations.  While U.S. forces are not taking direct military action in Yemen in support of this effort, we are establishing a Joint Planning Cell with Saudi Arabia to coordinate U.S. military and intelligence support…the violent takeover of Yemen by an armed faction is unacceptable and that a legitimate political transition…can be accomplished only through political negotiations and a consensus agreement among all of the parties.

So, in Washington’s own words, the aggressive military intervention into Yemen is both legitimate and supported by the US. Moreover, the US has openly acknowledged their direct participation in the campaign in the form of intelligence and logistical support. Exactly what is entailed in “intelligence” and “logistical support” is certainly open to interpretation. Undoubtedly, the US has its covert forces involved in the operation, likely on the ground in Yemen, to say nothing of its vast presence throughout the region.

In fact, it is universally recognized that the CIA has been intimately involved in Yemen for at least the last several years, with CIA Director Brennan having been integral in fostering the relationship. As the NY Times reported in 2012, the Obama administration’s approach in Yemen was “to employ small numbers of Special Operations troops, Central Intelligence Agency paramilitary teams and drones.” It should be further remembered that Hadi himself was handpicked by Washington in the wake of the fall of former President Saleh’s government, and that Hadi, described by the US as the “legitimate” president ran unopposed in a farcically described “democratic transition” sponsored by the US.

Taken in total then, it is objectively true that the United States has been involved militarily in Yemen since at least 2012, propping up their man in Sanaa in order to bolster their geopolitical and strategic position in the region, naturally under the aegis of “fighting terrorism.” So it stands to reason that the White House would refer to the Saudi aggression as legitimate, and praise it as such. It is equally true that the so called “legitimacy” of the military operation, and the Hadi government itself, is dependent on US interests, nothing less.

Now compare the language employed by the US vis-à-vis this war against Yemen, with the talking points endlessly repeated by all US officials, and nearly all media pundits, regarding Russia’s actions in Crimea and Ukraine. Everyone from Republican warmongers like John McCain, to State Department spokesperson (and unwitting comedic icon) Jen Psaki, have all described Moscow’s moves as “Russian aggression.” Indeed, it seems that phrase alone has become something of a mantra in Washington, and on the airwaves of its servile and compliant corporate media, framing the narrative as “clear and unmistakable aggression against Ukraine’s territorial integrity” and other such vacuous phrases.

But consider for a moment the objective facts. Russia’s direct military interests in Crimea, not to mention the safety and freedom of Russian-speakers, was under direct threat after the US-sponsored coup in Kiev toppled the corrupt, but democratically elected, government in February 2014. In response, Russia launched a limited military operation to secure Crimea and its interests. This is critical because this operation was carried out with no bloodshed, no airstrikes, and not a single shot fired. While this aspect may be forgotten amid the din of belligerent shouts and incredulousness from Washington, it must not be forgotten by keen political observers. In point of fact, Russia’s “aggression” in Crimea was entirely peaceful, and as is self-evident, entirely defensive.

On the other hand, the “legitimate” actions of the US, Saudi Arabia and its allies do not constitute aggression. Well, it is clear that the dozens (by now likely far more) of families who have lost fathers and sons, wives and daughters in the airstrikes would certainly call it aggression.

It should also be noted that, unlike in Crimea where the people were given the opportunity to decide their own fate democratically, the people of Yemen are being given no such opportunity. There has been a domestic insurgency for years in the wake of the civil wars and reunification of North and South Yemen, and whatever stability might have been provided by the new Houthi-led dispensation has now fallen by the wayside. Moreover, the notion that Yemen was a functioning country under Hadi would be like saying that France was a functioning country under the Vichy regime. The overthrow of Hadi opened the possibility for a truly independent nation to emerge. This Saudi Arabia and its allies simply could not abide, as it would set a dangerous precedent for its own domestic opposition which, quite correctly, sees the House of Saud as little more than a proxy of the US and Israel.

Consider also the rhetoric of “aggression” regarding Russia’s very limited support for the anti-Kiev rebels of Donetsk and Lugansk. Listening to western media, one would think that Russian military had invaded en masse in those regions and was fighting a war against Kiev’s military. The reality is that, despite dozens of accusations and hundreds of news stories, there is still no evidence of any direct Russian military presence in eastern Ukraine. It is true that there are Russian volunteers and some Russian hardware, but these are hardly evidence of any invasion, let alone even military support of the scale that the US has justauthorized sending to Kiev. Even a Russophobic perspective would have to admit, however reluctantly, that Russia’s presence in eastern Ukraine is minimal and indirect.

Now compare that to the outright bombardment using massive military capabilities being carried out by the Saudis and their allies in Yemen. In a matter of hours, this US-backed alliance has employed more military hardware, and wreaked more devastation, than Russia has in more than 12 months. The question of scale is critical. Russia quite correctly perceives a threat to its own borders and interests from the US-sponsored Kiev regime, and it has acted with a great degree of restraint. On the other hand, Saudi Arabia, which also perceives a Houthi-controlled Yemen as a threat to its borders and interests, has unleashed a massive military campaign to destroy the movement and effect its own regime change to reinstall Hadi.

It could not be clearer the level of hypocrisy from the US, its allies, and the compliant media. Russia is an “aggressor” while Saudi Arabia is a “defender.” Iran is sponsoring regime change in Yemen, while the US merely supported “democratic forces” in Ukraine. Assad must go, but Hadi must stay. Not to belabor the point, as it is obvious on its face, but legitimacy and illegitimacy is conferred by the US based on its interests, not international law or objective facts.

That this is well known in the non-Western world is undeniably true. However here in the US, and in the West more broadly, the narrative is shaped by those in power who seek to further their own agendas. They choose the words, and they dictate what is and is not acceptable. They are the Ministry of Truth, and the thought-criminals who question their narratives are dangerous subversives and propagandists. In truth however, those who question those narratives are the ones who have consistently been on the right side of history, from Vietnam to Iraq to Libya, Syria, and Yemen. And I, for one, am proud to count myself among them.

Eric Draitser is an independent geopolitical analyst based in New York City, he is the founder of StopImperialism.org and OP-ed columnist for RT, exclusively for the online magazine “New Eastern Outlook”.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Yemen, Ukraine, and the Hypocrisy of ‘Aggression’

Yemen – No Military Solution

March 30th, 2015 by Dr. Chandra Muzaffar

There is no military solution to the Yemen crisis. It is essentially a tussle for power between various political actors. The solution has to be political.

Military air-strikes helmed by Saudi Arabia, and supported by most of the other Gulf monarchies and other governments in the region, notably Egypt, have exacerbated an already volatile situation. If these governments decide in the next few days to launch a ground offensive, the consequences will be horrendous.

One, the casualties which are mounting will increase dramatically. Yemen has witnessed a great deal of death and destruction in recent years and does not deserve to suffer more pain and anguish.

Two, Yemeni society which is already deeply polarized will become even more divided. An all-out war will make it more difficult to work towards reconciliation and to restore peace in the future.

Three, any escalation of aggression on the part of the Saudi elite and its allies will tear the region asunder especially since they are projecting the Yemen crisis as a Sunni-Shia conflict. It will have repercussions for Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, Bahrain, Kuwait, Oman and even Saudi Arabia itself. These are all Arab states where Sunnis or Shias are in the majority or are a minority. Shia Iran and Sunni Turkey will also be drawn into the maelstrom.

The danger of perceiving the Yemen conflict in Sunni-Shia terms is further aggravated by a stark anti-Iran rhetoric emanating from Saudi and Egyptian elite circles which has even hinted of a foreign, non-Arab — read Persian — threat that dredges deeply ingrained sentiments rooted in the past that have always dichotomized the Muslim ummah. The implication is that Persians are manipulating an Arab tribe, the Houthis, in Yemen for their ‘imperial’ interests. One should not be surprised if the Iranian government reacts to such mischievous rhetoric.

It is against this backdrop that one should view the proposal by the Egyptian President, Abdel Fattah al-Sisi, to establish a unified Arab military force to defend Arab identity. It is a shame that al- Sisi should forefront this idea which is in the Charter of the Arab League in pursuit of religious sectarianism when he like his allies in the coalition formed to fight the Shia Houthis of Yemen have never thought of forging a united military front against Israel. After all, it was because of Israel that the Charter conceived of a unified Arab military force in 1950! No wonder the Israeli Prime Minister, Netanyahu, is euphoric over developments in Yemen which he has described as proof that Iran is seeking to dominate the entire region.

It is also explains why the United States government is supporting the Saudis, the Egyptians and the others in the anti-Houthis coalition. A US National Security Council spokesperson admitted that the US was “ establishing a joint planning cell with Saudi Arabia to coordinate US military and intelligence support” in the on-going military operations in Yemen. This is yet another example of a convergence of interests between the US and Israel on the one hand and the strengthening of these interests through collaboration with other close allies, agents and proxies in West Asia such as Saudi Arabia, Egypt and a number of other Arab states, on the other. The special significance of US collusion with these regional actors on this occasion lies in the fact that the US is also at the same time holding critical talks with Iran over its nuclear programme in Lausanne. It is partly because of these talks which both Saudi Arabia and Israel are opposed to, that the former has initiated military action in Yemen on its own accord out of a belief that the US can no longer be trusted to safeguard Saudi interests. In a sense, the Saudi elite has forced the US to get involved in Yemen on its side against Iran.

But Saudi intervention is not going to help resolve the quagmire in Yemen. At the root of the present conflict is the struggle for power between Abed Rabbo Mansour Hadi — the President who fled Yemen on 25 March 2015 — and Ali Abdullah Salleh, the longtime dictator who was deposed through a popular uprising in early 2012. Salleh still commands considerable loyalty within the military and has been trying to make a comeback. It is reliably learnt that he has forged an alliance of sorts with the Houthis, who constitute about 40% of the population and belong to the Zaydi branch of the Shia sect. This is an opportunistic relationship because Salleh had in 2004 attempted to mercilessly crush a Houthi rebellion which was also directed against Israeli and US interference in Yemeni affairs.

This power struggle has been rendered even more complicated by the emergence of yet another actor. Since 2009, Yemen has served as a base for Al-Qaeda. The Al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula (AQAP) is a major Al-Qaeda affiliate and is the coordinating centre for operations of the terrorist outfit in many parts of West Asia, North Africa and even Europe and the US. The US has been targeting AQAP terrorists through its drone attacks which have also killed scores of innocent civilians. These drone attacks have made the US immensely unpopular among the Yemeni people. Since the Yemeni government of both Salleh and his successor Hadi is seen as a collaborator, it has also lost a lot of credibility. The AQAP, it should be emphasized, is not just fighting the Yemeni government; it is also fiercely antagonistic towards the Houthis since they are Shias.

If the US is determined to destroy the AQAP, it is mainly because Yemen, one of the world’s poorest countries is nonetheless of tremendous strategic significance. At the southwestern tip of the Arabian Peninsula, it “is located along the major sea route from Europe to Asia, near some of the busiest Red Sea shipping and trading lanes. Millions of barrels of oil pass through these waters daily in both directions, to the Mediterranean through the Suez Canal and from the oil refineries in Saudi Arabia to the energy-hungry Asian markets.” It is not just the US that regards Yemen as strategic. All the countries in West Asia, South Asia, East Asia and Europe that are dependent upon trade and concerned about the security of those sea lanes that are critical to their economies, are watching nervously what is happening in Yemen.

Strategic significance, drone attacks, AQAP, the domestic power struggle, the Sunni-Shia divide, the tussle between Saudi Arabia and Iran for regional influence, the Israeli game and the continuing US drive for hegemony which are all intertwined are unfolding in a corner of the earth that is riddled with other challenges. There is a north-south divide which was not really resolved when the two parts, North Yemen and South Yemen, decided to merge in 1990. A civil war erupted in 1994 and thousands died. The uneasy alliance has held on. There are also a number of self-governing tribes.

On top of all this, Yemen faces huge economic challenges. It is estimated that 40% of men between the ages of 20 and 24 in the south are unemployed. Drug addiction is rife. Corruption is rampant. During Salleh’s long rule, Yemen developed a reputation as a kleptocracy.

To bring order and stability to a nation which is in such a terrible mess, one has to persuade all the relevant players to talk to one another, to negotiate, to compromise. The peaceful, non-violent approach to conflict resolution has not been given enough space and scope to succeed in Yemen. The UN has been trying to play a role in a very difficult situation. The UN should be given full support by all the contending forces.

It should use its moral authority to demand that both sides stop fighting immediately. It should then help to establish an interim government in Sana’a of technocrats which will not only administer but also make all the necessary preparations for free, fair elections for both the presidency and parliament. An effective interim government and the entire electoral exercise under UN supervision will undoubtedly take time. But it will be worth the while if it brings to an end the war and violence we are now witnessing.

Dr. Chandra Muzaffar is President of the International Movement for a Just World (JUST)

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Yemen – No Military Solution
As the deadline approaches in Lausanne it should be kept in mind that the only reason for Iran’s nuclear program is Israel’s huge, offensive nuclear arsenal that is a constant threat to the Middle East and the wider world.
Netanyahu has control of up to 400 nuclear warheads situated in underground silos at Dimona, in the Negev, and other sites plus his submarine-based, nuclear-tipped ICBMs submerged in the Red Sea and the Mediterranean.
The size and extent of this nuclear arsenal confirms that it is many, many times larger than that required for any defensive or deterrent measure and is clearly an offensive threat to all countries in the Middle East and beyond.
Neutralising this threat, by implementing a Nuclear Weapons Free Zone, would solve the entire issue of Iran and nuclear proliferation. A good start would be to insist that Netanyahu now signs the Non Proliferation Treaty (NPT) without further delay.
Iran, of course, is already a signatory and subject to inspection.
  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Neutralising the Threat of Israel’s Undeclared Nuclear Arsenal Would Immediately Solve the Iranian Issue

President Bashar al-Assad gave an interview to Russian media in which he hailed the Russian initiative for inter-Syrian dialogue as positive and denied any direct dialogue between Syria and the US, stressing that there has been no real change in the American or Western policies on Syria so far. 

The following is the full text of the interview:

Question 1: Thank you, Mr. President. I am Gregory from TASS News Agency. What is you assessment of the next round of Syrian-Syrian talks scheduled to be held in Moscow next April, and who will represent Syrian in these talks? In your opinion, what is the essential factor to ensure the success of Syrian-Syrian dialogue?

President Assad: Our assessment of this new round of talks, and of the Russian initiative in general, is very positive, because the initiative is important; and I can say that it is necessary. As you know the West, or a number of Western countries, have tried, during the Syrian crisis, to push towards a military war in Syria and the region sometimes under the title of fighting terrorism, and at other times under the title of supporting people who rose for freedom, and other lies which have been circulating in Western media.

The Russian initiative was positive because it emphasized the political solution, and consequently preempted the attempts of warmongers in the West, particularly in the United States, France, and Britain, as they have done in the Ukraine. You know that warmongers have been pushing towards arming different parties in Ukraine in order to change regimes, first in Ukraine, then in Russia. That’s why the principle behind this initiative is good and important. We have always believed and spoke publicly that every problem, however big, should have a political solution. This is in principle. However, its success depends very much on the substance genuinely reflecting the title which you have spoken about. The title is: a Syrian-Syrian dialogue. In order for this dialogue to succeed, it should be purely Syrian. In other words, there shouldn’t be any outside influence on the participants in this dialogue. The problem is that a number of the participants in the dialogue are supported by foreign Western and regional countries which influence their decisions. As you know, only a few days ago, one of these parties announced that they will not participate in the dialogue. They didn’t participate in the first round.

So, for this dialogue to succeed, the Syrian parties taking part in it should be independent and should express what the Syrian people, with all their political affiliations want. Then, the dialogue will succeed. That’s why the success of this initiative requires that other countries not interfere, as Moscow proposed in the first round; for the dialogue to be among the Syrians with the Russians facilitating the dialogue among the Syrians without imposing any ideas on them. If things happen this way, I believe this dialogue will achieve positive results for stability in Syria.

Question 2: Abu Taleb al-Buhayya from RTV Arabic. Mr. President, within the framework of the steps taken to achieve a political solution, there is an initiative proposed by the UN Special Envoy to Syria Staffan de Mistura concerning a fighting freeze in Aleppo. After a number of meetings and trips, and there is information that some of de Mistura’s staff in Damascus went to Aleppo, but in the end, there were statements made by some outside opposition factions which rejected this initiative. Nevertheless, there are safe neighborhoods in Aleppo which have come in recent days under a fierce attack and mortar shelling on safe neighborhoods. In general terms, Mr. President, how do you see the prospects of this initiative proposed by de Mistura and is it going to succeed in the coming days?

President Assad: Since the first meeting with Mr. de Mistura, we supported his ideas. And when we agreed with him on the basic elements of the initiative, which he announced later, Mr. de Mistura’s team started working in Syria in order to implement this initiative. We continued our support and continued our discussions with him about the details of this initiative. In principle, the initiative is good because it deals with reality on the ground. It is similar to the reconciliation deals which have been achieved in Syria. The objective is to alleviate pressure and avert the dangers facing civilians specifically in the city of Aleppo, as a first stage for his mission. But de Mistura’s initiative depends on more than one party. Obviously, it depends on the Syrian state’s cooperation, as a major party to this initiative, including the state’s institutions. But, on the other hand, it depends on the response of the terrorists or the armed groups who operate in different neighborhoods in Aleppo.

Another problem is similar to that concerning the Syrian-Syrian dialogue. Some of these armed groups are controlled by other countries. In the city of Aleppo in particular, all the armed groups or terrorist forces are supported directly by Turkey. That’s why these forces, and from the beginning of de Mistura’s initiative, declared that they refuse to cooperate with him and rejected the initiative altogether. They confirmed their rejection of the initiative about a week ago, and enforced their rejection by shelling civilians in the city of Aleppo and a large number of martyrs fell as a result. De Mistura’s initiative is important in substance, and we believe that it is very realistic, and it has significant prospects of success if Turkey and the other countries supporting and funding the armed groups stop their interference. One of the most important factors of its success is that most Syrians want to get rid of the terrorists. Some of these terrorists will return to their normal lives or leave the neighborhoods in which civilians live, so that civilians can come back to these neighborhoods.

Question 3: Mr. President, on the political solution, the Syrian government took significant steps which have been applauded by Syria’s friends and allies concerning national reconciliation attempts. These attempts have been successful, from what we hear from the Syrian population, and from our coverage in Damascus and other Syrian governorates. In general, Mr. President, what is your vision for the prospects of these national reconciliation attempts, whether in Damascus Countryside or in other governorates, particularly that we have been informed that the Syrian government released, a few days ago, over 600 prisoners, in order to ensure the success of national reconciliation?

President Assad: We started the national reconciliation endeavors over a year ago, or maybe two years ago. It is a parallel track to the political solution. As I said, every problem has a political solution. But the political solution is usually long, and might be slow, and there might be obstacles which hinder the process or push it towards failure, although this failure might be temporary. But every day innocent people die in Syria, and we cannot wait for the political solution to materialize in order to protect people’s lives. So, we have to move on other tracks. Of course, there is the track of fighting terrorists and eliminating them. But there has been a third track which consists of national reconciliation attempts. They include returning people to their neighborhoods, and for armed men leaving these neighborhoods, or remaining without their weapons in order for them to return to their normal lives.

In this case, the state offers amnesty to those and brings them back to their normal lives. Part of this process is releasing a number of prisoners. So, this is part of national reconciliation. What happened yesterday is part of this endeavor which has proved so far that it is the most important track. The truth is that national reconciliation in Syria has achieved great results, and led to the improvement of security conditions for many Syrian people in different parts of the country. So, what happened yesterday comes within this framework, and we will continue this policy which has proved successful until progress is achieved on the political track which we hope will be achieved in this consultative meeting in Moscow next April.

Question 4: Yevgeny Reshetnev from Russia 24. In the context of the civil war and armed conflict, some politicians made statements to the effect that your days as president were numbered, and some expected that you will no longer be there in a few months’ time. But you have stood fast for a long time, and here we are sitting and talking with you. There are European politicians who say that the peaceful political solution in Syria will be without President Bashar al-Assad. In your opinion, how will it be possible to establish peace in Syria and to achieve reconciliation among the Syrians?

President Assad: The statements we have been hearing since the beginning of the crisis reflect the Western mentality, which is colonialist by nature. The West does not accept partners. If they don’t like a certain state, they try to change it, or replace its president. When they use this reasoning, they do not see the people. As far as they’re concerned, there is no people. They don’t like the president, so they replace him. But when they made these statements, they based them on wrong assumptions. This way of thinking might have suited the past, but is not fit for this age. Today, people do not accept for their future or destiny or rulers to be decided by the outside world.

The same thing is happening now in Ukraine. And this is what they aim for in Russia. They don’t like President Putin, so they demonize him. The same applies everywhere. However, I would like to stress that what determines these things in the end is the Syrian people. All the statements made by Western countries or their allies in the region about this issue did not concern us in the least. We do not care if they say the president will fall or remain in power, nor do we care whether they say that the president is legitimate or illegitimate. We derive our legitimacy from the people, and if there is any reason for the state’s steadfastness in Syria, it is popular support. We shouldn’t waste our time with European statements, because they are prepared to make statements which contradict each other from day to day.

The Syrian crisis can be solved. It’s not impossible. If the Syrians sit and talk to each other, we will achieve results. We talked about national reconciliation, which is the most difficult thing: when two parties which used to carry guns and fight each other sit down and talk. This is much more difficult than sitting with those who are involved in political action. In the first case there is blood, there is killing; nevertheless, we succeeded in this endeavor. We succeeded when we conducted these reconciliation attempts without foreign interference.

I say that for the Syrians to succeed, foreign intervention should stop. Turkey, Saudi Arabia, Qatar, and some European countries should stop arming the terrorists. This was actually acknowledged publically by the French and by the British. They said they have been sending weapons to the terrorists. They should stop funding the terrorists, particularly Saudi Arabia and Qatar. Then, the political solution will be easy, and reconciliation with the armed groups will be easy, because the Syrian society supports reconciliation now and supports all these solutions. The Syrian society has not disintegrated as they expected. What is happening in Syria is not a civil war; in a civil war there should be lines separating the parties, either on ethnic, religious, or sectarian grounds. This doesn’t exist in Syria. People still live with each other, but most people escape from the areas in which the terrorists operate to the safe areas controlled by the state. This is what we believe to be the foundation for reaching this solution. This is in addition to initiatives made by our friends like the consultative meeting which will be held in Moscow next month.

Question 5: Mr. President, in every state, in general, a pretext can be found to create sectarian or ethnic conflict, and Syria and the Ukraine are examples of that. How can we stop this?

President Assad: If you have in the beginning a sectarian problem which creates a division in society, it will be easy for other countries to manipulate this division and lead to unrest. You know that this is one of the things which some foreign countries have tried to manipulate, even in Russia, by supporting extremist groups which are conducting terrorist acts. Their objective is not to kill some innocent people. They rather aim at creating a division in Russian society which leads to weakening the country and the state and maybe dividing Russia itself. This is what they had in mind for Russia and this is what they had in mind for Syria. This is why I think there are many similarities.

So it has to be based on the state’s performance before the crisis: preserving the unity of the homeland, religious freedom, freedom of belief. No group in any country should feel they are forbidden to exercise their religious rituals and hold their beliefs. This is the case in Syria; and this is one of the most important factors behind the steadfastness of Syrian society in facing this attack.

Nevertheless, the titles used at the beginning of the Syrian crisis by foreign media or by the terrorists called for dividing Syria, particularly along sectarian lines. Some people in Syria believed this propaganda in the beginning. But through the dialogue we conducted in the state, and by using different forms of awareness raising, particularly through the religious establishment, we were able to overcome this. People discovered quickly that this has nothing to do with sects or religions. They concluded that the problem is a form of terrorism supported by foreign countries. Here we succeeded and were able to overcome this very dangerous problem which you have suggested in your question.

Question 6: Mohammad Maarouf from Sputnik news agency. In the beginning, Mr. President, allow me on behalf of my colleagues at Sputnik news agency and Rossiya Segodnya to thank Your Excellency for availing us of this opportunity to meet you. Mr. President, you indicated previously that had you accepted what was offered to you before the crisis, you would have been the most favored and most democratic president in the region. Could you please explain to us what you were offered at the time, and what is required by the West of Syria, for the West to stop arming the Syrian opposition and start the political solution?

President Assad: Let me go back to the Western mentality, which I described as colonialist. The West does not accept partners. It only wants satellite states. The United States does not even accept partners in the West. It wants Europe to follow the United States. They didn’t accept Russia, although it was a superpower. They didn’t accept it as a partner. Russian officials talk all the time about partnership with the West, and talk positively about the West. In return, the West does not accept Russia as a great power and as a partner on a global level. So, how could they accept a smaller state like Syria which could say no to them? When anything contradicts Syrian interests, we say no. And this is something they do not accept in the West. They asked us for a number of things in the past.

They used to put pressure on us to abandon our rights in our land occupied by Israel. They wanted us not to support the resistance in Lebanon or Palestine which defends the rights of the Palestinian people. At a later stage, a few years before the crisis, they put pressure on Syria to distance itself from Iran. In another case, some of them wanted to use Syria’s relationship with Iran to influence the nuclear file. We have never been a part of this issue, but they wanted us to convince Iran to take steps against its national interests. We refused to do that. There were other similar things.

That’s why they wanted in the end to make the Syrian state a satellite state which implements Western agendas in this region. We refused. Had we done these things, we would have become, as I said, a good, moderate, and democratic state. Now, they describe our state as being anti-democratic, while they have the best relations with the Saudi state which has nothing to do with democracy or elections and deprives women of their rights, in addition to many other things well known to the world. This is Western hypocrisy.

Question 7: So, what does the West require of Syria today in order to stop arming the Syrian opposition and start the political solution?

President Assad: Simply, to be a puppet. And I’m not convinced that the West has a political solution. They do not want a political solution. When I say the West, I mean a number of countries like the United States, France, and Britain. The other countries play a secondary role. For them, the political solution is changing the state, bringing the state down and replacing it with a client state, exactly like what happened in Ukraine. As far as they are concerned, what happened in Ukraine was a political solution. But, had the former president, who was elected by the people, remained, they would have said that this president is bad, dictatorial, and kills his people. It is the same propaganda. So, the West is not interested in a political solution. They want war, and they want to change states everywhere in the world.

Question 8: Mr. President, you are confirming that there were no American under-the-table requests from you?

President Assad: No, there has been nothing under the table.

Question 9: Konstantin Volkov from Rossiyskaya Gazeta. Mr. President, a few days ago, the U.S. Secretary of State, John Kerry, said in an interview with CNN television, I believe, that he is prepared to negotiate with the Syrian authorities. But other officials at the State Department contradicted these statements. Concerning U.S attempts to initiate negotiations with you, have there been any such attempts, and if so, what does Washington want?

President Assad: As for the American statements, or statements made by American officials, I think the world has become used to American officials saying something today, and saying the opposite the next day. We see this happening all the time. But there is another phenomenon which is for one official to say something and another official, in the same administration, saying the exact opposite. This is an expression of conflicts inside the American administration and also within the lobby groups working in the United States. These lobbies have different perceptions of different issues. We can say that the most important conflict today for Syria and Ukraine is between two camps: one which wants war and direct military intervention in Syria and Iraq. They might also talk about sending armies to Ukraine, through NATO, or sending arms to the subversive party within Ukraine. There is another camp which opposes intervention because it learned the lessons of previous wars.

As you know, from the Vietnam war to the Iraq war, the United States has never succeeded in any war. It succeeded in one thing, which is destroying the country. But in the end, it always came out defeated after having destroyed the country. But it seems that these groups are still in the minority. In any case, and despite these statements, so far we haven’t seen any real change in American policies and it seems that the hardliners still define the direction of American policies in most parts of the world. As far as we in Syria are concerned, the policy is still going on. There is no direct dialogue between us and the Americans. There are ideas sent through third parties but they do not constitute a serious dialogue and we cannot take them seriously. We have to wait until we see a change in the American policy on the ground. Then we can say that there is a policy shift and clear demands. So far, the U.S. demands are what I described earlier concerning their wish to bring down the Syrian state and replace it with a client state which does their bidding.

Question 10: I am from Rossiya Segodnya. My question will be on the same subject and the same context. There are certain ideas which are being discussed in the West these days like having a peacekeeping force or a military force deployed on Syrian territories to fight ISIS. A number of ‘hawks’ in the U.S., whom you talked about suggested this. This might be just an idea, but today we see that there are airstrikes against ISIS. What is your opinion and assessment of the effectiveness of these airstrikes? And I would like to point out that these airstrikes may not only target ISIS, but positions of the Syrian Arab Army. Thank you.

President Assad: When you follow media reports on daily or weekly basis, you see that the rate of the airstrikes conducted by what they call a coalition against terrorism is sometimes less than ten strikes a day or a little more, in Syria or in Iraq, or in both Syria and Iraq. We are talking about a coalition which includes 60 countries, some of which are rich and advanced. On the other hand, the Syrian air force, which is very small in comparison to this coalition, conducts in a single day many times the number of the airstrikes conducted by a coalition which includes 60 countries.

Although you are not a military man, it is self evident that this doesn’t make sense. This shows the lack of seriousness. Maybe some of these countries do not want ISIS to grow larger than it has become in Syria and Iraq, but at the same time they don’t want to get rid of ISIS completely. They want to retain this terrorist force to be used as a threat to blackmail different countries. That’s why we say simply that there is no serious effort to fight terrorism, and what is being achieved by the Syrian forces on the ground equals in one day what is being achieved by these states in weeks. Once again, this shows that these countries are not serious, not only militarily, but politically speaking. An anti-terrorist coalition cannot consist of countries which are themselves supporters of terrorism. So, there is a political side and a military side, and the two are linked to each other. The result is the same: ISIS still exists. It is struck in one place but expands in another.

Question 11: I would like to check again about the positions of the Syrian Arab Army. Have they incurred any damage? And also about the peacekeeping force or a military presence in the area on your territories.

President Assad: No. No positions of the Syrian Army have been bombarded. What has been bombarded is infrastructure belonging to the Syrian people, and the results have been bad for us as a people and a state. But, as to deploying peacekeeping forces, such forces are usually deployed between warring states. So, when they talk about deploying peacekeeping forces in the fight against ISIS, this means that they recognize ISIS as a state, which is unacceptable and dangerous, particularly that terrorists, whether ISIS or al-Nusra, are terrorist organizations linked to al-Qaeda. These organizations infiltrate communities. Most of the communities and the areas are against these extremist and terrorist ideas. So, there is no state on the other side in order to deploy peacekeeping forces between two parties. This doesn’t make sense.

Question 12: Igor Lutzman from Sputnik radio. Mr. President, when I talked to the Press Secretary of the President of the Chechen Republic, Alvi Karimov, he said that Mr. Ramzan Kadyrov shares your interpretation of the Quran, the basics of Islam, culture, and traditions. He tells young people that terrorists do not belong to any race or any religion. He warns Chechens that if they turn into terrorists and join the ranks of ISIS or other terrorist organizations, they will never be allowed to go back to the Chechen Republic. Can you please tell us how you deal with young people and how you explain to them that Islam is a religion of peace, as Mr. Kadyrov does?

President Assad: What is being done from a systematic perspective is correct and accurate. The problem is ideological in the first place. Some states deal with terrorism as if it were a gang operating somewhere and should be eliminated. This is a final solution. However, the real solution for terrorism is an intellectual and ideological one, and consequently the involvement of those responsible directly is essential and I support it.

Of course, this is not the first time we confront this ideology. We started confronting it since the early 1960s through our confrontation with the Muslim Brotherhood who were the real predecessors of al-Qaeda in the Muslim world. The apex of these confrontations happened in the 1980s. At that time, we conducted an educational campaign and fought the Muslim Brotherhood ideologically by promoting the true Islam. But today, the situation is different, because in those days there was no internet, no social media, and no satellite TV stations. It was easy to control the cultural aspect of the problem. What we face today and what you face in your country, and most Muslim countries and the other countries which have Muslim communities, is the problem of extremist satellite TV stations which promote Wahhabi ideology and are funded by Wahhabi institutions and the Saudi state, which is allied to the Wahhabi establishment.

The same applies to the social media on the internet. That’s why the danger we are facing now is tremendous and that’s why we in Syria focused first of all on religious institutions which have played an important role by developing religious curricula and produced religious leaders who promote the real Islamic thought which is moderate and enlightened. We worked on satellite TV stations and established one which promotes moderate Islam and addresses not only the Muslim public but Muslim scholars as well. Religious leaders in Syria have also conducted different activities in the mosques and in their classes by communicating with people and explaining the reality of what is happening.

Terrorism has nothing to do with religion. Whether we call it Islamic terrorism or give it any other name, it has nothing to do with religion. Terrorism is terrorism wherever it is; and Islam is a peaceful religion like any other heavenly religion. But unfortunately, we see many cases in Syria where some children or young people shift very quickly from a state of moderation to a state of extremism and terrorism. The reason is that moderate religion hasn’t been enshrined in the families and the communities in which these young people live. That’s why I believe this work is essential anywhere there is a Muslim community because they are targeted by Wahhabism and Wahhabi institutions.

Question 13: Fedor Ivanitsa from Izvestia newspaper. Mr. President, I would like to ask you about Syrian-Russian relations. Despite the difficult situation and the conflict in Syria, the supply and maintenance site for the Russian navy in Tartous is still functioning. Is there any idea to turn this site in the future into a full-fledged Russian naval military base? Have you received such a proposal, and if so are you studying it, and have there been new military contracts signed between Moscow and Damascus during the crisis?

President Assad: Concerning Russian presence in different parts of the world, including the Eastern Mediterranean and the Tartous port, it is necessary to create a sort of balance which the world lost after the disintegration of the Soviet Union more than 20 years ago. Part of this existence, as you said, is in Tartous port. As far as we are concerned, the stronger this presence is in our region, the better it is for the region’s stability, because the Russian role is important for the stability of the world.

Of course, in this context I can say that we certainly welcome any expansion of the Russian presence in the Eastern Mediterranean and specifically on the Syrian shores and in Syrian ports for the same objectives I mentioned. But this of course depends on Russian political and military plans for the deployment of their forces in different regions and different seas and their plans for the expansion of these forces. If the Russian leadership intends to expand Russian presence in the Eastern Mediterranean and in Syria, we certainly welcome such expansion.

As to contracts and military cooperation between Syria and Russia, as you know, it is quite old and has been going on for more than six decades, and nothing will change, as far as this cooperation is concerned, in this crisis. There were Russian contracts with Syria signed before the crisis and which started to be implemented after the beginning of the crisis. There are also other new contracts on weapons and military cooperation signed during the crisis and their implementation is ongoing. The nature of these contracts has of course changed given the nature of the battles conducted by the Syrian armed forces in facing the terrorists. But in essence the nature of these relations has not changed and has continued as before.

Question 14: Mr. President, I have another question. I would like to touch on the disastrous humanitarian situation in Syria during the crisis. We watch on the news, and we ourselves write about this, that ethnic and religious minorities in Syria have been targeted or been subject to violations by the terrorist organization. Does the Syrian government have plans to move these minorities to other areas, to provide a new environment for these displaced people where they can live? There are larger numbers of people belonging to minorities running away from ISIS. What is the number of those who became displaced in and outside Syria fleeing from ISIS and other organizations?

President Assad: As for the first part of the question, as I said earlier, the terrorists and the propaganda which helped them used divisive, sectarian, and ethnic language. The objective was to push components of the Syrian society to emigrate and to realize the terrorist plan in making Syria an undiverse country. Whenever there’s no diversity, there is always extremism.

In fact, the terrorists have not attacked minorities. They attack everybody in Syria, and the minorities have not been singled out in themselves, but this language has been necessary for them to create divisions within Syrian society. Now, if we do this, i.e. protect what are called minorities, it means that we are doing what the terrorists want. The Syrian state must be a state for all Syrian citizens, taking care of all, and defending all. This is what the Syrian Arab Army should do. That’s why I believe there should be only one plan which is protecting the homeland and protecting the Syrian people. When you protect the people, it is no longer important whether there are minorities or majorities in the Syrian people, because the people are one unit and all of them are targeted.

On the number of the displaced, there are no accurate statistics, and the figure changes every day. There are many people who leave certain areas and move to other areas where they have relatives. These people are not registered as displaced people. Of course the number inside and outside Syria is several millions, but it is greatly exaggerated in foreign media to be used to justify military intervention under a humanitarian slogan. What’s more important is that the Syrian state is providing care to all those who do not have a home. There are shelters for these displaced people, they are provided with medical care, food, and education for their children. Of course these things cannot be at the same level that they were used to in their lives before, but this is a temporary stage until their areas are freed from terrorists and they’re returned to their areas.

Question 15: Mr. President, how do you see Syrian-Arab relations when there are indications of closer Syrian-Egyptian relations and general coordination between Syria and Iraq? What is your position towards the Arab Summit being held without Syria’s participation?

President Assad: Arab Summits, at least since I attended the first one, have not achieved anything in the Arab world. This has to do with inter-Arab relations, because the Arab League consists of Arab states, some of which implement the Western agenda and hinder any progress in the work of the Arab League. Other countries do not play any role. They are neutral. A small number of these countries try to play a role. For example, when there was a vote in the Arab League to ask the Security Council to facilitate or conduct military action in Libya, Syria was the only country which objected. This was before the crisis, and was one of the reasons which made other Arab countries, which are in the Western sphere of influence, start an incitement campaign against Syria and push the problems, or the crisis, in this direction from the very beginning. That’s why inter-Arab relations are now subject to the desires of inter-Western relations. They are not independent. They are non-existent on the inter-Arab level and equally non-existent on the Syrian-Arab level.

