Last April I saw a report that 83% of May’s college graduates did not have a job.  I remarked that in my day most of us had 2 or 3 jobs or graduate school offers before we graduated.  The latest payroll jobs report issued on June 6 proves that the April report was true.

My opinion, schooled in part by John Williams’ very precise reports on Shadowstats.com, is that on average about half of the new jobs each month are phantom jobs created by the birth-death model and inappropriate seasonal adjustments. So, I figured that  the 217,000 jobs claimed for May are more like 108,000.  Then I read John Williams’ report on the May jobs number: “Monthly payroll gains overstated by 200,000 plus jobs”
In other words, there were zero new jobs in May.
Just as the US government can turn an inconsequential Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, and Syria into dangerous threats against “the world’s only superpower,” the US government can turn zero jobs growth into 217,000 jobs.  It is easy when you have a prostitute media and a gullible public, both of which Washington most certainly has.
But let’s take the government data at face value.
First, consider the news report that finally as of May 2014 as many Americans had jobs as had jobs in January 2008. That might seem like good news until you take into account that since January 2008 the US has experienced 6.5 years of population growth. Economists seem to have settled on population growth adding 129,000 people to the work force each month.  That comes to 10,000,000 people.  Where are their jobs?  The “jobs recovery” doesn’t provide for the 10 millions who have come of working age since January 2008.
We can conclude from this that the official 6.3 percent unemployment rate is nonsense.
The unemployment rate is in the neighborhood of 23 percent as John Williams has established.
Just as the US government claims, falsely, that Russia invaded Ukraine and annexed Crimea, that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction, that Assad used chemical weapons on Syrians, and so forth and so on, the 6.3 percent unemployment rate is just another government lie.
Second, consider where the claimed 217,000 May jobs are.  Hardly any of these claimed jobs are jobs in which university graduates begin their careers.  The jobs are in wholesale trade, retail clerks, transportation and warehousing, employment services and temporary help, waitresses and bartenders, and health care and social assistance. In the later category,  ambulatory health care services and social assistance account for the majority of jobs.
If college graduates have jobs, they are not the jobs for which they studied.  On March 31, CNN Money reported that 260,000 college graduates were employed at or below the federal minimum wage of $7.25 per hour.
For the many years that I have been reporting on the jobs statistics, there has been scant sign of any jobs for college graduates.  Considering that there are at least 3,100 colleges and universities in the US, the May graduating class must number in the hundreds of thousands. Looking at the May jobs statistics, those graduating from law school face a dismal situation as employment of lawyers dropped by 700.  There were jobs for only 4,100 accountants and bookkeepers. There were 4,500 jobs for architects and engineers, a number that includes secretaries and office managers. There were 1,800 management jobs. State government education jobs declined by 5,300 and local government education jobs declined by 6,600 jobs.  So where did the education majors find employment?
How is the second quarter going to come roaring back, as the financial media assures us it will, when the jobs report is so discouraging?  How much longer will Washington be able to hide the fact that the US economy is sinking?
If you read all the bullshit that the American media and educational establishment puts out, “education is the answer.”  Apparently not.  Education is the way to become deeply in debt and work for $7.25 per hour, if you are lucky to escape unemployment.
America is a Great Big Lie.  There is no truth in what we are told. The entire country, along with that part of the world under Washington’s thumb, is run for about six private interest groups.  The rest of us are being fleeced.
  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Fake Employment Statistics: More Phantom Jobs Created in America, All In The Wrong Places

The Bowe Bergdahl story has created an international firestorm this week. The Army private from Hailey, Idaho had become so disenchanted and disillusioned with the war he found himself fighting in Afghanistan, on June 30th, 2009 he walked away from his unit.

A short time later he was picked up by nearby enemy Taliban forces and ever since has been a Prisoner of War (POW) until a week ago May 31st. After five years in captivity the Obama administration negotiated a deal with the Taliban whereby Bergdahl as the sole American POW held by any enemy during the Afghanistan or Iraq Wars was released in exchange for five Taliban detainees from Guantanamo Bay Prison.

Republicans in Congress and their propagandist mainstream media wasted no time spearheading a bandwagon campaign to demonize the 28-year old Bowe Bergdahl as “a traitor who should be shot.” Senator McCain four months ago told CNN he would consider a deal bringing Sergeant Bergdahl home. But now he and his fellow Republicans have been shamelessly attempting to capitalize on the controversial situation by waging their never ending politics war against Obama. Expressing upset and disdain over what they considered Obama’s grandstanding celebration in successfully negotiating the release of an alleged “cowardly deserter,” Republicans and media are crying foul citing the administration’s failure to comply with rule of law. The snipe that Obama ignored the law requiring a 30-day advance Congressional approval on top of not bothering to notify them until less than twenty-four hours before the prisoner trade caused big political egos to be badly bruised. Also high on their political agenda is criticism over the potential cost of securing the freedom of one undeserving soldier for the freedom of five terrorists comprising so called high ranking leadership within the Afghan Talaban enemy’s army. Hence, the venomous attacks and relentless spectacle designed to both demonize and shame Obama, Bowe and his entire family.

In fact it is the Republicans and media that should be ashamed for preying on what should be a happy, long-awaited homecoming reunion for a family suffering this last half decade not knowing whether they will ever see their son alive again. Turning what should be one American family’s momentous, heartwarming occasion into just another opportunity to engage in the relentless pathetic game of partisan politics is atrocious. Yet this is what we all have come to expect from the most dysfunctional, fractured Congress in US history. Once again like always petty ego games take priority over serving the needs of American people.

Another quick accusation to emerge in the recent controversy is that Sergeant Bergdahl’s so called desertion directly caused the death of a number of his fellow GI’s. According to accounts from Republican operatives who have ensured that a couple of soldiers from Bergdahl’s unit went to the press to claim that on several subsequent rescue missions specifically seeking Bergdahl resulted in the deaths of fellow soldiers. In fact from prior records at the time the deaths were unrelated to Bergdahl’s captivity but strategically utilized to cast false blame and shame on the now former POW and his family. The rush to judgment was extended to Bergdahl’s father because he has grown a long beard and has learned Arabic in an effort to attempt to communicate with the Taliban to bring his son home. Rather than acknowledge the father’s dedication and committed love for his son, he was targeted as a Taliban-looking disloyal American trying to protect his cowardly deserter of a son. The low blows that certain political and media predators will go to exploit lies for their own selfish agenda.

Eight American soldiers killed in action during the three months after Bergdahl’s disappearance had more to do with the Taliban influx in Paktika Province than anything else. In fact throughout Afghanistan during those same three months of July through September before winter set in a total of 122 Americans died in the country, 58 more than the year before. In response to the increasing number of Taliban fighters, in the spring of 2009 when Private First Class Bergdahl first arrived in Afghanistan, he was part of Obama’s order committing a surge of 30,000 more troops. At the time Bowe was captured by the Taliban, most of that surge deployment had not yet arrived. One month prior to Bergdahl’s disappearance the New York Times documented that “hundreds of foreign fighters” had joined the Taliban cause in the country which was the reason to send more US troops.

In an article written two years ago by the late Rolling Stone journalist Michael Hastings who died suspiciously in a car crash a year ago this month just before he was about to reveal damaging evidence against US intelligence agencies, it was reported that Obama was hard at work trying to negotiate Bergdahl’s release in time for boosting his 2012 reelection prospect. Obama has hit a few walls banging up his record with lots of scandalous blemishes and blackeyes, like Benghazi that won’t go away. But in back to back weeks he has been reeling from his West Point speech fiasco where his arrogance was overly apparent in his once again using his exceptionalism card, then immediately followed by the VA scandal forcing him to get rid of scapegoated General Shinseki. So this week the opportunist suddenly rolls out his triumpant negotiated resolution to the Bergdahl POW case while taking a baby step toward fulfilling another one of his unkept promises in trying to shut down Guantanamo.

After two full years of apparently still negotiating Bergdahl’s long awaited release, last weekend Taliban soldiers finally handed Bergdahl over to Special Forces personnel who flew him by helicopter to safety. The American POW was then transported to a military hospital in Germany for evaluation this week and is scheduled to arrive home to his family in Idaho later this month. The long ordeal for Bowe and his family is finally over.

Surrounded by all this rancorous controversy, Bergdahl’s hometown decided to cancel the big hoopla homecoming scheduled June 28th that had been in the works. The small town offered the excuse that it would be ill prepared to handle the influx of people if rolling out the full red carpet were to go forward. Seems odd because there will be a media circus mob in town covering the soldier’s return anyway, big hoopla or no big hoopla. It likely has a bit more to do with succumbing to the up-in-arms backlash that various veterans groups and others railing in such harsh judgment against Bergdahl calling him a coward and a traitor. Their vehement reaction would be in an uproar if his big celebrative return treated him to a national hero’s welcome. So the town that relies so heavily on tourism next door to America’s very first ski resort Sun Valley decided not to risk incurring the wrath that could tarnish its fine upstanding reputation, pristine image and bottom line revenue.

Of course the debate will go on for months over the potential consequences of releasing the five Taliban soldiers. The deal requires them to return to Qatar where they came from and have the Qatari government saddled with the responsibility of keeping tabs on their whereabouts ensuring that they do not return to fight in Afghanistan. And because skeptics claim that since they are supposedly higher ranking Taliban members (though there is evidence disputing that claim), of course many hawkish Republicans and others are certain that they will slip through the cracks once back in Qatar and soon enough end up back on the battlefields fighting against the Afghan National Army and the 9800 US troops that Obama committed expected to remain in the war torn nation until 2017.

There are those critics who maintain that the US government should have never negotiated with terrorists. But prisoner exchanges as a war winds down have always taken place in every war. So that argument is both false and irrelevant. Another barb that has Republicans fuming is the way their adversary Obama handled the release, neither gaining their approval nor informing them with any advance notice. The Obama camp refused to apologize for either, other than a last hour call to Intelligence Committee Chair Feinstein, insisting that due to Bergdahl’s alleged failing health issues it became a now or never proposition. According to the White House, waiting to adhere to bureaucratic protocol would delay and could have sabotaged the successful release and only further endangered the POW’s health.

At one point during his five year ordeal in captivity, Bowe actually did escape in 2011 but was recaptured a short time later. In 2012 when Hastings was writing his article he wrote how senior Obama administration officials were working feverishly on cutting a deal with the Taliban for a prisoner swap timed with gaining election dividends. But Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and Defense Secretary Leon Panetta were still employing General Petraeus’ failed Counterinsurgency manual as their Afghan exit plan strategy and squashed any deal at the time. They felt that an end of war prisoner exchange could be viewed in the months leading up to the electionvas a sign of weakness. Senator McCain also put the kibosh on a deal, claiming that the five Taliban detainees at Guantanamo “are the five biggest murderers in world history.” No doubt they murdered less people than the bombs McCain knowingly dropped on human targets in Hanoi before his plane got shot down in the Vietnam War. But he was called a hero and elected senator.

Before becoming a soldier in the US Army, Bergdahl went to Paris to learn French and tried enlisting in the French Foreign Legion but was rejected. So with the recruiter’s promise of “helping Afghan villagers to rebuild and defend their lives,” Bowe enlisted in the Army for a tour he figured to be the next best prospect of measuring up to his zest for adventure. Just before being shipped off to the warfront, Bergdahl told a fellow soldier, “If this deployment is lame, I’m just going to walk off in the mountains of Pakistan.” Having grown up in the wilds of Idaho, the state among the lower 48 with the most wilderness area, Bergdahl fashioned himself a survivalist who could make it on his own.

Not long after arriving in Afghanistan, Bergdahl and his company were captured on film by a British documentarian working for the Guardian. Bowe’s unit reacted to deteriorating conditions on the battlefront under poor leadership and increasing low morale. There were constant mistakes made by officers in command. Eventually a popular lieutenant Bowe knew in another company was the first US casualty in their battalion killed by an Improvised Explosive Device.

Three days prior to going AWOL, Bowe Bergdahl wrote in his final email to his parents:

“In the US army you are cut down for being honest… but if you are a conceited brown nosing shit bag you will be allowed to do whatever you want, and you will be handed your higher rank… the system is wrong. I am ashamed to be an american. And the title of US soldier is just the lie of fools. The US army is the biggest joke the world has to laugh at. It is the army of liars, backstabbers, fools and bullies.”Bergdahl had witnessed a military truck run over an Afghan child. Growing more and more unhappy reacting to what he observed, he questioned America’s involvement. His email concluded:

“I am sorry for everything here. 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. We don‘t even care when we hear each other talk about running their children down in the streets with our armored trucks.”His father Bob’s sound advice was to “obey your conscience.” To his son that meant quietly slipping away from his outpost without his gun into the mountains. But within 24 hours he was in the enemy’s hands.

As both a West Point cadet and Army officer, no doubt along with perhaps millions of other ex-US soldiers, I can vouch for Bowe’s exact same feelings. Young men and women start off as idealistic patriots, believing in their country and their country’s cause in war, only to have their belief system and sense of right and wrong challenged when facing such shattering and bitter disillusionment. It is always a soul searching struggle to realize and reconcile that the military is never what it has been cracked up to be when impressionable young people are brainwashed by all the constant lies that TV commercials, recruiters, politicians and movies. The cold hard reality never measures up to expectation and hope. The callous acceptance of being part of a corrupt and broken institution that takes pride in being the biggest killing machine on earth is repugnant to anyone with a conscience and compassion toward fellow human beings.

Those who have experienced similar living nightmares in the course of their military service can easily understand why Bowe Bergdahl walked away from the war. For those who stay and serve their nation in combat, perhaps becoming injured and/or have to watch their buddies die, it may be more difficult to accept Bowe’s behavior as an honorable choice without passing negative judgment. But Bowe was merely following his dad’s advice and left his unit because in good conscience he no longer believed in the insanity of war and wanted no part in it any longer. Had he been aware that he had the option of filing a conscientious objector claim, perhaps he would have chosen that path. But he could not live the lies and pretend that what he saw was okay any longer.

Like Private Bradley Manning who did what he had to when he encountered war atrocities being committed by his nation, Manning chose to be a courageous whistleblower. In fact it is written in Geneva convention rules that a soldier not only has the right but is mandated by law to refuse an order that knowingly violates others’ human rights as civilians. Manning bravely followed Geneva convention rules and his moral conscience in doing the honorable thing, and as a result is serving a grossly unjust 35 year prison sentence.

I believe Bowe Bergdahl acted morally on his own conscience like his father advised and paid dearly for his decision by suffering the last five years as a Prisoner of War. Though the Army plans to reopen an investigation over the circumstances of his leaving his unit in 2009, with time served as POW and the unfair and harsh judgment from many Americans, Bowe Bergdahl deserves America’s compassion and support.

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 and national security issues. After the military, Joachim earned a masters degree in Clinical Psychology and worked in the mental health field for more than a quarter century. He concentrates now on his writing.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on The Bowe Bergdahl Story: His Five Year Ordeal as America’s only Prisoner Of War is Over

Mark Landler’s “US Troops to Leave Afghanistan by End of 2016” was the lead story in the New York Times on Wednesday, May 28. Landler reports President Obama’s decision to reduce troop levels from the present 32,000 to 9,800 by the end of 2014 to half that by the end of 2015 to “a vestigial force” by the end of 2016. There are several reasons why one ought to be skeptical of these numbers (not least of which are that that Obama for years referred to Afghanistan as “a war of necessity,” he ordered two troop surges during his first term, the number of US paid contractors to remain is not clear, and predictable events may upset the timetable). Landler expresses no such skepticism.

But that’s not among the main problems with the story. The article’s flaws include Landler’s belief that he has achieved ‘balance’ by noting Obama’s “Republican critics in Congress,” and by quoting retired Army General Jack Keane, Republican Congressman Buck McKeon, and retired career diplomat and defense official David Sedney. The only critical voices Landler rounds up are those unhappy with Obama’s plans to draw down American forces on what they consider an overly brisk two-year schedule. Code Pink and the American Friends Service Committee—unhappy with the fact that the withdrawal is not immediate and complete—are not to be found in the piece.

The story fails on another basic level. Landler acts as amanuensis rather than journalist. He fails to ask a single follow up question of his sources. Landler and his editor let Keane get away with: “Just arbitrarily pulling those forces out absolutely risks successful completion of the mission.” Even a cub reporter and novice editor might have queried Keane as what mission he had in mind, what successful completion of it looked like, and when it might be accomplished.

Landler and his editor allow McKeon to opine: “Holding this mission to an arbitrary egg-timer doesn’t make a lick of sense.” A competent journalist might have asked McKeon when the egg-timer might ding, if not fifteen years after the onset of Operation Enduring Freedom. Further insulting his readers, Landler lets Keane add this jab: “Does the president seek to replicate his mistakes in Iraq, where he abandoned the region to chaos and failed to forge a real security partnership?” A conscientious reporter might have queried McKeon as to his dogged, unflagging support for the illegal and unjustifiable war over the years, as to the unsurprising Iraqi preference for an end to the nine year American occupation, and as to the fairness of blaming Obama for George Bush’s failed adventure.

Landler remarks that “even defenders of Mr. Obama,” including Michèle A. Flournoy, Undersecretary of Defense for Policy during his first term, express concern about “whether security gains made” are endangered by the pace of the draw down: “Time will tell whether we can meet that standard at this pace.” Landler does not recall that there was no war in Afghanistan, thus no need for the sort of security gains he has in mind, at time of the US invasion in October 2001.

Lazily—without apparent intervention of an editor—Landler employs an automatic, stock phrase to describe a primary activity of the shrinking US force over the next couple years; they are to “carry out operations against the remnants of Al Qaeda.” He does not inquire as to whether there’s a single al-Qaeda ‘member’ still on the loose in Afghanistan, and apparently forgot that David Petraeus admitted that al-Qaeda was no longer in the country as long ago as 2009.

Obama’s announced motivation for the draw down also goes unquestioned by Landler.

“The president is clearly driven by a determination to shift the focus of his counterterrorism policy from Al Qaeda in Afghanistan and Pakistan to a more diffuse set of militant threats, some linked to Al Qaeda, that have sprung up from Syria to Nigeria.”

The “militant threat” in Libya and its analogues in Mali and Chad—direct consequences of the President’s policy—go unmentioned. And the War on Terror continues indefinitely, into perpetuity.

Nowhere in the article does Landler wonder whether peace might break out following the drawn out draw down. We get this statement of Obama’s: “Americans have learned that it’s harder to end wars than it is to begin them. Yet this is how wars end in the 21st century.” It does not occur to Landler to ask an administration official why it’s so hard to end wars, or why peace does not ensue once wars end.

“Mr. Obama,” Landler tells us, “said the withdrawal of combat troops from Afghanistan would free up resources to confront an emerging terrorist threat stretching from the Middle East to Africa.” Obama is unable to simply ‘end a war;’ the end of one war must segue smoothly into the escalation of others. And that appears perfectly reasonable to Mark Landler, and the New York Times.

Steve Breyman teaches “How to Read the New York Times” at Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute. He contributed this article to PalestineChronicle.com. Contact him at: [email protected].

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on New York Times and Obama’s Afghanistan Draw Down: Selling the Never-Ending War on Terror

One Year of Edward Snowden’s Revelations

June 7th, 2014 by Eric London

Thursday marked one year since evidence of the US government’s mass surveillance programs first began appearing in the Guardian newspaper. Through installments over the ensuing months, whistleblower Edward Snowden has revealed the existence of a government operation aimed at collecting, storing and trawling through the personal and political communications of the American people and countless millions more around the world.

The international surveillance apparatus Snowden has uncovered is more powerful than any in history. Billions of emails, phone calls, texts, videoconference and webcam recordings, facial images and credit card records are collected with the help of large corporations such as Verizon, Google and Yahoo. Both the metadata and content of communications are stored and can be accessed without a warrant. This allows the surveillance agencies to draw social and political profiles of every person in the US and hundreds of millions of people beyond America’s borders.

Snowden has leaked documents showing that the National Security Agency (NSA) spies not only on individuals, but also on governments and government leaders (“allies” and enemies alike); international organizations such as the United Nations, the European Union and NATO; and foreign corporations. The United States government is the world’s biggest practitioner of cyber warfare, hacking into the communications of China, Iran and many other countries.

The detailed exposure of the colossal scope and universal character of the American Big Brother operation renders utterly absurd the official claims of a “limited” and “narrowly focused” program motivated by the need to protect the American “homeland” against terrorists. The continued promotion of this obvious lie by the intelligence agencies, the White House, and their enablers in Congress and the judiciary is an insult to the intelligence of the people.

Since the first revelations were published a year ago, the reality of an emerging police state run by unelected intelligence spooks and military brass, lurking behind the threadbare and impotent trappings of democracy, has been thoroughly exposed. The real target of this repressive apparatus—which enables the state to draw up “enemies lists” of people to be seized and eliminated in the event of social upheavals that threaten the interests of the ruling class—is not foreign jihadists (with whom the US government collaborates in Syria, Libya and other places around the world), but the working class.

This blanket surveillance is patently illegal and unconstitutional. It is precisely the type of “unreasonable” operation proscribed by the US Constitution’s Fourth Amendment, which states that“the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrant shall issue, but upon probable cause…”

Nevertheless, one year after the first Snowden revelations, none of these programs has ended or been limited. They remain in place, while President Obama, in the name of reform, has moved to more firmly institutionalize them.

Public opposition remains broad and intense. Months of lies about the supposedly harmless and legal character of the programs, combined with relentless attacks on Snowden by the government and the media, have not succeeded in eroding popular support for the whistleblower. But the views of the people mean nothing to those who wield economic and political power.

Hardly less revealing than the programs themselves has been the official response to their exposure. Since day one, there has been virtually no call from the media or either of the two major parties for the termination of these programs or the impeachment and prosecution of the officials, beginning with the president, responsible for authorizing and implementing them.

On the contrary, with only the rarest of exceptions, the newspapers, networks, pundits and politicians rounded against Snowden. Rather than hailing the courageous and principled response by the young man to massive violations of the democratic rights of the people, these forces denounced Snowden as a traitor and a criminal, while absolving the real criminals.

In a continuation of the Obama administration’s policy towards prior whistleblowers such as WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange and WikiLeaks leaker Bradley (Chelsea) Manning, the Obama administration charged Snowden with three counts of violating the Espionage Act of 1917.

Snowden’s passport was revoked and his physical safety threatened. In July, the administration forced down the airplane of Bolivian President Evo Morales in an attempt to capture Snowden. Snowden was forced to accept an offer of temporary asylum in Russia.

Assassination was publicly discussed as an option amongst military and intelligence operatives. In October, former NSA director Michael Hayden talked about putting Snowden on an Obama administration “kill list.”

Those professionally or personally affiliated with the revelations have been subjected to police repression. In July, British intelligence forced the Guardian to destroy hard drives and threatened the newspaper with closure. In August, police detained David Miranda, the partner of Guardian reporter Glenn Greenwald, for nine hours at London’s Heathrow Airport. His belongings—including his computer—were illegally searched and seized.

The threats and lies continue to this day. Last week, Secretary of State John Kerry responded to Snowden’s interview with NBC News by demanding that he “man up” and hand himself over to the US “justice system.” Kerry told NBC’s Chuck Todd, “Edward Snowden is a coward. He is a traitor. And he has betrayed his country.”

The ruling elite is terrified of the emergence of Snowden, who exemplifies a broader political radicalization of millions of young people. Born in 1983, he speaks for a significant section of a generation that has experienced nothing but political reaction and the ever more bloody eruption of American militarism. Key milestones include the stolen election of 2000, the “war on terror,” the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, Abu Ghraib, the expansion of the police powers of the state and assault on democratic rights (Patriot Act, Homeland Security, Guantanamo, etc.) and the ever more obscene growth of social inequality.

One year after the Snowden revelations began, what political conclusions are to be drawn?

The creation of a totalitarian spying operation is not a temporary departure that can be corrected by palliatives or appeals for reform. The erection of these programs is a response by the ruling class—not just in the United States, but internationally—to the deepest needs of a capitalist system in mortal crisis. That the Snowden revelations include the exposure of similar programs in Britain, Australia, Canada, Germany, France—in fact, every major capitalist “democracy”—demonstrates that the assault on democratic rights is rooted in the existing social and economic order.

In particular, it is linked to the malignant growth of social inequality and militarism, both of which have been exacerbated by the global breakdown of capitalism that began in 2008.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on One Year of Edward Snowden’s Revelations

It is Time to Break Up the Media Cartel

June 7th, 2014 by Daniel Mills

Back in 1983, media was controlled by more than 50 different companies. Today power and control over the mainstream media has been condensed to a mere 6 giant corporations working behind the scenes to distract Americans from our countries real problems!

The alarming reality we live in is that 6 corporations (soon to be 5) including News Corp, Disney, Viacom, Time Warner, CBS, and Comcast decide what news is delivered to the public, and what level of truth is behind that news. They control everything we watch, read, and hear in regards to the news.

This is a troubling problem because it’s creating a public filled with ill-informed people.

Some are suggesting that by constantly feeding us biased news carefully crafted by these corporations, the public is becoming brainwashed to think the way they want us to think. We’re being brainwashed to only care and discuss the topics they want us to care about and discuss.

Perhaps it’s no coincidence that there’s been little discussion about the damaging effects “free trade” has on our economy. None of the major news networks has published anything about the Trans-Pacific Partnership, which is set to encompass nearly 40% of the world economy. Instead, news agencies are reporting on issues which are not relevant to our economy.

There are so many things wrong with America and many Americans are sufferring because our government refuses to protect us. Our current presidential administration and the media simply aren’t telling us what we need to know about the issues that really matter. This is because if they did, the U.S. public would be protesting in the streets and questioning the economic decisions of our leaders

Even though 70% of Americans are against “free trade,” corporations support it because they make a lot of money from “free trade” agreements while the rest of the country suffers. That’s why the media doesn’t report when Americans gather to protest “free trade” agreements, they simply ignore it. They feed the public a slew of distractions to direct attention off of the real problems.

The media does this on purpose, because having an oblivious flock of “sheeple” mindlessly following them is exactly what President Obama and other prominent government figures, lobbyists and multinational corporations want. Having an oblivious public means those currently causing America harm with “free trade” agreements can continue to suck the life from this great country while simultaneously selling away the wealth of future generations to countries like China.

Because of the consolidation of the major media outlets, damaging agreements like President Obama’s Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) and Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP) aren’t being talked about. The media is ensuring the public doesn’t find out President Obama is negotiating the TPP and TTIP in secret, because if we knew what was in the agreements, as Representative Alan Grayson has said, we’d surely protest.

Contact your Congressional representative and urge them to stand up to media bias and the corrupt leadership in Washington. Send this to five of your friends and have them do the same.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on It is Time to Break Up the Media Cartel

Hillary Clinton’s Goldman Sachs Problem

June 7th, 2014 by David Corn

A few weeks ago, Hillary Clinton delivered a much-touted policy speech at the New America Foundation in Washington, where she talked passionately about the financial plight of Americans who “are still barely getting by, barely holding on, not seeing the rewards that they believe their hard work should have merited.” She bemoaned the fact that the slice of the nation’s wealth collected by the top 1 percent—or 0.01 percent—has “risen sharply over the last generation,” and she denounced this “throwback to the Gilded Age of the robber barons.”

Her speech, in which she cited the various projects of the Bill, Hillary, and Chelsea Clinton Foundation that address economic inequality, was widely compared to the rhetoric of Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.), the unofficial torchbearer of the populist wing of the Democratic Party. Here was Hillary, test-driving a theme for a possible 2016 presidential campaign, sticking up for the little guy and trash-talking the economic elites. She decried the “shadow banking system that operated without accountability” and caused the financial crisis that wiped out millions of jobs and the nest eggs, retirement funds, and college savings of families across the land. Yet at the end of this week, when all three Clintons hold a daylong confab with donors to their foundation, the site for this gathering will be the Manhattan headquarters of Goldman Sachs.

Goldman was a key participant in that “shadow banking system” that precipitated the housing market collapse and the consequent financial debacle that slammed America’s middle class. (A system that was unleashed in part due to deregulation supported by the Clinton administration in the 1990s.) This investment house might even be considered one of the robber barons of Wall Street. In its 2011 report, the Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission, a congressionally created panel set up to investigate the economic meltdown, approvingly cited a financial expert who concluded that Goldman practices had “multiplied the effects of the collapse in [the] subprime” mortgage market that set off the wider financial implosion that nearly threw the nation into a depression.

Hillary Clinton’s shift from declaimer of Big Finance shenanigans to collaborator with Goldman—the firm has donated between $250,000 and $500,000 to the Clinton Foundation—prompts an obvious question: Can the former secretary of state cultivate populist cred while hobnobbing with Goldman and pocketing money from it and other Wall Street firms? Last year, she gave two paid speeches to Goldman Sachs audiences. (Her customary fee is $200,000 a speech.)

In recent years, Goldman Sachs has hardly exemplified the values and principles Clinton earnestly hailed in her speech. A few reminders:

  • In April 2011, Sen. Carl Levin (D-Mich.), who chairs the Senate’s Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations, released a report, based on a two-year investigation, that concluded that Goldman had misled clients and Congress about its investments in securities related to the housing market. Levin called on the Justice Department and the Securities and Exchange Commission to investigate if Goldman had violated the law by selling complicated securities to customers without informing the buyers that Goldman would pocket profits if these financial products dropped in value. Goldman denied the charge, but the previous year Goldman had paid $550 million in a civil settlement with the SEC regarding its sale of these securities. (When the case was first filed, the SEC maintained that Goldman had committed fraud by creating and peddling a mortgage investment that was secretly designed to fail.)
  • In March 2012, Greg Smith, a top Goldman executive who was resigning, wrote an op-ed for the New York Times slamming the screw-the-client culture that permeated Goldman: “To put the problem in the simplest terms, the interests of the client continue to be sidelined in the way the firm operates and thinks about making money…I attend derivatives sales meetings where not one single minute is spent asking questions about how we can help clients. It’s purely about how we can make the most possible money off of them…It makes me ill how callously people talk about ripping their clients off. Over the last 12 months I have seen five different managing directors refer to their own clients as ‘muppets,’ sometimes over internal e-mail.” The Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission’s report also described Goldman as a first-class predator: “Despite the first of Goldman’s business principles—that ‘our clients’ interests always come first’—documents indicate that the firm targeted less-sophisticated customers in its efforts to reduce subprime exposure.” In other words, the firm knowingly peddled junk to suckers who trusted it. The report quoted an expert who noted that Goldman’s actions were “the most cynical use of credit information that I have ever seen” and who compared Goldman’s wheeling-and-dealing to “buying fire insurance on someone else’s house and then committing arson.”
  • Last year, the New York Times published a fascinating investigative article that revealed how Goldman Sachs and other financial firms engaged in shrewd maneuvers to drive up the cost of aluminum. This rigging of the market, the paper reported, “ultimately costs consumers billions of dollars.” That did not help struggling middle-class families.

Given Hillary Clinton’s Warrenesque address at the New America Foundation, I asked a spokesmen for the potential 2016 candidate if there was anything incongruous about her association with Goldman, and he forwarded this statement:

The support the Clinton Foundation receives from companies such as Goldman Sachs, organizations and individual donors helps maximize the impact of our philanthropic work. This support is helping enterprise partnerships in South America that are creating jobs; efforts to improve access to early childhood education in the U.S.; development programs that help small holder farmers in Africa; and rebuilding and economic development efforts in Haiti.

Goldman Sachs has been a long time supporter of the Clinton Global Initiative where they have advanced a commitment designed to support 10,000 women across the world through business training and education. We are grateful for their support.

A longtime Hillary Clinton adviser said, “She’s not giving any more speeches to Goldman Sachs.”

Clinton’s relationship with Goldman Sachs is not unique. Bill and Hillary Clinton have always nurtured cozy ties with Wall Street—in terms of policies and funds-chasing (for their campaigns and the foundation). The chief economic guru of the Clinton administration was Robert Rubin, a former Goldman Sachs chairman, and the financial deregulation and free-trade pacts of the Clinton years have long ticked off their party’s populists. In his new book, former Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner recalls visiting Bill Clinton at his Harlem office and asking his advice, as Geithner puts it, on “how to navigate the populist waters” and respond to the American public’s anger about bailouts and Wall Street. The former president didn’t seem to have much sympathy for these popular sentiments and replied by referring to the CEO of Goldman: “You could take Lloyd Blankfein into a dark alley and slit his throat, and it would satisfy them for about two days. Then the bloodlust would rise again.”

If Hillary does decide to seek a return to the White House, can she straddle the line? Assail the excesses of Wall Street piracy and tout the necessity of economic fair play yet still accept the embrace, generosity, and meeting rooms of Goldman Sachs and other Wall Street players? During her speech, she offered a good summation of populism, remarking “working with my husband and daughter at our foundation, our motto is ‘We’re all in this together,’ which we totally believe.” Yet her association with Goldman might cause some to wonder how firmly she holds this belief—and how serious she is about reining in those robber barons.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Hillary Clinton’s Goldman Sachs Problem

This month marks the 10th anniversary of the UN’s military occupation of Haiti. This Global Research News Hour was first published March 6, 2013.

Coup D’Etat in Haiti

It was nine years ago, on February 29, 2004 that the democratically elected President of Haiti, Jean-Bertrand Aristide was removed from his Presidential Palace by US forces, assisted by Canada and France. In his place an unelected government was installed by the international community.

Thousands of UN ‘peace-keepers’ were assigned to Haiti to protect and enforce the authority of this new government. Many representatives of the Haitian government were jailed. The government of Gerard Latortue,installed at the behest of international forces, cracked down hard on the poverty-stricken population, particularly in the slums of Cité Soleil and Bel Air in Port-au-Prince. Thousands of deaths were estimated to have resulted. [1]

It is critical to understand this background and the subsequent erosion of domestic institutions and government agencies if one is to understand the current human security issues threatening this small Caribbean island country.

It is especially important for Canadians to acquaint themselves with this history. Canadians generally have a positive opinion of their country and role in the world. They are inclined to believe Canada’s role in Haiti has been generally beneficent. Such inaccurate perceptions are aided and abetted by compliant politicians, governing and in opposition, and by a silent media.

Roger Annis has been a long-time activist with the Canada-Haiti Action group, an organization that has been at the forefront of raising awareness about Canada’s true role in Haiti. The Global Research Hour spoke to him while he was in Winnipeg to discuss the nine year old coup, Canada’s role in the coup and other ways the Canadian government and Canadian NGOs and development agencies have undermined Haitian democracy and human rights. Annis also draws parallels between Canada’s treatment of Haitians, and its treatment of its own Indigenous population.

Tar Sands Alberta: The Bitumen Cliff

While opposition to the so-called ‘tar sands’ in Northern Alberta in Canada is generally framed as an environment versus economics debate, a new study from the Polaris Institute and the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives seems to point to an argument that surprisingly reveals the (black) gold rush for bitumen in Western Canada actually putting the Canadian economy at a tremendous disadvantage. Carleton University Graduate student and report co-author Brendan Hayley speaks to the Global Research News Hour about Canada’s Bitumen Cliff.

America’s first African American President: An Obstacle to the Quest for Positive Change and Racial Equality

In this exclusive Black History Month interview for the Global Research News Hour, former Georgia Congresswoman and US Presidential Candidate Cynthia McKinney talks about how America’s first African American President has been an obstacle rather than an asset in the quest for positive change and racial equality, and about what needs to be done to make substantive rather than cosmetic changes in the US political life.

References

1 A. R. Kolbe & R. A. Hutson, ‘Human rights abuse and other criminal violations in Port-au-Prince, Haiti’, Lancet; I. Stotsky, Haiti Human Rights Investigation, University of Miami School of Law

_______________________________________________________________

LISTEN TO THE SHOW

Play

Length (59:32)

Click to download the audio (MP3 format)

The Global Research News Hour, hosted by Michael Welch, airs on CKUW 95.9FM in Winnipeg Thursdays at 10am CDT. The programme is now broadcast weekly by the Progressive Radio Network in the US, and is available for download on the Global Research website.

G7 Unity shows Cracks on Russia Sanctions

June 7th, 2014 by Bill Van Auken

Meeting for the first time in two decades without the participation of Russia, members of the Group of Eight—now Group of Seven, G7—agreed in Brussels on a joint statement backing the right-wing regime in Kiev and denouncing Moscow for the annexation of Crimea and its alleged “actions to destabilize” eastern Ukraine.

While the summit went through the motions of issuing boiler plate statements on issues like the global economy, climate change and energy, Ukraine was the only issue of substance before the assembled heads of state of the US, Germany, Britain, France, Japan, Italy and Canada.

The downsized summit—which included none of the guests and observers who commonly attend such events—failed, however, to adopt any concrete plans for the imposition of a new round of sanctions, pushed by the Obama administration. Cracks in the summit’s paper unity were apparent over the potentially severe economic impact these measures could have on Western European economies, compared to their relatively innocuous effect upon the United States.

Washington has sought to ratchet up tensions with Russia as much as possible since working together with Germany and other European powers in orchestrating and backing the violent, fascist-spearheaded February coup that ousted Ukraine’s elected president, Viktor Yanukovych. It has not only pushed through economic sanctions, but also deployed US warplanes in Poland, dispatched American paratroopers to Poland and the three former Soviet Baltic republics and sent warships into the Black Sea, bringing US military forces to Russia’s borders.

It is becoming increasingly clear that US imperialism’s strategy is to militarily encircle Russia and lay the groundwork for eliminating it as an obstacle to US hegemony in Eurasia and the Middle East.

The statement on foreign policy drafted by the G7 is remarkable for its cynicism and hypocrisy. It hails the “successful conduct” of the May 25 Ukrainian elections—won by the billionaire “chocolate king” Petro Poroshenko—ignoring the fact that there was no voting by millions of Ukrainians in the east, who were and are under a military siege. Immediately after the section on Ukraine, the statement denounces the election held in Syria a week later, under similar conditions, as a “sham.”

The statement further “encourages” the Kiev regime to “maintain a measured approach in pursuing operations to restore law and order” in the east and “commends” its “willingness … to continue the national dialogue in an inclusive manner.”

As the G7 heads of state were talking in Brussels about “measured approach” and “inclusive dialogue,” on the ground in eastern Ukraine there is mounting evidence of a savage attack on the civilian population characterized by multiple war crimes.

The Russian government has warned that a humanitarian disaster is taking shape in the region. Moscow reported Thursday that over the previous 24 hours over 8,300 Ukrainian refugees, most of them women and children, had crossed into Russia to escape continuous artillery and aerial bombardment carried out by regime forces.

Weapons outlawed by international conventions are being used widely by the regime, such as cluster-bombs dropped on the Luhansk regional administration building at the beginning of this week, killing eight civilians.

And it has been reported that after heavily shelling the town of Krasnyi Lyman, southeast of Slavyansk in the Donetsk Region, members of the National Guard, a force that has recruited heavily from neo-fascist elements connected to the Right Sector and Svoboda party, overran the local hospital and executed 25 wounded people they found there.

The US and its Western European allies have denied there is any humanitarian crisis in the region, giving a green light to whatever atrocities are required to suppress the local population.

The Kiev regime, meanwhile, has announced its intention to declare martial law in the rebellious regions of Donetsk and Luhansk in order to pave the way for an even more violent crackdown.

While saying nothing about the violent repression in the east or the Kiev regime’s reliance on fascist militias to do its dirty work, the statement put the onus on Moscow to force self-defense forces in the region to “lay down their weapons.”

While the G7 statement “welcomed” loan agreements already reached with the International Monetary Fund and other agencies and governments, it proposed no new funding for the Ukrainian economy, which is in free fall. Instead, it demanded that the Kiev regime fulfill its “commitment to pursue the difficult reforms that will be crucial to support economic stability and unlock private sector-led growth.” These “reforms” spell drastic austerity and increased joblessness for an already impoverished population.

On the issue of sanctions, however, the statement confirmed decisions to impose fairly limited sanctions on individuals and a small number of companies in Russia, while affirming only that the seven heads of state were “ready to intensify targeted sanctions and to implement significant additional restrictive measures to impose further costs on Russia should events so require.” It did not specify what “events” would trigger such new measures.

There was no mention of the kind of sectoral sanctions, targeting Russia’s oil and gas industry for example, that the Obama administration has been pushing.

Divisions between Washington and its European allies emerged most nakedly in the clash between Obama and French President François Hollande over the French government’s decision to go ahead with 1.2 billion euro ($1.6 billion) sale to Moscow of two advanced Mistral warships that are designed for amphibious invasions. France is set to begin training some 400 Russian sailors in the operation of the warships later this month.

Following the summit meeting, Obama told a press conference in Brussels, “I think it would have been better to press the pause button” on the Mistral sale. He added, “President Hollande so far has made different decisions.”

Hollande dismissed any suggestion of canceling the sale. “If the contract was interrupted there would be a reimbursement,” he said. “There is no reason to enter into that process.” German Chancellor Angela Merkel supported Hollande’s position, arguing that, since the European Union had not approved any broader sanctions, there was no reason for France to cancel the contract.

US-French relations were further soured over Obama’s public rebuff of an appeal from Hollande for a “reasonable” settlement of a criminal investigation brought by the US Justice Department against the French banking giant BNP Paribas over alleged violations of US sanctions against Sudan, Iran and Cuba. There have been reports that the bank could face a fine of over $10 billion, which Hollande has argued is “disproportionate” and could have a severe impact on France’s economy.

Obama said he would do nothing to promote a more lenient settlement. “The tradition of the United States is that the president does not meddle in prosecutions,” he told reporters in Brussels.

While Obama has failed to seek any meeting with Vladimir Putin, most of the other members of the G7 have organized bilateral talks with the Russian president, who was invited by Hollande to attend a commemoration of the 70th anniversary of the D-Day landing during World War II.

Hollande defended the invitation, declaring, “We know what we owe to the Russian people, the Soviet people of that time. They were heroic of their defense in the face of Nazi divisions and the suffering of the Russian people.” The French president organized two separate meals Thursday night: the first a dinner at a Paris restaurant with Obama and the second a supper with Putin at the Elysee Palace.

Germany’s Merkel—who told a news conference, “This is not about threats …we want dialogue”—and British Prime Minister David Cameron also organized separate meetings with Putin. And Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe told a Brussels news conference, “I’m hoping to continue dialogue with President Putin” and seemed to express regret that Putin wasn’t at the summit.

Ben Rhodes, the White House deputy national security adviser, expressed Washington’s hostility to these bilateral meetings. “We’ve always said we don’t want different countries to be having conversations over the head of the government in Kiev about Ukraine’s future,” he told reporters.

For his part, Putin, who represents the interests of a ruling stratum of billionaire oligarchs with substantial wealth invested in the West, has signaled that he is prepared to reach a compromise on Ukraine. He has ordered Russian forces to withdraw from Ukraine’s border and has recognized the May 25 elections. It was announced on Thursday that the Russian ambassador will attend Poroshenko’s inauguration on Saturday.

In an interview broadcast on French television Wednesday night he clearly sought to exploit the divisions between Washington and Western Europe, declaring himself “ready for dialogue,” while adding, “it is not a secret that the most aggressive and severe policy is the one of the US.”

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on G7 Unity shows Cracks on Russia Sanctions

This month marks the 10th anniversary of the UN’s military occupation of Haiti. This article was first published February 9, 2014.

We are coming upon the 10th anniversary of the February 29, 2004 coup in Haiti that was orchestrated by imperialism[2] against the labouring classes and the democratically elected government of President Jean-Bertrand Aristide. According to journalist and writer Yves Engler:

On Jan. 31 and Feb. 1, 2003, Jean Chrétien’s Liberal government organized the “Ottawa Initiative on Haiti” to discuss that country’s future. No Haitian officials were invited to this assembly where high-level US, Canadian and French officials decided that Haiti’s elected president “must go”, the dreaded army should be recreated and that the country would be put under a Kosovo-like UN trusteeship.[3]

Just over a year after this pivotal meeting of the three Western states in Canada, the democratic government in Haiti was overthrown, President Aristide had been kidnapped and exiled to the Central African Republic, hundreds of Fanmi Lavalas’s (FL) supporters were killed, immediate occupation of Haiti by 2,000 Western troops (latter replaced by the United Nations’ military intervention), repression against grassroots organizations, filling of the jails with political prisoners and abandonment of the FL government’s investment in education, job creation, healthcare, public services and preoccupation with increasing the minimum wage.[4]

The anti-democratic assault on the labouring classes in Haiti has resulted in the banning of the Fanmi Lavalas party from serving as an electoral instrument of the people as well as the execution of initiatives by elite forces to co-opt opportunistic elements within this political organization.[5] Charlie Hinton, an organizer with the Haiti Action Committee, has documented the different ways that the current Michel Martelly regime in Haiti is pursuing a path toward dictatorship.[6] People of good conscience across the world, especially those in the Americas, should develop or strengthen their ties of solidarity with popular organizations within Haiti’s working-class and peasantry.

It is only through people-to-people solidarity based on mutual respect and principled collaboration that Haiti will rid itself of the United Nations’ (MINUSTAH) occupation force[7]; force France to repay Haiti the ransom of 90 million gold francs (over $23 billion today) that was extracted from the latter as the price for diplomatic recognition and freedom from the threat of re-enslavement[8]; end the cycle of Western military interventions, coups and/or propping up of anti-democratic, anti-people regimes[9]; and put an end to the local elite’s and foreign capital’s exploitation of the people.[10] Based on Haiti’s contribution to humanity, it should hold a special place in the internationalist programmes of progressive forces across the world.

The enslaved Africans in Haiti were the only people to have successfully overthrown a system of slavery in the annals of history. They defeated the strongest military forces of the day, that of France, Britain and Spain, in order to free themselves from the servile labour regime and boldly assert their freedom and humanity.[11] This historic feat, the Haitian Revolution, was significant beyond the victory that the enslaved Africans registered in using armed struggle to effect emancipation-from below. These Black Jacobins[12] etched the fear of revolution in the hearts and minds of the enslavers or agricultural capitalists in the other slave-holding territories in the Americas.

America’s Declaration of Independence and France’s Declaration of the Rights of Man and the Citizen are hailed as seminal texts that affirm inalienable, universal human rights, but the revolutions associated with these two documents were comfortable in maintaining slavery, a state of unfreedom.[13] It was the Haitian Revolution by way of its June 1801 Constitution that unambiguously declared universal freedom from enslavement in Article 3, “There cannot exist slaves on this territory, servitude is therein forever abolished. All men are born free, live and die free and French.”[14] Essentially, it was Caliban, in a switch of roles, who introduced Prospero to the virtue or practice of universal freedom and paid for this significant achievement with the former’s blood.

The celebrated French Revolution and the American Revolution were parochial and hypocritical in allowing for the abridgement of liberty through the institution of slavery. But The Haitian Revolution made it clear to the world that the enslaved or the colonized had the capacity to forge the path to freedom through their collective effort against seemingly insurmountable odds. On the conclusion of the 1831-1832 Emancipation Rebellion in Jamaica, the British authority was so spooked by the possibility of another Haiti with its freedom-from-below that it passed an abolition law in 1833, which took effect  in 1834; emancipation-from-above.

Haiti’s role in Simon Bolivar’s wars of independence in Latin America is not widely known. In the spirit of principled international solidarity, Haiti provided a place of refugee to Bolivar and his comrade Francisco de Miranda in 1815 and gave them material aid in the form of schooners, printing presses, fighters and as well as guns for several thousand troops.[15] Haiti’s only condition for its contribution was Bolivar’s commitment to abolishing slavery, which he didn’t vigorously and speedily implement. Haiti was still living up to the ideal of universal freedom from slavery and colonial domination. This country was there, materially and morally, during a crucial movement in Latin America’s struggle for self-determination. It is rather instructive and ironic today to see Latin American military forces serving in Haiti as an occupation army under the United Nations’ banner.

Haiti’s legacy of defying and exposing the farcical nature of the racist characterization of Afrikans as sub-humans by defeating the best European armies of the period, taking its freedom in its own hands, contributing to the liberation of Latin America and threatening the continued viability of slavery has probably earned the country the unenviable economic and political status it currently holds in the region.[16]

 I believe Wordsworth’s was right in declaring to the deceived and fallen Toussaint (and by extension Haiti), “thou hast great allies / Thy friends are exultations, agonies, /And love, and man’s unconquerable mind.” Our anti-imperialist obligation to Haiti and its people for their contribution to universal freedom entail the provision of political, moral and material support in fighting our common enemies of social emancipation and justice. Our internationalist sensibilities and politics ought to be informed by Martin Luther King’s claim, “Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere. We are caught in an inescapable network of mutuality, tied in a single garment of destiny. Whatever affects one directly, affects all indirectly.”[17]

We may demonstrate our international(ist) solidarity commitment with the people of Haiti in the following manner:

  1. Form or join an organization devoted to Haiti internationalist solidarity work. This type of formation is necessary to effecting consistent and systematic public education, mobilizing and organizing in support of the struggle of the Haitian labouring classes.
  2. Mobilize and educate to pass a resolution or policy on internationalist solidarity with the people of Haiti. Mobilize, educate and organize members in your trade unions, student organizations, community organizations, faculty associations, progressive religious organizations and other civil society groups to support a resolution specifying actions and programmes that will be implemented to materialize people-to-people solidarity with grassroots and popular organizations in Haiti.

These Haiti-based organizations are worthy of people-to-people support: Défenseurs des opprimés (Defenders of the Oppressed) – – a human rights organization; Tèt Kole Ti Peyizan Ayisyen (Small Peasants Working Together) – Haiti’s largest organization of small farmers; Batay Ouvriye – one of the most prominent labour organizations; Ayti Kale Je (Haiti Grassroots Watch) – investigative reporting; SOPUDEP (Society of Providence United for the Economic Development of Pétion-Ville) – education and community development; and Bri Kouri Nouvèl Gaye (Noise Travels, News Spreads) – investigative reporting.

  1. Raise awareness about the 10th anniversary of the 2004 coup. Organize teach-ins, film series, lectures, rallies, demonstrations, informational pickets, do radio and television interviews and/or write articles to raise awareness about the February 29, 2004 coup d’état in Haiti and the role played by imperialist actors such as Canada, the United States, the International Monetary Fund, the Inter-American Development Bank, non-governmental organizations, local elite and the Canadian International Development Agency in overthrowing the pro-people government of President Jean-Bertrand Aristide. A primary objective behind the commemoration of the 10th anniversary of the 2004 coup is to motivate individuals and groups to participate in solidarity projects or actions in support of the struggle in Haiti.
  2. Support the lawsuit of the Bureau des Avocats Internationaux and Institute for Justice and Democracy in Haitithat is aimed at holding the United Nations accountable for the introduction of cholera to Haiti. The 2010 cholera outbreak has resulted in over 8,300 deaths and infected close to 650,000 Haitians. You can educate the people in your community or civil society organizations about the action of the United Nations and support or develop campaigns directed at getting this international body to accept legal and moral responsibility for the devastating action of its occupation forces.
  3. Mobilize and organize to end the UN’s occupation. Create or contribute to a broad-based campaign of progressive forces in your community, country or region aimed securing the withdrawal of the United Nations’ occupation force of over 8,000 uniformed personnel in Haiti. Haiti did not experience a civil war and there are no warring sides being kept apart to justify this military presence.  Support initiatives in states that have troops or police personnel in Haiti to build support for the pull out of their respective military and police contingents.
  4. Contribute to the fight against neoliberalism. Your organizations ought to support Haitian trade unions, rural organizations and other progressive civil society groups that are fighting neoliberal capitalist policies in Haiti. They have devastated Haiti’s rice industry and flooded the country with heavily subsidized agricultural products from abroad. As a result of the extreme neoliberal economic policies imposed on Haiti, it has one of the most open economies in the Americas. For those of us who are based in global North countries the fight against neoliberal capitalist policies starts where we live and work.

I am in full agreement with the following assertion of international solidarity activist Kali Akuno “As we gather our forces to support the resistance of the Haitian people, and join with it in common struggle against imperialism, we will appear as a new defiant spirit and a force to be reckoned with.”[18] Challenging anti-working class policies at home is a part of the global solidarity work of delegitimizing them and pushing an alternative approach to human economic and social development.

  1. Mobilize against any attempt to bar Fanmi Lavalas from participating in the next round of elections. The conservative political and economic forces have conspired to exclude this movement from participating in recent elections because of its popular support among the people. Fanmi Lavalas was the political organization used by President Jean-Bertrand Aristide to win the presidency on two occasions (both times unseated by a coup). It can lay claim to the series of economic, social and physical infrastructure programmes that benefitted the peasantry and the working-class during the Aristide administrations.[19]

Irrespective of how we might feel about elections, if a progressive and popular Haitian organization is deliberately and deviously barred from participating or Fanmi Lavalas is seen by large segments of Haitians as representative and reflective of them[20], as allies we ought to stand in principled solidarity with the self-determined goals of the people.

The abolitionist, former enslaved African, feminist and statesman Frederick Douglass had this to say about Haiti’s role in promoting “universal human liberty” and it serves as a reminder of our debt of gratitude and obligation to its people:

 In just vindication of Haiti, I can go one step further. I can speak of her, not only words of admiration, but words of gratitude as well. She has grandly served the cause of universal human liberty. We should not forget that the freedom you and I enjoy to-day; that the freedom that eight hundred thousand colored people enjoy in the British West Indies; the freedom that has come to the colored race the world over, is largely due to the brave stand taken by the black sons [and daughters], of Haiti ninety years ago. When they struck for freedom, they builded better than they knew. Their swords were not drawn and could not be drawn simply for themselves alone. They were linked and interlinked with their race, and striking for their freedom, they struck for the freedom of every black man [and woman] in the world.[21]

Ajamu Nangwaya, Ph.D., is an educator and activist with the Toronto Haiti Action Committee and the Network for Pan-Afrikan Solidarity.

Notes

[1] Quoted in Brian Hickey, “Wordsworth Sonnet: “To Toussaint L’Ouverture”, 38, Retrieved from http://users.unimi.it/caribana/essays/caribana_2/HICKEY.pdf

[2] Richard Sanders, “A very Canadian Coup d’état in Haiti: The Top 10 Ways that Canada’s Government Helped the 2004 Coup and its Reign of Terror”, The CCPA Monitor April 2010, Retrieved from http://coat.ncf.ca/Haiti/Canada_in_Haiti.htm; Putting the Aid in Aiding and Abetting: CIDA’s Agents of Regime Change in Haiti’s 2004 Coup, Press for Conversion, May 2008, Issue #62

[3] Yves Engler, “Remembering the Overthrow of Haiti’s Jean-Bertrand Aristide: The Occupation Continues” Counterpunch, January 31-February 2, 2014, Retrieved from http://www.counterpunch.org/2014/01/31/remembering-the-overthrow-of-haitis-jean-bertrand-aristide/

[4] Peter Hallward, Damming the Flood: Haiti, Aristide, and the Politics of Containment (New York: Verso, 2007), 250-276.