As to our relation with Egypt, Egypt suffered from the same terrorism from which Syria suffered, but in a different way. It suffered from the attempts of Arab countries to interfere and fund terrorist forces, but of course to a much lesser degree than what happened in Syria. But there is a great degree of awareness in Egypt in general, on the level of the Egyptian state and people, of what happened in Syria recently. There is a relation but in a very limited framework between the two states, practically on the level of the security services. But we do not talk about real relations or about having closer ties unless there is a direct meeting between the concerned political institutions in the two countries. This hasn’t happened so far, and we hope to see a closer Syrian-Egyptian relation soon because of the importance of Syrian-Egyptian relations for the Arab condition in general. Relations with Iraq are good of course, and we coordinate with Iraq because we have the same terrorist arena.

Question 16: Mr. President, in a number of reports for RT, we said that after things settled down in Damascus, this year will be a year of great changes. After a number of foreign parliamentary and political delegations visited Syria, what is your reading of the near future, politically and militarily, particularly after your meetings with these delegations?

President Assad: The delegations which visited Syria recently, some publically and others secretly, express two things: first, they show the lack of credibility of the media campaign in the West towards what is happening in the region. Repeating the same lies for four years cannot continue because it is no longer convincing. Realities on the ground are changing, and there are things which we in Syria used to say from the beginning of the crisis which have proved to Western people to be true.

When we used to talk about the spread of terrorism, they used to say there was no terrorism. The delegations which visit Syria include journalists, civil society organizations, and parliamentarians. They wanted to come to Syria in order to know what is going on. On the other hand, there is something related to the states. More than one Western official we met told us that Western officials climbed the tree and are no longer capable of coming down. We have to help them come down through these meetings. They have lied a great deal to us for four years, and now they are saying the exact opposite. It won’t be possible for these politicians to say the opposite and say the truth, because they will end politically. That’s why they send delegations, and when the delegations return, they attack them, saying that they were private visits and have nothing to do with the state.

Despite the fact that these delegations include parliamentarians, but they include people who represent the executive authority, whether in the intelligence services, the ministries of defense, or the like. This shows that the Western countries still persist in their lies but they want a way out and do not know how to get out of the dilemma they have got themselves into.

Question 17: Once again, Mr. President, it’s Rossiyskaya Gazeta. The Syrian crisis has been going on for four years. I believe it has been a difficult experience for you as a leader of this state in order to help the state itself survive. Could you please tell me about this new experience you have acquired during this difficult period. What are the things you concluded concerning foreign relations, for instance? What are the principles you adopt in leading the state?

President Assad: It is self evident that the role of any state is to work for the interests of the people and the interests of the country. It is only normal that its role should be to act in order to achieve these interests. The conflict for the past decades, including this crisis, is actually linked to what is happening in Ukraine, first because Syria and Ukraine concern Russia, and second because the objective is clear: weakening Russia. The objective is to create client states. When the task of the state or the official is to work for the interests of the people, it is self evident that this should be the guiding principle in managing domestic and foreign policies. This requires continued dialogue between officials and the population, all the officials and all the population. It’s normal to have different viewpoints in every country, but ultimately there should be one general line which identifies the public policy of the state. In that case, even if there were mistakes, and even if there was some deviation, the people will support you in such crises because your intentions are good and because you do not implement the policies of other countries. You implement the policies of this people, a little better, a little worse, this is the nature of things.

This is why I say that what we have succeeded in doing during these four years is that we haven’t paid attention to the Western campaign, haven’t cared about Western statements. We have cared a great deal about what the different sections of the Syrian people think, particularly when there was an intellectual polarization in Syria, between those who support the state, those who oppose it, and those in the middle.

Many people now support the state after they discovered the truth, not because they support the state politically – they might have great differences with the state in terms of political, economic, cultural, and foreign policies – but they are convinced that this is a patriotic state which acts in the best interest of the people, and that if they want to change these policies, it should happen through constitutional and legal ways. This is what we have succeeded in doing, and this is what has protected our country. Had we gone in any other direction, we would have failed from the early months of the crisis, and what they proposed in terms of the state and the president would fall, would have been true, because they believed that we would move away from people and follow our own way, and this is what we haven’t done.

Question 18: With your permission, I have another question from Russia 24 TV channel. You talked about foreign attempts to change regimes in a number of countries, and there are moves and acts on the part of Western or foreign intelligence agencies to overthrow certain regimes. Did they try something like this with you before the crisis?

President Assad: Of course, and for decades. At least these attempts have not stopped for the past five decades. They used to have two trends: sometimes changing the state, and when these attempts fail, and they always do, they used to move in another direction which is weakening the state from within, and sometimes from the outside, through sanctions, in the same way they are behaving towards Russia now.

The sanctions against Russia aim at weakening Russia from the inside. We also have been subject to sanctions for decades, like Cuba, and they also failed. There have been other attempts through people inside the country, people who belong in their minds and aspirations to the West, not to the country. They admire the West and have an inferiority complex towards it, and that’s why they implement its agendas.

There was another method used through the Muslim Brotherhood, for instance. The organization was created in Egypt at the beginning of the last century with British support, not Egyptian support. The British created it in order to make it one of the tools used to destroy Egypt when Britain needs it. Of course, the organization spread to other Arab countries, including Syria. These methods will not stop as long as the West continues to think in a colonialist manner, and as long as there are states which speak the national language and do not accept foreign intervention. These countries include Russia, Syria, Iran, and many other countries in the world. They will continue to try, and I think they will not stop, because that is the logic of history: there are countries which want to dominate and control other countries, if not through war, then through the economy, and if not through the economy, then through creating problems and blackmail.

Journalists: Thank you, Mr. President.

President Assad: Thank you very much for visiting us in these circumstances, and I hope that this discussion has been useful to you and to your Russian audiences. When we talk to the Russians, we know that they know exactly what is happening in Syria, because what is happening in Syria and Russia is similar. And of course there are historical relations and Syrian-Russian families. I hope to see again you under different circumstances. Thank you.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on “The Syrian Crisis Can Be Solved” President Bashar Al-Assad’s Interview with the Russian Media

The decision by the Pentagon to bring charges of desertion and misbehavior before the enemy against former Afghanistan prisoner of war Bowe Bergdahl is vindictive and politically reactionary. Its purpose is to intimidate rank-and-file soldiers who, like Bergdahl, turn against the savagery of the wars American imperialism is waging in the Middle East and Central Asia, or who oppose future American wars around the world.

Bergdahl, a private first class near the beginning of a yearlong tour of duty in Afghanistan, walked away from his unit in Paktika province in June 2009. He was captured by the Taliban and held as a prisoner, often under barbaric conditions, and forced to participate in propaganda videos. The Obama administration negotiated his release last May as part of a prisoner exchange in which five long-held Taliban prisoners were allowed to leave Guantanamo Bay.

While the American media and the ultra-right have long peddled myths about Vietnam War-era POWs in an effort to retrospectively justify that imperialist bloodbath, these same elements immediately launched a campaign of vilification against the sole Afghan War POW upon his return home from captivity. Former members of Bergdahl’s unit played a prominent role in these efforts.

There were claims—all later proven false—that Bergdahl had left his unit in order to join the Taliban and fight on their side, and that as many as a dozen American soldiers had been killed in the course of fruitless efforts to find and rescue him in the months after his disappearance. At the height of this campaign, the Wall Street Journal published a commentary suggesting that Bergdahl should face the death penalty for desertion under fire in wartime.

The real reason for the ferocity of the attack on Bergdahl was his public disaffection from the war in Afghanistan and, in particular, his caustic criticism of the conduct of the American military in that devastated country. In 2012, Rolling Stone magazine had published excerpts of emails from Bergdahl to his parents in Idaho in which he declared, “I am ashamed to even be American. The horror of the self-righteous arrogance that they thrive in. It is all revolting.”

“I am sorry for everything here,” he continued. “These people need help, yet what they get is the most conceited country in the world telling them that they are nothing and that they are stupid, that they have no idea how to live.” Referring to a particularly gruesome incident he had witnessed, he added, “We don’t even care when we hear each other talk about running their children down in the dirt streets with our armored trucks.”

In response to the right-wing campaign against Bergdahl, the machinery of the Pentagon began to grind out the mockery that passes for “military justice.” Lt. Gen. Kenneth Dahl interviewed Bergdahl and other members of his unit and filed a report with the top brass. Last week, Gen. Mark Milley, head of the Army Forces Command at Fort Bragg, North Carolina, authorized charges against Bergdahl. A preliminary hearing is set for April 22 to determine whether to order a court-martial, accept a negotiated plea, or dismiss the charges.

Eugene Fidell, one of Bergdahl’s attorneys, said the Army report contains evidence that Bergdahl left his post not to desert, but to go to another military outpost to report on the conditions in his own unit. In a memorandum that he made public, Fidell wrote:

“[T]he report basically concludes that Sgt. Bergdahl did not intend to remain away from the Army permanently, as classic ‘long’ desertion requires… It also concludes that his specific intent was to bring what he thought were disturbing circumstances to the attention of the nearest general officer.”

This might have been a violation of military discipline, but it hardly warrants the charge of desertion.

Two military officials confirmed Fidell’s account of the secret report in interviews with CNN. “This was a kid who had leadership concerns on his mind,” one of the officials said. “He wasn’t fed up, he wasn’t planning to desert.”

The vendetta against Bergdahl reveals two interconnected political facts. First, the military brass is determined to make an example of the former POW because, in addition to popular opposition to the wars in the Middle East and Central Asia, there is increasing turmoil within the ranks of the military itself, as the Afghanistan War approaches its fifteenth year and the war in Iraq is resumed twelve years after the US invasion of that country.

Second, the Obama administration, which initially hailed Bergdahl’s safe return as a diplomatic triumph, to be celebrated with photo ops with the POW’s parents in the White House Rose Garden, takes its lead from the Pentagon chiefs. It is the military-intelligence apparatus, not its nominal civilian “commander,” that calls the shots in Washington.

Behind the vendetta against Bergdahl is the fear of a Vietnam War-like growth of demoralization and opposition within the ranks, under conditions of a continuous escalation of US military operations, not only in the Middle East, but directed increasingly against major powers such as Russia and China.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on The Pentagon’s Vendetta against Former Afghanistan Prisoner of War Bowe Bergdahl

New York Times Publishes Call to Bomb Iran

March 30th, 2015 by Robert Parry

If two major newspapers in, say, Russia published major articles openly advocating the unprovoked bombing of a country, say, Israel, the U.S. government and news media would be aflame with denunciations about “aggression,” “criminality,” “madness,” and “behavior not fitting the Twenty-first Century.”

But when the newspapers are American – the New York Times and the Washington Post – and the target country is Iran, no one in the U.S. government and media bats an eye. These inflammatory articles – these incitements to murder and violation of international law – are considered just normal discussion in the Land of Exceptionalism.

On Thursday, the New York Times printed an op-ed that urged the bombing of Iran as an alternative to reaching a diplomatic agreement that would sharply curtail Iran’s nuclear program and ensure that it was used only for peaceful purposes. The Post published a similar “we-must-bomb-Iran” op-ed two weeks ago.

The Times’ article by John Bolton, a neocon scholar from the American Enterprise Institute, was entitled “To Stop Iran’s Bomb, Bomb Iran.” It followed the Post’s op-ed by Joshua Muravchik, formerly at AEI and now a fellow at the neocon-dominated School of Advanced International Studies at Johns Hopkins. [For more on that piece, see Consortiumnews.com’s “Neocon Admits Plan to Bomb Iran.”]

Both articles called on the United States to mount a sustained bombing campaign against Iran to destroy its nuclear facilities and to promote “regime change” in Tehran. Ironically, these “scholars” rationalized their calls for unprovoked aggression against Iran under the theory that Iran is an aggressive state, although Iran has not invaded another country for centuries.

Bolton, who served as President George W. Bush’s ambassador to the United Nations, based his call for war on the possibility that if Iran did develop a nuclear bomb – which Iran denies seeking and which the U.S. intelligence community agrees Iran is not building – such a hypothetical event could touch off an arms race in the Middle East.

Curiously, Bolton acknowledged that Israel already has developed an undeclared nuclear weapons arsenal outside international controls, but he didn’t call for bombing Israel. He wrote blithely that “Ironically perhaps, Israel’s nuclear weapons have not triggered an arms race. Other states in the region understood — even if they couldn’t admit it publicly — that Israel’s nukes were intended as a deterrent, not as an offensive measure.”

How Bolton manages to read the minds of Israel’s neighbors who have been at the receiving end of Israeli invasions and other cross-border attacks is not explained. Nor does he address the possibility that Israel’s possession of some 200 nuclear bombs might be at the back of the minds of Iran’s leaders if they do press ahead for a nuclear weapon.

Nor does Bolton explain his assumption that if Iran were to build one or two bombs that it would use them aggressively, rather than hold them as a deterrent. He simply asserts: “Iran is a different story. Extensive progress in uranium enrichment and plutonium reprocessing reveal its ambitions.”

Pulling Back on Refinement

But is that correct? In its refinement of uranium, Iran has not progressed toward the level required for a nuclear weapon since its 2013 interim agreement with the global powers known as “the p-5 plus one” – for the permanent members of the UN Security Council plus Germany. Instead, Iran has dialed back the level of refinement to below 5 percent (what’s needed for generating electricity) from its earlier level of 20 percent (needed for medical research) — compared with the 90-plus percent purity to build a nuclear weapon.

In other words, rather than challenging the “red line” of uranium refinement that Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu drew during a United Nations speech in 2012, the Iranians have gone in the opposite direction – and they have agreed to continue those constraints if a permanent agreement is reached with the p-5-plus-1.

However, instead of supporting such an agreement, American neocons – echoing Israeli hardliners – are demanding war, followed by U.S. subversion of Iran’s government through the financing of an internal opposition for a coup or a “colored revolution.”

Bolton wrote: “An attack need not destroy all of Iran’s nuclear infrastructure, but by breaking key links in the nuclear-fuel cycle, it could set back its program by three to five years. The United States could do a thorough job of destruction, but Israel alone can do what’s necessary. Such action should be combined with vigorous American support for Iran’s opposition, aimed at regime change in Tehran.”

But one should remember that neocon schemes – drawn up at their think tanks and laid out on op-ed pages – don’t always unfold as planned. Since the 1990s, the neocons have maintained a list of countries considered troublesome for Israel and thus targeted for “regime change,” including Iraq, Syria and Iran. In 2003, the neocons got their chance to invade Iraq, but the easy victory that they predicted didn’t exactly pan out.

Still, the neocons never revise their hit list. They just keep coming up with more plans that, in total, have thrown much of the Middle East, northern Africa and now Ukraine into bloodshed and chaos. In effect, the neocons have joined Israel in its de facto alliance with Saudi Arabia for a Sunni sectarian conflict against the Shiites and their allies. Much like the Saudis, Israeli officials rant against the so-called “Shiite crescent” from Tehran through Baghdad and Damascus to Beirut. [See Consortiumnews.com’s “Congress Cheers Netanyahu’s Hatred of Iran.”]

Since Iran is considered the most powerful Shiite nation and is allied with Syria, which is governed by Alawites, an offshoot of Shiite Islam, both countries have remained in the neocons’ crosshairs. But the neocons don’t actually pull the trigger themselves. Their main role is to provide the emotional and political arguments to get the American people to hand over their tax money and their children to fight these wars.

The neocons are so confident in their skills at manipulating the U.S. decision-making process that some have gone so far as to suggest Americans should side with al-Qaeda’s Nusra Front in Syria or the even more brutal Islamic State, because those groups love killing Shiites and thus are considered the most effective fighters against Iran’s allies. [See Consortiumnews.com’s “The Secret Saudi Ties to Terrorism.”]

Friedman’s Madness

The New York Times’ star neocon columnist Thomas L. Friedman ventured to the edge of madness as he floated the idea of the U.S. arming the head-chopping Islamic State, writing this month: “Now I despise ISIS as much as anyone, but let me just toss out a different question: Should we be arming ISIS?”

I realize the New York Times and Washington Post are protected by the First Amendment and can theoretically publish whatever they want. But the truth is that the newspapers are extremely restrictive in what they print. Their op-ed pages are not just free-for-alls for all sorts of opinions.

For instance, neither newspaper would publish a story that urged the United States to launch a bombing campaign to destroy Israel’s actual nuclear arsenal as a step toward creating a nuclear-free Middle East. That would be considered outside responsible thought and reasonable debate.

However, when it comes to advocating a bombing campaign against Iran’s peaceful nuclear program, the two newspapers are quite happy to publish such advocacy. The Times doesn’t even blush when one of its most celebrated columnists mulls over the idea of sending weapons to the terrorists in ISIS – all presumably because Israel has identified “the Shiite crescent” as its current chief enemy and the Islamic State is on the other side.

But beyond the hypocrisy and, arguably, the criminality of these propaganda pieces, there is also the neocon record of miscalculation. Remember how the invasion of Iraq was supposed to end with Iraqis tossing rose petals at the American soldiers instead of planting “improvised explosive devices” – and how the new Iraq was to become a model pluralistic democracy?

Well, why does one assume that the same geniuses who were so wrong about Iraq will end up being right about Iran? What if the bombing and the subversion don’t lead to nirvana in Iran? Isn’t it just as likely, if not more so, that Iran would react to this aggression by deciding that it needed nuclear bombs to deter further aggression and to protect its sovereignty and its people?

In other words, might the scheming by Bolton and Muravchik — as published by the New York Times and the Washington Post — produce exactly the result that they say they want to prevent? But don’t worry. If the neocons’ new schemes don’t pan out, they’ll just come up with more.

Robert Parry broke many of the Iran-Contra stories in the 1980s for the Associated Press and Newsweek. His latest book, Neck Deep: The Disastrous Presidency of George W. Bush, was written with two of his sons, Sam and Nat. His two previous books are Secrecy & Privilege: The Rise of the Bush Dynasty from Watergate to Iraq and Lost History: Contras, Cocaine, the Press & ‘Project Truth’.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on New York Times Publishes Call to Bomb Iran

Egyptian military dictator Abdel Fattah al-Sisi announced at a meeting of the Arab League on Sunday that the organization had agreed in principle to the formation of a regional military force. A grouping of 22 countries in the Middle East and Africa, the Arab League has long sought to develop a military force which could actively intervene throughout the region.

Egyptian officials indicated that the army will be composed of 40,000 elite soldiers backed by jet fighters, naval warships and light armor. The announcement was made at the Arab League’s annual meeting, held in the Egyptian resort town of Sharm El Sheikh.

The secretary-general of the Arab League, Nabil Elaraby, read a communiqué stating that the new military force would be aimed at combating militant Islamist forces, including the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria, which now have a presence in Yemen and have taken control over significant portions of Iraq, Syria and Libya. The army could also be deployed at the request of any Arab nation that declared it was facing a threat to its national security.

The new army will primarily serve as a proxy force for the United States to assert its geopolitical interests across the wider Middle East and Africa. The US provides a significant amount of military equipment, weaponry and logistical support to the countries that belong to the Arab League.

The government of US President Barack Obama signed $90 billion in weapons deals with the Saudi monarchy between 2010 and 2014, agreeing to provide Saudi Arabia with 84 new jet fighters, 160 new helicopters and heavy artillery, armored vehicles and anti-tank missiles. The US has provided the Egyptian government with at least $1.3 billion annually in military equipment and assistance for more than 30 years.

The agreement came amidst the expanding Saudi-led, US-supported air campaign against Zaydi Shiite Houthi rebels in Yemen, now in its fifth day. In addition to the deployment of US-supplied jet fighters and bombs by Saudi Arabia and its allies, the American military has been providing vital intelligence and logistical support for carrying out air strikes.

With the open military intervention of Saudi Arabia and other Sunni-majority countries in support of President Abd Rabbuh Mansour Hadi against the Iranian-backed Houthis, the ongoing sectarian conflict in Yemen threatens to explode into a region-wide war with potentially devastating consequences.

Arab League Secretary-General Elaraby told reporters over the weekend that Saudi Arabia and its allies had no choice but to launch a military assault after the Houthis moved against President Hadi’s stronghold in Aden, Yemen’s second-largest city, last week.

“Yemen was on the brink of the abyss, requiring effective Arab and international moves after all means of reaching a peaceful resolution have been exhausted to end the Houthi coup and restore legitimacy,”

he stated.

Air strikes were reported Saturday on the Attan air base in Sanaa, air defense systems in the western Red Sea province of Hodeida, and against targets in the northern Houthi stronghold of Saada. The Yemeni Health Ministry reported that air strikes in Sanaa between Saturday and Sunday had killed 35 people and wounded 88.

Air strikes have been launched against the Houthi-controlled Al Anad airbase, which had served as the headquarters for US drone missile strikes against suspected Al Qaeda militants in Yemen. US and European Special Operations soldiers evacuated the air base last week in the face of the Houthis’ southern advance.

There was also continued fighting Sunday between Houthi militia backed by military forces loyal to former longtime ruler Ali Abdullah Saleh and forces backing his successor Hadi in the southern port city of Aden. Since fighting began in Aden last week, at least 61 people have been killed and a further 500 wounded.

Hadi fled Yemen for Saudi Arabia on Wednesday in the face of an assault on Aden by Houthi militia and forces loyal to Saleh. Both Hadi and Saleh enjoy little popular support within Yemen due to their backing of the reviled program of drone assassinations carried out in the country by the Obama administration since 2009.

The campaign of air strikes has been backed by the threat of an imminent ground invasion spearheaded by Saudi and Egyptian troops. Saudi Arabia has mobilized as many as 150,000 troops and stationed heavy artillery along its border with Yemen. Egypt has reportedly stationed troop ships off the coast of Yemen for a possible amphibious assault. Pakistani Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif, in a phone call Sunday with Saudi King Salman bin Abdulaziz Al Saud, offered “all potentials of the Pakistani Army” to assist Saudi Arabia. Sudan has also mobilized soldiers for a possible ground invasion.

Indicating plans for long-term military operations in Yemen, the Arab League released a statement declaring that the bombing campaign would continue until the Houthis completely “withdraw and surrender their weapons.”

Brigadier General Ahmed Asseri, a spokesman for the Saudi-led coalition, told reporters on Sunday that the assault on the Houthis would continue until Hadi could reassert control over the country. “The Yemeni army was almost dismantled,” Asseri stated.

“One of the conditions is for them to take over. We will continue to attack the militias, we will keep them under pressure, until the conditions become very favorable for the army to take over.”

Referring to the goal of forcibly re-imposing Hadi and defeating the Houthis, Saudi King Salman vowed in a speech to this weekend’s Arab League meeting that his country will continue military operations “until stability is returned” to Yemen.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Arab League Agrees to Formation of Regional Army as Yemen Assault Expands

Prof. Pam Palmater speaks at Toronto Day of Action against Bill C-51, March 14, 2015 | OFL

Pam Palmater is a Mi’kmaq lawyer, professor and Chair in Indigenous Governance at Ryerson University, a noted media commentator, activist and advocate for the rights of First Nations people, women and children. Ms. Palmater appeared before the House of Commons Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security on the morning of March 24 as a witness to speak to her concerns about Bill C-51, the Anti-Terrorism Act, 2015. Her testimony reveals the extent to which people are already targeted by security forces for being political in Canada and how Bill C-51 aims to go further. Palmater also provides an example of the refusal to be intimidated by state forces and why it is necessary to stand up for rights.

Related: Harper government irrationalism at Bill C-51 committee

Calendar: Events across Canada to defeat Bill C-51 and defend the rights of all

* * *

Thank you for inviting me here today to speak. I want to first acknowledge we are on the traditional territory of the Algonquin Nation. That’s not just the polite acknowledgement, that’s the very reason why all of you get to sit here today. Were it not for the cooperation, generosity, kindness and political alliances, Canada wouldn’t be what it is. If it wasn’t for the peace treaties between our nations that are now constitutionally protected and form part of the foundational aspects of Canada none of us would be sitting here today. I think that goes to the very heart of Bill C-51 and why I am opposed to it.

Canada has placed Bill C-51 before Indigenous peoples without any information, analysis, details on how it will impact our nations, any consultation or consent from our part. It is a gross violation of our nation-to-nation relationship. I don’t have time to go through all of the technical legal details, and problems with this bill, except to say that I echo all of the concerns that have already been brought and will be brought by the thousands of lawyers in this country, security experts, former prime ministers, and former Supreme Court of Canada justices.

My main concern is how this bill will impact me, my family and Indigenous peoples all over Canada and our treaty partners, other Canadians. Canada has a long history of criminalizing every aspect of Indigenous identity. From the scalping bounties in 1749, which nearly wiped out my Mi’kmaq nation, to the Indian Act which has outlawed our culture, our right to educate our own children, and even excluded Indigenous women from our communities. Every aspect of our identity has been criminalized both historically and continues in the present day. In every single instance, we’ve had to resist all of these laws, keeping in mind these were all validly enacted laws. It was legal to take Mi’kmaq scalps. It was legal to confine us to reserves. It was legal to deny us legal representation. All of these things were law in Canada.

We had to be criminal, as in we had to break the law in order to preserve our lives, our physical security, and our identity. We are being faced with this very problem again with Bill C-51.

Over the years, these laws have morphed into provincial and municipal regulations which deal with even our traditional means of providing subsistence, hunting, fishing, gathering, have all been so criminalized for Indigenous people that we end up skulking around in the forest just to be able to provide food for our families. Every single court case that has been won at the Supreme Court of Canada has been a battle between Indigenous peoples trying to live their lives and exercise their rights and identities facing some kind of criminal or regulatory charge.

In every single instance we have been labelled as criminals, treated as criminals, and one need only look at the current prison population to understand that this is still the case. Not just the case, but, as Howard Sapers from the Office of the Correctional Investigator has indicated, a national crisis and embarrassment. And why? Not because we’re actually terrorists. Not because we’re more culturally predisposed to being criminals, but as a direct result of Canada’s discriminatory laws and policies. There have been endless justice inquiries which have pointed to the infection in our Canadian justice system of racism. The Donald Marshall wrongful prosecution inquiry, the Manitoba justice inquiry, the Ipperwash inquiry, say that every aspect of our justice system, from the arresting officers, to the lawyers, to the judges, to the prison system, overtly and systemically discriminate against Indigenous people. That’s our current reality.

Bill C-51 proposes to take that to the last and final step. All we have left now as Indigenous people are our thoughts. And our thoughts, our private thoughts will now be criminalized. It will now be possible to be considered a terrorist for storing alleged terrorist propaganda on our own personal computers. My declaration of sovereignty, and I’m going to say it before Bill C-51 passes: I am part of the Sovereign Mi’kmaq nation. That kind of material on my computer could be considered terrorism, a threat to national security because it’s a threat to Canada’s sovereignty.

Welcome to the new terrorist. My name is Pam Palmater. I’m a lawyer, I’m a professor, I’m a mom, and I’m a social justice activist. I’ve won numerous awards for my work in social justice, women’s equality, children’s rights. Depending on who’s “radicalized” view you speak of, I have also been called a radical, a bad Indian, eco-terrorist, enemy of the people, top five to fear Canadian, dangerous militant, and whacko extremist.

My biggest concern isn’t how I’m presented in the media or by government officials. I’m stronger than that. My biggest concern is how this impacts me right now: the level of government surveillance for a law-abiding, peaceful social justice activist who’s never been arrested or convicted of any crime.

In my ATIP [Access to Information and Privacy request] to CSIS, they explained that they have a right to prevent hostile and subversive activities against the Canadian state, which is why they have a file on me. However, they don’t offer any reason why I would be considered subversive and hostile. In fact, everything I do couldn’t be more public. In my ATIP to Indian Affairs they would not confirm that they monitor me. However, they said they do conduct an analysis of me and my activities because I am an active voice. That “analysis” comprised 750 pages of documents which track all of my whereabouts, cities I was traveling to, where I was speaking and the dates and times. They could not provide my security file because it was destroyed, however.

When I attend gatherings, rallies, protests or public or private events, I often cannot make cell phone calls, send texts or access my social media, my bank cards or my credit cards. I can be at an Idle No More rally or protest and text my children but I cannot communicate with the very chiefs who are at the same protest. This causes me great concern for my safety. How am I supposed to help ensure the comfort and safety of the people at rallies and myself if I can’t communicate with anyone. And I don’t have to remind this committee the staggering statistics of vulnerability of Indigenous women in this country.

I contacted the RCMP as well. They never responded to my ATIP. However, individual RCMP officers at various events have confirmed that they were there to monitor me. At numerous protests I have been informed by RCMP and provincial police that I had to keep my protest peaceful. Sometimes they didn’t identify themselves, and at speaking engagements the host First Nation would demand that any undercover RCMP or Ontario or other police officers identify themselves. And in many cases they did.

What’s more concerning is the number of government officials that follow me around from speaking engagement to speaking engagement and often identify themselves when called upon to do so. Probably the most shocking is when I travel internationally in countries like Samoa, Peru, England and Switzerland, only to be informed by local law authorities that Canadian officials are there to monitor me. That’s very frightening in a country where I have committed no crime but to advocate peacefully on behalf of my people.

In the prairie provinces, the RCMP are very active. They will often call ahead to the university or First Nation where I’m speaking and ask them to identify what my “target” will be or where I plan my protests. This isn’t just a problem for me; we’ve all heard about Cindy Blackstock and others.

Skipping to what my recommendations are, because I can see that I am out of time: Bill C-51 must be withdrawn. There is no way to fix it. There must be proper public information consultation, specific consultation for Indigenous peoples, and a proper parliamentary study. Directing Justice Canada to rubber-stamp the bill as compliant, even if it has a 95 per cent chance of being overturned in court is not democratic.

We need an independent review body to report on the ongoing surveillance of Indigenous peoples that will take complaints, do proper investigations and offer redress. And finally, we are in desperate need of a special First Nation advocate to be appointed for any and all court processes in all provinces and territories whenever applications are made in secret for court warrants. This person would be an amicus, a friend of the court who would be independent and could speak to all of the various constitutional and Indigenous rights at stake.

This is absolutely essential, especially if Bill C-51 is to be passed.

Response to MPs’ Questions

It doesn’t just impact Indigenous peoples, it impacts the rest of Canada: environmentalists, unions, women’s groups, children’s advocates. We have to get real about what is the clear and present danger here. How many Canadians on Canadian soil have died from acts of terrorism? Compare that with how many thousands of murdered and missing Indigenous women and girls there are. Where is the Bill C-51 to protect them? How many thousands have killed their wives? How many serial killers have we had? Yet we’re focusing on C-51.

The problem is this bill isn’t really about terrorism. If you do an analysis of this omnibus bill the focus is just as you said, less about being anti-terrorism, and more about protecting the status quo – the status quo in terms of power relations, in terms of economic relations. This “new” national security law focuses on threats to sovereignty, territorial integrity, diplomatic relations of all things, economic stability, critical infrastructure. All of these things are an essential part of the daily lives of Canadians and First Nations.

Passing this bill for any activity, any person, any purpose that threatens national security so defined as financial stability, and territorial integrity, makes us all suspects. Canada won’t even have to pass the bill – the terrorists will have won. What is terrorism? Fundamentally, it is the denial of life, liberty and security of the person. If Canada goes ahead and takes those rights away, terrorists just have to sit back. Job done. And we worked far too hard in our treaty negotiations, far too hard in the development of the Charter and the Constitution, and all of the international laws that protect core fundamental human rights to allow that to happen because we wanted to protect some corporate economic interests.

Bill C-51 as currently written would capture everything under Idle No More. Imagine, Grand Chief Matthew Coon Come of the Grand Council of the Cree offered a quote for my submission as well, which said that had their activities been done today as opposed to back then, there wouldn’t be the negotiation of the James Bay Agreement. They would all be in jail.

The Idle No More movement, which was a historic coming together of First Nations and Canadians peacefully, dancing, singing and drumming, would now all be monitored, if not already, as the media has indicated, maybe arbitrarily detained. All of these things are very frightening for this country, and keeping in mind the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples protects us, grants us, recognizes as international customary law that we can act autonomously, we can occupy our land.

In the Department of National Defence’s manual, occupying our land, advocating for our autonomy, advocating for political rights, is described as insurgency alongside “Jihadists.” It is no comfort that there is a proviso saying that “lawful” activity, “lawful” dissent, “lawful” protest “lawful,” art, whatever that is, won’t be captured by this bill, because the second you do a round dance in the street without a permit, it very quickly becomes unlawful.

And we have to remember, I already went over all of the very validly-enacted laws that Canada has had that have killed, ended up in killing, murders, rapes, sterilization, scalping of our people. Those were valid laws. The only way to protect ourselves was to act unlawful in resistance. What we’re saying now is that the clear and present danger to First Nations and Canadians is the environmental destruction and contamination of our water, and we have a right to defend our life, liberty and security to protect our future generations. Under this bill, that will all be captured as a threat to national security and/or terrorism.

(Photos: OFL, TML)

Related reading

Harper government irrationalism at Bill C-51 committee”, March 27, 2015. Report and comment on the response of the Harper government to Dr Palmateer’s testimony

Pam Palmater tells committee to withdraw anti-terrorism bill, APTN News


To stay up to date with unfolding developments on Bill C-51, see Renewal Update, online bulletin of the Marxist-Leninist Party of Canada. Subscription is free.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Canada: Anti-Terrorist Bill C-51 to Criminalize Thoughts of Indigenous Peoples

The Times of London, Mar. 27, 2015 (emphasis added): Japan faces 200-year wait for Fukushima clean-up — The chief of the Fukushima nuclear power station has admitted that the technology needed to decommission three melted-down reactors does not exist, and he has no idea how it will be developed. In a stark reminder of the challenge facing the Japanese authorities, Akira Ono conceded that the stated goal of decommissioning the plant by 2051 may be impossible without a giant technological leap. “There are so many uncertainties involved. We need to develop many, many technologies,” Mr Ono said. “Forremoval of the debris, we don’t have accurate information (about the state of the reactors) or any viable methodology… [The rest of the article is only available to Times’ subscribers]

The Telegraph (UK), Mar 26, 2015:  Japan may be obsessed with robots, but it is a British company that has solved the “impossible” problem of visualising the radiation leaks inside the crippled reactor buildings at Fukushima — State-of-the-art British imaging technology has been deployed at Japan’s crippled Fukushima nuclear plant to overcome problems that Japanese engineers declared to be insurmountable… [The] system is able to create a real-time, three-dimensional image of the area being surveyed and identify “hot-spots” of radioactivity. More than four years after… radiation levels within the structures remain too high for humans to enter. That has severely hampered efforts to… clean up the site. Experts have already estimated that process will take three decades but progress to date has been slow. [TEPCO] was only able to confirm on Thursday previous suspicions that nearly all the fuel from the No. 1 reactor at the plant has melted and fallen into the containment vessel.

Two more reactors appear to have experienced similar fates… “One of their guys said it was like finding a Picasso in the loft because their experts had told them that what we do was impossible“, [said Dr Matt Mellor, director of Createc]… Createc engineers first visited the Fukushima plant in 2013. “It was a shocking sight… so it was clear this was going to be a major challenge from the outset”, he added.

See also: ABC at Fukushima: This could go on for centuries, and some say problems can never be fixed; “Tepco admits it doesn’t know extent of meltdowns” — Official: We don’t know ‘real situation’ of the molten fuel, “nobody has seen it”; We need help from the world (VIDEO)


  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Japan Faces 200-Year Wait for Fukushima Clean-Up — Technology to Decommission Melted-Down Reactors Does Not Exist

People walk through the heavily-bombed Shujaiya area in eastern Gaza in July 2014 during a pause in attacks.  (Photo: Iyad al Baba/Oxfam via flickr/cc)

Palestinians suffered a dramatic increase in fatalities last year, with more killed by Israel in 2014 than any other annual period since the 1967 war nearly 50 years ago.

new report from the United Nations Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs in the occupied Palestinian territory found that, overall, Israel was responsible for 2,314 Palestinian deaths and 17,125 injuries last calendar year.

Entitled Fragmented Lives, the study concludes that Israel’s 50-day military assault on Gaza last summer was the most significant driver of casualties. Between July 7 and August 26, Israel killed at least 2,220 Palestinians and wounded 11,231 in the war. According to researchers, 1,492 of those killed were civilians, but the number could be far higher, as 123 are listed as unverified. At least 551 children are numbered among the dead.

When compared with Israeli deaths, the human toll is asymmetrical. The report notes that 71 Israelis, 66 of them soldiers, were killed, in addition to one foreign national.

But this high magnitude of human loss is not limited to Gaza.

The West Bank, including East Jerusalem, “witnessed the highest number of Palestinian fatalities in incidents involving Israeli forces since 2007 and the highest number of Palestinian injuries since 2005, when OCHA began collecting data,” the report notes.

There was a drastic spike in child casualties specifically, as well as a a dramatic rise in Palestinian injuries, driven by a “sharp increase in the Israeli forces’ use of live ammunition.”

This trend appears to be continuing into 2015.

Earlier this week, Defence for Children International-Palestine reported that, in the first three months of this year, at least 30 children in the West Bank and East Jerusalem were shot with live ammunition by Israeli forces during protest, with several left in critical condition.

But the human toll was not limited to immediate deaths and wounds, the UN report notes.

In the West Bank and East Jerusalem, Palestinians endured a dramatic rise in incarceration for alleged security offenses, including a monthly average of 185 Palestinian children held in military detention. Defense for Children International – Palestine has documented abuse and torture that Palestinian children endure in Israeli prisons, where they are denied due process.

Furthermore, in the West Bank and East Jerusalem, home demolitions, discriminatory planning, and settler violence led to high levels of displacement last year. More than 7,500 Palestinian Bedouins in 46 West Bank communities face the immediate threat of forcible transfer by Israeli authorities, thanks to a controversial relocation plan, the report notes.

In Gaza, nearly half a million people—28 percent of the population—were internally displaced last year by the war, and as of the end of December, approximately 100,000 remain displaced.

The report was released just days after Israel and close ally and backer the United Statesboycotted a UN human rights session aimed, in part at addressing Israeli human rights violations.

Yousef Munayyer, executive director for the U.S. Campaign to End the Israeli Occupation, told Common Dreams that the UN report underscores the importance, right now, for the international community to exert pressure to enforce real change.

“Palestinians continue to pay highest price for the status quo,” said Munayyer. “The failure to do something to resolve this situation is a stain on the moral conscience of international community.”

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on 2014 Deadliest Year for Palestinians Since 1967, UN Report Finds

As al-Qaeda forces seize power over the city of Idlib in Syria and begin to install a reign of Sharia terror on what is left of the population that was unable to evacuate, bombs rain down upon Houthi rebels in Yemen. Interestingly enough, both fronts are those for which the United States, NATO, and the GCC are able to hold their heads high in the Mockingbird mainstream media as examples of how the US and its allies stand for freedom and democracy across the world.

In Yemen, the US stands firm in its support of what it claims is a “democratically elected legitimate government” by assisting its Gulf State monarchy allies and Egypt in a bombing campaign against the “violent and extreme” rebels threatening “order” and “stability” across the country. In Syria, the US proudly proclaims its support for the “underdog” of “rebels” attempting to overthrow a “brutal dictator” who “violates human rights” and “kills his own people.”

Indeed, it is the tale of two rebellions.

It is the unbelievable arrogance of a ruling class to claim to contradicting ideologies and justifications for the same act in front of an entire nation without fear of exposing their true agenda. Unfortunately, in 2015, it is more confidence than arrogance since there is undoubtedly empirical evidence of success, since the American people have fallen for virtually every excuse given for military conflict since the first World War. Indeed, the general public is now fully capable of lapping up any excuse for war fed to them by the ruling class and equally capable of forgetting that justification as rapidly as they are required to in favor of another.

Nevertheless, the US position on Yemen vs. Syria is quite telling.

In Syria, the United States is supporting what it calls “moderate rebels” but who are, in reality, bloodthirsty jihadist mercenaries funded, trained, armed, and directed by the West for the purposes of destroying the secular government of Bashar al-Assad. These alleged “rebels” are overwhelmingly foreign fighters and who are directed by foreign powers. For all intents and purposes, it is an invasion. Yet, in Syria, foreign involvement in the organization of gangs of terrorists running rampant across the country is entirely acceptable in terms of international relations.

In Yemen, however, a revolution that appears to be almost entirely organic (although admittedly receiving some assistance from Iran although the extent of which is unknown) and made up of entirely Yemeni fighters against a truly oppressive government is considered a foreign-backed insurgency. In this instance, a foreign-backed insurgency targeting the national government cannot be tolerated by the international community.

In Syria, any combat operation taken by the Assad forces against the Islamic State where civilians may be caught in the crossfire (or even when there is no evidence of civilian death), the Assad government is accused of “killing its own people” and “crimes against humanity.” Any airstrikes taken by the Syrian military are considered to be “human rights violations” if civilians are unintentionally harmed in the process.

Yet, in Yemen, where the bombing campaign against Houthi rebels resulted in 39 civilian deaths, there were virtually no reports circulating in the mainstream Western press of these victims. In this case, civilian deaths were acceptable losses and “collateral damage.”

Obviously, the US and its mainstream mouthpieces are quite selective in regards to which deaths are acceptable and which ones are not. The West is thus presenting propaganda at the most basic and simplistic level. Simply put, anyone killed by the enemies of the West was intentional and a crime against humanity. Anyone killed by the West is a murderer, terrorist, and an enemy and therefore had it coming.

Regardless, any claims of concern for human rights should be met with howls laughter if such a campaign is to be led by notorious human rights violators like Saudi Arabia. As Tony Cartalucci writes,

The unelected hereditary regime ruling over Saudi Arabia, a nation notorious for egregious human rights abuses, and a land utterly devoid of even a semblance of what is referred to as “human rights,” is now posing as arbiter of which government in neighboring Yemen is “legitimate” and which is not, to the extent of which it is prepared to use military force to restore the former over the latter.

The United States providing support for the Saudi regime is designed to lend legitimacy to what would otherwise be a difficult narrative to sell. However, the United States itself has suffered from an increasing deficit in its own legitimacy and moral authority.

Most ironic of all, US and Saudi-backed sectarian extremists, including Al Qaeda in Yemen, had served as proxy forces meant to keep Houthi militias in check by proxy so the need for a direct military intervention such as the one now unfolding would not be necessary. This means that Saudi Arabia and the US are intervening in Yemen only after the terrorists they were supporting were overwhelmed and the regime they were propping up collapsed.

In reality, Saudi Arabia’s and the United States’ rhetoric aside, a brutal regional regime meddled in Yemen and lost, and now the aspiring global hegemon sponsoring it from abroad has ordered it to intervene directly and clean up its mess.

Cartalucci rightly points out that the bombing campaign over Yemen is nothing more than a proxy war to not only protect US-backed assets in power in Sanaa, but also to combat Iranian influence in the region.

Although it has been admitted by military-industrial complex think tank RAND Corporation that Iran’s military strategy in the Middle East is largely defensive, the US and Western governments are portraying events in Yemen as if they are the result of Iranian aggression. This despite the fact that virtually all of the destabilizing events in the Middle East in recent modern history have been created the United States, NATO, and/or Israel.

The fact is that Iran is not a controller of the Houthi rebellion. While Iran may indeed be playing a nominal role in assisting the rebels out of geopolitical strategy and most certainly would be a willing recipient of any information provided by the rebels, the NATO/GCC goal is to deny Iran any influence it may have upon Yemen in the event of a total Houthi takeover of the country.

In the process, military and political pressure will be implemented in order to prevent the Shiite Crescent from becoming a circle. Blatant lies and hypocrisy will no doubt be implemented as well.

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 Freedom7 Real ConspiraciesFive 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. 

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Yemen and Syria – Two Different Rebellions, Two Different Stories, Same Belligerent West

US-Sponsored Slow-Motion Genocide in Yemen

March 30th, 2015 by Stephen Lendman

Bush and Obama administrations murdered Yemenis for years – through drone terror-bombings and internal subversion killing mostly civilians. Yemen is the region’s poorest country. 

Before leaving to participate in Iranian nuclear talks in Lausanne on Sunday, Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov highlighted Washington’s typical double standard hypocrisy.

On the one hand, it ousted Ukraine’s democratically President Viktor Yanukovych – replacing him with putschist Nazi thugs.

On the other, it supports illegitimate Yemeni president Abd Rabbuh Mansur Hadi – coronated in a 2012 election with no opposing candidates.

“I have to use the hoary old cliche,” Lavrov said. “The double standards are evident.”

Responsible policy isn’t America’s long suit. It’s all take and no give.

On Sunday, Yemeni Foreign Minister Riyad Yassin said a Saudi-led ground invasion of Yemen is expected in days.

Both countries share a long border. Thousands of Saudi forces mobilized to cross over with heavy weapons.

Airstrikes continue. Scores of civilians have been killed.

A Saudi military spokesman said its forces together with regional allies are ready to launch ground attacks if needed.

Regional war could follow – another potential US-sponsored  bloodbath.

Clashes along border areas began – prelude to much heavier fighting if Saudi-led forces invade.

On Sunday, Houthi Ansarullah Political Council senior member Mohammad al-bakhiti said “(a)ny ground attack on Yemen will receive a rigidly harsh response.”

“We have not responded to the Saudi aggressions in the past five days because we wanted to allow the Arab countries to reconsider their action and stop their attacks.”

“(F)rom now on, everything will be different. Whatever the (weekend Arab League summit) decided about Yemen will end in serious crisis.”

Sunday night airstrikes attacked Yemen’s capital, Sanaa – targeting areas around the presidential palace and diplomatic quarter.

A Yemeni official described things as “a night from hell.”

In Aden, explosions and gunfire continued throughout the night. Other targets throughout the country were struck.

Arab aggressors vowed to continue terror-bombing until Houthis surrendered.

Russian Deputy Foreign Minister Mikhail Bogdanov urged “all sides of the conflict to cease military action in the name of preserving the unity, sovereignty and territorial integrity of Yemen.”

Scores of deaths so far are known. Precise numbers remain to be determined. Civilian residential areas were struck. Homes were destroyed.

On Sunday, a senior Yemeni air force official said 11 of 16 fighter aircraft were destroyed. Houthis control remaining ones.

Arab League leaders meeting in Sharm El Sheikh, Egypt over the weekend agreed to create a joint military force to counter what they called extremism, political instability and threats to regional peace.

Creating it will take months at least. Previous efforts for joint military cooperation went nowhere. Perhaps this time will be no different.

The last thing the war-torn Middle East needs is more militarism. A regional army means more conflict, not less.

Plans call for 40,000 combat troops, armor, fighter aircraft and warships – to be deployed NATO-style at the request of any member state claiming (true or false) its national security is threatened.

If formed, it’ll be a US proxy force to be used aggressively against independent regional states Washington wants targeted – perhaps Syria, Iraq, Libya, Hezbollah-controlled Southern Lebanon and/or Yemen.

Ongoing conflicts threaten to set the entire region ablaze. Washington bears full responsibility.

Wherever it shows up, mass slaughter and destruction follow. The price of imperial arrogance is devastating wars without end.

Yemen is Washington’s latest imperial high crime against peace. The entire country may be turned to rubble 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. 

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on US-Sponsored Slow-Motion Genocide in Yemen

After last week’s air tragedy, maybe a poor thought process but please stay with me. 

Would you ever get on an airplane if there was no pilot? 

Would you be confident of reaching your destination safely?  Of course not. 

Whether you know it or not, you are living in an economic and financial “airplane” with Chairwoman of the Federal Reserve Janet Yellen as the pilot.  The sad thing is this, even she admits the airplane is broken, I’ll explain why shortly.

Mrs. Yellen gave a speech Friday for the San Francisco Fed.  The full text can be found here.

Before getting into the particulars, I must say it is “sad” to see our “pilot” go back and forth while not saying much of anything…and what was said was largely incorrect or misinformation.  In short, I believe Mrs. Yellen was pandering to Wall Street with her continual line of “we will raise rates later but not yet, and when we do is will be gradual” (my paraphrase).  As I have written many times before, the Fed cannot raise rates and if they did the markets will not even be open for trade within two weeks!

First and foremost, let’s look at a few of the Fed’s assumptions.  They assume unemployment is 5.5%, the economy is growing and inflation is “too low” and well below 2%.  Let’s pull these assumptions apart and then put them back together.  Unemployment is not 5.5%, this is total fallacy.  The workforce participation rate is plumbing 40 year lows now and those “not looking for work” …because they cannot find any are just thrown in a heap and forgotten about.  This has the effect of making the “potential” workforce smaller than it really is, a statistical gimmick for the ages.  If unemployment was calculated as it once was back in 1980, the rate would be above 17% as calculated by John Williams Shadow Stats.  The 5.5% number is a hilarious fabrication Joseph Goebbels would be ashamed of!

Next, we have the economic growth rate.  Friday’s final 4th quarter report claimed 2.2% growth, if you look at the Fed’s OWN MODEL, the first quarter is growing at .2% (NOT two percent, POINT two percent!).  If we go one step further and look at “how” the growth rate is calculated, we see there is an “assumption” for inflation.  The way it works is the inflation assumption is deducted from the nominal growth rate to arrive at a real growth rate.  If inflation is low, it’s only a small deduction to growth.  If inflation is high, the deduction to growth will be greater.  For example, if we have nominal growth of 3% and inflation at 1%, the real rate is 3%minus1% =2%.  But what if the inflation rate is really 5%?  Now we get 3%minus5%= a negative 2%, or contraction …otherwise known as recession…and herein lies the problem!

The Fed uses BLS statistics for their models and uses CPI and PPI numbers in their calculations.  These are NOT true inflation numbers.  Yes, they are massaged, twisted and just plain made up, but this is not the “fallacy”.  The definition of inflation or deflation has nothing to do with “prices”, price movement is the result, not the cause.  The growth of, or the contraction of the money supply is the definition of either inflation or deflation.  Janet Yellen knows this, Bernanke and Greenspan knew this …they don’t want YOU to know this.  They don’t want you to know this because if you did, then you would know we have not had a single quarter since 2007 with real growth!!!

Now that we have that out of the way, let’s look at a few of her quotes and finish with a “Q+A” mindblower.  Mrs. Yellen contends “With continued improvement in economic conditions, an increase in the target range for that rate may well be warranted later this year.”  She followed this by saying …the economy in an “underlying” sense remains quite weak by historical standards.  So which is it?  Strong or weak?  Of course, all of this was prefaced by admitting to “extraordinary monetary ease” over the last six years and then later spoke about the timing of rates hikes being difficult because of the “long lag times”.  Does six years qualify as “long”?  I can still remember studying money and banking in college, the “lag time” was generally considered six to nine months, has so much changed in the thirty years I’ve been out of school?  (The answer of course is yes, it has).

Another quote, and an obvious case of “mental lag” on her part, she said,

“An environment of prolonged low short-term rates could prompt an excessive buildup in leverage or cause underwriting standards to erode as investors take on risks they cannot measure or manage appropriately in a reach for yield”.

Really?  Ya think?  Are you saying that abnormally low short term interest rates tend to blow bubbles faster than Lawrence Welk?

Before getting to the real fun, let’s look at what I think was a first admission on the part of the Fed regarding their balance sheet.  Mrs. Yellen said:

“But if growth was to falter and inflation was to fall yet further, the effective lower bound on nominal interest rates could limit the Committee’s ability to provide the needed degree of accommodation. With an already large balance sheet, for example, the FOMC might be concerned about potential costs and risks associated with further asset purchases.”

Do you understand what she just said?  In my own blunt words, she said “if the markets were to turn down and economy further down from here, since interest rates are already at zero …there is nothing we could do.  We have already expanded our balance sheet to the limit and would risk bankrupting even ourselves with further bond purchases.  We are out of ammo”!  Sad, but very true, the Fed can only rely on falsified data to portray growth and can only threaten higher rates, but never deliver them.

Lastly, during the Q+A session Mrs. Yellen made the comment “cash is not a convenient store of value”.  After it was all said and done, CNBC’s Rick Santelli went off on a rant and can be seen here:

If I may interpret for you, Mrs. Yellen is saying they not only “want” to debase the dollar and create inflation, they absolutely MUST debase and devalue the dollar in or to “reflate” and KEEP REFLATING!  There is no other alternative but we already knew this.  We knew she knew this, what was shocking is she actually said this!  Let me finish with a three word translation for you,  “Cash is trash” Janet Yellen, 3/27/14.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on The Federal Reserve’s “Financial Airplane”. The Fed’s Economic “Assumptions”, “Falsified Data to Portray Growth”

Africa and China’s 21st Century “Maritime Silk Road”

March 30th, 2015 by Alvin Cheng-Hin Lim

This paper considers Africa’s place in China’s 21st Century Maritime Silk Road. The Maritime Silk Road is a major component of the “Belt and Road” development framework announced by Chinese President Xi Jinping in late 2013. While the People’s Republic of China has been actively engaged in Africa since 1960, the Maritime Silk Road promises an intensification of Chinese investment on the continent, especially in infrastructural projects including the construction of railways, airports and deepwater ports. The paper will contextualize these development projects in China’s new normal of single-digit growth, and explain that the “Belt and Road” should be seen as one of China’s new engines of growth. The paper will conclude with an examination of the question of whether China is engaged in neocolonialism in Africa.

Introduction: Encountering China in Yola

In August 2011 I arrived in Yola, the capital of Nigeria’s Adamawa State, to start work as an assistant professor at the American University of Nigeria (AUN). Tiny Yola, which resembles a large village, is very different from Nigeria’s cosmopolitan megacity Lagos, and Adamawa State is a region with one of the lowest levels of development in Nigeria. As such I was very surprised when I encountered a plethora of Chinese products in this sleepy corner of Nigeria. Our faculty houses were equipped with DVD players, refrigerators, washing machines, water dispensers, and other consumer electronic products from Chinese multinational firms like Haier and Cway. Apart from these consumer products, Oasis Bakery in our neighborhood was owned and managed by a hardworking expatriate from China who had chosen to settle in Nigeria.

In a seminar I conducted that semester on Chinese investment in Nigeria, one of the Nigerian participants observed that AUN’s campus police had purchased Jincheng motorcycles for its security patrols.1 Another Nigerian participant recounted his visit to the athletes’ accommodations constructed by China Civil Engineering Construction Corporation for the 2003 All-Africa Games in the Nigerian capital city Abuja:
I have personally visited this Games Village and in my opinion it is an amazing reflection of the relationship between China and Nigeria. The houses were very well constructed with very nice parking spaces and a neat environment. The furnishing of the houses was also remarkable as there were adire (local Nigerian fabric) curtains inside. This illustrates the good working relationship between Nigeria and China as the Chinese are sensitive to our preferences.2
These instances of the Chinese presence in Nigeria are part of a vast wave of Chinese investment and economic engagement in Africa, a wave which will intensify under China’s development plans for what it has described as the 21st Century Maritime Silk Road.

The “Belt and Road” and China’s New Normal

In September 2013 Chinese President Xi Jinping announced, during a speech at Nazarbayev University in Astana, Kazakhstan, the strategic vision of the Silk Road Economic Belt, a transcontinental zone of economic development stretching from China across Central Asia and the Middle East to Europe, an area that maps over the ancient trade routes of the Silk Road.3 The following month President Xi announced in a speech to the Indonesian parliament the strategic vision of the 21st Century Maritime Silk Road, a zone of economic development that maps along the key ports and maritime trade routes of the South China Sea and Indian Ocean.4

Both strategic visions come together under the “Belt and Road” framework, which offers Chinese funding, expertise, and industrial technology in the implementation of massive infrastructural projects in the geographical areas coming under the Silk Road Economic Belt and 21st Century Maritime Silk Road. These projects, ranging from the construction of airports and railways to the redevelopment of deepwater ports, represent important opportunities for Chinese companies to expand and diversify their businesses by going global.5 It is not just these Chinese companies who will benefit from the projects, of course. China’s partner countries can expect to accelerate their economic development thanks to the improvements in their infrastructure, without having to worry about political interference in their internal affairs.6

The Chinese government takes a long-term view of the “Belt and Road” projects. As Foreign Minister Wang Yi mentioned in a speech in Nairobi, Kenya in January 2015:

“When Premier Li Keqiang visited the headquarters of African Union last year, Chairperson of African Union Commission Ms. Nkosazana Dlamini Zuma said that African people cherish a dream that one day the capitals of all African countries will be linked by high-speed railways. As a good friend of Africa, China is willing to make efforts to help African friends realize the dream. It is a century project that requires comprehensive planning and gradual advancement.”7

The “Belt and Road” initiatives come at a key period for China. After enjoying double digit GDP growth in the first decade of the 2000s, China’s growth has decelerated to what its leadership has described as a new normal of single digit growth.8 At the annual meeting of the National People’s Congress in March 2015, Premier Li Keqiang announced that the government has lowered the annual growth target to 7%.9 This contrasts with previous decades when China enjoyed an average growth rate of approximately 10% between 1978 and 2013, with 11.5% between 2003 and 2007. In 2012 and 2013 growth decelerated to 7.7%, ushering in the new normal of medium-to-high growth and development, and triggering the need for the Chinese government to find new engines of growth.10 The “Belt and Road” framework can be placed in this context as one of China’s new engines of growth, offering fresh sources of employment and business opportunities to enable China to achieve what President Xi has highlighted in his political theory of the “Four Comprehensives” as the national goal of a moderately prosperous society.11 In particular, the employment opportunities created by the “Belt and Road” initiatives will be needed for the 15 million students who are expected to graduate from universities, technical and middle schools and join the workforce in 2015, as well as the 3 million surplus rural labourers who are also expected to join these students on the employment market.12

Africa and the 21st Century Maritime Silk Road

The African continent’s position on the “Belt and Road” is located at the far west of the 21st Century Maritime Silk Road. Historically, the eastern coast of Africa is remembered as the westernmost stop on Admiral Zheng He’s epic 15th century voyages across the Indian Ocean. In 2005 there was great fanfare in the Chinese press when Mwamaka Sharifu, a Kenyan girl who was reportedly the descendant of one of Zheng He’s Chinese sailors, received a scholarship from the Chinese government in commemoration of the 600th anniversary of Zheng He’s first voyage across the Indian Ocean.13 The infrastructural projects to be undertaken in Africa under the “Belt and Road” framework include the development of deepwater ports in coastal cities including Bizerte, Tunisia; Dakar, Senegal; Dar es Salaam, Tanzania; Djibouti, Djibouti; Libreville, Gabon; Maputo, Mozambique; and Tema, Ghana. These will be key sites of the transcontinental exchange of manufactured goods and commodities between Asian and African economies along the Maritime Silk Road.14 These ports are also likely to be developed as industrial hubs, following the model of China’s development of the new Cameroonian deepwater port of Kribi.

While China Harbor Engineering Company started constructing the new port in June 2011, the development plan also includes the creation of a 260 square kilometer industrial zone, as well as roads and railways connecting Kribi to major cities in Cameroon, projects which will be undertaken by other Chinese companies.15 In Kenya, China is constructing a railway connecting the capital city Nairobi with the port city of Mombasa. This will eventually be expanded into a regional rail corridor connecting Kenya—one of the African gateways to the Maritime Silk Road—with Uganda, Burundi, and South Sudan.16

As the Kribi port development project in Cameroon shows, Chinese firms have been active in Africa long before the 2013 announcement of the 21st Century Maritime Silk Road. According to statistics compiled by the State Council of China in 2013:

China has become Africa’s largest trade partner, and Africa is now China’s second largest overseas construction project contract market and the fourth largest investment destination … Up to now, China has completed 1,046 projects in Africa, building 2,233 kilometers of railways and 3,530 kilometers of roads, among others, promoting intra-African trade and helping it integrate into the global economy.17

An early infrastructural project was the TanZam railway between Tanzania and Zambia, which was built between October 1970 and June 1975, and involved not just Chinese financing, but also the participation of 50,000 Chinese engineers and laborers, 65 of whom perished during the arduous construction.18 The beginning of the engagement of the People’s Republic of China with Africa dates back a decade earlier to 1960, when China provided an interest-free loan of 100 million RMB to Guinea’s newly independent socialist government for the construction of a slate of aid projects including factories, plantations, and paddy fields. Other newly-decolonized African states received similar aid packages from China.19 Over the subsequent decades, China’s engagement with Africa changed in tandem with changes in its domestic political economy.

The rise of China’s private corporations after the economic liberalization of the 1980s saw a transition from state-owned enterprises to private businesses in the implementation of Chinese development projects overseas.20 Recent examples of such projects include China Railway Group’s Light Railway in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia, the first phase of which was recently completed;21 China Railway Construction Corporation’s Abuja-Kaduna railway in Nigeria, which was completed in December 2014, and which is the first phase of a larger railway modernization project connecting Lagos with Kano;22 and the Lobito-Luau railway in Angola, also built by China Railway Construction Corporation, which will eventually be connected to the Angola-Zambia and the Tanzania-Zambia railways.23 Likewise, Chinese engineering firms like China Civil Engineering Construction Corporation, China Airport Construction Group Corporation, and China Harbour Engineering Company are constructing airports across the continent, including airports in Angola, Comoros, Djibouti, Gabon, Kenya, Nigeria, Sudan, Tanzania, and Togo.24

Apart from the transportation sector, Chinese companies are also involved in Africa’s energy sector, including hydropower dams in Ethiopia and Uganda;25 biogas development in Guinea, Sudan and Tunisia; and solar and wind power plants in Ethiopia, Morocco, and South Africa. Other economic sectors Chinese companies are actively involved with in Africa include agriculture, construction, healthcare, mining, and industrial manufacturing. A recent count estimates over 2,000 Chinese companies are engaged across almost every country on the African continent.26

To finance these and other projects under the “Belt and Road” framework, China has created a number of key financial institutions. In November 2014, President Xi announced the creation of a 40 billion USD Silk Road Fund. The bulk of its financing will come from the Chinese government, with the remainder from China Investment Corporation, China Development Bank Capital Company, and the Export-Import Bank of China.27 In July 2014, China and its partners in the so-called BRICS bloc—Brazil, Russia, India, and South Africa—contributed 100 billion USD to establish the New Development Bank, an alternative to the U.S.-dominated World Bank and International Monetary Fund for emerging economies to raise funds for infrastructural development.28 China also established the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank in 2014, with other founding members from across Asia, the Middle East, and other countries including New Zealand and the United Kingdom. Like the Silk Road Fund and the New Development Bank, the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank offers funding for infrastructure projects.29 China has also created smaller investment vehicles to finance infrastructural and other overseas business projects.30 The deepwater port development projects listed earlier, for example, will be partly financed by investment vehicles set up by China and Thailand.31

The Neocolonial Question

While China has cancelled the debts of some of its crisis-stricken partner countries, or offered them grants or zero-interest loans to pay for Chinese development projects,32 most of the loans issued by Chinese financial institutions have to be repaid by the recipient countries. In certain cases, China allows its partners to pay for their development projects by bartering their local products, in particular natural resources. China and a number of African states have had such countertrade arrangements since the 1980s, and since then China has received key primary products including oil, rubber, and minerals as payment for development loans.33 These deals involving extraction of natural resources have led to accusations that China is engaging in neocolonialism in Africa, as was voiced by U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton during a visit to Zambia in June 2011.34 Such criticisms have also been voiced by a number of African leaders who are concerned about China’s growing economic clout.35

While popular African perceptions of China’s economic engagement remain generally positive across the continent,36 positive public opinion concerning the benefits of Chinese investment to their local economies are on the decline.37 Foreign Minister Wang Yi’s recent announcement that Chinese diplomacy in 2015 will focus on building international cooperation for the “Belt and Road” reflects the government’s sense of urgency,38 especially given a recent diplomatic setback in Sri Lanka,39 and India’s continued deferral, arising from old suspicions of what it calls the “string of pearls” geopolitical threat.40 from accepting China’s invitation to participate in the “Belt and Road.”41

The continued acceptance of Chinese investments over the past five and a half decades by African states and their people is an important sign that China’s presence in Africa should be seen as that of a partner in economic development rather than that of an aspiring neocolonial hegemon.42 In historical context, the criticisms of China’s engagement with Africa in the Western press today echo Western colonial fears in the 1930s of Japan’s growing influence in Africa.43 A number of African and Western experts have joined the public conversation in critiquing the accusations of neocolonialism voiced by Secretary of State Clinton and others. The Zambian economist Dambisa Moyo, for instance, has pointed out that the empirical evidence of China’s activities in Africa shows that its interests are purely commercial and that it has no interest in undermining the political structure, much less the sovereignty, of its African partners.44 (The key exception is China’s interest in keeping its partners from offering diplomatic recognition to Taiwan.

A country will break relations with Beijing should it recognize Taiwan as “China”; but even in this situation Chinese enterprises in the country have been known to continue functioning despite the loss of diplomatic relations.45) The political economist Deborah Brautigam reminds us that China’s swaps of infrastructure for resources with its African partners are based on its positive experience with swapping its own oil for Japanese industrial technology in the late 1970s. The industrial infrastructure and technological training thus received from Japan formed one of the bases for China’s subsequent economic take-off in the 1980s. As such, China sees the similar arrangements it has made with its partner countries in Africa and elsewhere as similarly offering mutual benefits for their economic development.46

While China’s overseas investments are certainly open to scrutiny, it is essential to consider these in the context of projects from other countries: it is by no means necessarily true that Chinese projects offer worse outcomes than those from the West.47 Indeed, when looked at in comparative perspective, it is clear that China’s infrastructural investments in particular fill a development gap in Africa that the West has largely ignored, 48 and that China’s massive imports of African commodities have accelerated African trade and expanded the market for African exports,49 creating the conditions for the continent’s dramatic recent economic growth.50

Africa’s recent rapid growth, which mirrors China’s own economic take-off three decades earlier, suggests that, like the Chinese enterprises that came before them, African enterprises, given the right economic conditions, will be able to hold their own against competition from Asia and the West. The implication is that the neocolonial narrative about China’s engagement with Africa is defeatist in its dire prognosis about the ability of African enterprises to compete against Chinese and other multinational corporations in the global market. Consider the case of textiles. While the textile industry in some African economies failed to withstand competition from China and other global competitors, the same industry in other African economies like Kenya’s and Madagascar’s was able to meet the international competition and recover and grow.51

Indeed, the textile industry is one of the mature industries that the Chinese government has encouraged to move offshore, to allow Chinese industry to move up the value chain, and Chinese entrepreneurs from the textile and other mature industries have settled and taken up citizenship in African countries like Lesotho, further developing the local economies with their industrial knowledge, and deepening the commercial and technical know-how of their local colleagues and employees.52 Such capacity building can accelerate the movement of African industries up the value chain, as was the experience of the mature Chinese enterprises themselves in the 1990s and 2000s. Africa’s movement up the industrial value chain can already be seen in the emergence of an indigenous automobile industry.53 This shows that, rather than defeatism, optimism is warranted when projecting the probable outcomes of China’s continued engagement with Africa.

Alvin Cheng-Hin Lim is a research fellow with the Longus Institute for Development and Strategy, and is the author of Cambodia and the Politics of Aesthetics (Routledge 2013). He received his Ph.D. in Political Science from the University of Hawaii at Manoa, and has taught at Pannasastra University of Cambodia and the American University of Nigeria. Email: [email protected]. Web: https://manoa-hawaii.academia.edu/AlvinLim

Bibliography

Anderlini, Jamil, Mitchell, Tom, and Parker, George. “UK move to join AIIB meets mixed response in China.” Financial Times, March 13, 2015. Accessed March 14, 2015.
Aneja, Atul. “China steps up drive to integrate Africa with Maritime Silk Road.” The Hindu, January 21, 2015. Accessed March 12, 2015.
“Asian Infrastructure Development Bank to be operational by year-end.” Press Trust of India, January 2, 2015. Accessed March 12, 2015.
“Backgrounder: China’s major railway construction projects in Africa, Latin America.” Xinhua, 27 February, 2015. Accessed March 12, 2015.
Bosshard, Peter. “China’s Global Dam Builder at a Crossroads.” The Asia-Pacific Journal 12 (2014). Accessed March 12, 2015.
Bradshaw, Richard and Ransdell, Jim. “Japan, Britain and the Yellow Peril in Africa in the 1930s.” The Asia-Pacific Journal 9 (2011). Accessed March 12, 2015.
Brautigam, Deborah. The Dragon’s Gift: The Real Story of China in Africa. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2009.
Chen Boyuan. “Chinese company completes Nigeria railway project.” China.org.cn, December 2, 2014. Accessed March 12, 2015.
Chen Jia, Dai Tian, and Zhao Yinan. “Growth rate slows, structural reform predicted.” China Daily, March 5, 2015. Accessed March 12, 2015.
Chen Qin and Huang Shan, “Sri Lanka Tells China It Will Rethink Ties – and a Major Port Project,” Caixin, March 10, 2015, accessed March 12, 2015.
Cheng Lu. “Return of maritime Silk Road does not forget Africa.” Xinhua, February 12, 2015. Accessed March 12, 2015.
Chin, Gregory. “China’s Challenge in Africa: Avoid Blame of Neo-Colonialism.” YaleGlobal, 9 July 2014. Accessed March 12, 2015.
“China aims at medium-to-high speed of growth with twin engines: gov’t report.” Xinhua, March 5, 2015. Accessed March 12, 2015.
“China airport construction going global.” Xinhua, December 7, 2014. Accessed March 12, 2015.
“China faces arduous task of ensuring employment.” Xinhua, March 10, 2015. Accessed March 12, 2015.
“China invites India to join its Maritime Silk Road initiative,” Press Trust of India, February 14, 2014, accessed March 12, 2015.
“China-Africa relations: something besides natural resources.” Xinhua, March 2, 2015. Accessed March 12, 2015.
“China-funded light rail project puts Ethiopia on track for transformation.” China Radio International, February 8, 2015. Accessed March 12, 2015.
“China, Sudan sign $700m loan for new Khartoum airport.” Sudan Tribune, December 17, 2014. Accessed March 12, 2015.
“China’s 2015 diplomacy focuses on ‘Belt and Road.’” Xinhua, March 8, 2015. Accessed March 12, 2015.
“Chinese-built railway in Angola open to traffic.” Xinhua, February 15, 2015. Accessed March 12, 2015.
“Clinton Chastises China on Internet, African ‘New Colonialism.’” Bloomberg, June 12, 2011. Accessed March 12, 2015.
“Djibouti starts building two Chinese-funded airports.” Reuters, January 20, 2015. Accessed March 12, 2015.
Eyler, Brian. “China’s Maritime Silk Road is all about Africa.” East by Southeast, November 17, 2014. Accessed March 12, 2015.
Gundan, Farai. “Made In Africa: Three Cars Designed And Manufactured In Africa.” Forbes, January 31, 2015. Accessed March 12, 2015.
Hou Liqiang and Hu Haiyan. “Jam-packed airports add to pressure.” China Daily, January 30, 2015. Accessed March 12, 2015.
Iriogbe, Lawrence Osekhale. “China in Africa: Nigeria as a Case Study.” Seminar paper, American University of Nigeria, 2011.
“Is this young Kenyan Chinese descendant?” China Daily, July 11, 2005. Accessed March 12, 2015.
Ishaku, Joseph. “Chinese Products’ Presence in Nigeria: The Case of Motorcycles.” Seminar paper, American University of Nigeria, 2011.
Lamido Sanusi. “Africa must get real about Chinese ties.” Financial Times, March 11, 2013. Accessed March 12, 2015.
Li Lianxing. “Airports give Rwanda a ticket to growth.” China Daily, January 30, 2015. Accessed March 12, 2015.
Mohan, C. Raja. “Silk Road Focus: Chinese Takeaway.” Indian Express, March 10, 2015. Accessed March 12, 2015.
Moyo, Dambisa. “Beijing, a Boon for Africa.” New York Times, June 27, 2012. Accessed March 12, 2015.
Moyo, Dambisa. Winner Take All: China’s Race for Resources and What It Means for Us. London: Allen Lane, 2012.
“New Zealand becomes 24th founding member of AIIB.” China Daily, January 5, 2015. Accessed March 14, 2015.
“Nigeria Completes First Standard Gauge Railway Modernization Project.” Nigerian Television Authority, December 4, 2014. Accessed March 12, 2015.
Pew Research Center. “Chapter 2: China’s Image.” Global Opposition to U.S. Surveillance and Drones, but Limited Harm to America’s Image, July 14, 2014. Accessed March 12, 2015.
Rapoza, Kenneth. “Double Digits No More, China & India Govts Want To Grow Slow.” Forbes, April 10, 2012. Accessed March 12, 2015.
Sautman, Barry and Yan Hairong. “Trade, Investment, Power and the China-in-Africa Discourse.” The Asia-Pacific Journal 9 (2009). Accessed March 12, 2015.
Sautman, Barry and Yan Hairong. “Gilded Outside, Shoddy Within: The Human Rights Watch report on Chinese copper mining in Zambia.” The Asia-Pacific Journal 9 (2011). Accessed March 12, 2015.
Shee Poon Kim. “An Anatomy of China’s ‘String of Pearls’ Strategy.” The Hikone Ronso 387 (2011). Accessed March 12, 2015.
Shi Ze. “‘One Road & One Belt’ & New Thinking With Regard To Concepts And Practice.” 30th Anniversary Conference of the Schiller Institute, October 18, 2014. Accessed March 12, 2015.
Simmons, Katie. “U.S., China compete to woo Africa.” Pew Research Fact Tank, August 4, 2014. Accessed March 12, 2015.
Ssekandi, Ronald and Yuan Qing. “China’s investment in infrastructure key to Africa’s development: experts.” Xinhua, February 24, 2015. Accessed March 12, 2015.
“The Hopeful Continent: Africa Rising.” The Economist, December 3, 2011. Accessed March 12, 2015.
Tiezzi, Shannon. “What’s It Like to Have China Build You a Port? Ask Cameroon.” The Diplomat, February 27, 2015. Accessed March 12, 2015.
Turse, Nick. “The US Military Has Been ‘At War’ in Africa on the Sly For Years.” The Nation, April 14, 2014. Accessed March 12, 2015.
Turse, Nick. “US Special Forces Are Operating in More Countries Than You Can Imagine.” The Nation, January 20, 2015. Accessed March 12, 2015.
Tweed, David . “Modi Touring Indian Ocean to Keep China’s Submarines at Bay.” Bloomberg, March 10, 2015. Accessed March 12, 2015.
Wang Bowen. “China unswervingly sticks to peaceful development under ‘new normal.’” Xinhua, March 5, 2015. Accessed March 12, 2015.
“Wang Yi: China Is Ready to Work for Africa’s Dream of Building.” Ministry of Foreign Affairs, People’s Republic of China, January 11, 2015, accessed March 12, 2015.
World Bank. Africa Rising: A Tale of Growth, Inequality and Great Promise. April 14, 2014. Accessed March 12, 2015.
Wu Jiao and Zhang Yunbi. “Xi proposes a ‘new Silk Road’ with Central Asia.” China Daily, September 8, 2013. Accessed March 12, 2015.
Wu Jiao and Zhang Yunbi. “Xi in call for building of new ‘maritime silk road.’” China Daily, October 4, 2013. Accessed March 12, 2015.
“Xi’s ‘Four Comprehensives’ a strategic blueprint for China.” Xinhua, February 25, 2015. Accessed March 12, 2015.
Zhang Yuzhe. “With New Funds, China Hits a Silk Road Stride.” Caixin, December 3, 2014. Accessed March 12, 2015.
Zhang Yuzhe. “Gov’t Said to Name Three to Silk Road Fund Leadership Team.” Caixin, February 5, 2015. Accessed March 12, 2015.