[5] Charlie Hinton, “10 Steps to Dictatorship in Haiti: Why the Grassroots is Taking to the Streets against President Michel Martelly,” Counterpunch, December 7, 2013. Retrieved from http://www.counterpunch.org/2013/12/17/10-steps-to-dictatorship-in-haiti/; Hallward, “Damming the Flood,” 263-264.

[6] Charlie Hinton, “10 Steps to Dictatorship.”

[7] Deepa Pachang, “UN in Haiti: Keeping the Peace or conspiring against it?” Pambazuka News, November 3, 2011, Retrieved from http://www.pambazuka.org/en/category/features/77635

[8] Noam Chomsky, Paul Farmer & Amy Goodman, Getting Haiti Right This Time: The U.S. and the Coup (Monroe, Maine: Common Courage Press, 2004), 13; Hallward, “Damming the Flood,” 226.

[9] Haiti Action Committee, Hidden from the Headlines: The U.S. War against Haiti, (Berkeley: Haiti Action Committee, 2003).

[10] Kali Akuno, “Confronting the occupation: Haiti, neoliberalism and Haiti,” Pambazuka News, April 15, 2010, Retrieved from http://pambazuka.org/en/category/comment/63698; Hinton, “10 Steps to Dictatorship”.

[11] C.L.R. James, The Black Jacobins: Toussaint L’Ouverture and the San Domingo Revolution (New York: Vintage Books, 1963), viiii.

[12] “The Black Jacobins.” Wikipedia: The Free Encyclopedia. Retrieved from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Black_Jacobins

[13] Nick Nesbitt, Universal Emancipation: The Haitian Revolution and the Radical Enlightenment (Charlottesville, Virginia: University of Virginia Press, 2008), 81-82,

[14] Nick Nesbitt, Toussaint L’Ouverture: The Haitian Revolution (New York: Verso, 2008), 46.

[15] Kim Ives, “Hugo Chavez’ legacy in Haiti and Latin America,” Haiti Liberté, March 7, 2013, Retrieved from http://venezuelanalysis.com/analysis/8263; Michael C. Twomey, “Questions Concerning the Haitian Revolution and its Impact in the Spanish Caribbean,” Retrieved from http://www.historyvortex.org/HaitianRevolutionImpactSpanishCaribbean.html

[16] Hallward, “Damming the Flood,” 11.

[17] Martin Luther King, “Letter From Birmingham Jail,” April 16, 1963, Retrieved from http://abacus.bates.edu/admin/offices/dos/mlk/letter.html

[18] Akuno, “Confronting the occupation.”

[19] Haiti Action Committee, We Will Not Forget: The Achievements of Lavalas in Haiti, (Berkeley: Haiti Action Committee, 2005)

[20] Hallward, “Damming the Flood”, 136-140.

[21] Frederick Douglass, “Lecture on Haiti, Delivered at the World’s Fair, in Jackson Park, Chicago, Jan. 2, 1893”, Retrieved from http://www.canadahaitiaction.ca/content/frederick-douglass-1893-speech-haitian-pavilion-chicago-world-fair

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Imperialism’s Coup d’Etat against Democracy and the People of Haiti

Unfortunately, it takes the media mouthpiece of the Russian government to tell the truth about Hillary Clinton and the War Party.

You’ll never get the truth from the U.S. government’s media mouthpiece who self-righteously and disingenuously claim they are independent and “fair and balanced” (cue laugh track).

Clinton, of course, is no different than your garden variety Republican, including the any number of neocons. All of them are propped up by the military-industrial-intelligence complex and the banksters who run the show and who laughingly pretend we all live in a pluralistic democracy. Of course, anybody who has more than two brain cells to rub together and is not in serious denial knows we live in an authoritarian plutocracy run for the sake of a small clique of mega-rich and powerful global internationalists.

Clinton will be the Democrat contender for the position of teleprompter reader. Jeb Bush will probably be the Republican choice to play the political equivalent of musical chairs. The ruling elite has decided it wants to stick with the Bush-Clinton dynasty for the foreseeable future.

Hillary is preferable because the elite are keen on making sure all criticism and political activism is either marginalized or written off as hatred and thus not only dismissible, but worthy of a violent response by government. Criticism of Hillary will be deemed sexist the same way serious criticism of Obama is now considered racist.

In addition, Hillary’s confrontational and ugly personality will be described as an admirable attribute indicative of a strong leader the same way the psychopathic personalities of her male counterparts are described as the attribute of masters of statecraft (the word is synonymous with bombing small helpless nations and bailing out transnational banks).

It really is too bad RT had to run this piece. The Russian government, of course, is as authoritarian and violent, and in some instance more so, than the government ruling the United States. Anti-Russian propaganda disseminated by alphabet networks owned and operated by an interlocking directorship dominated banks and transnational corporations point out Russia’s flaws on a daily basis.

Everything we see on television, an increasingly on the internet, “often surpasses expectations of media subservience to government propaganda,” as Edward S. Herman noted nearly two decades ago. Only the alternative media, which naturally suffers from its own flaws, is free to tell the truth.

As an arm of the state, RT has its own propaganda agenda. Part of that agenda is pointing out the indisputable fact the U.S. government is owned and operated by banks and large corporations. For pointing out what the corporate media in this country is forbidden to mention, we can be thankful. On the other hand, we should be wary and mistrustful of RT and any other propaganda organ of the state.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Hillary Clinton: Warmonger for the Bankster Elite

US-designated Syrian terrorist group Jabhat al-Nusra with an American-made TOW Missile in its possession.

Global Research Editor’s Note:

Ambassador Robert S. Ford is no ordinary diplomat. He was U.S. representative in January 2004 to the Shiite city of Najaf in Iraq. Najaf was the stronghold of the Mahdi army.

A few months later he was appointed “Number Two Man” (Minister Counsellor for Political Affairs), at the US embassy in Baghdad at the outset of John Negroponte’s tenure as US Ambassador to Iraq (June 2004- April 2005).

Since his arrival in Damascus in late January 2011, Ambassador Robert S. Ford played a central role in laying the groundwork for the development of an armed insurgency directed against as the government of Bashar al Assad.

The reinstatement of a US ambassador in Damascus, but more specifically the choice of Robert S. Ford as US ambassador, bears a direct relationship to the onset of the protest movement in mid-March against the government of Bashar al Assad.

Robert S. Ford was the man for the job. As “Number Two” at the US embassy in Baghdad, he played a key role in implementing the Pentagon’s “Iraq Salvador Option”. The latter consisted in supporting Iraqi death squadrons and paramilitary forces modelled on the experience of  Central America. 

For a full background of Robert Ford, read Who is US Ambassador to Syria Robert S. Ford? The Covert Role of the US Embassy in Supporting an Armed Insurrection and 

“The Salvador Option For Syria”: US-NATO Sponsored Death Squads Integrate “Opposition Forces”


Please, Ambassador Ford. Name me a “Moderate” Syrian rebel

by Sharmine Narwani

Mideast Shuffle

Below is an informative email exchange between Sharmine Narwani and a State Department official regarding Robert Stephen Ford’s statement. The moderate opposition remained unnamed.

June 4, 2014

Please, Ambassador Ford. Name me a “moderate” Syrian rebel

Former US Ambassador to Syria Robert Ford stated in a June 3 PBS Newshour:

“We need – and we have long needed – to help moderates in the Syrian opposition with both weapons and other non-lethal assistance.”

“Had we done that a couple of years ago, had we ramped it up, frankly the al Qaeda groups that have been winning adherents would have been unable to compete with the moderates who frankly we have much in common with,” he continued.

(Transcript available here)

That’s great, Ambassador Ford. Now can you kindly put us out of our misery and name these Syrian “moderate” rebel groups? For any Syrian rebels to take the lead on the ground, they must be able to command a good 50,000 men…but I’ll settle for the name of a moderate fighting force that can can command 5,000.

Okay then – 500?

Please, Mr. Ambassador. I am now begging you to give me the name of these moderate Syrian rebels. Okay, maybe they’ve all been wiped out or marginalized now, but what about a year ago – when your boss Secretary of State John Kerry was champing at the bit to start arming the “moderates?”

Kerry, as you may recall, told us conclusively during a trip to Riyadh in March 2013 that:

“There is a very clear ability now in the Syrian opposition to make certain that what goes to the moderate, legitimate opposition is, in fact, getting to them, and the indication is that they are increasing their pressure as a result of that.”

I was transfixed. Fascinated. The Americans had found moderate Syrian rebels (who actually participate in battle) and could now guarantee that weapons would get directly to them – and more importantly – stay with them.

I immediately pounded out an email to one of my media contacts at the US State Department (I will call him/her “Ben Spox” to preserve his/her identity), eager to find out the names of these Syrian moderates. Here’s how that correspondence went:

From: Sharmine
Sent: Tuesday, March 05, 2013 7:51 AM
To: Ben Spox
Subject: Query

Ben,

Could you please give me the names of some of the “moderate” Syrian rebels that Sec of State Kerry is thinking of assisting? If that is confidential, could you just provide me with any names of “moderate” armed groups in Syria that you folks are aware of? Would be helpful if you could give me a sense of their size…and how you determine they are “moderate.”

He also says in this NYT piece (http://www.nytimes.com/2013/03/05/world/middleeast/syria-russia-iran-arms.html) “There is a very clear ability now in the Syrian opposition to make certain that what goes to the moderate, legitimate opposition is, in fact, getting to them.”

Can you give me any idea of how this can be ascertained when weapons provided to Libyans are now flooding Mali and Syria?

Thanks.

Kind regards,
Sharmine

From: Ben Spox
To: Sharmine
3/5/13

On background attributable to “A State Department spokesman”:

· Our goal is to see a Syrian-led transition that enjoys widespread support and legitimacy within Syria and defends the rights and interests of all Syrians regardless of their ethnicity, religion, or gender. The opposition has articulated a common vision and transition plan for Syria that offers a credible alternative to the Asad regime’s tyranny. We support this vision.

· As we work to accelerate a political transition, we are providing more non-lethal support to the opposition, including communications gear and training, support for transition planning, media support and training, and a variety of programs to support civil society and capacity building to ensure that the opposition can continue its cause and that the needs of civilians on the ground are met.

· I would also draw your attention to our newest fact sheet, http://www.state.gov/r/pa/prs/ps/2013/03/205623.htm

From: Sharmine
Sent: Tuesday, March 05, 2013 8:16 AM
To: Ben Spox
Subject: Re: Query

Ben,

Thanks for this, but I’m asking for specific names of “moderate” rebel groups on the ground in Syria. Or are you counting on those outside the country to funnel this assistance entirely? Either way, I am sure you folks have specified the recipients.

So, if you please, kindly provide me with names of individuals or group recipients inside Syrian territory who are “moderates.”

Thanks.

Best,
Sharmine

From: Ben Spox
To: Sharmine
3/5/13

I encourage you to look over the public remarks made by Secretary in Rome and Riyadh.

From: Sharmine
Sent: Tuesday, March 05, 2013 8:29 AM
To: Ben Spox
Subject: Re: Query

Ben,

I did look at his public comments in those two places – some are even in the NYT article link I sent you:

“There is no guarantee that one weapon or another might not at some point in time fall into the wrong hands,” Mr. Kerry said in a joint news conference in Riyadh with the Saudi foreign minister, Prince Saud al-Faisal. “But I will tell you this: There is a very clear ability now in the Syrian opposition to make certain that what goes to the moderate, legitimate opposition is, in fact, getting to them, and the indication is that they are increasing their pressure as a result of that.”

I want to know if you folks can actually name any moderate groups inside Syria that Secretary Kerry is referencing above? We have heard reports for months that there are no rebel groups worth their salt that are not Islamist and militant in nature…so what are these “moderate” rebel groups the secretary is referencing?

You folks are very specifically setting a scene that suggests there are “moderate” rebels inside Syria who will be receiving tens of millions of dollars of US taxpayer funds. You are going to great lengths to assure people that none of this will be diverted to jihadist or militant groups who may then turn their weapons on Americans or their allies.

So, then, who are these groups? Specifically.

Best,
Sharmine

From: Ben Spox
To: Sharmine
3/5/13

Sharmine – The public comments are where we are right now. I do not have additional information to provide at this time.

From: Sharmine
Sent: Tuesday, March 05, 2013 08:56 AM
To: Ben Spox
Subject: Re: Query

Ben, forget the context of US assistance going to these “moderate” groups for one second. At this point – and, truthfully, as a result of your responses to me – I am now just genuinely curious to know if anyone at the State Department can even name a “moderate” rebel group inside Syria.

Can you kindly direct me to someone there who could possibly help me out on this? It would be a tremendous help in allaying my growing concern that Secretary Kerry himself cannot name a single Syrian “moderate” rebel group.

I apologize for my tone – but seriously, does he think he can just say things like this with no oversight or questions? My query is a simple one and is based entirely on the secretary’s claim that he now has a “very clear ability” to bypass the bad guys.’ I’m not even yet asking how he knows he can do that. I’m just asking for the name of one single ‘good guy.’

Could you please refer me to somebody else for this information?

Cheers.

From: Ben Spox
To: Sharmine
3/5/13

Sharmine, thank you for your inquiry. You may use my responses below to inform your reporting. Attribution in background to “a State Department Spokesman.”

-Ben

Suffice it to say, I have remained painfully frustrated for over a year now in my continuing quest to get US officials to name these moderate Syrian rebels. I wait in hope that one US journalist in the State Department press pool decides to join this quest.

In the meantime, please, Ambassador Ford. Be a gentleman and name them.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Please, Ambassador Ford. Name me a “Moderate” Syrian rebel

Author’s Note

In recent developments, the Western media is portraying former US Ambassador to Syria Robert Stephen Ford as a “moderate”, committed to supporting so-called “moderate mainstream opposition rebels”. Ford is now upheld as a outspoken critic of US foreign policy,  tacitly blaming the US State Department for gross mismanagement:

“I was no longer in a position where I felt I could defend the American policy… We have been unable to address either the root causes of the conflict in terms of the fighting on the ground and the balance on the ground, and we have a growing extremism threat.”… (quoted in Slate, June 3, 2014, emphasis added)

Ford calls upon Washington to support the moderates:

We need – and we have long needed – to help moderates in the Syrian opposition with both weapons and other non-lethal assistance. … Had we done that a couple of years ago, had we ramped it up, frankly the al Qaeda groups that have been winning adherents would have been unable to compete with the moderates who frankly we have much in common with,” (Reuters, June 3, 2014, emphasis added)

Responding to Ford’s comments, State Department spokeswoman Marie Harf said, “He’s a private citizen. He’s entitled to his views.”(Reuters, June 3, 2014)

Who is Robert Stephen Ford? In a bitter irony, Robert Stephen Ford is no “Moderate” as portrayed by the media.  

Ford played a central role in developing the “extremism threat” scenario including the channeling of military aid to the Al Qaeda affiliated rebels.

Ford was from the outset in the months leading up to the March 2011 insurrection among the key architects involved in the formulation of a  US “Terrorist Option” for Syria including the recruitment and training of death squads in Saudi Arabia, Qatar and Turkey.

The following text is based on a longer article first published by GR in August 2011 under the title The Pentagon’s “Salvador Option”: The Deployment of Death Squads in Iraq and Syria.  as well as Terrorism with a Human Face: The History-of Americas Death Squads

Michel Chossudovsky, June 6, 2014

Since his arrival in Damascus in late January 2011, Ambassador Robert S. Ford played a central role in laying the groundwork as well as establishing contacts with opposition groups.

A functioning US embassy in Damascus was seen as a precondition for carrying out a process of political destabilization leading to “regime change”.

Ambassador Robert S., Ford is no ordinary diplomat. He was U.S. representative in January 2004 to the Shiite city of Najaf in Iraq. Najaf was the stronghold of the Mahdi army

A few months later he was appointed “Number Two Man” (Minister Counsellor for Political Affairs), at the US embassy in Baghdad at the outset of John Negroponte’s tenure as US Ambassador to Iraq (June 2004- April 2005). Ford subsequently served under Negroponte’s successor Zalmay Khalilzad prior to his appointment as Ambassador to Algeria in 2006.

Negroponte’s mandate as US ambassador to Iraq (together with Robert S. Ford) was to coordinate out of the US embassy, the covert support to death squads and paramilitary groups in Iraq with a view to fomenting sectarian violence and weakening the resistance movement. Robert S. Ford as “Number Two” (Minister Counsellor for Political Affairs) at the US Embassy in Baghdad played a central role in this endeavor.

To understand Robert Ford’s mandate in both Baghdad and subsequently in Damascus, it is important to reflect briefly on the history of US covert operations and the central role played by John D. Negroponte.

Negroponte and the “Salvador Option”

John Negroponte had served as US ambassador to Honduras from 1981 to 1985. As Ambassador in Tegucigalpa, he played a key role in supporting and supervising the Nicaraguan Contra mercenaries who were based in Honduras. The cross border Contra attacks into Nicaragua claimed some 50 000 civilian lives.

During the same period, Negroponte was instrumental in setting up the Honduran military death squads, “operating with Washington support’s, [they] assassinated hundreds of opponents of the US-backed regime.” (See Bill Vann, Bush Nominee linked to Latin American Terrorism, by Bill Vann, Global Research, November 2001, http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/VAN111A.html)

“Under the rule of General Gustavo Alvarez Martnez, Honduras’s military government was both a close ally of the Reagan administration and was “disappearing” dozens of political opponents in classic death squad fashion.

In a 1982 letter to The Economist, Negroponte wrote that it was “simply untrue to state that death squads have made their appearance in Honduras.” The Country Report on Human Rights Practices that his embassy sent to the Senate Foreign Relations Committee took the same line, insisting that there were “no political prisoners in Honduras” and that the “Honduran government neither condones nor knowingly permits killings of a political or nonpolitical nature.”

Yet according to a four-part series in the Baltimore Sun in 1995, in 1982 alone the Honduran press ran 318 stories of murders and kidnappings by the Honduran military. The Sun described the activities of a secret CIA-trained Honduran army unit, Battalion 316, that used “shock and suffocation devices in interrogations. Prisoners often were kept naked and, when no longer useful, killed and buried in unmarked graves.”

On August 27, 1997, CIA Inspector General Frederick P. Hitz released a 211-page classified report entitled “Selected Issues Relating to CIA Activities in Honduras in the 1980′s.” This report was partly declassified on Oct. 22, 1998, in response to demands by the Honduran human rights ombudsman. Opponents of Negroponte are demanding that all Senators read the full report before voting on his nomination. to the position of US Permanent Representative to the UN}” (Peter Roff and James Chapin, Face-off: Bush’s Foreign Policy Warriors, Global Research November 2001, http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/ROF111A.html

John Negroponte- Robert S. Ford. The Iraq “Salvador Option”

In January 2005, following Negroponte’s appointment as US ambassador to Iraq, the Pentagon confirmed in a story leaked to Newsweek  that it was “considering forming hit squads of Kurdish and Shia fighters to target leaders of the Iraqi insurgency in a strategic shift borrowed from the American struggle against left-wing guerrillas in Central America 20 years ago”. (El Salvador-style ‘death squads’ to be deployed by US against Iraq militants – Times Online, January 10, 2005)

John Negroponte and Robert S. Ford at the US Embassy worked closely together on the Pentagon’s project. Two other embassy officials, namely Henry Ensher (Ford’s Deputy) and a younger official in the political section, Jeffrey Beals, played an important role in the team “talking to a range of Iraqis, including extremists”. (See The New Yorker, March 26, 2007).  Another key individual in Negroponte’s team was James Franklin Jeffrey, America’s ambassador to Albania (2002-2004). Jeffrey is currently the US Ambassador to Iraq.

Negroponte also brought into the team one of his former collaborators Colonel James Steele (ret) from his Honduras heyday:

Under the “Salvador Option,” “Negroponte had assistance from his colleague from his days in Central America during the 1980′s, Ret. Col James Steele. Steele, whose title in Baghdad was Counselor for Iraqi Security Forces supervised the selection and training of members of the Badr Organization and Mehdi Army, the two largest Shi’ite militias in Iraq, in order to target the leadership and support networks of a primarily Sunni resistance. Planned or not, these death squads promptly spiralled out of control to become the leading cause of death in Iraq.

Intentional or not, the scores of tortured, mutilated bodies which turn up on the streets of Baghdad each day are generated by the death squads whose impetus was John Negroponte. And it is this U.S.-backed sectarian violence which largely led to the hell-disaster that Iraq is today. (Dahr Jamail, Managing Escalation: Negroponte and Bush’s New Iraq Team,. Antiwar.com, January 7, 2007)

John Negroponte described Robert Ford while at the embassy in Baghdad, as “one of these very tireless people … who didn’t mind putting on his flak jacket and helmet and going out of the Green Zone to meet contacts.”  Robert S. Ford is fluent in both Arabic and Turkish. He was dispatched by Negroponte to undertake strategic contacts:

[O]ne Pentagon proposal would send Special Forces teams to advise, support and possibly train Iraqi squads, most likely hand-picked Kurdish Peshmerga fighters and Shiite militiamen, to target Sunni insurgents and their sympathizers, even across the border into Syria, according to military insiders familiar with the discussions. It remains unclear, however, whether this would be a policy of assassination or so-called “snatch” operations, in which the targets are sent to secret facilities for interrogation. The current thinking is that while U.S. Special Forces would lead operations in, say, Syria, activities inside Iraq itself would be carried out by Iraqi paramilitaries. (Newsweek, January 8, 2005, emphasis added)

The plan had the support of the US appointed Iraqi government of Prime Minister Iyad Allawi:

The Pentagon declined to comment, but one insider told Newsweek: “What everyone agrees is that we can’t just go on as we are. We have to find a way to take the offensive against the insurgents. Right now, we are playing defence. And we are losing.”

Hit squads would be controversial and would probably be kept secret.

The experience of the so-called “death squads” in Central America remains raw for many even now and helped to sully the image of the United States in the region.

…. John Negroponte, the US Ambassador in Baghdad, had a front-row seat at the time as Ambassador to Honduras from 1981-85.

Death squads were a brutal feature of Latin American politics of the time. In Argentina in the 1970s and Guatemala in the 1980s, soldiers wore uniform by day but used unmarked cars by night to kidnap and kill those hostile to the regime or their suspected sympathisers.

In the early 1980s President Reagan’s Administration funded and helped to train Nicaraguan contras based in Honduras with the aim of ousting Nicaragua’s Sandinista regime. The Contras were equipped using money from illegal American arms sales to Iran, a scandal that could have toppled Mr Reagan.

It was in El Salvador that the United States trained small units of local forces specifically to target rebels.

The thrust of the Pentagon proposal in Iraq, according to Newsweek, is to follow that model and direct US special forces teams to advise, support and train Kurdish Peshmerga fighters and Shia militiamen to target leaders of the Sunni insurgency.

It is unclear whether the main aim of the missions would be to assassinate the rebels or kidnap them and take them away for interrogation. Any mission in Syria would probably be undertaken by US Special Forces.

Nor is it clear who would take responsibility for such a programme — the Pentagon or the Central Intelligence Agency. Such covert operations have traditionally been run by the CIA at arm’s length from the administration in power, giving US officials the ability to deny knowledge of it. (Times Online, op cit, emphasis added)

Under Negroponte’s helm at the US Embassy in Baghdad, a  wave of covert civilian killings and targeted assassinations was unleashed. Engineers, medical  doctors, scientists and intellectuals were also targeted. The objective was to create factional divisions between Sunni, Shiite, Kurds and Christians, as well as weed out civilian support for the Iraqi resistance. The Christian community was one of the main targets of the assassination program.

The Pentagon’s objective also consisted in training an Iraqi Army, Police and Security Forces, which would carry out a homegrown “counterinsurgency” program (unofficially) on behalf of the U.S.

Operation “Syrian Contras”: Learning from the Iraqi Experience

The gruesome Iraqi version of the “Salvador Option” under the helm of Ambassador John Negroponte has served as a “role model” for setting up the “Free Syrian Army” Contras. Robert Stephen Ford was, no doubt, involved in the implementation of the Syrian Contras project, following his reassignment to Baghdad as Deputy Head of Mission in 2008.

The objective in Syria was to create factional divisions between Sunni, Alawite, Shiite, Kurds, Druze and Christians. While the Syrian context is entirely different to that of Iraq, there are striking similarities with regard to the procedures whereby the killings and atrocities were conducted.

A report published by Der Spiegel pertaining to atrocities committed in the Syrian city of Homs confirms an organized sectarian process of mass-murder and extra-judicial killings comparable to that conducted by the US sponsored death squads in Iraq.

People in Homs were routinely categorized as   “prisoners” (Shia, Alawite) and “traitors”.  The “traitors” are Sunni civilians within the rebel occupied urban area, who express their disagreement or opposition to the rule of terror of the Free Syrian Army (FSA):

“Since last summer [2011], we have executed slightly fewer than 150 men, which represents about 20 percent of our prisoners,” says Abu Rami. … But the executioners of Homs have been busier with traitors within their own ranks than with prisoners of war. “If we catch a Sunni spying, or if a citizen betrays the revolution, we make it quick,” says the fighter. According to Abu Rami, Hussein’s burial brigade has put between 200 and 250 traitors to death since the beginning of the uprising.” (Der Spiegel, March 30, 2012)

In early July [2011], US Ambassador Robert Ford travelled to Hama and had meetings with members of the “protest movement” (Low-key U.S. diplomat transforms Syria policy – The Washington Post, July 12, 2011). Reports confirm that Robert Ford had numerous contacts with opposition groups both before and after his July trip to Hama. In a recent statement (August 4), he confirmed that the embassy will continue “reaching out” to opposition groups in defiance of the Syrian authorities.

The project required an initial program of recruitment and training of mercenaries. Death squads including Lebanese and Jordanian Salafist units entered Syria’s southern border with Jordan in mid-March 2011.  Much of the groundwork was already in place prior to Robert Stephen Ford’s arrival in Damascus in January 2011.

Ambassador Ford in Hama in early July 2011

Ford’s appointment as Ambassador to Syria was announced in early 2010. Diplomatic relations had been cut in 2005 following the Rafick Hariri assassination, which Washington blamed on Syria. Ford arrived in Damascus barely two months before the onset of the insurgency.

Behind Closed Doors at the US State Department

Robert Stephen Ford was part of a small team at the US State Department team which oversaw the recruitment and training of  terrorist brigades,  together with Derek Chollet  and Frederic C. Hof, a former business partner of Richard Armitage, who served as Washington’s “special coordinator on Syria”. Derek Chollet has recently been appointed to the position of Assistant Secretary of Defense for International Security Affairs (ISA).

This team operated under the helm of  (former) Assistant Secretary of State for Near Eastern Affairs Jeffrey Feltman.

Feltman’s team was in close liaison with the process of recruitment and training of mercenaries out of Turkey, Qatar, Saudi Arabia and Libya (courtesy of the post-Gaddafi regime, which dispatched six hundred Libya Islamic Fighting Group (LIFG) troops to Syria, via Turkey in the months following the September 2011 collapse of the Gaddafi government).

Assistant Secretary of State Feltman was in contact with Saudi Foreign Minister Prince Saud al-Faisal, and Qatari Foreign Minister Sheikh Hamad bin Jassim. He was also in charge of a  Doha-based office for “special security coordination” pertaining to  Syria, which included representatives from Western and GCC intelligence agencies well as a representative from Libya. Prince Bandar bin Sultan. a prominent and controversial member of Saudi intelligence was part of this group. (See Press Tv, May 12, 2012).

In June 2012, Jeffrey Feltman (image: Left) was appointed UN Under-Secretary-General for Political Affairs, a strategic position  which, in practice, consists in setting  the UN agenda (on behalf of Washington) on issues pertaining to “Conflict Resolution” in various “political hot spots” around the world (including Somalia, Lebanon, Libya, Syria, Yemen and Mali). In a bitter irony, the countries for UN “conflict resolution” are those which are the target of  US covert operations.

In liaison with the US State Department, NATO and his GCC handlers in Doha and Riyadh, Feltman is Washington’s man behind UN special envoy Lakhdar Brahmi’s “Peace Proposal”.

Meanwhile, while paying lip service to the UN Peace initiative, the US and NATO have speeded up the process of recruitment and training of  mercenaries in response to the heavy casualties incurred by “opposition” rebel forces.

The US proposed “end game” in Syria is not regime change, but the destruction of Syria as a Nation State.

The deployment of “opposition” death squads with a mandate to kill civilians is part of this criminal undertaking.

The Free Syrian Army (FSA)

Washington and its allies replicated in Syria the essential features of the “Iraq Salvador Option”, leading to the creation of the Free Syrian Army (FSA) and its various terrorist factions including the Al Qaeda affiliated Al Nusra brigades.

While the creation of the Free Syrian Army (FSA) was announced in June 2011, the recruitment and training of foreign mercenaries was initiated at a much an earlier period.

In many regards, the Free Syrian Army is a smokescreen. It is upheld by the Western media as a bona fide military entity established as a result of mass defections from government forces.  The number of defectors, however, was neither significant nor sufficient to establish a coherent military structure  with command and control functions.

The FSA  is not a professional  military entity, rather it is a loose network of separate terrorist brigades, which in turn are made up of numerous paramilitary cells operating in different parts of the country.

Each of these terrorist organizations operates independently. The FSA does not effectively exercise command and control functions including liaison with these diverse paramilitary entities. The latter are controlled by US-NATO sponsored special forces and intelligence operatives which are embedded within the ranks of selected terrorist formations.

These (highly trained) Special forces on the ground (many of whom are employees of private security companies) are routinely in contact with US-NATO and allied military/intelligence command units (including Turkey). These embedded Special Forces are, no doubt, also involved in the carefully planned bomb attacks directed against government buildings, military compounds, etc.

The death squads are mercenaries trained and recruited by the US, NATO, its Persian Gulf GCC allies as well as Turkey.  They are overseen by allied special forces (including British SAS and French Parachutistes), and private security companies on contract to NATO and the Pentagon. In this regard, reports confirm the arrest by the Syrian government of some 200-300 private security company employees who had integrated rebel ranks.

The Jabhat Al Nusra Front

The Al Nusra Front –which is said to be affiliated to Al Qaeda– is described as the most effective “opposition” rebel fighting group, responsible for several of the high profile bomb attacks. Portrayed as an enemy of America (on the State Department list of terrorist organizations), Al Nusra operations, nonetheless, bear the fingerprints of US paramilitary training, terror tactics and weapons systems. The atrocities committed against civilians by Al Nusra (funded covertly by US-NATO) are similar to those undertaken by the US sponsored death squads in Iraq.

In the words of Al Nusra leader Abu Adnan in Aleppo: “Jabhat al-Nusra does count Syrian veterans of the Iraq war among its numbers, men who bring expertise — especially the manufacture of improvised explosive devices (IEDs) — to the front in Syria.”

As in Iraq, factional violence and ethnic cleansing were actively promoted. In Syria, the Alawite, Shiite and Christian communities have been the target of the US-NATO sponsored death squads.  The Alawite and the Christian community are the main targets of the assassination program. Confirmed by the Vatican News Service:

Christians in Aleppo are victims of death and destruction due to the fighting which for months, has been affecting the city. The Christian neighborhoods, in recent times, have been hit by rebel forces fighting against the regular army and this has caused an exodus of civilians.

Some groups in the rugged opposition, where there are also jiahadist groups, “fire on Christian houses and buildings, to force occupants to escape and then take possession [ethnic cleansing] (Agenzia Fides. Vatican News, October 19, 2012)

“The Sunni Salafist militants – says the Bishop – continue to commit crimes against civilians, or to recruit fighters with force. The fanatical Sunni extremists are fighting a holy war proudly, especially against the Alawites. When terrorists seek to control the religious identity of a suspect, they ask him to cite the genealogies dating back to Moses. And they ask to recite a prayer that the Alawites removed. The Alawites have no chance to get out alive.”  (Agenzia Fides 04/06/2012)

Reports confirm the influx of Salafist and Al Qaeda affiliated death squads as well as brigades under the auspices of the Muslim Brotherhood into Syria from the inception of the insurgency in March 2011.

Moreover, reminiscent of  the enlistment of  the Mujahideen to wage the CIA’s jihad (holy war) in the heyday of the Soviet-Afghan war, NATO and the Turkish High command, according to Israeli intelligence sources, had initiated”

“a campaign to enlist thousands of Muslim volunteers in Middle East countries and the Muslim world to fight alongside the Syrian rebels. The Turkish army would house these volunteers, train them and secure their passage into Syria. (DEBKAfile, NATO to give rebels anti-tank weapons, August 14, 2011).

Private Security Companies and the Recruitment of Mercenaries

According to reports, private security companies operating out of Gulf States are involved in the recruiting and training of mercenaries.

Although not specifically earmarked for the recruitment of mercenaries directed against Syria, reports point to the creation of  training camps in Qatar and the United Arab Emirates (UAE).

In Zayed Military City (UAE), “a secret army is in the making”  operated by Xe Services, formerly Blackwater.  The UAE deal to establish a military camp for the training of mercenaries was signed in July 2010, nine months before the onslaught of the wars in Libya and Syria.

In recent developments, security companies on contract to NATO and the Pentagon are involved in training “opposition” death squads in the use of chemical weapons:

The United States and some European allies are using defense contractors to train Syrian rebels on how to secure chemical weapons stockpiles in Syria, a senior U.S. official and several senior diplomats told CNN Sunday. ( CNN Report, December 9, 2012)

The names of the companies involved were not revealed.

While conditions in Syria are markedly different to those in Iraq, Robert S. Ford’s stint as “Number Two Man” at the US Embassy in Baghdad has a direct bearing on the nature of his activities in Syria including his contacts with opposition groups.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Who is Ambassador Robert Stephen Ford? The Architect of US Sponsored Terrorism in Syria

The hardline military approach to Boko Haram by the Nigerian government is inadequate. Boko Haram’s challenge has economic, political and social dimensions that government ignores to the detriment of Nigerians. All progressive forces will now have to wade in to oppose both Boko Haram and the states that provide the enabling conditions for the growth of terror elements.

“I will sell your girls in the market.” Abubakar Shekau

From time to time in the life of a society, one episode or a series of episodes shock the social system and brings to the fore long festering sores that need resolution. The kidnapping of over 300 young girls and the depravity of those who proclaimed that these youths would be sold into sexual slavery are one of such episodes. Abubakar Shekau’s statement about selling the girls in the market brought out the deep contradictions of Nigerian society and called for a firm and clear resolution of the questions of slavery, exploitation, sexual violence, male oppression and the manipulation of religion to serve the needs of particular sections of the looters and zealots of Nigeria. In response to the kidnapping, a global movement started by women in Nigeria has focused on the issues of sexual terrorism, deformed masculinity and the trafficking of women internationally. This movement mobilized under the banner of #Bring Back Our Girls has opened new avenues for political mobilization. The new coalition is led by women and has the potential to serve as the basis for a new mode of politics in Nigeria and other parts of Africa.

Religious extremism and intolerance, referred to as Islamic fundamentalism, has gained momentum in Northern Nigeria since the start of the century among some followers of the Islamic faith. These fundamentalists distort the teachings of Islam. They represent themselves as anti-imperialists opposing western cultural influences while seeking to institute Islamic law, including strict codes of behavior. Women in Nigeria have been negatively affected by this resort to fundamentalism. Religious fundamentalism (whether Christian, Hindu, Islamic or Jewish) is founded on the oppression and humiliation of women.

In the past, the ruling elements have politicized religion and ethnicity to divert and confuse the peoples of Nigeria. The oligarchy in Northern Nigeria took the politicization of religion to a point where 12 Northern states are now under Sharia law. Boko Haram were pawns in a cold blooded game to control the state in Nigeria. Started in 2002 the movement exploded in the society after the death of President Yar ‘Adua in 2010. The pawns have now taken the violence beyond tolerable bounds and even the former sponsors of Boko Haram now denounce the kidnapping of the girls.

It will be argued here that the fight against Boko Haram require not simply troops, but a new mode of politics where the peoples of the society believe that they have a stake, especially the youths. It is here where the traditions of the mobilization of grassroots women will be decisive. Nigerian women from the producing classes have a rich history of resistance to all forms of fundamentalism. When they stir there can be a cascading effect on the politics of the society. This was the experience from the 1929 women’s uprisings that set the standards for cooperation against colonialism in Nigeria and West Africa. Advance planners for global capital are very aware of the tenacity of Nigerian women.

Nigeria is a society where the questions of peace, stability and prosperity are clearly linked to the building of a secular society free of religious zealots. Patriarchs will seek to bring this momentum under the war on terror. All progressive forces will now have to wade in to oppose both Boko Haram and the states that provided the enabling conditions for the growth of terror elements such as Boko Haram.

Sexual slavery, sexual terrorism and the context of the kidnapping

When Abubuka Shekau, the self-proclaimed leader of Boko Haram, appeared on the You Tube on May 4 and declared ‘I will sell your girls in the market,’ those who remembered the horrors of slavery were horrified by the level of backwardness that had overtaken these elements of Nigerian society . This group claimed responsibility for the kidnapping of 278 girls aged between 16 and 18 from the Government Girls Secondary School in rural Chibok, Borno State in Northern Nigeria. Shekau threatened to sell the girls as slaves and marry them off because ‘God instructed me to sell them, they are his properties and I will carry out his instructions.

He further proclaimed: ‘I am going to marry out any woman who is twelve-years-old, and if she is younger, I will marry her out at the age of nine. You are all in danger. I am the one who captured all those girls and will sell all of them. Slavery is allowed in my religion, and I shall capture people and make them slaves. We are on our way to Abuja and we shall also visit the South. I am going to kill all the Imams and other Islamic clerics in Nigeria because they are not Muslims since they follow democracy and constitution. It is Allah that instructed us, until we soak the ground of Nigeria with Christian blood, and so-called Muslims contradicting Islam. We will kill and wonder what to do with their smelling corpses. This is a war against Christians and democracy and their constitution.’

These words sent a chill down the spine of decent citizens in all parts of the globe. What religion was he referring to that sanctions slavery in the twenty first century? Sex trafficking and the exploitation of young girls has been on the rise in the past twenty years. In the same period the campaigns against modern forms of enslavement have brought to the fore how neo-liberalism has provided the social and intellectual climate to make bonded labor ‘normal.’ We know that it is the religion of economic fundamentalism that has given the green light to semi slavery conditions in all parts of the world.

Nigerian men and women from the producing classes suffer from the economic terrorism of market fundamentalism. This terrorism is defined by Eusi Kwayana as follows:

“The placing of human beings in a situation in which they are without hope, space, adequate defence, means of escape and survival or means of overcoming actual or threatening danger, menace or oppressive force is the very definition of terror, which has not only a physical but also a mental element.”

Throughout the Global South, the poor have been suffering from the terrorism of the structural adjustment policies of the Bretton Woods Institutions. The Nigerian government has instituted the policies of the World Bank so that there is the absence of basic services such as the provision of health care, clean water, sanitation, decent and relevant education, housing and food for the poor. It is the inflexibility of this market fundamentalism that heightens insecurity in the society among many poor males who are left marginalized and insecure. Economic terrorism attacks the masculine pride in communities where the structures of collective social solidarity have broken down. Men who are reared under the ideology of patriarchy are vulnerable in the conditions of economic terrorism because in their sense of their humanity, they should be ‘providers’ for their families.

This patriarchy and masculinity is intensified in a condition of increased poverty and exploitation when African males are caught in the bottom of the global division of labor. These males are socialized to consider themselves as providers and as heads of households but cannot provide for the social reproduction of their families. Increasingly, the burdens of care, education, and provision of health devolve to poor women as the state cut back on social expenditures in the period of structural adjustment. Economic fundamentalism attacks masculine pride and in this situation groups such as Boko Haram recruits gullible young males. The kidnapping of the girls bolsters their false sense of masculinity by wreaking havoc in the broader society with the raping and dehumanization of young girls.

The violence and killings of Boko Haram is only the now visible sign of the everyday violence against the poor and disenfranchised in all parts of Nigeria. In this oil rich country the conditions of life is unbearable except for the Nigerian ‘one percent.’ Another ten per cent struggle in the interstices of this social system to live the Nigerian middle class life while about 20 per cent of the population has a steady living wage. In this condition of massive inequalities and structural violence, religious extremists in the North go further to ensure that the violence of harassment, hunger, and long hours of unwaged work are built into the disempowerment of the oppressed, especially women. Gender violence, sexual violence, domestic violence, rape, purdah,, child marriages, violation and other forms of abuse abound in communities where the there is no clear leadership to counter deformed masculinity.

Women were accused of adultery at the slightest whim, and in March 2002 Amina Lawal had been accused of adultery. She was then sentenced to death by stoning by a Sharia court for having a child outside of marriage. It is seldom that one hears of men committing adultery. Pregnancy outside of marriage constitutes sufficient evidence for a woman to be convicted of adultery according to some Nigerian states that apply Sharia law. Two cases in 2002 in particular, involving women accused of adultery who were sentenced to death by stoning, brought international condemnation. Although their convictions were later overturned, the damage was done. Hundreds of people lost their lives in inter-religious clashes between hardline Christians and Muslims in Kaduna and Kano state as a direct result of controversial rulings.

Yet, far from being humiliated, the poor and grassroots women of Nigeria have used their wits and knowledge to survive and to struggle to keep body and soul together. Under the General Ibrahim Badamasi Babangida’s regime, his wife had attempted to use her position as wife of the military dictatorship to blunt the possibilities for women to organize autonomously and independently by seeking to coopt the women’s movement and to create a front called ‘Better Life for Rural Women.’ In this world of cooptation, the religious extremists entered to seek to control the bodies and minds of women.

In the past thirty years fundamentalism of the Christian and Islamic variant have arisen in Nigeria with the specific task of blunting the organizational capabilities of the women of the society. Boko Haram has carried this fundamentalism to its ultimate level and created the conditions for a turning point in the political organizing in Nigeria against all forms of enslavement. The kidnapping took the matter to the international level and the Nigerian political leadership could no longer ‘manage’ the horrors of the insurgency within the bounds of political competition.

The succession of dictatorships in Nigeria had generated a massive anti-dictatorship alliance, and after the eighties, Chief M.K.O Abiola (a prominent business person who had made millions), had joined the anti-military crusade and placed himself at the head of the electoral contest in 1993. Abiola had also worked within the wider African continental body to bring to the fore discussions of past and present forms of enslavement by becoming Chairperson of the Eminent Persons Group for Reparations of the Organization of African Unity. Abiola was elected President of Nigeria in 1993 in the June 12 elections and had committed himself and Nigeria to repairing the damage of enslavement. Abiola was never able to assume power in Nigeria. There was a coup. The elections were annulled by the military, Abiola was imprisoned and five years later ‘died’ under mysterious circumstances in July 1998. Millions of youths in Nigeria were deprived of the ideas of reparative justice and the conditions of the Black Holocaust that inspired radical Pan Africanism. Those who planned the coup and the disposal of the Reparations campaign within Nigeria wanted to ensure that Nigerians were not deeply sensitized about the crimes against humanity of the Atlantic Slave Trade. Abubakar Shekau and those who are afraid of real knowledge about past exploitation and enslavement were among the Nigerians denied access to information about Reparations for enslavement.

Boko Haram was never able to emerge under the military dictatorship because the state under General Abacha carried out the violence at that time. Religiosity and extremism were promoted within the North but kept under wraps by the military commanders whose lifestyles could not conform to the strict taboos of the fundamentalists. The same forces that prevented M.K.O Abiola from accessing the Presidency in 1993 are the same ones that inspire the intellectual, social and economic conditions that birthed Boko Haram. There is no shortage of reports and studies on Boko Haram, but many of these studies seek to reinforce the idea that Nigeria is a society broken by regional, ethnic and religious struggles. These reports studiously avoid discussions on the cultural strengths of Nigeria and the powerful role played by Nigeria in the larger struggles for African dignity and emancipation.

Many of the unemployed youths who have been attracted to fundamentalist movements are from the section of the society where marginalization and impoverishment is everywhere evident. Young women in Northern Nigeria have borne the physical and sexual violence from religious extremists and the promise to sell girls into enslavement brought back the reality of the interconnections between enslavement and sexual terrorism. The violence against women in Africa takes many forms and the form that is most hidden is that of sexual terrorism and other obscene patriarchal and misogynistic behavior.

Dorothy Roberts, the African American feminist writer, has explored the relationship between misogynistic behavior and sexual terrorism and she defined sexual terrorism as,‘willful denial of female reproductive and bodily rights and wholesale suppression of one half of humanity on grounds of socially constructed gender norms.’

Intensified exploitation of women in Nigeria and Africa

The imposition of Sharia law in the Northern States of Nigeria at the end of the military dictatorship in 1999 provided the context for the rise and open support for groups such as Boko Haram. As long as there was a military dictatorship to crush opposition to exploitation and economic terrorism, state terror supplemented domestic violence and the exploitation of young girls. However, the anti-dictatorship struggle had taken such deep roots that the resort to religion was deemed the most expedient force to divide the working peoples of Nigeria and to enforce the super exploitation of women.

Schools, cultural centers and other places of social interaction had been the networking base for the anti-dictatorship campaign that (had predated and later) was called the June 12th movement in Nigeria. In the midst of the campaigns to bring back popular democratic participation, there was the rapid growth of cults within the Universities to act as a counterweight to the student unions that had become organizing centers for democracy within the University and within the wider society. Fundamentalist churches from North America started a booming business to cash in on the oil boom in Nigeria. In Nigeria, Christian fundamentalists penetrated social spaces with massive proselytizing. Ethnic militias and communal clashes drained the energies of the poor as young men were treated as disposable bodies. In order to blunt the emergence of alternative forms of organizing the State embarked on political assassinations. The well-publicized assassination of Ken Saro Wiwa in 1995 was one other episode in the militarization of politics and the closing of spaces for opposition forces. This killing as well as the kidnapping and execution of prominent leaders fighting for democracy were deployed so that there could not be sustained mobilization and clarity on the questions of social and economic transformation. Religious ideas, ethnic chauvinism and religious fervor ensured that the analyses of the gendered, social and economic conditions in Nigeria were rendered in religious and ethnic terms. These discourses shielded the oligarchs who looted the society.

Regional differentiation and class formation in Nigeria had meant that the educational and social institutions in the South and West were more developed than in the North. Yet, it is in the same Northern regions of Nigeria where the oligarchs had given themselves the mandate to lead Nigeria. From a historical point of view, the Northern oligarchs had organized using Islam as the front to mask their power grab. After the return to ‘democracy’ in 1999, these same oligarchs resorted to the introduction of Sharia Law in 12 Northern States. Under Sharia law the oppression of workers intensified so that while the oligarchs stole billions of dollars and sent their children to schools in Europe and America, poor workers were amputated for stealing food to survive.

The rise of Boko Haram 

It was in the same year as the conviction of Amina Lawal that the new organization of armed youths emerged and called itself Boko Haram. Its very name was a reflection of the educational differentiation between the North and the South. Boko Haram emerged in the social and economic milieu of cults on university campuses and militias among secondary school leavers and madrassas (Almajiris) in the North. In most cases the cults were comprised of young men who faced a future of marginalization and unemployment and found masculinist violence and thuggery as outlets for their frustrations. By 2002 some of these unemployed persons began to make their own interpretation of religion and politics in order to hold sway over the same authoritarian Northern elites. This symbiotic relationship between politicians and unemployed youths was not confined to the North. Politicians in all regions manipulated youths to fight each other and youth militias became one component of the political organizing of mainstream parties within Nigeria. Boko Haram was founded by an unemployed youth Mohamed Yusuf. He was killed by the Nigerian state in 2009. In the corrupted political climate Mohammed Yusuf had sought to become a prominent religious leader because the politicization of religion in the North had shown this youth that becoming a famous preacher was the only way he would earn the money to drive SUV’s like the oligarchs. The role of these militias in different parts of the country is brought out in the book by Olusegun Adeniyi, ‘Power, Politics and Death- A front-row account of Nigeria under the late President Yar ‘Adua.’

Adeniyi’s description of the origins of Boko Haram is significant because as an insider within the corridors of power, those within the Yar ‘Adua administration were aware of the sponsors of Boko Haram and there was no statement that Boko Haram was a branch of a wider ‘terror’ network. Umaru Musa Yar’Adua was the President of Nigeria from April 2007 to May 2010. He was from Katsina state, the same state as the late Pan Africanist Tajudeen Abdul Raheem. Adeniyi in the book also brought out the reaction of the head of state to the extra judicial killing of Yusuf in 2009. This book that sheds light on the first period of the Boko Haram formation is also significant because it was written at a moment when the Boko Haram had not yet embarked on the extreme forms of violence and bombings that now dominate the landscape of Nigeria. The other important distinguishing feature of the work of Adeniyi is that it avoids the provocative labels that were attached to Boko Haram by western intelligence agencies. Boko Haram was a tiny and obscure sect with the official name of Jama’atu Ahlis Sunna Lidda’awati wal-Jihad, which in Arabic translates as: ‘People Committed to the Propagation of the Prophet’s Teachings and Jihad’.

There were many school leavers who were attracted to this group that would emerge as religious extremists and Mohammed Yusuf sought to represent himself as the extreme one. Yusuf represented himself as a champion of the unemployed males of the North and he most specifically appealed to students and primary school pupils who abandoned their studies on the ground that western education (‘boko’) was a sin (‘haram’), hence the name Boko Haram. It should be stated that Yusuf was not operating in a religious vacuum. There was a link between the teachings of Boko Haram and the Salafi Islamic religious circle (Wahabites). Wahabism is one sect of Islam with its base in Saudi Arabia. This Wahabism is now wreaking havoc in many parts of Africa, undermining social peace and the respect for values of social peace and religious tolerance. Nigerian women can learn a lot from the Ethiopian women who were oppressed in Saudi Arabia as migrant domestic workers and who have rallied to defend poor Ethiopian workers who are abused physically and psychologically. Boko Haram draws inspiration from the rich in the seat of Islam where human trafficking is rampant.

Extreme Islamic fundamentalism had been used by Northern oligarchs to hold sway over the youths and had turned to a variant of Islam that suggested that education was a weapon of the West. In the context of the world wide cultural crusade by western proselytizers in the years after 2001, the anti-imperialist and anti-colonial rhetoric of the religious zealots grew. This is how one of the communiques expressed the zealotry.

‘We want to re-emphasize that our main objective is the restoration of the Sharia Legal System in line with the teachings of the Holy Qur’an. We want the Nigerian Constitution to be abrogated and Democracy suspended and a full-fledged Islamic State established. We want to emphasize that trouble started in this part of the world when the white men came, colonised our land, chased away the Emirs and righteous leaders and then replaced the system with Western Legislative, Judicial and Executive procedures. They also changed our pattern of learning and upbringing to the detriment of moral teachings; that was exactly what prompted the establishment of our organization.’

Boko Haram as pawns 

At the moment of its public declaration of war against Nigeria and its desire for Nigeria to become a full-fledged Islamic state, Boko Haram enjoyed the moral and financial support of many Northern Nigerian oligarchs who viewed Boko Haram as a tool to make their claims of the political leadership of Nigeria. By 1999 at the dawn of the new party politics in Nigeria after military rule there had been an agreement within the ruling PDP party that the Presidency of the country would rotate between the North and the South. Olusegun Obasanjo the President 1999-2007 was the first leader to emerge from this zoning arrangement and the elevation of Umaru Musa Yar’Adua to the Presidency in 2007 was supposed to be in the spirit of the sharing of power in so far as Yar ‘Adua hailed from Katsina state. When Yar Adua passed in 2010, Vice President Goodluck Jonathan was sworn in as president, after meeting some resistance from key Northern elites. For some of the oligarchs in the North this swearing in was simply holding the seat until the elections in 2011. There were sporadic attacks by Boko Haram during the period of the Presidency of Yar Adua but from the intensity of the negotiations between the President and the elements of Movement for the Emancipation of the Niger Delta (MEND) from the Niger Delta, it was clear that the security services saw the insurgency in the Niger Delta as a greater threat to the future of Nigeria than the Boko Haram. Many armed members of MEND were granted amnesty and returned to their communities.

When Goodluck Jonathan decided to run for the Presidency in 2011 and actually won, the attacks of Boko Haram intensified. This intensification demonstrate that there were elements with influence over this group that felt that they could turn this organization on and off. In fact, some Northern oligarchs had vowed to make Nigeria ungovernable if Jonathan won the presidency. In the second round of the massive killings by Boko Haram, there were debates within Nigeria and outside whether Boko Haram was simply a home grown organization or one linked to international terrorism. In 2011 The US State Department refused to label Boko Haram as international terrorists because it was well known within the US intelligence services that Boko Haram had sponsors at the highest levels of the oligarchs in Nigeria. The debate on labelling Boko Haram as international terrorists also took place at a moment when the Obama Administration was debating whether the USA should halt the global war on terror and use police methods to curb violent extremism.

Internationalization of the Boko Haram phenomenon 

The divisions within the western establishment over the exact nature of Boko Haram can be seen from the writings on this organization. Think tanks and policy centers from the top imperial centers all commissioned studies on Boko Haram. One former US ambassador to Nigeria, John Campbell, writing in the Journal Foreign Affairs in 2013 stated, ‘To Battle Nigeria’s Boko Haram, Put Down Your Guns: How to Undermine the Growing Islamist Threat.’

In this article, John Campbell maintained that, ‘Instead of associating itself with Abuja’s heavy-handed military response, the Obama administration should urge Jonathan to address what are essentially political problems: poverty and the corruption-driven alienation felt by the population of northern Nigeria, factors that contribute to Boko Haram’s popular support.’

While what John Campbell said about poverty and corruption may be true, it is very difficult to take this former US ambassador seriously since he was one of those US pundits who had been predicting the breakup of Nigeria.

The theme that poverty and corruption driven alienation was at the root of the problem dominated many of the reports on Boko Haram. A bibliographic essay published in the magazine National Geographic brings out the division between those writers who viewed Boko Haram as part of a wider international ‘terror’ network and those who viewed poverty and alienation as the oxygen that kept Boko Haram alive. Those writers who belonged to the sections of the United States of America and French establishment that wanted a continuation of the Global War on Terror pushed for Boko Haram to be labelled as a terrorist threat. France that had superior experience in manipulating the threat of terrorism waded in on the subject after the Mali uprisings in 2012 and 2013. After that time there were constant reports that Boko Haram constituted a branch of Al Queda in the Maghreb (AQIM). In 2013 after the bombings and killings reached into the thousands the US Department of State finally declared Boko Haram as an international terrorist organization. Neighboring states of Niger, Chad, and the Cameroon were called upon to cooperate with the Nigerian authorities in fighting against Boko Haram. . Some of the same African leaders who have been at the helm of states generating structural violence declared at a news conference in Paris on 17 May 2014 that, ‘there is determination [between the governments of Chad, Cameroon, Nigeria, Benin and France] to tackle this situation head on… to launch a war, a total war on Boko Haram.’ Would this total war include the war against economic fundamentalism and the impoverishment that send unemployed youths into religious militias? Why will small contingent of forces from France, Canada, Britain and the USA succeed when the half a million strong security forces failed in Nigeria?