Notes
1 Joseph Ishaku, “Chinese Products’ Presence in Nigeria: The Case of Motorcycles” (seminar paper, American University of Nigeria, 2011), 7.
2 Lawrence Osekhale Iriogbe, “China in Africa: Nigeria as a Case Study” (seminar paper, American University of Nigeria, 2011), 6.
3 Wu Jiao and Zhang Yunbi, “Xi proposes a ‘new Silk Road’ with Central Asia,” China Daily, September 8, 2013, accessed March 12, 2015.
4 Wu Jiao and Zhang Yunbi, “Xi in call for building of new ‘maritime silk road,’” China Daily, October 4, 2013, accessed March 12, 2015.
5 Deborah Brautigam, The Dragon’s Gift: The Real Story of China in Africa (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2009), 103-104. Zhang Yuzhe, “With New Funds, China Hits a Silk Road Stride,” Caixin, December 3, 2014, accessed March 12, 2015.
6 Shi Ze, “‘One Road & One Belt’ & New Thinking With Regard To Concepts And Practice,” 30th Anniversary Conference of the Schiller Institute, October 18, 2014, accessed March 12, 2015.
7 “Wang Yi: China Is Ready to Work for Africa’s Dream of Building,” Ministry of Foreign Affairs, the People’s Republic of China, January 11, 2015, accessed March 12, 2015.
8 Kenneth Rapoza, “Double Digits No More, China & India Govts Want To Grow Slow,” Forbes, April 10, 2012, accessed March 12, 2015.
9 Chen Jia, Dai Tian, Zhao Yinan, “Growth rate slows, structural reform predicted,” China Daily, March 5, 2015, accessed March 12, 2015.
10 “China aims at medium-to-high speed of growth with twin engines: gov’t report,” Xinhua, March 5, 2015, accessed March 12, 2015.
11 “Xi’s ‘Four Comprehensives’ a strategic blueprint for China,” Xinhua, February 25, 2015, accessed March 12, 2015. Wang Bowen, “China unswervingly sticks to peaceful development under ‘new normal,’” Xinhua, March 5, 2015, accessed March 12, 2015.
12 “China faces arduous task of ensuring employment,” Xinhua, March 10, 2015, accessed March 12, 2015.
13 “Is this young Kenyan Chinese descendant?” China Daily, July 11, 2005, accessed March 12, 2015.
14 Atul Aneja, “China steps up drive to integrate Africa with Maritime Silk Road,” The Hindu, January 21, 2015, accessed March 12, 2015.
15 Shannon Tiezzi, “What’s It Like to Have China Build You a Port? Ask Cameroon,” The Diplomat, February 27, 2015, accessed March 12, 2015.
16 Cheng Lu, “Return of maritime Silk Road does not forget Africa,” Xinhua, February 12, 2015, accessed March 12, 2015.
17 “China-Africa relations: something besides natural resources,” Xinhua, March 2, 2015, accessed March 12, 2015.
18 “Backgrounder: China’s major railway construction projects in Africa, Latin America,” Xinhua, 27 February, 2015, accessed March 12, 2015.
19 Brautigam, Dragon’s Gift, 31-34.
20 Brautigam, Dragon’s Gift, 79.
21 “China-funded light rail project puts Ethiopia on track for transformation,” China Radio International, February 8, 2015, accessed March 12, 2015.
22 Chen Boyuan, “Chinese company completes Nigeria railway project,” China.org.cn, December 2, 2014, accessed March 12, 2015. “Nigeria Completes First Standard Gauge Railway Modernization Project,” Nigerian Television Authority, December 4, 2014, accessed March 12, 2015.
23 “Chinese-built railway in Angola open to traffic,” Xinhua, February 15, 2015, accessed March 12, 2015.
24 “China airport construction going global,” Xinhua, December 7, 2014, accessed March 12, 2015. “China, Sudan sign $700m loan for new Khartoum airport,” Sudan Tribune, December 17, 2014, accessed March 12, 2015. “Djibouti starts building two Chinese-funded airports,” Reuters, January 20, 2015, accessed March 12, 2015. Hou Liqiang and Hu Haiyan, “Jam-packed airports add to pressure,” China Daily, January 30, 2015, accessed March 12, 2015. Li Lianxing, “Airports give Rwanda a ticket to growth,” China Daily, January 30, 2015, accessed March 12, 2015.
25 Peter Bosshard,”China’s Global Dam Builder at a Crossroads,” The Asia-Pacific Journal 12 (2014), accessed March 12, 2015.
26 “China-Africa relations.” Ronald Ssekandi and Yuan Qing, “China’s investment in infrastructure key to Africa’s development: experts,” Xinhua, February 24, 2015, accessed March 12, 2015.
27 Zhang Yuzhe, “Gov’t Said to Name Three to Silk Road Fund Leadership Team,” Caixin, February 5, 2015, accessed March 12, 2015.
28 Zhang Yuzhe, “With New Funds.”
29 “Asian Infrastructure Development Bank to be operational by year-end,” Press Trust of India, January 2, 2015, accessed March 12, 2015. Jamil Anderlini, Tom Mitchell and George Parker, “UK move to join AIIB meets mixed response in China,” Financial Times, March 13, 2015, accessed March 14, 2015. “New Zealand becomes 24th founding member of AIIB,” China Daily, January 5, 2015, accessed March 14, 2015.
30 Zhang Yuzhe, “With New Funds.”
31 Brian Eyler, “China’s Maritime Silk Road is all about Africa,” East by Southeast, November 17, 2014, accessed March 12, 2015.
32 Brautigam, Dragon’s Gift, 136-137.
33 Brautigam, Dragon’s Gift, 56.
34 “Clinton Chastises China on Internet, African ‘New Colonialism,’” Bloomberg, June 12, 2011, accessed March 12, 2015.
35 Lamido Sanusi, “Africa must get real about Chinese ties,” Financial Times, March 11, 2013, accessed March 12, 2015. Gregory Chin, “China’s Challenge in Africa: Avoid Blame of Neo-Colonialism,” YaleGlobal, 9 July 2014, accessed March 12, 2015.
36 Pew Research Center, “Chapter 2: China’s Image,” Global Opposition to U.S. Surveillance and Drones, but Limited Harm to America’s Image, July 14, 2014, accessed March 12, 2015.
37 Katie Simmons, “U.S., China compete to woo Africa,” Pew Research Fact Tank, August 4, 2014, accessed March 12, 2015.
38 “China’s 2015 diplomacy focuses on ‘Belt and Road,’” Xinhua, March 8, 2015, accessed March 12, 2015.
39 Chen Qin and Huang Shan, “Sri Lanka Tells China It Will Rethink Ties – and a Major Port Project,” Caixin, March 10, 2015, accessed March 12, 2015.
40 Shee Poon Kim, “An Anatomy of China’s ‘String of Pearls’ Strategy,” The Hikone Ronso 387 (2011), accessed March 12, 2015. David Tweed, “Modi Touring Indian Ocean to Keep China’s Submarines at Bay,” Bloomberg, March 10, 2015, accessed March 12, 2015.
41 “China invites India to join its Maritime Silk Road initiative,” Press Trust of India, February 14, 2014, accessed March 12, 2015. C. Raja Mohan, “Silk Road Focus: Chinese Takeaway,” Indian Express, March 10, 2015, accessed March 12, 2015.
42 The growing American military presence in Africa suggests that the putative hegemon is indeed not Chinese. See Nick Turse, “The US Military Has Been ‘At War’ in Africa on the Sly For Years,” The Nation, April 14, 2014, accessed March 12, 2015. See also Nick Turse, “US Special Forces Are Operating in More Countries Than You Can Imagine,” The Nation, January 20, 2015, accessed March 12, 2015.
43 Richard Bradshaw and Jim Ransdell, “Japan, Britain and the Yellow Peril in Africa in the 1930s,” The Asia-Pacific Journal 9 (2011), accessed March 12, 2015.
44 Dambisa Moyo, Winner Take All: China’s Race for Resources and What It Means for Us (London: Allen Lane, 2012), 157.
45 Brautigam, Dragon’s Gift, 67-69.
46 Brautigam, Dragon’s Gift, 46-48.
47 Barry Sautman and Yan Hairong, “Gilded Outside, Shoddy Within: The Human Rights Watch report on Chinese copper mining in Zambia,” The Asia-Pacific Journal 9 (2011), accessed March 12, 2015.
48 Barry Sautman and Yan Hairong, “Trade, Investment, Power and the China-in-Africa Discourse,” The Asia-Pacific Journal 9 (2009), accessed March 12, 2015.
49 Dambisa Moyo, “Beijing, a Boon for Africa,” New York Times, June 27, 2012, accessed March 12, 2015.
50 “The Hopeful Continent: Africa Rising,” The Economist, December 3, 2011, accessed March 12, 2015. World Bank, Africa Rising: A Tale of Growth, Inequality and Great Promise, April 14, 2014, accessed March 12, 2015.
51 Brautigam, Dragon’s Gift, 219.
52 Brautigam, Dragon’s Gift, 222-223.
53 Farai Gundan, “Made In Africa: Three Cars Designed And Manufactured In Africa,” Forbes, January 31, 2015, accessed March 12, 2015.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Africa and China’s 21st Century “Maritime Silk Road”

Africa and China’s 21st Century “Maritime Silk Road”

March 30th, 2015 by Alvin Cheng-Hin Lim

This paper considers Africa’s place in China’s 21st Century Maritime Silk Road. The Maritime Silk Road is a major component of the “Belt and Road” development framework announced by Chinese President Xi Jinping in late 2013. While the People’s Republic of China has been actively engaged in Africa since 1960, the Maritime Silk Road promises an intensification of Chinese investment on the continent, especially in infrastructural projects including the construction of railways, airports and deepwater ports. The paper will contextualize these development projects in China’s new normal of single-digit growth, and explain that the “Belt and Road” should be seen as one of China’s new engines of growth. The paper will conclude with an examination of the question of whether China is engaged in neocolonialism in Africa.

Introduction: Encountering China in Yola

In August 2011 I arrived in Yola, the capital of Nigeria’s Adamawa State, to start work as an assistant professor at the American University of Nigeria (AUN). Tiny Yola, which resembles a large village, is very different from Nigeria’s cosmopolitan megacity Lagos, and Adamawa State is a region with one of the lowest levels of development in Nigeria. As such I was very surprised when I encountered a plethora of Chinese products in this sleepy corner of Nigeria. Our faculty houses were equipped with DVD players, refrigerators, washing machines, water dispensers, and other consumer electronic products from Chinese multinational firms like Haier and Cway. Apart from these consumer products, Oasis Bakery in our neighborhood was owned and managed by a hardworking expatriate from China who had chosen to settle in Nigeria.

In a seminar I conducted that semester on Chinese investment in Nigeria, one of the Nigerian participants observed that AUN’s campus police had purchased Jincheng motorcycles for its security patrols.1 Another Nigerian participant recounted his visit to the athletes’ accommodations constructed by China Civil Engineering Construction Corporation for the 2003 All-Africa Games in the Nigerian capital city Abuja:
I have personally visited this Games Village and in my opinion it is an amazing reflection of the relationship between China and Nigeria. The houses were very well constructed with very nice parking spaces and a neat environment. The furnishing of the houses was also remarkable as there were adire (local Nigerian fabric) curtains inside. This illustrates the good working relationship between Nigeria and China as the Chinese are sensitive to our preferences.2
These instances of the Chinese presence in Nigeria are part of a vast wave of Chinese investment and economic engagement in Africa, a wave which will intensify under China’s development plans for what it has described as the 21st Century Maritime Silk Road.

The “Belt and Road” and China’s New Normal

In September 2013 Chinese President Xi Jinping announced, during a speech at Nazarbayev University in Astana, Kazakhstan, the strategic vision of the Silk Road Economic Belt, a transcontinental zone of economic development stretching from China across Central Asia and the Middle East to Europe, an area that maps over the ancient trade routes of the Silk Road.3 The following month President Xi announced in a speech to the Indonesian parliament the strategic vision of the 21st Century Maritime Silk Road, a zone of economic development that maps along the key ports and maritime trade routes of the South China Sea and Indian Ocean.4

Both strategic visions come together under the “Belt and Road” framework, which offers Chinese funding, expertise, and industrial technology in the implementation of massive infrastructural projects in the geographical areas coming under the Silk Road Economic Belt and 21st Century Maritime Silk Road. These projects, ranging from the construction of airports and railways to the redevelopment of deepwater ports, represent important opportunities for Chinese companies to expand and diversify their businesses by going global.5 It is not just these Chinese companies who will benefit from the projects, of course. China’s partner countries can expect to accelerate their economic development thanks to the improvements in their infrastructure, without having to worry about political interference in their internal affairs.6

The Chinese government takes a long-term view of the “Belt and Road” projects. As Foreign Minister Wang Yi mentioned in a speech in Nairobi, Kenya in January 2015:

“When Premier Li Keqiang visited the headquarters of African Union last year, Chairperson of African Union Commission Ms. Nkosazana Dlamini Zuma said that African people cherish a dream that one day the capitals of all African countries will be linked by high-speed railways. As a good friend of Africa, China is willing to make efforts to help African friends realize the dream. It is a century project that requires comprehensive planning and gradual advancement.”7

The “Belt and Road” initiatives come at a key period for China. After enjoying double digit GDP growth in the first decade of the 2000s, China’s growth has decelerated to what its leadership has described as a new normal of single digit growth.8 At the annual meeting of the National People’s Congress in March 2015, Premier Li Keqiang announced that the government has lowered the annual growth target to 7%.9 This contrasts with previous decades when China enjoyed an average growth rate of approximately 10% between 1978 and 2013, with 11.5% between 2003 and 2007. In 2012 and 2013 growth decelerated to 7.7%, ushering in the new normal of medium-to-high growth and development, and triggering the need for the Chinese government to find new engines of growth.10 The “Belt and Road” framework can be placed in this context as one of China’s new engines of growth, offering fresh sources of employment and business opportunities to enable China to achieve what President Xi has highlighted in his political theory of the “Four Comprehensives” as the national goal of a moderately prosperous society.11 In particular, the employment opportunities created by the “Belt and Road” initiatives will be needed for the 15 million students who are expected to graduate from universities, technical and middle schools and join the workforce in 2015, as well as the 3 million surplus rural labourers who are also expected to join these students on the employment market.12

Africa and the 21st Century Maritime Silk Road

The African continent’s position on the “Belt and Road” is located at the far west of the 21st Century Maritime Silk Road. Historically, the eastern coast of Africa is remembered as the westernmost stop on Admiral Zheng He’s epic 15th century voyages across the Indian Ocean. In 2005 there was great fanfare in the Chinese press when Mwamaka Sharifu, a Kenyan girl who was reportedly the descendant of one of Zheng He’s Chinese sailors, received a scholarship from the Chinese government in commemoration of the 600th anniversary of Zheng He’s first voyage across the Indian Ocean.13 The infrastructural projects to be undertaken in Africa under the “Belt and Road” framework include the development of deepwater ports in coastal cities including Bizerte, Tunisia; Dakar, Senegal; Dar es Salaam, Tanzania; Djibouti, Djibouti; Libreville, Gabon; Maputo, Mozambique; and Tema, Ghana. These will be key sites of the transcontinental exchange of manufactured goods and commodities between Asian and African economies along the Maritime Silk Road.14 These ports are also likely to be developed as industrial hubs, following the model of China’s development of the new Cameroonian deepwater port of Kribi.

While China Harbor Engineering Company started constructing the new port in June 2011, the development plan also includes the creation of a 260 square kilometer industrial zone, as well as roads and railways connecting Kribi to major cities in Cameroon, projects which will be undertaken by other Chinese companies.15 In Kenya, China is constructing a railway connecting the capital city Nairobi with the port city of Mombasa. This will eventually be expanded into a regional rail corridor connecting Kenya—one of the African gateways to the Maritime Silk Road—with Uganda, Burundi, and South Sudan.16

As the Kribi port development project in Cameroon shows, Chinese firms have been active in Africa long before the 2013 announcement of the 21st Century Maritime Silk Road. According to statistics compiled by the State Council of China in 2013:

China has become Africa’s largest trade partner, and Africa is now China’s second largest overseas construction project contract market and the fourth largest investment destination … Up to now, China has completed 1,046 projects in Africa, building 2,233 kilometers of railways and 3,530 kilometers of roads, among others, promoting intra-African trade and helping it integrate into the global economy.17

An early infrastructural project was the TanZam railway between Tanzania and Zambia, which was built between October 1970 and June 1975, and involved not just Chinese financing, but also the participation of 50,000 Chinese engineers and laborers, 65 of whom perished during the arduous construction.18 The beginning of the engagement of the People’s Republic of China with Africa dates back a decade earlier to 1960, when China provided an interest-free loan of 100 million RMB to Guinea’s newly independent socialist government for the construction of a slate of aid projects including factories, plantations, and paddy fields. Other newly-decolonized African states received similar aid packages from China.19 Over the subsequent decades, China’s engagement with Africa changed in tandem with changes in its domestic political economy.

The rise of China’s private corporations after the economic liberalization of the 1980s saw a transition from state-owned enterprises to private businesses in the implementation of Chinese development projects overseas.20 Recent examples of such projects include China Railway Group’s Light Railway in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia, the first phase of which was recently completed;21 China Railway Construction Corporation’s Abuja-Kaduna railway in Nigeria, which was completed in December 2014, and which is the first phase of a larger railway modernization project connecting Lagos with Kano;22 and the Lobito-Luau railway in Angola, also built by China Railway Construction Corporation, which will eventually be connected to the Angola-Zambia and the Tanzania-Zambia railways.23 Likewise, Chinese engineering firms like China Civil Engineering Construction Corporation, China Airport Construction Group Corporation, and China Harbour Engineering Company are constructing airports across the continent, including airports in Angola, Comoros, Djibouti, Gabon, Kenya, Nigeria, Sudan, Tanzania, and Togo.24

Apart from the transportation sector, Chinese companies are also involved in Africa’s energy sector, including hydropower dams in Ethiopia and Uganda;25 biogas development in Guinea, Sudan and Tunisia; and solar and wind power plants in Ethiopia, Morocco, and South Africa. Other economic sectors Chinese companies are actively involved with in Africa include agriculture, construction, healthcare, mining, and industrial manufacturing. A recent count estimates over 2,000 Chinese companies are engaged across almost every country on the African continent.26

To finance these and other projects under the “Belt and Road” framework, China has created a number of key financial institutions. In November 2014, President Xi announced the creation of a 40 billion USD Silk Road Fund. The bulk of its financing will come from the Chinese government, with the remainder from China Investment Corporation, China Development Bank Capital Company, and the Export-Import Bank of China.27 In July 2014, China and its partners in the so-called BRICS bloc—Brazil, Russia, India, and South Africa—contributed 100 billion USD to establish the New Development Bank, an alternative to the U.S.-dominated World Bank and International Monetary Fund for emerging economies to raise funds for infrastructural development.28 China also established the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank in 2014, with other founding members from across Asia, the Middle East, and other countries including New Zealand and the United Kingdom. Like the Silk Road Fund and the New Development Bank, the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank offers funding for infrastructure projects.29 China has also created smaller investment vehicles to finance infrastructural and other overseas business projects.30 The deepwater port development projects listed earlier, for example, will be partly financed by investment vehicles set up by China and Thailand.31

The Neocolonial Question

While China has cancelled the debts of some of its crisis-stricken partner countries, or offered them grants or zero-interest loans to pay for Chinese development projects,32 most of the loans issued by Chinese financial institutions have to be repaid by the recipient countries. In certain cases, China allows its partners to pay for their development projects by bartering their local products, in particular natural resources. China and a number of African states have had such countertrade arrangements since the 1980s, and since then China has received key primary products including oil, rubber, and minerals as payment for development loans.33 These deals involving extraction of natural resources have led to accusations that China is engaging in neocolonialism in Africa, as was voiced by U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton during a visit to Zambia in June 2011.34 Such criticisms have also been voiced by a number of African leaders who are concerned about China’s growing economic clout.35

While popular African perceptions of China’s economic engagement remain generally positive across the continent,36 positive public opinion concerning the benefits of Chinese investment to their local economies are on the decline.37 Foreign Minister Wang Yi’s recent announcement that Chinese diplomacy in 2015 will focus on building international cooperation for the “Belt and Road” reflects the government’s sense of urgency,38 especially given a recent diplomatic setback in Sri Lanka,39 and India’s continued deferral, arising from old suspicions of what it calls the “string of pearls” geopolitical threat.40 from accepting China’s invitation to participate in the “Belt and Road.”41

The continued acceptance of Chinese investments over the past five and a half decades by African states and their people is an important sign that China’s presence in Africa should be seen as that of a partner in economic development rather than that of an aspiring neocolonial hegemon.42 In historical context, the criticisms of China’s engagement with Africa in the Western press today echo Western colonial fears in the 1930s of Japan’s growing influence in Africa.43 A number of African and Western experts have joined the public conversation in critiquing the accusations of neocolonialism voiced by Secretary of State Clinton and others. The Zambian economist Dambisa Moyo, for instance, has pointed out that the empirical evidence of China’s activities in Africa shows that its interests are purely commercial and that it has no interest in undermining the political structure, much less the sovereignty, of its African partners.44 (The key exception is China’s interest in keeping its partners from offering diplomatic recognition to Taiwan.

A country will break relations with Beijing should it recognize Taiwan as “China”; but even in this situation Chinese enterprises in the country have been known to continue functioning despite the loss of diplomatic relations.45) The political economist Deborah Brautigam reminds us that China’s swaps of infrastructure for resources with its African partners are based on its positive experience with swapping its own oil for Japanese industrial technology in the late 1970s. The industrial infrastructure and technological training thus received from Japan formed one of the bases for China’s subsequent economic take-off in the 1980s. As such, China sees the similar arrangements it has made with its partner countries in Africa and elsewhere as similarly offering mutual benefits for their economic development.46

While China’s overseas investments are certainly open to scrutiny, it is essential to consider these in the context of projects from other countries: it is by no means necessarily true that Chinese projects offer worse outcomes than those from the West.47 Indeed, when looked at in comparative perspective, it is clear that China’s infrastructural investments in particular fill a development gap in Africa that the West has largely ignored, 48 and that China’s massive imports of African commodities have accelerated African trade and expanded the market for African exports,49 creating the conditions for the continent’s dramatic recent economic growth.50

Africa’s recent rapid growth, which mirrors China’s own economic take-off three decades earlier, suggests that, like the Chinese enterprises that came before them, African enterprises, given the right economic conditions, will be able to hold their own against competition from Asia and the West. The implication is that the neocolonial narrative about China’s engagement with Africa is defeatist in its dire prognosis about the ability of African enterprises to compete against Chinese and other multinational corporations in the global market. Consider the case of textiles. While the textile industry in some African economies failed to withstand competition from China and other global competitors, the same industry in other African economies like Kenya’s and Madagascar’s was able to meet the international competition and recover and grow.51

Indeed, the textile industry is one of the mature industries that the Chinese government has encouraged to move offshore, to allow Chinese industry to move up the value chain, and Chinese entrepreneurs from the textile and other mature industries have settled and taken up citizenship in African countries like Lesotho, further developing the local economies with their industrial knowledge, and deepening the commercial and technical know-how of their local colleagues and employees.52 Such capacity building can accelerate the movement of African industries up the value chain, as was the experience of the mature Chinese enterprises themselves in the 1990s and 2000s. Africa’s movement up the industrial value chain can already be seen in the emergence of an indigenous automobile industry.53 This shows that, rather than defeatism, optimism is warranted when projecting the probable outcomes of China’s continued engagement with Africa.

Alvin Cheng-Hin Lim is a research fellow with the Longus Institute for Development and Strategy, and is the author of Cambodia and the Politics of Aesthetics (Routledge 2013). He received his Ph.D. in Political Science from the University of Hawaii at Manoa, and has taught at Pannasastra University of Cambodia and the American University of Nigeria. Email: [email protected]. Web: https://manoa-hawaii.academia.edu/AlvinLim

Bibliography

Anderlini, Jamil, Mitchell, Tom, and Parker, George. “UK move to join AIIB meets mixed response in China.” Financial Times, March 13, 2015. Accessed March 14, 2015.
Aneja, Atul. “China steps up drive to integrate Africa with Maritime Silk Road.” The Hindu, January 21, 2015. Accessed March 12, 2015.
“Asian Infrastructure Development Bank to be operational by year-end.” Press Trust of India, January 2, 2015. Accessed March 12, 2015.
“Backgrounder: China’s major railway construction projects in Africa, Latin America.” Xinhua, 27 February, 2015. Accessed March 12, 2015.
Bosshard, Peter. “China’s Global Dam Builder at a Crossroads.” The Asia-Pacific Journal 12 (2014). Accessed March 12, 2015.
Bradshaw, Richard and Ransdell, Jim. “Japan, Britain and the Yellow Peril in Africa in the 1930s.” The Asia-Pacific Journal 9 (2011). Accessed March 12, 2015.
Brautigam, Deborah. The Dragon’s Gift: The Real Story of China in Africa. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2009.
Chen Boyuan. “Chinese company completes Nigeria railway project.” China.org.cn, December 2, 2014. Accessed March 12, 2015.
Chen Jia, Dai Tian, and Zhao Yinan. “Growth rate slows, structural reform predicted.” China Daily, March 5, 2015. Accessed March 12, 2015.
Chen Qin and Huang Shan, “Sri Lanka Tells China It Will Rethink Ties – and a Major Port Project,” Caixin, March 10, 2015, accessed March 12, 2015.
Cheng Lu. “Return of maritime Silk Road does not forget Africa.” Xinhua, February 12, 2015. Accessed March 12, 2015.
Chin, Gregory. “China’s Challenge in Africa: Avoid Blame of Neo-Colonialism.” YaleGlobal, 9 July 2014. Accessed March 12, 2015.
“China aims at medium-to-high speed of growth with twin engines: gov’t report.” Xinhua, March 5, 2015. Accessed March 12, 2015.
“China airport construction going global.” Xinhua, December 7, 2014. Accessed March 12, 2015.
“China faces arduous task of ensuring employment.” Xinhua, March 10, 2015. Accessed March 12, 2015.
“China invites India to join its Maritime Silk Road initiative,” Press Trust of India, February 14, 2014, accessed March 12, 2015.
“China-Africa relations: something besides natural resources.” Xinhua, March 2, 2015. Accessed March 12, 2015.
“China-funded light rail project puts Ethiopia on track for transformation.” China Radio International, February 8, 2015. Accessed March 12, 2015.
“China, Sudan sign $700m loan for new Khartoum airport.” Sudan Tribune, December 17, 2014. Accessed March 12, 2015.
“China’s 2015 diplomacy focuses on ‘Belt and Road.’” Xinhua, March 8, 2015. Accessed March 12, 2015.
“Chinese-built railway in Angola open to traffic.” Xinhua, February 15, 2015. Accessed March 12, 2015.
“Clinton Chastises China on Internet, African ‘New Colonialism.’” Bloomberg, June 12, 2011. Accessed March 12, 2015.
“Djibouti starts building two Chinese-funded airports.” Reuters, January 20, 2015. Accessed March 12, 2015.
Eyler, Brian. “China’s Maritime Silk Road is all about Africa.” East by Southeast, November 17, 2014. Accessed March 12, 2015.
Gundan, Farai. “Made In Africa: Three Cars Designed And Manufactured In Africa.” Forbes, January 31, 2015. Accessed March 12, 2015.
Hou Liqiang and Hu Haiyan. “Jam-packed airports add to pressure.” China Daily, January 30, 2015. Accessed March 12, 2015.
Iriogbe, Lawrence Osekhale. “China in Africa: Nigeria as a Case Study.” Seminar paper, American University of Nigeria, 2011.
“Is this young Kenyan Chinese descendant?” China Daily, July 11, 2005. Accessed March 12, 2015.
Ishaku, Joseph. “Chinese Products’ Presence in Nigeria: The Case of Motorcycles.” Seminar paper, American University of Nigeria, 2011.
Lamido Sanusi. “Africa must get real about Chinese ties.” Financial Times, March 11, 2013. Accessed March 12, 2015.
Li Lianxing. “Airports give Rwanda a ticket to growth.” China Daily, January 30, 2015. Accessed March 12, 2015.
Mohan, C. Raja. “Silk Road Focus: Chinese Takeaway.” Indian Express, March 10, 2015. Accessed March 12, 2015.
Moyo, Dambisa. “Beijing, a Boon for Africa.” New York Times, June 27, 2012. Accessed March 12, 2015.
Moyo, Dambisa. Winner Take All: China’s Race for Resources and What It Means for Us. London: Allen Lane, 2012.
“New Zealand becomes 24th founding member of AIIB.” China Daily, January 5, 2015. Accessed March 14, 2015.
“Nigeria Completes First Standard Gauge Railway Modernization Project.” Nigerian Television Authority, December 4, 2014. Accessed March 12, 2015.
Pew Research Center. “Chapter 2: China’s Image.” Global Opposition to U.S. Surveillance and Drones, but Limited Harm to America’s Image, July 14, 2014. Accessed March 12, 2015.
Rapoza, Kenneth. “Double Digits No More, China & India Govts Want To Grow Slow.” Forbes, April 10, 2012. Accessed March 12, 2015.
Sautman, Barry and Yan Hairong. “Trade, Investment, Power and the China-in-Africa Discourse.” The Asia-Pacific Journal 9 (2009). Accessed March 12, 2015.
Sautman, Barry and Yan Hairong. “Gilded Outside, Shoddy Within: The Human Rights Watch report on Chinese copper mining in Zambia.” The Asia-Pacific Journal 9 (2011). Accessed March 12, 2015.
Shee Poon Kim. “An Anatomy of China’s ‘String of Pearls’ Strategy.” The Hikone Ronso 387 (2011). Accessed March 12, 2015.
Shi Ze. “‘One Road & One Belt’ & New Thinking With Regard To Concepts And Practice.” 30th Anniversary Conference of the Schiller Institute, October 18, 2014. Accessed March 12, 2015.
Simmons, Katie. “U.S., China compete to woo Africa.” Pew Research Fact Tank, August 4, 2014. Accessed March 12, 2015.
Ssekandi, Ronald and Yuan Qing. “China’s investment in infrastructure key to Africa’s development: experts.” Xinhua, February 24, 2015. Accessed March 12, 2015.
“The Hopeful Continent: Africa Rising.” The Economist, December 3, 2011. Accessed March 12, 2015.
Tiezzi, Shannon. “What’s It Like to Have China Build You a Port? Ask Cameroon.” The Diplomat, February 27, 2015. Accessed March 12, 2015.
Turse, Nick. “The US Military Has Been ‘At War’ in Africa on the Sly For Years.” The Nation, April 14, 2014. Accessed March 12, 2015.
Turse, Nick. “US Special Forces Are Operating in More Countries Than You Can Imagine.” The Nation, January 20, 2015. Accessed March 12, 2015.
Tweed, David . “Modi Touring Indian Ocean to Keep China’s Submarines at Bay.” Bloomberg, March 10, 2015. Accessed March 12, 2015.
Wang Bowen. “China unswervingly sticks to peaceful development under ‘new normal.’” Xinhua, March 5, 2015. Accessed March 12, 2015.
“Wang Yi: China Is Ready to Work for Africa’s Dream of Building.” Ministry of Foreign Affairs, People’s Republic of China, January 11, 2015, accessed March 12, 2015.
World Bank. Africa Rising: A Tale of Growth, Inequality and Great Promise. April 14, 2014. Accessed March 12, 2015.
Wu Jiao and Zhang Yunbi. “Xi proposes a ‘new Silk Road’ with Central Asia.” China Daily, September 8, 2013. Accessed March 12, 2015.
Wu Jiao and Zhang Yunbi. “Xi in call for building of new ‘maritime silk road.’” China Daily, October 4, 2013. Accessed March 12, 2015.
“Xi’s ‘Four Comprehensives’ a strategic blueprint for China.” Xinhua, February 25, 2015. Accessed March 12, 2015.
Zhang Yuzhe. “With New Funds, China Hits a Silk Road Stride.” Caixin, December 3, 2014. Accessed March 12, 2015.
Zhang Yuzhe. “Gov’t Said to Name Three to Silk Road Fund Leadership Team.” Caixin, February 5, 2015. Accessed March 12, 2015.

Notes
1 Joseph Ishaku, “Chinese Products’ Presence in Nigeria: The Case of Motorcycles” (seminar paper, American University of Nigeria, 2011), 7.
2 Lawrence Osekhale Iriogbe, “China in Africa: Nigeria as a Case Study” (seminar paper, American University of Nigeria, 2011), 6.
3 Wu Jiao and Zhang Yunbi, “Xi proposes a ‘new Silk Road’ with Central Asia,” China Daily, September 8, 2013, accessed March 12, 2015.
4 Wu Jiao and Zhang Yunbi, “Xi in call for building of new ‘maritime silk road,’” China Daily, October 4, 2013, accessed March 12, 2015.
5 Deborah Brautigam, The Dragon’s Gift: The Real Story of China in Africa (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2009), 103-104. Zhang Yuzhe, “With New Funds, China Hits a Silk Road Stride,” Caixin, December 3, 2014, accessed March 12, 2015.
6 Shi Ze, “‘One Road & One Belt’ & New Thinking With Regard To Concepts And Practice,” 30th Anniversary Conference of the Schiller Institute, October 18, 2014, accessed March 12, 2015.
7 “Wang Yi: China Is Ready to Work for Africa’s Dream of Building,” Ministry of Foreign Affairs, the People’s Republic of China, January 11, 2015, accessed March 12, 2015.
8 Kenneth Rapoza, “Double Digits No More, China & India Govts Want To Grow Slow,” Forbes, April 10, 2012, accessed March 12, 2015.
9 Chen Jia, Dai Tian, Zhao Yinan, “Growth rate slows, structural reform predicted,” China Daily, March 5, 2015, accessed March 12, 2015.
10 “China aims at medium-to-high speed of growth with twin engines: gov’t report,” Xinhua, March 5, 2015, accessed March 12, 2015.
11 “Xi’s ‘Four Comprehensives’ a strategic blueprint for China,” Xinhua, February 25, 2015, accessed March 12, 2015. Wang Bowen, “China unswervingly sticks to peaceful development under ‘new normal,’” Xinhua, March 5, 2015, accessed March 12, 2015.
12 “China faces arduous task of ensuring employment,” Xinhua, March 10, 2015, accessed March 12, 2015.
13 “Is this young Kenyan Chinese descendant?” China Daily, July 11, 2005, accessed March 12, 2015.
14 Atul Aneja, “China steps up drive to integrate Africa with Maritime Silk Road,” The Hindu, January 21, 2015, accessed March 12, 2015.
15 Shannon Tiezzi, “What’s It Like to Have China Build You a Port? Ask Cameroon,” The Diplomat, February 27, 2015, accessed March 12, 2015.
16 Cheng Lu, “Return of maritime Silk Road does not forget Africa,” Xinhua, February 12, 2015, accessed March 12, 2015.
17 “China-Africa relations: something besides natural resources,” Xinhua, March 2, 2015, accessed March 12, 2015.
18 “Backgrounder: China’s major railway construction projects in Africa, Latin America,” Xinhua, 27 February, 2015, accessed March 12, 2015.
19 Brautigam, Dragon’s Gift, 31-34.
20 Brautigam, Dragon’s Gift, 79.
21 “China-funded light rail project puts Ethiopia on track for transformation,” China Radio International, February 8, 2015, accessed March 12, 2015.
22 Chen Boyuan, “Chinese company completes Nigeria railway project,” China.org.cn, December 2, 2014, accessed March 12, 2015. “Nigeria Completes First Standard Gauge Railway Modernization Project,” Nigerian Television Authority, December 4, 2014, accessed March 12, 2015.
23 “Chinese-built railway in Angola open to traffic,” Xinhua, February 15, 2015, accessed March 12, 2015.
24 “China airport construction going global,” Xinhua, December 7, 2014, accessed March 12, 2015. “China, Sudan sign $700m loan for new Khartoum airport,” Sudan Tribune, December 17, 2014, accessed March 12, 2015. “Djibouti starts building two Chinese-funded airports,” Reuters, January 20, 2015, accessed March 12, 2015. Hou Liqiang and Hu Haiyan, “Jam-packed airports add to pressure,” China Daily, January 30, 2015, accessed March 12, 2015. Li Lianxing, “Airports give Rwanda a ticket to growth,” China Daily, January 30, 2015, accessed March 12, 2015.
25 Peter Bosshard,”China’s Global Dam Builder at a Crossroads,” The Asia-Pacific Journal 12 (2014), accessed March 12, 2015.
26 “China-Africa relations.” Ronald Ssekandi and Yuan Qing, “China’s investment in infrastructure key to Africa’s development: experts,” Xinhua, February 24, 2015, accessed March 12, 2015.
27 Zhang Yuzhe, “Gov’t Said to Name Three to Silk Road Fund Leadership Team,” Caixin, February 5, 2015, accessed March 12, 2015.
28 Zhang Yuzhe, “With New Funds.”
29 “Asian Infrastructure Development Bank to be operational by year-end,” Press Trust of India, January 2, 2015, accessed March 12, 2015. Jamil Anderlini, Tom Mitchell and George Parker, “UK move to join AIIB meets mixed response in China,” Financial Times, March 13, 2015, accessed March 14, 2015. “New Zealand becomes 24th founding member of AIIB,” China Daily, January 5, 2015, accessed March 14, 2015.
30 Zhang Yuzhe, “With New Funds.”
31 Brian Eyler, “China’s Maritime Silk Road is all about Africa,” East by Southeast, November 17, 2014, accessed March 12, 2015.
32 Brautigam, Dragon’s Gift, 136-137.
33 Brautigam, Dragon’s Gift, 56.
34 “Clinton Chastises China on Internet, African ‘New Colonialism,’” Bloomberg, June 12, 2011, accessed March 12, 2015.
35 Lamido Sanusi, “Africa must get real about Chinese ties,” Financial Times, March 11, 2013, accessed March 12, 2015. Gregory Chin, “China’s Challenge in Africa: Avoid Blame of Neo-Colonialism,” YaleGlobal, 9 July 2014, accessed March 12, 2015.
36 Pew Research Center, “Chapter 2: China’s Image,” Global Opposition to U.S. Surveillance and Drones, but Limited Harm to America’s Image, July 14, 2014, accessed March 12, 2015.
37 Katie Simmons, “U.S., China compete to woo Africa,” Pew Research Fact Tank, August 4, 2014, accessed March 12, 2015.
38 “China’s 2015 diplomacy focuses on ‘Belt and Road,’” Xinhua, March 8, 2015, accessed March 12, 2015.
39 Chen Qin and Huang Shan, “Sri Lanka Tells China It Will Rethink Ties – and a Major Port Project,” Caixin, March 10, 2015, accessed March 12, 2015.
40 Shee Poon Kim, “An Anatomy of China’s ‘String of Pearls’ Strategy,” The Hikone Ronso 387 (2011), accessed March 12, 2015. David Tweed, “Modi Touring Indian Ocean to Keep China’s Submarines at Bay,” Bloomberg, March 10, 2015, accessed March 12, 2015.
41 “China invites India to join its Maritime Silk Road initiative,” Press Trust of India, February 14, 2014, accessed March 12, 2015. C. Raja Mohan, “Silk Road Focus: Chinese Takeaway,” Indian Express, March 10, 2015, accessed March 12, 2015.
42 The growing American military presence in Africa suggests that the putative hegemon is indeed not Chinese. See Nick Turse, “The US Military Has Been ‘At War’ in Africa on the Sly For Years,” The Nation, April 14, 2014, accessed March 12, 2015. See also Nick Turse, “US Special Forces Are Operating in More Countries Than You Can Imagine,” The Nation, January 20, 2015, accessed March 12, 2015.
43 Richard Bradshaw and Jim Ransdell, “Japan, Britain and the Yellow Peril in Africa in the 1930s,” The Asia-Pacific Journal 9 (2011), accessed March 12, 2015.
44 Dambisa Moyo, Winner Take All: China’s Race for Resources and What It Means for Us (London: Allen Lane, 2012), 157.
45 Brautigam, Dragon’s Gift, 67-69.
46 Brautigam, Dragon’s Gift, 46-48.
47 Barry Sautman and Yan Hairong, “Gilded Outside, Shoddy Within: The Human Rights Watch report on Chinese copper mining in Zambia,” The Asia-Pacific Journal 9 (2011), accessed March 12, 2015.
48 Barry Sautman and Yan Hairong, “Trade, Investment, Power and the China-in-Africa Discourse,” The Asia-Pacific Journal 9 (2009), accessed March 12, 2015.
49 Dambisa Moyo, “Beijing, a Boon for Africa,” New York Times, June 27, 2012, accessed March 12, 2015.
50 “The Hopeful Continent: Africa Rising,” The Economist, December 3, 2011, accessed March 12, 2015. World Bank, Africa Rising: A Tale of Growth, Inequality and Great Promise, April 14, 2014, accessed March 12, 2015.
51 Brautigam, Dragon’s Gift, 219.
52 Brautigam, Dragon’s Gift, 222-223.
53 Farai Gundan, “Made In Africa: Three Cars Designed And Manufactured In Africa,” Forbes, January 31, 2015, accessed March 12, 2015.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Africa and China’s 21st Century “Maritime Silk Road”

A Middle East Holocaust

March 30th, 2015 by Dr. Paul Craig Roberts

Foundations and corporations do not support truth-tellers. American foundations underwrite war and US imperialism. Foundations support subversion of countries that are not Washington’s puppet states. Your website has no foundation support, no corporate support; it only has your support.