The declaration of the Paris meeting of May 17, 2014 that there would be Total War represented a victory for those who wanted to internationalize and militarize the kidnapping to serve the wider counter terror infrastructure of western militarism. In the new push for the remilitarization of Nigeria, Britain, France, Canada, China and Israel have also sent specialist teams and equipment to help the search. In an ideal situation where utmost Pan African cooperation takes precedence over France Afrique loyalty in West Africa, Niger, Cameroon and Chad did not have to wait for any security conference in France nor wait till Boko Haram pose a direct threat to them before cooperating with Nigeria deal with the menace of this group.

Although the United States media made much out of the promised support from the USA to track down Boko Haram the first deployment was simply 27 ‘specialists.’ White House Press Secretary Jay Carney outlined in the second week of May that all but one of the 27-member team of advisers and security personnel have set up office in the capital Abuja to oversee their operations in Nigeria. Those in place include five State Department officials, ten Pentagon planners and advisers, seven African Command troops, and four FBI kidnap recovery specialists. Later on May 20, the United States deployed one hundred air force personnel into Chad to man the drones to be deployed in the search for the girls. According to Yahoo News the ‘newly deployed forces will help expand drone searches of the region. About 40 of the troops make up the launch and recovering teams for the drone being deployed there and the other 40 make up the security force for the team.’

One week after this massive buzz by international security officials the UN imposed sanctions on Boko Haram. Boko Haram was added to the al-Qaeda Sanctions Committee’s list of designated entities on Thursday at the request of Nigeria.

The intervention of Nigerian women

After the kidnapping, the Nigerian state continued to treat the question of Boko haram as a low level insurgency. It was full three weeks before the President of Nigeria made a substantial statement on the kidnappings in Chibok after women of Nigeria protested that the government was not doing enough. The mass abduction and the military’s failure to rescue the girls and young women had ignited national outrage with demonstrations in major cities. These demonstrations intensified after Shekau declared that he would sell the girls in the market. The levels of the insensitivity of the political leadership to the kidnapping and plans for selling the girls into slavery was manifest in the reaction of Patience Jonathan, the wife of President Goodluck Jonathan. An organizer of a demonstration calling for the release of the girls said that Jonathan’s wife, Patience, ordered the arrests of two protest leaders, accused them of belonging to Boko Haram and expressed doubts there was any kidnapping.

Patience Jonathan belongs to that section of Nigerian society that does not suffer the day to day exploitation of society. Her insensitivity was not matched by other women throughout the world who grasped the chill of the call to sell the girls into sexual slavery. Michelle Obama and Angelina Jolie in the USA became two of the most visible celebrities in the global campaign as demonstrators took to the streets in all parts of the world demanding the release of the girls. This international mobilization by women has complicated the planning of those internal and external forces who wanted to use the militarization of fight against Boko Haram to breathe new life into the discredited campaign that had been called the War on Terror. African working people everywhere understood that this attack on the girls was just one more attack on the poor. From South Africa the trade union federation COSATU stated firmly,

“COSATU, representing 2.2million members, wants to come out unequivocally condemning Boko Haram’s horrendous act of using girl children. We strongly condemn these acts of terror and demand for the unconditional release of the girls. We further denounce the patriarchal nature of this act whereby children, more especially girls, are used as battlefields to further political agendas.”

Is this a turning point in Nigerian politics?

There has been no shortage of advisers to Nigeria on how to resolve the quagmire of Boko Haram. From the start of the insurgency there were progressive Nigerians who proclaimed that the corrupt political system was at the root of the insurgency. The popular and democratic forces that had been at the forefront of the opposition to the military regimes of Babingida and Abacha identified elements who gave support for Boko Haram. Today these calls continue for Nigerians who call for political solutions to the questions of fundamentalism and extremism. Writing in Premium Times on May 6, 2014 one writer said, first, government must admit its solely military approach is inadequate. Boko Haram’s challenge has economic, political and social dimensions that government ignores at our collective national peril. Citing the economic depression in parts of Nigeria this writer pointed to the differential in access to resources in different parts of Nigeria. Nigerian women from the grassroots have taken the leadership in the fight to link and clarify the religious extremism and sexual terror in Nigeria.

The failure of the mainstream political leadership since the winning of independence has brought the society to a point where the old forms of politics cannot resolve the deep alienation and exploitation of the Nigerian peoples. Hence, there are murmurs of a coup d e’tat. Rumors of a military intervention by soldiers have moved from the gossip and cocktail circuits in Abuja and Lagos to the pages of respected blogs. This author wants to state unequivocally that a military intervention by soldiers to replace the politicians would only compound the political crisis in the society. New forms of politics from the grassroots are now needed to ensure accountability and democratic participation at all levels of the society. The kidnapping has brought a new stage in the politics of Nigeria and Africa. The poor know that the electoral game is rigged and the struggle over zoning is only one more contention among the rich about which set of looters will occupy state power.

The ethics of Ubuntu and social collectivism are now needed to be the basis for the renewal of the society. Military action alone will not bring back the girls. Yet, the military is needed to combat Boko Haram. This is a real contradiction in a country where the corruption of the oligarchs deprive sections of the military even the resources necessary for them to have proper ordinance. The current Nigerian government is now operating from a position of embarrassment and humiliation both at the hands of Boko Haram and for their inaction and bungling of the kidnapping by threatening to arresting protesters.

The Nigerian peoples cannot now await the machinations of the political elites to change their society. Rooting out deformed masculinity, religious extremism and economic terrorism requires the kind of cooperation that cannot come from the ethic of greed, individualism and obscene consumerism.

Community leaders, religious leaders, ordinary people as well as those who aspire for a peaceful society in Nigeria must mobilize at the grassroots to isolate and root out zealots who want to sell young girls into slavery. Committed and patriotic Nigerians in the North have to put politics aside and come clean – Boko Haram members are not ghosts. They are members of the same society that these same people live in. Any society that nurture or remain indifferent to the nurturing of monstrous phenomena could end up consumed by the same monsters.

Trade Unions and other sectors of the producing classes have joined these women, and although at the moment the #Bring back our girls remain an all class affair the Nigerian situation will soon throw up its own Asma Mahfouz. Readers will remember that in the midst of the Egyptian struggles the young women of Egypt emerged as leaders and organizers at a crucial moment. Those who want to fight Boko Haram on the basis of simply military personnel will now face a renewed women’s movement in Nigeria. Religious extremism and sexual terror must be confronted and decent men everywhere will have to join and be in solidarity with the women who are taking the lead.

Horace G. Campbell, a veteran Pan Africanist is a Professor of African American Studies and Political Science at Syracuse University. He is the author of Global NATO and the Catastrophic Failure in Libya’, Monthly Review Press, 2013

 

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Boko Haram: “Economic Fundamentalism” and Impoverishment Send Unemployed Youths Into Religious Militias

What Would Afghan Spending Buy at Home?

June 6th, 2014 by Russ Baker

This article was first published by Who What Why.

Link to original article:  http://whowhatwhy.com/2014/06/03/what-would-afghan-spending-buy-at-home/

Most of the stories headlining how President Obama plans to cut troops in Afghanistan as part of his planned exit from that country have not bothered to provide numbers on U.S. military spending there.

A few have, but almost in passing. For example, CNN doesn’t indicate the current levels of spending, but notes that

Tony Blinken, Obama’s deputy national security adviser, told CNN that the United States will spend about $20 billion on the continued military presence in Afghanistan after 2014.

In other words, $20 billion is what the U.S. will spend after it has effectively “withdrawn.”

Too bad news organizations don’t routinely give us a sense of what we are spending, or what else we might get for the same monies directed toward other purposes.

But here’s one thing to consider: $20 billion is about one-third to one-half of what the United States Department of Education spends on elementary, secondary and vocational education, and comparable to what it spends on higher education.

When President Obama released his Fiscal Year 2013 budget, Education Secretary Arne Duncan “announced that high-quality education is absolutely critical to rebuilding our economy.” Maybe so, but domestic spending is constantly under assault—and the lawmakers who reflexively support any and all military allocations are often the same ones complaining about “big government” and “wasteful” spending.

Here are a few other comparative statistics: (numbers vary, of course, from year to year)

-$20 billion is what the U.S. government budgeted for 2013 to subsidize often-struggling farmers

-It’s four-fifths of what we spend for science, space and technology

-It’s more than twice the budget of the Environmental Protection Agency

-It’s a third of what we spend on veterans’ hospital and medical care—on the people who fight in all wars combined

-It’s about a third of what we spend on administration of justice

-It’s five times what’s budgeted for energy conservation in 2014 and 2015

-It’s about 8 times what we spend on national parks—which have suffered continued cuts in recent years, resulting in reduced services and closures

If it’s not achieving something of clear benefit to Americans, why does the spending continue at such levels? Here’s another thing to consider, a graphic on Afghanistan we’ve run in the past to considerable interest:

1

Sources for Budget Data:

OMB Historical Budget Tables

Department of Interior 2014 Budget Highlights

 

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on What Would Afghan Spending Buy at Home?

Mounds of petroleum coke have been blowing in the direction of residents in Southeast Chicago. Photo credit: Alibaba.com

Chicagoans have long desired action against the owners of the piles of petcoke on the Southeast Side, and this week they finally got it.

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency announced that KCBX Terminals Co. violated the Clean Air Act earlier this year, based on dust-wipe samples taken from homes in the neighborhood adjacent to to the Koch Brothers-controlled facility. Wind has long blown dust from mounts of petroleum coke, coating the sides of homes. It’s the exact reasons residentsexpressed anger at Mayor Rahm Emanuel and city council earlier this year when he proposed loophole-ridden regulations regarding petcoke storage.

“We knew the dust was coming from their sites,” Peggy Salazar, executive director of theSoutheast Environmental Task Force, told the Chicago Tribune. “What they’ve been saying just isn’t true.”

A company spokesman told the publication that it would review the EPA notice. The company has increased shipments of petcoke from refineries that have shifted to tar sands oil which led to the samples taken five times between February and May.

However, the company previously argued that it had spent a combined $30 million on storage terminal upgrades, such as large sprinklers that adjustable based on wind speed and direction to pack down dust. Also, KCBX says it hired an environmental consultant to test soil samples on properties near the plant.

Five days before the EPA began its sampling, a company site manager told area residents in a letter that the consultant found “no unusual levels of dust particles associated with petcoke or coal” nearby. However, the residents themselves have the evidence on their homes and have been breathing it in.

“The piles are still here,” Salazar said. “We feel like all of our complaints are for naught.”

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Mounds of Petroleum Coke Blowing towards Chicago: Koch Brothers-Owned Company Accused of Clean Air Act Violation

European Central Bank Cuts Interest Rate Below Zero

June 6th, 2014 by Stefan Steinberg

The European Central Bank (ECB) slashed one of its interest rates to negative territory and unveiled a €400bn loan package for Europe’s banks in response to the ongoing economic slump and the threat of deflation.

At its meeting in Frankfurt Thursday, the central bank cut its main lending rate to 0.15 percent from its current historic low of 0.25 percent, and its overnight deposit rate from zero to minus 0.10 percent, becoming the largest central bank to lower rates to below zero.

The move is an expression of the fact that, nearly six years since the collapse of Lehman Brothers, the world economy remains mired in deep crisis, for which the world’s central banks have no solution outside of pumping trillions into banks and financial firms. While trillions are handed out to the banks, workers throughout the continent are told that there is “no money” to pay for pensions, social programs, and healthcare benefits.

At a press conference following the meeting, ECB President Mario Draghi made clear that the rate cuts could be followed in the near future by additional measures, including additional asset purchases similar to the Federal Reserve’s quantitative easing (QE) program.

“We think it is a significant package,” said Draghi. “Are we finished? The answer is no. If need be, within our mandate, we aren’t finished here,” adding that “a broad-based asset-purchase program is certainly one of” the instruments the Central bank has at its disposal.

On Tuesday, the ECB announced that inflation across the Eurozone fell to a rate of 0.5 percent in May, down from 0.7 percent in April, and far below its target of two percent. Inflation is expected to weaken further to 0.3 percent later this year, according to a forecast by Citibank.

The ECB also downgraded its estimate for Eurozone growth this year to 1 percent, down from its forecast of 1.2 percent in March.

Sensing the prospects of a fresh influx of funding, European stock markets reacted to the ECB decision with a rally. European stocks hit a six-and-a-half-year high, led by a surge in banking stocks, before falling back slightly. Noting that the German DAX hit an historic high on Thursday the Financial Times website ran the headline “DAX hits 10,000 as ECB package delights.”

In the United States, the S&P 500 closed up by 12 points, to 1,940, while the DOW Jones Industrial Average closed up by 98 points, at 16,836.11.

The ECB’s rate changes had been demanded for some time by the International Monetary Fund and the financial press. In its World Economic Outlook, issued at the beginning of April, the IMF drew attention to what a number of economists now refer to as the “new normal” for capitalism, i.e. stagnating or deflationary economies across the globe. The IMF report noted that real interest rates had been declining since the 1980s and were “now in slightly negative territory.”

At the same time, the report continued, the readiness of central banks to make massive amounts of cheap money available had failed to boost investment in productive industry. Instead the past period marked by the “scars” of the global financial crisis “have resulted in a sharp and persistent decline in investment in advanced economies.”

The report concluded that investment rates “in many advanced economies are unlikely to recover to pre-crisis levels in the next five years.”

The gloomy IMF forecast has been confirmed by recent figures from both the US and Europe. Economic activity across the Eurozone, as measured by the Purchasing Managers’ Index, fell to a six-month low in May. Meanwhile Europe’s jobless rate remains at an all-time high with unemployment expected to increase in the next months in some large economies such as Italy.

Following two years of Quantitative easing, during which time the US Federal Reserve pumped trillions of dollars into the markets, the United States economy remains mired in slump, and shrank at a one percent annualized rate in the first quarter of 2014. Retailers in the country missed their earnings estimates by the largest amount in thirteen years in the first quarter.

The ECB’s action is likely to only intensify currency tensions, as central banks pursue conflicting goals. The Federal Reserve is attempting to draw down its Quantitative easing program, while last month the Bank of England governor Mark Carney warned against the overheating of the British economy, and soaring house prices. Home prices in Britain rose by over 11 percent last year, the largest increase since June 2007. Carney is expected to shortly propose measures to restrict mortgage borrowing to rein in the new housing bubble.

As is the case with all the measures introduced by the world’s central banks since the crisis, the latest rate cuts by the ECB will do nothing to stimulate genuine economic growth. Instead, as was shown by the stock market rally Thursday, the ECB will only serve to fuel new speculative bubbles while further enriching the biggest banks and the millionaires and billionaires that control them.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on European Central Bank Cuts Interest Rate Below Zero

“If one tells a big lie, and repeats it often enough, then people will believe it in the end.” This principle of Joseph Goebbels, the Nazi propaganda minister, today serves many in the German media as a guideline for writing columns opposing the widespread resistance to a revival of German militarism.

Since Berlin and Washington helped a right-wing regime come to power in Ukraine, and thereby provoked a dangerous conflict with Russia, leading German media outlets have not shrunk from any lie in order to justify this policy. They play down the significance of the fascists of Svoboda and the Right Sector, depict the resistance in eastern Ukraine as a Russian conspiracy, and denounce their critics for daring to “understand Putin.”

But that is not enough. In order to undermine the opposition to the “end of military reticence” announced by the German government, they are even prepared to deny the historical crimes of German imperialism.

On Monday, the front page of the Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung (FAZ) carried a comment piece uniting both positions, headlined “One-sided friendship.” It combined hateful attacks on Putin and Russia with a presentation of the Second World War which one usually reads only in Nazi publications.

FAZ editor Frank Pergande complains about the “understanding shown for Putin’s policies, especially in eastern Germany,” and ridicules the “apparent friendship with the ‘big brother’ in the GDR [former East Germany].” He praises Chancellor Merkel, who “already at a time when she wasn’t even a politician” (i.e. in the GDR), knew “what was to be thought of Russia.”

Indeed, according to Pergande, the relationship with the Soviet Union was also marked by fear in the GDR. “Those who had experienced the end of the war,” he writes, “had to keep silent about their vile experiences: murder and suicides, expulsion, rape, camps, reparations. On the way to Berlin, the onslaught of the Red Army destroyed towns like Frankfurt (Oder), Prenzlau or Demmin, to the extent that the wounds ache to this day.”

Pergande says nothing about the previous war of extermination by the Nazis, which claimed over 25 million victims in the Soviet Union alone, including more than 3 million prisoners of war. Reading his text, he would have you believe that in 1944, the Red Army attacked a peaceful, unarmed Germany.

He also makes no mention of Hitler dispatching the elderly and minors to the front, and ordering his soldiers to resist to the last man. In the Battle of Berlin alone, which eventually sealed Hitler’s fate, some 80,000 Red Army soldiers died and 275,000 were wounded.

In Pergande’s reading, Hitler’s defeat was not liberation but rather a “bad experience.” He thereby suggests that things would have been better had the Nazis remained in power. That borders on fascist propaganda.

The fact that the FAZ, which has a daily circulation of 320,000 and is one of Germany’s leading newspapers, can publish such a hack piece without causing a word of protest, says much about the political climate in Germany. An article which just a few years ago would have only been printed in Nazi rags such as the National Newspaper or Young Freedom, is now the political consensus within the ruling elite.

Pergande himself lacks any qualifications to write on historical topics on the front page of the Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung. Born in East Germany in 1958, he studied journalism in Leipzig. Since 1998, he has reported for FAZ about local events in the three northern Bundesländer (federal states). His literary output includes several travel guides and some crime novels set in Mecklenburg Pomerania.

His comment piece is pure propaganda. Like much other commentaries appearing in the newspapers and other media, it is aimed at reshaping public opinion, which is obstinately opposed to the official propaganda about Ukraine.

The column’s downplaying of the crimes of Nazism has been systematically prepared over a long period. In 1986, when the historian Ernst Nolte ventured into public with his thesis that National Socialism (Nazism) had been an understandable reaction to Bolshevism, he met with fierce opposition.

Now, Jörg Baberowski, professor of European History at Berlin’s Humboldt University, can announce in Spiegel that “Nolte was right, historically,” and Nolte himself claims that the Poles shared responsibility for the Second World War, without any opposition from official circles. In Ukraine, the foundations associated with all the main German parties, from the Greens to the Social Democrats and the Christian Democrats, are working with political forces that glorify war criminals and Nazi collaborators like Stepan Bandera.

Behind this turn to the right is the dead end of German capitalism. Six years after the outbreak of the deepest financial crisis since the 1930s, the European Union is threatening to break apart, and competition for markets and raw materials, upon which the German economy depends, is fiercer than ever.

This is the source of the determination of the German ruling elite to abandon the military restraint it was forced to observe following the crimes of the Second World War and pursue its imperialist interests violently once again.

The fact that journalists, academics and party functionaries have now switched over to this course does not mean that it is supported by the broad mass of the population. On the contrary, it meets with broad mistrust and resistance. This is the reason for the wave of propaganda and lies; it is an attempt to intimidate and suppress this opposition.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Fascist Propaganda on the Front Page of the Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung

Do We Really Need to Re-Start the Cold War?

June 6th, 2014 by Eric Zuesse

Preface by Washington’s Blog: In the book To Win a Nuclear War: The Pentagon’s Secret War Plans, one of the world’s leading physicists – Michio Kaku – reveals declassified plans for the U.S. to launch a first-strike nuclear war against Russia.  The forward was written by former U.S. Attorney General Ramsey Clarke.

In Towards a World War III Scenario, Michel Chossudovsky documents that the U.S. is so enamored with nuclear weapons that it has authorized low-level field commanders to use them in the heat of battle in their sole discretion … without any approval from civilian leaders.

So – as crazy as this topic may sound at first glance – it deserves our attention.

By Eric Zuesse:

recent CNN Poll found that 29% of Americans think that Russia is a “Very serious threat” to the United States, and that 40% consider it a “Moderately serious threat.” That’s 69% who consider it a “serious threat.”

In 2012, only 11% considered it a “Very serious threat,” and 33% considered it a “Moderately serious threat.” 44% then considered Russia a “serious threat.” The huge surge in fear of Russia — from 44% to 69% — seems to be due entirely to Ukraine. 81% of poll-respondents said that “Russia’s actions in Ukraine are … a violation of international law.” Only 12% said that it’s not. Asked whether “there was any justification for Russia’s actions in Ukraine,” 72% said “No,” and only 17% said “Yes.”

When asked “Do you think it is likely or not that there will be a new cold war,” 48% said “Likely,” and 49% said “Not likely.”

And when asked “Do you worry about the possibility of nuclear war with Russia,” 40% said “Yes,” and 59% said “No.”

The threat feared from Russia is mainly of their troops, who are manning bases for Russian Inter-Continental Ballistic Missiles (ICBMs), all of which are located inside Russia.

By contrast, the U.S. has troops in many countries, which include the following nations where our soldiers are stationed (and this includes ones with missile bases located near Russia): Norway, Finland, Estonia, Latvia, Belarus, Ukraine, Georgia, Azerbaijan, and Kazakhstan.

We also have some soldiers in other former parts of the U.S.S.R.: Moldova, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, and Uzbekistan.

We also have nearly 35,000 troops stationed in Japan, a nation near Russia and that claims ownership of four small Sakhalin Islands and two small Kuril Islands, from Russia.

The United States is, of course, not surrounded by any Russian soldiers at all — not in Mexico, nor in Canada, nor anywhere near this country, except Russia itself near Alaska.

Steven Starr has written about the decades-long view within the U.S. military-strategy establishment, that the Cold War is not, and actually never really was, about ideology, not about capitalism versus communism, but is instead simply about which nation will control the world: basically about national political and economic dominance of our planet. If what Starr says is true, then the end of communism in the U.S.S.R. didn’t terminate the U.S. military’s “Cold War” mission, which is instead actually about global dominance. Starr cites, among other sources, an article, “The Rise of US Nuclear Primacy,” from the highly influential journal of the organization of U.S. aristocrats and their agents, the Council on Foreign Relations, their authoritative Foreign Affairs, in March 2006. It discusses obliquely the Star Wars Missile-Defense program that was first proposed by President Ronald Reagan, and that has been developed during the decades since. The article says (and I shall italicize the admission since it otherwise rarely appears in print):

“For 50 years, the Pentagon’s war planners have structured the U.S. nuclear arsenal according to the goal of deterring a nuclear attack on the United States and, if necessary, winning a nuclear war by launching a preemptive strike that would destroy an enemy’s nuclear forces.

That article, which basically asserts that the publicly stated U.S. nuclear strategy, of maintaining on both sides the capacity for “Mutually Assured Destruction,” or “MAD,” is just a peaceful-sounding cover-story for the actual U.S. strategy of militarily dominating the entire world, then says: “The ability to destroy all of an adversary’s nuclear forces [via Anti-Ballistic Missiles or ‘ABMs’], eliminating the possibility of a retaliatory strike, is known as a first-strike capability, or nuclear primacy.” It alleges that the actual objective of these supposedly defensive ABM weapons (which are still only in the development stage) is to knock out incoming retaliatory ICBMs from Russia, so that the U.S. will be able to launch a first strike that destroys almost all of Russia’s missiles on the ground, even before they can be launched. The ABMs will then take care of any straggling Russian ICBMs, which might have been missed in our first strike and been fired from Russia, by using our ABMs (which, since they haven’t yet been fully deployed, are still as yet only hypothetical) as a missile-shield to protect the U.S. from any retaliation by Russia for our having nuked Russia out of existence.

This article in Foreign Affairs says, pointedly:

“Even as the United States’ nuclear forces have grown stronger since the end of the Cold War, Russia’s strategic nuclear arsenal has sharply deteriorated. Russia has 39 percent fewer long-range bombers, 58 percent fewer ICBMs, and 80 percent fewer SSBNs than the Soviet Union fielded during its last days. The true extent of the Russian arsenal’s decay, however, is much greater than these cuts suggest. What nuclear forces Russia retains are hardly ready for use. Russia’s strategic bombers, now located at only two bases and thus vulnerable to a surprise attack, rarely conduct training exercises, and their warheads are stored off-base. Over 80 percent of Russia’s silo-based ICBMs have exceeded their original service lives, and plans to replace them with new missiles have been stymied by failed tests and low rates of production.”

Moreover, “Compounding these problems, Russia’s early warning system is a mess.” Furthermore,

“Outside experts predict that the actual cuts [in Russia’s missiles] will slice 50 to 75 percent off the current force, possibly leaving Russia with as few as 150 ICBMs by the end of the decade, down from its 1990 level of almost 1,300 missiles. The more Russia’s nuclear arsenal shrinks, the easier it will become for the United States to carry out a first strike.”

The authors report:

“According to our model, such a simplified surprise attack would have a good chance of destroying every Russian bomber base, submarine, and ICBM. [See Footnote #1] This finding is not based on best-case assumptions or an unrealistic scenario in which U.S. missiles perform perfectly and the warheads hit their targets without fail.”

According to the authors, the assumption by U.S. military planners is that, though there might be a nuclear bomb or two that might hit the U.S. from Russia, the U.S. would emerge stronger after the nuclear conflict than before, and that the only issue left to be resolved is when would be the appropriate time to do this (presumably some time when the ABMs have been installed in as many countries neighboring Russia as possible, countries such as Ukraine). (After all: being located so near, the Russians would have only a few minutes to fire off their missiles in response — they’d be done for.)

The authors then discuss:

“Is the United States intentionally pursuing nuclear primacy? Or is primacy an unintended byproduct of intra-Pentagon competition for budget share or of programs designed to counter new threats from terrorists and so-called rogue states [assuming that Al Qaeda would have nuclear-armed missiles]? Motivations are always hard to pin down, but the weight of the evidence suggests that Washington is, in fact, deliberately seeking nuclear primacy. For one thing, U.S. leaders have always aspired to this goal [i.e.: the goal of winning a nuclear war]. And the nature of the changes to the current arsenal and official rhetoric and policies support this conclusion.”

They assert:

“Washington’s pursuit of nuclear primacy helps explain its missile-defense strategy, for example,” because ABMs “would be valuable primarily in an offensive context, not a defensive one — as an adjunct to a U.S. first-strike capability.” The authors approve of George W. Bush’s continuation of Bill Clinton’s continuation of G.H.W. Bush’s continuation of Ronald Reagan’s program to develop ABMs, by their saying: “The most logical conclusions to make are that a nuclear-war-fighting capability remains a key component of the United States’ military doctrine and that nuclear primacy [winning a nuclear war] remains a goal of the United States.”

They support this strategic goal, by concluding that domination of the world by the U.S. can be attained but only if it’s boldly and not merely halfheartedly pursued:

“Ultimately, the wisdom of pursuing nuclear primacy must be evaluated in the context of the United States’ foreign policy goals. The United States is now seeking to maintain its global preeminence, which the Bush administration defines as the ability to stave off the emergence of a peer competitor and prevent weaker countries from being able to challenge the United States in critical regions such as the Persian Gulf. If Washington continues to believe such preeminence is necessary for its security, then the benefits of nuclear primacy might exceed the risks. But if the United States adopts a more restrained foreign policy — for example, one premised on greater skepticism of the wisdom of forcibly exporting democracy, launching military strikes to prevent the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, and aggressively checking rising challengers — then the benefits of nuclear primacy will be trumped by the dangers.”

The Republican-Party-oriented Project for a New American Century, which mustered American public opinion in 2002 and 2003 to favor invading Iraq, was prominently in accord with the view that was expressed in this article in Foreign Affairs. PNAC opposed “a more restrained foreign policy.” (Thus, they favored invading Iraq.) Victoria Nuland, Obama’s appointee to run Ukraine in 2013, had supported PNAC, and had served as Vice President Dick Cheney’s advisor on foreign policy, and then she was President G.W. Bush’s U.S. Ambassador to NATO.

However, there also were some actual Democrats who likewise favored the viewpoint that was stated in this Foreign Affairs article. On 15 March 2014, Chris Ernesto headlined “Brzezinski Mapped Out the Battle for Ukraine in 1997: It’s all about maintaining the US position as the world’s sole superpower.” He quoted from Brzezinski in 1997, who said: “Ukraine, a new and important space on the Eurasian chessboard, is a geopolitical pivot because its very existence as an independent country helps to transform Russia. Without Ukraine, Russia ceases to be a Eurasian empire.” Ernesto also noted that Brzezinski was the first person to compare Russia’s leader Putin to Hitler. And yet Brzezinski is a “Democrat.” So, this supremacist view dominates on both sides of the aristocracy, both Republican and “Democratic.”

President Obama’s speech at West Point, on 28 May 2014, said: “Here’s my bottom line:  America must always lead on the world stage. If we don’t, no one else will.” Obama alleged: “Russia’s aggression toward former Soviet states unnerves capitals in Europe, while China’s economic rise and military reach worries its neighbors. From Brazil to India, rising middle classes compete with us.” Our President said:

“In Ukraine, Russia’s recent actions recall the days when Soviet tanks rolled into Eastern Europe. But this isn’t the Cold War [he said this after signaling his listeners that it really is but that he’s a ‘liberal’ and so he doesn’t say such hate-mongering things, but they naturally can come to the conclusion themselves]. Our ability to shape world opinion helped isolate Russia right away. Because of American leadership, the world immediately condemned Russian actions; Europe and the G7 joined us to impose sanctions; NATO reinforced our commitment to Eastern European allies; the IMF is helping to stabilize Ukraine’s economy; OSCE monitors brought the eyes of the world to unstable parts of Ukraine.”

(He said this after having spent over five billion dollars of U.S. taxpayer funds to destabilize Ukraine and bring about the civil war there.)

The U.S. does not yet have missiles — either ICBMs or ABMs — in Ukraine, but Obama is clearly trying to firm-up the anti-Russian government that (via Nuland) he has succeeded at placing in Kiev to control this country that borders Russia.

Despite the hostile rhetoric from our President and from the stenographic “reporters” who transmit “news” to us, Russia is no actual military competitor to the United States; but, under Putin, it has become an economic competitor (which intensifies Obama’s desire to cripple Russia).

The statements that Russia is a military competitor are pure propaganda, not news (except about the sources that transmit such propaganda to us).

As of the year 2013, the U.S. spent $640 billion per year on the military, whereas Russia spent $87.8 billion per year on its military. The U.S. spent 36.6% of the planet’s military budget, and Russia spent 5.0%. There is no reason for the American public to fear Russia, though (because of the constant propaganda) they do.

For the people of the United States to fear Russia is a violation of basic logic, especially considering that the U.S. is actually pursuing military dominance of the world, whereas no other country in the world is, or even can. The U.S. percentage of 36.6% of the world’s military budget dwarfs #2 China’s percentage of 10.8%, and especially dwarfs #3 Russia’s 5.0%. #4 Furthermore, Saudi Arabia’s 3.8%, is allied with the U.S. So is #5 France’s 3.5%. So is #6 U.K.’s 3.3%. So is #7 Germany’s 2.8%. So is #8 Japan’s 2.8%. So is #9 India’s 2.7%. So is #10 South Korea’s 1.9%. “We” spend collectively 57.6% of the world’s total, whereas Russia spends only 5%.

If we assume that we are driving Russia to ally itself with China (a reasonable assumption to make, for Russia’s protection), then both of those countries together are spending 15.8% on “their side,” while the U.S. and its allies are spending 57.4% — and that’s just including the world’s top ten spenders. “We” are then spending 3.6 times as much as “they” are. On a worldwide basis, including all nations, the U.S. and its allies are spending more than 80% of all of this planet’s military expenditures. And yet “we” fear “them” (Russia and China). If our military planners are looking forward to a day when the U.S. can nuclear-destroy Russia with impunity, then creating this fear of Russia will help, not only in order to make America’s public support destroying Russia, but in order to get us to accept some U.S. casualties in a nuclear war from a few Russian missiles that might slip through the ABM net.

The current conflict inside (the former) Ukraine has spiked this fear by the U.S. public, which can help prepare the U.S. public to support a nuclear invasion of Russia.

Although U.S. media have maintained that Russia’s Vladimir Putin precipitated the Ukraine conflict when he backed the overwhelmingly popular movement in Crimea to separate itself from Ukraine, that view is likewise irrational. The actual situation is far more complex. A much stronger argument can be made that President Obama’s actions caused this conflict. Paul Craig Roberts well summarized the actual history behind the Crimean matter recently, when he said (and this history should be publicized widely to the U.S. public, but is instead not publicized in our “news” media):

“Areas of southern and eastern Ukraine are former Russian territories added to Ukraine by Soviet leaders. Lenin added Russian areas to Ukraine in early years of the Soviet Union, and Khrushchev added Crimea in 1954. The people in these Russian areas, alarmed by the destruction of Soviet war memorials commemorating the Red Army’s liberation of Ukraine from Hitler, by the banning of Russian as an official language, and by physical assaults on Russian-speaking people in Ukraine, broke out in protests. Crimea voted its independence and requested reunification with Russia, and so have the Donetsk and Luhansk regions. Washington, its EU puppets, and the Western media have denied that the votes in Crimea, Donetsk, and Luhansk are sincere and spontaneous. Instead, Washington alleges that the protests leading to the votes and the votes themselves were orchestrated by the Russian government with the use of bribes, threats, and coercion. Crimea was said to be a case of Russian invasion and annexation. These are blatant lies, and the foreign observers of the elections know it, but they have no voice in the Western media, which is a Ministry of Propaganda for Washington. Even the once proud BBC lies for Washington.”

Furthermore, Russia’s Black Sea fleet had been established in Crimea in 1783 and continued being based there till the present day, so that to allege, as Obama and his minions do, that kicking Russia’s Black Sea fleet out of Crimea wouldn’t constitute a highly aggressive move against Russia, is a lie that befits only a Hitler or a Stalin, not a leader of any democracy, such as Obama claims to be.

The counter-argument to this undeniable history has been the equally undeniable corruption of the democratically elected, pro-Russian, President of Ukraine, Viktor Yanukovych, who had used his political position in order to skim billions of dollars off government contracts, for himself and his son. That corruption is alleged to have justified the violation of the Ukrainian Constitution, by means of the violent February 2014 overthrow of him. This “justification” of the February 2014 coup is especially held to have been the case because Yanukovych’s troops themselves had started the violence. However, they actually did not start the violence: that too was a lie. (Moreover all of the post-Soviet leaders of Ukraine have been corrupt. Yanukovych was like his predecessors in that regard.)

An excellent video presentation about that event (the violence that led to Yanukovych’s violent overthrow) opens with a discussion between Urmas Paet and Cathy Ashton. Ashton is the EU’s Foreign Policy chief. She had appointed Paet to investigate to determine how the violence at the Maidan demonstration on February 18th had started, which ended in Yanukovych’s overthrow. Paet reported to her, in this phone conversation, what he found; and he concluded: “So … there is now stronger and stronger understanding [among everyone who has examined the evidence] that behind the snipers, it was not Yanukovich, but it was somebody from the new coalition” (in other words, it was by the group overthrowing Yanukovych). The video then shows the Obama Administration’s Victoria Nuland telling the U.S. Ambassador in Ukraine to get the far-right Arseniy Yatsenyuk appointed to lead the new interim post-Yanukovych government. That government then placed Hitler-admirers (followers of Stephan Bandera) into the country’s leading positions. Yatsenyuk himself was a banker who had a clearly nationalist anti-Russian background, and was allied with neo-Nazi forces in Western Europe.

On May 1st, Christine Lagarde, head of the IMF, told Ukraine that if they didn’t crush the coup’s opponents and force them into being controlled by the new Kiev central government, then the IMF would pull the plug on any further loans to Ukraine. The next day, in the Trade Unions Building in Odessa in the south, occurred the event that sparked Ukraine’s civil war, the massacre of 272 opponents to the coup-regime; most of them were incinerated to death after the regime’s supporters, who had been bussed in from the norththrew Molotov cocktails into the building, and then firebombed it with larger incendiary bombs; and, when the building’s occupants jumped from the burning building’s windows, the people below immediately beat them to death and dragged the corpses off to waiting vans, from whence some reports allege they were taken to Odessa’s outskirts for mass-burial. The official body-count of corpses that were incinerated and that still remained inside the building on the night of May 2nd was 46. Despite claims by the pro-Obama forces, that the people inside the building had been Russians and not Ukrainians, none of the 36 corpses who could be identified were: all of them had been local Odessans, with Ukrainian IDs in their wallets, etc.

This massacre, which was the first massacre in world history to be voluminously recorded by independent videos taken of it by cellphones, exposed to all the residents in the southeastern half of Ukraine, which are the regions where Yanukovych had won overwhelmingly the election that had made him President, that the regime that was now installed in Kiev wanted them dead if they wouldn’t accept being ruled by this new, Obama-IMF-installed, government. Consequently, Ukraine’s civil war started with this massacre, which was like an announcement to the southeast: either support us, or else die — your choice.

It did not start with Putin. U.S. media are being dishonest about that. The people in Ukraine’s southeast simply do not want to be ruled by the coalition of the two neo-Nazi parties, Pravy Sektor and Svoboda, and by the two conservative nationalist “Fatherland” and “UDAR” Parties, which four-party coalition, all-far-right-wing, now rules in Kiev. They seek protection against that U.S.-installed far-right coalition government, because the people who live in the southeast are the targets in their gun-sights and bombsights.

The U.S. Government controls the IMF; and, together, they caused the civil war that now ravages Ukraine.

While President Obama has never spoken about his having caused this civil war, much less about why he did it, he unquestionably did.

His operating assumption, that a nuclear war can be won, might be true for the West’s aristocracy in the short term, but it is definitely false for the world-at-large over the long term. In a separate article, Steven Starr headlined in 2014 “Deadly Climate Change from Nuclear War: a threat to human existence.” He closed by saying that,

“The scientific studies summarized in this paper make it clear that the environmental consequences of a ‘regional’ nuclear conflict could kill hundreds of millions of people far from the war zone. Deadly climate change caused by a war fought with the strategic nuclear arsenals of the U.S. and Russia would threaten the continued survival of the human species. Yet neither the U.S., nor Russia, nor any other nuclear weapons state has ever officially evaluated what effects a war fought with their nuclear arsenals would have upon the Earth’s climate and ecosystems.”

An article, “Environmental Consequences of Nuclear War” was published in the December 2008 Physics Today, and it concluded that, “the indirect effects [‘nuclear winter’] would likely eliminate the majority of the human population.” (It would be even worse, and far faster, than the expected harms from global warming.) President Obama might think that, as the Foreign Affairs article asserted, “the wisdom of pursuing nuclear primacy must be evaluated in the context of the United States’ foreign policy goals,” but others, both in the U.S. and especially elsewhere, might think that that’s a false, parochially nationalistic, view of what democracy is about or is supposed to support, or even of what should be tolerated from an American President. Yet it’s his policy, regarding Ukraine, if one is to judge by his actions, instead of by his words.

 Investigative historian Eric Zuesse is the author, most recently, of  They’re Not Even Close: The Democratic vs. Republican Economic Records, 1910-2010, and of CHRIST’S VENTRILOQUISTS: The Event that Created Christianity.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Do We Really Need to Re-Start the Cold War?

Blowing the whistle on wrongdoing creates a moral frequency that vast numbers of people are eager to hear. We don’t want our lives, communities, country and world continually damaged by the deadening silences of fear and conformity.

I’ve met many whistleblowers over the years, and they’ve been extraordinarily ordinary. None were applying for halos or sainthood. All experienced anguish before deciding that continuous inaction had a price that was too high. All suffered negative consequences as well as relief after they spoke up and took action. All made the world better with their courage.

Whistleblowers don’t sign up to be whistleblowers. Almost always, they begin their work as true believers in the system that conscience later compels them to challenge.

“It took years of involvement with a mendacious war policy, evidence of which was apparent to me as early as 2003, before I found the courage to follow my conscience,” Matthew Hoh recalled this week.“It is not an easy or light decision for anyone to make, but we need members of our military, development, diplomatic and intelligence community to speak out if we are ever to have a just and sound foreign policy.”

Hoh describes his record this way:

“After over 11 continuous years of service with the U.S. military and U.S. government, nearly six of those years overseas, including service in Iraq and Afghanistan, as well as positions within the Secretary of the Navy’s Office as a White House Liaison, and as a consultant for the State Department’s Iraq Desk, I resigned from my position with the State Department in Afghanistan in protest of the escalation of war in 2009.”

Another former Department of State official, the ex-diplomat and retired Army colonel Ann Wright, who resigned in protest of the Iraq invasion in March 2003, is crossing paths with Hoh on Friday as they do the honors at a ribbon-cutting — half a block from the State Department headquarters in Washington — for a billboard with a picture of Pentagon Papers whistleblower Daniel Ellsberg. Big-lettered words begin by referring to the years he waited before releasing the Pentagon Papers in 1971. “Don’t do what I did,” Ellsberg says on the billboard. 

“Don’t wait until a new war has started, don’t wait until thousands more have died, before you tell the truth with documents that reveal lies or crimes or internal projections of costs and dangers. You might save a war’s worth of lives.”

The billboard — sponsored by the ExposeFacts organization, which launched this week — will spread to other prominent locations in Washington and beyond. As an organizer for ExposeFacts, I’m glad to report that outreach to potential whistleblowers is just getting started. (For details, visit ExposeFacts.org.) We’re propelled by the kind of hopeful determination that Hoh expressed the day before the billboard ribbon-cutting when he said: “I trust ExposeFacts and its efforts will encourage others to follow their conscience and do what is right.”

The journalist Kevin Gosztola, who has astutely covered a range of whistleblower issues for years, pointed this week to the imperative of opening up news media. “There is an important role for ExposeFacts to play in not only forcing more transparency, but also inspiring more media organizations to engage in adversarial journalism,” he wrote.

“Such journalism is called for in the face of wars, environmental destruction, escalating poverty, egregious abuses in the justice system, corporate control of government, and national security state secrecy. Perhaps a truly successful organization could inspire U.S. media organizations to play much more of a watchdog role than a lapdog role when covering powerful institutions in government.”

Overall, we desperately need to nurture and propagate a steadfast culture of outspoken whistleblowing. A central motto of the AIDS activist movement dating back to the 1980s — Silence = Death — remains urgently relevant in a vast array of realms. Whether the problems involve perpetual war, corporate malfeasance, climate change, institutionalized racism, patterns of sexual assault, toxic pollution or countless other ills, none can be alleviated without bringing grim realities into the light. “All governments lie,” Ellsberg says in a video statement released for the launch of ExposeFacts,

“and they all like to work in the dark as far as the public is concerned, in terms of their own decision-making, their planning — and to be able to allege, falsely, unanimity in addressing their problems, as if no one who had knowledge of the full facts inside could disagree with the policy the president or the leader of the state is announcing.”

Ellsberg adds:

“A country that wants to be a democracy has to be able to penetrate that secrecy, with the help of conscientious individuals who understand in this country that their duty to the Constitution and to the civil liberties and to the welfare of this country definitely surmount their obligation to their bosses, to a given administration, or in some cases to their promise of secrecy.”

Right now, our potential for democracy owes a lot to people like NSA whistleblowers William Binney and Kirk Wiebe, and EPA whistleblower Marsha Coleman-Adebayo. When they spoke at the June 4 news conference in Washington that launched ExposeFacts, their brave clarity was inspiring.

Antidotes to the poisons of cynicism and passive despair can emerge from organizing to help create a better world. The process requires applying a single standard to the real actions of institutions and individuals, no matter how big their budgets or grand their power. What cannot withstand the light of day should not be suffered in silence.

If you see something, say something.

 

Norman Solomon is co-founder of RootsAction.org and executive director of the Institute for Public Accuracy, which launched ExposeFacts.org in early June. His books include “War Made Easy: How Presidents and Pundits Keep Spinning Us to Death.”

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Memo to Potential Whistleblowers: If You See Something, Say Something

10 Reasons Why Democracy is in Crisis

June 6th, 2014 by Jan Oberg

Democracy is a core feature of Western society, normally understood as representative parliament – i.e. in free elections citizens vote for people to represent their interests in a parliament consisting of parties of which some form the government and some the opposition.

It’s not always included in the definitions that democracy requires a reasonable level of knowledge and information, freely available. For instance, one often hears that India is the world’s largest democracy but 26% of the people are still illiterate (287 million people).

So the ”world’s largest democracy” also has the world’s largest population who can’t read and write. In comparison, China’s illiterate citizens make up about 3% and it is regularly called a dictatorship.

The state of democracy – 10 points for dialogue

When we talk about global crisis, people think much more of the economy, environment, identity issues or warfare than of democracy being in crisis. I think it is in fundamental crisis for the the following reasons.

1. The state is being challenged from below and from above.

Democracy is tied to the nation-state. But citizens’ activity from below plus regional and global organisations, summits, forums and groups make the state weaker.

2. Economic perspectives dominate.

Most of what is discussed in democracies are related to the economy, and that is further dominated by the politics of the wallet.

3. Materialism over life values.

Compared with economics and what is called ”realistic”, democratic debate seldom touch values, ethics or concepts such as justice and peace.

4. A time horizon far too short.

Who can achieve anything meaningful in the larger world with a 4-year perspective?

5. National parliaments less and less important.

Larger, more distant and elite-based structures such as Wall Street, NATO, EU, the IMF,  SCO, ASEAN, banks, and stock market manipulations etc. set up the parameters within which the state – national governments – may operate.

6. Economic and military elites think of the world as one system.

But the political sphere remains national, even sometimes nationalistic. We don’t have even the embryo of a global democratic decision-making that can match these two powerful actors.

7. Politicians must choose between getting elected and speaking the truth.

A politician whose campaign would emphasise what we must give up and how we must show solidarity to save the world won’t get elected. Those who get elected promise more and more money in your pocket, brilliant futures built on extrapolations of the present and they make promises everybody somehow knows won’t be kept after election day.

8. Public relation replaces knowledge.

Politics has become pragmatic navigation and positioning, and less a matter of values and principles. Deals are being made and ”sold” afterwards to the public.

Decades ago, political leaders would seek knowledge about certain options from independent expertise; these still exist of course but the army of spin doctors, marketing people, lobbying etc. has replaced most of it.

Thanks to modern communication and media demands the time for knowledge-based decision-making has been reduced enormously during the last 20-30 years. This mostly probably impacts negatively on the quality of most decisions.

9. Politics as a calling versus a career option.

10. Finally, democracy should be about creating choice, not just voting.

Most people seem to believe that democracy is about voting for some policy or law or voting ‘yes’ or ‘no’ to some alternatives set up by the political elites (also called referendum).

But fundamentally, democracy’s very idea is not to vote on an issue set up in advance; democracy is to contribute to establishing the agenda in the first place. Example: Yes or no for a country to join the EU. But that is not democracy. Democracy is to develop a broader spectrum of which, say, the EU is only one option/alternative among a series.

Genuine democracy is about setting agendas. It’s not about voting yes or no to somebody else’s more or less cunning agenda. It’s about dialogue and not just debates.

You could, perhaps, summarise these ten points by saying that democracy is no longer lived, it is being performed. It’s become a ritual with little ethos.

Consequently, throughout Western democracies citizens feel that it is almost impossible to “get through” to top leaders.

Mohandas K. Gandhi – Photo © Jan Oberg

In one of his last interviews, French existentialist philosopherJean-Paul Sartre (1905-1980) said that every time you vote, you give away your power.

That statement points to the essential, classical distinction between representative democracy and direct democracy.

In the first you delegate to someone else who has convinced/seduced you, to take care of your interests. We know this generally leads to false promise-making and considerable disappointment with the whole idea of politics.

In the second, citizens take issues in their own hands – which of course has other disadvantages and encompasses a whole series of other problems. But without a vibrant citizenship, no democracy is possible.

Least bad but far from good enough

In summary, while democracy perhaps remains the least bad system, we should be very careful not to equate that statement with democracy being good enough.

It is no test of its quality that Western democracy is – ceteris paribus – better than authoritarian regimes or dictatorship.

Complacency in this matters could easily lead us towards whatever we associate with the opposite of democracy in years to come. Was the EU Parliamentary elections an indicator of just that at a deeper level?*

Since the above discussion is critical, the next article will invite the reader to a dialogue about some possible things that could be done to regain the basics of democracy and make it better for the future.

A longer version with elaborated arguments is available at TFF’s blog

* An earlier PressInfo dealt with the recent EU elections in perspective of democracy’s crisis

Jan Oberg is TFF director, dr. hc.

TFF provides research and public education related to the basic UN Charter norm that “peace shall be established by peaceful means”. 

We are always happy to hear from you or try to answer your questions.

This text may be reprinted as it is with due credit and links to TFF but we shall appreciate you telling us. If shortened, please send the abridged version to obtain our permission.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on 10 Reasons Why Democracy is in Crisis

Dave Cooper, Command Master Chief SEAL (Retired) for the Naval Special Warfare Development Group (DEVGRU), has authored a threat assessment concluding TransCanada‘s Keystone XL tar sands pipeline is potentially at-risk of a terrorism attack. 

In the report, Cooper concluded operational security vulnerabilities for the pipeline have been overlooked by the U.S. government. Cooper —  most famous for overseeing the Abbottabad, Pakistan Osama Bin Laden raid as the commander of Navy SEAL Team Six — wrote the report as a consultant for billionaire Tom Steyer‘s advocacy group NextGen Climate Action.

“The very nature of Keystone XL’s newsworthiness, should it ever be built, increases its attractiveness as a target to terrorists: Keystone XL, aside from being a ‘soft’ target just like any other pipeline, has a built-in emotional impact that can’t be denied or wished away,” he wrote in the report’s introduction.

“That simple fact, a newsworthy proposal that engenders strong passions, should clue in pipeline owners and government officials to the very real possibility of intentional attack.”

For the report, Cooper utilized a “red cell” methodology, parlance for U.S. special operations forces performing pre-mission reconnaissance, using open source data readily available to terrorists on the internet. In so doing, the special operations forces snuff out operational security (“OpSec” in military lingo) weaknesses, which they use as actionable intelligence in defense missions.

In the report, Cooper explained he “designed [the methodology this way] to showcase weaknesses in the current reality by exploiting the same information to which an outside terrorist group would have access.”

Cooper’s probe included a due diligence trip out to the Sand Hills region of Nebraska, where Phase I of the Keystone Pipeline System is currently operational (the northern leg of Keystone XL is Phase IV). Going out into the field, Cooper came away shocked by his discoveries.

His findings raise a troubling question: have real Keystone XL terrorism threats been ignored, while non-violent activists have been labeled potential eco-terrorists? Cooper offered his take on this question to DeSmogBlog.

“No Sight” of Active Security Program

Cooper said he mapped out his entire Nebraska trip by using a maps of the Keystone Pipeline System he found online.

“In military parlance, the site visit at [redacted] was a ‘cold shot,’ done with no advance preparation or planning, using only information and intelligence gathered from publicly available sources,” wrote Cooper.


TransCanada Keystone Pipeline System; Image Credit: Wikimedia Commons

“[redacted] was selected because it has both a valve and pumping station for the operational Keystone 1, it is somewhat near Keystone XL’s route, and it is roughly similar to the proposed Keystone XL – with presumably the same level of security as the proposed pipeline.”

Once on the ground, Cooper found absolutely nothing indicating an active security program.

“I was able to freely approach, then stand at a Keystone 1 pump station for over 15 minutes snapping photos,” he wrote. “I was not approached, questioned or even noticed at any point.”

Cooper concluded that in a worst case scenario, a dozen terrorists could cause a seven million gallon spill by attacking the pipeline at three points. And that’s if TransCanada were to have perfect execution of shut-down protocol.

KXL and FBI/DHS Fusion Centers

In concluding his report, Cooper pays homage to domestic intelligence agencies for practicing predictive policing.

“This assessment also cannot speak for the innumerable and valiant efforts of our intelligence agencies, those who strive daily to defeat terrorists ‘upstream’ before they can actually act on their designs,” wrote Cooper. “Their persistent actions in our defense could very well thwart any such pipeline attack during the terrorists’ observation, orientation and decision phases.”

DeSmogBlog has reported on these predictive policing efforts as it pertains to Keystone XL. And the results, put mildly, haven’t been pretty.

Documents obtained by Bold Nebraska and reported on here in June 2013 revealed TransCanada and the Nebraska-based Department of Homeland Security (DHS)/U.S. Federal Bureau of Investigations (FBI) Fusion Center labeled non-violent activists as possible candidates for terrorism charges and other serious criminal charges.

This tension existing between protecting national security and protecting civil liberties brings ire to Shahid Buttar, executive director for the Bill of Rights Defense Committee.

“Throughout the 1990s, the principal targets of US counter-terror investigations were environmental activists who planned non-violent acts,” he told DeSmogBlog.

“If the northern leg of Keystone XL pipeline becomes operational, the security concerns of fossil fuel companies could be used once again, like they were in Pennsylvania only a few years ago, to justify government intelligence agencies undermining the constitutional rights of environmentalists to peacefully organize and dissent.”

Asked about these concerns by DeSmogBlog, Cooper agreed with Buttar.

“The focus on protesters and activists is somewhat shortsighted,” he said. “It’s not like activism is a gateway drug to terrorism and it amounts to profiling (like racial profiling). Just following around protesters or activists isn’t the answer. What you see is all there is.”

“An activist’s intentions typically revolve around disobedience in all its forms. While most might get arrested, it’s typically for stuff like trespassing. A real mean bunch!”

A recent historical case study and parallel is also instructive and sobering.


Boston Marathon bombers Dzhokhar Tsarnaev and Tamerlan Tsarnaev; Photo Credit: Wikimedia Commons

The Boston-based FBI/DHS Fusion Center poured massive amounts of resources into monitoring Occupy Boston activists rather than the would-be Boston Marathon bombers, as revealed in a May 2013 investigative report published by NBC News.

Mr. Cooper Goes to Washington

According to an article appearing in National Journal, Cooper has already presented his findings to both U.S. Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-CA) and U.S. Sen. Martin Heinrich (D-NM).

NextGen spokesman Mike Casey told DeSmogBlog that NextGen also delivered a copy of the report to Carlos Pascual, Special Envoy and Coordinator for International Energy Affairs for the U.S. State Department.

The letter delivery — as opposed to an actual meeting — took place after Pascual cancelled a meeting they had set late on the afternoon of Friday, May 30. They had planned to meet the following Monday.

NextGen has provided DeSmogBlog with a copy of that tersely-crafted email.

 According to Casey, the State Department told NextGen the next opening it had for a meeting was in mid-August.

“The State Department’s review of the Presidential Permit application for the proposed project – and the ultimate determination of whether granting a permit serves the national interest – will take a number of factors into consideration, including the national security of the United States,” the State Department told The Huffington Post.

“Serious National Conversation”

Cooper concluded the threat assessment by highlighting why he took on the study.

“My goal in releasing this version of the assessment is to provide federal officials and the public with the information on this vulnerability to take it into account – and take steps to address it,” he said in a press release provided to DeSmogBlog. “We need a serious national conversation about what we do to head off an attack.”

But this is also a tale about where best to pool resources — and where not to — in the name of national security. Cooper has opened a new chapter in the ongoing saga that is the debate over Keystone XL’s northern leg.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Navy SEAL Commander behind Bin Laden Killing: Keystone XL Vulnerable to Terrorism

Obama’s Climate Plan is Leaking Methane

June 6th, 2014 by Nick Cunningham

The Environmental Protection Agency’s new regulations aimed at reducing carbon emissions by 30 percent will no doubt lead to a cleaner economy. But the road there will be paved with methane.

By requiring reductions in the energy intensity per megawatt-hour of electricity generation, utilities will have the ability to choose from an array of options for how to meet the targets.

Energy efficiency will likely be the first choice. Renewable energy will certainly play a big part, as well.

But one of the major ways utilities will comply with EPA rules is by fuel switching from coal to natural gas. By the EPA’s own estimate, coal generation will decline by 20 percent to 22 percent by 2020. That will create an opening for natural gas, which could rise by up to 45 percent, jumping from 22 billion cubic feet per day to 32 bcf/d.

The Obama administration has bet its climate legacy on this trend, which was already underway before the EPA regulations. This is why the administration chose 2005 as a baseline, when emissions were near a peak. 2005 predated the shale gas revolution, which led to significant reductions in carbon dioxide emissions as cheap natural gas displaced coal. By 2013, the U.S. had already achieved about a 10 percent reduction in emissions since 2005 – meaning we are already well on our way to the 2030 goal.

US energy related CO2 emissions: national and cencus regions

Since natural gas burns much cleaner than coal, producing about half as much carbon dioxide, making the switch from coal to gas can go a long way to achieving the rest of the remaining reductions, the administration seems to be thinking.

The big problem is that we don’t know what’s happening with methane emissions. Natural gas, which is essentially methane (CH4), may burn cleaner than coal, but what happens when it isn’t burned? As a greenhouse gas, methane emitted into the atmosphere is more than 20 times as potent as carbon dioxide over a 100-year period.

Natural gas production leaks methane along its entire supply chain – from drilling to storing, processing to distributing. The EPA estimates that methane emissions have actually declined over the past 20 years as technology has improved. And this needs to be true for the EPA’s assumptions to work out with its climate plan.

The problem is that many scientists dispute those claims. Robert Howarth of Cornell University believes that methane leakage could be much higher than the government says, which would mean pushing utilities to switch from coal to natural gas may not be constructive. He has conducted studies that conclude methane leakage far exceeds EPA estimates.

“Converting to natural gas plants, which is what this latest rule is likely to do, will actually aggravate climate change, not make things better,” Howarth told Bloomberg News. “It’s well enough established to suggest the EPA is on the wrong side of the science.”

The natural gas industry has aggressively pushed back against Howarth’s findings, pointing to other studies that show lower methane leakage. But the problem is that the science just isn’t all there yet – we don’t know exactly how much methane is leaking. Nevertheless, the Obama administration is ploughing forward.

In its regulatory analysis for the new carbon rule, the EPA recognized the methane problem, but has punted on the issue for now.

“The EPA is aware that other GHGs such as nitrous oxide (N2O) (and to a lesser extent, methane [CH4]) may be emitted from fossil-fuel-fired EGUs…The EPA is not proposing separate N2O or CH4 guidelines or an equivalent CO2 emission limit because of a lack of available data for these affected sources,” the report said.

Natural gas may still have a climate benefit over coal. And even if it doesn’t right now, methane leakage could turn out to be a very fixable problem, as engineers figure out how to plug the leaks in the supply chain. But for now, President Barack Obama’s climate plan hinges on this uncertainty.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Obama’s Climate Plan is Leaking Methane

The Badger Culls in the U.K.

June 6th, 2014 by Lesley Docksey

With the UK Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra) all set to restart the English badger culls that were so disastrous last year, people are beginning to question the safety of the exercise. In particular, they are looking at the poor standard of policing.

Admittedly, trying to police an unfamiliar rural area at night, with emotions running high and men with guns and a tendency to ignore the law pitted against people who were trying to stop the badgers from being shot was never going to be an easy job. But that is no excuse for the muddle, bias and incompetence displayed by the Avon & Somerset Police last October.

11 October 2013. The first six weeks of the Somerset badger cull had finished, with such poor results that it had been extended for another four weeks. This was the first night of the extension.

It started with the shooting of a badger near Kitrow Lane, Carhampton.  The badger – a photo of its mangled corpse was spread across the media in the following days – became known as “Badger 200”.

Badger 200 was shot at around 10:00 pm. Two “sett sitters” were monitoring a badger sett and its surroundings and were on the green lane known as Kitrow Lane when two shots were fired. One of the monitors screamed because the shots were so close and sudden. No cullers searched for the body but instead rapidly drove off, perhaps thinking they had shot someone.

The dead badger was found by the monitors around 10:30 pm and by 11:30 pm was in the hands of Secret World Wildlife Rescue, who arranged for its post-mortem. It was going to be a long night.

In the police badger control room at Police HQ was a National Farmers Union representative and two representatives from the culling company HNV Associates, a fact made much of in the media and deplored by wildlife people. Superintendent Kevin Instance said “Having an NFU representative in the control room gave us real-time information about events on the ground…”

How accurate is “real-time” information?

At 4:00 am culling activity was to be stopped for the night and the police stood down. The culling company should by then have instructed any contractors still out in the field to pack up for the night.

But at this point, when they must have known policing was at the point of being withdrawn, cullers arrived back on the scene looking for “their” dead badger and Chris Tasker, having replaced the two monitors at 3:30 am, was patrolling the Kitrow Lane area.

4:00 am: Chris was being assaulted by two cullers who hit him around the head two or three times, knocking off his hat, head torch and glasses and repeatedly pushing a field gate against him. Chris tried to defend himself by hitting back at one of the cullers with a long-handled torch.

4:01 am: according to an audio recording in the police control room “two double crewed units” were dispatched in response to a culler in the Carhampton area reporting he had been assaulted. Just two minutes later the control room was informing one of the dispatched officers that two cullers had been assaulted and that a badger carcase had been “stolen”. Details of the offender’s vehicle were given and Chris Tasker identified as the registered owner.

Chris, having returned to his vehicle parked in the lane, switched on a small video recorder, phoned the badger control and asked for some support.

4:09 am: still scared and breathless, he phoned 999 and reported that he had been assaulted by two “shooters”. Such calls are always recorded. He stayed on the emergency line to the police until 4:35, updating the officer on the actions of the cullers. At one point he is heard to mutter, “Bloody hell, I feel shaky.”

4:12 am: Chris says the two men who had assaulted him were approaching his car and taking its number. In the background his vehicle registration number can be heard being reported by the contractors to their “control”. Yet the police control room already had all his details at 4:03 am.

Or had they?

Although the cullers claim they were assaulted by Chris, police records show that “the only logged matter received via the Force Service Centre (taking emergency calls) relating to the cull operation was that as reported at 04:09 hrs by Mr Tasker.”

The control room log shows that the culling company reps “verbally” reported 2 of their men had been assaulted and response teams dispatched at 4:01 am. No time is given for the verbal reporting. The audio recorder was apparently only switched on at 4:01 am when it recorded the dispatch of the police units.

Also available in the control room was an “ambient” recording system that would have picked up any background conversation between the NFU and culling reps. It was not switched on.

The search for Chris Tasker and his vehicle

By 4:13 three police cars were responding and having difficulty finding Kitrow Lane. One officer, who was from outside the area, reported “… having inoperative night vision equipment, a SatNav with a charging fault and with police radios that repeatedly kept losing their signal.”  He felt “isolated and vulnerable” and the situation was confusing and “frightening”.

Chris had given details of where he was, but knowledge of his emergency call to the police did not reach the police control room until 4:20 am. Nor was that knowledge passed on to the officers searching for suspects and victims.

The officers were also delayed by chasing “protestors”, at least one of which was walking up Kitrow Lane from the other end in response to Chris’s call for support.  That person was arrested and “de-arrested” two hours later (there were several incidences of de-arresting anti-cull people when it was found they hadn’t actually done anything).  Two others had reached Chris within 10-15 minutes of his call for help.

A plethora of confused messages went between the control room and the police searching for the “suspect”. On two occasions the officers were instructed to “Remember Section 11…” with regard to searching for the dead badger.* Some 40 minutes after Chris had called them, two police cars finally arrived.

Searching Chris Tasker’s vehicle

By around 5:00 am Kitrow Lane appeared to be occupied by Chris, 2 police cars with accompanying officers, the two cullers standing nearby and one missing badger. And a lack of recognition that Chris was actually the victim.

For the police it seemed a simple matter. Cullers had reported being assaulted by a man (or men) whose vehicle registration number they also reported. This made Chris the suspect. Further, they had accused him of stealing the body of the badger they had shot – a criminal offence.

Chris, having reported being assaulted (and receiving further intimidation while in his vehicle and still on the phone to the police) was expecting help and support from the police. Instead, he found, much to his surprise and understandable irritation, that he was a “suspect”. As his recorder was still operating, it later demonstrated how confusing the situation was, for both Chris and the police.

His vehicle was searched (without following the correct procedure) and it was only then that Chris learned he had been accused of “stealing” the badger. The search included looking the glove compartment, a thermos flask and an empty crisp packet. The officer said, “Covering all angles, aren’t I?”

It was not until 5:20 am that one of the officers was informed by the control room radio that Chris had reported being assaulted, had given a description of his assailants, and was actually the victim. At the same time the two cullers, having hung around for some time, were reported to be leaving.

Yet at 5:36 am the police sergeant at the scene was still seeking clarification of Chris being the victim. Chris eventually got back to the safety of his home around 8:00 am – a very long night indeed.

Chris complained to the police and an investigation was held. The report, written by Chief Inspector Allan Spencer, acknowledges that the recording provided by Chris showed that “At no time does any officer provide Mr Tasker with the required detail and information regarding the search of his vehicle.”

5 out of 7 of Chris’s complaints against the police were upheld. No action appears to have been taken by the police against the two men who had assaulted Chris, and who were still present when the police arrived.

Nor did any cullers come forward and say they were the ones who had been assaulted by Chris. The police bias was entirely focused on Chris.  The policing of the culls, certainly on this occasion, was well below what one should expect.

What should be learnt from this sorry tale?

For a start, what is the explanation for one police recording giving Chris Tasker’s details to officers responding to an assault at 4:03 am while the other police recording has the two cullers reporting his vehicle registration number at 4:12 am? Was the timing of one of the recordings wildly out?

Or had other cullers, having found Chris’s unattended vehicle parked on Kitrow Lane, radioed in to their reps in the police control room a false report of an assault along with the registration number? There is something seriously wrong.

With culling company reps sitting in the police control room it is all too easy to get your accusation in first. Police records should be checked to see just how many recorded emergency calls made by anti-cull people reporting assaults, harassment or intimidation were pre-empted by cullers being able to make counter accusations of assault that went directly to the police control room.

It now appears from the Gloucester Police Force’s experience of policing the cull in their area that, of all the accusations made by cullers of assaults on them by protesters, only one possible case might go to court. In many instances cullers, while eager to accuse, refused to identify themselves or provide statements.

Anti-cull people, on the other hand, are very willing to provide statements – and recorded evidence. What they do not have are any guns. Avon & Somerset Police should take note.

 

* A power to search either a person or vehicle (with regards to the badger) could be derived from either within the provisions of PACE (The Police and Criminal Evidence Act) or under Section 11 of the Protection of Badgers Act 1972. Although there is a specific power to search for any dead badger (or part of) under the Badger Act the provisions under PACE could also apply in that officers would in all effects be searching for stolen property.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on The Badger Culls in the U.K.

I look at what the High-Rise Safety Initiative has already accomplished since they launched their petition drive last month, and I am in awe! In just five weeks they have collected over 30,000 signatures from NYC voters, and they are currently on pace to reach their goal of 70,000 by the end of June.

Without a doubt, this campaign represents our best chance to land a real investigation into the destruction of WTC 7 – and in the process of getting there, raise public awareness on an unprecedented scale. That is why we stand behind the High-Rise Safety Initiative 100%.

Right now, they are just shy of the funds they need to finish collecting 70,000 signatures. We must help them raise $25,000 more by June 15th – or they will fall short of the 70,000 needed signatures and our best opportunity yet for a REAL investigation could pass us by.

In the past we’ve raised $25,000 quickly when it’s mattered most – and now is one of those times when it matters most. Please let us count on you for your support at this critical moment.

Visit HighRiseSafetyNYC.org today and contribute what you can toward this historic effort.

Thank you for all that you do to further this vitally important cause.

Sincerely yours,


Richard Gage, AIA/Founder

Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth
P.S. In case you missed it, check out the High-Rise Safety Initiative’s video featuring AE911Truth petition signer, architect AND engineer, Don Butterfield!


“For the Safety of All New Yorkers”

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on 9/11 Truth and Building 7: On our Way to a WTC7 Investigation

“Boeing is a leader in creating the U.S.-China Aviation Cooperation program, an initiative of U.S. government and American aviation companies, working with CAAC and airlines to help advance China’s commercial aviation. Good corporate citizenship has always been an essential part of The Boeing Company.

In China, the company’s vision for corporate social responsibility program is to stretch Boeing expertise and commitment to the science, technology, engineering and mathematics (STEM) education of Chinese youth from elementary school to college.“ (Boeing in China, Backgrounder, April 14, 2014)

It is a fine thing that Boeing is supporting STEM education in China. But as part of the American Defense Industrial Base Critical Infrastructure, Boeing regularly moans about the dearth of America’s own STEM/ aerospace engineering capability.

For example, in a glossy publication from 2007 comes the article Engineering Brain Drain? by Louise Wilkerson, in which the reader learns that

“According to a recent study by Aviation Week & Space Technology magazine, the United States is turning out only about 110,000 engineers a year compared with China’s 600,000 a year and India’s 350,000 a year.”

Even though there is no conclusive evidence to claim there is a shortage of aerospace engineers in the USA (immigrants or not), the Pentagon and its defense contractors continue to moan and groan about a mythic shortage that does not actually exist. Perhaps Boeing is hedging its bets by financially supporting STEM in China and advanced materials and computing research there.

“Boeing has also established Boeing Research & Technology-China, a part of Boeing’s advanced central research and development organization. The center is involved in collaborative research with the Chinese Academy of Sciences and Chinese universities. Three joint research laboratories and a joint research center have been formed with the research partners. Activities are focused on the environment, advanced materials, and advanced computing technologies for aviation and industry design.”

One of the most sophisticated missile defense early warning platforms was constructed by Boeing. The company’s Sea Based X Band radar system currently floating in the Pacific was built by Russia’s Vyborg Shipyard.

According to navaltechnology.com

“The Sea-Based X-Band Radar-1 (SBX-1) constitutes a mid-course fire control radar based on a seagoing semi-submersible vessel. The platform was developed by Boeing, as part of the ground-based midcourse defence (GMD) component of the US Ballistic Missile Defence System (BMDS). The GMD intercepts incoming warheads. The SBX vessel was transferred to the Military Sealift Command (MSC) in December 2011.”

The X Band Radar System on board was built by another Defense Industrial Base heavyweight Raytheon Corporation.

Yak, Yak

Lockheed Martin, the world’s largest defense contractor, is in the news as being a victim of Chinese PLA military personnel who apparently surreptitiously entered Lockheed computer networks and engaged in industrial espionage. Yet Lockheed has been doing business with China in the area of nuclear reactor safety and construction. The F-35B has its genesis in Russia.

According to a corporate press release on Lockheed Martin’s website,

“Lockheed Martin and [China’s} State Nuclear Power Automation System Engineering Company (SNPAS) have signed an agreement to prototype, manufacture and qualify nuclear power plant reactor protection systems for China’s Generation III reactors. SNPAS is a subsidiary of China’s State Nuclear Power Technology Corporation (SNPTC).

Lockheed Martin and SNPAS will develop a nuclear safety instrumentation and control platform, based on field programmable gate array (FPGA) technology, for a new generation of Reactor Protection Systems in China. Terms of the agreement were not disclosed.”

It turns out that the vaunted F-35 has its origins in Russian aviation.

According Aviation Intel

“People look at the F-35B and see an ultra- modern transformer of sorts, with massive doors that open up and an articulated exhaust tube that seems to warp downward unnaturally on command. The next thing you know the 5th generation stealth fighter is HOVERING IN MID AIR. Lay on decent range (for a V/STOL fighter), higher than Mach speeds, and the most cutting edge radar and avionics package ever and you have a truly groundbreaking design……But is the F-35B’s unique design really that ground breaking at all? The F-35B’s novel lift fan and vectoring tailpipe design was conceived not in Fort Worth, Texas but in Moscow, Russia, about 35+ years ago! The Yak-41 that utilized this exact same concept, now known as the Yak-141, NATO codename “Freestyle,” was designed to be what it’s much lacking Yak-38 predecessor should have been.”

And maybe it is coincidence but Lockheed stands to gain big-dollar cyber security contracts from the US government.

There is something shady about spending billions on cyber offense and defense when no one seems to have a formula or can quantify how much proprietary/national security data has really been covertly compromised by the Chinese, Russians or a middle-school student located in Houston, Texas. The US government-Lockheed officials are not to be trusted. They offer dubious information that lacks specifics or legitimately quantifiable formula/data with which to assign dollar losses. It’s a sham not unlike the trumped up aerospace engineering gap.

Cyber Threats are Real?

According to Tereza Pultarova, writing in Engineering and Technology Magazine (May 2014)

“Speaking at the Reuters Cyber-security Summit in Washington, the company’s vice president Chandra McMahon said that only since January 2014, the firm had to ward off attacks by 43 distinct hacking groups. The number of cyber-attacks on Lockheed’s systems has been growing steadily – in 2007, ten attacks were detected while three years later it was already 28. In addition to being Pentagon’s number one weapons supplier, Lockheed Martin is also the most important provider of information technology to the US government. The company’s systems are widely used by the US military, energy companies, utilities and other critical infrastructure firms.

The latter have seen, according to Lockheed Martin, a substantial increase in the number of cyber-attacks in the past years.

“While we haven’t seen specific action on objectives in terms of damage, what we have seen over the last several years (is) malware created and deployed to damage critical infrastructure,”McMahon said…Lockheed expects double-digit growth in its cyber business, which now accounts for 10 per cent of revenues in the $8bn (£4.77bn) information systems sector. Lockheed and other US weapons makers are frequent targets of criminal groups, nation states and other hackers seeking to extract valuable information about high-end weapons systems. US intelligence reports have cited attacks launched by groups in Iran, China, Russia and North Korea. Lockheed declined comment on any specifics about the campaigns it had identified.”

John Stanton who is a frequent contributor for The 4th Media is a Virginia based writer. Reach him at [email protected]

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on American Defense Contractors: Profiting from Russian and Chinese Engineering, Technology, Manpower

The proposal to hand back some decision powers to member states of the European Union regarding GMO approvals is currently being discussed (1). It will be voted on by member states on 12 June. According to Corporate Europe Observatory, biotech firms regard it as an opportunity to break the stalemate and finally get their GM crops growing in Europe’s fields. The proposal has the biotech lobby’s fingerprints all over it (2).

The proposal states that for a member state to ban a GMO, it would first have to ask the GM company itself not to market it in its territory. If the company does not agree, the member state’s second option is to give certain policy arguments, from a limited set of possibilities. Apart from granting biotech companies the power to resist policies and decisions made by democratically elected governments, the fear is that the types of arguments that governments will be allowed to put forward will bring about legal uncertainty and may simply be swept aside when challenged in court (2). If the company doesn’t want its product to be banned, the concern is that the new system will be designed to work in its favour and sovereign governments will be powerless to act.

Documents obtained via Freedom of Information (FoI) acts by GeneWatch in the UK show how the biotech lobby group EuropaBio has been advocating this approach for two years. One of the documents obtained, ‘A new strategy on GM issues’, concludes that a fresh approach is needed to break the deadlock on GM crops in Europe. In short this involves:

i) An “amended nationalisation proposal” putting as a condition that member states can only apply for a national ban if they have first asked the company to refrain from marketing the GM crop in their country, and if the company has refused.

ii) Allowing a contamination threshold agreed on by member states to allow the presence of unauthorised GMOs in seeds (this is already the case for animal feed, but not yet for food and seeds).

iii) EU member states should no longer vote against a GM crop application (even when they are against it) at a European level if they can use one i) or ii) to gain a national ban.

Fearing that this strategy is merely an attempt to bypass and weaken the current regulatory framework and pick off countries individually, Liz O’Neill of GM Freeze states:

“This is all about getting more GM crops into the ground more quickly. Collective decision making hasn’t allowed GM crops to be grown widely in the EU because the majority of EU countries don’t want them.”

Dr Helen Wallace of GeneWatch concludes that the UK Government has been working closely with the GM industry “to get a Monsanto-friendly version of the opt-out.” The industry and the UK government are striving to break the deadlock in decisions on GM approvals for cultivation. She says:

“If member states back down from highlighting the environmental harms of RoundUp Ready GM crops, these could be fast-tracked into the ground in some parts of Europe… We need to be improving the GM risk assessments not facilitating contamination of food, feed and seed in the European market with GM crops that nobody wants.”

Collusion between the biotech lobby and government

The set of documents released to GeneWatch indicate a very cosy relationship between the lobby groups EuropaBio and the Agricultural Biotechnology Council (ABC) and the GM team within the UK Ministry of Environment DEFRA. They highlight a series of secretive industry-government meetings and agreements that the public was meant to remain in the dark over.

The ABC is a UK-based lobby group whose membership only comprises the six largest agrochemical multinationals: BASF, Bayer, Dow AgroSciences, Monsanto, Pioneer (DuPont) and Syngenta. The ABC is a member of EuropaBio.

GeneWatch has published a detailed assessment (3) of the many emails released following their FoI request regarding the UK industry lobby’s dealings with the government. They show the extent of receptiveness of people inside the government to industry influence on issues like science and research funding, GM regulation and the pro-GM Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP).

Owen Paterson is praised in one EuropaBio letter for his “vocal leadership” on GM issues. Paterson was appointed Secretary of State for the Environment in the same year, in September 2012. He has subsequently been accused of being an industry puppet and of totally misrepresenting the reality and efficacy of GMOs (4). Moreover, under Paterson’s leadership, the UK Government has changed its position on the national opt out from being opposed to being in favour.

On a European level, Chief Scientific Advisor to the EU President Anne Glover is also forwarding the case for the GM industry. Like Paterson, her ‘vocal leadership’ is also based on falsehoods and misrepresentations (5).

The GM sector – via DEFRA, the ABC, the All-Party Parliamentary Group on Science and Technology in Agriculture (6), strategically placed scientists with their ‘independent’ reports (7) and the industry-backed Science Media Centre (8) – is mounting a full-fledged assault on Britain.

Contamination risks

Shifting from a Europe-wide ban on GMOs to national bans could not only lead to allowing GM crops into Europe, but could also pose other problems. GM Freeze recently launched a briefing that highlights the very real risk of cross-border contamination between GM and non-GM food crops.

The briefing ‘Contamination Matters – Why GM can’t be managed at a national level’ (9) has been published in advance of the EU vote on 12 June. It highlights the risks associated with cross-border contamination by examining three detailed examples of real contamination events that caused significant disruption to food supply, farmers’ livelihoods and the broader agricultural economy, including international trade. The contamination incidents detailed in the briefing involve experimental GM strains of American rice, Chinese rice and Canadian flax. All were supposed to be grown under tightly controlled trial conditions but ended up in food.

GM Freeze Director Liz O’Neill comments:

“The idea of individual countries being able to ban GM sounds appealing, but sadly it won’t work. Pollen and seed don’t respect national boundaries any more than they give way on a roundabout, and experience shows that once the GM genie is out there we cannot put it back in the bottle. The costs can be huge.”

Letting the ‘genie out of the bottle; is exactly what the GMO sector wants, though. Contamination works to its advantage (10), has worked to its advantage and is an issue that is affecting the entire globe (11,12).

Liz O’Neill is concerned that many people don’t understand what a ‘yes’ to this proposal on 12 June would mean:

“GM supporters, including our own Environment Minister Owen Paterson, are throwing away the whole concept of a common market to further their own support for a technology that raises far more questions than it answers. Their refusal to first put in place a reasonable, clear liability regime to protect the food system and the environment speaks volumes.”

Such concerns mirror what is happening elsewhere in the world, not least in India. There, 200 crops are to be open field tested, despite warnings from the Supreme Court appointed Technical Expert Committee and recommendations about risks, protocols and regulations (13).

As is the case with the UK, in India GMO biotech corporations are forming government backed ‘public-private partnerships’ to gain a financially lucrative, strategic stranglehold in agriculture, not least in setting the research and policy development agenda, in an attempt to force GM products into the country (14,15). And, as in the UK, the whole situation reeks of vested interests and the government working hand in glove with the GMO biotech sector (16)

Environmentalist Aruna Rodrigues may be speaking about India in the following passage, but her words could also easily apply to other countries, not least the UK:

“Ministries, least of all ‘promoting’ Ministries, should not have the authority to allow the novel technology of GMOs into Indian agriculture bypassing authentic democratic processes. Those processes require the widest possible and transparent consultation… After all, it is every woman, man and child, and our animals, an entire nation that will quite literally have to eat the outcome of a GM policy that delivers up our agriculture to it: if a GMO is unsafe, it will remain irreversibly unsafe. And it will remain in the environment and that is another dimension of impact.” (17)

From India to Europe, democratic processes are being bypassed, the public is being sidelined and lied to and agriculture is being delivered up to powerful biotech corporations. This issue is global. It affects everyone.

Be informed and take action:

http://www.gmfreeze.org/

http://corporateeurope.org/

http://www.genewatch.org/

http://www.gmwatch.org/

http://indiagminfo.org/?page_id=175

Notes

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Monsanto, Syngenta, Pioneer et al.: Through Political Cooptation and Corruption, the GMO Biotech Sector is “Kicking Open the Door to Europe”

On June 6 Russian President Vladimir Putin will attend a ceremony commemorating the 70th anniversary of the D-Day landings in Normandy.

Ahead of his visit to France the Russian leader gave an extensive interview to Radio Europe 1’s news program author and frontman, Jean-Pierre Elkabbach and, anchor of the evening news on TF1 TV channel, Gilles Bouleau covering burning issues from Ukraine and Crimea to US foreign policy. The interview was recorded on June 3 in Sochi.

On what happened in Ukraine:

Vladimir Putin: There was a conflict and that conflict arose because the former Ukrainian president refused to sign an association agreement with the EU. Russia had a certain stance on this issue. We believed it was indeed unreasonable to sign that agreement because it would have a grave impact on the economy, including the Russian economy. We have 390 economic agreements with Ukraine and Ukraine is a member of the free trade zone within the CIS. And we wouldn’t be able to continue this economic relationship with Ukraine as a member of the free trade zone. We discussed this with our European partners. Instead of continuing the debates by legitimate and diplomatic means, our European friends and our friends from the United States supported the anti-constitutional armed coup. This is what happened. We did not cause this crisis to happen. We were against this course of events.

The point is no one should be brought to power through an armed anti-constitutional coup, and this is especially true in  post-Soviet space where government institutions are not fully mature. When it happened some people accepted the regime and were happy about it while other people, say, in eastern and southern Ukraine just won’t accept it. And it is vital to talk with the people who didn’t accept this change of power instead of sending tanks, as you said yourself, instead of firing missiles at civilians from the air and bombing non-military targets.

On Russian troops in Ukraine:

The interviewer told the Russian President that the United States claimed they had evidence that Russia had intervened in the conflict by sending troops and weapons.

Vladimir Putin: Proof? Why don’t they show it? The entire world remembers the US Secretary of State demonstrating the evidence of Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction, waving around some test tube with washing powder in the UN Security Council. Eventually, the US troops invaded Iraq, Saddam Hussein was hanged and later it turned out there had never been any weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. You know, it’s one thing to say things and another to actually have evidence. I will tell you again: no Russian troops…

There are no armed forces, no Russian ‘instructors’ in southeastern Ukraine and, there never were any.

On whether Russia wanted to annex Ukraine and tried to destabilize the situation there:

Vladimir Putin: We never did that. The Ukrainian government must now sit down and talk with their own people instead of using weapons, tanks, planes and helicopters. They must start the negotiating process.

On Ukraine’s sovereignty:

Vladimir Putin: Yes, we recognize its sovereignty. Moreover, we’d like Ukraine to act as a sovereign state. Joining any military bloc or any other rigid integration alliance amounts to a partial loss of sovereignty. But if a country opts for this and wants to cede part of its sovereignty, it’s free to do so. Regarding Ukraine and military blocs, this is what worries us, because if Ukraine joins, say, NATO, NATO’s infrastructure will move directly towards the Russian border, which cannot leave us indifferent.

Putin interview Sochi

Photo: Russian President Vladimir Putin gives interview to the French media. RIA Novosti/Aleksey Nikolskyi

On Crimea:

Vladimir Putin: It’s a delusion that Russian troops annexed Crimea. Russian troops did nothing of the kind.

Russian troops were in Crimea under an international treaty on the deployment of the Russian military base. It’s true that Russian troops helped Crimeans hold a referendum on their (a) independence and (b) desire to join the Russian Federation. No one can prevent these people from exercising a right that is stipulated in Article 1 of the UN Charter, the right of nations to self-determination.

In accordance with the expression of the will of people who live there, Crimea is part of the Russian Federation and its constituent entity.

I want everyone to understand this clearly. We conducted an exclusively diplomatic and peaceful dialogue – I want to stress this – with our partners in Europe and the United States. In response to our attempts to hold such a dialogue and to negotiate an acceptable solution, they supported the anti-constitutional state coup in Ukraine, and following that we could not be sure that Ukraine would not become part of the North Atlantic military bloc. In that situation, we could not allow a historical part of the Russian territory with a predominantly ethnic Russian population to be incorporated into an international military alliance, especially because Crimeans wanted to be part of Russia. I am sorry, but we couldn’t act differently.

On current relations between Russia and the US:

Vladimir Putin: As for my relations with Barack Obama, I have no reason whatsoever to believe he is not willing to talk to the President of Russia. But ultimately, it is his choice. I am always ready for dialogue, and I think that dialogue is the best way to bridge any gaps. We have been in contact until now, we have talked on the telephone regularly.

Problems between countries always exist, especially between such big countries as Russia and the United States. There have always been some issues, but I don’t think we should go to extremes. At any rate, it wouldn’t be our choice. I’m always willing to talk to any of my partners, including President Obama.

On US foreign policy:

Vladimir Putin: Speaking of US policy, it’s clear that the United States is pursuing the most aggressive and toughest policy to defend their own interests – at least, this is how the American leaders see it – and they do it persistently.

There are basically no Russian troops abroad while US troops are everywhere. There are US military bases everywhere around the world and they are always involved in the fates of other countries even though they are thousands of kilometers away from US borders. So it is ironic that our US partners accuse us of breaching some of these rules.

Putin Sochi interview

Photo: Russian President Vladimir Putin gives interview to the French media. RIA Novosti/Aleksey Nikolskyi

On the situation in Syria:

Vladimir Putin: All sides are guilty of atrocities there, but primarily the extremist organizations that are thriving in Syria. We are mostly worried about those organizations that are directly connected with al Qaeda. There are many of them there, which no one tries to deny any longer. It’s a general fact. But we are mostly worried that the wrong action could turn Syria into another Afghanistan, a completely uncontrollable spawning ground for the terrorist threat, including for European countries. All the terrorists who are operating there now would eventually move to other countries, including in Europe.

We very much fear that Syria will fall apart like Sudan. We very much fear that Syria will follow in the footsteps of Iraq or Afghanistan. This is why we would like the legal authority to remain in power in Syria, so that Russia can cooperate with Syria and with ours partners in Europe and the United States to consider possible methods to change Syrian society, to modernize the regime and make it more viable and humane.

On the collapse of the Soviet Union:

Vladimir Putin: We will not promote Russian nationalism, and we do not intend to revive the Russian Empire. What did I mean when I said that the Soviet Union’s collapse was one of the largest humanitarian – above all humanitarian – disasters of the 20th century? I meant that all the citizens of the Soviet Union lived in a union state irrespective of their ethnicity, and after its collapse 25 million Russians suddenly became foreign citizens. It was a huge humanitarian disaster. Not a political or ideological disaster, but a purely humanitarian upheaval. Families were divided; people lost their jobs and means of subsistence, and had no means to communicate with each other normally. This was the problem.

On being named by Forbes one of the most powerful persons in the world:

The interviewer wanted to know whether Russian president was flattered by that.

Vladimir Putin: You know, I’m an adult and I know what power means in the modern world. In the modern world, power is mainly defined by such factors as the economy, defense and cultural influence. I believe that in terms of defense, Russia is without any doubt one of the leaders because we are a nuclear power and our nuclear weapons are perhaps the best in the world.

With regard to cultural influence, we are proud of the Russian culture – literature, the arts and so on.

As for the economy, we are aware that we still have a lot to do before we reach the top. Although lately, we have made major strides forward and are now the fifth largest economy in the world. It is a success but we can do more.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on “Russia never Annexed Crimea, no Plans to intervene in Ukraine, it’s a Western Delusion” – Putin

Spain’s Economic and Social Crisis

June 6th, 2014 by Josep Maria Antentas

Six years have passed since the ‘official’ start of the crisis, when Lehman Brothers collapsed in September 2008. Four years since [then president Jose Luis Rodriguez] Zapatero announced the first big package of cuts in May 2010.

Three years since 15-M (the May 15 Movement) exploded onto the streets.

Two years since the large demonstration for independence in Catalonia on September 11, 2012. During this time, the economic and social crisis has morphed into a political crisis and a crisis of the regime. Discontent with the political system has reached levels never seen since the transition [from Franco’s dictatorship to parliamentary democracy in 1978].

The May 25 European elections represent, at a statewide level, the first electoral impact of three years of interrupted, but real and intense social struggle. With a turnout similar to that in 2009 (44.9 per cent then, 44.84 per cent now) it is evident that the two-party system is crumbling at a rapid speed.

In 2009, the Partido Popular (conservative Popular Party, PP) won 6,670,377 votes (42.12%) and 24 seats, while the Partido Socialista Obrera Espanol (social-democratic Spanish Socialist Workers’ Party, PSOE) won 6,141,784 (38.78%) and 23 seats. Together, they garnered 12,812,161 votes (80.9%) and 47 deputies.

This time around, the panorama is vastly different: 4,070,643 (26.06%) and 16 deputies for PP and 3,596,324 (23%) and 14 deputies for the PSOE. Together, this adds up to 7,663,943 votes (49.06%) and 30 seats, 60% of what they got in 2009.

Those times when the two parties alternated in power is over. When one side governed, its support deteriorated, while the other recovered in opposition. Now, both the PP and PSOE, no matter whether in government or opposition, are going downhill.

Tilting Toward the Left

Overall, the crisis of the two-party system is, for now, tilting toward the left. This is worth noting given that across Europe, reactionary forces advanced everywhere. The vote for the left to the left of social democracy in the Spanish state is possibly, together with the vote for Syriza in Greece, the only two bits of good news at a continental level.

  Source: WikiPedia 2009 results, 2014 results.

Parties such as Unión Progreso y Democracia (Union, Progress and Democracy, UPyD) have not been able to polarize the situation toward the right in any noticeable way, despite having increased their vote (1,015,994 votes, 6.49% and four deputies, as compared to 451,866, 2.85% and one seat in 2009).On the left, things have changed drastically: the combined vote for the two main statewide lists to the left of the PSOE, Podemos (1,245,948, 7.96%, five seats) and United Left (Izquierda Unida, IU, 1,562,567, 9.99%, six deputies) was 2,808,515 (17.95%) and 11 deputies, not far behind PSOE (3,596,324, 23% and 14 deputies).

If we add to this Primavera Europea (European Spring) [an alliance involving Compromis (Commitment) and Equo, the local Greens party] and its 299,884 votes (1.91%), the total becomes 3,108,399 (19.87%). Furthermore, we could also add the 324,534 votes (2.07%) obtained by Los Pueblos Deciden (the People Decide), led by Euskal Herria Bildu (EH Bildu, Reunite the Basque Country) and the Bloque Nacionalista Galego (Galician Nationalist Bloc, BNG).In places like the Community of Madrid, Podemos (248,888, 11.27%) and IU (231,889, 10.5%) outpolled the PSOE (417,993, 18.93%).The PSOE is still a long way from following the trajectory of PASOK [its Greek social-democratic counterpart]. It has not completely rotted out. It will be obligated to make changes and could garner support from unlikely places. But its electoral base has been shattered. With no political credibility left, and unable to offer anything that differs it from the right, it is gradually losing the only strong argument it had left: that it was the only force capable of being an alternative to the PP. Never has the chance to sink this ship been so close.

These types of chances rarely come around more than once.

Podemos (We Can)

There is no doubt: the sudden appearance of Podemos is the big news at a statewide level. A spectacular eruption both because of its results and what it represents.The purpose of the new formation in the short term is clear: destabilize the political system and open up cracks in the two-party system, given the inability of the traditional left to have done this on its own. Podemos’ success is magnificent news for those who do not feel represented by any of the existing political forces, for those who feel helpless or that they have nothing to hold onto, for those who were convinced that a new player was essential to liven up the game. Something to shake up the flow of the game, that comes in from the sideline and rapidly situates itself in the centre of the field and on the attack.

Its emergence will shake up the party game, shifting the entire political map, and all of the left.As of now, Podemos faces a great responsibility. Being the newest force, the most fragile, the least structured, it has a great weight on its shoulders: to not defraud the hopes many have placed in it (it’s not very often that something political enthuses those who are not already part of the active minority!) and continue playing the game it has so brilliantly started.The success of Podemos is also an excellent surprise – and so it should be – for those IU militants, sympathisers and voters who wished their party had a more dynamic way of doing politics, less ensconced in the institutions and more in tune with popular aspirations post-15-M. Podemos will act as a prod that obliges IU to change. This is good news for followers of this party who have received unexpected help from Podemos.

Finally, the emergence of Podemos is also good news for those of us who view things from Catalonia (or other nations without states that today belong to the Spanish state). The appearance of a new force at the statewide level with a clear discourse, and a lead candidate who has not been afraid to get his hands dirty, on the issue of the right to decide and the November 9 referendum on Catalan independence, is important news of unimaginable strategic value.

The bipartisanship of the PP-PSOE, the ‘PPOE,’ is suffering from a growing crisis that is not only reflected in declining votes but, above all, in a loss of credibility, an inability to even generate illusions among those who continue to vote for them.We should not however, take from this that the two-party system and the political regime has no room to maneuver, nor that the crisis will have a democratic and social outcome. The regime could recompose itself, with a mixture of re-legitimization and authoritarian and neo-centralist involution from above.Alternatively, the political vacuum could end up being filled by demagogic and reactionary alternatives as a form of replacement in extremis if the ‘PPOE’ was to definitively fail. Although this is not the dominant tendency registered on May 25, events in other countries, such as the alarming results in France, show that this danger is always present.

Build a Majority for the Left

This is not the time for business as usual, for grey routines on the left. It is not the time for forces such as IU to continue with its institutional inertia and the mentality of being a complement to the PSOE. It is not the time for social activists to continue to focus solely on social or trade union activism. While this is the basis for any change, on its own it is not enough: it is necessary to put forward a political alternative. It is also not the time for the anti-capitalist and alternative left to content itself with simply being a disgruntled minority that is not focused on becoming a majority, and instead prefers to narrowly focus on building their own organization.

“It is time to work toward gathering an anti-austerity socio-political majority that supports the opening up of a democratic constituent process(es) that ruptures what was bound up by chains of fear in 1978. ”

We should not be passive observers of this crisis of the regime. We have to get in the ring without any hang-ups. Always, of course, without losing sight of our objectives, without confusing dedication to become the majority with programmatic dissolution, making sure we don’t mix up audacity with reckless blunders. It is time to work toward gathering an anti-austerity socio-political majority that supports the opening up of a democratic constituent process(es) that ruptures what was bound up by chains of fear in 1978. It is time to act with the dual perspective of unity and radicalism, of will to be a majority… to change everything. To put an end to our interminable and particular ‘nightmare on Elm Street’ of neverending austerity plans, of permanent authoritarian blows and perpetual negation of our basic democratic rights.It is, however, not in our interest to generate false illusions. Cohering a political majority in favour of rupture will be a complex and difficult process, full of marshlands, fake paths, tracks that lead us nowhere and shortcuts that take us backwards. It will require a broad process of alliances and discussions, between different statewide forces and those fighting for sovereignty in Catalonia, the Basque Country and Galicia.

Today we can only barely begin to imagine the shapes and forms these will take.We must continue to widen the cracks that have begun to open up. Working with a serene quickness and runaway calm, with a dream-like realism and a rational imagination. The crisis of the PSOE and PP, together with the emergence of Podemos, is a first shake up that can only be understood as a prelude to what’s about to come. May 25 should be ‘the beginning of the beginning,’ electorally speaking.

Catalonia

In Catalonia, the mobilization behind the nationalist and pro-independence vote was very important, as the increase in participation shows (47.63% against 36.94% in 2009).

We have confirmed the existence of a broad majority for parties in favour of the right to decide. There is no doubt about it. The results show, once again, the impasse faced by the Partido Socialista Catalan (Catalan Socialist Party, PSC), which has no credibility either at the social or national level (358,539 votes, 14.28%, compared with 708,888, 36% in 2009). An exhausted PSC that won less votes than those obtained in the combined good showing for Iniciativa per Catalunya Verds-Esquerra Unida i Alternativa (Initiative for Catalonia Greens-United and Alternative Left, ICV-EUiA, 258,554, 10.30%) and Podemos (117,096, 4.66%).May 25 also reflects the existing equilibrium, one which polls had been predicting since the last election for parliament, between an Esquerra Republicana de Catalunya (Republican Left of Catalonia, ERC) that is affirming itself as the main political force in the Catalonia (594,149, 23.67%) and a declining Convergència i Unió (Convergence and Union, CiU, 548,718, 21.86%).

The celebration of the multi-referendum, held alongside the elections but unfortunately disavowed by a Central Electoral Court that continues to be a faithful exponent of the increasingly cosmetic character of our parliamentary democracy, has put on the table a big strategic question in the midst of the independence debate: broaden the right to decide to include all spheres of society.

Looking to the future, the proposal formulated by the Procés Constituent (Constituent Process) headed up by Arcadi Oliveres and Teresa Forcades for the next elections, of the broadest possible electoral bloc against austerity and in support of a Catalan republic, begins to resemble, in a strategic manner, the shake up that could see a new political actor emerge in Catalonia with the capacity to influence a dynamic in which the key party of the Catalan right, the CiU, is suffering what appears to be an irreversible decline.

And one in which those of us who want to “decide on everything” cannot content ourselves with being spectators or a minor nuisance.The next few months will be decisive. We are reaching a new period of acceleration of politics as the moment of truth approaches: the November 9 referendum. Far from being a solely Catalan affair, the independence movement summons together a whole set of political and social-democratic forces that support egalitarian social change of the whole state.The lack of convincing and audible voices supportive of the right to decide at the Spain-wide level has so far been deafening. The discomfort that the issue causes for the Spain-wide left is as understandable as it is strategically blind: if Rajoy is defeated in Catalonia, he will be mortally wounded, as will the regime for which he acts as guarantor.How can we support the Catalan independence movement in a way that does not aid the Spanish right’s ability to cohere its social base but instead helps to break through the dam of the transition? That is the question.

We need a dual strategy: first, the willingness of the Catalan left and the pro-sovereignty movement to seek allies outside of Catalonia and not confine itself to simply accumulating forces at the national level (which, moreover, creates an internal pressure toward “patriotic unity” under the leadership of [current president of Catalonia and chairperson of CiU, Artur] Mas); second, political solidarity from the Spanish wide left with the right to decide in Catalonia.

There, Podemos could play a key role.Although lop-sided, the game remains open and the ending is yet to be determined. In the future, when we look back, we will see that the current period was either the time when we suffered a historic defeat that led to a massive impoverishment of the majority of the population and an anti-democratic involution of the political system. Or alternatively, as the time when we pushed the “second Borbonic restauration” off its tracks.Which of the two alternative futures will win out? Without doubt, today we are determining what happens tomorrow. 

Josep Maria Antentas is a professor of sociology at the Autonomous University of Barcelona and a member of Esquerra Anticapitalista (Anti-capitalist Left) in Catalonia. Translated by Federico Fuentes for Links International Journal of Socialist Renewal where this article appeared.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Spain’s Economic and Social Crisis

Published in Philadelphia in early 1942, this ‘Outline of (the) Post-War New World Map’, created by Maurice Gomberg, shows a proposal to re-arrange the world after an Allied victory against the Axis forces. Its title refers to a ‘New World Order’, a vague concept, its many definitions often contradicting each other.

At the core of the NWO, however, is always the notion that a small group of powerful individuals, institutions, industries and/or nations must lead the world in the right direction (i.e. towards ‘unification’). This may be against the world’s own will (and therefore done covertly, at least in some versions of the NWO-story), but ultimately it is for its own good.

CLICK TO ENLARGE

http://www.globalresearch.ca/articlePictures/map1942world1600.jpg

http://strangemaps. files.wordpress. com/2008/ 06/1942world1600 .jpg

One of the most recent references to the NWO by a major political figure was made by US president George Bush (Sr), who explicitly used the NWO to refer to US objectives in a Post-Cold War world. The term has a pedigree much older than the Cold War, or even both World Wars. Some might even say – and now we’re straying somewhat prematurely into the field of conspiracy theory – that it goes all the way back to Roman times, as is attested by the (modified) quote of the Roman poet Virgil on the revers of the US Great Seal and (significantly or not, since 1935) on the back of the dollar bill: Novus Ordo Seclorum – literally: ‘A New Order for the Ages’.

In a modern context, it was the British imperialist Cecil Rhodes (who gave his name to Rhodesia) who first proposed a federal world government to be imposed by the US and the British Empire. US President Woodrow Wilson was inspired by a similar concept to draw up his plans for a League of Nations in the aftermath of World War I. Most fascist regimes in the 20s, 30s and 40s of the twentieth century also proposed some sort of NWO – in fact, most styled themselves to be a ‘New Order’. H.G. Wells – he of ‘War of the Worlds’ – wrote ‘The Open Conspiracy’ (1928) in which he describes his efforts to get intellectuals to back the idea of a World Social Democracy and ‘The New World Order’ (1940), in which he details how a generation of struggle will be necessary to overcome the opponents of such a global government.

The footer of the above map reads as follows:

•The United States of America (USA): the US, Canada, all Central American and Carribean states, most Atlantic islands (including Greenland and Iceland), most Pacific islands, Taiwan, Hainan, the Philippines and several now Indonesian islands, including Sulawesi. This was to be the dominant power in the world, military and otherwise.

•The Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (USSR): the Soviets were to be rewarded with Persia (Iran), Mongolia, Manchuria, Finland, and all of Eastern Europe, which subsequently would form part of the Eastern Bloc (excluding Albania, but including the real-life maverick state of Yugoslavia, socialist but anti-Soviet) . All of theses states were simply to become member-states of the USSR. Austria and most of Germany, although ‘quarantained’ are shown within the Soviet sphere.

•The United States of South America (USSA): including all South American states, with the three Guianas as a single constituent state and the Falkland Islands part of the USSA.

•The Union of African Republics (UAR): All of Africa as a federation of republics.

•The Arabian Federated Republics (AFR): covering Saudi and all other states now occupying the Arabian Peninsula, plus present-day Iraq and Syria.

•The Federated Republics of India (FRI): Present-day Afghanistan, Pakistan, India, Nepal, Bhutan, Bangladesh and Birma (Myanmar).

•The United Republics of China (URC): A federation including all parts of present-day China, Korea, the erstwhile French colony of Indochina (now Vietnam, Laos and Cambodia), Thailand and Malaya.

•The United States of Scandinavia (USS): Norway, Sweden, Denmark.

•The United States of Europe (USE): the Benelux countries, the German Rhineland, France, Switzerland, Spain, Portugal and Italy.

•And finally the British Commonwealth of Nations (BCN), including Great Britain, Australia, New Zealand, Sri Lanka, Madagascar and most of Indonesia.

Smaller entities include Eire (the whole of Ireland), Greece (including Albania), Turkey (excluding European Turkey), Hebrewland (the Holy Land plus Jordan) and Japan. The three axis states (Germany, Italy and Japan) were to be ‘quarantained’ until they could be readmitted in the family of nations.

Mr Gomberg possibly took his cue for this map from US president Franklin D. Roosevelt, whose speech about Four Freedoms and a Moral Order (from his State of the Union to the 77-th Congress) he quotes, before outlining his own vision (at the bottom of the map):

“As the USA with the cooperation of the Democracies of Latin-America, the British Commonwealth of Nations and the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, assumes world leadership for the establishment of a New World Moral Order for permanent peace, justice, security and world reconstruction.”

“OUR POLICY SHALL BE THIS:

1. We, the U.S.A., in cooperation with our allies, for reasons of our national safety and in the interests of international morality, are determined to crush and completely destroy the military power of the Axis aggressors, and their satellites regardless of cost, effort and time necessary to accomplish this task.

2. The old world order of colonial oppression, exploitation of dominions, rival imperialism and mercenary balance of power diplomacy; of majesties, dictators, privileged minorities, plutocratic monopolists and similar social parasites; the corrupted order responsible for the present world cataclysm, endangering our national safety and peaceful process, shall never rise again.

3. A New World Moral Order for permanent peace and freedom shall be established at the successful conclusion of the present war.

4. For reasons of history, economic structure, favorable geography and the welfare of mankind, the U.S.A. must, altruistically, assume the leadership of the newly established, democratic world order.

5. To reduce the burden and criminal waste of armaments expenditures everywhere in the world, the U.S.A., with the cooperation of Latin-America, the British Commonwealth of Nations, and the U.S.S.R. shall undertake to guarantee peace to the nations which will be permanently disarmed and demilitarized after the conclusion of the present war.

6. In order to be able, in the fulfillment of our obligations, to effectively prevent the possibility of a recurrence of another world cataclysm, the invincibility of the U.S.A. as a military, naval and air power, shall be the major prerequisite.

7. For realistic considerations of strategy and our invulnerability, it is imperative that the U.S.A. shall obtain relinquishment of controls of their possessions from all foreign Powers in the entire Western Hemisphere, it’s surrounding waters and strategic island outposts as outlined on accompanying map.

8. For considerations of hemispheric defense and in the spirit and tradition of the new Monroe Doctrine of hemispheric solidarity and the “Good Neighbor” policy, the U.S.A. with the consent of the Latin-American Republics, shall obtain control and protectorate rights of the relinquished territories.

9. To strengthen our position in the Caribbean area which is of obvious importance to hemispheric defense, all possible inducements shall be offered to our neighbors of Central America and the West Indies to facilitate their entrance as equal states of the U.S.A. as outlined on map.

10. To fortify the politico-economic unity of the Western Hemisphere, the U.S.A. shall promote and assist the unification of South America into a well organized, democratic, federated “United States of South America.”

11. The liberated British, French and Netherlands Guiana shall be reorganized as one state of the U.S.S.A.

12. All Powers shall relinquish their controls of their colonial, mandate and strategic island possessions everywhere in the world.

13. The British Commonwealth of Nations, the second military and naval Power of importance cooperating in a binding compact with the U.S.A. as a Power for freedom, shall retain and acquire control such territories, peace-security bases and strategic islands outposts essential for the maintenance of world peace and freedom as outlines on the map.

14. The U.S.S.R., the third military Power of importance cooperating with the U.S.A. as a Power for freedom and the maintenance of world peace, shall acquire control of the liberated, disorganized adjacent areas and those of Germany-Austria to be re-educated and eventually incorporated as equal republics of the U.S.S.R., as approximately outlined on map.

15. A world League of Nationalities with arbitration and supervision powers shall be organized.

16. A World Court with punitive powers of absolute boycott, quarantine, blockade and occupation by international police, against lawbreakers of international morality shall be organized.

17. The U.S.A. with the close cooperation of the United States of South America, the British Commonwealth of Nations, the U.S.S.R. and the World League of Nationalities, shall promote and assist in the unification of the relinquished territories and the areas at present unsoundly divided into well organized democratic and absolutely demilitarized republics as approximately on the map.

18. The areas known as Netherlands, Belgium, Luxemburg, Switzerland, France, Spain, Portugal, the island of Corsica, and eventually Italy and the islands of Sardinia and Sicily shall be unified as a demilitarized, federated “United States of Europe.”

19. The areas known as Sweden, Norway, Denmark and the Spitsbergen islands shall be unified as a demilitarized, federated “United States of Scandinavia.”

20. The continent of Africa shall be reorganized and unified as a demilitarized, federated “Union of African Republics.”

21. The areas of Saudi Arabia, Syria, Lebanon, Iraq, Hejas, Aden and Oman, shall be unified as a demilitarized union of “Arabian Federated Republics.”

22. The areas known as India, including Afghanistan, Baluchistan, Nepal, Bhutan and Burma shall be unified as a demilitarized “federated Republics of India.”

23. The areas known as China, Inner Mongolia, Tibet, Thailand, Malaya, Indo-China and Korea, shall be unified as a demilitarized, federated “United Republics of China.”

24. The areas known as Greece, Macedonia, Albania, Crete, Dodecanese and adjacent islands in the Aegean sea shall be unified as a demilitarized “Federal Republic of Greece.”

25. The areas known as Eire and Northern Ireland shall be unified as a demilitarized independent republic of “Eire.”

26. The area of the Holy Land of the ancient Hebrews, at present known as Palestine and Trans-Jordan, and the adjacent requisite regions as outlined on map, for considerations of history and the imperative necessity to alleviate a post war refugee problem, shall be unified as a demilitarized republic of “Hebrewland.”

27. The area known as European Turkey, adjacent to the Dardanelles, sea of Marmora and Bosporus, for considerations of realistic peace strategy shall be placed under joint control of the U.S.S.R. and Turkey.

28. The area known as Turkey shall be a demilitarized independent republic of “Turkey.”

29. All problems of exchange, transfer and repatriation of populations shall be administered by the World League of Nationalities.

30. The criminal perpetrators and their partners in guilt of this hideous war shall be brought to justice and unforgettable punishment administered.