I have been around for a long time and have experienced more than most. The current situation in my experience is the most dangerous time of all for humanity.

Nuclear weapons are no longer restrained by the Cold War MAD doctrine. Washington has released them into pre-emptive first strike form.

The targets of these pre-emptive strikes–Russia and China–know it, because Washington proudly proclaims its immorality in public documents describing its war doctrine.

The result is to maximize the chance of nuclear war. If you were Russia and China, and you knew that Washington had a war doctrine that permits a surprise nuclear attack, would you sit there waiting while Washington cranks up its anti-Russian and anti-Chinese propaganda machine, demonizing both countries as a threat to “freedom and democracy”?

The fools in Washington are playing with nuclear fire. Noam Chomsky points out that in a less dangerous time than currently exists, we came very close to nuclear war.https://philosophynow.org/issues/107/Noam_Chomsky_on_Institutional_Stupidity

Harold Pinter, one of the last Western intellects, understood the danger in Western arrogance. He denounced the West’s crimes and called for the crimes to be subject to established law before it is too late for humanity.

“We have brought torture, cluster bombs, depleted uranium, innumerable acts of random murder, misery, degradation and death to the Iraqi people and call it ‘bringing freedom and democracy to the Middle East’. How many people do you have to kill before you qualify to be described as a mass murderer and a war criminal? One hundred thousand? More than enough, I would have thought. Therefore it is just that Bush and Blair be arraigned before the International Criminal Court of Justice.”Harold Pinter, 2005 Nobel Prize Acceptance Speech.

“An Iraqi Holocaust” by Gideon Polya http://www.countercurrents.org/polya230315.htm and “Genocide In Iraq” http://www.countercurrents.org/polya150315.htm provide abundant evidence for convicting Bush and Blair.

Dr. Gideon Polya is a professor of science in one of Australia’s leading universities. He has a moral conscience, something increasingly rare in the Western world.

His articles are based largely on the just published by Clarity Press two volume heavily documented Genocide in Iraq by Abdul-Haq Al-Ani and Tarik Al-Ani. Abdul-Haq Al-Ani is a British-educated lawyer with a Ph.D. in International Law and a Ph.D. in electronics engineering. Tarik Al-Ani, is an architect, translator, and researcher.

Currently I am reading the two-volume work and intended to review it. But Professor Polya’s articles suffice as an introduction to Genocide in Iraq. Washington has committed a terrible crime in our name. Washington not only murdered Iraq, Washington has murdered the Middle East. Washington and its despicable vassals–”the Coalition of the Willing”–are responsible for a Middle East Holocaust.

For people in the Anglo-American world who have a moral conscience, the facts are soul-wrenching. The populations of the countries whose governments comprised “the Coalition of the Willing” are contaminated with war crimes committed by their governments in the Iraq Genocide. A progressive modern state was obliterated, and 2.7 million Iraqi people were murdered.

The crime was covered up with propaganda that demonized Saddam Hussein and created fear of nonexistent weapons of mass destruction.

The Iraqi genocide was based on a lie, and both Bush and Blair knew it. The two satanic leaders simply decided to destroy a people who they first demonized and marginalized.

Cheney and the neocons continue to justify the genocide and the illegal torture regime that they created in order to produce fake “terrorists” as a justification for their war crimes. The Western media, especially the New York Times, is also complicit in the Iraqi Genocide as are the insouciant Western peoples themselves who stood by cheering while millions of people were destroyed on the basis of a blatant and transparent lie.

What does the West represent? Greed? Lies? War? Torture? War Crimes? Selfishness, Intolerance? Destruction of life on earth?

The “Christian” West is a master at propaganda and self-deception. Look at the evangelical churches. They support a criminal, inhumane regime while professing to be followers of Christ.

Look at American “conservatives.” They support the militarized police state. They support the routine police murders of dark-skinned American citizens. They support every war Washington dreams up and even more. Indeed, there are not enough wars for the satisfaction of Congressional Republicans who now want war with Russia and with Iran.

Look at the Republicans in Congress and in state governments. They hate the environment. They love polluters. They worship Israel and Israel’s destruction of the Palestinians and the ongoing theft of the Palestinians’ country, a 60-year old activity. Just look at the map of shrinking Palestine. More is stolen each day.

Washington has supported this theft of an entire country. Yet, Washington is able to masquerade as a great defender of human rights. Whose rights? Washington’s and Israel’s. No one else’s rights count.

How does the world survive the American-Israeli aggression? Probably it will not. The evil is now directed at Iran, Russia, and China. These countries cannot be bombed year after year after year with no consequences to the bombers.

Iran is limited in its destructive ability. But Iran could destroy Saudi Arabia and Israel. Russia and China can destroy the US and all of Washington’s vassal states. The intensity of Washington’s propaganda war is driving the world to destruction.

How can it be stopped when Putin himself says over and over that Washington continually ignores every thing that the Russian government says. Putin is the peacemaker. Every peace proposal he brings is ignored by Washington whose response is to beat the drums of war louder.

Unless European governments recognize the danger in Washington’s aggression and dissolve NATO, planet earth hasn’t long to live.

The American public needs to understand the consequences of Washington’s illegality and criminality. On the one hand it means that those subject to Washington’s aggression have to endure war crimes, but on the other hand it means a growing hatred for America. As Washington’s easy targets are used up, Washington engages countries that can reply to force with force.

Unless the neoconservatives are ejected from the Obama regime and banned from inclusion in any future American government, mushroom clouds will go up over Washington, New York, Boston, Atlanta, Los Angeles, San Francisco, Seattle, Dallas, Houston, St. Louis, Cleveland, Chicago. The American mid-west, which hosts the ICBM silos, will become uninhabitable except by cockroaches.

Americans, and the populations of the American puppet states, desperately need to understand that Washington is incapable of speaking the truth about anything. Washington is an evil force. Washington is Sauron. Washington is Satan.

Look at Iraq. Look at Afghanistan. Look at Libya. Look at Syria. Look at Somalia. Look at Ukraine. Nothing but destruction comes from Washington. Will life on earth be Washington’s next victim?

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on A Middle East Holocaust

Ex-Monsanto employee Richard Goodman has been removed from the Editorial Board of the Journal of Food and Chemical Toxicology. Goodman was appointed Associate Editor shortly before the Seralini study was retracted by the journal. Former Editor-in-Chief, A. Wallace Hayes will be replaced by someone else as well.

It looks like one scientific journal has decided to get real, replacing a pro-GMO editor in a major scientific journal. An ‘unbiased’ Editor-in-Chief will be replacing the completely biotech-biased A. Wallace Hayes, who retracted the controversial paper by the Seralini team which showed the toxicity of GMOs beyond any shadow of doubt.

In response to a 2004 study declaring Monsanto’s NK603 GMO maize safe:

“…a predominantly French team led by Prof Gilles-Eric Séralini undertook a two-year (over 700 days), feeding trial [2], which was otherwise similar.  Their work was published in September 2012, also inFCT.  The early warnings that had been dismissed in the Monsanto paper developed into serious illnesses, including damage to liver, kidneys, pituitary gland and, most notably, early deaths and development of large tumours in females.  In addition, the study included trials of minute amounts of Monsanto’s Roundup, the herbicide to which tolerance has been genetically engineered into NK603, in the rats’ drinking water.”

Some time later, the Seralini study was removed from the Journal of Food and Chemical Toxicology, and this fact has been used in a foolhardy way by biotech shills to promote the ‘fallacy’ of biotech dangers on more blogs and Facebook postings than I’d like to count. It looks like the journal is doing some house cleaning; however, because two Monsanto-supporting, biased editors have been removed from their positions.

After the Seralini study was retracted, hundreds of scientists contacted the journal to ask them why they were doing so, claiming that they were giving in to pressure from the biotech industry. The academic world was outraged, and they voiced that opinion, despite being labeled with childish names by Monsanto, Dow, Syngenta, and others.

Now, the new Editor-in-Chief is Jose Domingo, who has published papers showing that the safety of GM crops is not an established fact.

“Critical changes have this year been made at the journal, Food and Chemical Toxicolgy, from which the Editor-in-Chief A. Wallace Hayes retracted the important paper by the Seralini team. The Editorial Board of the journal [19] now has a new Editor-in-Chief, José L. Domingo, who has published papers showing that safety of GM crops is not an established fact; and the Editorial Board no longer includes Richard Goodman, the ex-Monsanto employee who became Associate Editor for Biotechnology not long before the Seralini paper was retracted.”

The original Seralini study found an audience despite the journal’s retraction, but you can read further studies from Prof Gilles-Eric Seralini and his team, here, including a more recent exploration of how glyphosate ruins the functioning of the heart.

Now that the Journal of Food and Chemical Toxicology has come to their senses, perhaps all the other ‘paid-for’ science will be ousted from reputable journals also.

Additional Sources:

SGR.org.uk

Follow us: @naturalsociety on Twitter | NaturalSociety on Facebook

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Former Monsanto Employee Fired from Major Scientific Journal’s Editor Position

Like clockwork, the Disneyland measles false flag has predictably evolved into a national call for medical fascism, as politicians from both sides of the aisle unequivocally throw their support behind the jab agenda, which is right now pushing to eliminate vaccine exemptions and force everyone in America to get vaccinated.

The absurdly titled “Vaccines Save Lives” initiative declares into existence an alternate universe in which vaccines are 100% safe and effective. Introduced by Representatives Adam Schiff (D-Calif.), Charlie Dent (R-Penn.), Thomas Marino (R-Penn.) and Peter Welch (D-Vt.), the resolution “affirms [that] vaccines and immunizations save lives and are essential to maintain the public health, economic and national security of the people of the United States.”

By dressing up in patriotic terms such draconian nonsense, the politicians behind this decree aim to crystallize in the public groupthink the idea that vaccines are nothing less than God’s gift to mankind. Without them, claims these corporate hacks, there would be “a true public health crisis” that puts mostly children at risk.

According to The Hill, more than 90 members of Congress have signed onto the resolution which, while it isn’t binding in any sort of legal sense, represents the first shot fired in a brewing war against medical freedom. The mainstream media, the federal government and even some medical professionals are all calling for vaccine exemptions to be eliminated, and this resolution backs that sentiment.

“If passed, this resolution will bolster the current backlash against vaccine exemptions and pave the way for states’ efforts to mandate universal vaccinations,” explains the Alliance for Natural Health USA.

Top Congressional contributors during 2013-14: the pharmaceutical and vaccine industries

Even more absurd than the resolution itself are specific claims contained within it that “there is no credible evidence to show that vaccines cause life-threatening or disabling diseases in healthy children or adults.” This statement is patently false, contradicted both by the medical literature and the package inserts included with vaccines by their respective manufacturers.

The official package insert for the MMR II vaccine,[PDF] manufactured by Merck and administered to prevent measles, lists the following adverse effects, including “life-threatening or disabling diseases,” observed in conjunction with the jab:

• Panniculitis (inflammation of the subcutaneous fat layer below the skin)
• Atypical measles (yes, the MMR vaccine can cause and spread non-wild-type measles)
• Vasculitis (inflammation of the blood vessels)
• Pancreatitis (inflammation of the pancreas)
• Diabetes mellitus
• Thrombocytopenia (low blood platelet count)
• Anaphylaxis (whole-body allergic reaction)
• Arthritis
• Encephalitis (inflammation and swelling of the brain)
• Febrile convulsions
• Aseptic meningitis
• Pneumonia
• Retinitis (inflammation of the retina of the eye)
• Epididymitis (inflammation of the coiled tube at the back of the testicle that stores and carries sperm)
• Death

Literally every other vaccine currently on the market comes with a manufacturer-issued package insert like this one that lists some or all of these same adverse events as possible consequences of vaccination. Are Dent, Schiff and all the others onboard with the “Vaccines Save Lives” resolution completely oblivious to this fact, or is their thinking being clouded by their campaign donors?

The top financial contributors to Congress during the 2013-2014 session, according to OpenSecrets.org, include Pfizer Inc., Amgen Inc., Merck & Co., Abbott Laboratories, AstraZeneca PLC, Eli Lilly & Co., Sanofi, AbbVie Pharmaceuticals, Johnson & Johnson, GlaxoSmithKline, United Therapeutics, Novartis AG, Genentech Inc., Novo Nordisk and Allergan Inc. — these are all companies that produce drugs and vaccines.

Dr. Richard Pan, the pediatrician and Senator currently spearheading legislation in California to eliminate vaccine exemptions, has also been exposed as accepting money directly from Merck, the manufacturer behind the MMR vaccine for measles.

Congress needs to hear from you! It is critical that any legislation trying to eliminate vaccine exemptions, like SB 277 in California, be stopped:
LegInfo.ca.gov.

You can contact the California legislature to oppose this bill, and any others like it, here:
Legislature.ca.gov.

Sources:

http://www.anh-usa.org

http://thehill.com

http://riponadvance.com

http://www.merck.com[PDF]

http://www.opensecrets.org

http://leginfo.ca.gov

http://www.legislature.ca.gov

Medical Fascism

http://truthwiki.org/Vaccine_Fanaticism

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Lawmakers Declare Vaccines Essential to ‘National Security’ After Taking Money from Big Pharma

Australia To Start Taxing Bank Deposits

March 30th, 2015 by Zero Hedge

Up until now, the world’s descent into the NIRPy twilight of fiat currency was a function of failing monetary policy around the globe as central bank after desperate central bank implemented negative and even more negative (in the case of Denmark some four times rapid succession) rates, hoping to make saving so prohibitive consumers would have no choice but to spend the fruits of their labor, or better yet, take out massive loans which they would never be able to repay. However, nobody said it was only central banks who could be the executioners of the world’s saver class: governments are perfectly capable too.  Such as Australia’s.

According to Australia’s ABC News, the “Federal Government looks set to introduce a tax on bank deposits in the May budget.”

Ironically, the idea of a bank deposit tax was raised by Labor in 2013 and was criticized by Tony Abbott at the time. Much has changed in two years, and as ABC reports, assistant Treasurer Josh Frydenberg has indicated an announcement on the new tax could be made before the budget.

Mr Frydenberg is a member of the Government’s Expenditure Review Committee but has refused to provide any details.

“Any announcements or decisions around this proposed policy which we discussed at the last election will be made in the lead up or on budget night,” he said.

Speaking at the Victorian Liberal State Council meeting Mr Abbott has repeated his budget message, focusing on families and small businesses.

“There will be tough decisions in this year’s budget as there must be, but there will also be good news.”

For the banks and creditors, yes. For anyone who is still naive enough to save money in the hopes of deferring purchases for the future, not so much.

The banking industry has raised concerns about a deposit tax, saying it will have to pass the cost back onto customers.

Steven Munchenberg from the Australian Bankers’ Association said it would be a damaging move for the Government.

“It’s going to make it harder for banks to raise deposits which are an important way of funding banks. And therefore for us to fund the economy,” he said. “And we also oppose it because particularly at this point in time with low interest rates a lot of people who are relying on their savings for their incomes are already seeing very low returns and this will actually mean they get even less money.”

Don’t worry Steven, neither central banks nor government care about “a lot of people” – they just care about a select few. As for the banks, once China, and immediately thereafter Australia, launches QE as the entire world descends into a monetary supernova, and Australia’s banks are flooded with trillions in excess reserves like those in the US, all shall be forgiven. As a reminder, banks such as JPM are so flush with zero-cost cash from other sources, wellone other source, they are now actively turning away depositors.

As for Australia, while central banks are untouchable and unaccountable to anyone (except their commercial bank directors and anyone else they secretly meet during those bimonthly sessions in the BIS tower in Basel), the government can be voted in and voted out. Especially a government that is about to break one of its main election promises:

The Federal Opposition has accused the Government of breaking an election promise by planning to introduce a tax on bank deposits.

The former Labor Government put forward the policy in 2013 to raise revenue for a fund to protect customers in the event of a banking collapse.

Shadow Assistant Treasurer Andrew Leigh said Treasurer Joe Hockey criticised the proposal at the time. “When we put it on the table Joe Hockey said that it was a smash and grab on Australian households just aimed at repairing the budget,” he said.

It is almost surprising, but not really, how when it comes down to money, the thin white line between “us” and “them” always disappears when the money runs out.

As for Australia’s savers, welcome to the NIRP world where savers in increasingly more countries are now on the endangered species list.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Australia To Start Taxing Bank Deposits

Hundreds of thousands of chiefly white middle class protesters took to the streets in Brazil on 15 March in an organized upsurge of hatred against the federal administration led by President Dilma Rousseff of the Workers’ Party (Partido dos Trabalhadores, PT). These protests are far more cohesive and better organized than the previous wave of anti-government demonstrations, in 2013; their demands are unambiguously reactionary, and they include primarily the country’s elite.

While the protests are presented as being against corruption and for the impeachment of President Dilma Rousseff, they are actually about party political jockeying, shifting alliances between influential groups and disputes about political funding.

The 2015 demonstrations erupted in the political vacuum created by the paralysis of Dilma’s administration because of its own ineptitude and Brazil’s worsening economy. Those difficulties were compounded by aggressive media reporting of the Lava Jato corruption scandal, focusing on a network of firms channelling vast sums to individuals and political parties through the state-owned oil company PetrobrasReaders should not underestimate this crisis and its devastating implications for the Brazilian left.

At a deeper level, the economic and political crises in Brazil are due to the achievements and limitations of the administrations led by Luís Inácio Lula da Silva (2003-06 and 2007-10) and Dilma Rousseff (2011-14 and 2015-present). They led a partial economic and social break with neoliberalism that has delivered significant gains in employment and distribution, but also entrenched poor economic performance and left Brazil vulnerable to the global downturn. In the political domain, the PT has transformed the social character of the Brazilian state, while simultaneously accepting a fragile hold on power as a condition of power itself. There has been no meaningful attempt to reform the Constitution or the political system, challenge the ideological hegemony of neoliberalism, neutralize the mainstream media or transform the country’s economic structure or international integration. The PT also maintained (with limited flexibility in implementation) the neoliberal macroeconomic ‘Policy Tripod’ imposed by the preceding administration, including inflation targeting and central bank independence, free capital movements and floating exchange rates, and tight fiscal policies. The PT administrations were limited by the ‘reformism lite’ allowed by their unwieldy political alliances. This strategy alienated the party’s base and provoked the opposition into an escalating attack that came to the boil in March 2015.

Life before Dilma

Lula, the founder of the PT, was elected President on his fourth attempt, in 2002. For the first time Brazil was led by a genuine worker-leader. Lula’s power was limited by a powerful Congress that is also fragmented across two dozen raucous and unreliable parties. The PT has consistently elected only around 15 per cent of Deputies and Senators, and the ‘reliable’ left (including the PT) rarely exceeded one-third of seats. Consequently, Lula and Dilma have had to cobble together unwieldy coalitions prone to corruption – both from government, through pork-barrel politics, or from capitalists buying votes and funding rival parties fighting elections every other year. The PT had to manage this ungainly Congress under the gaze of an unfriendly judiciary, a hostile media, an autonomous Federal Prosecution and a corporatist Federal Police often working in cahoots.

The first Lula administration introduced moderate distributional policies, including the formalization of labour contracts, rising minimum wages and new transfer programmes. However, broader social and economic gains were limited by the government’s determination to buy ‘market credibility’ through the dogged implementation of the neoliberal Policy Tripod. The ensuing policies constrained transfers, public investment and industrial restructuring, and promoted the overvaluation of the currency and the reprimarization of the economy.

Low GDP growth rates in the first Lula years frustrated everyone, especially the PT’s traditional base. They felt that their concerns were being ignored and their support was taken for granted, while government officials schmoozed with bankers and industrialists. Even this apparent sell-out was insufficient to remove the political resistance against Lula, and his administration was criticized both for what it did (‘packing up the State with acolytes’ and ‘taxing producers to fund sloth’), and for what it did not do (deliver rapid growth and social quiescence).

The political divide worsened over time. The opposition crystallized around a ‘Neoliberal Alliance’ led by the financial bourgeoisie (suffering economic losses and dwindling control of State policy), and populated by the middle class (tormented by job losses and its dislocation from the outer circle of power, and jealous of the economic and social rise of the broad working class), and scattered segments of the informal workers.

Accelerating economic growth because of the global commodity boom and Lula’s political talent supported his elevation to spectacular heights. He balanced the demands of rival groups through his legendary shrewdness and the judicious distribution of resources through state investment, development funds, wages, benefits and labour law. The economy picked up speed, and taxation, investment, employment and incomes increased in a virtuous circle. The dynamics was sufficiently strong to support bold expansionary policies in the wake of the global crisis. By the end of his second administration, Lula’s approval rates touched on 90 per cent.

Yet, the ‘Lula Moment’ was limited. Even though the neoliberal policy framework had been diluted, the government remained only weakly committed to the rearticulation of the systems of provision hollowed out by the neoliberal transition, and it was unable to diversify exports and raise the technological content of manufacturing production. Brazil created millions of jobs but they were mostly precarious, poorly paid and unskilled; urban services were neglected, manufacturing shrank, and there was alarming underinvestment in infrastructure.

Dilma Mark 1: Policy Zigzag

Dilma Rousseff was a revolutionary activist in her youth, and she rose through the ranks of the PT as a competent manager. She had never been elected to public office until she was chosen by Lula to be his successor. At a personal level, it is unquestionable that Dilma is the most left-wing President of Brazil since João Goulart was deposed in 1964.

Dilma’s first administration shifted macroeconomic policies further toward neo-developmentalism. Interest rates fell, fiscal policy became more expansionary and new investment programmes were introduced. The government intervened widely to reduce costs and expand infrastructure, and BNDES financed an increasing portfolio of loans. Some capital controls were introduced, and the government expanded its social programmes aiming to eliminate extreme poverty. The strategic goal was to shift the engine of growth away from a faltering external sector and toward domestic investment and consumption.

This strategy failed. The international crisis tightened up the fiscal and balance of payments constraints; quantitative easing in the USA and UK destabilized the real, and global uncertainty and strident critiques of ‘interventionism’ limited investment. The public finances deteriorated, inflation crept up and GDP growth sagged.

Government perceptions that the economic strategy was not working, that its credibility was declining and that the external environment was unlikely to improve led to a policy zigzag in 2012, when Dilma’s economic team leaned back toward the neoliberal Policy Tripod. Fiscal austerity returned, and the inflation target became increasingly important. This about-turn came too late to be effective, and too hesitantly to restore faith in the government.

Dilma’s administration had to confront not only a worsening economy but also mounting political turmoil. Since Lula stepped down, the political hegemony of the PT depended on perceptions of ‘managerial competence’, the absence of corruption scandals, continuing growth and distribution, and stable political alliances. None was easily achievable under adverse economic circumstances; worse still, Dilma Rousseff never had Lula’s political talent. She is allegedly impatient with her allies, intolerant with self-interested entrepreneurs and uninterested in social movements; she also intimidates her own staff. A vacuum emerged around the President just as the economy tanked. The media ratcheted up the pressure and started scaremongering about an impending ‘economic disaster’; the government’s base of support buckled and it became difficult to pass legislation. The judiciary tightened the screws around the PT, and successive corruption scandals came to light.

In early 2013, the opinion polls suggested that support for the government was falling, and, in June, vast demonstrations erupted. They exposed the tensions due to the economic slowdown, the government’s isolation and its failure to improve public service provision in line with rising incomes and expectations. The middle classes also vented their fury against the widening of citizenship, changes in the State, transfer programmes, university quotas for blacks and state school pupils, labour rights for domestic servants, and so on.

As the economy halted, the government reverted more and more fully to the Policy Tripod: once pinned to the corner, the PT abandoned their own social and political base in order to try to please domestic, international, industrial, financial and agrarian capital. This was still insufficient. The government never had the support of the financial bourgeoisie, and was not about to gain it now. It lost the middle class because of its distributional and citizenship initiatives. It alienated the organized workers because of the worsening economic situation, corruption scandals and the policy turnaround. It distanced the informal workers for those same reasons and the limitation of the transfer policies. And it lost the internal bourgeoisie because of the economic slowdown, lack of influence over the President and erratic public policies. These groups were bestowed a semblance of coherence by a hostile media claiming that the government was incompetent and the State was out of control. Finally, the administration earned the hostility of Congress because of its inability to negotiate.

Dilma Mark 2: The Wheels Come Off

Dilma Rousseff was re-elected in 2014 by the narrowest margin in recent Brazilian history. Her victory was achieved through a last-minute mass mobilization triggered by left perceptions that the opposition would impose harsh neoliberal economic policies and reverse the social and economic achievements of the PT.

In the first weeks of her second administration Dilma faced converging crises leading to the collapse of the two axes of PT rule: the economic model and the political alliances supporting the administration. The government’s earlier unwillingness to remove the Policy Tripod, the long global crisis and the insufficiency of the country’s industrial policies fed the overvaluation of the currency, deindustrialization and a rising current account deficit. Balance of payments and fiscal constraints weakened the labour markets and induced inflation, and this vicious circle eliminated the scope for distribution and growth. Rising incomes in the previous period and insufficient investment in urban infrastructure led to an intolerable deterioration in service provision, symbolized by transport, in 2013, and water scarcity, in 2014-15. In both cases, the fulcrum was São Paulo, the country’s largest metropolitan area, its economic powerhouse and – crucially – the bedrock of the political right as well as the birthplace of the PT.

Dilma’s desperate response to these crises was to invite a representative of Brazil’s largest private bank to the Ministry of Finance, and charge him with the implementation of a ‘credible’ adjustment programme. The government’s weakness and its adoption of the macroeconomic programme of the opposition triggered an escalation of the political crisis. Another corruption scandal captured the headlines.

The Lava Jato operation led by the Federal Police unveiled a large corruption network centred on Petrobras and including cartels, fraud, robbery and illegal funding for several political parties, among them the PT. This scandal catalysed a mass opposition movement demanding the ‘end of corruption’ and ‘Dilma’s impeachment’, even though there is no legal, moral or political justification for it. Examination of the opposition’s grievances rapidly leads to a laundry list of unfocused and conflicting dissatisfactions articulated by expletives rather than logic.

The protests against Dilma’s administration are doubly misleading. First, they pretend to want her impeachment, even though this is legally untenable, the bourgeoisie knows that this would disarticulate the economic ‘adjustment’, and the PSDB (the neoliberal Brazilian Social Democratic Party, the largest opposition force) has no interest in delivering power to Vice-President Michel Temer’s centrist PMDB or allowing the PT to play the victim and recover in opposition, perhaps led by Lula. It is more convenient to keep Dilma as a lame duck President. Nevertheless, the next Presidential elections are still three years away, and the government could collapse unexpectedly.

Second, the demonstrations pretend to be against corruption in general, but this is not their target. The media and the opposition stress the financial flows involving the PT and downplay the involvement of everyone else, but almost every party and a large number of politicians are tangled up in Lava Jato and other investigations. They include the Speakers of the Chamber of Deputies and the Senate, the opposition leader Aécio Neves, and many more. For the media, only the PT matters, for two reasons: because scandals can be used to cut off the sources of finance to the Party, throttling it, and they can detach the PT from the internal bourgeoisie, that has supported and funded the Party since Lula’s election. The detention of prominent executives and the CEOs of some of Brazil’s largest construction and oil companies and the threat of bankruptcy against oil and shipbuilding firms because of the paralysis of Petrobras sends a clear message that the PT is not to be supported – or else.

The demonstrations against Dilma are not what they seem to be, and they are not about what they ostensibly demand. While they are presented as being against corruption and for her impeachment, they are actually about party political jockeying, shifting alliances between influential groups and disputes about political funding. At another level, the shrivelling of Dilma’s administration signals the exhaustion of the political project of the PT: a historical cycle of the Brazilian left is now coming to the end.

Eight Lessons

The protests against Dilma Rousseff are based on a double false pretence: they are not against corruption, and they do not seek her impeachment. This implies that the mobilization cannot be controlled precisely, and it can just as plausibly grow as it can taper off. In either case, it will leave behind a residue of disgust that can fuel a political spiral of unintended consequences. Beyond this irreducible uncertainty, the fate of the federal administrations led by the PT suggests eight lessons.

First, under favourable circumstances the PT disarmed the political right and disconnected the radical left from the working class. However, when the economic tide turned policy confusion and political crisis fed a confluence of dissatisfactions that now risks overwhelming Dilma’s administration.

Second, unmet aspirations and the convergence of grievances, even if they are mutually incompatible, can trigger political isolation and volatility that can become hard to contain.

Third, while the PT administrations have managed to reduce the income gap between the middle class and the working class, the political distance between them has increased. This chasm creates political instability in the short-term and obstacles for democratic social and political reforms in Brazil in the medium- and long-term.

Fourth, economic growth, social inclusion, the distribution of income and wealth, employment creation and the expansion of infrastructure remain relevant goals, but the PT has become unable to build the political conditions to achieve them.

“This is not … a crisis of the state or the political system, but a crisis of the hegemony of the PT.”

Fifth, despite its volcanic energy the opposition remains bereft of a programme and deprived of popularity. The PT has been implementing the opposition’s neoliberal macroeconomic policies; the PSDB does not seek to overthrow the government (although Dilma may step down if the situation spirals out of control); the upsurge against Dilma and the PT did not raise the popularity of the opposition (‘they are all thieves’), and no one aims to ‘end corruption’. This is not, then, a crisis of the state or the political system, but a crisis of the hegemony of the PT.

Sixth, the experience of the PT suggests that ambitious policy changes are needed in order to break with neoliberalism and secure gains in distribution and poverty reduction. They include changes in the country’s economic base, international integration, employment patterns, public service provision, structures of political representation and the media. These were never contemplated by the PT, and those limitations have now returned to destroy the Party and its leaders. In Brazilian politics, self-imposed weakness is rarely rewarded; instead, it elicits escalating attacks targeting the jugular.

Seventh, the Brazilian opposition has become increasingly aggressive. The 2015 movement is large and cohesive; in the meantime, the left is disorganized and bereft of aspirations and leadership. Despite these successes, the right is constrained by its inability to outline a consistent programme, and it has not gained popularity despite the dégringolade of the PT. The combination of strengths and weaknesses on the sides of the government and the opposition suggests that Brazil is entering a long period of instability. The emergence of a new political hegemony may take several years – and it is unlikely to be led by the left.

Eighth, as the ‘Pink Wave’ crashes in Brazilian shores, the Kirchner administration walks toward the catafalque in Argentina and Chavismo crumbles in Venezuela. These outcomes suggest that transformative projects in Latin America, however radical (or not), are bound to face escalating resistance. Its form, intensity and impact upon the alliances supporting the government will tend to fluctuate with the global environment, making it difficult to plan reformist strategies. It follows that broader alliances are not necessarily better, because they are prone to instability, and that the social, political and institutional sources of power must be targeted as soon as possible. There can be no guarantee that the task will become easier tomorrow, and no certainty that the future will be better than the present. The future does not belong to the left; it must be seized.

Alfredo Saad-Filho is Professor of Political Economy in the Department of Development Studies SOAS, University of London.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Brazil: Economic Policy, The Protest Movement and the Débâcle of the Workers’ Party (PT)

Institute of Science in Society Special Report

November 10, 2012

Glyphosate has contaminated land, water, air, and our food supply; the maximum permitted levels are set to rise by100-150 times in the European Union if Monsanto gets its way as damning evidence of serious harm to health & the environment piles up Dr Eva Sirinathsinghji and Dr Mae-Wan Ho

fully referenced and illustrated version of this report is posted on ISIS members website and is otherwise available for download here

The use of glyphosate-based herbicides, especially Monsanto’s Roundup formulation, has increased dramatically since the introduction of genetically modified (GM) glyphosate-tolerant crops, resulting in the contamination of our food, environment and water supplies.

Glyphosate-based herbicides are now the most commonly used herbicides in the world. It is still promoted as ‘safe’, despite damning evidence of serious harm to health and the environment.