31. All subjects of Japan and all persons of Japanese origin of doubtful loyalty shall be expelled from the entire Western Hemisphere, U.S.A. protectorates and strategic island outposts and their property confiscated for post-war reconstruction needs.

32. All subjects of Germany and Italy and all persons of German and Italian origin known as active supporters of Nazi and fascist ideologies shall be treated similarly.

33. German, Italian, Japanese immigration to the Western Hemisphere, its protectorates and island outposts shall be indefinitely stopped.

34. All persons of German origin in East Prussia and the Rhineland shall be transferred to inner Germany and the regions permanently de-Prussianized.

35. All persons of German, Italian and Japanese origin shall be permanently expelled from their now conquered territories and their property confiscated for post-war construction needs.

36. To cleanse the populations of the defeated Axis aggressors of the intoxication of military chauvinism; to effectuate the removal and destruction of their potential military establishments; to recover the accumulated loot and to re-educate them for their eventual membership in the Family of Nations, the areas of Germany-Austria, Italy and Japan shall be hermetically and indefinitely quarantined and administered by appointed Governors subject to supervision by the world League of Nationalities.

37. All resources, industrial and labor capacity of quarantined areas shall be employed for the post war restoration and reconstruction needs.

38. To reduce the numerical power of the aggressor nations, as a potential military advantage, a Population Control Policy shall be elaborated and applied in the quarantined area.

39. In the New World Moral Order which we seek to establish, besides the essential political freedoms, the following fundamental economic changes are imperative:

(a) Nationalization of all natural resources and equitable distribution of same to all nations…everywhere in the world;

(b) Nationalization of international banking, foreign investments, railroads and power plants….everywhere in the world;

(c) Nationalization of all armaments producing establishments by all military powers;

(d) Federal control of foreign commerce and shipping;

(e) The establishment of a world common monetary system;

(f) World wide limitations of interest rates to a maximum of two percent;

40. To retain the victory and leadership of our united democratic effort….the aim of which is not vengeance or exploitation, but freedom and security to all nations for peaceful progress….the unified “Supreme War Command of the United Nations” at the conclusion of the present war, shall be recognized and transformed into a permanent “Supreme Military and Economic Council” collaborating with the World League of Nationalities in post war construction and to enforce world peace.

41. The “Supreme Military and Economic Council” shall appoint the Governors to administer the quarantined areas until their eventual parole.

For this purposeful beginning we must fight until absolute victory.”

from:
http://strangemaps. wordpress. com/2008/ 06/06/286- the-new-world- moral-map/
1941 Map predicted future …
http://forum. prisonplanet. com/index. php?topic= 57864.msg289305# msg289305

Compare the 1942 Map to the US Commands, which reflect America’s deployment of military might and wars of conquest (Editor of Global Research)

This important article was first published on June 13, 2002,  revised on September 19, 2002.

In the immediate aftermath of the destruction of the World Trade Center, the finger of guilt was directed toward the only plausible author for such a sophisticated and ruthless act of terror – Osama bin Laden.

Throughout the late ’90’s, we were informed that bin Laden had declared war on America by reason of the American military presence on Saudi soil in the wake of the Persian Gulf War. We were told how bin Laden, ensconced in Afghanistan, headed up a world-wide terror franchise whose sophistication and global reach dwarfed that of the Iranian-financed Hizballah or Islamic Jihad (previously, the most widely known of the terror organizations among the masses in the Middle East).

Bin Laden’s organization, al-Qaida, was presented to us as something entirely new in the annals of terrorism – a far-flung, sophisticated empire of terror, possessing – possibly – weapons of mass destruction, while having no clear or viable state sponsor behind it (as the Afghani Taliban were merely its resident protectors).  In short, by September 11, the United States now had a bona fide enemy – and, as they say in criminal justice parlance, a suspect with motive, means, and opportunity.

And while I was a bit taken at how quickly – and confidently – the fingers were pointing only hours after the 9/11 bombings, I was positively shaken by the first red flag that popped up. His name was John O’Neill – or more precisely, he is the seam that shows. Dated September 12, in a Washington Post article by Vernon Loeb, it was revealed that O’Neill, who died in his capacity as head of security for the World Trade Center, was also formerly the New York FBI Counterterror chief responsible for the investigation into Osama bin Laden. That could perhaps be written off as one of those freak synchronicities. There were the other items – reported quite blandly, in that “there’s nothing to see here, folks” tone – that gave me that sinking feeling. Apparently, O’Neill had a falling-out with the Ambassador to Yemen over his investigative style and was banned from returning there. But then there was that other nugget that I had trouble digesting – that O’Neill had resigned from a thirty-year career in the FBI “under a cloud” over an incident in Tampa – and then left to take up the security position at the WTC (only two weeks before!).

The seam that shows…

For the bulk of his career, like most of his FBI colleagues, John O’Neill was largely unknown to the public at large – respected in his circle, to be sure, yet scarcely meriting much mention in the media – beyond being referenced now and then as an expert on counterterrorism. Yet in the few months leading up to September 11, O’Neill was now suddenly the subject of a series of seemingly unrelated controversies – the first, in July, involving his dispute with the State Department over the conduct of the bin Laden investigation in Yemen; and the second, in August, in which he was reported to be under an FBI probe for misplacing a briefcase of classified documents during an FBI convention in Tampa.

In the light of the aftermath of this second controversy – the documents were found, “untouched”, a few hours later – one wonders why this seemingly minor news would merit such lengthy coverage in the Washington Post and New York Times. Keeping in mind the fact that these latter articles on O’Neill appeared a mere three weeks before he was to die in the rubble of the Twin Towers, one wonders if this wasn’t a well-orchestrated smear campaign against O’Neill, with a bit of unintended “blowback” – as this now-discredited counterterror chief in charge of all bin Laden bombings would finally make the news as a fatal casualty of bin Laden’s final bombing. Coincidence? Or was there something more here that would bear investigating?

My gut told me that, in the months preceding September 11, somebody was out to either discredit John O’Neill or, alternatively, to plant disinformation that could later be used to divert any investigator from a fruitful reconstruction of the forces behind 9/11.  Or, quite possibly, was a mistake made – one pointing the way toward a plan whose scope goes well beyond the designs of Osama bin Laden? In other words, could we spot the telltale fingerprints of a propaganda campaign preceding 9/11?

Well, as they say, a hypothesis is only as good as its usefulness in ferreting out reality. My hypothesis: that the events of September 11 were planned by those who not only had the motive, means, and opportunity to carry out the plan, but also were best placed to manage the consequences stemming from it, as well as managing the flow of information. If this were an “inside job”, the first thing to do was to look at who conveyed specific information on bin Laden before – and I stress, before – 9/11, for they were most likely involved wittingly or not with those who masterminded it.

Virtually the first “smoking gun” was presented the day after 9/11, when Vernon Loeb and Dan Eggen reported in the Post that Abdel Bari Atwan, editor of the Al-Quds al Arabi newspaper in London, “received information that he [bin Laden] planned very, very big attacks against American interests” only three weeks before 9/11. Moreover, the article reported that Atwan “was convinced that Islamic fundamentalists aligned with bin Laden were ‘almost certainly’ behind the attacks.” Incidentally, Atwan had personally interviewed bin Laden in Afghanistan in 1996 – among the very few to do so. As reported by Michael Evans in the August 24, 1998 issue of The Times, Atwan “is trusted by bin Laden.”

Curious, perhaps, that Atwan seemed to be one of the major “point men” used in elaborating the Osama bin Laden “legend”, as they say in intelligence parlance. In a U.S. News article dated August 31, 1998, Atwan informs us that bin Laden “is a humble man who lives simply, eating fried eggs, tasteless low-fat cheese, and bread gritty with sand. He hates America.” No flash in the pan, this interviewer. Apparently, bin Laden kept Atwan’s business card tucked away in his toga pocket. “Bin Laden phoned this newspaper, phoned me last Friday,” Atwan revealed in an ABC News LateLine Transcript dated August 25, 1998. We’ll come back to ABC News shortly.

While solidly implicating bin Laden the day after 9/11, Atwan was also the media’s “go-to” guy back in 1998 when he informed us, after President Clinton bombed tool sheds in Afghanistan, that bin Laden issued this threat against the United States: “The battle has not started yet. The response will be with action and not words.” In the same article (which I took from Nando Times), ABC News is the source for an additional threat called in by Ayman al-Zawahiri, a senior bin Laden aide: “The war has just started. The Americans should wait for the answer.” Only a few months before that, ABC had conducted its televised interview of bin Laden. By the summer of 1998, primed by Atwan, ABC NEWS, and a surprisingly small clique of well-worn sources, we had come to know bin Laden as America’s latest “Saddam”, “Qaddafi”, “Noriega” – take your pick and set your bomb sites.

By October 2000, when the U.S.S. Cole was bombed in Yemen, in case there was any doubt, Atwan offered Reuters his helpful analysis with regards to the source of blame: “I do not rule out that this was undertaken by Osama bin Laden. Yemeni groups don’t have the experience to carry out this kind of operation.”  Atwan informed Reuters that bin Laden “was unlikely to claim direct responsibility for Thursday’s attack for fear of U.S. reprisals.” One can imagine, then, that Atwan gave his trusting phone mate cause for many a sleepless night. With friends like these…

Leading up to 9/11, by the Spring of 2001, an incriminating wedding videotape, apparently implicating bin Laden in the Yemen bombing, was circulating around the Middle East after being broadcast on the ubiquitous al-Jazeera television station (reconstituted from the BBC TV Arabic Service – more on them later). In the video, bin Laden, according to the Saudi-owned al-Hayat newspaper (more on them later, too), recited a poem celebrating the bombing of the U.S.S. Cole (shades of deja vu here?) This from the ABCNEWS.com site dated March 1: “Al-Hayat, which carried a photo of bin Laden and his son at the wedding, said its correspondent was the only journalist at the ceremony, also attended by bin Laden’s mother, two brothers and sister who flew to Kandahar from Saudi Arabia.”

And yes, here, too, Atwan offers his thoughtful review of the bin Laden video, courtesy of PTI, datelined London June 22, 2001:

“[Atwan] said the video was proof that the fugitive Saudi millionaire [the Bruce Wayne of terrorists] was fit, well equipped and confident enough to send out a call to arms.”

Why this sudden need for proof? According to Atwan in the same article:

“There have been rumours that [bin Laden] is ill and that he is being contained by the Taliban in Afghanistan. It is quite clear from the film that he is in good health to the point where he can fire a rifle, and is free to operate as he chooses.”

In other words, limber enough for his starring role in the months ahead.

So who is Abdel Bari Atwan and why is he anxious to tell us so much? According to the Winter 1999 issue of INEAS (Institute of Near Eastern and African Studies), Abdel Bari Atwan, a Palestinian, was born in a refugee camp in the Gaza Strip in 1950. Educated at the American University of Cairo, Atwan moved to Saudi Arabia and worked as a writer for the al-Madina newspaper. In 1978, he moved to London, where he became a correspondent for the Saudi-owned Asharq Al-Awsat newspaper. In 1988, after shuffling around between Saudi-owned papers, Atwan was offered a position as editor of al-Quds al-Arabi. By his account, he was offered a position as the executive editor of the Saudi-owned al-Hayat (of the bin Laden wedding video coup), yet turned it down to produce a more independent newspaper as a challenge to the “empires” of the Saudi-dominated dailies.

Al-Quds began production in April 1989. A little more than a year later, Saddam invaded Kuwait and al-Quds stood alone as the only Arab newspaper opposed to the Persian Gulf War – at least by Atwan’s account. According to Atwan: “Without the Gulf War, we wouldn’t have taken such political lines, which made us well recognized and well respected.” In November 1996, Bari-Atwan braved a twelve-hour car ride through muddy roads, attired in shabby Afghani rags in below-zero weather, and gave us the early scoop on bin Laden, conducting a one-on-one interview in bin Laden’s [bat]cave. From then on, the mainstream media – CNN, ABC, BBC, Sky News – looked to Bari-Atwan and al-Quds as the “independent” voice of the Arab street.

Incidentally, in a discussion concerning the matter of Saudi domination of the Arabic media, taken from the Carryon.oneworld.org site, Atwan, as editor of his struggling independent, was facing off against Jihad Khazen, the editor of the Saudi-owned al-Hayat. As Atwan proudly related in support of his independence: “One day I was called by the BBC-TV Arabic service [whose staff later reconstituted itself as al-Jazeera television]: ‘There’s a story on your front page today, saying such and such. Is it true?’ I asked why he should doubt it and he replied: ‘It’s not published in al-Hayat [his job offer] or al-Sharq al-Awsat [his alma mater].’ ” Atwan boasts: “At least I can say we are 95 to 96 per cent independent” – leaving out the 4 to 5 per cent spent on bin Laden, I presume. Whether or not al-Quds truly is independent, this is the cover story the mainstream media buys into when they come trolling for their “independent” evidence.

So, to elaborate further on this (so far) fruitful hypothesis, it is my contention that al-Qaida and bin Laden are elaborate “legends” set up to promote a plausibly sophisticated and ferocious enemy to stand against American interests. I am not, however, implying that bin Laden himself is a total fabrication. Rather, it is my contention that confederates, believing themselves to act on behalf of bin Laden, are being set up in a “false flag operation” to perform operations as their controllers see fit.  And who are these controllers? If they’re anything resembling the folks who brought you Hizbullah and Hamas, you wouldn’t be sweating the suitcase nukes (made in America), the Ames strain anthrax (made in America), the MI5-like “sleeper agents” and coded “go” messages. Instead, you would be dodging primitive nail bombs and road mines – and not needing Abdel Bari Atwan to feed you the lowdown on the blame.

In view of the fact that bin Laden is of Saudi origin, that much of the “evidence” on the Arab side initially originated from Saudi-owned or Gulf Anglo-client state sources, and that Saudi Arabia is the major financial sponsor of the Taliban brand of fundamentalism in Afghanistan (as a counter-point to Iran), I believe it is fair to say that Saudi Arabia might possibly be implicated. ” Most likely, the Saudis performed their roles as subservient proxies. We’ll get to the ultimate controllers soon enough (if you haven’t already guessed where this is going). And now, to fill out the picture further, it is necessary to name an equally essential partner as proxy – Pakistan, or, more specifically, Pakistan’s version of the CIA – the ISI (Interservices Intelligence Directorate).

And this is where we begin to “close the circle” of our close-knit pre-9/11 propaganda clique. Returning again to the above-mentioned Dan Eggen and Vernon Loeb Post article of September 12, we’re offered – in a powerful little side-bar – more critical evidence implicating bin Laden for the attacks the day before. This time, the bombshell is offered by Palestinian journalist Jamal Ismail, Abu Dhabi Television’s bureau chief in Islamabad. According to Ismail, a bin Laden aide called him “early Wednesday on a satellite telephone from a hide-out in Afghanistan,” praising the attack yet denying any responsibility for it.  As it turns out, Ismail was also among the select few to conduct his very own bin Laden interview, published by Newsweek in its April 1, 1999 issue. Here is how Newsweek described Ismail’s good fortune: “Palestinian journalist Jamal Ismail’s mobile phone rang just before prayers on December 18. ‘Peace be upon you, ‘ said the voice on the line. ‘You may not recognize me, but I know you.’ ” And thus was Jamal Ismail invited on his own mud-soaked incursion to the bin Laden [bat]cave.

Searching deeper, I found an interesting obscure article penned by respected Pakistani journalist Rahimullah Yusufszai in The News Jang, and dated May 3, 2000.  It details the detention of two men of Kurdish origin, accused by the Taliban of spying for American and Israeli intelligence. As Yusufszai relates it, he spoke to the only journalists allowed by the Taliban to interview the detained men – Jamal Ismail and his cameraman. Apparently, Ismail had a special relationship with the Taliban, allowing him this rare privilege above other journalists. And, as we shall shortly see, so does Yusufszai.  One wonders who debriefs them at the end of a workday. But more interestingly, by May 5, as reported by Kathy Gannon for the Associated Press, the story acquires – as they say – “new legs.” Not only are the basic elements of the Yusufszai story mentioned, but the article leads off with the bombshell that one of the detained men revealed that he was recruited by the United States to find Osama bin Laden. It finishes with a little coda implicating bin Laden in the 1998 embassy bombings. Thus, in the space of two days, Yusufszai’s Pakistani “spy” article sprouts a bin Laden addition when fertilized by the American Associated Press – and nicely provides a plausible explanation as to why a Kurd would be prowling around Afghanistan on behalf of the United States.

Yusufszai, incidentally, moonlighted as an ABC News producer, charged with guiding ABC News correspondent John Miller through the Afghani marshes to the bin Laden [bat]cave – one of the very few American journalists to be accorded such an honour (and also, as it happens, a good friend of bin Laden arch-foe John O’Neill. But not chummy enough to direct O’Neill on to bin Laden’s hideaway). Moreover, Ismail and Yusufszai are mentioned together in a CNN article posted January 4, 1999 – the former for his Newsweek interview, the latter for his own bin Laden dialogue for TIME Magazine the day later.

Rahimullah Yusufszai, regarded by New York Times reporters John Burns and Steve LeVine as “one man who has seen more of the Taliban than any other outsider,” is also named by The Nation, in its article of January 27, 1997, as “one of the favourite journalists of [Pakistan’s] ISI…one of the organizations funding and arming the Taliban. ”

It’s a small world after all. In the September 29, 2001 article of PressPlus, Yusufszai’s ABC colleague, John Miller, mused about running into his buddy John O’Neill in Yemen while reporting on the U.S.S. Cole bombing the year before. “He said, ‘So this is the Elaine’s of Yemen.’ ”

“There is a terrible irony to all this,” Miller said. I’ll say: Miller, one of the very few Americans who can give a first-hand account of bin Laden, bumps into his friend, bin Laden’s chief investigator, while both are investigating a bombing in Yemen that will later be tagged onto bin Laden – and only a year before O’Neill dies at the hands of… allegedly …bin Laden.

Now, following the logic of my hypothesis, if the bin Laden threat was, pre-9/11, a close-knit propaganda campaign, one would expect to find the same names showing up repeatedly in combination with one another. This, too, applies to the American commentators. Let us return to the August 1998 American bombings of bin Laden’s tool sheds as an example. The night of the bombing, Rahimullah Yusufszai received a call from bin Laden aide Ayman al-Zawahiri, in a report from the Associated Press. Later, Yusufszai obtained for ABC News exclusive photos of the damage to bin Laden’s camp. Further commentary describing the layout of the bin Laden camp was furnished to the Washington Post by former CIA analyst and terrorism expert Kenneth Katzman, as well as Harvey Kushner of Long Island University. Only little more than a week before that, Katzman and Kushner were offering their assessment of bin Laden’s culpability for the embassy bombings in Africa in a Washington Post article penned by Vernon Loeb and Walter Pincus. They were joined in this effort by Vincent Cannistraro, the ABC news analyst who also escorted John Miller to his bin Laden interview, as well as provided running commentary in the days immediately following 9/11. Cannistraro, a former CIA counterterrorism chief, provided covert aid to the Afghani mujaheddin in the late ’80’s, as well as supervised CIA operations with the contras. He was also one of the point men in the notoriously circumspect investigation at Lockerbie. In the above-noted Loeb and Pincus article – in which bin Laden is quoted from the ABC News Miller and Yusufszai interview – Cannistraro weighs in with his assessment of the embassy bombings: “I believe Osama bin Laden is the sponsor of this operation, and I think all of the indications are pointing that way.”

Soon after the bombing of the U.S.S. Cole in Yemen, a Vernon Loeb Post article, dated October 13, 2000, proceeded to implicate bin Laden through the detailed information provided by Kushner, Katzman, and Cannistraro.  Earlier, in a Vernon Loeb Post article dated July 3, 2000, Yusufszai, Kushner, and Cannistraro unveiled bin Laden aides Ayman al-Zawahiri and Muhammed Atef as the men to watch as bin Laden’s likely successors, with a helpful tidbit on the Zawahiri biography thrown in by the Saudi-owned al-Sharq al-Awsat.

None of the above, of course, is offered as the “smoking gun” pointing the way to a propaganda conspiracy, nor are my chosen examples meant to be exhaustive in evidencing this point.  According to Felicity Barringer, in a New York Times article dated September 24, 2001:  “A good deal of the public information on bin Laden comes from the journalists who went to Afghanistan to interview him, including [Peter] Bergen, … Peter Arnett, John Miller, Rahimullah Yusufzai, and Jamal Ismail.”  The article further makes reference to Vernon Loeb, Al Quds al-Arabi (Atwan), Judith Miller, Al Jazeera, and Brian Jenkins (formerly of Kroll Associates – the security firm that obtained the WTC position for John O’Neill by way of Jerry Hauer).  Clearly, I have also not heretofore made mention of the other experts who have worked assiduously toward building our knowledge base on bin Laden – Steven Emerson, Daniel Pipes, Yossef Bodansky, and various British and EU elites. However, the above examples do show how the information flow on bin Laden could be plausibly managed by the skilfully placed revelations of a relatively insular clique of “experts” called upon repeatedly by the mainstream media.

Here is how it would work:  A relatively few well-connected correspondents provide the “scoops” that get the coverage in the relatively few mainstream news sources – the four TV networks, TIME, Newsweek, CNN – where the parameters of debate are set and the “official reality” is consecrated for the bottom feeders in the news chain. In other countries, this is what is known as propaganda – or, put less politely, psychological warfare.

But before I leave this topic, I would like to provide an example of “news management” that is revealing for what is omitted – that is, the “smoking gun” of Pakistani ISI involvement in the events of 9/11.  On October 9, 2001, the Times of India dropped this little bombshell:  “Top sources confirmed here on Tuesday that [ISI Chief Mahmud Ahmad] lost his job because of the “evidence” India produced to show his links to one of the suicide bombers that wrecked the World Trade Centre. The US authorities sought his removal after confirming the fact that $100,000 were wired to WTC hijacker Mohammed Atta from Pakistan by Ahmad Umar Sheikh at the instance of Gen. Mahmud.”

 What makes this particular piece so devastating is that only days before, much of the mainstream American media was touting the news of a “key link” in the chain of evidence linking bin Laden to the events of September 11 – namely, a $100,000 wire transfer to the hijackers from a shadowy operative linked to bin Laden.  Yet once this operative was “outed” as being linked instead to the Pakistani ISI Chief, any propaganda gains initially made through this evidence would now crumble.  One possible reason might stem from this Karachi News item, released only two days before September 11:

“[Pakistani] ISI Chief Lt-Gen Mahmood’s week-long presence in Washington has triggered speculation about the agenda of his mysterious meetings at the Pentagon and National Security Council. Officially, State Department sources say he is on a routine visit in return to [sic] CIA Director George Tenet’s earlier visit to Islamabad…What added interest to his visit is the history of such visits. Last time Ziauddin Butt, Mahmood’s predecessor, was here during Nawaz Sharif’s government the domestic politics turned topsy-turvy within days. That this is not the first visit by Mahmood in the last three months shows the urgency of the ongoing parleys…”

In other words, this was a propaganda piece that went disastrously wrong. After October 9, bin Laden’s alleged paymaster could now be linked to a U.S. “ally” who spent the days before 9/11 in deep consultation at the Pentagon.  The US authorities immediately went into damage control mode by insisting on the quiet retirement of the “outed” ISI chief. Thus removed from the public eye, the ISI Chief’s role in all this could be effectively ignored, and an American media black-out could be safely assumed.

Such a scenario certainly fits in snugly with my hypothesis, which I will now proceed to elaborate completely. The events of September 11 were masterminded by those who were in the best position to manage the consequences – namely, those most able to manage the flow of information, those most able to coordinate all the elements necessary for the perpetration of a successful operation (subverting airport security, guiding the planes to their specific targets), and most significantly, those who stood to reasonably benefit in the aftermath. Conspiracies, by their very nature, are not crimes of passion. They may involve rational, albeit cold-blooded, attempts to achieve a desired end by employing the most effective means available. It is for this reason that “mainstream” terror groups like Hamas and Hizbullah largely avoid attacking American interests where such attacks would serve no practical interest. For all their talk of Jihad, these terror groups tend to plan their specific attacks with an eye to the consequences that could reasonably be expected to follow. Thus, knowing the moral and political constraints of Israeli deterrent strategies, they calibrate their attacks to elicit consequences that are most tolerable for them – and hence, manageable. Yet surely, in the light of the cult of suicidal martyrdom, such considerations no longer hold sway. Perhaps. But then, in the case of such a far-flung anti-Zionist movement as al-Qaida, one would expect at least a little more exertion against Israeli interests than has heretofore prevailed – unless, of course, the “point” of al-Qaida was to provide a plausible dire threat to American interests where none had then existed. In any case, as nobody has noticed this particular anomaly, there was no need for any needless exertion of resources in order to bolster a credibility that needed no bolstering in this one particular sector.

Motive, means, and opportunity. While I presented the Saudis and Pakistani intelligence as clear-cut proxies, the only motive these elements would have to benefit from a crime of this nature is an assurance that no punishment would be forthcoming but rather, they would be on the right side of power and wealth among those in a position to determine the booty.

Another anomaly: on the very day that the ISI Chief was in deep consultation at the Pentagon, Ahmed Shah Massoud, the head of the Afghani Northern Alliance – a cultishly popular figure within that group, and a mortal foe of Pakistan’s ISI – was assassinated by two terrorists posing as cameramen. Keeping in mind the fact that, throughout the ’90’s, American leaders such as Clinton, and American companies such as Unocal, were largely throwing their support over to the Taliban in opposition to the Northern Alliance (or United Front), it seems rather convenient that, in the aftermath of 9/11, the way was now cleared for the Northern Alliance to be co-opted as an instrument for setting up a more pliant Afghani government (now headed, incidentally, by a former consultant to Unocal).

So who are the ultimate controllers? To begin with, the circumstantial evidence seems to point to an operative clique primarily based out of New York City and the State of Florida. I stress the word “operative”, as this clique appears to consist of subservient agents involved in laying the preparations. Once again, John O’Neill serves as an effective Rosetta Stone in interpreting the raw outlines of this operative clique (which is by no means a “rogue” clique). The FBI and CIA elements involved in counterterrorism have a checkered past. For one, Oliver North in the 1980’s served as Counterterrorism Chief while he used his office as a cover to deal with such narco-terrorists as Monzar al-Kassar (who figures in the crash at Lockerbie – also investigated by Cannistraro). In the late ’90’s, O’Neill was transferred from the federal office of Counterrorism to the New York Counterrorism Office of the FBI – and it was the New York branch which was then designated as the primary investigator of all overseas investigations involving bin Laden. Moreover, this branch was also involved in the somewhat suspect investigation of TWA 800 – investigated by O’Neill and reported upon by ABC’s John Miller, who was formerly the Deputy Police Commissioner of Public Relations for the NYPD before he joined up with ABC.

 As regards New York, there is another element involved in germ warfare operations. Actually, a multi-million dollar bunker – serving as a command and control center in the event of a biological attack – was set up at 7 World Trade Center at the direction of Rudolph Giuliani, who also oversaw the mass spraying of malathion over the boroughs of New York City when the West Nile Virus hit town a few summers previously.  The man Giuliani placed in charge of that operation, Jerry Hauer, also happened to be the man who found John O’Neill the position at the World Trade Center, as well as being the one who – by his own admission – identified O’Neill’s body.

Moreover, there has been a widespread campaign on to link the threat of al-Qaida with that of a mass biological attack. At least the day after September 11, the link – as the Anthrax mailings had yet to arise – was not so apparent. Yet on PBS’ Frontline, the New York Times’ Judith Miller (no apparent relation to John Miller, as far as I’m aware), accompanied by the New York Times’ James Risen, was interviewed as an expert on al-Qaida. Several weeks later, Judith Miller would once more make the headlines as the apparent recipient of an anthrax mailing which turned out to be a false alarm – yet was all the same conveniently timed with the well-publicized launching of her book on…germ warfare. As was later discovered, the anthrax mailings petered out once the news leaked that a DNA test revealed the material to be of the Ames strain of anthrax, an agent synthesized out of a CIA laboratory in Fort Detrick, Maryland.  Nevertheless, this was sufficient to fast-track Bioport’s exclusive license for the anthrax vaccine toward FDA approval. Formerly, Bioport’s experimental anthrax vaccine was being forcibly administered – under threat of court-martial – to hundreds of thousands of American servicemen (in conformity with Bioport’s exclusive and lucrative contract with the Department of Defense).

 Incidentally, Judith Miller, along with Jerry Hauer, was among 17 “key” participants in a biowarfare exercise known as “Dark Winter” – a think tank-funded scenario that aimed to study the nationwide effects of a hypothetical smallpox outbreak.  One of the sponsors of that exercise was the Anser Institute of Homeland Security, an organization established before September 11, 2001.  Interestingly enough, the curious phrase “homeland security” was starting to creep up with increasing frequency in the vocabularies of certain political cliques (Dick Cheney, the Hart-Rudman Commission, et al.) in the year or two leading up to 9/11. 

The point of the above-noted information is to draw attention to an apparent propaganda campaign to prepare the public for a catastrophic biological attack. As with the Twin Towers, the blame for any coming attack may be duly and plausibly assigned by those who carefully laid the groundwork in preparing us for this eventuality.

As for Florida, the connection with this state is obvious, for not only was the first anthrax mailing directed to the Florida offices of the National Enquirer, but many of the accused hijackers were also reported to receive their pilot training from flight schools in Venice and Tampa. Notably, it was a Florida bank account to which hijacker Mohamed Atta allegedly deposited his 9/11 pay cheque.  Moreover, Florida, by way of the MacDill Air Force Base, is also Central Command for the war in Afghanistan.  In addition to its function as Central Command for the war on terrorism, MacDill is -outside of Langley – also a major base of the CIA. Thus, in the CIA’s own backyard, we find the infrastructure and financial support that went into the planning for the events of 9/11. And, as we so often find with events surrounding 9/11, another synchronicity – for coincidentally enough, the woman who reportedly happened to find an apartment for one of the alleged hijackers was the wife of the senior editor of the National Enquirer. Moreover, her husband, Michael Irish, also happened to make use of an airfield that reportedly served as flight training for some of the hijackers. I emphasize the word “reportedly,” as the possibility always exists that this “reported fact” may be nothing more than disinformation, strategically placed to divert attention from a possibly more subtle truth.  In intelligence operations, foreign assets are often placed with resident “controllers” whose job it is to supervise the asset as well as provide accommodations as the need arises. Who are Michael and Gloria Irish? Or, perhaps more revealingly, what kind of social circles do they run with? This is certainly an avenue worth exploring – by reason of its many synchrocities if for nothing else. Again, the seam that shows.

As a little side-note, Tampa experienced its own mass spraying of malathion, a mutagenic pesticide, when it encountered a med fly outbreak the year before New York’s West Nile outbreak.  In the end, the flies were contained through a sterile med fly program administered out of MacDill Air Force base.

So, to sum up, it appears that the events of September 11 were planned years in advance, with the groundwork being carefully laid by a propaganda campaign orchestrated to convince the public that the United States has a plausibly sophisticated nemesis with the motive, means, and opportunity to perpetrate a devastating act of terror against Americans. Toward that end, Saudi Arabia and Pakistan have been used as the primary proxy agents to run a “false flag” operation, setting up and financing the infrastructure of al-Qaida in Afghanistan. Through madrassas based in Pakistan, Saudi and Yemenite militants were instructed in the Saudi brand of Wahabbi Islam, and subsequently “graduated” to the camps that were set up in Afghanistan – again, under Saudi and Pakistani sponsorship. Stateside, the operative agents were mostly based out of New York City and Florida. In the aftermath of 9/11, elements in the American government are now widely disseminating information in vast quantities, overwhelming the populace and lending credibility to the government’s version of events. Thus, post-9/11, the actions of this formerly insular propaganda clique are no longer perceptible. Information is now being doled out in generous portions to credulous reporters who are outside the loop, yet perform their unwitting service as “bottom feeders” in the downward flow of information.

In all cases, the actions of these proxy agents and operative planners are sufficiently distanced and compartmentalized from the true masterminds to create a condition of “plausible deniability”. In short, the proxies have also been set up as possible patsies with evidence that has been carefully laid to incriminate them should cracks in the “official story” become too discernible. Moreover, the groundwork has already been carefully laid to cast aspersions on another convenient patsy – the Jews, by way of the State of Israel and its supporters. Already, for those prone to perceive Jewish conspiracies, the reliable vein of anti-Semitism – combined with anti-Zionism – has been mined to distract the masses and to create a modern version of the ritual blood libel, thereby further “muddying the waters” should the true masterminds be threatened with exposure. In other words, the present difficulties in the Middle East work perfectly to set up the State of Israel as a plausible alternative suspect with motive, means, and opportunity. Toward that end, a low-level “buzz” has been circulating over the Internet (and especially in Europe) of an Israeli spy ring that was rounded up in the days after September 11.  Whether or not these reports are credible is not the point.  Most likely, there was a spy ring operating, and various Israelis were unwittingly set up as patsies, to be exposed should the need arise. Thus, while evidence may be marshaled to taint the Saudis, Pakistanis, or Israelis, the real guilt must inevitably lie with those in the best position to manage the flow of information as well as reliably benefit from the new order created, primarily, the political and corporate elites of the United States, the United Kingdom, and the European Union – also, as it happens, the very parties orchestrating the global war on terrorism. In this respect, the Saudis, Pakistanis, or Israelis have far less to gain (other than the benefits of going along with the designs of the rich and mighty).

I could go on and further highlight the obvious geostrategic gains of those who are clearly managing the flow of information – the proverbial pipelines, oil, wealth, and so forth. But I think those purported benefits are a bit of a “red herring” – more of a side benefit than the main motivating factor. Americans and their allies would have easily supported a thrust into Afghanistan for a provocation far less costly and bloody than this (such as Kuwait in the early ’90’s).  It is no small act to intentionally take down such an overarching symbol of financial stability as the Twin Towers, and chance killing thousands in the process. Such a conspiracy, if in fact perpetrated from within, would by its nature necessitate a huge structural, cultural, and demographic change. The very brazenness of the act, the naked aggression, would necessitate a tenacious determination to achieve the ends for which these actions were perpetrated.  There is no going back now. An infrastructure is being laid out – one that will, finally, provide a dissident-proof totalitarian oligarchy composed of like-minded elites served by an under-class kept under constant surveillance. The edifice of this regime is being constructed, brick by brick, with the mortar of the Office of Homeland Security (to centralize and coordinate an effective police state), the Freedom Corps (to indoctrinate the most idealist – and therefore activist – elements of the populace toward service to the state), and the Patriot Act (to provide the legal basis for subverting long-held rights under the screen of national security). If all of this sounds strangely familiar, if it is redolent of Huxley and Orwell, that is perhaps because Huxley and Orwell were both intimately involved with the elites of their time – in fact, were fully subsumed among them – in ways that made their future projections abundantly prescient, and, in their minds, inevitable. With further refinements in mind control technologies – yes, they do exist – as well as the monopolization of the food supply by way of sterile seed “terminator technology” – the approval for which was granted in the months following 9/11 – the masses may be perpetually culled and exploited by those who hold the keys to this fully managed society.

If this notion of reality strikes you as somewhat dissonant, at odds with your own personal experience, it may be perhaps that we have not quite arrived there yet, and that you have personally not felt the corrosive lash of political corruption and governmental malfeasance. In all likelihood, you have not read the mountain of evidence detailing political and elite deviant behaviour in this country. You may even be dismissive of “conspiracy theories”, yet wholly unaware of the well-documented attempts by the CIA and FBI to subvert, surveil, and propagandize the populace through programs such as Project Mockingbird (media infiltration) and MK-Ultra (mind control through chemical, hypnotic, or electro-magnetic means). These programs are effected primarily through “think tanks” that are set up across the United States for the purpose of disseminating information and propaganda under the rubric of “expertise”. Moreover, various foundations, such as the Rockefeller or Ford Foundations, are often used as funnels to finance and feed the arteries of these propaganda networks. In the 1970’s, a good deal of this structural corruption was officially exposed – in a “limited hang-out” – by way of the Church Commission, as well as the House Select Committee on Assassinations. Thereafter, much of the most damaging revelations were played down or ignored by the mainstream media, and the waters were then muddied by a stream of outlandish conspiracy theories – aliens, Elvis, etc. – that merely served to discredit the information that was most credible. “Muddying the waters”, incidentally, is a tried and true staple of the intelligence craft.

It is really just a matter of familiarizing yourself with all the documented anomalies that do not accord with the received, mainstream reality put forth to you by the mainstream media. As a practical guide to begin, you might want to confine your search to strictly “mainstream” sources, as I have sought to do in attempting to construct my case on 9/11. My evidence is by no means exhaustive. In fact, it is merely the proverbial tip of the iceberg. Yet proceeding in this direction, under my hypothesis, has been most fruitful in analyzing the various anomalies that pop up now and then.

Any simple keyword search of the following terms may be helpful in pointing toward a more substantive understanding of the elites who ultimately guide your fortunes: “Iran-Contra” , “Mena”, “BCCI”, “Project Paperclip”, “Michael Aquino”, “Paul Bonacci”, “Operation Northwoods”, “MK-Ultra”. Much of the information on these topics is credible and well-documented. More disturbingly, it highlights behavior committed by the very same elites who are now interpreting the events of 9/11 for you. Read for yourself, and decide, at the end of the day, how much credibility you will continue to accord to those who claim to be the proper trustees of your fate and well-being.Chaim  Kupferberg is a freelance researcher and writer.

The original article URL of this article is:
http://globalresearch.ca/articles/KUP206A.html

 

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on The Propaganda Preparation of 9/11. Al-Qaeda and Bin Laden are Elaborate “Legends”

Note: This paper was presented at the Left Forum held at John Jay College of Criminal Justice of the City University of New York during May 30-June 1, 2014. The panel hosted by the International League of People’s Struggle (ILPS) was entitled “The Economics of Imperialism in the 21st Century” and was chaired by Gary Labao of the New York Committee for Human Rights in the Philippines. In addition to Abayomi Azikiwe, the panel also featured Bernadette Elorin, the chairperson of BAYAN USA, Berta Joubert-Ceci of the Women’s International Democratic Federation and Bill Doares, Vice-Chair of the International League of People’s Struggle, U.S. chapter.

V.I. Lenin   provided the most comprehensive as well as succinct definition of imperialism in his famous book, “Imperialism, the Highest Stage of Capitalism” that was published during World War I. In this book Lenin deals with changing character of imperialism and the supremacy of international finance capital as the dominant interests within the world capitalist system.

After nearly a century, Lenin’s study of the changing economic character of world capitalism remains important in understanding the nature of international relations and the class character of modern society. Wealth has become even more concentrated during the first two decades of the 21st century despite monumental strides in the areas of technological development and industrial productivity.

Lenin said in Chapter VII of this above-mentioned work that

“If it were necessary to give the briefest possible definition of imperialism we should have to say that imperialism is the monopoly stage of capitalism. Such a definition would include what is most important, for, on the one hand, finance capital is the bank capital of a few very big monopolist banks, merged with the capital of the monopolist associations of industrialists; and, on the other hand, the division of the world is the transition from a colonial policy which has extended without hindrance to territories unseized by any capitalist power, to a colonial policy of monopolist possession of the territory of the world, which has been completely divided up.”

The two World Wars fought during the first half of the 20th century were designed to carve up the spoils of colonial conquest and exploitation. Nonetheless, these wars could not resolve the quest for hegemony by the imperialist states, of course, due to the intervention of the masses of workers and peasants who rose up during the aftermath of these conflagrations.

Imperialism and Neo-Colonialism

Dr. Kwame Nkrumah, a leader in the Gold Coast Revolution (later Ghana) and a proponent of Pan-Africanism and Socialism, later identified neo-colonialism as the final phase of imperialism in a book he published in 1965 entitled “Neo-Colonialism: The Last Stage of Imperialism” issued on the eve of his removal from power by a Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) engineered coup in Feb. 1966. The colonial and semi-colonial powers may relinquish the appearance of control through the recognition of independent states and their governments, yet they maintain their quest for hegemony through the control of the international division of labor and the dominance over the economic relations of production, ownership and trade.

Nkrumah wrote in the chapter entitled “The Mechanisms of Neo-Colonialism,” that

“Faced with the militant peoples of the ex-colonial territories in Asia, Africa, the Caribbean and Latin America, imperialism simply switches tactics. Without a qualm it dispenses with its flags, and even with certain of its more hated expatriate officials. This means, so it claims, that it is ‘giving’ independence to its former subjects, to be followed by ‘aid’ for their development. Under cover of such phrases, however, it devises innumerable ways to accomplish objectives formerly achieved by naked colonialism. It is this sum total of these modern attempts to perpetuate colonialism while at the same time talking about ‘freedom’, which has come to be known as neo-colonialism.”

In the following paragraph, Nkrumah then goes on to identify the principal enemy of the forces of national liberation, anti-imperialism and socialism throughout the world. He notes that

“Foremost among the neo-colonialists is the United States, which has long exercised its power in Latin America. Fumblingly at first she turned towards Europe, and then with more certainty after world war two when most countries of that continent were indebted to her. Since then, with methodical thoroughness and touching attention to detail, the Pentagon set about consolidating its ascendancy, evidence of which can be seen all around the world.”

These words still carry resonance in the second decade of the 21st century. The motivations behind imperialist militarism are based upon their attempts to maintain control of the economic resources of the world.

In relationship to the situation in Africa today there appears to be a counter-narrative related to the reports of phenomenal economic growth while at the same time the ominous threat of “global terrorism” provides a rationale for deepening military and intelligence interventions. Although the U.S. is leading in this approach, other imperialist states such as France, Britain, Canada and Germany are also heavily involved.

The formation of the United States Africa Command (AFRICOM) signaled a renewed threat to the sovereignty of the continent. In this current phase of post-colonial history, the Pentagon, the CIA and NATO forces along with the State of Israel are involved in numerous African states.

Under the guise of providing emerging African states with assistance in enhancing their internal security apparatuses to guard against “terrorism,” the African Union member-states are becoming less stable and incapable of resolving their own internal problems. This contradiction also has served to undermine the tenuous existence of African unity as demonstrated in the EU-Africa summit held in Brussels, Belgium.

The Domestic Character of Neo-Colonialism

When the character of imperialism is analyzed it cannot be merely limited to foreign policy concerns of the Western capitalist states. Within the domestic confines of these countries there are oppressed nations that have been subjected to domination and super-exploitation.

In the U.S., the growing populations of African Americans, Latinos, Asian Americans, Middle Eastern communities, etc., are creating the conditions for major shifts in the political culture of the country. Consequently, a renewed series of attacks are being carried out against these populations under the rubric of privatization aimed at capitalist re-structuring.

For example in Detroit, the banks have driven nearly a quarter-of-a-million people, mainly African Americans, from the city over the last decade-and-a-half. This assault on the population was carried out utilizing economic means such as home foreclosures and predatory municipal lending engineered by the financial institutions.

The imposed emergency management and forced bankruptcy of Detroit, the largest per capita African American populated municipality in the U.S., was carried out not by the people who live in the city but by racist right-wing governor utilizing a dictator who works as an agent of the banks.

This is why we raised the slogan “Cancel the Debt.” We realize that the current situation was created by the criminal actions of international finance capital carried out on a domestic level.

These attacks against the people of Detroit and other municipalities in Michigan, most of whom have majority African American populations, are also designed to set a precedence for the nationwide seizure of public pension funds, public assets, the privatization of schools, the driving down of wages and the theft of any semblance of even bourgeois democratic practice and norms. This is why the most advanced forces in Detroit have reached out to nationally oppressed and working class communities throughout the U.S. and indeed the world.

The struggle in Detroit and other municipalities throughout the country is part and parcel of a world struggle against imperialism. Consequently, despite the increasing impoverishment and repression of the majority of the world’s population, which is well under way, this current phase provides the basis for the building of greater solidarity efforts which in the end will prevail over the ever-shrinking ruling class that remains mired in perpetual crises necessitating even more wars and greater degrees of economic exploitation.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Neo-Colonialism and the Changing Nature of Imperialism in Africa

Richard Clarke, the former counterterrorism official, has recently come out suggesting that George W. Bush, Dick Cheney, and Donald Rumsfeld should be charged with war crimes. Unfortunately, media outlets reporting this story have failed to examine Clarke’s long relationship to Cheney and Rumsfeld and his record of having prevented the capture of Osama bin Laden. These omissions highlight that, although Cheney and Rumsfeld undoubtedly are guilty of post-9/11 war crimes, suspicions that they helped create the pretext for those crimes go unreported.

Clarke’s history is regularly misrepresented in the media. It’s often said that he started in his counterterror position under Clinton when he was, in fact, appointed to it by George H.W. Bush in 1992. Clarke is a right wing hawk who had close ties to Cheney and Rumsfeld going back at least another decade with his selection for a secret Reagan Administration project. Clarke, Cheney and Rumsfeld were among a small group that spent nearly 30 years practicing to takeover the United States government in the Continuity of Government (COG) program. Their secretive COG plan was implemented only once—on the morning of 9/11.

Considering the media’s treatment of Clarke, it’s no surprise that most people have little or no understanding of his relationship to Cheney and Rumsfeld. It’s also not surprising that some people don’t know why these men are primary 9/11 suspects, despite the many reasons to consider that Cheney and Rumsfeld were behind the attacks. Much of the evidence against Cheney and Rumsfeld is circumstantial. But the amount of evidence linking them to the crimes is far greater than that used to accuse Khalid Sheik Mohammed and Osama bin Laden.

Apart from George W. Bush, who was well controlled on that day, Cheney and Rumsfeld were in the most important positions of power on 9/11. Some of their closest colleagues were also in positions to affect the crimes.

  • Rumsfeld’s direct subordinate Ralph Eberhart was in charge of the military exercises that disrupted the nation’s air defense response on 9/11.
  • Cheney’s protégé Duane Andrews led SAIC on 9/11. Andrews was a leading expert on the DOD systems that failed and SAIC had numerous suspicious links to the facilities and systems impacted, as well as to the official accounts for what happened.
  • Rumsfeld’s deputy Paul Wolfowitz managed the Pentagon renovation project that was focused on the exact spot where the Pentagon was hit.
  • Rumsfeld’s fellow ABB director Peter Janson managed the company that did the renovation work at the Pentagon and that was hired to clean up the Pentagon and the WTC.
  • After the attacks, Cheney’s old business partner Bruce Bradley went into business with WTC security company manager Barry McDaniel.
  • Rumsfeld’s close friend Frank Carlucci ran the Carlyle Group, a company that was partly funded by the Bin Laden family and that employed Barry McDaniel before he left to run security at the WTC.
  • Cheney and Rumsfeld were both on the advisory board of Salomon Smith Barney, the company that occupied almost all of WTC 7.
  • Paul Bremer, the terror propagandist who was selected by Rumsfeld to govern occupied Iraq, had an office in the WTC and helped present the official account of what happened.
  • Porter Goss, the old CIA operative who ran the initial investigation, had “long shown himself to be under the spell of Vice President Dick Cheney.”

The actions of Cheney and Rumsfeld on 9/11 also suggest their involvement in the crimes.

Vice President Cheney was in charge at the White House. That morning, he had an unusual early meeting with Sean O’Keefe, who was deputy assistant to the president and Deputy Director of the Office of Management and Budget. O’Keefe had been a close colleague of Cheney at the Pentagon and served as Secretary of the Navy under George H.W. Bush. The meeting with O’Keefe was remarkable in that, unlike Cheney’s normal meetings, it was unscheduled and lasted longer than Cheney normally allowed. And although the conversation seemed urgent, “In time, neither man would be able to recall what it was that had been so important.”

The attacks began as Cheney and O’Keefe were meeting in Cheney’s office. O’Keefe then left and Cheney began another meeting with his speechwriter. It was reported that other members of the White House staff began to congregate there until the Secret Service came in to move the vice president to the lower levels.

When questioned by the 9/11 Commission, Secretary of Transportation Norman Mineta testified that he came to the basement operations center at the White House, around 9:20 a.m., and Cheney was already there. Mineta said that Cheney had an exchange with a “young man” who came in and out over a period of time, giving Cheney updates about an incoming plane and asking if “the orders still stand.” Mineta’s testimony indicates that Cheney was aware of Flight 77 as it was approaching Washington, before the official account says that anyone knew, and that he was maintaining orders about that incoming plane.

Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld was in charge at the Pentagon. As the attacks were beginning, he was finishing a breakfast meeting with Pentagon leaders. Attendees said that at this meeting Rumsfeld predicted that a shocking world event would occur in the near future, one that would remind people of the need for a strong U.S. military.

By the time that the second plane hit the WTC, Rumsfeld had moved on to a meeting with his CIA briefer. Reports vary on where he was after that, but national security advisor Condoleezza Rice claimed that she could not reach him. Some said that Rumsfeld continued with regularly scheduled meetings after the second strike, and that he was on a roll with his predictions that morning. Apparently, he told Congressman Christopher Cox “Believe me, this isn’t over yet. There’s going to be another attack, and it could be us.” Minutes later, the Pentagon was hit.

After the Pentagon was hit, Rumsfeld wandered out to the parking lot for approximately 30 minutes. His presence there showed that he was not concerned about other planes that were reported hijacked and that he was not considering the danger to other potential targets. It was as if he knew what to expect.

To explain his behavior, Rumsfeld later stated; “I wanted to see what had happened. I wanted to see if people needed help. I went downstairs and helped for a bit with some people on stretchers. Then I came back up here and started—I realized I had to get back up here and get at it.”

Rumsfeld did not concern himself with the work of his direct subordinate, NORAD commander Ralph Eberhart, and he did not do his job to ensure the nation’s air defenses. Meanwhile, NORAD experienced inexplicable failures and Eberhart lied about it to Congress afterward.

After the 9/11 attacks, Cheney tried to prevent an investigation.  It was later learned that Rumsfeld co-authored a letter to the 9/11 Commission, warning it to limit its investigation and denying it access to critical evidence. According to Kean and Hamilton’s book Without Precedent, each of the commissioners was also invited to have private meetings with Rumsfeld, who gave them advice throughout the investigation. This was despite the fact that Rumsfeld’s DOD failed to provide many of the documents that had been requested.

Considering the unraveling of the official accounts for 9/11, people don’t need more deceptive comments from Richard Clarke about the obvious post-9/11 crimes of Cheney and Rumsfeld.  What people need to understand is that Cheney and Rumsfeld were running the show on 9/11 and were in perfect position to coordinate the attacks. Their actions on that day, as well as their surprising links to others who had the access and knowledge to accomplish the crimes, make them prime suspects.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on War Crimes and 9/11: Why Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld are Suspects

The American media is once again exhibiting its boundless capacity for dispensing propaganda and promoting the most backward and reactionary conceptions. Such is the campaign of vilification directed against Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl, released May 31 in Afghanistan in a prisoner exchange with the Taliban.

An op-ed column in the Wall Street Journal Tuesday reached new depths by floating the suggestion that the proper response to the return of Bergdahl was to assemble a firing squad. The column quoted Article 85 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice: “Any person found guilty of desertion or attempt to desert shall be punished, if the offense is committed in time of war, by death or such other punishment as a court-martial may direct.”

The campaign against Bergdahl has featured a group of former members of his platoon in Afghanistan who have been organized and mobilized by right-wing political operatives of the Republican Party. Richard Grenell, a former aide to then-US Ambassador to the United Nations John Bolton, who went on to work in 2012 for the Mitt Romney presidential campaign, has been identified as the main go-between for the former soldiers and their media publicists.

The networks are putting these men on the air to make various allegations against Bergdahl without having carried out any independent investigation into their veracity. The target of this coordinated attack, confined to a US military hospital in Germany, is unable to respond to the charges against him and defend himself.

Besides the usual suspects at Fox News, talk radio, and ultra-right blogs, the so-called “mainstream media” has joined in the onslaught. While interviewing an ex-soldier who had served with Bergdahl, NBC Today Show host Savannah Guthrie asked directly whether the former POW should be prosecuted for desertion.

On the op-ed page of the New York Times, Alex Berenson, a former embedded Times reporter in Iraq and Afghanistan, also cited Article 85, adding, “Sergeant Bergdahl may have broken any number of military laws.” He continued,

“I don’t see how the Pentagon can avoid re-examining what happened on June 30, 2009” [The day Bergdahl left his unit and was captured by the Taliban]. “If Sergeant Bergdahl is proved mentally competent to stand trial, maybe he deserves a few years in Leavenworth to reflect on his dereliction of duty.”

Some media reports have quoted snippets of e-mail messages sent by Bergdahl to his parents during the months before his capture by the Taliban, demonstrating his increasing disillusionment with the war in Afghanistan. Long extracts of these e-mails appear in a profile of Bergdahl and his family in the June 21, 2012 issue of Rolling Stone, headlined America’s Last Prisoner of War. Bowe apparently reached the breaking point on June 25, 2009, after a young officer he knew and liked was killed by a roadside bomb.

Two days later he wrote his parents, “… 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.”

Shortly thereafter, Bergdahl left his unit, armed only with a knife, apparently intending to walk to Pakistan or China, and was captured soon after by the insurgents. According to the Rolling Stone account, he escaped at least once, in August or September 2011, but was recaptured.

The most odious smear against Bergdahl is the suggestion that he is responsible for the deaths of American soldiers, supposedly because they were searching for him in eastern Afghanistan and ran into IEDs or Taliban ambushes. A list of either six or eight soldiers has been given enormous media publicity, and the supposed link between their deaths and Bergdahl’s disappearance asserted as fact.

Wednesday’s New York Times, however, in a front-page report citing evidence from the Afghanistan war logs leaked to WikiLeaks by Army private Chelsea (Bradley) Manning, acknowledged that there was no evidence of a connection between these deaths and Bergdahl.

Perhaps the most apt response came from Thomas Ricks, former Washington Post reporter and author of several books on the Iraq war, who wrote on Twitter, “Re Bergdahl: If we’re trying people for causing the deaths of soldiers, I know of a lot of people more culpable than a depressed private.”

At the top of such a list would be George W. Bush and Barack Obama.

The real purpose of the campaign against Bergdahl is to counter his antiwar views, which give expression to the sentiments of the vast majority of the American population. It is a continuation of the media’s efforts to conceal the criminal and neo-colonial character of the war. The witch-hunt against Bergdahl is of a piece with the US media’s campaign of denigration and slander against WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange and Private Manning in retaliation for their exposure of war crimes in Afghanistan, Iraq and other countries.

As far as the media apologists for imperialism are concerned, a soldier who is horrified by crimes against humanity and refuses to participate in them is a criminal, while those who obediently carry out atrocities are heroes. It should be recalled that the defense of “just carrying out orders” was flatly repudiated by the Nuremberg Tribunal into the crimes of the Nazis during World War II. Those who would revive it today are paving the way for even greater crimes.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Prisoner Exchange With the Taliban: The Release of Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl

Spying has been around since the dawn of civilization. Keith Laidler – a PhD anthropologist, Fellow of the Royal Geographical Society and a past member of the Scientific Exploration Society – explains:

Spying and surveillance are at least as old as civilization itself.

University of Tennessee history professor Vejas Gabriel Liulevicius agrees:

Espionage and intelligence have been around since human beings first began organizing themselves into distinct societies, cities, states, nations, and civilizations.

Unfortunately, spying hasn’t been limited to defense against external enemies. As documented below, tyrants have long spied on their own people in order to maintain power and control … and crush dissent.

Laidler notes:

The rise of city states and empires … meant that each needed to know not only the disposition and morale of their enemy, but also the loyalty and general sentiment of their own population.

Benevolent rulers don’t need to spy on their own people like tyrants do. Even the quintessential defender of the status quo for the powers-that-be – Cass Sunstein – writes:

As a general rule, tyrants, far more than democratic rulers, need guns, ammunition, spies, and police officers. Their decrees will rarely be self-implementing. Terror is required.

From Ancient Egypt to Modern America …

The Encyclopedia of Espionage, Intelligence and Security notes:

Espionage is one of the oldest, and most well documented, political and military arts. The rise of the great ancient civilizations, beginning 6,000 years ago in Mesopotamia, begat institutions and persons devoted to the security and preservation of their ruling regimes.

***

Early Egyptian pharos [some 5,000 years ago] employed agents of espionage to ferret-out disloyal subject and to locate tribes that could be conquered and enslaved.

***

The Roman Empire possessed a fondness for the practice of political espionage. Spies engaged in both foreign and domestic political operations, gauging the political climate of the Empire and surrounding lands by eavesdropping in the Forum or in public market spaces. Several ancient accounts, especially those of the A.D. first century, mention the presence of a secret police force, the frumentarii . By the third century, Roman authors noted the pervasiveness and excessive censorship of the secret police forces, likening them to an authoritative force or an occupational army.

The BBC notes:

In the Middle Ages, the Roman Catholic Church was more powerful than most governments – and it had a powerful surveillance network to match.

French Bishop Bernard Gui was a noted author and one of the leading architects of the Inquisition in the late 13th and early 14th Centuries. For 15 years, he served as head inquisitor of Toulouse, where he convicted more than 900 individuals of heresy.

A noted author and historian, Gui was best known for the Conduct of the Inquisition into Heretical Depravity, written in 1323-24, in which he outlined the means for identifying, interrogating and punishing heretics.

The U.S. Supreme Court noted in Stanford v. Texas (1965):

While the Fourth Amendment [of the U.S. Constitution] was most immediately the product of contemporary revulsion against a regime of writs of assistance, its roots go far deeper. Its adoption in the Constitution of this new Nation reflected the culmination in England a few years earlier of a struggle against oppression which had endured for centuries. The story of that struggle has been fully chronicled in the pages of this Court’s reports, and it would be a needless exercise in pedantry to review again the detailed history of the use of general warrants as instruments of oppression from the time of the Tudors, through the Star Chamber, the Long Parliament, the Restoration, and beyond.

What is significant to note is that this history is largely a history of conflict between the Crown and the press. It was in enforcing the laws licensing the publication of literature and, later, in prosecutions for seditious libel, that general warrants were systematically used in the sixteenth, seventeenth, and eighteenth centuries. In Tudor England, officers of the Crown were given roving commissions to search where they pleased in order to suppress and destroy the literature of dissent, both Catholic and Puritan. In later years, warrants were sometimes more specific in content, but they typically authorized of all persons connected of the premises of all persons connected with the publication of a particular libel, or the arrest and seizure of all the papers of a named person thought to be connected with a libel.

By “libel”, the court is referring to a critique of the British government which the King or his ministers didn’t like … they would label such criticism “libel” and then seize all of the author’s papers.

The Supreme Court provided interesting historical details in the case of Marcus v. Search Warrant(1961):

The use by government of the power of search and seizure as an adjunct to a system for the suppression of objectionable publications … was a principal instrument for the enforcement of the Tudor licensing system. The Stationers’ Company was incorporated in 1557 to help implement that system, and was empowered

“to make search whenever it shall please them in any place, shop, house, chamber, or building or any printer, binder or bookseller whatever within our kingdom of England or the dominions of the same of or for any books or things printed, or to be printed, and to seize, take hold, burn, or turn to the proper use of the aforesaid community, all and several those books and things which are or shall be printed contrary to the form of any statute, act, or proclamation, made or to be made. . . .

An order of counsel confirmed and expanded the Company’s power in 1566, and the Star Chamber reaffirmed it in 1586 by a decree

“That it shall be lawful for the wardens of the said Company for the time being or any two of the said Company thereto deputed by the said wardens, to make search in all workhouses, shops, warehouses of printers, booksellers, bookbinders, or where they shall have reasonable cause of suspicion, and all books [etc.] . . . contrary to . . . these present ordinances to stay and take to her Majesty’s use. . . . ”

Books thus seized were taken to Stationers’ Hall where they were inspected by ecclesiastical officers, who decided whether they should be burnt. These powers were exercised under the Tudor censorship to suppress both Catholic and Puritan dissenting literature.

Each succeeding regime during turbulent Seventeenth Century England used the search and seizure power to suppress publications. James I commissioned the ecclesiastical judges comprising the Court of High Commission

“to enquire and search for . . . all heretical, schismatical and seditious books, libels, and writings, and all other books, pamphlets and portraitures offensive to the state or set forth without sufficient and lawful authority in that behalf, . . . and the same books [etc.] and their printing presses themselves likewise to seize and so to order and dispose of them . . . as they may not after serve or be employed for any such unlawful use. . . .”

The Star Chamber decree of 1637, reenacting the requirement that all books be licensed, continued the broad powers of the Stationers’ Company to enforce the licensing laws. During the political overturn of the 1640′s, Parliament on several occasions asserted the necessity of a broad search and seizure power to control printing. Thus, an order of 1648 gave power to the searchers

“to search in any house or place where there is just cause of suspicion that Presses are kept and employed in the printing of Scandalous and lying Pamphlets, . . . [and] to seize such scandalous and lying pamphlets as they find upon search. . . .”

The Restoration brought a new licensing act in 1662. Under its authority, “messengers of the press” operated under the secretaries of state, who issued executive warrants for the seizure of persons and papers. These warrants, while sometimes specific in content, often gave the most general discretionary authority. For example, a warrant to Roger L’Estrange, the Surveyor of the Press, empowered him to “seize all seditious books and libels and to apprehend the authors, contrivers, printers, publishers, and dispersers of them,” and to

search any house, shop, printing room, chamber, warehouse, etc. for seditious, scandalous or unlicensed pictures, books, or papers, to bring away or deface the same, and the letter press, taking away all the copies. . . .]”

***

Although increasingly attacked, the licensing system was continued in effect for a time even after the Revolution of 1688, and executive warrants continued to issue for the search for and seizure of offending books. The Stationers’ Company was also ordered

“to make often and diligent searches in all such places you or any of you shall know or have any probable reason to suspect, and to seize all unlicensed, scandalous books and pamphlets. . . .”

And even when the device of prosecution for seditious libel replaced licensing as the principal governmental control of the press, it too was enforced with the aid of general warrants — authorizing either the arrest of all persons connected with the publication of a particular libel and the search of their premises or the seizure of all the papers of a named person alleged to be connected with the publication of a libel.

And see this.

General warrants were largely declared illegal in Britain in 1765. But the British continued to use general warrants in the American colonies. In fact, the Revolutionary War was largely launched to stop the use of general warrants in the colonies. King George gave various excuses of why general warrants were needed for the public good, of course … but such excuses were all hollow.

The New York Review of Books notes that the American government did not start to conduct mass surveillance against the American people until long after the Revolutionary War ended … but once started, the purpose was to crush dissent:

In the United States, political spying by the federal government began in the early part of the twentieth century, with the creation of the Bureau of Investigation in the Department of Justice on July 1, 1908. In more than one sense, the new agency was a descendant of the surveillance practices developed in France a century earlier, since it was initiated by US Attorney General Charles Joseph Bonaparte, a great nephew of Napoleon Bonaparte, who created it during a Congressional recess. Its establishment was denounced by Congressman Walter Smith of Iowa, who argued that “No general system of spying upon and espionage of the people, such as has prevailed in Russia, in France under the Empire, and at one time in Ireland, should be allowed to grow up.”

Nonetheless, the new Bureau became deeply engaged in political surveillance during World War I when federal authorities sought to gather information on those opposing American entry into the war and those opposing the draft. As a result of this surveillance, many hundreds of people were prosecuted under the 1917 Espionage Act and the 1918 Sedition Act for the peaceful expression of opinion about the war and the draft.

But it was during the Vietnam War that political surveillance in the United States reached its peak. Under Presidents Lyndon Johnson and, to an even greater extent, Richard Nixon, there was a systematic effort by various agencies, including the United States Army, to gather information on those involved in anti-war protests. Millions of Americans took part in such protests and the federal government—as well as many state and local agencies—gathered enormous amounts of information on them. Here are just three of the numerous examples of political surveillance in that era:

  • In the 1960s in Rochester, New York, the local police department launched Operation SAFE (Scout Awareness for Emergency). It involved twenty thousand boy scouts living in the vicinity of Rochester. They got identification cards marked with their thumb prints. On the cards were the telephone numbers of the local police and the FBI. The scouts participating in the program were given a list of suspicious activities that they were to report.
  • In 1969, the FBI learned that one of the sponsors of an anti-war demonstration in Washington, DC, was a New York City-based organization, the Fifth Avenue Peace Parade Committee, that chartered buses to take protesters to the event. The FBI visited the bank where the organization maintained its account to get photocopies of the checks written to reserve places on the buses and, thereby, to identify participants in the demonstration. One of the other federal agencies given the information by the FBI was the Internal Revenue Service.

***

The National Security Agency was involved in the domestic political surveillance of that era as well. Decades before the Internet, under the direction of President Nixon, the NSA made arrangements with the major communications firms of the time such as RCA Global and Western Union to obtain copies of telegrams. When the matter came before the courts, the Nixon Administration argued that the president had inherent authority to protect the country against subversion. In a unanimous decision in 1972, however, the US Supreme Court rejected the claim that the president had the authority to disregard the requirement of the Fourth Amendment for a judicial warrant.

***

Much of the political surveillance of the 1960s and the 1970s and of the period going back to World War I consisted in efforts to identifyorganizations that were critical of government policies, or that were proponents of various causes the government didn’t like, and to gather information on their adherents. It was not always clear how this information was used. As best it is possible to establish, the main use was to block some of those who were identified with certain causes from obtaining public employment or some kinds of private employment. Those who were victimized in this way rarely discovered the reason they had been excluded.

Efforts to protect civil liberties during that era eventually led to the destruction of many of these records, sometimes after those whose activities were monitored were given an opportunity to examine them. In many cases, this prevented surveillance records from being used to harm those who were spied on. Yet great vigilance by organizations such as the ACLU and the Center for Constitutional Rights, which brought a large number of court cases challenging political surveillance, was required to safeguard rights. The collection of data concerning the activities of US citizens did not take place for benign purposes.

***

Between 1956 and 1971, the FBI operated a program known as COINTELPRO, for Counter Intelligence Program. Its purpose was to interfere with the activities of the organizations and individuals who were its targets or, in the words of long-time FBI Director J. Edgar Hoover, to “expose, disrupt, misdirect, discredit or otherwise neutralize” them. The first target was the Communist Party of the United States, but subsequent targets ranged from the Reverend Martin Luther King, Jr. and his Southern Christian Leadership Conference to organizations espousing women’s rights to right wing organizations such as the National States Rights Party.

A well-known example of COINTELPRO was the FBI’s planting in 1964 of false documents about William Albertson, a long-time Communist Party official, that persuaded the Communist Party that Albertson was an FBI informant. Amid major publicity, Albertson was expelled from the party, lost all his friends, and was fired from his job. Until his death in an automobile accident in 1972, he tried to prove that he was not a snitch, but the case was not resolved until 1989, when the FBI agreed to payAlbertson’s widow $170,000 to settle her lawsuit against the government.

COINTELPRO was eventually halted by J. Edgar Hoover after activists broke into a small FBI office in Media, Pennsylvania, in 1971, and released stolen documents about the program to the press. The lesson of COINTELPRO is that any government agency that is able to gather information through political surveillance will be tempted to use that information. After a time, the passive accumulation of data may seem insufficient and it may be used aggressively. This may take place long after the information is initially collected and may involve officials who had nothing to do with the original decision to engage in surveillance.

In 1972, the CIA director .

During the Vietnam war, the NSA spied on Senator Frank Church because of his criticism of the Vietnam War. The NSA also spied on Senator Howard Baker.

Senator Church – the head of a congressional committee investigating Cointelpro – warned in 1975:

[NSA’s] capability at any time could be turned around on the American people, and no American would have any privacy left, such is the capability to monitor everything: telephone conversations, telegrams, it doesn’t matter. There would be no place to hide. [If a dictator ever took over, the N.S.A.] could enable it to impose total tyranny, and there would be no way to fight back.

This is, in fact, what’s happened …

Initially, American constitutional law experts say that the NSA is doing exactly the same thing to the American people today which King George did to the Colonists … using “general warrant” type spying.

And it is clear that the government is using its massive spy programs in order to track those who question government policies. See thisthisthis and this.

Todd Gitlin – chair of the PhD program in communications at Columbia University, and a professor of journalism and sociology – notes:

Under the Freedom of Information Act, the Partnership for Civil Justice Fund (PCJF) has unearthed documents showing that, in 2011 and 2012, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and other federal agencies were busy surveilling and worrying about a good number of Occupy groups — during the very time that they were missing actual warnings about actual terrorist actions.

From its beginnings, the Occupy movement was of considerable interest to the DHS, the FBI, and other law enforcement and intelligence agencies, while true terrorists were slipping past the nets they cast in the wrong places. In the fall of 2011, the DHS specifically asked its regional affiliates to report on “Peaceful Activist Demonstrations, in addition to reporting on domestic terrorist acts and ‘significant criminal activity.’”

Aware that Occupy was overwhelmingly peaceful, the federally funded Boston Regional Intelligence Center (BRIC), one of 77 coordination centers known generically as “fusion centers,” was busy monitoring Occupy Boston daily. As the investigative journalist Michael Isikoff recently reported, they were not only tracking Occupy-related Facebook pages and websites but “writing reports on the movement’s potential impact on ‘commercial and financial sector assets.’”

It was in this period that the FBI received the second of two Russian police warnings about the extremist Islamist activities of Tamerlan Tsarnaev, the future Boston Marathon bomber. That city’s police commissioner later testified that the federal authorities did not pass any information at all about the Tsarnaev brothers on to him, though there’s no point in letting the Boston police off the hook either. The ACLU has uncovered documents showing that, during the same period, they were paying close attention to the internal workings of…Code Pink and Veterans for Peace.

***

In Alaska, Alabama, Florida, Mississippi, Tennessee, and Wisconsin, intelligence was not only pooled among public law enforcement agencies, but shared with private corporations — and vice versa.

Nationally, in 2011, the FBI and DHS were, in the words of Mara Verheyden-Hilliard, executive director of the Partnership for Civil Justice Fund, “treating protests against the corporate and banking structure of America as potential criminal and terrorist activity.” Last December using FOIA, PCJF obtained 112 pages of documents (heavily redacted) revealing a good deal of evidence for what might otherwise seem like an outlandish charge: that federal authorities were, in Verheyden-Hilliard’s words, “functioning as a de facto intelligence arm of Wall Street and Corporate America.” Consider these examples from PCJF’s summary of federal agencies working directly not only with local authorities but on behalf of the private sector:

• “As early as August 19, 2011, the FBI in New York was meeting with the New York Stock Exchange to discuss the Occupy Wall Street protests that wouldn’t start for another month. By September, prior to the start of the OWS, the FBI was notifying businesses that they might be the focus of an OWS protest.”

• “The FBI in Albany and the Syracuse Joint Terrorism Task Force disseminated information to… [22] campus police officials… A representative of the State University of New York at Oswego contacted the FBI for information on the OWS protests and reported to the FBI on the SUNY-Oswego Occupy encampment made up of students and professors.”

• An entity called the Domestic Security Alliance Council (DSAC), “a strategic partnership between the FBI, the Department of Homeland Security, and the private sector,” sent around information regarding Occupy protests at West Coast ports [on Nov. 2, 2011] to “raise awareness concerning this type of criminal activity.” The DSAC report contained “a ‘handling notice’ that the information is ‘meant for use primarily within the corporate security community. Such messages shall not be released in either written or oral form to the media, the general public or other personnel…’ Naval Criminal Investigative Services (NCIS) reported to DSAC on the relationship between OWS and organized labor.”

• DSAC gave tips to its corporate clients on “civil unrest,” which it defined as running the gamut from “small, organized rallies to large-scale demonstrations and rioting.” ***

• The FBI in Anchorage, Jacksonville, Tampa, Richmond, Memphis, Milwaukee, and Birmingham also gathered information and briefed local officials on wholly peaceful Occupy activities.

• In Jackson, Mississippi, FBI agents “attended a meeting with the Bank Security Group in Biloxi, MS with multiple private banks and the Biloxi Police Department, in which they discussed an announced protest for ‘National Bad Bank Sit-In-Day’ on December 7, 2011.” Also in Jackson, “the Joint Terrorism Task Force issued a ‘Counterterrorism Preparedness’ alert” that, despite heavy redactions, notes the need to ‘document…the Occupy Wall Street Movement.’”

***

In 2010, the American Civil Liberties Union of Tennessee learned … that the Tennessee Fusion Center was “highlighting on its website map of ‘Terrorism Events and Other Suspicious Activity’ a recent ACLU-TN letter to school superintendents. The letter encourages schools to be supportive of all religious beliefs during the holiday season.”

***

Consider an “intelligence report” from the North Central Texas fusion center, which in a 2009 “Prevention Awareness Bulletin” described, in the ACLU’s words, “a purported conspiracy between Muslim civil rights organizations, lobbying groups, the anti-war movement, a former U.S. Congresswoman, the U.S. Treasury Department, and hip hop bands to spread tolerance in the United States, which would ‘provide an environment for terrorist organizations to flourish.’”

***

And those Virginia and Texas fusion centers were hardly alone in expanding the definition of “terrorist” to fit just about anyone who might oppose government policies. According to a 2010 report in the Los Angeles Times, the Justice Department Inspector General found that “FBI agents improperly opened investigations into Greenpeace and several other domestic advocacy groups after the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks in 2001, and put the names of some of their members on terrorist watch lists based on evidence that turned out to be ‘factually weak.’” The Inspector General called “troubling” what the Los Angeles Times described as “singling out some of the domestic groups for investigations that lasted up to five years, and were extended ‘without adequate basis.’

Subsequently, the FBI continued to maintain investigative files on groups like Greenpeace, the Catholic Worker, and the Thomas Merton Center in Pittsburgh, cases where (in the politely put words of the Inspector General’s report) “there was little indication of any possible federal crimes… In some cases, the FBI classified some investigations relating to nonviolent civil disobedience under its ‘acts of terrorism’ classification.”

***

In Pittsburgh, on the day after Thanksgiving 2002 (“a slow work day” in the Justice Department Inspector General’s estimation), a rookie FBI agent was outfitted with a camera, sent to an antiwar rally, and told to look for terrorism suspects. The “possibility that any useful information would result from this make-work assignment was remote,” the report added drily.

“The agent was unable to identify any terrorism subjects at the event, but he photographed a woman in order to have something to show his supervisor. He told us he had spoken to a woman leafletter at the rally who appeared to be of Middle Eastern descent, and that she was probably the person he photographed.”

The sequel was not quite so droll. The Inspector General found that FBI officials, including their chief lawyer in Pittsburgh, manufactured postdated “routing slips” and the rest of a phony paper trail to justify this surveillance retroactively.

Moreover, at least one fusion center has involved military intelligence in civilian law enforcement. In 2009, a military operative from Fort Lewis, Washington, worked undercover collecting information on peace groups in the Northwest. In fact, he helped run the Port Militarization Resistance group’s Listserv. Once uncovered, he told activists there were others doing similar work in the Army. How much the military spies on American citizens is unknown and, at the moment at least, unknowable.

Do we hear an echo from the abyss of the counterintelligence programs of the 1960s and 1970s, when FBI memos — I have some in my own heavily redacted files obtained through an FOIA request — were routinely copied to military intelligence units? Then, too, military intelligence operatives spied on activists who violated no laws, were not suspected of violating laws, and had they violated laws, would not have been under military jurisdiction in any case. During those years, more than 1,500 Army intelligence agents in plain clothes were spying, undercover, on domestic political groups (according to Military Surveillance of Civilian Politics, 1967-70, an unpublished dissertation by former Army intelligence captain Christopher H. Pyle). They posed as students, sometimes growing long hair and beards for the purpose, or as reporters and camera crews. They recorded speeches and conversations on concealed tape recorders. The Army lied about their purposes, claiming they were interested solely in “civil disturbance planning.”

(More.)

Yes, we hear echoes to the Cointelpro program of the 60s and 70s … as well as King George’s General Warrants to the Colonies … the Star Chamber of 15th century England … the frumentarii of Ancient Rome … and the spies of the earliest pharaohs some 5,000 years ago.

Because – whatever governments may say – mass surveillance is always used to crush dissent.

 

Notes:

1. Spying is also aimed at keeping politicians in check.

2. The East German Stasi obviously used mass surveillance to crush dissent and keep it’s officials in check … and falsely claimed that spying was necessary to protect people against vague threats. But poking holes in the excuses of a communist tyranny is too easy. The focus of this essay is to show that governments have used this same cynical ruse for over 5,000 years.

3. This essay focuses solely on domestic surveillance. Spying outside of one’s country is a different matter altogether.

4. For ease of reading, we deleted the footnotes from the two Supreme Court opinions.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on 5,000 Years of History Shows that Mass Spying is Always Aimed at Crushing Dissent

This is a great example of how the game works. In a world in which every government on earth needs “liquidity” to survive, and the primary goal of every government is and always has been survival (the retention of arbitrary power at all costs), the provider of liquidity is king. So what is liquidity and who provides it?

In the current financial system (post Bretton Woods), the primary engine of global liquidity is the U.S. dollar and dollar based assets generally as a result of  its reserve currency status. Ever since Nixon defaulted on the U.S. dollar’s gold backing in 1971, the creation of this “liquidity” has zero restrictions whatsoever and is merely based on the whims and desires of the central planners in chief, i.e., the Federal Reserve. As the primary creator of the liquidity that every government on earth needs to survive, the Federal Reserve is thus the most powerful player globally in not only economic, but also geopolitical affairs.

The example of the so-called sovereign nation of Ecuador relinquishing its gold reserves to Goldman Sachs for “liquidity” which can be conjured up by the Fed on a whim and at zero cost tells you all you need to know about how the world works (read my post: Why Fiat Money is Immoral).

Now from Bloomberg:

Ecuador agreed to transfer more than half its gold reserves to Goldman Sachs Group Inc. for three years as the government seeks to bolster liquidity.

The central bank said it will send 466,000 ounces of gold to Goldman Sachs, worth about $580 million at current prices, and get the same amount back three years from now. In return, Ecuador will get “instruments of high security and liquidity” and expects to earn a profit of $16 million to $20 million over the term of the accord.

“Gold that was not generating any returns in vaults, causing storage costs, now becomes a productive asset that will generate profits,” the central bank said in the statement. “These interventions in the gold market represent the beginning of a new and permanent strategy of active participation by the bank, through purchases, sales and financial operations, that will contribute to the creation of new financial investment opportunities.”  See Bloomberg Report here.

This isn’t the first South American country we’ve heard about sending their gold to Goldman. Recall my post from late last year: Is Venezuela Selling Gold to Goldman Sachs?

This gold is headed straight to China or Russia. Good luck ever getting that back amigos. Just ask Germany.

 

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Ecuador to Transfer More Than Half its Gold Reserves to Goldman Sachs in Exchange for “Liquidity”

President Barack Obama and President-elect Petro Poroshenko of Ukraine talk after statements to the press following their bilateral meeting at the Warsaw Marriott Hotel in Warsaw, Poland, June 4, 2014. (Official White House Photo by Pete Souza)

President Obama is still embracing Official Washington’s false narrative on Ukraine as he hypocritically blames the crisis entirely on Moscow and ignores the West’s role in toppling an elected president and provoking a nasty civil war.

Sometimes in dealing with the U.S. government and its compliant mainstream media, I’m left with the feeling that if it weren’t for double standards, there would be no standards at all. From President Barack Obama to the editors at the Washington Post and the New York Times, it’s obvious that what’s good for the goose is not good for the gander.

An election in an embattled country is valid and even inspiring if it turns out the way Official Washington wants, as in Ukraine last month; otherwise it’s a sham and illegitimate, as in Syria this month.

Similarly, people have an inalienable right of self-determination if it’s Kosovo or South Sudan, but not if it’s Crimea or the Donbass region of Ukraine. Those referenda for separation from Ukraine must have been “rigged” though there is no evidence they were. Everything is seen through the eye of the beholder and the beholders in Official Washington are deeply biased.

When it comes to military interventions, U.S. officials such as Ambassador to the United Nations Samantha Power assert a “responsibility to protect” transcending national sovereignty if civilians are threatened in Libya or in Syria, but not when the civilians are being slaughtered in Gaza, Odessa, Mariupol or Donetsk. When those killings are being done by U.S. allies, the allies are praised for their “restraint.”

The hypocrisy extends to the application of international law. If some leaders in Africa engage in actions that cause civilian deaths, they must be indicted by the International Criminal Court and dragged before The Hague for prosecution by jurists representing an outraged world.

But it’s unthinkable that there would be any accountability for George W. Bush, Dick Cheney, Tony Blair and other “respectable” leaders who invaded Iraq and caused the deaths of hundreds of thousands last decade.

The United States also presents itself as the great guardian of democracy and constitutional order, except when those democratic impulses conflict with U.S. interests. Then, the American people are treated to the cognitive dissonance of overthrowing democratically elected governments in the name of “democracy.” [See Consortiumnews.com’s “America’s Staggering Hypocrisy.”]

The Ukraine Case

When Ukraine’s elected President Viktor Yanukovych rejected austerity demands from the International Monetary Fund that accompanied a plan for European association, senior U.S. officials decided that Yanukovych had to go and urged on protests, ultimately spearheaded by neo-Nazi militias, that violently overthrew Yanukovych on Feb. 22.

The U.S. State Department’s “public diplomacy” officials then spun a narrative that glued white hats on the putschists and black hats on those who sought to defend the elected government. Whenever people mentioned the inconvenient truth about the crucial neo-Nazi role in providing the muscle for the coup, they were accused of spreading “Russian propaganda.”

Yet, while U.S. meddling in the internal affairs of another country is a good thing, it is a bad thing if a U.S. adversary does the same or is just suspected of doing the same.

When American and French volunteers go to Syria to fight with the U.S.-backed rebels, those volunteers are, of course, operating on their own (such as American suicide bomber Abu Hurayra Al-Amriki). To suggest otherwise without proof would be a “conspiracy theory,” a point with which I would agree .

But, remember, the rules are flexible; while the U.S. press corps would mock anyone who jumped to a conclusion that the American and French jihadists in Syria must have connections to Washington and Paris, the opposite assumption applies to any disfavored government; then, the U.S. press just “knows” that some indigenous resistance must be directed from some nefarious foreign capital.

For example, the U.S. government is accusing Russia of somehow being behind the unrest in eastern Ukraine, Yanukovych’s political base, even though the unparalleled U.S. intelligence agencies and American journalists on the ground have been unable to detect any proof of this alleged direction from Moscow.

Still, the assumption led the New York Times to get suckered into a State Department propaganda ploy when the Times ran a lead story based on photographs supposedly showing covert Russian military teams that were “clearly” in Russia but then popped up in eastern Ukraine.

Two days later, however, the Times was forced to retract its scoop when it turned out that a key photo purportedly taken in Russia had actually been snapped in Ukraine, destroying the story’s premise. [See Consortiumnews.com’s “NYT Retracts Ukraine Photo Scoop.”]

But that egg-on-the-face moment only made the Times more determined to prove that the ethnic Russians in eastern Ukraine indeed were “minions” of Moscow, not free-thinking people who simply reject what they regard as the imposition of illegitimate authority from Kiev.

So, when some Russian nationalists crossed the border to help their ethnic brethren in eastern Ukraine, it was assumed – again without evidence – that Russian President Vladimir Putin must have sent them.

Times reporter Sabrina Tavernise traveled to Donetsk but could not find the desired evidence. The Russian nationalists said they had no connections to Moscow and were motivated simply by a determination to help protect fellow ethnic Russians from the escalating military assault from western Ukraine.

Despite those disappointing findings, the Times front-page story on June 1 still made the desired point through its headline: “In Ukraine War, Kremlin Leaves No Fingerprints.” The phrasing assumes that Russian interference is real, just that the culprit has been careful to wipe away any evidence.

The article stated its conclusion this way: “Mr. Putin may not be directing these events, but he is certainly their principal beneficiary.” But is that tendentious phrasing even true? Putin has shown a willingness to have a dialogue with Ukraine’s new President-elect Petro Poroshenko in hopes to calming down the crisis on Russia’s border.

Protecting the Narrative

But Official Washington’s narrative of the crisis must always be maintained, whatever the lack of verifiable evidence. Though an objective observer might note that the crisis was provoked last year by a reckless European Union association offer – followed by the IMF’s draconian austerity plan that was rejected by Yanukovych, prompting U.S.-encouraged violent demonstrations (all while Putin was preoccupied by the Sochi Winter Olympics) – it is fundamental to the U.S. propaganda theme to boil the storyline down to “Russian aggression.”

Obama should and may know better – that Putin’s response was reactive to the West’s provocations, not a case of Russian provocation – but Obama is busy fending off accusations of “weakness” from Republicans and various neocons. So Obama apparently feels he has to talk tough and regurgitate the false narrative, as he did in his June 4 speech in Poland, declaring:

“As we’ve been reminded by Russia’s aggression in Ukraine, our free nations cannot be complacent in pursuit of the vision we share — a Europe that is whole and free and at peace. We have to work for that. We have to stand with those who seek freedom. …

“We stand together because we believe that people and nations have the right to determine their own destiny. And that includes the people of Ukraine. Robbed by a corrupt regime, Ukrainians demanded a government that served them. Beaten and bloodied, they refused to yield. Threatened and harassed, they lined up to vote; they elected a new President in a free election — because a leader’s legitimacy can only come from the consent of the people. …

“We stand together because we believe that upholding peace and security is the responsibility of every nation. The days of empire and spheres of influence are over. Bigger nations must not be allowed to bully the small, or impose their will at the barrel of a gun or with masked men taking over buildings.

“And the stroke of a pen can never legitimize the theft of a neighbor’s land. So we will not accept Russia’s occupation of Crimea or its violation of Ukraine’s sovereignty. Our free nations will stand united so that further Russian provocations will only mean more isolation and costs for Russia. Because after investing so much blood and treasure to bring Europe together, how can we allow the dark tactics of the 20th century to define this new century?”

As I said, if it weren’t for double standards, there would be no standards at all.

Investigative reporter Robert Parry broke many of the Iran-Contra stories for The Associated Press and Newsweek in the 1980s. You can buy his new book, America’s Stolen Narrative, either in print here or as an e-book (from Amazon andbarnesandnoble.com). For a limited time, you also can order Robert Parry’s trilogy on the Bush Family and its connections to various right-wing operatives for only $34. The trilogy includes America’s Stolen Narrative. For details on this offer, click here.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Ukraine vs Syria: The Only Standards Are Double Standards

A promotional home ad by Avance Ingenieros.

An investment branch of the UK’s Department for International Development  (DFID) aid agency has come under fire for subsidizing Avance Ingenieros to build elite housing projects in El Salvador at the expense of the UK taxpayer, according to an investigation by the Guardian newspaper.

“CDC has betrayed its original mandate of poverty reduction by now focusing on lucrative projects that are designed to generate high returns for investors than any benefits for poor communities in the global south,” John Hilary, executive director of War on Want, wrote in the Guardian.

A key component of DFID’s Business Plan for 2011-2015 focuses on “wealth creation” as a tool for sustainable growth and alleviation of poverty. And the Commonwealth Development Corporation (CDC) – the investment arm of DFID that was set up in 1948 to support the private sector in developing countries – claims on its website that it is committed to “building businesses to create jobs and making a lasting difference to people’s lives in some of the world’s poorest places.” 

There is no shortage of opportunities for supporting housing for poor communities in El Salvador via the Fondo Nacional de Vivienda Popular (National Public Housing Fund). The National Fund is part of the “House for All” program that has provided decent housing for over 25,000 low-income families throughout El Salvador for an average contribution of $1,357 to $3,263 per family.

But instead the CDC chose to back the family-owned Avance Ingenieros which specifically states on their website that they are a “construction company dedicated exclusively to the construction of houses for the middle class.” 

CDC gave Avance Ingenieros $3.3 million through the Aureos Central American Fund – one of the 88 private equity funds that the CDC works to invest capital in small and medium-sized enterprises with the aim of generating quick profits.

Avance Ingenieros used the CDC money to build four housing projects in El Salvador including Villa Veranda – a 34-acre gated community of 500 luxury homes in Santa Tecla, a wealthy suburb. The market value of the cheapest home available was $117,650 – roughly 35 times the average annual income of $3,360 per household.

“Villa Veranda is a private island of calm in a country struggling with pollution and rampant urban crime,” write Claire Provost and Marta Bausells in the Guardian. “More than 500 houses stand in neat rows on freshly-paved private roads in beige, brown and coral pink. Private security guards control who comes in and goes out 24 hours a day.”

Such projects are very common – El Salvador witnessed a boom in construction and real estate from 2004 to 2009 notably with money from expatriate and returning Salvadoreans who purchased luxury homes in private and gated communities with encouragement from the right-wing presidency of Elias Antonia Saca. (Some 20 percent of people born in El Salvador now live in the U.S. and send $3 billion a year back to the country)

Critics say that the £7.682 billion ($12.954 billion) that UK taxpayer paid out for the total operating cost of DFID in 2012 was never intended to support such schemes. “A fantastic return is all you need to prove that you’re having a ‘positive development outcome,” said Nick Dearden, director of World Development Movement told the Huffington Post. “But this model – under the guise of fighting poverty – actually removes decisions and accountability from public bodies and reinforces the power of companies driven by a thirst of super-profits”

This is not the first time the CDC has been criticized for investing money into “mega projects” that provide no added value to alleviating the plight of poor people. In January the CDC approved a $25 million investment in Nairobi, Kenya to build upmarket flats, a business hotel and East Africa’s largest shopping mall.

“The waste and corruption that goes unseen or unchallenged by DFID is a kick in the teeth both for the people at home who pay the bill and for the people aid is supposed to be helping,” wrote Jonathan Forman in the Spectator magazine.

DFID defends the projects. “Individual investments are fully decided by CDC and the government has put in place strict rules which require commitments to deliver jobs, economic development and poverty alleviation in developing countries,” a spokesman told the Guardian.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on UK Aid Money Used by Contractor to Build Houses for the Wealthy in El Salvador

Is there a New Cold War that Impacts Africa?

June 5th, 2014 by Abayomi Azikiwe

This paper was presented at the Left Forum held at John Jay College of Criminal Justice of the City University of New York (CUNY). The Left Forum took place from May 30-June 1, 2014, where several thousand people gathered from various progressive, radical and socialist tendencies and movements. This panel was hosted by the International Action Center (IAC) and was entitled “The New Cold War: What’s Driving It and Will It Escalate?” In addition to Abayomi Azikiwe, the discussion featured Bill Doares as chair of the IAC, Meejin Richard and Seyeon Lee of Nodutdol for Korean Community Development, Berta Joubert-Ceci of the Women’s Fightback Network in Philadelphia and Jess Sudin of Freedom Road Socialist Organization (FRSO). 

Many people today are describing the renewed political and military tensions between the Russian Federation and the United States-European Union alliance as a manifestation of a so-called “New Cold War.” The previous Cold War developed after the conclusion of World War II when the U.S. and the Soviet Union emerged as the major powers on the international scene.

Coinciding with the Cold War between 1947-1991, was the rise of the national liberation movements in Africa, Asia and Latin America and the struggle for civil rights, empowerment and social justice in the western countries during the same time period. The Cold War did not only have foreign policy implications but also influenced the character of oppression, class exploitation and race relations inside the imperialist states.

The question of a Cold War cannot be fully answered without dealing with the political character of international racism in the overall world capitalist ideological and military struggle against Communism. During the course of World War II the peoples of the oppressed nations were thrust into protracted conflict by demanding both social equality and national independence.

In October 1945, the Fifth Pan-African Congress was held in Manchester, England. The meeting represented the apex of a series of similar gathering that were organized between 1893 in Chicago to the First Pan-African Conference in London in 1900. After the turn of the 19th and 20th centuries, there was an upsurge in national consciousness and class struggle.

The Niagara Movement of 1905 lead directly to the formation of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP), co-founded by Dr. W.E.B. Du Bois and Mrs. Ida B. Wells-Barnett. Both of these prominent African American leaders were militant opponents of racism in the U.S., where African Americans were being lynched in the hundreds during this period.

With the conclusion of World War I, a previous upsurge in national consciousness arose. Another Pan-African Congress was held in 1919 in Paris. Du Bois had become the chief proponent of these summits which continued in 1921, 1923, 1925 and 1927.

The Universal Negro Improvement Association-African Communities League (UNIA-ACL) founded by Marcus and Amy Ashwood Garvey in 1914, drew millions of members and supporters throughout the western states and within occupied colonial territories in the Caribbean, Central America, South America and on the African continent.

Trade unions were formed in various parts of Africa during this period; for example in the Gold Coast railway industry in the late 1930s to the Industrial and Commercial Workers Union in South Africa after World War I and continuing through the African Rand Miner’s Strike of 1946 after the second World War.

In 1919 there was a series of so-called race riots in the U.S. with Chicago being the most violent. Also in Egypt during the same year a rebellion erupted which brought new social forces, including women, into the anti-colonial struggle in Africa.

Pan-Africanism, World Revolution and the New Cold War

The national liberation movements achieving independence in Africa and the gains of the Civil Rights and Black Power movements in the U.S. had a profound impact on the character of world capitalism and imperialism. Dr. Kwame Nkrumah, the founder of the modern state of Ghana and the chief tactician and strategist of the African Revolution during the 1950s through the early 1970s, identified neo-colonialism as the principal impediment to the achievement of genuine liberation and economic development.

After World War II the U.S. capitalists consolidated their global hegemony. Nonetheless, periodic crises within the economic system of exploitation were never fully resolved.

Even with the collapse of the former Soviet Union and shifts within the domestic and foreign policy of the People’s Republic of China and other socialist countries, the ruling class inside the U.S. and Western Europe are by no means socially secure. The declining rates of profits and the ongoing resistance of the working class and the national oppressed have continued to be a cause for concern by those who control the means of production and the state.

This ongoing domestic war against the working class and oppressed inside the U.S. is in evidence through the attacks on public employees, public assets, unions, municipal pension funds, public and low-income housing and the evisceration of public education, both K-12 as well as colleges and universities.

Today China is considered by the U.S. imperialists as a major impediment to their control of various geo-political regions of the world including the Asia-Pacific region and the African continent. Developments in Africa have landed China the status of being the largest trading partner with the continent.

In relationship to the role of the Russian Federation, the U.S.-engineered coup in Ukraine and the utilization of fascist organizations is by no means unique. Many of these same fascist elements were recruited by the U.S. after World War II where they played a role in framing the political character of the intellectual and political nature of contemporary society.

The present hostility directed against Russia and China is a clear reflection of the crisis within the imperialist system led by the U.S. By attempting to demonize and criminalize the governments of China and Russia, the ruling class and the state are extending their domestic policies used against the oppressed nations inside the U.S. who disproportionately represent the incarcerated populations and those which remain under legal and law-enforcement supervision.

Nonetheless, these efforts by the ruling class have not halted the struggle for liberation, social justice, socialism and peace. In Afghanistan, Iraq, Somalia, the Philippines, Sudan, and all throughout Latin America and the Caribbean, the imperialists have not been able to win an outright victory.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Is there a New Cold War that Impacts Africa?

U.S. Congress Did Less for Corporate Accountability in 2013

June 5th, 2014 by Global Research News

The U.S. Congress saw no progresses toward corporate accountability and reining in corporate influence over public institutions in 2013, according to the newly released Corporate Accountability Coalition (CAC) Congressional Report Card. The second edition of the Report Card, which looks at the First Session of the 113th Congress, focuses on the most relevant congressional activity, and offers an objective measure of congressional leadership in creating policy that protects people and promotes accountability and transparency.

CAC’s Report Card includes some alarming new findings, such as that in 2013 not a single pro-accountability bill even made it to a vote. Despite the fact that high-profile corporate malfeasance, from the financial crisis to the Deepwater Horizon spill to the Rana Plaza disaster, continues to make headlines, many legislative actions to address important issues regarding corporate responsibility and necessary limitations on corporate power garnered little, if any, co-sponsorship.

Surveys have consistently shown concerns with unchecked corporate influence. In 2013, a Pew Research poll showed that 80% of middle class adults at least partially blamed large corporations for the difficulties facing the middle class, consistent with earlier surveys finding that overwhelming majorities of Americans believe that corporations have too much power in Washington and that there is too much corporate money in politics.

“As the Supreme Court continues to privilege corporate rights over human rights, our elected leaders must stand and protect what’s left of the democratic freedoms that benefit all American citizens, not just the powerful elites.” said Katie Redford, Director and Co-Founder of CAC member EarthRights International.

Only two representatives and seven senators received a perfect score: Representatives John Conyers (MI) and Keith Ellison (MN) and Senators Ed Markey (MA), Bob Menendez (NJ), Jeff Merkley (OR), Jeanne Shaheen (NH). Tom Udall (NM), Elizabeth Warren (MA), and Richard Blumenthal (CT).

Several states, however, had entire delegations with zero percent scores, including Wyoming, Arkansas, Idaho, Oklahoma, Nebraska, Kansas, Utah, and West Virginia. Less than 10 percent of Congress scored above 50 percent, while three-quarters of Congress earned a score of 25 percent or less. The average score for Congress even worsened between 2012 and 2013: the average score was only 16 percent down from 25 percent in 2012.

“The Report Card reveals a dangerous reality: corporations exert tremendous influence over our elected officials. The consequences of this influence perpetuate the paradigm of profit over people, and leave us struggling to build meaningful protections for both our environment and our basic human rights,” says Amol Mehra, Director of the International Corporate Accountability Roundtable, a CAC member.

About the Report Card

The Corporate Accountability Coalition Report Card represents an attempt to educate the public about Congress’s record in protecting people from the unchecked growth of corporate influence.

The Report Card presents information on whether Members of Congress have supported measures that either strengthen or weaken limits on corporate conduct, regulate or give free rein to corporations when they attempt to go beyond those limits, and hold corporations accountable or provide impunity when they disregard those limits.

“The intent of this report card is to track how Congress votes on holding corporations accountable for their impact on communities and the environment,” said Pratap Chatterjee, Executive Director of CorpWatch. “The Corporate Accountability Coalition believes that good laws can help level the playing field by cracking down on corporations who benefit from wrongdoing.”

The full report is available online at https://www.earthrights.org/cac-report-card

MEDIA CONTACTS:

Katie Redfrod (USA) +1 202-466-5188 x102 [email protected]
Marco Simons (USA) +1 202-466-5188 x103 [email protected]
Amol Mehra, (USA) +1 202-296-0146 [email protected]

About the Corporate Accountability Coalition: The Corporate Accountability Coalition is a collaboration of the Center for Corporate Policy, Corporate Accountability International, CorpWatch, EarthRights International, the Institute for Policy Studies and the International Corporate Accountability Roundtable.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on U.S. Congress Did Less for Corporate Accountability in 2013

It is hard for even the West to deny that the recent election was a huge success for the government in Damascus, stamping out the illusion of a divided Syria. The country is mired in protracted conflict not because of a “popular uprising,” but because of a premeditated proxy war organized by the US, Israel, and Saudi Arabia (and involving other NATO-GCC members) as early as 2007 – this confirmed in Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist Seymour Hersh’s 2007 New Yorker report titled, “The Redirection.”

The proxy war is admittedly lost – but it would be a mistake to say the West has completely lost. Their goal was indeed, ideally, to overthrow the government of Syria. By failing to do so and in the process exposing their insidious methods, the West has lost immense credibility and momentum they will never recover. However, their secondary objective was destroying Syria and leaving it in a weakened, diminished state – denying Iran, Hezbollah in Lebanon, and most importantly, Russia a strong regional ally. This, for now, the West has absolutely succeeded in accomplishing. Reconstruction & socioeconomic recovery will be as important if not more so for Syrians in the coming months and years, than defeating NATO’s proxy forces on the battlefield. Bringing Syria back to or exceeding its economic and defensive posture before the war will be when Syrians can truly declare victory over the West.

The goal of “bleeding” Syria if regime change failed, was documented by US policy makers in Brookings Institution’s “Middle East Memo #21 “Assessing Options for Regime Change,” which stated:

“The United States might still arm the opposition even knowing they will probably never have sufficient power, on their own, to dislodge the Asad network. Washington might choose to do so simply in the belief that at least providing an oppressed people with some ability to resist their oppressors is better than doing nothing at all, even if the support provided has little chance of turning defeat into victory. Alternatively, the United States might calculate that it is still worthwhile to pin down the Asad regime and bleed it, keeping a regional adversary weak, while avoiding the costs of direct intervention.”

Bleeding Syria is now the agenda – which is the only reason they are still arming and training terrorists on Syria’s borders, predominantly in NATO-member Turkey to the north of Syria, and in Jordan to the south. The West is also still, very intentionally, sabotaging reconciliation and reconstruction. This is the West’s real agenda on full display – spiteful extraterritorial aggression recklessly destroying the lives of millions for the sake of maintaining global hegemony. Other nations – like Thailand and Ukraine – had better understand the true nature of Western special interests and the lengths they will go through to maintain dominion over this planet.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Bleeding Syria is Now the Agenda: Elections are a Battle Won, but the War Goes On

As writers and analysts for one of the military’s key journals – Jane’s Intelligence Review – Ann Rogers and John Hill, the authors of this new book on remote warfare have respectable military credentials. Nevertheless much of the analysis in this important and engaging overview of the drone wars would be recognised by those with a very different perspective and understanding of the efficacy of military force.

Chapter by chapter the book investigates the key aspects of the use of armed drones including tracing their history, the effect on military doctrine, ethical and legal issues, the impact on the ground and the push towards greater autonomy.

Drones, the book contends are helping to normalise the use of States “targeting individuals with military-scale force” and blurring the lines between law enforcement and military action giving rise to what the authors call nano-wars. They state: “the serious battering of just war conventions by US drone strikes contributes to a new set of norms that are likely to be regressive to the causes of peace and international stability.”

The book argues that in certain cases just because drones can be used to target individuals, they arebeing used whether this is effective in achieving the overall goals of creating security or not. In fact the authors argue in Pakistan and Yemen not only are the strikes failing to isolate the insurgency from the population, they are antagonising populations and radicalising the “pre-insurgent” and it is perhaps the US who is becoming increasing isolated from the international community over the strikes.

The authors clearly have some sympathy for the drone pilots arguing that when not being “bored to death” by watching hours of mind-numbing footage and castigated by their colleagues for merely being a “chair force” they also have to make life and death decisions which take a toll on their mental well-being. While some accounts from drone pilots are beginning to leak out, the reality of the drone wars from the perspective of the drone pilot is still to be voiced.

The authors state that their book aims to investigate the consequences of the use of armed drones not just on the battlefield but also on human society as a whole using the theories of Marshal McLuhan.   This would have made an valuable contribution to the growing literature on the use of drones and I would have liked to have seen much more of it in the book.   The authors conclude that in McLuhan’s terms the message of this new medium is that the drone gives the “capacity to intervene overseas with impunity to today’s powers.”

This book is a very readable overview of the issues surrounding the growing use of armed unmanned systems.  The final question the book poses is whether the rise in use of drones is desirable in terms of global security. The authors – along with more and more people around the globe – conclude that they are not.

Unmanned: Drone Warfare and Global Security by Ann Rogers and John Hill,  Pluto Press, 2014, 192pp £16.00

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Are US Drone Strikes Good for International Stability?

Obama backs State Terror against Eastern Ukraine

June 5th, 2014 by Bill Van Auken

Meeting with Ukraine’s billionaire President-Elect Petro Poroshenko in Warsaw Wednesday, President Barack Obama declared his full backing for the regime’s so-called “anti-terrorism operation” in eastern Ukraine and promised new military supplies and training to carry out what is rapidly developing into a bloodbath.

Obama’s proclamation of solidarity with Poroshenko, known as the “chocolate king,” came amid new evidence of war crimes by the Kiev regime’s military and by fascist militias fighting on its behalf. These crimes have been directed at terrorizing into submission the populations of Donetsk and Luhansk, which have refused to accept the legitimacy of the regime brought to power in the Western-backed and fascist-spearheaded coup of last February.

City officials in the town of Krasnyi Lyman in the Donetsk region told the media that the local hospital came under intense shelling Tuesday night, inflicting a number of casualties. An initial report said the head surgeon was killed by shrapnel and at least three patients severely wounded. But on Wednesday, the Donetsk People’s Republic (DPR), which was proclaimed following a referendum on autonomy held last month, reported that regime troops entered the hospital and executed over 25 wounded local fighters.

“More than 25 people were killed, and this figure can rise,” DPR Chairman Denis Pushilin told Rossiya-24 television. “This is a blatant war crime; it is genocide.”

It was only one of a growing number of strikes against civilian targets as the Kiev regime unleashes fighter jets, attack helicopters, heavy artillery, rocket launchers and other weapons of war against the region in attempt to quell popular opposition to its rule.

Schools, daycare centers, housing blocks and office buildings have also been struck, sending families fleeing for air raid shelters or desperately attempting to leave the war zone.

In one of the bloodier attacks, a Ukrainian jet fighter fired rockets Monday into the Luhansk regional administration headquarters, killing five women who were talking together just outside the building. Three men in the building also lost their lives and at least 11 people were wounded. A video posted online Wednesday showed the grim aftermath of the air strike.

The Kiev regime attempted to deny that its warplane was responsible for the attack—which was caught by a number of town residents on video—claiming that the explosion had been caused by anti-regime elements misfiring a manpad surface-to-air missile.

This lie was quickly debunked by an inspection team from the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe, which concluded, based on the line of blast craters leading up to the building and the extensive damage to trees in a nearby park, that the explosion could have been caused only by a missile fired from a plane. Nonetheless, the US State Department and large sections of the US media have continued to insist that the cause of this massacre of civilians remains “unclear.”

The weapon used in the attack has been identified as an S-8KO missile, which is a type of cluster bomb that is outlawed under international conventions.

The Kiev regime has itself given conflicting reports on the human toll of its “anti-terrorist operation.” The head of the operation has reported that 300 regime opponents have been killed and another 500 wounded. Leaders of self-defense groups in Luhansk and Donetsk have ridiculed this claim, insisting that the troops and militias fielded by the regime have suffered more losses than they have.

Another estimate, given by Kiev’s acting prosecutor general, Oleg Makhnitsky, a member of the neo-Nazi Svoboda party, was of 181 people killed, including 59 regime troops, and 293 wounded.

Claims from Kiev that its forces are “cleansing” the east of rebels are contradicted by recent events on the ground, with the regime acknowledging Wednesday that a border guard camp and the headquarters of a National Guard regiment, both in the Luhansk area, surrendered after coming under attack by superior forces of anti-regime fighters.

In a bid to reverse these losses, the regime announced Wednesday that it was drawing up plans to declare martial law in the Donetsk and Luhansk regions. “This is a real war, and what we are doing is upgrading the legal status to match the reality,” Victoria Siumar, deputy secretary of the National Security and Defense Council told the media. “There is a decision to call things by their proper name,” she added.

It appears that the main aim of the change is to empower the government to order civilians to evacuate areas like Luhansk, a city of nearly half a million, so that it can subject all who remain to a full-scale bombardment.

The Kiev forces have stepped up their siege of Slovyansk, a key center of opposition. In addition to air attacks and artillery shelling, they shut off the town’s water supply.

In his meeting with Poroshenko Wednesday, Obama left no doubt that Washington is determined to see this criminal strategy succeed, now matter how many die. Indeed, there is every reason to believe that the military operations are being carried out under direct US supervision. The latest offensive was launched immediately after a visit to Kiev by Derek Chollet, assistant secretary of defense for international security affairs.

Obama announced an additional $5 million in so-called non-lethal aid to assist the Kiev regime in the slaughter it is carrying out in eastern Ukraine. This is on top of $18 million worth of military equipment previously approved and is to include such items as night-vision goggles, body armor and communications equipment. He also indicated that the US would provide military training.

He met with the Ukrainian president-elect for a full 70 minutes, which came on top of lengthy meetings between Poroshenko and Secretary of State John Kerry. He said they discussed Kiev’s “plans for bringing peace and order to the east” as well as “economic plans” that are to include the imposition of drastic austerity measures against the Ukrainian working class.

Obama called Poroshenko’s installation as president a “wise selection,” even though, as classified diplomatic cables made public by WikiLeaks showed, Washington had previously regarded the billionaire as a “disgraced oligarch” who was “tainted by credible corruption allegations.”

Obama described himself as “deeply impressed by his vision, in part because of his experience as a businessman.” This “vision” guided Poroshenko in the corrupt and at times violent plundering of formerly state-owned assets, which turned him into a billionaire.

Russia, meanwhile, has unsuccessfully attempted to advance a resolution in the United Nations Security Council calling for an end to violence in eastern Ukraine and the creation of “humanitarian corridors” to allow civilians to leave the battle zone and enable the Red Cross and other aid agencies to get in. Washington and the other major Western powers have blocked the measure, insisting that there is no humanitarian crisis.

A Russian official Wednesday allowed that Moscow was not proposing the imposition of a no-fly zone over eastern Ukraine. The statement clearly recalled the 2011 maneuvers by the US and its allies at the UN in getting a no-fly zone imposed over Libya on the spurious grounds that it was needed to prevent government forces from carrying out a massacre in the east of that country. Once approved—with Moscow’s acquiescence—the measure was used to provide a legal fig leaf for the US-NATO war for regime-change.