Evidence of harm to health

  • Monsanto and the European Commission (EC) have known about birth defects since the 1980s. Industry studies found statistically significant skeletal and/or visceral abnormalities as well as reduced viability and increase in spontaneous abortions in rats and rabbits exposed to high doses of glyphosate. Lower doses were later shown to cause dilated hearts.  The EC dismissed all the findings.
  • Independent studies have since found caudal vertebrae loss in rats treated with sub-lethal doses of the herbicide; as well as craniofacial abnormalities, increased embryonic mortality and endocrine disruption, abnormal onset of puberty, and abnormal sexual behaviour and sperm count in male offspring of mothers exposed during gestation.
  • GM soybean-fed female rats gave birth to excessive numbers of severely stunted pups, with over half of the litter dead by three weeks, and the surviving pups were sterile.
  • Non-mammalian animals exposed to glyphosate resulted in increased gonad size, increased mortality, craniofacial abnormalities correlating with abnormal retinoic acid signalling, and reduced egg viability.
  • In vitro exposure to glyphosate resulted in endocrine disruption and death of cells of the testis, placenta, and umbilical cord.
  • A long term in vivo study on rats found females exposed to Roundup and/or Roundup Ready GM maize were two to three times as likely to die as controls and much more likely to develop large mammary tumours, while males presented large tumours four times controls and up to 600 days earlier.
  • Clinical data from Argentina are consistent with lab findings of increases in birth defects and cancers in regions with large areas cultivating glyphosate-tolerant soybean.
  • Endocrine disruption has been observed in both in vivo and in vitro studies in the laboratory, including abnormal levels of testosterone, aromatase enzyme, testosterone and oestrogen receptors, leutinising hormone, follicle-stimulating hormone. Endocrine disruption can lead to cancers and reproductive problems.
  • Epidemiological studies have found links to cancer including non-Hodgkin lymphoma and increased plasma cell proliferation. Cancer rates have risen in in glyphosate-use zones in Argentina. Lab studies found significant increases in interstitial cell tumour incidence in rats as well as skin tumour-promoting activity. Numerous lab studies including those performed by industry showed glyphosate damages DNA of cells in culture as well as in humans living in glyphosate-sprayed regions of Argentina. Non-mammalian studies found defects in cell cycle checkpoints and DNA damage repair machinery. DNA damage is a major prelude to cancers. AMPA, the glyphosate metabolite, also has genotoxic effects.
  • Neurotoxicity effects include Parkinsonism have emerged following acute exposure. Exposure to glyphosate resulted in oxidative stress in lab animals and death of neuronal cells, correlating with Parkinsonian pathology. Acute exposure in fish resulted in acetylcholine esterase (AChE) inhibition. An epidemiological study linked glyphosate -exposure to Attention-Deficit-Hyperactive disorder in children, a disorder associated with AChE inhibition. The original neurotoxicity studies carried out by industry were ruled invalid by the US Environment Protection Agency and urgently need re-examining by independent scientists.
  • Internal organ toxicity has been documented in animal feeding studies with glyphosate-tolerant soybean. Rats suffered kidney abnormalities including renal leakage and ionic disturbances, and liver pathology including irregular hepatocyte nuclei, and increased metabolic rates.
  • Acute toxicity of glyphosate is officially declared low by government agencies; however agricultural workers have reported many symptoms including skin irritation, skin lesions, eye irritation, allergies, respiratory problems and vomiting. Ingestion of large volumes causes systemic toxicity and death.

Evidence of negative environmental and agronomic impacts

  • Widespread use of glyphosate has led to the evolution of glyphosate-resistant weeds covering an estimated 120 million hectares globally in 2010. So far, 23 species of weeds have been recorded, forcing Monsanto to acknowledge the problem and protect their profits by declaring that their warranty does not cover yield losses. Glyphosate-resistant weeds are threatening the utility of glyphosate and glyphosate-tolerant crops. Resistant weeds are likely responsible for increased herbicide use. Argentinian use went from 2 to 20 litres per hectare between 1996 and 2010.
  • Glyphosate-tolerant crops, as well as other crops grown subsequently in the same fields are affected by glyphosate’s metal chelating properties. Chelation and immobilisation of metal micronutrients such as manganese damages physiological processes in the plant including disease resistance and photosynthesis. Numerous diseases including Goss’ wilt, Fusarium wilt, and Take All are now widespread in the US. More than 40 diseases have been linked to glyphosate use. Reduced lignin content in glyphosate-tolerant crops leads to reduced water retention, requiring more water, and severely compromising yields during drought years.
  • Soil biology is strongly disrupted by glyphosate, which is toxic to many beneficial micro- and macro-organisms including earthworms. It harms a wide range of  microbes, those producing indole-acetic acid (a growth-promoting auxin), responsible for mycorrhizae associations, phosphorus & zinc uptake; microbes such as Pseudomonads and Bacillus that convert insoluble soil oxides to plant-available forms of manganese and iron; nitrogen-fixing bacteria Bradyrhizobium, Rhizobium; and other organisms involved in the biological control of soil-borne diseases.
  • Glyphosate may be retained and transported in soils, with long-lasting cumulative effects on soil ecology and fertility, especially in northern ecosystems with long biologically inactive winters.
  • Glyphosate’s high water solubility makes aquatic wild-life very vulnerable. Lab studies showed extreme toxicity, killing many frog species. Roundup decreased the survival of algae and increased toxic bloom-forming cyanobacteria, hence accelerating the deterioration of water quality especially in small water systems.
  • Indirect effects through habitat disruption are also a concern, as highlighted by the major decline of Monarch butterfly populations whose larvae feed on milkweed that are largely destroyed by glyphosate applications in the US.
  • Livestock illnesses are linked to GM diets, and include reproductive problems, diarrhoea, bloating, spontaneous abortions, reduced live births, inflamed digestive systems, and nutrient deficiency. This has translated into much reduced profit for farmers.
  • Contamination of ground water supplies as well as rain and air has been documented in Spain and the US, threatening our drinking water, leaving people vulnerable to exposure. Berlin city residents were recently shown to carry glyphosate levels above permitted EU drinking water levels.

Conclusion

The serious harm to health and the environment caused by the use of glyphosate herbicides is clear. There is a compelling case for banning or phasing out glyphosate-based herbicides worldwide, in favour of a global transition to non-GM, herbicide-free organic agriculture (see Food Futures Now *Organic *Sustainable *Fossil Fuel Free , ISIS Report).

1 Introduction

A feeding trial lasting two years on rats showed that females exposed to Monsanto’s glyphosate formulation Round-up and/or Roundup-tolerant genetically modified (GM) maize were 2 to 3 times as likely to die as controls and much more likely to develop large mammary tumours. In males, liver congestions and necrosis were 2.5 to 5.5 times as frequent as the controls, while kidney diseases were 1.3-2.3 times controls. Males also presented large kidney or skin tumours four times as often as the controls and up to 600 days earlier. Biochemical data confirmed significant kidney chronic deficiencies for all treatments and both sexes.

The research team, led by Giles-Eric Séralini of Caen University in France, suggested that the results can be explained by “non-linear endocrine-disrupting effects of Roundup” and “the overexpression of the transgene in the GMO and its metabolic consequences.”

The results were dynamite, and the repercussions are still to be played out [2]. Predictably, the pro-GM brigade around the world launched a concerted campaign to discredit the scientists and their findings (see commentary by John Vidal on the Guardian website [3].

But contrary to the impression given in the popular media, this is not an isolated study suddenly to reveal that GM feed and the most widely used herbicide in the world may be toxic. It is the latest in a series of laboratory experiments backed up by experience of farmers and farm workers around the world that have found toxicity both for GM crops and for the herbicide. It is also the most thorough study to be carried out for the longest duration of two years. Currently, European regulators require companies to do feeding trials for only 90 days.

Note that the new study found toxicity not just for Roundup herbicide, but also for the Roundup-tolerant GM maize (NK603) that had not been sprayed with herbicide. In other words, GM maize has toxicity independently of the herbicide. As most Roundup tolerant GM crops have been sprayed and contain substantial amounts of herbicide and herbicide residues, they may also mask the toxicity of the GM crops themselves.

We review existing evidence on the health and environmental impacts of glyphosate herbicides and glyphosate-tolerant GM crops as the maximum permitted levels of the herbicide and herbicide residues in food are set to rise 100-150 times in the European Union if Monsanto’s new proposal is approved [4].

2 Regulators and industry both culpable

Healthy food and clean water are fundamental needs and basic human rights, but these are being compromised by the ever increasing use of synthetic chemicals in agriculture. Glyphosate-based herbicides, originally developed by Monsanto, are the most widely used in the world and increasing numbers of studies are documenting its link to serious illnesses and environmental damage. Most disturbingly, both Monsanto and the European Commission knew that the chemical could lead to cancer and birth defects prior to its approval for Europe in the 1980s; despite that, glyphosate continues to be touted as a ‘safe’ chemical [5] (see [6] EU Regulators and Monsanto Exposed for Hiding Glyphosate Toxicity, SiS 51).

The first glyphosate-based herbicide, Roundup®, was launched by Monsanto in 1974 and its use has risen sharply since the introduction of glyphosate-tolerant genetically modified (GM) crops in 1996. Following the expiry of the glyphosate patent in the US in 1991 and outside the US in 2000, many commercial formulations are available. Based on US data, GM crops have been directly responsible for a 7 % increase in overall pesticide use from 1996 to 2011 [7] (see [8] Study Confirms GM crops lead to increased Pesticide Use, to appear). This is predicted to increase with the emergence and spread of herbicide-resistant weeds (see section 5.1), and insects resistant to Monsanto’s Bt toxin insecticides, as well as the introduction of GM crops with tolerance to multiple herbicides.

Proponents of industrial chemical agriculture and GM crops argue glyphosate increases crop yields, providing a more efficient, cost-effective and safe method of agriculture necessary to tackle hunger and food insecurity across the world. The US officially recognises glyphosate as a safe chemical with regards to human health [9], currently defined as a Toxicity Class III herbicide (slightly toxic) with no carcinogenic activity. The EU classifies it as an irritant that can also cause severe ocular damage [10].

The accumulation of scientific peer-reviewed publications, clinical observations and witness reports from farmers and residents living in glyphosate-treated areas however, refutes the official line. Over a hundred peer-reviewed publications show detrimental effects, proving to the scientific community what farmers in the global South have known for a long time. Not acknowledging those studies goes against fundamental scientific and medical principles as well as the basic human right to a healthy environment, not least because the evidence challenges the naïve assumption that governments’ primary concern is to protect our health and not the pockets of multinational corporations.

Brief history of Monsanto – chemical company turned biotech giant

This review focuses primarily on the scientific effects of glyphosate, but the context of its production is important when considering Monsanto’s recent move from chemical production to agriculture. Can we really trust a chemical company to produce healthy food?

Founded in 1901 by John Francis Queeny in St Louis, Missouri, Monsanto’s first product was saccharin, an artificial sweetener. By the 1920s, the company was producing basic industrial chemicals, including sulphuric acid. During the 1940s they were involved in uranium research for the Manhattan Project that developed the first nuclear bomb; they continued running a nuclear facility until the 1980s. In addition, they became a large manufacturer of synthetic plastics including polychlorinated biphenols (PCBs) used as a chemical insulator and banned in 1979 in the US due to carcinogenicity.  Lawsuits have been filed against Monsanto for contaminating residential areas with PCBs that have left whole towns crippled with cancers and other illnesses. Following the Second World War, Monsanto expanded into large-scale production of chemical pesticides, including DDT and Agent Orange, the latter notoriously used as a defoliant during the Vietnam War. One of the components, dioxin, has now been classified as a probable carcinogen by the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). It is estimated that Agent Orange killed hundreds of thousands of Vietnamese civilians and American soldiers. In addition, it caused cancers and other illness in 2 million people, and birth defects affecting hundreds of thousands. Monsanto was later sued and forced to pay out $180 million to sick US war veterans. DDT was also banned in 1972 (although its use was permitted under certain circumstances) mainly due to effects on wildlife, but it was still exported to foreign countries until 1985. It is now classified by the EPA as a ‘probable carcinogen’, and has been associated with diabetes, Parkinson’s disease and endocrine disruption linked to developmental defects. Lasso, another herbicide manufactured by Monsanto was banned in the EU in 2006. Monsanto was recently found guilty of chemical poisoning a French farmer who suffered neurological problems including memory loss, headaches and stammering after inhaling Lasso in 2004 [11].

The commercialisation of Roundup® in 1974 turned Monsanto into the largest pesticide manufacturer in the world. They later turned to biotechnology and the production of GM crops, generating the first GM plant cell in 1982. By 1996, the first GM crop tolerant to glyphosate – Roundup Ready (RR) soybean – was on the market. Today, there are many glyphosate-tolerant crops, including corn, canola, sugar beet, cotton, wheat and alfalfa. Similar varieties made by Bayer CropScience, Pioneer Hi-Bred and Syngenta AG are termed Gly-Tol TM, Optimum ® GAT ® and Agrisure ® GT, respectively. The generation of plants tolerant to glyphosate allows farmers to apply glyphosate while crops are growing, theoretically killing every plant but the crop. The consequence is that crops now contain residual levels, directly exposing consumers and livestock to glyphosate. Not only that, glyphosate tolerant crops accumulate the herbicide and transport it to the roots, excreting it into the root zone (rhizosphere) of the soil, harming the next crop to be planted in the same field (see main text).

3 How glyphosate works

Glyphosate or N-(phoshonomethyl) glycine (molecular formula – C3H8NO5P) acts through inhibiting the plant enzyme – EPSPS (enolpyruvylshikimate-3-phosphate synthase) in the shikimate pathway [12] (see [13] Glyphosate Tolerant Crops Bring Diseases and DeathSiS 47). It catalyses the transformation of phosphoenol pyruvate (PEP) to shikimate-3-phosphate, required for making essential aromatic amino acids phenylalanine, tyrosine and tryptophan. Amino acids are essential building blocks for all proteins. This metabolic pathway exists in all plants, fungi, and some bacteria. Animals do not have the shikimate pathway, and depend on getting the essential amino acids from their diet. Inhibition of protein synthesis leads to rapid necrosis (premature cell death) in the plant.  As the EPSPS enzyme is present in all plants, glyphosate can effectively kill all plant species. The high solubility of glyphosate formulations allows it to be taken up by the plant where it acts systematically from roots to leaves.

Figure 1   Chemical Structure of Glyphosate

Glyphosate-tolerant crops are either engineered to carry extra copies of the EPSPS gene isolated from the soil bacterium Agrobacterium tumefaciens, or glyphosate intolerant versions of EPSPS. These GM crops are therefore tolerant to the herbicide, but are not engineered to metabolise or get rid of it, resulting in GM crops with the herbicide and its residues throughout the plant destined to become food or animal feed.

In addition to inhibition of EPSPS, glyphosate disrupts many biochemical and physiological functions of plants. Glyphosate was first patented as a general metal chelator and strongly chelates micronutrients such as manganese, which is an important co-factor of the EPSPS enzyme (see [13]). This is suggested to be the mechanism by which glyphosate kills plants. Manganese is a co-factor in over 25 plant enzymes. Other macro and micronutrients are also chelated by glyphosate such as Ca2+, Mg2+, Cu2+, Fe2+, Co2+, Ni2+ and Zn2+. This interference with biochemical pathways goes on to compromise biological functions including the immune system as well as crop productivity (see [14] USDA scientist reveals AllSiS 53).

4 Health impacts

There is a wealth of evidence on the health hazards of glyphosate. Its approval, along with other hazardous chemicals, relies on systematic flaws in the EU and US regulatory processes, which to this day, do not require evaluation by independent research, and instead rely solely on the industry’s own studies. Approval is therefore often based on data not available to the public or independent research scientists. Nevertheless, raw data have been obtained from the industry through the law courts, which, when re-analysed by independent scientists, also provide evidence of toxicity.

Taken together, glyphosate is implicated in birth and reproductive defects, endocrine disruption, cancers, genotoxicity, neurotoxicity, respiratory problems, nausea, fever, allergies and skin problems.

4.1 Teratogenicity and reproductive effects

Evidence of teratogenicity (birth defects) and reproductive problems stretches back to the 1980s [5]. Observations made by Monsanto were acknowledged by the German government (and its agencies), acting as the “rapporteur” state on risk assessment to the European Commission.  The German bodies concluded that high doses (500 mg/kg) led to significant skeletal and/or visceral (internal organ) abnormalities in rats and rabbits including the development of an extra 13th rib, reduced viability, and increased spontaneous abortions. Low doses (20 mg/kg) were later shown to cause dilated heartsThe questionable analysis and interpretation of the data by Germany (including claims that dilated hearts had unknown consequences and sample sizes were too small and lacking dose-dependent results) meant that the findings were not considered relevant to human risk assessment. This argument has been comprehensively rebutted in a report by Open Earth Source (see [6]). Most importantly, the findings have been corroborated subsequently.

Independent studies confirmed birth defects in laboratory animals. Defects in frog development were first observed with lethal doses of Roundup® (10mg/L, roughly equivalent to 0.003% dilution of Roundup®) that were still below agricultural concentrations. Effects were 700 times more pronounced with Roundup® compared to another formulation lacking the surfactant polyoxyethyleneamine (POEA), which is added to maximise glyphosate’s leaf penetration, and is thought to increase glyphosate penetration of animal cells as well [19]. POEA may also have independent toxic properties.

It is important to note that regulatory approval does not require assessment of the risk of commercial formulations, and instead relies on testing glyphosate alone. Sub-lethal doses also led to a 15-20 % increase in gonad size and reduced egg viability in Leopard frogs and catfish respectively [16, 17].

A definitive study conducted by Andrés Carrasco and his colleagues in Argentina found neural and craniofacial defects in frogs exposed to sub-lethal doses (1/5,000 dilutions) of glyphosate and Roundup® [18] (see [19] Lab Study Establishes Glyphosate Link to Birth DefectsSiS 48). These effects correlated with over-active retinoic acid (RA), a well-known regulator of the posterior-anterior axis during development (Figure 2). RA is an oxidised form of vitamin A and women are already advised against taking excess vitamin A during pregnancy. It also regulates the expression of genes essential for the development of the nervous system during embryogenesis (shh, slug, otx2), which were inhibited following glyphosate exposure.  Inhibition of RA signalling prevented the teratogenic effects of glyphosate, further confirming its involvement in the observed abnormalities.

The craniofacial defects in frogs are similar to human birth defects linked to retinoic acid signalling such as anencephaly (neural tube defect), microcephaly (small head), facial defects, myelomeningocele (a form of spina bifida), cleft palate, synotia (union or approximation of the ears in front of the neck, often accompanied by the absence or defective development of the lower jaw), polydactily (extra digit), and syndactily  (fusion of digits) ; these diseases are on the rise in pesticide-treated areas such as Paraguay [20].

Figure 2 Effect of glyphosate injection; left to right: control embryo not injected with glyphosate; embryo injected in one cells only; and embryo injected in both cells. Note the reduction of the eye, adapted from [18]

Findings in mammals are consistent with those in amphibians. According to the World Health Organisation (WHO), the administration of high doses of glyphosate (3 500 mg/kg per day) to pregnant rats resulted in an increased incidence of soft stools, diarrhoea, breathing rattles, red nasal discharge, reduced activity, increased maternal mortality (24% during the treatment period), growth retardation, increased incidence of early resorptions, decrease of total number of implantation and viable foetuses, and increased number of foetuses with reduced ossification of sternebra [21].  Rats orally treated with sub-lethal doses of Roundup® also showed dose-dependent reductions in craniofacial ossification (bone development), caudal vertebrae loss, and increased mortality [22], consistent with amphibian data and RA signalling defects. Prepubescent exposure led to disruption in the onset of puberty in a dose-dependent manner, reduced testosterone production, and abnormal testicular morphology [23]. Reproductive effects were transgenerational, with male offspring of exposed pregnant rats suffering from abnormal sexual behaviour, increased sperm count, early puberty as well as endocrine disruption (see below) [24].

In a feeding trial, senior scientist of the Russian Academy of Sciences Irina Ermakova found that female rats fed rat chow plus Roundup Ready soybean gave birth to an excess of stunted pups: 55.6 % compared with 6.8% in litters from control rats fed rat chow only and 9.1 % of litters from control rats fed rat chow supplemented with non-GM soybean. The stunted rats were dead by three weeks, but the surviving rats in the exposed litters were sterile [25, 26] GM Soya Fed Rats: Stunted, Dead, or Sterile (SiS 33). The experiment was repeated with very similar results. Unfortunately, Irmakova did not succeed in her attempt to get the Roundup Ready soybean analysed for herbicide and herbicide residues, so the effects could be due to a mixture of the GM soya and herbicide/herbicide residues. The second experiment included a group of females fed rat chow plus GM soya protein did not do as badly as those exposed to GM soybean; the mortality rate of pups at three weeks was 15.1 % compared with 8.1 % for controls fed rat chow only, 10 % for controls fed rat chow plus non-GM soybean, and 51.6 % for litters of females fed rat chow plus Roundup Ready soybean. This suggests that extra deaths and stunting were due to the GM soybean; as consistent with the new findings by Séralini and colleagues [1].

Irmakova too, was fiercely attacked, and attempts to discredit her continued for years afterwards, orchestrated by the journal Nature Biotechnology (see [27] Science and Scientist Abused, SiS 36).

Dr Irina Ermakov with the Occupy Monsanto demonstration 17 September 2012

Cell culture models offer insight into a possible mechanism of glyphosate reproductive toxicity. Death of testicular cells [28, 29] (see [30] Glyphosate Kills Rat Testes CellsSiS 54) as well as embryonic, placental and umbilical cells occurs at levels 10 times below agricultural dilutions and is exacerbated by the presence of POEA in commercial formulations. Endocrine disruption was also noted at lower concentrations (see below).

Clinical and epidemiological data gathered by The Network Of Physicians Of Drop-Sprayed Towns in Argentina show a 2- and 3-fold increase in congenital and musculoskeletal defects respectively between 1971 and 2003, while another doctor noted an increase in birth defects of around 50 % among his patients. Argentina dedicates vast areas of land to RR soybean production, and as a result, an estimated 12 million people in rural/semi-urban areas are exposed to glyphosate. Increases in miscarriages, difficulty in conceiving as well as spontaneous abortions were documented. Many other illnesses were also suspected to have arisen as a result of pesticide spraying (see [31] Pesticide Illnesses and GM Soybeans. Ban on Aerial Spraying Demanded in ArgentinaSiS 53). The local physicians confirmed that Carrasco’s laboratory results on amphibians (see earlier) were consistent with the illnesses of their patients.

4.2 Endocrine disruption

The endocrine system consists of various glands that release hormones into the bloodstream, acting as chemical messengers affecting many functions includingmetabolism, growth and development,tissuefunction, behaviour andmood. Disruption of the endocrine system does not commonly result in cell death, or acute toxicity. Instead, endocrine disruption can have serious health effects through interference in cell signalling and physiology, resulting in a range of developmental impacts including sexual and other cell differentiation, bone metabolism, liver metabolism, reproduction, pregnancy, behaviour, and hormone-dependent diseases such as breast or prostate cancer. Endocrine disruption may well underlie many of the reproductive, teratogenic, and carcinogenic effects of glyphosate.

The synthesis of sex hormones is disrupted by glyphosate and Roundup® in both males and females. Mouse and rat testicular Leydig cells (testosterone producing cells) have reduced testosterone levels as well as increased levels of aromatase, an enzyme complex that converts testosterone into oestrogen [28, 29].  Human placental cells, on the other hand, showed decreased aromatase expression [32]. All these imbalances were observed with concentrations well below agricultural dilutions, and effects were more pronounced with commercial formulations containing adjuvants.

Abnormal expression of testosterone and/or oestrogen receptors as well as oestrogen regulated genes has been documented in human liver cells exposed to both glyphosate alone or four commercial formulations, and breast cancer cells exposed to glyphosate [33, 34].

Other hormones were shown to be dysregulated in the presence of glyphosate, including increased expression and serum concentration of leutinising hormone and increased expression of follicle-stimulating hormone. These are both gonadotropin hormones secreted by the pituitary glands that regulate growth, sexual development and reproduction [24].

Rats exposed to Roundup and/or Roundup-tolerant maize over two years exhibited a range of endocrine disruption effects that, typically, differ between the sexes [1]. Thus mammary tumours were rife in exposed females while liver pathologies predominated in exposed males. Similarly, pathology of the pituitary was more significantly increased in exposed females; and big kidney and skin tumours were confined to males.

4.3 Carcinogenicity

Epidemiological studies found that glyphosate exposure increased risk of developing non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma, a blood cancer of the lymphocytes [35, 36], with one study showing a dose-dependent correlation with exposure to commercial formulations [37]. A rise in plasma cell proliferation associated with multiple myeloma was documented in exposed agricultural workers [38]. The Network of Physicians of Aerial Sprayed Towns in Argentina has implicated glyphosate (see Figure 3), along with other pesticides, in the startling increase in both childhood and adult cancers in pesticide-treated regions, particularly in the vicinity of GM soybean plantations [31]. Increased incidence of interstitial testicular cell tumour at low doses of 32 mg/kg was documented in a two- year rat feeding study [22]. Mouse experiments also showed that glyphosate promotes skin cancer, although not sufficient to initiate tumours by itself [39].  These findings make the latest results from Séralini’s team [1]  all the more significant, as the mammary cancers in herbicide-exposed females and kidney and skin cancers in males are further corroboration of glyphosate’s carcinogenic potential suggested by the earlier findings.

Further epidemiological and clinical studies are urgently needed to assess glyphosate’s carcinogenic activity considering the growing evidence of its genotoxic properties.

Figure 3   Aerial spraying of herbicides, Eugene Daily News

4.4 Genotoxicity

Genotoxicity refers to damage of DNA. DNA damage can result in mutations that lead to adverse health effects including cancer, reproductive problems, and developmental defects. Evidence of genotoxicity not only relates to glyphosate, but also to its principle metabolite 2-amino-3-(5-methyl-3-oxo-1,2- oxazol-4-yl)propanoic acid (AMPA). Epidemiological data gathered in both Argentina [22] (exposure to glyphosate among other pesticides) and Ecuador [40] (exposure only to glyphosate) showed DNA damage in blood samples taken from exposed people.

Unpublished industry studies from the 1980s showed that Roundup® causes chromosomal aberrations and gene mutations in mouse lymphoid cells [5].  Increased frequency of DNA adducts (covalently bound chemicals on DNA) in the presence of glyphosate has been documented in the liver and kidney of mice in a dose-dependent manner [41]. This was consistent with the research team’s previous study showing increased frequency of DNA adducts in Italian floriculturist workers exposed to pesticides [42]. Chromosomal and DNA damage was noted in bone marrow, liver, and kidney of mice acutely exposed to sub-lethal doses of Roundup®. Significant effects with glyphosate alone were also observed in the kidney and bone marrow [43]. Human epithelial cells derived from the buccal cavity suffer DNA damage at levels well below agricultural dilutions (20 mg/L)[44], these are the cells likely to be affected by exposure through inhalation (see [45] Glyphosate Toxic to Mouth Cells & Damages DNA, Roundup Much WorseSiS 54).

Among non-mammals, glyphosate caused cell division dysfunction and alterations in cell cycle checkpoints in sea urchins by disrupting the DNA damage repair machinery [46, 47]. The failure of cell cycle checkpoints can lead to genomic instability and cancer in humans. Glyphosate is also genotoxic in goldfish, European eels, and Nile tilapia [48-50]. Moreover, fruit flies showed increased susceptibility to gender-linked lethal recessive mutations as a result of exposure to glyphosate [51].

Not much is known regarding glyphosate’s main breakdown product AMPA; one study suggested it has acute genotoxic effects [52] and should be investigated further.

4.5 Neurotoxicity

Emerging evidence suggests that glyphosate is neurotoxic, including two published cases of Parkinsonism in humans. A 54 year old man in Brazil was diagnosed with Parkinsonism following accidental spraying; he developed skin lesions six hours after being exposed to spraying, and a month later he developed Parkinson’s disease symptoms [53]. The other case involved a woman in Serbia who ingested 500 millilitres of glyphosate solution and developed Parkinsonism along with lesions of the brain’s white matter and pons (part of brain stem), and altered mental status. The woman suffered additional non-neurological symptoms (see acute toxicity section) and eventually died [54]. Consistently, increased oxidative stress, mitochondrial dysfunction and loss of cell death markers were found in the substantia nigra, the brain region most affected in Parkinson’s disease, of rats exposed chronically to glyphosate at sub-lethal levels [55, 56].  Oxidative stress represents an imbalance between the production of reactive oxygen species (ROS), also known as free radicals, and the body’s ability to detoxify these reactive intermediates or repair the damage caused by them. ROS are a natural by-product of oxygen metabolism such as mitochondrial respiration, and have important roles in signalling and metabolism. Excess amounts however, can have damaging effects on many components of the cell including lipids in cellular membranes, DNA and proteins. Excess ROS has been implicated in the aetiology of a wide array of diseases including Alzheimer’s disease, Parkinson’s disease (PD), atherosclerosis, heart failure, myocardial infarction and cancer (see [57]  Cancer a Redox DiseaseSiS 54). Activation of the tightly regulated apoptotic and autophagic cell death pathways is also implicated in neurodegenerative diseases and has been observed in rat neuronal cell lines exposed to glyphosate in a dose-dependent manner [58].

Other mechanisms of neurotoxicity include the inhibition of acetylcholine esterase (AChE), an enzyme that metabolises the excitatory neurotransmitter acetylcholine. AChE inhibitors such as organophosphate pesticides are potent nerve agents. Symptoms of AChE inhibition include miosis (closing of the eyes), sweating, lacrimation, gastrointestinal symptoms, respiratory difficulties, dyspnea, bradycardia, cyanosis, vomiting, diarrhoea, personality changes, aggressive events, psychotic episodes, disturbances and deficits in memory and attention, as well as coma and death. Further, increased risk of neurodevelopmental, cognitive and behavioural problems such as Attention-Deficit Hyperactive disorder (ADHD), deficits in short-term memory, mental and emotional problems have been associated with exposure to glyphosate-based herbicides in children and the newborn [59].  Although glyphosate is an organophosphate, it is not an organophosphate ester but a phosphanoglycine, and therefore not been assumed to inhibit AChE. New studies suggest otherwise. Catfish and another fish species, C. decemmaculatus, showed AChE inhibition at environmentally relevant concentrations of Roundup® and glyphosate respectively [60, 61]. Furthermore, these effects were seen following acute exposure of up to 96 hours. A tentative association between glyphosate and ADHD in children has been made in an epidemiological study [62].

Further studies need to be done by independent scientists as original neurotoxicology data presented by Monsanto was ruled invalid by the EPA [63].

4.6 Internal organ toxicity

As in the brain (see above), increases in reactive oxygen species (ROS) have been found in the liver, kidney and plasma of rats exposed to acute doses of glyphosate. Concomitant decreases in enzymes that act as powerful antioxidants such as superoxide dismutase occur in the liver (see [64] The Case for A GM-Free Sustainable World, ISIS publication).  Liver cells exposed to four glyphosate formulations at low concentrations showed decreases in oestrogen and testosterone receptor levels, DNA damage and decreases in aromatase enzyme activity (see [65] Ban Glyphosate Herbicides NowSiS 43). Other studies suggest mitochondrial damage to rat and carp liver cells in vitro and in vivo respectively at sub-lethal concentrations [66, 67].

A meta-analysis of 19 feeding studies originally conducted by Monsanto, but later re-analysed by a group of French scientists led by Séralini, found kidney pathology in animals fed RR soybean, including significant ionic disturbances resulting from renal leakage (see [68] GM Feed Toxic, Meta-analysis RevealsSiS 52). This is consistent with previous results from cell cultures treated with glyphosate (see [69]Death by multiple poisoning,glyphosate and Roundup,SiS42), suggesting that glyphosate present in the GM food was responsible. Liver pathology in animals fed RR soybean included the development of irregular hepatocyte nuclei, more nuclear pores, numerous small fibrillar centres, and abundant dense fibrillar components, indicating increased metabolic rates.

4.7 Acute toxicity

Acute toxicity of glyphosate has been classified ‘low’ based on rat studies performed by industry that only showed effects at concentrations of 5 000 mg/kg. However, agricultural workers exposed at much lower concentrations have documented various symptoms, highlighted in Argentina (see [70] Argentina’s Roundup Human TragedySiS 48). Acute toxicity of glyphosate through skin contact and inhalation includes skin irritation, skin lesions, eye irritation, allergies, respiratory problems and vomiting. In cases of ingestion, severe systemic toxicity and even death has occurred. Ingestion of small amounts can lead to oral ulceration, oesophageal problems, hypersalivation, nausea, vomiting and diarrhoea. Ingestion of larger amounts (usually >85 ml) causes significant toxicity including renal and hepatic impairment, acid–base disturbance, hypotension and pulmonary oedema, impaired consciousness and seizures, coma, hyperkaliemia, encephalopathy (global brain dysfunction), Parkinsonism, respiratory and renal failure. Suicide attempts have been noted as 10-20 % successful with as little as 100 ml ingested.

5 Environmental and agronomic effects

Agribusiness claims that glyphosate and glyphosate-tolerant crops will improve crop yields, increase farmers’ profits and benefit the environment by reducing pesticide use. Exactly the opposite is the case. Pesticide use has actually increased in successive surveys [71](see [72] GM Crops Increase Herbicide Use in the United StatesSiS45). Not only that, the evidence indicates that glyphosate herbicides and glyphosate-tolerant crops have had wide-ranging detrimental effects, including  glyphosate resistant super weeds, virulent plant (and new livestock) pathogens, reduced crop health and yield, harm to off-target species from insects to amphibians and livestock, as well as reduced soil fertility.

5.1 Glyphosate resistant weeds

Critics long predicted the evolution of weeds resistant to glyphosate, consistent with all previous herbicides used in the past; and they are right. This is causing huge agronomic and ecological concern as farmers are forced to abandon whole fields of crops (see [73] GM Crops Facing Meltdown in the USASiS 46). So much so that Monsanto has issued a statement saying it is no longer responsible for the rising costs of weeds under the Roundup® warranty. The Weed Society of America has now launched free resistance-management courses for farmers, although the solutions are clearly towing the agribusiness line of dousing crops in additional pesticides, a terribly flawed solution that will only lead to more of the same, or worse – weeds resistant to multiple herbicides. Indeed, some species have already evolved resistance to two 0r even three types of herbicides. In some cases, these “superweeds” are so resilient that the only method of destroying them is to pull them out by hand. Palmer amaranth grows at up to 3 inches a day causing an imaginable headache for farmers (see Figure 4).

Figure 4   Field infested with Palmer amaranth ‘superweed’, Agweb

First documented in ryegrass in 1996 in Australia, glyphosate-resistance has since been observed in 23 separate species across 16 countries by 2010, covering an estimated 120 million hectares worldwide and continuing to spread [74].

Up until 2003, 5 resistant populations had been documented worldwide. Since 2007, there has been a 5-fold increase in the spread of resistant weeds (See [75] Monsanto Defeated By Roundup Resistant WeedsSiS 53). So far, resistant species listed by the WeedScience database include: Palmer Amaranth, Common Waterhemp, Common Ragweed, Giant Ragweed, Ripgut Brome, Australian Fingergrass, Hairy Fleabane, Horseweed, Sumatran Fleabane, Sourgrass, Junglerice, Goosegrass, Kochia, Tropical Sprangletop, Italian Ryegrass, Perennial Ryegrass, Rigid Ryegrass, Ragweed Parthenium, Buckhorn Plantain, Annual Bluegrass, Johnsongrass, Gramilla mansa and Liverseedgrass.

Of all the resistant species, Palmer Amaranth and Common waterhemp have received the most attention. Waterhemp produces up to a million seeds per plant, making it difficult to prevent spreading of resistant populations. It also has a long emergence pattern, which means that multiple rounds of herbicide treatments are required. Resistant common waterhemp was first documented in fields in Missouri, US, in 2004 after at least 6 consecutive years of growing soybeans. The suggested mechanism of resistance in this population was the amplification of EPSPS genes in the plant, allowing it to compensate for glyphosate’s inhibition of the enzyme. According to Bill Johnson, an entomologist from Perdue University in Indiana US, waterhemp is a serious threat to soybean farming with the capacity to reduce yields by 30-50 % [76]. Palmer amaranth is estimated to have infested at least a million separate sites in the US alone. It is a particular hardy plant, and is considered one of the most destructive weed species in the south-eastern US. Field experiments have shown its potential to reduce cotton yields by 17-68 %, having important implications for RR cotton farmers [77].

In order to prolong the utility of herbicide-tolerant GM crops, agribusinesses are now developing crops with multiple tolerance traits, or tolerance to old herbicides like 2,4-Dichlorophenoxyacetic acid (2,4-D). Dow Agrosciences are ready to roll out 2,4-D-tolerant corn, soy and cotton even though this year saw the discovery of 2,4-D resistant waterhemp in Nebraska, making it the sixth mechanism-of-action group to which waterhemp has developed resistance [78].

The emergence of resistant weeds explains the increases in pesticide use over the last few years, as farmers apply more and more in an attempt to rid their farms of hardy weeds. As noted by the Network of Argentinian Physicians of Crop Sprayed Towns, repeated glyphosate use on the same plots of land rose from 2 litres per hectare in 1996, to almost 20 litres in 2011 [79], most likely due to the emergence of resistant weeds.

The extent of damage wreaked by glyphosate-resistant weeds has been further exacerbated by the severe US drought of 2012, which dries out weeds and makes them less sensitive to herbicides [80]. Global warming and herbicide resistant weeds may therefore have synergistic effects on crop yield losses, again highlighting the unsustainable approach of intensive chemical agriculture.

5.2 Effects on crop and plant health

Glyphosate use has been associated with the increased incidence and/or severity of many plant diseases and the overall deterioration of plant functions such as water and nutrient uptake [13].

As mentioned above, glyphosate’s mechanism of action is the systemic chelation of metals, including manganese, magnesium, iron, nickel, zinc and calcium, many of which are important micronutrients. They act as co-factors for many plant enzymes including those involved in the plants’ immune system [14]. While non-transgenic varieties are killed by glyphosate, glyphosate-tolerant crops do not die; but their physiology can be compromised. Manganese is a co-factor for 25 known enzymes involved in processes including photosynthesis, chlorophyll synthesis and nitrate assimilation, and enzymes of the shikimate pathway to which EPSPS belongs. The shikimate pathway is responsible for plant responses to stress and the synthesis of defence molecules against pathogens, such as amino acids, lignins, hormones, phytoalexins, flavenoids and phenols. The virulence mechanism of some pathogens, including Gaeumannomyces and Magnaporthe (which lead to ‘take-all’ and root rot respectively) involves the oxidisation of manganese at the site of infection, compromising the plant’s defence against it. Glyphosate-tolerant crops were found to have reduced mineral content, confirming glyphosates’ metal chelating activity [81-84].