As the Ukrainian regime launches a bloody crackdown in the east of that country, however, Washington and the Western European powers have no interest in raising humanitarian concerns. On the contrary, having already organized regime-change in the coup of last February, they are determined to consolidate their puppet regime by stamping out any resistance.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Obama backs State Terror against Eastern Ukraine

The War On Drugs: Hawks, Doves and Owls

June 5th, 2014 by Paul Rogov

Although full-scale drug use epidemics in the United States can be traced back to the 19thcentury—with morphine abuse so prevalent in the aftermath of the Civil War—it is no stretch of the imagination to conclude that drug abuse has, again, become a major social welfare concern in America. The magnitude of the problem is substantial.

To put it in perspective “illegal drugs are a $60-billion-per-year industry patronized by at least 16 million Americans, 7 percent of the U.S. population over the age of 12” (Caulkins et al, 2005). Depending on how one views the epidemic, however, (depending on whether one views it primarily as a health or a legal concern), it cannot be overemphasized how the problem, in recent years, has grown considerably worse. Today, more Americans have become addicted to illicit substances than ever before.

According to a 2011 Report on the Global Commission of Drug Policy, “the United States estimates annual drug consumption, 1998-2008, shows a 34.5% increase in opiate use, 27% increase in cocaine use, and 8.5% increase in the use of marijuana” (Jahangir et al, 2011). These, perhaps, are startling statistics; however, the statistics do not reveal, nor help one understand the stories behind the numbers, that is, the stories of people who lead addicted lives.  Whether these people live on the street, in the ghettoes, or are incarcerated because of drugs, or are rich kids attempting to get their next fix, the statistics, if anything, illuminate the failure of “The War on Drugs.”

The War on Drugs is a war of control. It is a war waged to control the drug market. It is a war waged against not only drugs as physical entities, but a war waged against the very idea of using drugs as a behavior. Trite as it may be to assert that the War on Drugs can never be won because the enemy as such is abstract and non-human, there is no question that there is a self-prescribed moralism necessary to fight such a war. In many cases, people who enforce, treat, and attempt to prevent drug addiction via educational programs think they are doing good by helping society. Moreover, it might very well be the case that these righteous avengers are, indeed, protecting people from the onslaught of drug addiction and, in turn, helping society become more moral. But as we explore some of the policies associated with the War on Drugs, I argue we get an altogether different picture. The war against drugs is a kind of social engineering that is propelled by hysteria and by unconstitutionality. It is a war against minorities and a war against the human mind.

As the 2011 Global Commission of Drug Policy itself states “drug policies and strategies at all levels too often continue to be driven by ideological perspectives, or political convenience, and pay too little attention to the complexities of the drug market, drug use and drug addiction”  (Jahangir et al, 2011).

Policy Analysis

Richard Nixon was the first president to officially wage a full-scale “war on drugs” in 1972, which subsequently lead to the creation of the Drug Enforcement Agency; however, it was the Reagan administration that recommitted to the pressing social welfare issue of drug abuse. Reagan’s “War on Drugs” lead to the Narcotics Leadership Act, which was established after the creation of the Office of National Drug Control Policy. So what happened?

According to Blendon (1998),

“extensive public policy efforts have come in response to the perceived seriously and scope of the nation’s illicit drug problems. The impact of these problems…can be seen in a number of key indicators. Annually, illicit drugs lead to approximately 11,000 related deaths, direct government expenditures of $27 billion (1991 date {the last year for which both state and federal expenditures are available], and over half a million drug-related episodes in hospital emergency departments.”

Nancy Reagan’s “Just Say No” campaign is well-known; however, the drug control policy was three-pronged:

enforcement, treatment and prevention. The general idea was that the “war on drugs” should be fought at all levels, on the micro, mezzo, and macro. There was also a military arm to the War on Drugs, missions run and allocated in foreign countries. The primary policies were to source country control, financial, technical, intelligence, and equipment aid to source countries attempting to eradicate drug crops, shut down processing facilities, reduce exports, and bring to justice those involved in the drug trade” (Caulkins et al, 2005).

Back home, however, there needed to be programs in place that addressed addiction for the addict. The underlying belief behind the U.S. drug control policies was that “for most drug users, use is the result of a “human flaw” that leads them to pursue “a hollow, degrading and deceptive pleasure” (Blendon, 1998). The addict, according to that theory, would spare nothing to get their next fix; to alleviate the problem one had to not only erase or reduce the supply of drugs, one had to address the psycho-spiritual core of the addicts themselves.

That said,

“the goals of national drug control strategy have varied to a minor extent, since the first annual strategy volume was issued in 1989. That initial version focused on reducing the overall level of drug use, as well as reducing initiation and use at the every level of intensity from that of casual users to that of addicts” (Caulkins et al, 2005).

There was an increasing likelihood, since the drug control policies went into affect that an addict would somehow become acquainted with a 12-step recovery meetings. They would seek help because of fear of death or incarceration.

According to the policy, if there are less drugs available and more education about drugs, there would be less use overall; however, statistics have proven that the total drug consumption does not always follow the number of users (Blendon, 1998).

Moreover, there were other concerns for drug abuse is both issue in the legal system and in health care. Drugs, for some are not a health issue; they are often associated with crime.

“In recent years, many Americans have chosen a related issue, crime, as the nation’s most important problem. It has ranked among the top 5 public concerns since 1979. Today, a majority (56%) of the public perceives these 2 issues as linked: they believe that illicit drugs are one of the most important causes of crime” (Blendon, 1998).

Subsequently, the shortcomings of U.S. drug control policy demonstrates how people often slip through the cracks and continue to use drugs regardless of what the policy. Perhaps, “if the goal were not so ambitious, the campaign would achieve even less.” As Blendon (1998) points out, “the superficial record of drug problem indicators might understate (or overstate the effectiveness of government policy, depending on trends in individual preferences and the social and cultural context.” “Survey findings show that 82% of the public thinks that illegal drug use is a big problem for society, only 27% see it as such for their own local community.” This means that despite “domestic enforcement, seizure of drugs and other assets within U.S. borders and the arrest, prosecution, and punishment of drug dealers and users,” the elusive nature of the War on Drugs leads many to the conclusion that the war is ultimately futile: that one is fighting abstract enemies within a political theatre that inevitably is run by actors acting in the shadows of an imperialist economy (Cole, 2001).

Policy Impact on Community

Santa Ana, California, a city in Orange County with a predominately Latino community, for example, has been negatively affected by U.S. drug control policy. The privacy of immigrants is often violated when they are under suspicion; homes are searched with a warrant and sometimes without a warrant (Rojo, personal communication, September 18th, 2011). These searches are due in part to the fact that much of the narcotics (heroin, cocaine, marijuana) in Southern California are smuggled in from Mexico. The Drug Enforcement Agency (DEA) in tandem with the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) is aware of the all time high murder-rate in Mexico, which was sprung from the interior politics of the cartel system; those politics have subsequently raised some red flags in the United States for the hawks in the War on Drugs. The market of the Mexican-American narco-business has lead some lawmakers to advocate for systematic racial profiling. This is true not only of Santa Ana, but also in other communities in southern California that have a high density of a Latino, or Hispanic population.

The war on drugs, in that regard, is a war against minorities and the poor. It directly affects African-Americans as well. According to Cole (2001),

“studies consistently show that police officers disproportionately stop and search African-Americans and Hispanics. The consistency of this finding across multiple jurisdictions and officers suggests that profiling is not the work of a few rogue racist police officers, but the result of a broadly shared assumption that blacks and Hispanics are more likely to be carrying drugs or other contraband than whites.”

Many of these drug arrests of minorities and the poor lead to prosecution then prison sentences. One reason for this is in how law enforcement gathers evidence. Although racial profiling is often employed, the Fourth Amendment is often ignored. “Consent searches have become a particularly attractive tool for conducting searches for drugs without probable cause because few people refuse consent when an officer asks for it during a traffic stop” (Cole, 2001).

The War on Drugs is supplanted by the belief in the systematic demonization of drug addicts. Drug addicts, because they want to get high, are considered morally inferior, weak, and therefore expendable to the government. In short, the drug addict is a cog in the drug-war-machine, a mere statistic. Because of this, U.S. prisons are not only the most populated in the world, they are specifically comprised of a majority of prisoners who are serving sentences for drug-related offences. To put it another way, the U.S. prison-industrial complex houses mostly drug addicts. What is often overlooked is that “from 1925 to 1975, the incarceration rate in the United States was virtually flat, at about 100 incarcerated prisoners per 100,000 residents.” That being said, “there was more than a 400 percent increase between the 1980s and the 1990s in the chances that a drug arrest would ultimately result in a prison sentence” (Bobo & Thompson, 2006).

Policy Question

According to Reuter (1992), drug policy has, in effect, generated two debates: one has to do with the retention of current prohibitions, that is, for or against the legalization of drugs; the second debate is between supply-side advocates and the demand-side advocates.

This second debate is between those who want to more aggressively pursue drug dealers and cartels and those who, like Vice-President Joe Biden, accept vigorous enforcement, though have resource commitments directly for prevention and treatment. There seems to be little chance of compromise. The hawks in the second debate “note the apparently low success rates of drug treatment programs; many programs show relapse rates of more than 60 percent” (Reuter, 1992).  Because of the relapse rates, the hawks have reached the conclusion that in order to fight the War on Drugs effectively, the drugs need to be more difficult to obtain. In short, they want to go after the suppliers and the doves want to deal more with the demand for drugs, that is, with the suffering drug addict, or potential addict as such.

Subsequently, “the doves’ message is clearer than that of the hawks. After defending themselves from the charge that they condone the use of drugs by asserting that society should strive to reduce use of all dangerous psychoactive drugs including alcohol and cigarettes, they go on to argue that most of the current evils associated with drugs arise from the prohibitions and enforcement of those prohibitions (Reuter, 1992).

The doves think that that more stringent laws set up the context for more drug-related crime to committed, therefore leading to more incarcerations, therefore more addicts sitting in prison wasting taxpayer’s money. The doves argue that there is a punitive trend in American drug policy. If one does drugs, or is found to be in possession of drugs, that person should go to jail. This, however, does not get to the root of the problem, which centers in the mind of the drug addict.

Alcoholics Anonymous and other Twelve-Step recovery programs have emphasized that addiction is tripartite in nature: it is a physical allergy fueled by a mental obsession, linked up to a spiritual malady (B. Mahoney, personal communication, October 25th, 2011). Prevention is the most cost-effective means by which to thwart a life of addiction; treatment entails treating the mental health of the addict. This recontexualizes the War on Drugs and makes it clear that it is as much of a mental health issue as it is, in its consequences, a legal issue.  The micro informs the macro.  Twelve-Step recovery programs advocate for developing relationships with sponsors, with others who have achieved abstinence (Durkin, 2002). Twelve-Step recovery programs provide an informal structure or design of living for those with an addiction, which cannot be cured, but can be arrested on daily basis by “working the twelve steps.” This mentor-mentee dynamic is a step in the right direction, but does not encapsulate, the views of the third “bird” in the supply-demand drug debate: that is of the “owls.”

The owls, who seek a realistic approach is that research-oriented, suggest that the focus not be on drugs (which stay illegal), but on reconstructing the perception of the drug addict as a patient rather than as a criminal. This kind of view is huge leap forward from the Harrison Narcotics Act of 1914, which demonized addicts as moral degenerates. It is also a step forward from insisting that “Just Saying No,” pace the Reagan-era, is enough to keep one addiction-free. The owls want to confront the issue with common sense: drug addiction does not simply go away.  Even if drug dealers were eradicated there will never be a drug-free society. In fact, “no modern democratic state has been drug-free, and American will not be the first” (Caulkins et al, 2005). That being said, it is clear the owl’s approach, unlike the doves’ and hawks’ approach emphasizes well-thought out research that is conducive to a peace treaty in the War on Drugs, wherein it not merely about drug courts and the treatment of the drug addict and not merely a series of excuses to argue for legalization or further crack-downs.

The owl’s approach makes it clear alternatives are necessary; for, as the 2011 Report on the Global Commission of Drug Policy states, the war on drugs has generated negative consequences, which includes, but is not limited to:

“the rise of a black market, policy displacement (scarce resources to fund law enforcement), geographical displacement (where drug production shifts location), substance displacement (the movement of users to new substances because of the market), and the negative perception of drug users, which are stigmatized and marginalized” (Jahangir et al, 2011).

Consequently, it is no wonder why the debate for legalization has come to the fore more so in than in recent years than ever before: it is a short-cut point of view that allows a person to avoid having to address the glaringly real, strident details of the demand or supply-orientated approach to American drug control policy. In short, the owl’s position is that legalization is actually an example of utopian thinking and what is really important is addressing the drug problem on all fronts with alternative strategies. What must be done, in effect, is for the United States to wake up and address its own mental health problem, which not only includes its addiction to drugs, but an addiction to facilitating a War on Drugs.  A better approach would be to begin educating children that a drug addict is not a criminal by default, but someone who is ill; then, and only then, can the problem become a health concern wherein the macro, mezzo, and micro levels are in dialogue with one another.

Conclusions

Karl Marx once wrote that “the dreams of past generations are nightmares in the brains of living.” If that is true, then yesterday’s war on drugs is a burden to addicts in the present, who know no other way to live than by running away from the system that produces the phenomena of addiction itself.  A consumer society inevitably consumes; drugs are not an exception; they are simply components of a large puzzle: a puzzle to the powerless and a puzzle to those in power who have to contend with the powerless. It is my view that The War on Drugs a failing fiasco, an anathema to liberty.  It is a legalistic climatology of sorts. When the troops in the War on Drugs come through the drug dealer’s door, they do so with the intent of making arrests. Silent armies—these are the constituents of the War on Drugs: a police apparatus aimed at creating a climate of fear. This is not unrelated to the war on terror. Terror is a cipher, war is a metaphor.

When political rhetoric works well, it convinces most of the masses. The elites care little for the welfare of drug addicts; in fact, they need drug addicts to make their money. These elites, most probably, funnel funds into drug cartels themselves, thereby playing both sides of the field, attempting to ridicule those at the bottom of the socioeconomic hierarchy, who turn to drugs as an escape from some horrible fate, wherein the addict self-consciously punishes himself.

I am of the view that the world as of this very moment in 2011 is in transition. Many political debates need to be re-worked and terms like “war” need to be used sparingly unless they actually refer to a literal war. That is not to say metaphors are the enemy, but in the area of social welfare terms need to be as clear-cut as possible for policies to make sense in practice. Drugs are not the real problem; they are merely physical symptoms of a socio-existential problem: for the desire to use drugs is born from the need to feel relief from the daily grind of cultural and national life, which emphasizes socioeconomic status as the indicator of the worth of an individual.

The war on drugs has failed because it is a war against human behavior; and, that behavior, though certainly not fixed, is subjected via ideological and situation processes: it surrenders to power. This power might be external like a government or a state; yet, that power can also reside in the individual, wherein any proposed alternative to the war on drugs would have include “the right to life, to health, to due process and a fair trial, to be free from torture or cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment, from slavery, and from discrimination” (Jahangir et al, 2011). But those human rights must be the norm for addict or non-addict alike. Only then can a war on drugs or a war against anything considered immoral be considered a false utopian victory and reflection of the actual, horrific wars that have waged in the past.

 

Paul Rogov studied Comparative Literature at the University of California at Berkeley and Social Work at USC. His literary work has appeared in Danse Macabre, Exterminating Angel Press, Social Justice Solutions, Femicatio Magazine, Cultural Weekly and others.

Notes

Blendon, R., (1998). The public and the war on illicit drugs. Public Opinion and Health Care, 279, 11, pp. 827-832.

Bobo, L.D., Thompson, V., (2006). Unfair by design: the war on drugs, race, and the legitimacy of the criminal justice system. Social Research, 73, 2, pp. 445-471.

Caulkins, J.P., Reuter P., Iguchi, M.Y., Chiesa, J., (2005). How goes the “war on drugs? An assessment of U.S. drug problems and policy.  Santa Monica: The Rand Corporation Drug Policy Research Center.

Cole, D.D., (2010). Formalism, realism, and the war on drugs. Suffolk University Law Review, 15, 2, pp. 241-250.

Durkin, E., (2002). An organizational analysis of psychosocial and medical services in outpatient drug abuse treatment programs.  Social Science Review, pp. 407-411.

Jahangir, A., Fuetes C., Gaviria C., Zedillo E., Cardoso, F.H., Papandreou, G., Shultz, G.P., Solana, J, Whitehead, J., Annan, K., Arbour, L., Cattaui, M., Llosa, M..V, Caspers-Merk, M., Kazatchkine, M., Volcker P., Branson, R., Dreifuss Stoltenberg, T., (2011). Report of the global commission on drug policy. Rio Janeiro: 

Reuter, P., (1992). Hawks ascendant: the punitive trend of American drug policy. Washington, D.C.: The Rand Corporation Drug Policy Research Center.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on The War On Drugs: Hawks, Doves and Owls

Both before and after 9/11, one private company had a greater impact on counterterrorism programs in the United States than any other. That company, Science Applications International Corporation (SAIC), also profited more from the events of 9/11 than any other. Its chief operating officer (COO), Duane Andrews, was a man who had expertise-level knowledge of the vulnerabilities that were exploited on 9/11. He also just happened to be a long-time, close colleague of Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld.

SAIC business activity is related to incidence of terrorism, having won many of its record number of government contracts through the national security state that has arisen via the War on Terror. Through its numerous contracts and employee security clearances, it has become a private business that cannot be distinguished from a permanent form of government. In short, SAIC is “the fraternal twin of the intelligence establishment.”[1]

With regard to 9/11, SAIC’s impact cannot be overstated as the company:

  • Created the national databases that tracked and identified terrorists
  • Supplied U.S. airports with terrorism screening equipment
  • Predicted and investigated terrorist attacks against U.S. infrastructure including national defense networks and the World Trade Center (WTC)
  • Helped create the official account for what happened at the WTC both in 1993 and after 9/11
  • Was a leader in research on thermitic materials like those found in the WTC dust[2]
  • Employed the leader of the robotics team that scoured the pile at Ground Zero, using equipment capable of eliminating explosives
  • Provided the information to capture the alleged mastermind of the attacks, Khalid Sheik Mohammed (KSM)

Furthermore, Dick Cheney’s long-time protégé, Duane P. Andrews, ran SAIC’s government business for thirteen years, from 1993 to 2006, and was therefore a principal actor in these activities. During this time, Andrews was also a leading corporate representative on government commissions and task forces that evaluated threats to U.S. defense and information systems.

duane-andrewsAndrews’ history with Cheney goes back decades. In the Vietnam War, he was a special operations soldier in the U.S. Air Force. He then got a position as a staff member for the U.S. House Intelligence Committee. During his time in that position, Cheney was a prominent member of the House Intelligence Committee along with Lee Hamilton, the future 9/11 Commission vice-chairman.

Later, George H.W. Bush nominated Andrews for the post of Assistant Secretary of Defense for Command, Control, Communications, and Intelligence (ASD/C3I). This led to Andrews being personally responsible for giving Secretary of Defense Cheney his daily intelligence briefs.

Cheney and Andrews used false information to start the Gulf War. This included satellite photos allegedly showing a build-up of Iraqi troops on the Saudi Arabian border, which were later shown by St. Petersburg Times reporter Jean Heller to represent a false claim.[3] The false information also included the testimony of the 15-year old Kuwaiti royal, Nayirah.

Andrews left the Pentagon in 1993 to become President and COO of SAIC’s federal business, which accounted for a majority of the company’s revenues. Andrews personally managed SAIC’s programs for the National Security Agency (NSA), and other agencies within the U.S. intelligence community, in the years leading up to 9/11 and afterward.

As the man hired to defend the U.S. against attacks on its defense information systems, Andrews became a critical part of the national security apparatus. All the while, he continued to consider Dick Cheney his personal, lifelong hero.[4]

SAIC and the road to 9/11

SAIC worked for many years in close partnership with oil-rich royals in the Middle East, particularly those that have become suspect with regard to 9/11. The first international contract that the company won was for training the Kuwaiti Defense Forces, starting in 1976. Three years later, SAIC secured its biggest and longest lasting international contract, training the Saudi Arabian navy.

In 1986, SAIC was hired by the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey (PANYNJ) “to conduct a general security review of the WTC” with respect to terrorism. SAIC’s report rated the public areas of the WTC as very attractive targets for terrorism, emphasizing especially the basement levels.[5] Perhaps coincidentally, the Kuwaiti-owned security company Stratesec was hired by the PANYNJ in 1991 to provide a similar review and report.

After Andrews joined the company, SAIC was hired to investigate the 1993 bombing of the WTC, an event that was remarkably like the one that it had foreseen in 1986.[6] Moreover, SAIC ultimately provided input that led to producing the official account of what happened. The company boasted that — “After the 1993 World Trade Center bombing, our blast analyses produced tangible results that helped identify those responsible.”[7]

In the early 1990s, SAIC was also a leader in developing technology for aviation security. At the time, SAIC had been contracted by a congressional advisory panel, led by L. Paul Bremer and Brian Michael Jenkins among others, to evaluate terrorist threats with regard to airport security.[8] By 1994, the company’s explosives detection equipment was installed in major airports around the country, including in New York City, Miami, and Washington, DC.[9]

Under Andrews, SAIC was heavily focused on analyzing risks to U.S. defense information systems and led the partnership between the U.S. government and industry in that area. As the chairman of a Defense Science Board taskforce on information warfare, Andrews learned about the specific vulnerabilities of U.S. national defense systems. In early 1997, he reported to Congress that U.S. defense systems were a “target-rich environment” and that attacks on certain facilities and information systems “would seriously affect the ability of the Department of Defense to carry out its assigned missions and functions.”[10] Andrews went on to build and secure the Defense Information System Network (DISN). The secret component of the DISN, which was called SIPRnet, linked command and control systems throughout the United States.

As of March 2001, SAIC was also part of the National Coordinating Center for telecommunications (NCC). NCC provided oversight to the agency that, on the morning of 9/11 but before the attacks began, implemented a secret communications system (SRAS) for the first time. The system had been developed in conjunction with the Continuity of Government (COG) plans that Dick Cheney had worked on for nearly twenty years along with Richard Clarke, who implemented COG for the first time as the events of 9/11 proceeded.[11]

The fact that Andrews was the most knowledgeable person in terms of the vulnerabilities of information and communications networks for U.S. national security seems a worthy point for further consideration. That’s because so many inexplicable problems occurred with defense communications networks on 9/11, including the following.

  • There were serious problems with the National Military Command Center’s conference calls that morning. Important participants could not be connected or were repeatedly dropped from the calls, including the FAA.[12]
  • U.S. national security facilities were in an information void on 9/11. Agencies that should have known the most about an ongoing terrorist event were blind to the ongoing attacks.[13]
  • The SIPRnet did not have any information about the attacks even as late as the afternoon of 9/11.[14]
  • President Bush complained of poor communications in that he “could not reach key officials, including Rumsfeld” and “The line to the White House shelter conference room – and the Vice-President- kept cutting off.”[15]

In the mid-1990s, SAIC created the U.S. systems for tracking terrorist suspects. For the FBI, SAIC developed CODIS, the national DNA database, and NCIC, the national criminal background check system.[16] To clarify, when in August 2001 Robert Fuller of the FBI went to search for Khalid Al-Mihdhar and Nawaf Al-Hazmi’s alleged presence in the United States via the NCIC system, he was checking a database built by SAIC. Although Fuller found nothing, the 9/11 Commission Report said that such checks should have unearthed driver’s licenses, car registrations, and telephone listings for Al-Mihdhar and Al Hazmi, all of which were in their names.[17] This fact alone should be enough to call for the investigation of SAIC with regard to 9/11.

SAIC purchased Boeing Information Services (BIS) in 1999. BIS specialized in information systems integration, logistics, networking, and outsourcing, and dealt with management of data communications to Boeing aircraft. Its work in progress included “a five-year Defense Information Systems Network contract with the Defense Information Systems Agency”, and “the Army’s Reserve Component Automation System, a 12-year contract worth $1.6 billion that the company won in 1991.”[18]

Andrews was a member of Donald Rumsfeld’s commission on national security uses of space. This commission argued that the US should avoid international agreements that limit the deployment of weapons in space, and that, in order to avoid a “Space Pearl Harbor,” the US needed to “develop the capability for power projection in, from, and through space.”[19] As a result, SAIC’s missile defense contracts tripled between 2001 and 2004, going from $47 million to $169 million in value.

SAIC and the WTC After 9/11

It turns out that SAIC was one of the first organizations to show up at Ground Zero. The company claimed in its 2004 shareholder report that — “Following the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, we responded rapidly to assist a number of customers near ground zero in New York City and in Washington, D.C.”[20] In one of these instances, “SAIC technicians raced to Ground Zero within hours to install an ad hoc communications network for first responders and local financial companies.”[21] Therefore, SAIC was in control of at least some of the communications at Ground Zero.

Perhaps the most interesting SAIC connection to the cleanup was John Blitch, a lieutenant colonel in the U.S. Army’s Special Forces, who was said to have retired from the Army just the day before 9/11. It was reported that Blitch was “filling out the paperwork in an out-processing office of the Pentagon on the morning of September 10, 2001,” and that after “three years at the helm of the Defense Department’s Tactical Mobile Robots Program,” he was “leaving to direct the Center for Intelligent Robotics and Unmanned Systems at the Science Applications International Corporation.”[22]

Instead of traveling to his SAIC office in Colorado on 9/11, as he had planned, “Blitch scrapped the trip…and headed for New York. On the road, Blitch donned his fatigues, dug out his military ID, and worked his cell phone, summoning colleagues from Florida to Boston to pack up their finest tactical robots and rendezvous at Ground Zero.” And “Over the next 11 days, the group’s 17 robots squeezed into spaces too narrow for humans, dug through heaps of scalding rubble, and found seven bodies trapped beneath the mountains of twisted steel and shattered concrete.”[23]

Blitch was experienced at such search missions, and had done “ground-breaking research in robot assisted search and rescue conducted during the Oklahoma City Bombing response”.[24] By May 2001, laser technology was being used by Blitch’s robot program. It was reported that — “Robots are performing quite successfully in the field of explosive ordnance disposal (EOD)”… and “EOD units [include] a laser weapon for ordnance neutralization…[used to] burn unexploded ordnance.”[25]

Therefore, SAIC had the means and opportunity to neutralize any unwanted explosives that might have been buried in the pile at Ground Zero. That’s interesting in that SAIC supplied the largest contingent of non-governmental investigators to the NIST WTC investigation after 9/11. That investigation went to great lengths in order to avoid consideration of explosives.

Manufacturing and Profiting From War

SAIC went on to play an integral role in the “War on Terror”, and was even responsible for capturing Khalid Sheikh Mohammed. It was SAIC staff and technology that “tease[ed] out crucial clues about Mohammed’s activities from intercepted text messages that he sent to his al Qaeda operatives using as many as 20 different cell phones.”[26]

After 9/11, SAIC was hired to fix the problems it had created with terrorist tracking systems. Duane Andrews was personally in charge of the project called Trailblazer, which was originally launched in 1999 but ostensibly was not tested for operational use by the U.S. government until six years later. The system was meant to translate all NSA intercepts, including telephone, email and other electronic information, into actionable intelligence.

An oft-cited example of the failures that Trailblazer was meant to avoid was the reported incident in which messages stating “tomorrow is zero hour” and “the match begins tomorrow” were intercepted by the NSA on September 10, 2001 but not translated until September 12th. The Trailblazer system was not the answer to those problems, however, and was ultimately a total failure. After 6 years and $1.2 billion spent, the NSA cancelled the project in 2005.

Another huge failure led by SAIC was with the FBI system called Virtual Case File (VCF), which was intended to solve the supposed information sharing problem that prevented the FBI from tracking terrorists like Al-Mihdhar and Al-Hazmi, who lived for years with an FBI informant. VCF was meant to provide a centralized database of terrorism related information that all FBI agents could utilize. However, after three years and hundreds of millions in costs, VCF was written off as “the most highly publicized software failure in history.”[27]

SAIC’s 9/11 profiteering didn’t stop there. While helping NIST to determine the causes of the WTC destruction, “SAIC personnel were instrumental in pressing the case that weapons of mass destruction existed in Iraq under Saddam Hussein, and that war was the only way to get rid of them.”[28] The company helped supply the faulty intelligence that said Saddam had WMDs and then profited from the invasion by generating Iraq contracts worth billions of dollars. In 2003 alone, SAIC pulled in $5.4 billion in government revenue.

With the help of SAIC, John Poindexter of Iran-Contra fame was able to convince the U.S. government to hire him to ensure “Total Information Awareness” as a result of the 9/11 attacks. Through related programs, SAIC won major contracts for management of huge IT systems that involved spying on Americans and running the Joint Intelligence Operations Centers (JIOCs).[29]

Considering the incredible growth in contracts that SAIC realized from the events of 9/11, any independent investigation into those events should carefully consider the role played by that company and its leadership. Andrews and his company were integral to the counterterrorism programs of the United States in the years prior to 9/11. The company’s role included creating the national databases that tracked and identified terrorists, supplying airport screening equipment, predicting and investigating terrorist attacks against the WTC, helping to create the official account for what happened at the WTC after 9/11, and providing the information to capture KSM. Undoubtedly, SAIC’s impact on the counterterrorism programs of the United States prior to 9/11 was unique and pervasive.

Duane Andrews should be a person of specific interest because he had expert knowledge of the vulnerabilities of the U.S. defense and information systems at a time when many of those systems failed catastrophically. If anyone knew how to exploit weaknesses in the telecommunications and electronic systems of the U.S. defense department, it was Duane Andrews. His history of being closely aligned with the activities of Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld, for the twenty years prior to 9/11, provides additional reason to suspect him.

Notes

[1] Donald L. Barlett and James B. Steele, Washington’s $8 Billion Shadow, Vanity Fair, March 2007, http://www.vanityfair.com/politics/features/2007/03/spyagency200703

[2] Kevin R. Ryan, The Top Ten Connections Between NIST and Nanothermites, Journal of 9/11 Studies, July 2008

[3] Morris Berman, Dark Ages America: The Final Phase of Empire, W. W. Norton & Company, 2011

[4] Laura Rozen, The First Contract, The American Prospect, March 30, 2007,http://www.prospect.org/cs/articles?articleId=12612

[5] New York County Supreme Court, Matter of World Trade Ctr. Bombing Litig, 2004 NY Slip Op 24030 [3 Misc 3d 440], January 20, 2004

[6] New York State Law Reporting Bureau, In The Matter of World Trade Center Bombing Litigation, 2004 NY Slip Op 24030 [3 Misc 3d 440], January 20, 2004,  http://www.courts.state.ny.us/reporter/3dseries/2004/2004_24030.htm

[7] Science Applications International Corporation, Annual Report 2004http://www.saic.com/news/pdf/Annual-Report2004.pdf

[8] U.S. Congress, Office of Technology Assessment, Technology Against Terrorism: The Federal Effort, OTA-ISC-481, Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office, July 1991.

[9] A. Maureen Rouhi, Government, Industry Efforts Yield Array Of Tools To Combat Terrorism, Chemical & Engineering News, July 24, 1995

[10] Statement by Duane P. Andrews, Chairman, Defense Science Board Task Force on Information Warfare & Defense,https://www.fas.org/irp/congress/1997_hr/h970320a.htm

[11] Matthew Everett, Backup Communications System Was ‘Miraculously’ Switched on for ‘Exercise Mode’ and Ready for Use on 9/11, Shoestring 9/11, January 10, 2011,http://shoestring911.blogspot.com/2011/01/backup-communications-system-was.html

[12] Matthew Everett, The Repeatedly Delayed Responses of the Pentagon Command Center on 9/11, Shoestring 9/11, November 7, 2010

[13] Matthew Everett, Why Were U.S. Intelligence Facilities in an ‘Information Void’ During the 9/11 Attacks?, Shoestring 9/11, August 19, 2012

[14] Ibid

[15] The 9/11 Commission Report, p 40. Note that these communication failures helped ensure that the President was out of the loop for a longer period of time.

[16] Science Applications International Corporation, Press Release, August 24, 1994

[17] National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States, The 9/11 Commission Report, 2004, p 539

[18] Nick Wakeman, Boeing Information Services Sale Has Industry Abuzz, Washington Technology, Jan 21, 1999

[19] Report of the Commission to Assess United States National Security Space Management and Organization

[20] SAIC shareholder report, 2004,http://files.shareholder.com/downloads/SAIC/0x0x208149/64117BC7-5895-497E-A8EB-158A6E57012C/AR_2004.pdf

[21] William Launder, Homeland Security Goes Public, Forbes.com, 08.03.06,http://www.forbes.com/2006/08/02/saic-homeland-security-ipo-cx_wl_0803saic.html

[22] Michael Behar, The New Mobile Infantry: Battle-ready robots are rolling out of the research lab and into harm’s way, Wired, Issue 10.05 | May 2002,http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/10.05/robots.html

[23] Ibid

[24] American Android Corp webpage, About Us,http://www.americanandroid.com/about.jb.html

[25] Sandra I. Erwin, Battlefield Robots: Not Just ‘Entertainment’, National Defense, May 2001,http://www.nationaldefensemagazine.org/archive/2001/May/Pages/Battlefield_Robots4252.aspx

[26] Paul Kaihla, US: In The Company Of Spies, CorpWatch, May 1st, 2003,http://www.corpwatch.org/article.php?id=7892

[27] Harry Goldstein, Who Killed the Virtual Case File?: How the FBI blew more than $100 million on case-management software it will never use, IEEE Spectrum, September 2005

[28] Charlie Cray, “Science Applications International Corporation,” CorpWatch,http://www.corpwatch.org/section.php?id=17 ; cf. Barlett and Steele, “Washington’s $8 Billion Shadow.”

[29] Tim Shorrock, QinetiQ Goes Kinetic: Top Rumsfeld Aide Wins Contracts from Spy Office He Set Up, CorpWatch, January 15, 2008

The contents of this article as well as the view expressed are of sole responsibility of the author. The Centre for Research on Globalization will not be responsible for any inaccurate or incorrect statement in this article.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Profiting from 9/11: The Private Company that Played a Major Role in the “War on Terror”

Just about every day in Iraq at least one person, if not scores more lose their lives wrecking family after family as a direct consequence of the US/British invasion and subsequent occupation of Iraq back in 2003. To this day 11 years after that invasion a sectarian war still rages whilst according to a prominent ‘Independent ‘ journalist, jihadists have since taken control of an area the size of Great Britain, partly in Iraq and partly in Syria. Meanwhile the 2010 figure of 650,000 plus dead must have increased by now being far closer to the 700,000 mark. This whilst baby’s are still being born deformed by the chemicals the Americans used during  their ‘Phantom  fury’  battle of Fallujah at the end of 2004 that took over 4000 lives alone, flattening much of the city.

Now here’s a question for anyone out there reading this who also happens to be a British tax payer. Did you know that for the Afghanistan and Iraq wars your part of the £30 billion we all spent was roughly around £1000 per head. That’s a grand share that you personally paid towards taking all those thousands of lives and destroying all those thousands of homes.

How would you now feel if I were to tell you that you were duped, that you were ripped off and that you were cheated not only out of your £1000 investment but that you were also unwittingly a  partner in a mass murder , a crooked, fraudulent  and  atrociously run business deal which went horribly wrong. What would you want to do about it. You might feel you were entitled to some kind of criminal investigation and presumably you might want some kind of justice metered out on those criminals responsible for the loss of your  fellow human beings who’d lost their lives including let us not forget the 179 British soldiers who died in Iraq.

Well don’t worry, it’s all been taken care of. Indeed the person who led you into this corrupt fraudulent and murderous deal, Tony Blair, allowed his old friend and non elected successor Gordon Brown to open an inquiry in your name. With a carte blanche remit to interview all the notable politicians and civil servants involved, the Iraq Inquiry or the Chilcot inquiry, which has currently spent eight of your million quid, was set up five years ago to investigate where it all went wrong. Oh but by the way you will just have to wait another six months or so, as all those taking part, Blair included, haven’t had an opportunity to sign it off yet.

Oh wait a minute, we’ve just learnt that it won’t be a carte blanche remit after all as a good proportion of the correspondence between Bush and Blair will remain secret for ‘security reasons’ because obviously we wouldn’t like to show all of America’s so called enemies, Putin, half the middle east, and vast swathes of Latin America what the US were really up to with these recent imperialist wars , America and Britain once again challenging  others to learn from our democratic ways.

Oh and sorry to inform you that if you didn’t already work it out, the inquiry, having been set up by the perpetrators,  is obviously not a criminal investigation and will therefore not be looking into the bleeding obvious corruption that went on in your name for the businesses of oil , banking construction and arms dealing.

The evidence

Well we don’t need an inquiry to tell us what we already know, which when you think about it is all the inquiry will give us. Clearly we already know that there were no weapons of mass destruction, not only because they couldn’t find any but also because Paul Wolfowitz the Neo-con, one time president of the world bank and former US deputy defence secretary under George Bush let slip in an interview with Vanity Fair magazine that the WMD question was chosen as an excuse for removing Saddam Hussein as it was’ the one thing we could all agree on’. Presumably because at the time it was the one thing  that nobody could prove..We also know that the JIC here in London (Joint Intelligence committee) were telling Blair that the evidence for WMD was patchy and sporadic, yet Blair in the opening of the now infamous ‘Dodgy Dossier ‘ was telling us a downright lie with the words in its preface that the evidence was ‘extensive detailed and authoritative’.

We also don’t need an Inquiry to tell us that there was simply no evidence or justification in another Blair lie that the 45 minute claim for weapon deployment he made in the House of Commons had any justification. A lie that even Blair has since admitted was regretful, and we don’t need an inquiry to tell us that the man who sold all the information to the US which ended up in Colin Powell’s address to the UN, yes, the one where he held up that vile of white powder, turned out to be an Iraqi taxi driver called, ‘curve ball’ who admitted spinning the story because he needed the money to get a green card to live in Germany. You just couldn’t make it up!

As for the corruption – Clearly an inquiry won’t be looking into the following activities of Blair as they are of a criminal nature and would only therefore come out as incriminating evidence in a proper court of law. It’s a known fact that JP Morgan the 2nd largest banking organisation in the US who paid into the Bush/Cheney election ticket  led a consortium of banks who loaned the Iraq bank $2.5 billion to prop up the Iraq economy six months after the invasion to be repaid after the war by mortgaging Iraq’s oil. They then hired Blair on $5 million a year deal and still do for, for wait for it, ‘advice’.

Any commentator in Kuwait will tell you, in news that was widely reported over here too, that not long after he left office Blair was paid between $ 20-40 million dollars by the Al Sabah royal family of Kuwait, Saddam Hussein’s old enemies’, again for ‘advice’ He then signed another deal in 2008 with a Korean oil firm with extensive interests in Iraq, (bombs were going off right left and centre in Iraq at the time) for millions but managed to hide this deal from the public for another year. These snippets of information in Blair’s dealings are minor in the grand scheme of things – there are surely many more – but what becomes quite clear is that a man with Blair’s obvious business acumen must have known long before he lied in the house of commons and to the nation about the so called WMD that he stood to make millions just as soon as he left office. We can only guess that just like any crook he and Bush thought they would get away scott free. After the ten years of sanctions Saddam Hussein and Iraq was crippled. So knowing the US’s vast military power, Bush and Blair would have been convinced that after the initial invasion and battles, it would be all over..You remember Bush’s speech from the warship US Abraham Lincoln with that big sign above his head ‘Mission accomplished’. Well it wasn’t over as we all know and the sectarian war still rages on as you read.

The Iraq war and the Chilcot inquiry are by far the greatest scandal of our generation. I’m sure that Stop The War, which might, it could be argued have more success if they were to call themselves ‘Start the peace’ will surely be doing all they can whenever the inquiry does come out. As citizens of what should no longer be called ‘Great’ Britain, I’ve no doubt the Iraq inquiry will sadly but undoubtedly be our last real chance to get anywhere close to taking a former prime minister and war criminal, Tony Blair down for the most heinous of modern crimes. It’s clear that a vast proportion of the population of the UK, 2 million+ of them who marched with Stop the war in March 2003 .are part of globally millions ( if not billions) who would like to witness so-called ‘democratic justice’ carried out for the 650,000+ and counting- human lives taken in their name and  for the corruption that followed  by Bush, Blair and company in Iraq.

When the inquiry does eventually come out, and it could apparently ”criticize Blair” All I would ask is that we organize a 24-hour nonstop demonstration outside Blair’s house in Connaught Sq London W2. A demonstration like those in Tahir square Cairo that not only protests but, as Tony Benn would have said ‘Demands’ justice in a democracy. A criminal investigation must follow Chilcot’ for if as citizens we do not carry this through, then surely we will be as guilty as our establishment for turning a blind eye on these war crimes and for allowing this to happen in our name, tantamount to doing nothing. Which, as the notable Irish philosopher Edmund Burke once said, is all it will take for ‘evil to triumph’.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on The Chilcot Inquiry on Iraq, Instigated by the Perpetrators of War Crimes: The Greatest Scandal of our Generation

Paul Craig Roberts held top security clearances. He has repeatedly warned that a US-Russian nuclear war would wipe out the human race, along with all other complex forms of life. As a scientist with expert knowledge, I wish to echo and explain his warning.

Nuclear war has no winner. Beginning in 2006, several of the world’s leading climatologists (at Rutgers, UCLA, John Hopkins University, and the University of Colorado-Boulder) published a series of studies that evaluated the long-term environmental consequences of a nuclear war, including baseline scenarios fought with merely 1% of the explosive power in the US and/or Russian launch-ready nuclear arsenals. They concluded that the consequences of even a “small” nuclear war would include catastrophic disruptions of global climate[i] and massive destruction of Earth’s protective ozone layer[ii]. These and more recent studies predict that global agriculture would be so negatively affected by such a war, a global famine would result, which would cause up to 2 billion people to starve to death. [iii]

These peer-reviewed studies – which were analyzed by the best scientists in the world and found to be without error – also predict that a war fought with less than half of US or Russian strategic nuclear weapons would destroy the human race.[iv] In other words, a US-Russian nuclear war would create such extreme long-term damage to the global environment that it would leave the Earth uninhabitable for humans and most animal forms of life.

A recent article in the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, “Self-assured destruction: The climate impacts of nuclear war”,[v] begins by stating:

“A nuclear war between Russia and the United States, even after the arsenal reductions planned under New START, could produce a nuclear winter. Hence, an attack by either side could be suicidal, resulting in self-assured destruction.”

In 2009, I wrote an article[vi] for the International Commission on Nuclear Non-proliferation and Disarmament that summarizes the findings of these studies. It explains that nuclear firestorms would produce millions of tons of smoke, which would rise above cloud level and form a global stratospheric smoke layer that would rapidly encircle the Earth. The smoke layer would remain for at least a decade, and it would act to destroy the protective ozone layer (vastly increasing the UV-B reaching Earth[vii]) as well as block warming sunlight, thus creating Ice Age weather conditions that would last 10 years or longer.

Following a US-Russian nuclear war, temperatures in the central US and Eurasia would fall below freezing every day for one to three years; the intense cold would completely eliminate growing seasons for a decade or longer. No crops could be grown, leading to a famine that would kill most humans and large animal populations.

Electromagnetic pulse from high-altitude nuclear detonations would destroy the integrated circuits in all modern electronic devices[viii], including those in commercial nuclear power plants. Every nuclear reactor would almost instantly meltdown; every nuclear spent fuel pool (which contain many times more radioactivity than found in the reactors) would boil-off, releasing vast amounts of long-lived radioactivity. The fallout would make most of the US and Europe uninhabitable. Of course, the survivors of the nuclear war would be starving to death anyway.

Once nuclear weapons were introduced into a US-Russian conflict, there would be little chance that a nuclear holocaust could be avoided. Theories of “limited nuclear war” and “nuclear de-escalation” are unrealistic.[ix] In 2002 the Bush administration modified US strategic doctrine from a retaliatory role to permit preemptive nuclear attack; in 2010, the Obama administration made only incremental and miniscule changes to this doctrine, leaving it essentially unchanged.  Furthermore, Counterforce doctrine – used by both the US and Russian military – emphasizes the need for preemptive strikes once nuclear war begins. Both sides would be under immense pressure to launch a preemptive nuclear first-strike once military hostilities had commenced, especially if nuclear weapons had already been used on the battlefield.

Both the US and Russia each have 400 to 500 launch-ready ballistic missiles armed with a total of at least 1800 strategic nuclear warheads,[xi] which can be launched with only a few minutes warning.[xii] Both the US and Russian Presidents are accompanied 24/7 by military officers carrying a “nuclear briefcase”, which allows them to transmit the permission order to launch in a matter of seconds.

Yet top political leaders and policymakers of both the US and Russia seem to be unaware that their launch-ready nuclear weapons represent a self-destruct mechanism for the human race. For example, in 2010, I was able to publicly question the chief negotiators of the New START treaty, Russian Ambassador Anatoly Antonov and (then) US Assistant Secretary of State, Rose Gottemoeller, during their joint briefing at the UN (during the Non-Proliferation Treaty Review Conference). I asked them if they were familiar with the recent peer-reviewed studies that predicted the detonation of less than 1% of the explosive power contained in the operational and deployed U.S. and Russian nuclear forces would cause catastrophic changes in the global climate, and that a nuclear war fought with their strategic nuclear weapons would kill most people on Earth. They both answered “no.”

More recently, on April 20, 2014, I asked the same question and received the same answer from the US officials sent to brief representatives of the NGOS at the Non-Proliferation Treaty Preparatory Committee meeting at the UN. None of the US officials at the briefing were aware of the studies. Those present included top officials of the National Security Council.

It is frightening that President Obama and his administration appear unaware that the world’s leading scientists have for years predicted that a nuclear war fought with the US and/or Russian strategic nuclear arsenal means the end of human history. Do they not know of the existential threat these arsenals pose to the human race . . . or do they choose to remain silent because this fact doesn’t fit into their official narratives? We hear only about terrorist threats that could destroy a city with an atomic bomb, while the threat of human extinction from nuclear war is never mentioned – even when the US and Russia are each running huge nuclear war games in preparation for a US-Russian war.

Even more frightening is the fact that the neocons running US foreign policy believe that the US has “nuclear primacy” over Russia; that is, the US could successfully launch a nuclear sneak attack against Russian (and Chinese) nuclear forces and completely destroy them. This theory was articulated in 2006 in “The Rise of U.S. Nuclear Primacy”, which was published in Foreign Affairs by the Council on Foreign Relations.[xiii] By concluding that the Russians and Chinese would be unable to retaliate, or if some small part of their forces remained, would not risk a second US attack by retaliating, the article invites nuclear war.

Colonel Valery Yarynich (who was in charge of security of the Soviet/Russian nuclear command and control systems for 7 years) asked me to help him write a rebuttal, which was titled “Nuclear Primacy is a Fallacy”.[xiv] Colonel Yarynich, who was on the Soviet General Staff and did war planning for the USSR, concluded that the “Primacy” article used faulty methodology and erroneous assumptions, thus invalidating its conclusions. My contribution lay in my knowledge of the recently published (in 2006) studies, which predicted even a “successful” nuclear first-strike, which destroyed 100% of the opposing sides nuclear weapons, would cause the citizens of the side that “won” the nuclear war to perish from nuclear famine, just as would the rest of humanity.

Although the nuclear primacy article created quite a backlash in Russia, leading to a public speech by the Russian Foreign Minister, the story was essentially not covered in the US press. We were unable to get our rebuttal published by US media. The question remains as to whether the US nuclear primacy asserted in the article has been accepted as a fact by the US political and military establishment. Such acceptance would explain the recklessness of US policy toward Russia and China.

Thus we find ourselves in a situation in which those who are in charge of our nuclear arsenal seem not to understand that they can end human history if they choose to push the button. Most of the American public also remains completely unaware of this deadly threat. The uninformed are leading the uninformed toward the abyss of extinction.

US public schools have not taught students about nuclear weapons for more than 20 years. The last time nuclear war was discussed or debated in a US Presidential election was sometime in the last century. Thus, most people do not know that a single strategic nuclear weapon can easily ignite a massive firestorm over 100 square miles, and that the US and Russia each have many thousands of these weapons ready for immediate use.

Meanwhile, neoconservative ideology has kept the US at war during the entire 21st century. It has led to the expansion of US/NATO forces to the very borders of Russia, a huge mistake that has consequently revived the Cold War. A hallmark of neconservatism is that America is the “indispensable nation”, as evidenced by the neoconservative belief in “American exceptionalism”, which essentially asserts that Americans are superior to all other peoples, that American interests and values should reign supreme in the world.

At his West Point speech on May 28, President Obama said, “I believe in American exceptionalism with every fiber of my being.” Obama stated his bottom line is that “America must always lead on the world stage,” and “the backbone of that leadership always will be the military.” American exceptionalism based on might, not diplomacy, on hard power, not soft, is precisely the hubris and arrogance that could lead to the termination of human life. Washington’s determination to prevent the rise of Russia and China, as set out in the Brzezinski and Wolfowitz doctrines, is a recipe for nuclear war.

The need is dire for the president of the US, Russia, or China to state in a highly public forum that the existence of nuclear weapons creates the possibility of their use and that their use in war would likely mean human extinction. As nuclear war has no winners, the weapons should be banned and destroyed before they destroy all of us.

Steven Starr is the Senior Scientist for Physicians for Social Responsibility (www.psr.org) and Director of the Clinical Laboratory Science Program at the University of Missouri. Starr has published in the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists and the Strategic Arms Reduction (STAR) website of the Moscow Institute of Physics and Technology. He has a website on the environmental consequences of nuclear war (www.nucleardarkness.org ).

The statements are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the opinions of Physicians for Social Responsibility or the opinions of the University of Missouri and its faculty.

Notes:

[i] O. B. Toon, R. Turco, A. Robock, C. Bardeen, L. Oman, G. Stenchikov, “Atmospheric effects and societal consequences of regional scale nuclear conflicts and acts of individual nuclear terrorism”, Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics, Vol. 7, 2007, pp. 973-2002. Retrieved from http://climate.envsci.rutgers.edu/pdf/acp-7-1973-2007.pdf

[ii] M. Mills, O. B. Toon, R. Turco, D. Kinnison, R. Garcia, “Massive global ozone loss predicted following regional nuclear conflict”, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (USA), April 8, 2008, vol. 105(14), pp. 5307-12. Retrieved from http://www.pnas.org/content/105/14/5307.abstract

[iii] I. Helfand, “Two Billion People at Risk? Global Impacts of Limited Nuclear War on Agriculture, Food Supply, and Human Nutrition”, Physicians for Social Responsibility, November, 2013. Retrieved from http://www.psr.org/assets/pdfs/two-billion-at-risk.pdf

[iv] A. Robock, L. Oman, G. Stenchikov, “Nuclear winter revisited with a modern climate model and current nuclear arsenals: Still catastrophic consequences”, Journal of Geophysical Research –Atmospheres, Vol. 112, No. D13, 2007. Retrieved from http://climate.envsci.rutgers.edu/pdf/RobockNW2006JD008235.pdf

[v] A. Robock, O. B. Toon, “Self-assured destruction: The climate impacts of nuclear war”, Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, May 30, 2013. Retrieved from http://thebulletin.org/2012/september/self-assured-destruction-climate-impacts-nuclear-war

[vi] S. Starr, “Catastrophic Climatic Consequences of Nuclear Conflicts”, Updated 2009 version (from INESAP Bulletin 28, April 2008), Retrieved from http://icnnd.org/Documents/Starr_Nuclear_Winter_Oct_09.pdf

[vii] M. Mills, J. Lee-Taylor, “Nuclear War and Ultraviolet Radiation”, National Center for Atmospheric Research, AtmosNews, March 2, 2011. Retrieved from https://www2.ucar.edu/atmosnews/research/3995/nuclear-war-and-ultraviolet-radiation

[viii] Commission to Assess the Threat to the United States from Electromagnetic Pulse (EMP) Attack, “Report of the Commission to Assess the Threat to the United States from Electromagnetic Pulse (EMP) Attack: Critical National Infrastructures”, April, 2008, ISBN 978-0-16-080927-9; Retrieved from http://www.empcommission.org/docs/A2473-EMP_Commission-7MB.pdf

[ix] N. Sokov, “Why Russia calls a limited nuclear strike “de-escalation”, Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, March 13, 2014. Retrieved from http://thebulletin.org/why-russia-calls-limited-nuclear-strike-de-escalation

[x] H. Kristensen, R. Norris, I. Oelrich, “From Counterforce to Minimal Deterrence: A New Nuclear Policy on the Path Towards Eliminating Nuclear Weapons”, Federation of American Scientists, Occasional Paper No. 7, April, 2009.Retrieved from http://www.fas.org/programs/ssp/nukes/doctrine/targeting.pdf

[xi] “Status of World Nuclear Forces (2014)”, Federation of American Scientists, Retrieved from http://www.fas.org/programs/ssp/nukes/nuclearweapons/nukestatus.html

[xii] S. Starr, “US and Russian Launch-Ready Nuclear Weapons: A Threat to All Nations and Peoples”, Nuclear Age Peace Foundation, July, 2011. Retrieved from http://www.wagingpeace.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/11/2011_06_24_starr.pdf

[xiii] K. Lieber, D. Press, “The Rise of US Nuclear Primacy”, Foreign Affairs, March/April 2006. Retrieved from http://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/61508/keir-a-lieber-and-daryl-g-press/the-rise-of-us-nuclear-primacy

[xiv] V. Yarynich, S. Starr, “Nuclear Primacy is a Fallacy”, Intelligent.ru, 2006 (Russian) 25 May 2006, Global Research, March 04, 2007. Retrieved from http://www.globalresearch.ca/nuclear-primacy-is-a-fallacy/4991

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on The Lethality of Nuclear Weapons: Nuclear War has No Winner

25 years ago almost to this day, I recall being a fairly young “cub reporter” full of enthusiasm and energy and great optimism for the future. I stood along with as pack of “seasoned” American and Polish reporters and European senior correspondents on the tarmac of the Ociece airport in Warsaw, as George Bush (the elder) stepped off Air Force One. Waiting to greet him was General-Polish president Jaruzelski (who ominously passed away recently), the architect of the “round table” talks which led to a peaceful transition in Poland away from communist dictatorship to democracy. It was great moment in history.  Europe was “whole and free” once more.

And perhaps for the US president (unlike his son George W. Bush Jr. , the “draft dodger’, the father fought bravely in WWII) or for him, being back in re-liberated Eastern Europe in 1989,  maybe felt  like re-living V – E Day (or victory in Europe) again . After the army band played the national anthems, I sneaked on the bus reserved for “White House press corps” only, with my companion a budding French photographer. Then we were whisked away (under the suspicious stare of the secret service), to Lech Walesa’s private estate on the outskirts of Gdansk. There in this splendid bucolic setting the American president met according to protocol “Informally” with the Solidarity leader and soon to be next leader of the country.