Various plant diseases have reached epidemic proportions in the US, now in its fourth year of epidemics of Goss’ wilt and sudden death syndrome and eighteenth year of epidemic of Fusarium fungal colonisation resulting in root rot and Fusarium wilt.  Not only does glyphosate affect disease susceptibility, there is also evidence of increased disease severity. Examples include Take All, Corynespora root rot in soybean, Fusarium spp diseases, including those caused by Fusarium species that are ordinarily non-pathogenic. Head-scab caused by Fusarium spp of cereals increases following glyphosate application is now prevalent also in cooler climates when previously it was limited to warmer climates. Nine plant pathogens have been suggested to increase in severity as a result of glyphosate treatment of crops, while some 40 diseases are known to be increased in weed control programmes with glyphosate and the list is growing, affecting a wide range of species: apples, bananas, barley, bean, canola, citrus, cotton, grape, melon, soybean, sugar beet, sugarcane, tomato and wheat [85].

USDA scientist Professor Emeritus Don Huber presented detailed evidence including a photograph (Figure 5) to the UK Parliament that glyphosate-tolerant crops are less healthy and yield less. They have a compromised immune system and require extra water, which are major problems as climate change is likely to increase infectious diseases and exacerbate water scarcity [14].

Figure 5   Effects of long-term glyphosate on crop (wheat) health; left not treated with glysphosate, right, treated with glyphosate; adapted from Huber’s presentation [14] 

As consistent with previous findings, GM crops are suffering heavy yield losses in drought-stricken US in 2012 [86]. A farmer who has grown both GM and non-GM varieties of corn and soybean side by side reported an average of 100-120 bushels per acre harvested from non-GM corn compared to 8-12 bushels to 30-50 bushels per acre from GM corn.

According to a recent report published by the Union of Concerned Scientists, GM crops have certainly not succeeded in increasing yields [87]; but there is as yet no comprehensive peer-reviewed study on GM crop yields.

As with animal species, endocrine dysfunction has been suggested in plants exposed to glyphosate (see above), potentially affecting health as well as crop yields. Inhibition of auxins involved in plant growth and development, as well as reduced methionine levels have been observed; methionine is a principle substrate for fruit, flower opening and shedding of leaves [88].

Various aquatic species including microalgae, protozoa and crustaceans are susceptible to glyphosate, but more so to the surfactant POEA [89] in Roundup formulations.

5.3 Effects on soil ecology

Soil fertility is fundamental in maintaining plant health and yields. However, along with the rise in industrial agrochemical farming practices, there has been a general increase in the number of plant diseases in the past 15 to 18 years.

Glyphosate has been shown to stimulate the growth of fungi and increase the virulence of soil pathogens such as Xylella fastidiosa which causes citrus variegated chlorosis, while also decreasing the presence of beneficial soil organisms [90] Scientists Reveal Glyphosate Poisons Crops and Soil (SiS47). Four primary soil fungi, FusariumPhythiumRhizoccccctonia, and Phytophthora, have become more active with the use of glyphosate; and concomitantly diseases caused by these fungi have increased, such as head scab in corn, or root rot in soybeans, crown rot in sugar beets. Fusarium head blight, which affects cereal crops, is a disease that produces a mycotoxin that could enter the food chain.

Beneficial micro- and macro-organisms damaged by glyphosate include earthworms, microbes producing indole-acetic acid (a growth-promoting auxin), mycorrhizae associations, phosphorus & zinc uptake, microbes such as Pseudomonads and Bacillus that convert insoluble soil oxides to plant-available forms of manganese and iron, nitrogen-fixing bacteria Bradyrhizobium, Rhizobium, and organisms involved in the biological control of soil-borne diseases that reduce root uptake of nutrients (see [90, 13]  (see Figure 6).

In addition to soil microorganisms, Roundup® but not glyphosate alone, kills three beneficial food microrganisms (Geotrichum candidum, Lactococcus lactis subsp. cremoris and Lactobacillus delbrueckii subsp. bulgaricus) widely used as starter cultures in the dairy industry [91]. This may explain the loss of microbiodiversity in raw milk observed in recent years.

Figure 6   Interactions of glyphosate with plant and soil biology; adapted from Huber’s presentation [14]

It has been assumed that glyphosate is short-lived, degrading in two weeks, and has low accumulation and drift. However, this conventional view may only be applicable, if at all, in certain environments. Studies in northern regions of the globe have demonstrated that glyphosate and its main metabolite AMPA can remain in the soil even years after the last spraying [92]. That means the herbicide and its residues can remain active and accumulate in soils with increasingly devastating effects on soil ecology.

5.4 Effects on ecosystems

Glyphosate use impacts animal biodiversity and health either directly or indirectly through destruction of habitats. It is considered to be particularly toxic to aquatic and amphibian species, due to its high water solubility.

Amphibians are considered the most endangered animal class on Earth. Recent studies have highlighted glyphosate’s toxicity to frog species, with exposure killing 78 % of animals in laboratory conditions (see [93] Roundup Kills Frogs, SiS 26). A 2012 study found enlarged tails in exposed tadpoles, similar to the adaptive changes seen in response to the presence of predators. Tadpoles adapt their body shape to suit environmental conditions, so any changes not suited to the environment could put the animals at a distinct disadvantage [94]. Currently unpublished data from The Department of Herpetology at the Society of Sciences, Aranzad, Spain suggests that glyphosate concentrations below agricultural levels are sufficient to kill 10 species of amphibians in the Basque region of Spain [95].  As mentioned earlier, birth defects in frogs have also been detailed in laboratory conditions [15].

Studies in aquatic microcosms and mesocosms found that Roundup at 8 mg glyphosate/L inhibited the growth of green algae at the expense of toxic bloom-forming cyanobacteria, with potentially drastic impacts on freshwater aquatic ecosystems [96, 97]. It also accelerates the deterioration of water quality, which is already jeopardising global water supply [98] (World Water Supply in Jeopardy, SiS 56).

The indirect effect of habitat destruction is exemplified by the decline of Monarch butterfly numbers (see [99] Glyphosate and Monarch Butterfly DeclineSiS 52) (Figure 7). The larvae of this species feed almost exclusively on milkweed plants, which are being destroyed through glyphosate treatment of GM crops. In the Midwest of the US, there has been a 58 % decline in milkweed plants and a resulting 17-year decline in Monarch butterfly [100]. A decline in their winter migration to Mexico has been observed stretching back 15 years.

Figure 7   Monarch butterflies, University of Arkansas System

5.5 Diseases of livestock

The rise of certain diseases in livestock populations has been linked to glyphosate ingestion from feeding on RR crops. Huber claims that livestock are suffering a triple whammy of reproductive toxicity caused by endocrine dysfunction (as described above with regards to human health),  nutrient deficiency, and a novel unknown pathogenic ‘entity’ found in many reproductive tissues and dead foetuses as well as other body parts [14].

With regards to nutrient deficiency, manganese deficiencies have been associated with various animal diseases and reproductive failures, which are becoming increasingly common in livestock. In Australia, following two seasons of high levels of stillbirths in cattle, it was found that all dead calves were manganese deficient [101]. Moreover, 63 % of newborn with birth defects were also deficient. Manganese is known to be important for mobilising calcium into bones, correlating with abnormal bone formation in these calves.

A Danish farmer recently reversed illnesses in his pigs through reverting back to a non-GM feed. Illnesses included birth defects, reduced live births, diarrhoea, bloating and poor appetite disappeared, resulting in increased profit for his farm (see [102] GM Soy Linked to Illnesses in Farm PigsSiS 55).

5.6   Widespread contamination of water supplies 

With all the described toxic effects of glyphosate, it becomes imperative to assess the level of contamination of the water supplies, our source of drinking water. Recent research in Catalonia, Spain, revealed widespread contamination of their groundwater [103]. In the US, glyphosate has been detected in rain and air samples [104].

Research recently performed in Germany detected glyphosate in the urine of all tested Berlin city residents, including one person who had been eating organic food for over 10 years [105]. Levels reached 5-20 times the established permitted level in drinking water in the EU. Even those who live away from farming areas are not protected. Glyphosate was previously found in urine samples of farm workers at concentrations shown to have cause endocrine disruption.

To conclude

Glyphosate toxicity can no longer be ignored. While evidence of its harm to health and the environment grows, Monsanto is proposing to raise permitted residual levels in lentils by 100 fold in the EU [4]. This is clearly unacceptable. Brazil has recently proposed a new bill that will ban many environmental toxins including glyphosate [106]. A global ban or phase-out of glyphosate use is a matter of urgency, and with that, widespread adoption of non-GM sustainable agriculture [107] (Food Futures Now *Organic *Sustainable *Fossil Fuel Free , ISIS Report).

Please circulate widely and repost, but you must give the URL of the original and preserve all the links back to articles on our website. If you find this report useful, please support ISIS by subscribing to our magazine Science in Society, and encourage your friends to do so. Or have a look at the ISIS bookstore for other publications. 

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Monsanto’s Cancer Causing Glyphosate: The Contamination of Land, Water, Air and Food

The Politics of Surviving Guantánamo

March 30th, 2015 by Global Research News

Mohamedou Ould Slahi is one of 780 detainees imprisoned in Guantánamo.  Jailed since 2002, he fiercely maintains his innocence of any wrongdoing. To date, the U.S. has not charged him with any crime.

Many Guantánamo prisoners were taken into custody “without regard for whether they were truly enemy combatants, or in fact whether many of them were enemies at all,” according to Retired Colonel Lawrence B. Wilkerson, who served as a senior official in the State Department under the Bush Administration. His declaration in a D.C. federal court in spring 2010 explained:

It was politically impossible to release [those who were likely innocent]….The Defense Department would be left without any plausible explanation to the American people…The detention efforts at Guantánamo would be revealed as the incredibly confused operation that they were….The Office of Vice President Richard B. Cheney believed that if hundreds of innocent individuals had to suffer in order to detain a handful of hardcore terrorists, so be it.

Three years into his incarceration, Slahi wrote a diary recounting his experiences. After U.S. government censors blacked out more than 2,500 areas of text, writer and human rights activist Larry Siems edited the manuscript. Ten years later, the newly published Guantánamo Diary offers Slahi’s deeply personal account of the desperate life he and other detainees faced inside the U.S. prison.  

The following excerpts focus on how Slahi and his fellow detainees reacted to the unrelenting pressure to admit to crimes they may not have committed, to implicate friends who may not have been involved and to,  somehow, survive. 
***

“I Trusted America’s Justice System Too Much”

I wrongly believed that the worst was over, and so I cared less about the time it would take the Americans to figure out that I was not the guy they [were] looking for.

I trusted the American justice system too much, and shared that trust with the detainees from European countries. We all had an idea about how the democratic system works. Other detainees, for instance those from the Middle East, didn’t believe it for a second and trust the American system. Their argument lay on the growing hostility of extremist Americans against Muslims and the Arabs.

With every day going by, the optimists lost ground. The interrogation methods worsened considerably as time went by, and as you shall see, those responsible for GTMO broke all the principles upon which the U.S. was built….

Why Detainees Refused to Cooperate 

…I had a good time in ████ the beginning, but things started to get ugly when some interrogators started to practice torture methods on some detainees….As far as I heard and saw, the only method practiced at first was the cold room, all night. I know a young Saudi man who was taken to interrogation every night and put back in his cell in the morning. I don’t know the details of what exactly happened to him because he was very quiet, but my neighbors told me that he refused to talk to his interrogators.

██████████████████████████████████████████ also told me that he was also put in the cold room two nights in a row because he refused to cooperate.

Most of the detainees by then were refusing to cooperate after they felt they had provided everything relevant to their cases. People were desperate and growing tired of being interrogated all the time, without hope of an end. I personally was relatively new and wanted to take my chances: maybe my fellow detainees were wrong! But I ended up bumping into the same brick wall as anybody else. Detainees grew worried about their situation and the absence of a due process of law, and things started to get worse with the use of the painful methods to extract information….

Deciding Not to Cooperate

…“I am not the guy you’re looking for!” I said in French, and I repeated it in plain English.

██████ started. “I am sure you’re against killing people. We’re not looking for you. We’re looking for those guys who are out there trying to hurt innocents.” He said this while showing me a bunch of ghostly pictures. I refused to look at them, and whenever he tried to put them under my sight I looked somewhere else. I didn’t even want to give him the satisfaction of having taken a look at them.

“Look, ██████████ is twenty-seven years–and ███████ is a really bad person. Somebody like you needs to only talk for five minutes, and you’re a free man,” said ███████.

He was everything but reasonable. When I contemplated his statement, I was like, God, a guy who is cooperating is gonna be locked up for 27 more years, after which he won’t be able to enjoy any kind of life. What kind of harsh country is that? I am sorry to say that ██████ statement wasn’t worth an answer. He and ██████ tried to reason with the help of the MI guy, but there was no convincing me to talk.

You could tell that the interrogators were getting used to detainees who refused to cooperate after having cooperated for a while. Just as I was learning from other detainees how not to cooperate, the interrogators were learning from each other how to deal with non-cooperating detainees. The session was closed and I was sent back to my cell.

I was satisfied with myself, since I now officially belonged to the majority, the non-cooperating detainees. I minded less being locked up unjustly for the rest of my life; what drove me crazy was to be expected to cooperate, too. You lock me up, I give you no information. And we are both cool….

Not Giving Interrogators Control

…I have never felt as violated in myself as I had since the DoD Team started to torture me to get me to admit things that I haven’t done. You, Dear Reader, could never understand the extent of the physical, and much more the psychological, pain people in my situation suffered, no matter how hard you try to put yourself in another’s shoes. Had I done what they accused me of, I would have relieved myself on day one. But the problem is that you cannot just admit to something you haven’t done; you need to deliver the details, which you can’t when you hadn’t done anything. It’s not just, “Yes, I did!” No, it doesn’t work that way: you have to make up a complete story that makes sense to the dumbest dummies. One of the hardest things to do is to tell an untruthful story and maintain it, and that is exactly where I was stuck. Of course I didn’t want to involve myself in devastating crimes I hadn’t done–especially under the present circumstances, where the U.S. government was jumping on every Muslim and trying to pin any crime on him.

“We are going to do this with you every single day, day in, day out, unless you speak about ██████ and admit to your crimes,” said ██████.

1 “You have to provide us a smoking gun about another friend of yours. Something like that would really help you,” ██████ said in a later session. “Why should you take all of this, if you can stop it?”

I decided to remain silent during torture and to speak whenever they relieved me. I realized that even asking my interrogators politely to use the bathroom, which was a dead basic right of mine, I gave my interrogators some kind of control they don’t deserve. I knew it was not just about asking for [the] bathroom: it was more about humiliating me and getting me to tell them what they wanted to hear. Ultimately an interrogator is interested in gathering Intels, and typically the end justifies the means in that regard.

And that was another reason why I refused both to drink and to eat: so I didn’t have to use the restroom. And it worked….

Falsely Incriminating Myself

…Now, thanks to the unbearable pain I was suffering, I had nothing to lose, and I allowed myself to say anything to satisfy my assailants. Session followed session since I called █████████.

“People are very happy with what you’re saying,” said ██████ after the first session. I answered all the questions he asked me with incriminating answers. I tried my best to make myself look as bad as I could, which is exactly the way you can make your interrogator happy. I made my mind up to spend the rest of my life in jail.

You see, most people can put up with being imprisoned unjustly, but nobody can can bear agony day in and day out for the rest of his life….

Falsely Incriminating Others

… “I talked today with the Canadians and they told me they don’t believe your story about ███████████ being involved in drug smuggling into the U.S., but we know he is,” he told me once.

“I can only tell you what I know,” I said.

“But we want you to give evidence linking ███████████ to the Millennium Plot. Things like, he supports the Mujs or believes in Jihad are good, but not good enough to lock him up the rest of his life,” he told me.

“Oh yes, I will,” I said. He handed me a bunch of papers and I went back in my cell, Oh, my God, I am being so unjust to myself and my brothers, I kept thinking, and then repeating “Nothing’s gonna happen to us…. They’ll go to hell….Nothing’s gonna happen to us….They’ll….” I kept praying in my heart, and repeating my prayers. I took the pen and paper and wrote all kinds of incriminating lies about a poor person who was just seeking refuge in Canada and trying to make some money so he could start a family….

…I felt bad for everybody I hurt with my false testimonies. My only solaces were, one, that I didn’t hurt anybody as I did myself; two, that I had no choice; and three, I was confident that injustice will be defeated, it’s only a matter of time. Moreover, I would not blame anybody for lying about me when he gets tortured….

Groundhog Day Interrogating

…Has there ever, in all of recorded human history, been an interrogation that has gone on, day in and day out, for more than six years? There is nothing an interrogator could say to me that would be new; I’ve heard every variation. Each new interrogator would come up with the most ridiculous theories and lies, but you could tell they were all graduates of the same school: before an interrogator’s mouth opened I knew what he ██████ was going to say and why he██████ was saying it.

“I am your new interrogator. I have very long experience doing this job. I was sent especially from Washington, D.C. to assess your case.”

“You are the most important detainee in this camp. If you cooperate with me, I am personally going to escort you to the airport. If you don’t cooperate, you’re gonna spend the rest of your life on this island.”

“You’re very smart. We don’t want to keep you in jail. We would rather capture the big fish and release the small fish, such as yourself.”

“You haven’t driven a plane into a building; your involvement can be forgiven with just a five-minute talk. The U.S. is the greatest country in the world; we would rather forgive than punish.”

“Many detainees have talked about you being the bad person. I personally don’t believe them; however, I would like to hear your side of the story, so I can defend you appropriately.”

“I have nothing against Islam, I even have many Muslim friends.”

“I have helped many detainees to get out of this place; just by writing a positive report stating that you told the whole truth….”

2And so on, in an endless recitation that all the interrogators recited when they met with their detainees. Most detainees couldn’t help laughing when they had to hear this Groundhog Day nonsense; in fact it was the only entertainment we got in the interrogation booth. When his interrogator told him, “I know you are innocent,” one of my fellow detainees laughed hard and responded, “I’d rather be a criminal and sitting home with my kids.”

I believe anything loses its influence the more we repeat it. If you hear an expression like, “You are the worst criminal on the face of the earth” for the first time, you’ll most likely get the hell scared out of you. But the fear diminishes the more times you hear it, and at some point it will have no effect at all. It may even sound like a daily compliment….

ICRC – U.S. – Detainee Politics

…Finally, in September 2004, ICRC [International Committee of the Red Cross] was allowed to visit after a long fight with the government. It was very odd to the ICRC that I had all of a sudden disappeared from the camp, as if the earth had swallowed me. All attempts by ICRC representatives to see me or just to know where I was were thoroughly flushed down the tube.

The ICRC had been very worried about my situation, but they couldn’t come to me when I needed them the most. I cannot blame them; they certainly tried. In GTMO the █████████ is integrally responsible for both detainees’ happiness and their agony, in order to have total control over the detainees. redacted and his colleague █████████ categorically refused to give the ICRC access to me. Only after ███████ left was it possible for the ICRC to visit me.

“You are the last detainee we had to fight to see. We have been able to see all other detainees,” said ██████.

████████████████ tried to get me talking about what happened to me during the time they couldn’t have access to me. “We have an idea because we have talked to other detainees who were subject to abuse, but we need you to talk so we can help in stopping further acts of abuse.”

But I always hid the ill-treatment when the ICRC asked me about it because I was afraid of retaliation. That and the fact that the ICRC has no real pressure on the U.S. government; the ICRC tried, but the U.S. government didn’t change its path, even an inch. If they let the Red Cross see a detainee, it meant the operation against that detainee was over.

“We cannot act if you don’t tell us what happened to you,” they would urge me.

“I am sorry! I am only interested in sending and receiving mail, and I am grateful that you’re helping me to do so.”

██████ brought a very high level ICRC ██████ from Switzerland who has been working on my case; ██████ tried to get me talking, but to no avail.

“We understand your worries. all we’re worried about is your well-being, and we respect your decision.”

Although sessions with the ICRC are supposedly private, I was interrogated about the conversations I had during that first session, and I truthfully told the interrogators what we had said. Later I told the ICRC about this practice, and after that nobody asked me what happened in our sessions.

We detainees knew that the meetings with ICRC were monitored; some detainees had been confronted  with statements they had made to the ICRC and there was no way for the █████████ to know them unless the meeting was monitored. Many detainees refused to talk to the ICRC, and suspected them to be interrogators disguised in ICRC clothes. I even know some interrogators who presented themselves as private journalists. But to me that was very naïve: for a detainee to mistake an interrogator for a journalist he would have to be an idiot, and there are better methods to get an idiot talking.

Such mischievous practices led to tensions between detainees and the ICRC. Some ICRC people were even cursed and spit on….

“Open a Torture and War Crimes Investigation

… I have only written what I experienced, what I saw and what I learned first-hand. I have tried not to exaggerate, or to understate. I have tried to be as fair as possible, to the U.S. government, to my brothers, and to myself. I don’t expect people who don’t know me to believe me, but I expect them, at least, to give me the benefit of the doubt. And if Americans are willing to stand for what they believe in, I also expect public opinion to compel the U.S. government to open a torture and war crimes investigation. I am more than confident that I can prove every single thing I have written in this book if I am ever given the opportunity to call witnesses in a proper judicial procedure, and if military personnel are not given the advantage of straightening their lies and destroying evidence against them….

…In the beginning, the U.S. government was happy with its secret operations, since it thought it had managed to gather all the evils of the world in GTMO, and had circumvented U.S. law and international treaties so that it could perform its revenge. But then it realized, after a lot of painful work, that it had gathered a bunch of non-combatants. Now the U.S. government is stuck with the problem, but it is not willing to be forthcoming and disclose the truth about the whole operation.

Everybody makes mistakes. I believe the U.S. government owes it to the American people to tell them the truth about what is happening in Guantánamo. So far, I have personally cost American taxpayers at least one million dollars, and the counter is ticking higher every day. The other detainees are costing more or less the same. Under these circumstances, Americans need and have the right to know what the hell is going on…

***

Excerpted from the book Guantánamo Diary by Mohamedou Ould Slahi. Diary and annotated diary copyright © 2015 by Mohamedou Ould Slahi. Introduction and notes copyright © 2015 by Larry Siems. Reprinted with permission of Little, Brown and Company.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on The Politics of Surviving Guantánamo
Una forza militare europea viene giustificata come protezione dalla Russia, ma potrebbe anche essere una maniera per ridurre l’influenza statunitense nel momento in cui l’Unione Europea e la Germania arrivano ai ferri corti con gli Stati Uniti e la NATO sulla questione ucraina.
Parlando con il giornale TedescoWelt am Sonntag, il Presidente della Commissione Europea Jean-Claude Juncker ha annunciato che è giunto il momento per la creazione di una forza militare europea unificata. Juncker ha usato la retorica del “difendere i valori dell’Unione Europea” e ha cavalcato le polemiche antirusse per promuovere la creazione di un esercito europeo, che dovrebbe portare un messaggio a Mosca.
Le polemiche e le discussioni in merito a un Esercito Europeo possono essere intorno alla Russia, ma in realtà l’idea è diretta agli Stati Uniti. La storia che c’è sotto riguarda le tensioni che si stanno sviluppando tra gli Stati Uniti da una parte e la Germania e l’UE dall’altra. Questo è il motivo per cui la Germania ha reagito in maniera entusiasta alla proposta, fornendo il suo sostegno a una forza armata europea condivisa.
Precedentemente, l’idea di un Esercito Europeo era stata presa seriamente in considerazione durante la preparazione all’illegale invasione anglo-americana dell’Irak del 2003, quando Germania, Francia, Belgio e Lussemburgo si incontrarono per discuterne come scelta alternativa alla NATO a guida statunitense. L’idea è stata poi tirata fuori in altre circostanze simili. Nel 2003, il motivo di frizione era l’invasione dell’Irak. Nel 2015, è per la crescente tensione fra Germania e Stati Uniti in merito alla crisi in Ucraina.

Ripensamenti a Berlino e Parigi?

Per comprendere gli eventi dietro alla richiesta di un Esercito europeo comune, dobbiamo guardare a quanto accaduto dal novembre 2014 fino a marzo 2015. Tutto comincia nel momento in cui Germania e Francia iniziano a dimostrare di pensarla diversamente in merito al piano di guerra che gli Stati uniti e la NATO stavano intraprendendo in Ucraina e in Europa orientale.

Le differenti posizioni franco-tedesche sono cominciate ad emergere dopo che Tony Blinken, già vice Consigliere per la Sicurezza Nazionale del Presidente Barack Obama e attualmente vice Segretario di Stato e numero due al Dipartimento di Stato, annunciò che gli Stati Uniti avrebbero cominciato a mandare armi all’Ucraina, durante un’audizione del Congresso circa la sua ultima nomina, il 19 novembre 2014. Come l’ha descritta il Fiscal Times: “Washington ha colpito la Russia e gli Europei con un uno-due annunciando di voler armare l’Ucraina.”

Il Ministro degli Esteri russo rispose a Blinken annunciando che se il Pentagono avesse distribuito armi in Ucraina, Washington non solo avrebbe portato il conflitto su un altro livello, ma avrebbe dato anche un chiaro segnale di voler cambiare le dinamiche del conflitto interno all’Ucraina.

Avendo realizzato che le cose sarebbero potute andare fuori dal controllo, Francia e Germania hanno quindi dato vita ad una nuova iniziativa di pace, attraverso dialoghi diplomatici finalizzati a giungere ad un nuovo accordo per il cessate-il-fuoco a Minsk, in Bielorussia, attraverso il “Formato Normandia” composto dai rappresentanti di Francia, Germania, Russia ed Ucraina.

I pessimisti potrebbero sostenere che Francia e Germania hanno scelto la via della diplomazia nel febbraio del 2015 perché i ribelli in Ucraina Orientale o Novorussia, come questi la chiamano, stavano battendo le forze di Kiev. In altre parole, la prima motivazione sarebbe stata quella di riuscire a salvare il governo di Kiev dal collasso senza un valido accordo per l’Est del Paese. Questo potrebbe essere in parte vero, ma la coppia franco-tedesca non vuole vedere l’Europa ridotta ad un inferno che riduce chiunque in cenere.

Le differenze transatlantiche sono state ben visibili alla Conferenza sulla Sicurezza di Monaco, a febbraio. In quella occasione il senatore statunitense Robert Corker, capo della Commissione Affari Esteri del Senato, durante una sessione con la Cancelliera tedesca Angela Merkel, ha sostenuto che il Congresso statunitense credesse che Berlino stesse cercando di impedire a Washington di aumentare pubblicamente gli aiuti militari a Kiev.

La Cancelliera Merkel è stata esplicita nella sua risposta quando ha detto al senatore Corker che la crisi in Ucraina non può essere risolta con mezzi militari e che l’approccio statunitense non porta a nulla e che rende la situazione in Ucraina ancora peggiore. Quando alla Merkel è stato richiesto di esprimersi in merito alla militarizzazione del conflitto in Ucraina da parte del parlamentare britannico Malcolm Rifkind, capo della Commissione sulla Sicurezza e l’Intelligence del Parlamento inglese, la Cancelliera ha risposto che inviare più armi a Kiev è inutile e irrealistico. La Merkel ha detto al parlamentare inglese di “guardare la realtà negli occhi”. La Cancelliera tedesca ha anche sottolineato come in Europa non ci possa essere sicurezza senza la Russia.

La presa di posizione tedesca alla Conferenza sulla Sicurezza di Monaco ha colpito in piena faccia gli Stati Uniti e la loro richiesta agli alleati europei di militarizzare il conflitto in Ucraina. Mentre il Segretario di Stato John Kerry usciva dal consesso per rassicurare i media e il pubblico che non ci fosse una differenza tra Washington e i franco-tedeschi, è stato ampiamente riportato che il senatore guerrafondaio John McCain ha perso la calma mentre era in Baviera. Stando a quanto riportato, McCain avrebbe chiamato l’iniziativa franco-tedesca di pace “la stronzata di Mosca”. Egli avrebbe inoltre criticato Angela Merkel in un’intervista con il canale televisivo tedesco Zweites Deutsches Fernsehen (ZDF), che sarebbe poi stato prontamente chiamato dal Segretario Generale dell’Unione Cristiano Democratica (CDU) con la richiesta di scuse da parte del senatore McCain.

 Il risentimento tedesco per il controllo statunitense della NATO

A febbraio,Bloomberg scrisse: “Nonostante tutta la retorica allarmista verso i barbari russi ai confine, i Paesi NATO sono riluttanti nel mettere i propri soldi laddove mettono la bocca. Solo quelli più vicini ai confini russi stanno aumentando la loro spesa militare quest’anno, mentre gli altri, i Paesi più grandi, stanno effettuando dei tagli. A prescindere da quanto dicono i loro leader di Vladimir Putin, non sembrano credere che questi sia una reale minaccia per l’Occidente.”

Comunque, Washington non si è arresa. Quando l’offensiva di pace franco-tedesca ebbe inizio a febbraio, il generale Philip Breedlove – che è il Comandante supremo delle forze militari della NATO – ha detto: “Non penso che dovremmo precluderci l’opzione militare in Ucraina”. Il generale Breedlove è un generale dell’US Air Force, che prende ordini direttamente dal governo statunitense e che quindi subordina la struttura militare NATO al comando statunitense. Mentre Berlino e Parigi stavano provando a far diminuire il conflitto, Washington stava alzando la posta attraverso Breedlove e attraverso il Segretario Generale della NATO Jens Stoltenberg.

Dopo aver parlato con il Comitato per i Servizi Armati della Camera dei Rappresentanti statunitense, il generale Breedlove ha protestato perché l’aggressione russa stava aumentando in Ucraina. La Germania, ad ogni modo, ha rispedito al mittente le affermazioni di Breedlove, definendole “pericolosa propaganda.”

“I leader tedeschi a Berlino erano stupefatti. Non capivano di cosa Breedlove stesse parlando. E non era la prima volta. Una volta ancora il governo tedesco, sostenuto dalle informazioni raccolte dalla Bundesnachrichtendienst (BND), l’agenzia tedesca per l’intelligence estera, non condivideva il punto di vista del Comandante supremo militare della NATO” scriveva Der Spiegel il 6 marzo.

Mentre Berlino ha cercato di smentire le voci circa un forte disaccordo con la NATO in merito ai fuorvianti commenti del generale Breedlove, il Ministro degli Esteri tedesco, in Lettonia il 7 marzo, ha candidamente ammesso che era vero che i Tedeschi non concordavano con gli Stati Uniti e la NATO. Quanto ha fatto Steinmeier è stato rigettare e confutare diplomaticamente ciò che Stati Uniti e NATO avevano dichiarato circa una presunta “aggressione russa” in Ucraina. In Lettonia, l’Alto Rappresentante per la politica estera della UE, Federica Mogherini, ha poi aggiunto la sua voce a quella di Steinmeier. La Mogherini ha detto ai giornalisti a Riga che la UE perseguirà un approccio realista verso Mosca e non sarà spinta o guidata da nessuno verso un confronto frontale. Questo è stato un tacito messaggio agli Stati Uniti: la UE ha realizzato che non ci può essere pace in Europa senza la Russia e non vuole essere utilizzata come una pedina degli Stati Uniti contro Mosca.

Destabilizzare l’Eurasia

La Germania stessa è l’ultima leva per gli Stati Uniti nel conflitto in Ucraina, perché Berlino ha una grande influenza nella direzione che la UE prende. Gli Stati Uniti continueranno ad attizzare il fuoco in Ucraina per destabilizzare l’Europa e l’Eurasia. Faranno ciò che potranno per evitare che l’Unione Europea e la Russia arrivino insieme a formare uno “spazio economico comune” da Lisbona a Vladivostok, che è spregiato come una sorta di universo alternativo dalla Cricca di Washington.

Il Fiscal Times ha raccontato meglio i diversi annunci dei vari funzionari statunitensi in merito all’invio di armi in Ucraina. “Dato il lancio coreografico, gli analisti di Washington dicono che in tutti i modi si tratta di null’altro che di un esercizio di pubblica opinione inteso ad assicurare sostegno per un programma di fornitura di armi che è già al livello pianificato” ha scritto il giornale il 9 febbraio.

Dopo la Conferenza di Sicurezza di Monaco è stato rivelato come in realtà forniture clandestine di armi a Kiev fossero già arrivate. Il Presidente russo Vladimir Putin ha reso la cosa pubblica in una conferenza congiunta assieme al Primo Ministro ungherese Viktor Orban a Budapest, quando ha sostenuto che delle armi erano già state inviate segretamente alle autorità di Kiev. Nello stesso mese un rapporto, denominato Salvare l’indipendenza ucraina resistendo all’aggressione russa: ciò che gli Stati Uniti e la NATO devono fare, sosteneva la necessità di inviare armi all’Ucraina – considerando sia singole armi e missili che personale militare – come strumento per combattere contro la Russia. Questo documento è stato scritto da un triumvirato di important think-thank statunitensi, quali Brookings InstituteAtlantic Council e Chicago Council on Global Affairs – con i primi due che appartengono alla distaccata torre d’avorio di quel “think-tankistan” che è la Cricca di Washington. Questa è lo stessa combriccola che ha deciso le invasioni dell’Irak, della Libia e della Siria.

Attenta NATO! Un Esercito Europeo condiviso all’orizzonte?

E’ all’interno del contesto di divisione tra l’UE e Washington che le richieste di un Esercito Europeo vengono avanzate sia dalla Commissione Europea che dalla Germania.

L’UE e la Germania hanno realizzato che non c’è molto da fare per fermare Washington almeno fino a quando questa ha voce in capitolo sull’UE e sulla sua politica di sicurezza. Sia Berlino che diversi Stati della UE sono risentiti per come Washington sta usando la NATO per perseguire i suoi interessi e per influenzare gli eventi interni dell’Europa. Se non rappresentano una forma di pressione per negoziazioni dietro le quinte con Washington, le richieste di un Esercito Europeo sono pensate per ridurre l’influenza statunitense in Europa e possibilmente per far morire la NATO.

Un Esercito Europeo che cancellasse la NATO avrebbe un altissimo costo strategico per gli Stati Uniti. In un contesto del genere, Washington perderebbe la sua colonna occidentale in Eurasia. Ciò “segnerebbe automaticamente la fine della partecipazione americana al gioco sulla scacchiera eurasiatica”, con le parole del già Consigliere per la Sicurezza Nazionale statunitense Zbigniew Brzezinski.

Le varie intellighenzie negli Stati Uniti sono già coscienti e allarmate per i rischi che un Esercito Europeo rappresenterebbe per l’influenza americana. L’influente rivista Commentary Magazinedell’American Jewish Committee, che è affiliate ai neocons nella Cricca di Washington, attraverso un articolo di Seth Mandel ha chiesto “Perchè la Germania sta indebolendo la NATO?” Mentre il Washington Examiner, come recita il titolo di un articolo di Hoskingson, domanda: “Cosa sta succedendo all’influenza americana?”

Questo è il motivo per cui gli Stati vassalli degli Stati Uniti in Europa -precisamente Regno Unito, Polonia e i tre Paesi baltici – hanno alzato molto forte la loro voce di opposizione a una forza militare comune europea. Mentre Parigi è stata riluttante nell’unirsi alla richiesta di un Esercito Wuropeo, l’esponente politica di opposizione Marine Le Pen ha annunciato che è giunta l’ora per la Francia di uscire dall’ombra degli Stati Uniti.

Il governo del Primo Ministro britannico David Cameron ha risposto a Jean-Claude Juncker chiudendo la porta alla sua idea, considerata una fantasia oltraggiosa e dichiarando che l’esercito è una responsabilità nazionale e non una responsabilità dell’UE. Anche la Polonia e la Lettonia hanno reagito in maniera scettica alla proposta. Tutte queste dichiarazioni sono utili agli interessi statunitensi per preservare la NATO come strumento di influenza in Europa e in Eurasia.

Al 10 di Downing Street si sono contraddetti da soli, affermando che l’esercito sia una questione nazionale e non una collettiva. Solo pochi anni fa, nel 2010, Londra ha firmato dei trattati con la Francia per creare delle unità navali congiunte e per condividere delle portaerei in quella che è una vera e propria amalgama militare. Inoltre, l’esercito britannico e l’industria bellica britannica sono legate a vario livello con gli Stati Uniti.

Ci sono diverse questioni importanti. Le proposte per un Esercito Europeo sono solamente intese a portare pressione agli Stati Uniti o rappresentano un vero tentativo di fermare l’influenza di Washington all’interno dell’Europa? E Berlino e i suoi partner stanno realmente compiendo delle mosse per estromettere Washington dall’Europa con la disattivazione della NATO attraverso un Esercito Europeo comune?

Di Mahdi Darius Nazemroaya per RT

Traduzione di M. Janigro


 

  • Posted in Italiano
  • Comments Off on Far morire la NATO: l’Esercito Europeo è lo strumento per ridurre l’influenza USA in Europa?
 While China’s energy system is still largely a “black” system depending on fossil fuel inputs, the electric power system is greening at the margins. We demonstrate, using 2014 data on additions to China’s electric power system, that the system is greening– with powerful implications for the future of the country’s energy profile. We utilize three lines of argument: first, utilizing data for electric energy generated, where we show that China actually generated less energy from thermal sources in 2014 than in 2013, while increasing generation from water, wind and solar; second, examining capacity additions, we show that new capacity in water, wind and solar (WWS) exceeded new capacity for thermal; and third, in terms of investment. We argue that such data rebut claims made that China is getting blacker while its greening efforts remain small and insubstantial, or that China will become dependent on nuclear power rather than hydro, wind and solar as it cleans its energy system.Many people have recently been avid viewers of Chai Jing’s riveting documentary/talk “Under the Dome” where she brings home the terrible costs of China’s pollution and its ultra-fast industrialization utilizing fossil fuels but particularly coal.

Under the Dome is a call to China to wake up and start enforcing the environmental laws – against illegal polluters in factories, in trucks entering Beijing during the night, in smokestack industries throughout the country. It’s time to grow up, she seems to be telling her mostly young audiences. And the phenomenal success her video has had in China itself shows that she has struck a nerve, and could spark a people’s movement to rein in the pollution in China – just as Rachel Carson did in the US with “Silent Spring” published in 1962.But the counterpart to the story of needing to rein in the pollution is the necessity of building an alternative energy system, one which is based on renewable sources that do not emit carbon or other greenhouse gases. It is a fact that China’s energy system generally, and its electric power system in particular, is still largely based on fossil fuels consumption – just like every rising industrial power since the industrial revolution. But it also needs to be acknowledged that China’s energy system is greening – far faster than any other comparable sized system on the planet. Many commentators continue to insist (rightly) on the black character of China’s electric power system – but ignore (wrongly) the strength of the greening tendencies. In a widely reproduced blog posting, Armond Cohen (Executive Director of the Clean Air Task Force in the US) claimed that in 2014, “the amount of new coal energy added to the China grid … exceeded new solar energy by 17 times, new wind energy by more than 4 times, and even new hydro by more than 3 times”1 This assertion and the accompanying chart is meant to imply that China’s electric power system is getting blacker rather than greener. Such an interpretation of what has been happening in China’s power sector is wrong. We use the latest 2014 data to demonstrate why it is wrong.The data for China’s electric power sector are now to hand, provided by the China Electricity Council. We use three sources of data to demonstrate that greening tendencies outrank blackening (fossil-fuelled) tendencies. These are data for 2014 electric energy generation (real generation, as compared with the “putative” generation utilized by Cohen – as discussed below); data for 2014 electric capacity additions; and data for investment in the electric power grid. All three sources demonstrate a greening tendency that outranks a blackening tendency. We hasten to add that building a green energy system is only one aspect of the problem, and (as Chai Jing insists) the existing pollution needs to be reined in, and new less-polluting technologies need to be introduced even while burning fossil fuels. But in this submission we focus on the building of a new green energy system and the progress that is being recorded.

  1. Electric energy generation

Data are now available from the China Electricity Council for real electric energy generation added to the system in 2014 from multiple sources. The headline results are that China generated less power from thermal (fossil fuel) sources in 2014 than in 2013, i.e. thermal power generation actually decreased in 2014. This is an extremely important milestone. By contrast, power generation from non-thermal sources increased by 19% — and strictly green sources, encompassing water, wind and solar (WWS), increased by 200 TWh, or 20%. This is the greening edge of a huge power generation system.

Here are the data. China’s power system generated 5,545 TWh of electricity in 2014, an increase of 173 TWh over the 2013 total, or growth of 3.2%. So the system as a whole is still growing – but not as fast as the economy as a whole (an important disjunction). Thermal (mainly coal burning) sources generated 4173 TWh in 2014, down by 48 TWh from the 2013 total (or a decrease of 1.1%) – the first reduction in thermal power generation in recent times. Non-thermal sources by contrast accounted for 1372 TWh of electric energy generated in 2014, up 221 TWh on the 2013 total. Strictly green sources (WWS) generated 1245 TWh in 2014, up 200 TWh on the 2013 total (an increase of 20%). Nuclear generated 126 TWh, up 14 TWh on the 2013 total (+13%.).

Expressed in terms of percentage changes to the system in 2014, thermal generation declined by 1.1% while WWS increased by 20%. The most dramatic growth was seen in solar power generation, which rose a staggering 175%.

We present these data as in Charts 1a and 1b. The charts show the 2014 additions (positive as well as negative) to the Chinese electric power generation system, in TWh, and in terms of percentage additions.

Fig 1. China electric generation additions (real) in 2014
Fig. 1a Changes in electric energy generated, 2014 Source of primary data: China Electricity Council

Fig. 1b Percent changes Source of primary data: China Electricity Council

 

Our chart differs greatly from the chart produced by Armond Cohen, referred to above. Cohen’s chart is based not on real electricity generation results, but rather on capacity additions in 2014 modified by assumed capacity factors. Cohen uses these quantities to produce notional additions to electric energy generated – additions he refers to as “electric generation capability additions”. His chart shows notional additions to thermal generation of 240 TWh compared with notional additions for water of 65 TWh, wind 57 TWh and solar 14 TWh; nuclear he shows as a notional addition of 42 TWh. He concludes that China added an extra (notional) 240 TWh from coal and only (notional) 136 TWh from WWS (plus 42 TWh from nuclear), so according to Cohen the system is getting increasingly “black”.

We argue that this modelling approach has misled Cohen to derive conclusions that are at odds with empirical fact. In reality the system is greening at the margin, with actual thermal contribution to electric energy generated reducing in 2014 by 29 TWh and actual WWS sources increasing by 200 TWh – much higher than Cohen allowed for with his notional data. We await Cohen’s public response to our refutation of his widely reproduced blog posting.

Note also that wind-generated electricity continued to exceed nuclear (for the third year running). And solar power sources also outranked nuclear at the margin, with additional energy generated from solar (14.73 TWh) marginally exceeding that from nuclear (14.70 TWh). This result belies arguments that China will be dependent on nuclear for non-carbon sources of electric power. 2

We elaborate on these data by showing historic trends in China’s thermal (Fig 2) and non-thermal (WWS plus nuclear) generation (Fig. 3) and the changes in the system’s composition (thermal vs. non-thermal) over the past six years.

Fig. 2 China: Fossil fuel-based power generation and its growth, 2008-2014 Source of primary data: China Electricity Council3         

Fig. 3. China: Total non-fossil fuel-based electricity generation and its growth, 2008-2014 Source of primary data: China Electricity Council

Fig. 4: Shares of electricity generated from fossil fuel sources compared with non-fossil fuel-based electricity generation, 2008-2014 Source of primary data: China Electricity Council

(Note: The share of the fossil fuel-based power generation has fallen from 81.2% in 2008 to 75.2% in 2014; while the share of the total non-fossil fuel-based electricity generation increased from 18.8% to 24.7% for the same period)

We also note that the figures cited herein provide the most accurate formulation of the current contribution of thermal sources to China’s electric power generation. The correct proportion is 75.2%, and not the widely quoted “approx. 80%” as cited repeatedly by the IEA and reproduced by authors such as Matthew Kahn in Science.4The share of fossil fuel-based power generation in China has in fact fallen from 81.2% in 2008 to 75.2% in 2014, roughly 1% per year. That is a significant rate of change for any power system, let alone the world’s largest. One would think the IEA would accord it the degree of accuracy it deserves and address its global significance.

  1. Generating capacity

A second source of data on the greening of China’s electric power system is data on generating capacity itself. This does not give as accurate a picture of greening or blackening tendencies because of varying capacity factors for wind, solar, nuclear and thermal and their varying utilization hours from time to time – but when compared year by year the data do indeed indicate a trend in the generating capacity of the different sources.

The headline result is that in 2014 China increased the capacity of its electrical generating “machine” to 1.36 trillion watts (TW) – by far the largest such power generating machine on the planet. (The US generating system stands at just over 1 TW.) In 2014 China increased its non-thermal generating capacity by more than its thermal capacity – for the second year in a row. This is a second indicator of greening. In 2014 China increased its thermal generating capacity by 45 GW, reaching a total of 916 GW; while it increased non-thermal capacity by a larger amount, 56 GW, reaching a total of 444 GW. Strictly green sources (WWS) added capacity of 51 GW or 14% growth.

There is an immediate issue to address in these data. How could China add thermal capacity in 2014 but decrease its actual electric energy generation from thermal sources? There is an entirely plausible reason for this. The reason is reduced utilization of thermal capacity in 2014, as thermal power production was cut back in face of competition of non-fossil fuel-based power, as well as because of central government mandates. By contrast the utilization of WWS capacity was increased, diminishing the curtailment levels that had been keeping wind power under-utilized. (Curtailment refers to non-use of an energy source, by switching off its connection to the grid; thus power can still be generated, but is not utilized by the grid as a whole.) This also provides a plausible explanation for the difference between Cohen’s notional results, discussed above, and our results based on actual generation data.

The data for generation capacity can be elaborated as per the following charts 5 (thermal capacity), 6 (non-thermal capacity) and 7 (proportions between thermal and non-thermal capacity).

Fig. 5 China: Fossil fuel-based power generating capacity and growth 2006-2014 (Note: the fossil fuel-based power generating capacity has continued its growth at a modest rate (5.2% in 2014). The decline in fossil fuel-based power generation discussed above, therefore, was presumably due to a fall in the utilization hours in existing thermal power facilities)Source of primary data: China Electricity Council

Fig. 6. China: Total non-fossil fuel-based electricity generating capacity and growth 2008-2014 (Note: the total non-fossil fuel-based electricity generating capacity has grown with a rate ranging from 11% to 19% during the past six years)

Source of primary data: China Electricity Council

China’s non-thermal generating capacity, at 444 GW, is far higher than that of any other country. Its strictly green generating capacity (from WWS sources) stands now at 424 GW, with capacity addition in 2014 of 51 GW (meaning that a 1-GW non-thermal power station was added each week, on average). This 424 GW of green generating capacity shows just how much China is investing in the building of this enormous green infrastructure – contradicting the nay-sayers in the US Congress who greeted the US-China Climate Change Accord of 2014 as meaning that China would be “doing nothing” until 2030. On the contrary, China is building the largest green power source on the planet. But again we must add that enforcement of pollution laws and introduction of pollution-controlling technologies in the burning of fossil fuels are equally as important if China’s grave environmental problems are to be solved.

Unlike other countries, China issues planning targets that then guide investment decisions. China’s official targets for renewable energy capacity additions appear to be fully attainable in light of these 2014 results. The ND&RC issued fresh targets for wind and solar PV in 2014, namely that China would have capacity of 70 GW solar PV and 150 GW wind power by 2017.5 The renewable energy targets thus far have been exceeded.

In capacity terms, it is correct to state that China now has raised its non-thermal capacity to close to one third of its total power system (and its strictly WWS green capacity to 31%) – in excess of official targets as outlined in the 12th FYP and subsequent Energy Policy statements. The Energy 12th FYP issued in 2013 projected that China’s non-fossil fuelled generating capacity would reach 30% by 2015. This target has now already been exceeded. Future targets, such as a projected goal for WWS energy sources of reaching 650 GW capacity by 2017, are also likely to be exceeded.

Fig. 7. Shares of electric generating capacity utilizing fossil fuel sources compared with non-fossil fuel-based electric capacity, 2008-2014Source of primary data: China Electricity Council(Note: The share of the fossil fuel-based power generating capacity declined from 76% to 67% during the period 2008-2014; while that of non-fossil fuel-based electricity generating capacity increased from 24% to 32.6%)

Fig. 8. Proportion of installed power capacity from renewable sources (hydro, wind and solar): 1990 -2014, and the estimate of the 2015 target based on the 12th FYPSource of primary data: data for wind and solar power capacity up to 2013 are available from BP 2014 Review of Statistics, data for the total electric capacity and the hydroelectric capacity up to 2012 is available from the US EIA; other data are available from the China Electricity Council..

 

 

We provide an historical overview of China’s changing capacity structure, showing green sources as a proportion of the total electric power system. The share of electric power generation capacity based on non-fossil sources, especially the WWS sources, has steadily increased since 2006, when China started to pursue a green growth strategy (Fig. 8). Based on the recent development in new WWS capacity addition, it appears that the target in China’s Energy Development 12th Five Year Plan (FYP) for 2015 (about 29% from a calculation based on the estimates of the total electric generation capacity and those of individual technologies specified in the 12th FYP) has already been exceeded. These again are momentous results, of enormous benefit to China and to the world.

  1. Investment

A third source of data regarding the greening vs. non-greening of the electric power system is investment. Again the data indicate that China is investing more heavily in green sources of electric power than in non-green (thermal). Indeed China is investing more in its green energy system than any other country. Investment in thermal generation facilities has consistently declined, from RMB 167 billion in 2008 to RMB 95 billion in 2014 (approx. US$15.2 billion) , while investment on non-thermal sources has increased, from around RMB 118 billion in 2008 to at least RMB 252 billion in 2014 (approx.. US$40.3 billion). (We cannot be more precise because of a lack of data on investment in wind and solar power for several years during the recent period.) Total investment for the different sources in the years up to 2014 are shown in Fig. 9.

 

Note that investment in both wind and hydro outranked investment in nuclear sources in 2014. In terms of the investment in electricity generation capacity based on different technologies, the share of investment in renewable (WWS) electric generation has increased steadily, from 32% of the total in 2007, passing 50% in 2011 and reaching 59% in 2013. Adding the investment in nuclear power, the proportion of investment in all non-fossil fuel-based electric generation increased from less than 30% in 2005, to 37% in 2007 to 75% in 2013 while investment in thermal power plants declined from 71% to 25% during the period between 2005 and 2013 (Fig 10). The level of investment in non-fossil fuels-based electricity generation declined slightly in 2014, according to the latest data released from the China Electricity Council in Feb 2015, but still staying high at a level of 74%. It is important to add that the rapidly declining costs of most WWS capacity, especially solar, means that a given level of monetary investment yields far more delivered power. The same is not true of nuclear or thermal, whose total costs and unit-generation costs have increased.

Fig. 9. China: Investments in the electric power grid by sources                                                       

Fig. 10. Investment on non-fossil fuels-based and WWS-based projects as proportion of the total investment in power generation projectsSource of primary data: data since 2007 is available from the CEC; the figure for 2005 is based on data in a report by the State Electricity Regulatory Commission (2011).6

Conclusion

We have shown that the China electric power system is greening rapidly at the margins, at the point of change. All the data for additions to the system in 2014 indicate that it is greening more than it is blackening. First, in terms of total electricity generated, thermal generation actually decreased in 2014 while generation from WWS sources increased by 20%, or by 200 TWh in absolute terms. Second, in terms of capacity additions, more capacity was added from non-thermal sources (56 GW) than from thermal sources (45 GW) – with thermal sources being exceeded even by strictly green capacity additions (from WWS) of 51 GW. (We indicated above why we think it plausible that there could be capacity additions for thermal in 2014 but a reduced amount of electric energy generated.) Third, in terms of financial investment, the year 2014 again indicated that green sources were invested in at a much higher rate than non-green (thermal) sources.

We have emphasized that the greening of China’s power system is only one facet of the need to address and resolve the country’s massive pollution and smog problems, which all stem in one way or another from pollution from fossil fuel burning factories, vehicles, ships and households. There is an energy revolution underway in China, and a huge problem to address – but there are also new means of addressing the problem, including the use of social media and the creation of a popular movement as advocated in “Under the Dome”.

Since so much hangs on the success of China’s energy reforms, and in particular on its efforts to build the world’s largest renewable power system – far larger than anything attempted in the West – it is important to report accurately on the system as it evolves, in order to comprehend the overall direction of change. Certainly it remains the case that China’s electric power system is still largely coal-based, and a lot more coal is going to be burnt before the system can be described as more green than black. But the direction of change is clear – and this needs to be acknowledged, and factored into global energy discussions.

John Mathews is professor of strategy at Macquarie Graduate School of Management, Macquarie University, Sydney. He has taught at MGSM for the past 15 years, and was from 2009 to 2012 concurrently the Eni Chair of Competitive Dynamics and Global Strategy at LUISS Gardi Carli University in Rome. He has specialized in the catch-up strategies of firms and countries in East Asia, publishing widely in this field. He was a Rockefeller Foundation visiting fellow at the Bellagio Study Centre in 2004.

For the past several years Professor Mathews has focused on the greening of business systems. He has published several books based on this research, including Tiger Technology: The Creation of a Semiconductor Industry in East Asia (Cambridge UP 2000; co-authored with Cho, Dong-Sung); Dragon Multinational: A New Model of Global Growth (Oxford UP, 2002); and Strategizing, Disequilibrium and Profit (Stanford University Press 2006) which discusses the theoretical foundations of catch-up strategies. In 2014 his new book, Greening of Capitalism: How Asia is Driving the Next Great Transformation, was published by Stanford University Press. His article “Manufacture renewables to build energy security” was published in Nature in September 2014.

Hao Tan is senior lecturer at Newcastle Business School, University of Newcastle, Australia. At UoN he currently serves as an acting Head of the International Business Discipline and a Program Convenor of Master of International Business. He is an associate of the Centre of Asian Business & Economics at University of Melbourne, and was a visiting professor at National Tsinghua University in Taiwan in 2014.

Hao Tan’s current research interest is in China’s energy transition. Since 2009, he has published over 20 scholarly journal articles and book chapters, including a commentary article in the leading science journal ‘Nature’ (co-authored with John Mathews). He is a frequent contributor to both English- and Chinese-language media channels such as UK Financial Times’ Chinese website, China’s Caixin and Australia’s theconversation.com, on energy and environment-related issues in China.

Notes

1 See Armond Cohen, Feb 18 2015, “No China coal peak in sight: carbon capture will be necessary to tame emissions in this century”, Clean Energy Task Force.

2 This is an argument used frequently by US climate scientist James Hansen, in Congressional testimony. See for example his testimony on 13 March 2014 before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.

3 See the briefing released by the China Electricity Council on 2 Feb 2015 (in Chinese)

4 See Matthew Kahn, “Fueling the future”, Science, 16 Jan 2015, where he states “China uses [coal] to generate roughly 80% of its electricity” – an assertion sourced to the International Energy Agency (IEA).

5 For commentary on this ND&RC statement, see “China, US look to boost solar and wind capacity”, Giles Parkinson, RenewEconomy, 19 May 2014.

6 Given the lack of data for the investment in solar power projects, the proportion of investment in renewables-based on electricity generation is calculated as a residual of the total investment on electricity generation in China and the investment on fossil fuels-based projects.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on The “Greening” of China’s Black Electric Power System
 While China’s energy system is still largely a “black” system depending on fossil fuel inputs, the electric power system is greening at the margins. We demonstrate, using 2014 data on additions to China’s electric power system, that the system is greening– with powerful implications for the future of the country’s energy profile. We utilize three lines of argument: first, utilizing data for electric energy generated, where we show that China actually generated less energy from thermal sources in 2014 than in 2013, while increasing generation from water, wind and solar; second, examining capacity additions, we show that new capacity in water, wind and solar (WWS) exceeded new capacity for thermal; and third, in terms of investment. We argue that such data rebut claims made that China is getting blacker while its greening efforts remain small and insubstantial, or that China will become dependent on nuclear power rather than hydro, wind and solar as it cleans its energy system.Many people have recently been avid viewers of Chai Jing’s riveting documentary/talk “Under the Dome” where she brings home the terrible costs of China’s pollution and its ultra-fast industrialization utilizing fossil fuels but particularly coal.

Under the Dome is a call to China to wake up and start enforcing the environmental laws – against illegal polluters in factories, in trucks entering Beijing during the night, in smokestack industries throughout the country. It’s time to grow up, she seems to be telling her mostly young audiences. And the phenomenal success her video has had in China itself shows that she has struck a nerve, and could spark a people’s movement to rein in the pollution in China – just as Rachel Carson did in the US with “Silent Spring” published in 1962.But the counterpart to the story of needing to rein in the pollution is the necessity of building an alternative energy system, one which is based on renewable sources that do not emit carbon or other greenhouse gases. It is a fact that China’s energy system generally, and its electric power system in particular, is still largely based on fossil fuels consumption – just like every rising industrial power since the industrial revolution. But it also needs to be acknowledged that China’s energy system is greening – far faster than any other comparable sized system on the planet. Many commentators continue to insist (rightly) on the black character of China’s electric power system – but ignore (wrongly) the strength of the greening tendencies. In a widely reproduced blog posting, Armond Cohen (Executive Director of the Clean Air Task Force in the US) claimed that in 2014, “the amount of new coal energy added to the China grid … exceeded new solar energy by 17 times, new wind energy by more than 4 times, and even new hydro by more than 3 times”1 This assertion and the accompanying chart is meant to imply that China’s electric power system is getting blacker rather than greener. Such an interpretation of what has been happening in China’s power sector is wrong. We use the latest 2014 data to demonstrate why it is wrong.The data for China’s electric power sector are now to hand, provided by the China Electricity Council. We use three sources of data to demonstrate that greening tendencies outrank blackening (fossil-fuelled) tendencies. These are data for 2014 electric energy generation (real generation, as compared with the “putative” generation utilized by Cohen – as discussed below); data for 2014 electric capacity additions; and data for investment in the electric power grid. All three sources demonstrate a greening tendency that outranks a blackening tendency. We hasten to add that building a green energy system is only one aspect of the problem, and (as Chai Jing insists) the existing pollution needs to be reined in, and new less-polluting technologies need to be introduced even while burning fossil fuels. But in this submission we focus on the building of a new green energy system and the progress that is being recorded.

  1. Electric energy generation

Data are now available from the China Electricity Council for real electric energy generation added to the system in 2014 from multiple sources. The headline results are that China generated less power from thermal (fossil fuel) sources in 2014 than in 2013, i.e. thermal power generation actually decreased in 2014. This is an extremely important milestone. By contrast, power generation from non-thermal sources increased by 19% — and strictly green sources, encompassing water, wind and solar (WWS), increased by 200 TWh, or 20%. This is the greening edge of a huge power generation system.

Here are the data. China’s power system generated 5,545 TWh of electricity in 2014, an increase of 173 TWh over the 2013 total, or growth of 3.2%. So the system as a whole is still growing – but not as fast as the economy as a whole (an important disjunction). Thermal (mainly coal burning) sources generated 4173 TWh in 2014, down by 48 TWh from the 2013 total (or a decrease of 1.1%) – the first reduction in thermal power generation in recent times. Non-thermal sources by contrast accounted for 1372 TWh of electric energy generated in 2014, up 221 TWh on the 2013 total. Strictly green sources (WWS) generated 1245 TWh in 2014, up 200 TWh on the 2013 total (an increase of 20%). Nuclear generated 126 TWh, up 14 TWh on the 2013 total (+13%.).

Expressed in terms of percentage changes to the system in 2014, thermal generation declined by 1.1% while WWS increased by 20%. The most dramatic growth was seen in solar power generation, which rose a staggering 175%.

We present these data as in Charts 1a and 1b. The charts show the 2014 additions (positive as well as negative) to the Chinese electric power generation system, in TWh, and in terms of percentage additions.

Fig 1. China electric generation additions (real) in 2014
Fig. 1a Changes in electric energy generated, 2014 Source of primary data: China Electricity Council

Fig. 1b Percent changes Source of primary data: China Electricity Council

 

Our chart differs greatly from the chart produced by Armond Cohen, referred to above. Cohen’s chart is based not on real electricity generation results, but rather on capacity additions in 2014 modified by assumed capacity factors. Cohen uses these quantities to produce notional additions to electric energy generated – additions he refers to as “electric generation capability additions”. His chart shows notional additions to thermal generation of 240 TWh compared with notional additions for water of 65 TWh, wind 57 TWh and solar 14 TWh; nuclear he shows as a notional addition of 42 TWh. He concludes that China added an extra (notional) 240 TWh from coal and only (notional) 136 TWh from WWS (plus 42 TWh from nuclear), so according to Cohen the system is getting increasingly “black”.

We argue that this modelling approach has misled Cohen to derive conclusions that are at odds with empirical fact. In reality the system is greening at the margin, with actual thermal contribution to electric energy generated reducing in 2014 by 29 TWh and actual WWS sources increasing by 200 TWh – much higher than Cohen allowed for with his notional data. We await Cohen’s public response to our refutation of his widely reproduced blog posting.

Note also that wind-generated electricity continued to exceed nuclear (for the third year running). And solar power sources also outranked nuclear at the margin, with additional energy generated from solar (14.73 TWh) marginally exceeding that from nuclear (14.70 TWh). This result belies arguments that China will be dependent on nuclear for non-carbon sources of electric power. 2

We elaborate on these data by showing historic trends in China’s thermal (Fig 2) and non-thermal (WWS plus nuclear) generation (Fig. 3) and the changes in the system’s composition (thermal vs. non-thermal) over the past six years.

Fig. 2 China: Fossil fuel-based power generation and its growth, 2008-2014 Source of primary data: China Electricity Council3         

Fig. 3. China: Total non-fossil fuel-based electricity generation and its growth, 2008-2014 Source of primary data: China Electricity Council

Fig. 4: Shares of electricity generated from fossil fuel sources compared with non-fossil fuel-based electricity generation, 2008-2014 Source of primary data: China Electricity Council

(Note: The share of the fossil fuel-based power generation has fallen from 81.2% in 2008 to 75.2% in 2014; while the share of the total non-fossil fuel-based electricity generation increased from 18.8% to 24.7% for the same period)

We also note that the figures cited herein provide the most accurate formulation of the current contribution of thermal sources to China’s electric power generation. The correct proportion is 75.2%, and not the widely quoted “approx. 80%” as cited repeatedly by the IEA and reproduced by authors such as Matthew Kahn in Science.4The share of fossil fuel-based power generation in China has in fact fallen from 81.2% in 2008 to 75.2% in 2014, roughly 1% per year. That is a significant rate of change for any power system, let alone the world’s largest. One would think the IEA would accord it the degree of accuracy it deserves and address its global significance.

  1. Generating capacity

A second source of data on the greening of China’s electric power system is data on generating capacity itself. This does not give as accurate a picture of greening or blackening tendencies because of varying capacity factors for wind, solar, nuclear and thermal and their varying utilization hours from time to time – but when compared year by year the data do indeed indicate a trend in the generating capacity of the different sources.

The headline result is that in 2014 China increased the capacity of its electrical generating “machine” to 1.36 trillion watts (TW) – by far the largest such power generating machine on the planet. (The US generating system stands at just over 1 TW.) In 2014 China increased its non-thermal generating capacity by more than its thermal capacity – for the second year in a row. This is a second indicator of greening. In 2014 China increased its thermal generating capacity by 45 GW, reaching a total of 916 GW; while it increased non-thermal capacity by a larger amount, 56 GW, reaching a total of 444 GW. Strictly green sources (WWS) added capacity of 51 GW or 14% growth.

There is an immediate issue to address in these data. How could China add thermal capacity in 2014 but decrease its actual electric energy generation from thermal sources? There is an entirely plausible reason for this. The reason is reduced utilization of thermal capacity in 2014, as thermal power production was cut back in face of competition of non-fossil fuel-based power, as well as because of central government mandates. By contrast the utilization of WWS capacity was increased, diminishing the curtailment levels that had been keeping wind power under-utilized. (Curtailment refers to non-use of an energy source, by switching off its connection to the grid; thus power can still be generated, but is not utilized by the grid as a whole.) This also provides a plausible explanation for the difference between Cohen’s notional results, discussed above, and our results based on actual generation data.

The data for generation capacity can be elaborated as per the following charts 5 (thermal capacity), 6 (non-thermal capacity) and 7 (proportions between thermal and non-thermal capacity).

Fig. 5 China: Fossil fuel-based power generating capacity and growth 2006-2014 (Note: the fossil fuel-based power generating capacity has continued its growth at a modest rate (5.2% in 2014). The decline in fossil fuel-based power generation discussed above, therefore, was presumably due to a fall in the utilization hours in existing thermal power facilities)Source of primary data: China Electricity Council

Fig. 6. China: Total non-fossil fuel-based electricity generating capacity and growth 2008-2014 (Note: the total non-fossil fuel-based electricity generating capacity has grown with a rate ranging from 11% to 19% during the past six years)

Source of primary data: China Electricity Council

China’s non-thermal generating capacity, at 444 GW, is far higher than that of any other country. Its strictly green generating capacity (from WWS sources) stands now at 424 GW, with capacity addition in 2014 of 51 GW (meaning that a 1-GW non-thermal power station was added each week, on average). This 424 GW of green generating capacity shows just how much China is investing in the building of this enormous green infrastructure – contradicting the nay-sayers in the US Congress who greeted the US-China Climate Change Accord of 2014 as meaning that China would be “doing nothing” until 2030. On the contrary, China is building the largest green power source on the planet. But again we must add that enforcement of pollution laws and introduction of pollution-controlling technologies in the burning of fossil fuels are equally as important if China’s grave environmental problems are to be solved.

Unlike other countries, China issues planning targets that then guide investment decisions. China’s official targets for renewable energy capacity additions appear to be fully attainable in light of these 2014 results. The ND&RC issued fresh targets for wind and solar PV in 2014, namely that China would have capacity of 70 GW solar PV and 150 GW wind power by 2017.5 The renewable energy targets thus far have been exceeded.

In capacity terms, it is correct to state that China now has raised its non-thermal capacity to close to one third of its total power system (and its strictly WWS green capacity to 31%) – in excess of official targets as outlined in the 12th FYP and subsequent Energy Policy statements. The Energy 12th FYP issued in 2013 projected that China’s non-fossil fuelled generating capacity would reach 30% by 2015. This target has now already been exceeded. Future targets, such as a projected goal for WWS energy sources of reaching 650 GW capacity by 2017, are also likely to be exceeded.

Fig. 7. Shares of electric generating capacity utilizing fossil fuel sources compared with non-fossil fuel-based electric capacity, 2008-2014Source of primary data: China Electricity Council(Note: The share of the fossil fuel-based power generating capacity declined from 76% to 67% during the period 2008-2014; while that of non-fossil fuel-based electricity generating capacity increased from 24% to 32.6%)

Fig. 8. Proportion of installed power capacity from renewable sources (hydro, wind and solar): 1990 -2014, and the estimate of the 2015 target based on the 12th FYPSource of primary data: data for wind and solar power capacity up to 2013 are available from BP 2014 Review of Statistics, data for the total electric capacity and the hydroelectric capacity up to 2012 is available from the US EIA; other data are available from the China Electricity Council..

 

 

We provide an historical overview of China’s changing capacity structure, showing green sources as a proportion of the total electric power system. The share of electric power generation capacity based on non-fossil sources, especially the WWS sources, has steadily increased since 2006, when China started to pursue a green growth strategy (Fig. 8). Based on the recent development in new WWS capacity addition, it appears that the target in China’s Energy Development 12th Five Year Plan (FYP) for 2015 (about 29% from a calculation based on the estimates of the total electric generation capacity and those of individual technologies specified in the 12th FYP) has already been exceeded. These again are momentous results, of enormous benefit to China and to the world.

  1. Investment

A third source of data regarding the greening vs. non-greening of the electric power system is investment. Again the data indicate that China is investing more heavily in green sources of electric power than in non-green (thermal). Indeed China is investing more in its green energy system than any other country. Investment in thermal generation facilities has consistently declined, from RMB 167 billion in 2008 to RMB 95 billion in 2014 (approx. US$15.2 billion) , while investment on non-thermal sources has increased, from around RMB 118 billion in 2008 to at least RMB 252 billion in 2014 (approx.. US$40.3 billion). (We cannot be more precise because of a lack of data on investment in wind and solar power for several years during the recent period.) Total investment for the different sources in the years up to 2014 are shown in Fig. 9.

 

Note that investment in both wind and hydro outranked investment in nuclear sources in 2014. In terms of the investment in electricity generation capacity based on different technologies, the share of investment in renewable (WWS) electric generation has increased steadily, from 32% of the total in 2007, passing 50% in 2011 and reaching 59% in 2013. Adding the investment in nuclear power, the proportion of investment in all non-fossil fuel-based electric generation increased from less than 30% in 2005, to 37% in 2007 to 75% in 2013 while investment in thermal power plants declined from 71% to 25% during the period between 2005 and 2013 (Fig 10). The level of investment in non-fossil fuels-based electricity generation declined slightly in 2014, according to the latest data released from the China Electricity Council in Feb 2015, but still staying high at a level of 74%. It is important to add that the rapidly declining costs of most WWS capacity, especially solar, means that a given level of monetary investment yields far more delivered power. The same is not true of nuclear or thermal, whose total costs and unit-generation costs have increased.

Fig. 9. China: Investments in the electric power grid by sources                                                       

Fig. 10. Investment on non-fossil fuels-based and WWS-based projects as proportion of the total investment in power generation projectsSource of primary data: data since 2007 is available from the CEC; the figure for 2005 is based on data in a report by the State Electricity Regulatory Commission (2011).6

Conclusion

We have shown that the China electric power system is greening rapidly at the margins, at the point of change. All the data for additions to the system in 2014 indicate that it is greening more than it is blackening. First, in terms of total electricity generated, thermal generation actually decreased in 2014 while generation from WWS sources increased by 20%, or by 200 TWh in absolute terms. Second, in terms of capacity additions, more capacity was added from non-thermal sources (56 GW) than from thermal sources (45 GW) – with thermal sources being exceeded even by strictly green capacity additions (from WWS) of 51 GW. (We indicated above why we think it plausible that there could be capacity additions for thermal in 2014 but a reduced amount of electric energy generated.) Third, in terms of financial investment, the year 2014 again indicated that green sources were invested in at a much higher rate than non-green (thermal) sources.

We have emphasized that the greening of China’s power system is only one facet of the need to address and resolve the country’s massive pollution and smog problems, which all stem in one way or another from pollution from fossil fuel burning factories, vehicles, ships and households. There is an energy revolution underway in China, and a huge problem to address – but there are also new means of addressing the problem, including the use of social media and the creation of a popular movement as advocated in “Under the Dome”.

Since so much hangs on the success of China’s energy reforms, and in particular on its efforts to build the world’s largest renewable power system – far larger than anything attempted in the West – it is important to report accurately on the system as it evolves, in order to comprehend the overall direction of change. Certainly it remains the case that China’s electric power system is still largely coal-based, and a lot more coal is going to be burnt before the system can be described as more green than black. But the direction of change is clear – and this needs to be acknowledged, and factored into global energy discussions.

John Mathews is professor of strategy at Macquarie Graduate School of Management, Macquarie University, Sydney. He has taught at MGSM for the past 15 years, and was from 2009 to 2012 concurrently the Eni Chair of Competitive Dynamics and Global Strategy at LUISS Gardi Carli University in Rome. He has specialized in the catch-up strategies of firms and countries in East Asia, publishing widely in this field. He was a Rockefeller Foundation visiting fellow at the Bellagio Study Centre in 2004.

For the past several years Professor Mathews has focused on the greening of business systems. He has published several books based on this research, including Tiger Technology: The Creation of a Semiconductor Industry in East Asia (Cambridge UP 2000; co-authored with Cho, Dong-Sung); Dragon Multinational: A New Model of Global Growth (Oxford UP, 2002); and Strategizing, Disequilibrium and Profit (Stanford University Press 2006) which discusses the theoretical foundations of catch-up strategies. In 2014 his new book, Greening of Capitalism: How Asia is Driving the Next Great Transformation, was published by Stanford University Press. His article “Manufacture renewables to build energy security” was published in Nature in September 2014.

Hao Tan is senior lecturer at Newcastle Business School, University of Newcastle, Australia. At UoN he currently serves as an acting Head of the International Business Discipline and a Program Convenor of Master of International Business. He is an associate of the Centre of Asian Business & Economics at University of Melbourne, and was a visiting professor at National Tsinghua University in Taiwan in 2014.

Hao Tan’s current research interest is in China’s energy transition. Since 2009, he has published over 20 scholarly journal articles and book chapters, including a commentary article in the leading science journal ‘Nature’ (co-authored with John Mathews). He is a frequent contributor to both English- and Chinese-language media channels such as UK Financial Times’ Chinese website, China’s Caixin and Australia’s theconversation.com, on energy and environment-related issues in China.

Notes

1 See Armond Cohen, Feb 18 2015, “No China coal peak in sight: carbon capture will be necessary to tame emissions in this century”, Clean Energy Task Force.

2 This is an argument used frequently by US climate scientist James Hansen, in Congressional testimony. See for example his testimony on 13 March 2014 before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.

3 See the briefing released by the China Electricity Council on 2 Feb 2015 (in Chinese)

4 See Matthew Kahn, “Fueling the future”, Science, 16 Jan 2015, where he states “China uses [coal] to generate roughly 80% of its electricity” – an assertion sourced to the International Energy Agency (IEA).

5 For commentary on this ND&RC statement, see “China, US look to boost solar and wind capacity”, Giles Parkinson, RenewEconomy, 19 May 2014.

6 Given the lack of data for the investment in solar power projects, the proportion of investment in renewables-based on electricity generation is calculated as a residual of the total investment on electricity generation in China and the investment on fossil fuels-based projects.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on The “Greening” of China’s Black Electric Power System

The Sunday Times yesterday reported that fears are intensifying of a new nuclear arms race in the Middle East. However, it failed to mention that to designate the Middle East including both Iran and Israel as a Nuclear Weapons Free Zone (NWFZ) – as already proposed by EU governments – would obviate this risk, at a stroke.

Unfortunately, a resolution to this effect has fallen foul of the pro-Israel lobby and its U.S. veto in the United Nations, for the obvious reason that it would entail the State of Israel in declaring its secret nuclear arsenal – the only such nuclear stockpile in the world – estimated by American scientists to hold up to 400 warheads, enough to wipe out the whole Middle East.

But what causes the most dramatic concern is that this arsenal remains undeclared and therefore uninspected by the IAEA. What we further know is that a fleet of German-built, Dolphin-class submarines already delivered to the Israeli Navy has now been converted to being nuclear-armed with ICB cruise missiles and assumed to be patrolling the Mediterranean and Red Seas and that the potential for an Israeli attack upon Iran could increase exponentially.

The obvious answer is for the European Union and the U.S. Congress to support an urgent UN resolution for a Nuclear Weapons Free Middle East if world peace is a vital goal and nuclear war with its potential for millions of deaths – initially in the Middle East – is to be avoided.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Both Israel and Iran Should Subscribe to a Nuclear Weapons Free Zone (NWFZ)