Bush senior announced a huge aid package worth billions for Poland and soon the “Paris club” of bankers and Poland’s creditors would absolve the country of all its foreign debts.

A new beginning was underway for Poland it seemed. Free markets and democratic freedoms would triumphantly reign over the old continent and peace and prosperity was at hand. It was such a magic moment for all us to report on to the world’s newspaper readers and mass media consumers.

Poland –US ties: From President Bush the “cold war warrior” to President Barack “Yes, we can!” Obama

This week marks the 25th anniversary of the first post-communist “free elections” in eastern and central Europe. With the mid-term congressional elections probably in his mind, the US president extolled that: “Poland will never stand alone”. A clear message aimed at his domestic audience, in his home town (full of voters of Polish background) Chicago. Which brings me to ask: Who is the better guarantor of Poland’s security in the White House, a democrat or a Republican?  Poland was always up for grabs among the US multicultural electorate.

Obama’s political mentor, Bill Clinton in the 1990s, was a key player in driving force in pushing for NATO’s eastward expansion to Poland (for obvious electoral and less then sentimental reasons). Later on, George W. Bush not to be  outdone by his predecessor ,  paid several visits to Poland during his two terms in office to thank the post-communist country for its unflinching support  in the “war on terror”. Poland in return sent thousands of troops (and suffered hundreds of casualties) or had boots on the ground, in both Afghanistan and Iraq for over a decade. Over the past 25 years, the country’s foreign policy or ardent pro –American stance is driven for legitimate historical reasons, or by a vehement anti-Russian sentiment. Moreover, Warsaw sees itself as spearheading the struggle to wield Ukraine free of the centuries old yolk of Russian domination.

Its strategic partnership with Washington is seen as natural and vital in this regard.  The US in return, acts as an enabler, using its foreign bases (CIA training camps and NATO installations) in Poland as a springboard for its “war on terror”; or against other potential foes such as Iran or Russia. Thus the bi-lateral relationship is mutually beneficial. It works well. Or as the saying goes: “The enemy of my enemy is my friend.”

1944-1989 to the Present: From a world war, to the post war era, to today’s re-newed rivalries and divisions

The Americans in 1944 had freed Western Europe and in 1989, they did the same, (or so goes the official State Department line) for Europe’s “poor cousins” located in the eastern half of the continent. It was indeed a momentous accomplishment. Europe was “whole and free” once again and it seemed back then that from now on all Europeans from Sweden to Spain, to the coast of Brittany to the Baltic Sea, would live in peace, prosperity and freedom, under the benevolent stewardship of both NATO and the EU.

In other words, the old order based on perpetual military and ideological confrontation which characterised the 20th century was blown away with the victorious winds of war, and “never again” would return. Old hostilities which haunted or overshadow the continent where dispelled forever. Looking back on those days today, makes the present seem like a grotesque joke or a re-run from an old propaganda newsreel full of lies and deception. It’s a bitter disappointment, indeed.

1989 or 1939?

For instance when I glance at the headline in the major European (Austrian, French, British, and Spanish etc.) press during this week’s historical fest, I am befuddled and confused. Are European leaders living in the world of yesterday again? Are they suffering from collective amnesia or delusion maybe? Have they forgotten their past, in their nihilistic pursuit of a post-modern dystopia or supra state? Is the present just a photo-opportunity for western leaders to boost their sagging poll ratings (I refer to the French and US president, here)? All this razzmatazz and spin can be dizzying for some observers or commentators of and on the international scene. Behind the backdrop of all these celebrations Europe is unravelling.  It is in post-Euro crisis mode. Protests against unrelenting austerity, decrepit and corrupt monarchies (i.e. Spain) and technocratic and authoritarian rule have spread throughout the Mediterranean basin from Greece to Italy, to Spain and Portugal. Turkey too is engulfed in a bitterly violent and popular struggle to overthrow a tyrant. Moreover, the core countries of Europe are fed up with the dictates of Brussels’ imperial order. Witness the rise of the “protest vote” in England (UKIP) and France (National Front), in last month’s EU wide vote.

The results were indicative of the EU’s citizenry‘s mood. There’s utter disgust with and for the ruling elite and establishment. As in the late 1930’s, a motley crew of unseemly “Populists”, nationalist and extreme right, anti-immigrant (The first time in German post war history a member of the NDP or neo-Nazi party has been elected in an European parliament.) and retrograde eccentrics are coming to the fore. Anything goes, in a popular vote which has rejected wholesale “business as usual’ in Brussels. What a circus the next sitting or session in Strasbourg will be!

In the “other Europe” things aren’t much better if not worse. In Ukraine, fascist politicians whose forefathers became and collaborated with the Waffen-SS commandos in the form of “Right Sector” and “Svodoba” have come to power in an EU-US orchestrated and financed putsch in Kiev.

And now to add insult to injury a “Willy Wonka” chocolate king, and oligarch with not so clean hands, has been elected as new president. In this post-coup, post-presidential election era, Ukraine’s response to Russian “hegemony” has been an “anti-terrorist” operation to quell “separatist fighters” seeking to break away from Kiev’s rule. The US President for his part, while in Poland announced in Warsaw, on Tuesday, more military spending for Eastern Europe to help “new Europe” deal with the on-going and deteriorating rapidly, Ukraine crisis.

With an American fighter jet in the background, the US commander in chief promised to upgrade US military presence ( army, navy and air force) in the region at a cost of one billion US$ (735 million Euros). A pittance when compared to the trillions spent over the years on bailing out “too big to fail” and “zombie” banks in Europe and the US, since the 2008 financial crises. But nevertheless, hardly a trifling sum in an era of prolonged economic malaise and severe social deprivation.

Almost on cue on the same day in Brussels, in a show unity and of solidarity with Ukraine and “new Europe”, NATO defence ministers met to discuss how the alliance can offset Russian influence in the eastern part of the now Balkanised and destabilised country. It’s almost as if 25 years after 1989, new division from the past have reappeared. Or the new militarism has displaced the center of gravity of conflict further to the east. The new dividing line this time in Europe is the Dnieper and no longer the Oder River. Little has changed. The “whole and free Europe” rhetoric of yesteryear being echoed and feted in Warsaw or Paris must very empty or hollow in Kiev, Odessa or Donetsk these days. It’s devoid of any substance or meaning.  As once more Europe is engulfed in perpetual conflict, civil strife and again is cut into two parts as before.

Now let’s take a closer and quick look at two institutions which shape and determine Europe’s future.

NATO, Quo Vadis?

NATO as in 1989 today is searching for a new raison d’etre to justify its own existence and ensure its survival into the future. After the Afghanistan debacle the Brussels based transatlantic alliance, needs to keep itself well funded or it will be out of business soon. NATO is in a fix. It can’t enlarge further east to places like Georgia, Armenia or Ukraine for that matter, without risking a non-conventional war with post-Soviet “resurgent” Russia. And Iran looks like it can be tamed (to do the west’s bidding) if given the proper enticements by the western powers. So any immanent NATO led first or pre-emptive strike against the Islamic Republic is “off the table” for a good while.

Furthermore, most of the 28 member NATO states or partners for their part are cutting back on defence. The alliance’s leader, the US, is too, “downsizing” its military capability. The figures speak for themselves. In the past few years NATO member states cut military spending up to 40 percent. The UK in terms of its overall GNP spends only 2,4 percent on defence, Greece 2,3 percent, Estonia 2,0 percent.  Germany is the lowest spender with 1,3 percent. Russia for its part after decades of stagnation in its armed forces has over the past five years increased defence outlays by 10 percent. Hence, an underfunded NATO after 25 years of expansion has overextended itself. The alliance took in too many and too quickly, new members at a time of great financial and economic distress within its ranks. In contrast, Russia profiting from an unprecedented oil and gas boom has filled its state coffers to the rim. And thus in the last decade has increased its military budget. For NATO, however, the Ukraine situation has given leaders on both sides of the Atlantic a pretext to boost military spending. So taxpayers, get ready to cough up more cash!

European Union, Quo Vadis?

Like NATO the EU also has twenty eight member states. However the EU after 25 years of deepening and widening is falling apart at the seams. The Eurozone crisis has left the EU torn between a relatively prosperous north (Benelux, Germany and Scandinavia) and a very poor southern flank comprising the PIGS (Portugal, Italy, Greece and Spain) which includes the Balkans as well (Bulgaria and Romanian).

This week in Vienna top diplomats from Southern Europe have come to consult with the EU counterparts. They are seeking assistance for the devastating floods which have hit the region this spring. But above all, states like Serbia are asking for reassurance that, like Croatia and Slovenia this ex-Yugo. Republic, will too join the EU soon. There’s a hitch however. Like NATO, the EU is suffering from “enlargement fatigue” and can’t take in new and relatively poor member states. The enlargement process is thus in limbo indefinitely. The future of Europe looks bleaker than it did in 1989, or 1944. The next commemoration this month likely to make headline, will be the day almost a hundred years ago when a shot rang out in Sarajevo, which was heard around the world. It seems Europe today is living in a kind of flashback mode, in a world of yesterday; or one which vanished with the start of the “Great War” in 1914, once again.

 Michael Werbowski is a Vienna based journalist, geo-political analyst, and post graduate in Post-Communist studies (University of Leeds, UK).

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on NATO, Quo Vadis? Europe Returns to the Confrontations of the Cold War Era Amid Global Uncertainty

12 people from one family were killed after the fall of mortar shells on Tuesday at their home in Fallujah city, where fierce fighting and shelling took place since more than five months ago , according to a security source.

Sources talked about the outbreak of strong fighting in several neighborhoods of Ramadi city in Anbar province, as Iraqi authorities said a few months ago that they have regained control the province from Islamist militants .

The sources told “Shafaq News” that “ 12 people, including 7 children and two women were killed by a mortar shell that fall at their home in al-Nuaimiya area southern Fallujah.

The sources did not refer to who fired the shell , but the army is besieging the city since it was taken over by armed opponents of the government , including Islamist militants earlier this year.

The army bombarded the city by warplanes and artillery and says it is targeting militants in an effort to get them out of the city , but the city’s residents , who are Sunnis say that the bombing does not distinguish between civilians and armed men .

In Ramadi, the sources said that clashes broke out late last night between gunmen and army troops in several areas , including al-Haouz , Street 20 , al-Mustawdaa areas in central Ramadi as well as al-Thbat and street 60 neighborhoods southeast of the city .

He pointed out that the clashes were accompanied by indiscriminate shelling by the army , the extent of casualties on both sides were not known immediately.

A witness who lives in Street 20 told Shafaq News  that  they could not get out of their homes after their return to it as the security forces closed the entrances of Ramadi and bridges within the city.

Gunmen bombed the headquarters of the Eighth Brigade west of Ramadi by a number of mortar shells and rockets, according to a source .

In Sharqat in Salahuddin province , the source said one civilian was killed after an hour after being kidnapped by gunmen .

The source added that armed group stormed a funeral in Kanaos, and kidnapped a civilian and took him to an unknown destination, then an hour later, he was found dead on the outskirts of Sharqat village .

According to a statement issued by the Anti-terrorism service, reported for Shafaq News, that “the intelligence elite forces in coordination with the Air Force managed to kill five “terrorists” from “Daash” organization including a leader in the organization called “Abu Aisha al-Shami”, a Syrian and destroyed two vehicles, one of them carrying a machine gun in al-Karma area in Fallujah city.

“The force has also killed Abu Ahmed al-Janobi who is considered the second leader in the organization on the level of Fallujah city,” the statement added.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Iraq: Shell Kills 12 from one Family in Fallujah – Fighting Outbreak in Ramadi

Why is the election in Syria so important that U.S. government officials have condemned it before it takes place? Why, at the same time, have U.S. officials embraced and applauded the results of elections organized by the military coup government of General Abdel Fattah el-Sisi in Egypt and the election by the fascist coup forces of billionaire oligarch Petro Poroshenko in Ukraine?

In Egypt and Ukraine, the apparatus now in place overthrew the elected government, brutally repressed all opposition and organized the election as a rubber stamp of its seized authority. In both countries, millions responded by refusing to vote. Opposition forces were jailed, beaten, threatened and driven from any form of participation in the process.

In Egypt, the empty polling stations were so glaring, with estimates as low as 10 percent voter turnout, that General el-Sisi’s government frantically extended voting by a second day and then a third. A holiday was declared, free transportation was available to polling sites, and all who didn’t vote faced a heavy threat of a $70 fine — an extortionist charge for millions of the poorest Egyptians.

In Ukraine, despite millions of voters in eastern and southern Ukraine — the most densely populated urban areas of the country — the polling stations were also empty.

The boycott, millions strong, of the official election in both Egypt and Ukraine seriously undermined the dictatorships’ claims of broad support.

However, just two weeks before, a popular referendum for local autonomy in eastern and southern Ukraine was voted for by millions. This election was dismissed as illegitimate by Ukrainian officials and their U.S. backers.

A failed boycott

Rebel forces in Syria have also demanded a boycott of elections. They have threatened to enforce their boycott with mass terror at voting lines. But the massive outpouring of Syrian refugees in Lebanon and other countries to vote shows that the call for an election boycott has been overwhelmingly rejected.

Before the June 3 election day in Syria, the more than 3 million Syrians displaced outside of Syria by the U.S.-funded and -organized war aimed at regime change have made their views known in massive mobilizations.

In Lebanon, Beirut was paralyzed by the outpouring of tens of thousands of Syrians. According to reports in the Western corporate-owned media, such as the Washington Post, New York Times, BBC and Reuters, traffic stretched for miles, bumper to bumper, while tens of thousands walked for miles and stood all day in the broiling sun to cast their vote. Reports are that half a million of voting-age Syrians thronged to the polls holding pictures of President Bashar al-Assad and waving Syrian flags.

This massive outpouring is a stinging rebuke to the U.S. and European Union and their declarations that Syria has no right to hold an election because the country is in the midst of a civil war. The masses are combating a U.S.-EU-Saudi-funded insurgency that wants to install a government composed of reactionary militias and mercenaries.

Secretary of State John Kerry has labeled the election a farce. Washington is committed to redoubling its efforts at regime change through the Saudi absolute monarchy and other unelected kings, emirs and princes in Jordan, Qatar and United Arab Emirates.

Around the world, citizens routinely vote in an election at the consulate or embassy of their home country. However, as further interference in the Syrian election, in the U.S., France, Germany, Belgium and United Arab Emirates, Syrians were denied the right to vote at their consulates and embassies. In New York City, Syrian Americans gathered in front of the United Nations to protest the U.S. denial of their right to vote.

Whose vote counts?

Despite its instigation of coups, support of military dictatorships and feudal monarchies around the world, and its own history of massive denial of voting to millions of African-American people, U.S. imperialism maintains its right and intention to intervene aggressively in the electoral political processes of other countries. It has established numerous bodies to monitor elections and rule on their fairness.

U.S. and European imperialists assert the right to measure the political process by totally arbitrary standards. They send in military officials, politicians and corporate-funded “human rights organizations” and nongovernmental organizations. While claiming to be impartial, the election monitoring process is a form of intrusive intervention and coercion.

Washington’s endorsement or condemnation of an election has no connection to the political process of the election itself. The same is true for the European imperialist powers where capitalist class rule has a “democratic” veneer. Corporate support and media coverage are based on the ruling class’ calculation of whether the results strengthen their domination or challenge it.

The participation in or rejection of an election by millions of people expressing their own aspirations is not the basis of their cynical calculation.

International delegations to Syria

Delegates from around the world have traveled to Syria to support Syria’s right to organize its own election and resist another imperialist regime change. These delegates from several Latin American countries and the BRICS countries — Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa — represent the majority of the world’s people.

There are few secure places where large numbers of foreign guests can be housed in a war zone. Kidnappings for ransom, political exchanges, assassinations, suicides and bombings are a daily fact of life. That is a big weight on the government, and it is a big accomplishment if it can keep all the international delegates safe in the midst of organizing and securing hundreds of polling places and long lines of voters.

A delegation from the U.S., including a representative of the International Action Center, is participating as a way to show opposition to the imperialist attack on Syria.

These delegations are not in Syria to support or to condemn Syrian President Bashar al-Assad. That is wholly up to the Syrian people to decide, free of outside intervention and sabotage. But it is important to be in solidarity not only with Syrians’ efforts to defend themselves with arms but with their right to hold an election.

Elections and resistance

The Syrian people have fought French imperialism, Israeli occupation and constant Zionist wars; defended, housed and educated hundreds of thousands of Palestinian refugees and over 2 million Iraqi refugees; faced years of U.S. sanctions and sabotage; and now endured three years of non-stop war that has killed 150,000 Syrians.

President Assad is widely expected to sweep the election in Syria. It should be no surprise that the Syrian people are very likely to re-elect the man who led their country in battle against the terror that has displaced one-third of the ­population.

The vote for Assad might be seen as a vote for national cohesion against efforts at imperialist dismemberment and chaos. This is why the imperialists are so arrogantly demanding that Syria stop its election.

The vote in Syria is part of the Syrian people’s struggle to maintain their economic and political independence, free from terrorist insurgents and tens of thousands of mercenaries.

The votes in Egypt and Ukraine are part of the effort to extend U.S. domination.

The massive boycotts in Egypt and Ukraine and the enthusiastic turnout in Syria are signs that millions of people are determined to make their aspirations heard.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Imperialism and Elections in Syria, Egypt and Ukraine

Who was Maidan Snipers’ Mastermind?

June 5th, 2014 by Adam Larson

First published by Oriental Review and Global Research on May 30, 2014

The probe into the Maidan “snipers problem” – by the new Ukrainian government underwritten by it – continues. On May 13, the fascinating interim findings were partly revealed, at a press conference called by parliamentary investigation head Gennady Moskal. Bullet forensics exonerated the previously blamed Berkut security force. Something in the findings also placed the unidentified shooters somewhere – unspecified – among “the ranks of the protesters.” It could even have been the EuroMaidan militants, he admitted, but MP Moskal thought infiltrators from the government’s security service SBU made more sense.

He predicted decades of debate with no resolution, and a week later he announced that a number of key documents were destroyed, complicating the search. But whatever led the investigators to this apparently dead-end admission, it seemed like a break in the script that put the snipers in areas secured by the government of then-president Viktor Yanukovych. For those following the details, the May 13 revelation seemed like a bit of realism creeping in.

But then the current Secretary of the National Security and Defense Council – Andriy Parubiy – stepped forward, hinting at a divergent probe delving further into fantasy. His investigation blames Russia and Vladimir Putin for the snipers, even though it was Parubiy – not Putin – who was supposed to secure the “EuroMaidan” where, the evidence increasingly says, the problem snipers operated.

Sniper Commandant?

Andriy Parubiy

Andriy Parubiy

While he insists he’s not a fascist, Andriy Parubiy co-founded the Nazi-inspired Social National party, now Svoboda, in the 1990s. Outwardly, he went mainstream early on, and joined Yulia Tymoshenko’s Fatherland party, running security operations on the Maidan for the 2004 “Orange Revolution.”

In 2013-14’s more violent regime-change “protests,” he was given the same responsibility. As Euromaidan Commandant and head of the Self-Defense Committee, he was in charge of security for areas where the mob’s authority had overridden the government’s.

We now know (partly from MP Moskal) that – on the pivotal day of February 20, which will remain the main focus of this report – sniper shots first hit police forces, and came from buildings Parubiy controlled. Ukraine’s previous head of the Security Service (SBU) Alexander Yakimenko said so in March, after fleeing to Russia. When the Commandant proved unable to stop the sniping, which everyone claimed to be against, Yakimenko says he offered to send in a unit to help. He only needed a guarantee his men wouldn’t be shot by Parubiy’s, but he says that was denied. From all this, the SBU chief deduced the snipers were under Parubiy’s command and protection.

In truth, this failure to stop the killing could be due to malice, or incompetence, or some mix. Whatever the case, the resulting bloodshed was all but necessary for the Kiev Cabal to finally take over. And considering his eminent competence, they made Parubiy security chief for all of Ukraine as soon as they could.

Sniper Investigator?

Reports from early March, before the Yakimenko accusations, spoke of a parliamentary investigation Parubiy himself was selected to lead. The apparent conflict of interest may, or may not, be why MP Moskal now seems to be in charge of that.

But in a May 21 interview for Euractiv, Parubiy speaks of a probe that sounds different, a probe blaming Russian Special forces – Spetsnaz – for penetrating his security cordon.Asked about the snipers, with the note “you must have first-hand information,” he sidestepped his own direct knowledge and told Euractiv:

“Now that we are conducting investigations, we have found that 18 Spetsnaz, including snipers, were in Maidan. The investigation will reveal from which points they were shooting, but I can already say that they did everything they could to spill blood and provoke civil unrest.”

“We have a working hypothesis which would be confirmed or rejected by the investigation, that in the most difficult days they shot equally – at Berkut and at the Maidan activists. Their aim was to instigate a more violent civic unrest … that Russia could warm its hands at this fire.”

“We know that Russian snipers shot at both sides.”

As Washington’s Blog noted in March, “everyone agrees that the snipers were false flag terrorists sewing chaos and confusion. … they only disagree about who the responsible party is.” This is another example, and (as we’ll see) the worst theory yet. And just look at who is trying to feed it to us.

Master Thug

From February 18-20, security forces and civilians were, as Parubiy says, killed somewhat “equally” by these snipers to create “violent civic unrest.” But there was a telling pattern to how different parts of that were timed.

First, consider how ten unarmed policemen were shot dead the night of February 18th, forcing a decision to bring in armed security forces. That allowed later killings to be realistically blamed on them, as happened. (Were these the same provocateurs present a day and a half later, or a different shift?)

By the 20th, a force was assembled on the Maidan adequate to stomp the police out by noon and shoot the Berkut out of their nearest posts by 12:45. They even blocked the train bringing in the Army support, and readied to march up to the central government’s buildings and stomp whomever they wished. This force was under Parubiy’s leadership no later than his announcement early on the 21st that “all the leaders of the hundreds are declaring their consent to coordinated action, including the hundreds of the Right Sector … We’re in control of Kiev. We have seized control of the government quarter.”

It was only at that shift in power that Parubiy “Spetsnaz snipers” unleashed their main killing spree. On video and within bare minutes, they picked off at least 30 unarmed civilians sent in behind the Hotel Ukraine, to top off “Heaven’s Hundred.”That is, this un-ambiguous, unforgivable “Yanukovych crime” was delivered as soon as the natural punishment for it had been placed.

Commandant Parubiy, who oversaw the distribution and timing of much of that violence, couldn’t deny its pattern helped them, as he said to Euractiv, “oust Yanukovich.” That prompted the question:

Q: So you recognize that you ousted Yanukovich?

A: Yes. He ran away.

Q: But he ran away because he was afraid for his life?

A: Yes of course. After so many deaths and such national tension, he understood that if he didn’t run away, the personal consequences could be very bad. 

Under this plausible threat, the president fled. An 1:36 pm announcement from the Maidan ordered members of Parliament to meet at 3:00 to vote him out for good. They were given “a guarantee that the Parliament would not be stormed during the session.” The “hundreds” just snatched that option, but promised not to use it – unless maybe they were provoked by a wrong vote. In the end most of Parliament was willing to show up on the 22nd instead, and those agreed unanimously to impeach Yanukovych – and not be stomped. After all, Parubiy’s Maidan machine still controlled Kiev.

Confirming Yakimenko’s Charges

When he spoke on May 13, investigation head Gennady Moskal did not specify any sniper perches, just implied that they were behind the lines Parubiy was in charge of. By noon on the 20th, this had expanded to include at least the Maidan at large, the Trade Unions Hall (Maidan HQ), the Conservatory, and Hotel Ukraine. The October Palace and unknown other buildings fell into his hands just after noon.

Ukraine_shooting_directions_2

Former SBU chief Yakimenko said in March the first shots “came from the Philharmonic Hall,” probably meaning the (musical) Conservatory. After that, “many have witnessed 20 people leaving the building” with their sniper gear in bags. These “split into two groups – 10 men each.” One of these “took a position at the Ukraine hotel,” right next-door, and “the Security Service lost track” of the other sniper team.

Parubiy must know by now where the snipers were, but he doesn’t want to tell us yet. The probe “will reveal from which points they were shooting,” he promises.

Yakimenko said “no weapons could be brought to Maidan without Parubiy’s permission. Hand guns, rifles, scopes – he had to agree to all of that.”

In one report, Parubiy gave a rough count of those armed with handguns – about 100. But he said “those people are not ours, they are unorganized,” just like the snipers. “This is kind of a problem.” This when he also said “we created a headquarters in the Maidan and we will not tolerate any action without coordinating with it.”

As mentioned above, Yakimenko says he offered to help Parubiy flush out the gunmen, but was rebuffed. If true, that suggests either a criminal denial of his incompetence, or the commandant’s active approval of the killing.

The SBU chief has a 20-man sniper team in Parubiy’s turf. The man who would know might refer to the same group when he speaks of “18 Spetsnaz, including snipers.” Maybe 20 was a visual estimate, and the “Russians” split up into groups of nine?

One might expect Parubiy to be embarrassed that his own secured buildings were so infiltrated, but he puts the villains “in Maidan.” The original claims of February had the snipers in or on government-held buildings further southeast. Why can’t he just say that now? Why openly claim such a humiliating security breach unless the alternative is even worse?

Parubiy even claims he failed to stop the snipers on the way back out. After sneaking in and unleashing this mayhem, they walked away from the Maidan undetected, and “I think they escaped from Ukraine,” he told Euractiv.

But it was reported at the time that two snipers were caught by his teams, one at least in the Hotel Ukraine. At mid-day on the 20th, an official tweet said, “members of Maidan Self-Defense captured one of the snipers. He is currently in Maidan headquarters.”  But a different “Maidan commandant” – Stepan Kubiv – said he was just there and didn’t hear any such thing.  A message of the 21st said a “sniper was caught on the 10th floor of the Hotel Ukraina … Personality to be identified,” but it never was.  A later one heard that “maydan activists caught two snipers” total, but the source said nothing about their fate or identities.

If they were caught red-handed, why doesn’t Parubiy mention these snipers now? Did they even exist, outside these vague reports? Were they real, but managed to escape? Or did Parubiy order them released? The balance of reasons suggests the killers were under his command and protection, as Yakimenko said, and as the evidence always suggested.

Clearly Commandant Parubiy, of the February “Failures,” is not the best one to be speaking about the Maidan snipers. Expect the May interview to be his last word on that bloodshed.

Postscript: “Ensuring Peace and Safety”

In more promising areas, Andriy Parubiy remains the go-to guy. As the head of Ukraine’s National Security and Defense Council, he’s now tasked with the brutal and confusing “anti–terrorist” operation in eastern Ukraine, and apparently in Odessa. This he wages with a “National Guard” that grew out of his murky Maidan machine, against those Ukrainians who dare to vote against the Kiev Cabal, pushing Ukraine deeper into civil war territory with violence he always blames on “Russian terrorists.”

Helping overturn two popular votes for Yanukovych, ensuring a third overthrow will never be needed, plus his new “security” work, has earned Parubiy friends in the “Democratic” West. He spoke to Euractiv while in Brussels, he said, “to participate in a session of the Ukraine-NATO working group” regarding the Russian “hybrid war” against Ukraine. As he explained it:

“When we speak about fighting terrorists, the best way is to find their centre of coordination, of financing. In this case, this centre is one person, it is Putin. That’s why I say – we have no crisis in Slavyansk, in Donetsk, in Luhansk. We have a crisis in Putin’s head. … if Putin succeeds in Ukraine, nobody can tell where his tanks will be tomorrow. … To stop Putin is not only Ukraine’s major goal. It should be the goal of the entire civilized world.”

In Parubiy’s dangerously unhinged thinking, even the massacre at the Trade Unions building in Odessa on May 2 “was a classic provocation in which pro-Russian groups had to seize the administration buildings in the same way it happened in Donetsk and Luhansk.” But this time, the anti-Putsch activists were clearly chased in, and followed in, by an ultra-nationalist lynch mob. He also contradicts himself by claiming the building was already “a kind of headquarters for the separatists,” where “the substance that provoked the blaze” was brought in by them “a long time ago.”

That’s why, he says, “when Molotov cocktails were thrown from the fourth floor at the participants of the Ukrainian rally, the substance inflamed” and an “explosion happened.”

Of course, on-site video and photos prove this was terrorism, and it seems the mob torched the building largely to hide their brutal murder of perhaps 272 citizens. That Parubiy was there to help coordinate it, after attending a top-level April 24 meeting to plan the Odessa “counter-terrorist” operation, makes it seem like state-sponsored terrorism.  A former deputy head of the Odessa police, now fled to Donetsk, blames Parubiy for personally organizing the massacre.  He was seen there on April 29th, delivering bulletproof vests to one Mykola Volkov – a criminal deputized as a “sotnik” (the term used for commanders of “hundreds” on the Maidan). Volkov was later seen shooting a pistol at the Trade Unions building, wearing a bulletproof vest, and phoning in a false story – possibly to Parubiy himself.

With Ukrainians all united but Moscow’s agents everywhere, the “security” chief told Euractiv, they needed an “overhaul” of “the entire security and defense sector,” and maybe civil society too, including “criminal groups” and “ethnic groups.”

The NATO allies had just heard the same and understood, promising “extensive support to the Ukrainian delegation” – including this false-flagging fascist thug – considering their “crucial role in ensuring peace and safety in Europe and the world.” Further, they “expressed readiness” to help in “reform” of the Parubiy’s defense and security sectors.

Events in Odessa, Maruipol, and elsewhere might have convinced the Cabal’s double-speaking Western allies that civil society “overhauls” are best left to Parubiy and his “Ukrainian rally” types.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Who was Maidan Snipers’ Mastermind?

First published in September 2013, this article documents the atrocities committed by the US-NATO sponsored terrorists. In the wake of the June 03 election, the record of who is behind these atrocities is of fundamental significance. 

Human Rights Gatekeepers Keeping the Gates

There is a new disinformation offensive over the Syrian al-Bayda massacre, an event I and the ACLOS (A Closer Look On Syria) research community recently studied intensively. Since being reported in the coastal Tartous province on May 2, the outside world is supposedly ignoring the massacre. But mainly, as explained partially below, they have been ignoring key details that implicate the multinational rebel forces, not the governemtn and its allies, in the crimes there.

This pattern of avoidance continues with a nauseatingly slick new propaganda piece by Channel 4 news: Al-Bayda: Anatomy of a War Crime (filmed, Produced and Directed by James Brabazon). [1] This uses Human Rights Watch Middle East director Nadim Houry, and fancy satellite effects, to sex up what’s really just unverified “activists say” reporting. Some claims are laundered by Houry, who repeats them as fact. This is not  investigative reporting, but another campaign to solidify a challenged rebel narrative, as was done in waves with the Houla massacre of May 2012. In that case, it has now been proven the challenging “government” version is after all the best fit with the available evidence, and it seems that a rebel massacre of horrifying audacity has gone unpunished. [2]

 This program comes just days after the UN Human Rights Commission released a report placing the blame for nine horrible massacres in Syria – one (Hatlah) pinned on rebels, eight on the people rebels blamed. Al-Bayda and its follow-up sister massacre in Ras al-Nabi’, Baniyas nearby are two on that short list of eight, Reuters reported. [3] There were about a dozen others left undecided and like a hundred not even considered.

 “Anatomy of a War Crime,” and this article, focus strictly on the earlier al-Bayda half of these Baniyas massacres. The basic gist from Houry, paraphrased: regime forces clearly did the massacre because al-Bayda is a Sunni town and rebels are Sunni, and the Alawite and Christian loyalist towns surround ing it are full of people who could do this. The army admits entering the city by three axes, which “seems to indicate some sort of central decision,” and he’s pretty sure the massacres happened after that. Male bodies piled in the cell phone shop, he decided, were dead. To him, that seems like a big clue.

 An army operation, dead people, in a Sunni town, and the government denials are supposed to look pretty thin. They will be held to account, Houry promises, and B-roll footage glorifies his ability to jot down names I recognize and tape lots of things to the wall, like photos I can name the people in.

The video comes with a summary, apparently written by producer James Brabazon, which I’ll use as a template for a partial point-by-point refutation:

 “While the investigation into the regime’s alleged use of nerve gas continues, the 2 May massacre in al-Bayda remains the single, most extensive verified act of the killing of civilians carried out by government forces since the war began.”

Oops! It’s actually not very clear at all who’s responsible, as we’ll see. As for the extent of it :

“The Syrian army had killed at least 169 civilians in four hours. The verified final death toll is likely to reach beyond 250.”

 The time span is a separate issue, as explained below, quite likely just made up. The death toll seems to be, broadly, 100-120, but it’s not really set. [4] The only list with about their number is the biggest we could find, with 165 entries, was published shortly after and contains numerous near-duplicate entries, re-mixed names and extra family members that appear in no other sources, etc. [5] 165 was the previous unsubstantiated high estimate among those backed by alleged names (there are higher tallies up to 400+ with no details at all). Channel 4 “verified the names” of a number just higher than that, and that becomes the starting point, the low-end number, with probably more than 250 really killed, or likely twice this minimum or maybe even 400+. This is unsound methodology, designed to maximize the moral outrage at the expense of reliability.

 “[al-Bayda] was a predominantly Sunni village … The Syrian government didn’t consider al-Bayda to be a threat.”

 This as close as they get to explaining any reason that specific people were targeted, please note. It was a Sunni town, and random Sunni people within it were chosen just for that, presumably – not for any threat, their politics, or anything. Racism and regime evil alone are to blame, HRW and the activists claim.

 The alternate explanation, considering no motive past those stupid ones, is that maybe the government’s forces didn’t do it. Civilians were clearly massacred, but maybe someone else who wants to make the regime look bad did it for them. I’m not saying Nadim Houry had a hand in killing these people. I trace it further back, to his ultimate information sources about a crime he may be helping them both obscure and fob off for geopolitical utility.

Loyalist Victims : the Biassi and Related Families

Completely ignored in this “anatomy” is they key feature that from within al-Bayda, it seems government loyalist Sunnis were singled out. The vast majority have political views that are simply unknown, with no proven rebel activism shown for anyone.

There’s only one victim whose views and mind are known – the most prominent martyr, Sheikh Omar Biassi, the 63-year-old imam of the city’s main mosque (or perhaps retired). His photo is shown in the video (doctored with the Syrian flag, 12:45) but he is never named or mentioned therein. All sources on both sides who mention the man at all agree he supported the government, and has been documented calling for interfaith dialog, national unity, and a settlement of the conflict, led by the “captain of the ship” Bashar al-Assad. [6]

Authorities were not threatened by the pro-government imam, but rebels presumably at least didn’t like the guy. On April 3 in his safe province of Tartous, an Omar Biassi posted a comment calling for the death, if needed, of all “traitors.,” his patience having worn through. [6] One month later, he and his family were wiped out instead. A reported 36 members of the Biassi family were killed on May 2; at least two dozen with his name appear on lists, and through apparent intermarriage, dozens of others (families Fattouh, Al-Shoghri, Qaddour, Hamouda) are also related. In fact, about half of those listed are demonstratably linked to this one man, who might have just pissed off the rebels in his area. The rest could also be linked and it’s just not clear yet.

 Sheikh Biassi would be neither the first nor the last pro-government Sunni cleric singled out, presumably by rebels, for breaking their poorly-written script where all Sunnis reject the regime. Consider top Sunni scholar Dr. Mohammed Saeed Ramadan al-Bouti, killed March 21 in Damascus, Sheikh Abdullatif al-Jumaili in Aleppo, February 8, and Hassan Seifaddine, beheaded in Sheikh Maqsoud Aleppo, March 30. [7]

 There is some further complexity, however, in this case. As Brabazon wrote:

“In May, 2011 [authorities] rounded up all the men in the village square and beat many of them up.”

 In mid-April 2011, rather, authorities rounded up about 100 of the men for suspected anti-government activity, and beat up/stomped on some of them. Members of Imam Biassi’s family were prominent among them, as well as other family names that would appear as losing members in the massacre. [8]

As damning as that might sound, each family had its factions. Omar Biassi sided with the president, while an “Abu Ali Biassi” was allegedly the defense minister of a planned Islamic emirate in Baniyas,* with weapons secured from Lebanese helpers, and power stations slated for destruction. In December, 2011, more Biassis were arrested after some one  set Sheikh Omar’s car on fire.  [6] As for which camp the 2013 massacre victims belonged to, Omar himself is our only clear benchmark.

* (side-note: The planned emir of that was Sheikh Anas Ayrout from Baniyas, now an Islamist member of the Syrian National Coalition, in July 2013 urging a “balance of terror” against Syria’s Alawite civilian population which fed the horrific Latakia massacres in August) [9].

Obscuring Rebel Capabilities

There was no FSA or opposition military presence at all, Barbazon heard, and other sources have spoken of a nominal to non-existent rebel force varying between zero and 14 members, on which they had just symbolically declared al-Bayda “liberated.” [10] This is important for two reasons : it leaves no real provocation possible for the Army offensive, and also rules out a massacre by the rebel side, which would require some kind of force.

“The only function that al-Bayda played for the opposition was to help smuggle out individual deserting government soldiers who’d run away from their bases on the coast and were trying to reach rebel-held territory.”

 “Regime forces came and went as they pleased. No-one attacked them,” the report adds, which was seemingly true through 2012 and 2013, at least until the end of April, when a colonel was assassinated, a checkpoint was attacked, security was tightened, there was a small raid with a few arrests in al-Bayda on May 1. [11] That night and into the morning, events are not clear. The next day, after the major assault, the government showed on video a large cache of weapons including RPGs and machine guns, seized in what they considered their raid on a fully functioning cell. [12] That was first jabbed lightly on May 1, perhaps underestimating it, which may have stirred the hornet’s nest for some stinging that night.

As for the help to “individual deserting government soldiers,” not organized armed groups of Islamist defectors or foreigners: Early on May 2 security men came to arrest “a group of three (individual ?) Syrian army deserters who were being hidden in the outskirts of the village” but remained armed and resisted. Only then did about a dozen lightly-armed locals improvise a militia to aid the soldiers, and together they did manage to defeat the Shabiha and leave them burning in their trucks.

This was reported from the beginning: some 30-40 alleged attackers of the National Defense Forces or “Shabiha” came around 4 am or earlier ; they were ambushed by some rebel force, reports on both sides said, with 6-8 killed, some 20-30 others injured and perhaps captured, or even executed and mixed into the man-heavy death toll. Even the few acknowledged as killed  are not acknowledged anywhere in a death listing or any rebel video, at least not as themselves. [13]

So as evidence there was no rebel presence, nothing worth attacking, and nothing capable of its own false flag massacre, we have an allegedly desperate start to a battle. And as always reported, the rebel forces in al-Bayda soundly won it, in the pre-dawn hours of May 2. That is actually further counter-evidence against the crucial claim, and rebel weaponry remains a viable explanation for any violence at that time, if it cannot be proven as something else.

Timeline Clues : Massacre Before the Army Arrived

“At seven in the morning of 2 May this year, Syrian government forces entered the village … At 1.30pm the killing began.”

 In the pre-dawn dark, of May 2, the evidence suggests, the women and children victims at least were already dead and being filmed by rebel cameras, hours before the army entered. Nadim Houry is careful to dispel this possibility; at 3 :00 in the video he explains as fact “all the civilians died after 1 :30, when the armed groups, security forces, the army, these paramilitary groups, proceeded to go house to house in the village.” [1] Clearly he’s relying on what people have told him, and it can hardly be verified by any research.

A wide range of sources suggests the Army’s artillery offensive, not invasion, started around 7 :00 am, and boots in the city only came later than this. The pre-attack started, logically, just after sunrise (about 6 :45 local time that day). So anything filmed on May 2 but before sunrise, clearly, is solidly before the army entered, with the daylight hours after increasingly contested.

 Two crime scenes or victims at least are shown twice – once in the dark and once in the light – where it can be established the light scene is later. This means there was a period flanking dawn where opposition activists enjoyed relaxed access to these crime scenes. [14] Video release dates do not prove anything but no-later-than, and they do fail to prove an early May 1 massacre. Coming out only on May 3, 4, and 5, technically they allow more mornings when each could have been filmed. [15] But this is apparently a delayed release problem (see below)

Reports by the end of May 2 strengthen this. With only the one night-dawn span preceding it to discover, film, and count bodies, it was reported that “regime forces executed 200 people.” That was at 9 :07 pm on the 2nd as I found, perhaps in error – it might be 8:07. It was known that “50 martyrs, mostly women and children, were slaughtered with knives” by 8:01/7:01 pm. “Slaughter knives” in use were already mentioned at 6:15/5:15 pm. [16]

All of these are no-later than times for any real knowledge. The best time to start announcing a known tally from the morning is in the evening, after the army has taken charge and could be blamed. How they could actually gather such intelligence in that climate and with such speed is not clear. It is technically possible, but having the information already would explain this rapidly-evolving record even better. Houry notes the rapidity of the killing reports after 1 :30 as a sign of premeditation by the regime – they jumped right to it. Rather, the eager appearance of knowledge might suggest much worse on the other side.

According to the video release timeline, activists generally took days to get any video of the sites with women and children. In Channel 4’s program, Hassan says he filmed his video of the 20 women and girls (see below) around 10 PM on the 2nd, but for whatever reason, it was held back until 2 :45/1 :45 am on the 4th, when the first postings appeared online. [15] Chances are high it was filmed about 18 hours earlier than he says, and the others too were also delayed, however long after being filmed early on the 2nd or even late on the 1st. 

 The Victims in Mustafa’s House

“In the house of Mustafa Biyasi, 30 women and children were herded into one room and then executed – shot at point blank.”

 In the video, Hassan refers to the home of  “Abu Ali Mustafa, family Biassi.” He shows the dark video of the main massacre scene, which he says was filmed at 10 PM, in his own neighborhood. It’s said the victims were shot at close range, but some display prominent blade slices, and the frequent holes in throats could actually have been poked, alike throat-slicing but less obviously Islamist. (An oddity : there’s little blood visible on the victims, despite the sometimes horrific wounds – this is worth more scrutiny).

 Previously, I had found reports of a “Mustafa Ali Biassi,” politics unknown but aged near 50, who was reported arrested  by 6 :46 pm local on May 1, as rebels began various operations in the area and security forces started a crackdown. [11] It wasn’t clear who arrested him, but, then – perhaps that night – came the massacres with so many family members snuffed out, as it seems, largely inside his house (app.100 meters west of the mosque, the video’s map says). Aisha Biassi, named on-screen with a baby in red not named, must (allegedly) be Aisha Qaddour, wife Mohammed Mustafa Ali Biasi, also killed, per the big list. [5] Two baby boys are listed after: Ali Mustafa Ali, and Mohammed Mustafa Ali (plus two more possible children – an unnamed daughter and a blank entry). [5]

 Others here might be misidentified; five children, all seemingly girls by the colorful, ruffled dresses they wear, are panned over as only three names are shown: Afnan, Sarah, and Abdullah Biyasi. Sarah is one of three Fattouh-Biassa sisters (the others not named) from Safaa Ali Biassi, married to Abdullah Fattouh. [17] She’s named here as the pregnant woman with a hole in her jaw. The baby, I thought a girl, is said to be her little boy Hamza and could be. Sarah as named is apparently in red, holding Afnan in purple (who I missed in earlier scans). Aged 3, she’s apparently from a different family. This girl’s neck seems hacked badly, details mercifully unclear. Which dress-wearing child is supposed to be Sarah’s brother Abdullah is unclear. Otherwise, with the exception of the baby in red, there are no males in this room. Sex segregation is consistent with either version of the massacre, of course.

Corpses as Props

“Saffa Biyasi cuddled her baby boy, Hamza Biyasi. They lay dead next to each other, serene despite their injuries. Afnan Biyasi and another small child spooned each other on the bed they were shot on, perhaps holding each other for comfort in the last moments before the bullets ripped through their tiny bodies.”

This is unlikely. Bodies were extensively managed by rebels at these crime scenes they enjoyed relaxed access to. At least two clear examples are detailed by ACLOS analysis.

 Someone in the opposition network filmed teenage Ahmad Othman in the pre-dawn dark, apparently where he was killed, in his home with other men. Then he was filmed again in daylight “executed in the street,” as it seemed, at the base of a wall smeared with his blood. It looked as if he was shot and slumped there or, since he was killed elsewhere, like he was tossed against the wall for such an effect. [18]

 Consider also the bedroom scene of a mother apparently died while shielding two of her children with her splayed body. This was seen in two videos where the children (a thoroughly brutalized and bloodied child of around eight, and a baby with only a foot visible) are arranged differently for no clear reason. She had to be lifted up then laid back on top of them for that. Quite likely, the original dramatic pose was staged for just this emotional effect. [19]

Babies seeming to be hugging each other as the bullets tore into them are probably the same type of engineered heart-string tuggings, by twisted people playing with props that used to be Human Beings.

 Witnesses to Slaughter?

“At least one young boy, Luqman al-Hiris, was beheaded – in front of his mother.”

This boy is apparently part of those killed “in the town square,” here explained and shown as the sloping street near the mosque, where ACLOS has placed the “curbside victims” [20] None of those 13 men and boys was visibly beheaded. They know this boy was killed in front of his mother because old woman Um Mohammed witnessed it, from some hiding spot we presume. She says he was the youngest, and one boy has a large torn-out hole in his neck/jaw, but that’s not the same, and most likely a bullet exit wound.

The mentioned family name just barely appears in the previous record. If al-Hiris is the same as Alhris, it appears on the big list of 165, attached to two men – Mohammed Ali and Ali Mohammed, and no one else. There’s no Luqman, and no mother. The opposition CDV entries are lacking for any such name in Arabic or identifiable transliterations. [21]

Another victim, a pregnant woman, was reportedly sliced open to kill the fetus inside. This horrible allegation comes from previous reports – a rebel from Baniyas saw the aftermath – and a photo of an unborn fetus, wrapped in white and said to be a martyr in al-Bayda. This alleged surgery must have happened after she was filmed pregnant and intact by rebels, if she’s the one called Safaa here. That may not be the case, but there can’t be many pregnant women expected from such a small pool of the populace. [22]

Anyway, if there was beheading involved, as alleged here, that would add to the existing picture of bladed Islamo-nihilists, inscribing their bleak world view into the flesh of those caught in their path. There’s also Sara, a 12-year-old girl who survived somehow, probably by hiding. She says she later found the body of her tortured and murdered father, throat sliced. Again, this is a crime we haven’t seen clearly in the visual record, but there are the pierced throats of the woman and children at least.

That seems to be Sara at the start of the video rattling off a list of memorized names of massacre victims. With unusual sophistication, she calls for intervention by the outside world: “”They have slaughtered all of us … The world should pay attention about what is happening in al-Bayda. Why is everyone asleep? Why don’t they do something?” This is extremely reminiscent of Ali al-Sayed, an 11-year-old miracle survivor of the infamous false-flag Houla massacre a year before. He also had some names memorized, but switched them from one relative to another, along with all relevant details of his shifting story. He was clearer in his “demand that the international community stop the killing in Syria & in Houla …  We’re being killed in our homes. The international community … must fight for us, do what they say, and protect us.” [23]

 Enough Silence!

(from the video, 10 :25) “The Syrian Government denies any massacre took place.”

 That’s not true. First, loyalist sources – not government ones – have been clear about there being some scale of civilian massacre. One told Voice of Russia “the military offensive” blamed for the killings “was started in response to the brutal assassination of Sheikh Omar Baniyasi [sic].” [24]  All the clues for massacres in the night of May 1-2 are consistent with this. But perhaps to avoid panicking the people there, or for whatever reason one might imagine, the government itself has been pretty quiet. SANA and government sources have said little to nothing about civilian massacres one way or the other, only speaking of chasing out terrorists and restoring order. The claim that their forces only killed terrorists is not a claim that there were no civilian killings – just any such thing was not done by the army or its allies.

 While the government’s relative silence is taken as a sign of guilt, everyone else has been allegedly silent, evidencing moral weakness, this emotive propaganda would leave us feeling. As Sara said, “the world should pay attention about what is happening in al-Bayda.” I’ll second that, while adding that it should be close and critical attention, as if the real truth mattered,  regardless of what the gatekeepers have decided, as if human lives were on the line and mattered more than the goals of the destroy-Syria-and-Iran camp of the “World Community” and its deadly “Human Rights” weapons. 

Notes :

[1] “Al-Bayda: Anatomy of a War Crime.” Filmed, Produced and Directed by James Brabazon, Channel 4 News, September 13, 2013. http://www.channel4.com/news/syria-al-bayda-massacre-war-crime-video

[2] “Syria : One Year After the Houla Massacre. New Report on Official vs. Real Truth.” (by the author) Global Research, May 18, 2013. http://www.globalresearch.ca/syria-one-year-after-the-houla-massacre-new-report-on-official-vs-real-truth/5335562

[3] “Syrian forces responsible for Banias massacres: U.N. report.” By Stephanie Nebehay, Reuters, September 11, 2013.  http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/09/11/us-syria-crisis-warcrimes-idUSBRE98A0D520130911

[4] ACLOS, death toll : http://acloserlookonsyria.shoutwiki.com/wiki/Talk:Al-Bayda_Massacre#Death_Toll

[5] ACLOS, Arab Worlds List :

http://acloserlookonsyria.shoutwiki.com/wiki/Talk:Al-Bayda_Massacre#Arab_Worlds

[6] “Targetting Specific Communities in the Syrian Conflict: case study, the Baniyas massacres.” (by the author) http://ciwclibya.org/syria/specificcommunites.html

[7] ACLOS, attacks on clergy: http://acloserlookonsyria.shoutwiki.com/wiki/Talk:Attacks_on_Clergy_in_the_Syrian_Conflict#Sunni_Muslim

[8] ACLOS, April, 2011 roundup : http://acloserlookonsyria.shoutwiki.com/wiki/Talk:Al-Bayda_Massacre#April_14.2C_2011_roundup

[9] ACLOS, Ayrout, Latakia Massacres:

http://acloserlookonsyria.shoutwiki.com/wiki/Sheikh_Anas_Ayrout

http://acloserlookonsyria.shoutwiki.com/wiki/Talk:Latakia_Massacres

[10] ACLOS, Like, no rebels : http://acloserlookonsyria.shoutwiki.com/wiki/Talk:Al-Bayda_Massacre#Like.2C_No_Rebels

[11] ACLOS , the final days : http://acloserlookonsyria.shoutwiki.com/wiki/Talk:Al-Bayda_Massacre#The_Final_Days

[12] Terrorists Killed, Weapons Seized in Banias Villages Syrian Arab News Agency, May 2, 2013. http://sana.sy/eng/337/2013/05/02/480277.htm

[13] ACLOS, early clashes, where are the Shabiha ? http://acloserlookonsyria.shoutwiki.com/wiki/Talk:Al-Bayda_Massacre#Early_Clashes

http://acloserlookonsyria.shoutwiki.com/wiki/Talk:Al-Bayda_Massacre#Where_are_the_Shabiha.3F

[14] ACLOS, night-mornin sequences :

http://acloserlookonsyria.shoutwiki.com/wiki/Talk:Al-Bayda_Massacre#Night-Morning_Sequences

[15] ACLOS, imagery timeline :

 http://acloserlookonsyria.shoutwiki.com/wiki/Talk:Al-Bayda_Massacre#Imagery_Timeline

[16] ACLOS, reports timeline: http://acloserlookonsyria.shoutwiki.com/wiki/Talk:Al-Bayda_Massacre#Reports_Timeline

[17] ACLOS, Fattouh sub-family: http://acloserlookonsyria.shoutwiki.com/wiki/Talk:Al-Bayda_Massacre#Fattouh_Sub-Family

[18] ACLOS, Othman family: http://acloserlookonsyria.shoutwiki.com/wiki/Talk:Al-Bayda_Massacre#Othman_Family.3F

[19] ACLOS, A Domestic Scene: http://acloserlookonsyria.shoutwiki.com/wiki/Talk:Al-Bayda_Massacre#A_Domestic_Scene

[20] ACLOS, curbside victims: http://acloserlookonsyria.shoutwiki.com/wiki/Talk:Al-Bayda_Massacre#The_Curbside_victims

[21] ACLOS, Alhris : http://acloserlookonsyria.shoutwiki.com/wiki/Talk:Al-Bayda_Massacre#Alhris

[22] ACLOS, Another Domestic Scene : http://acloserlookonsyria.shoutwiki.com/wiki/Talk:Al-Bayda_Massacre#Another_Domestic_Scene

[23] “Fight for Us” And Other Things Ali Said: Houla Massacre Star Witness

Reconsidered (by the author) Article 3 in this PDF report: http://ciwclibya.org/images/Houla_Truth_Impunity_Final.pdf

[24] In Baniyas is peaceful and calm – witness Voice of Russia, May 4, 2013. http://english.ruvr.ru/2013_05_04/214684802/Situation

 

 

 

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Media Disinformation and Coverup of Atrocities Committed by US Sponsored Syria Rebels

We discuss the outcome of the Elections with Michel Chossudovsky, he’s director at the Center for Research on Globalization.

 

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Peace in the Aftermath of Syria’s Elections? Washington’s Option is the Continuation of the “Civil War”

Subscribe to Global Research RSS Feed

June 4th, 2014 by Global Research News

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Subscribe to Global Research RSS Feed

Testemunho, por telefone, de uma amiga de infância em Alepo, Síria.

Segunda-feira, 2 de junho de 2014 : Sim, os presentes envenenados continuam a cair do céu, agora mais frequentemente, mas nós ainda não explodimos voltando ao ventre da terra. Sim, como que por um milagre nós ainda continuamos inteiros, se bem que poucos dos bairros de Alepo, e suas redondezas, tenham sido poupados. Depois de Midane, Mayssaloun, Jabriyê e Mogambo… muitos outros bairros foram para a frente da mira das armas dos engenheiros “da oposição moderada” encantados pela demo-crassie a descargas de canhão! [crassie sendo sujeira, lixo]

Olhe de vez em quando no Facebook. Você verá que não há falta das famosas armas “não letais” de Hollande, Obama e Cameron, e de todos os satanáses democratas desse planeta, para nos matar, através de sortimentos de fogos pequenos, dia e noite! Eles chamam a isso de “os canhões do inferno”…

Olhe bem, parece que eles põem a carga [a mim me parecem bujões de gás!] associada com as armações de ferro até conseguir aumentar a sua capacidade de ação. Sómente ontem tivemos 23 mortos e dezenas de feridos, na parte do oeste, e aqui já nem estou falando de destruições materiais. Ouvi que eles agora estão bem instalados nos pontos mais altos de Bani Zayd, e que de lá eles podem se divertir a vontade! Note bem, Erdogan não está descansando. Você já entendeu que ele se decidiu a nos fazer morrer de sede matando-nos, de maniera ainda mais eficaz que os terroristas nos policiando, através de cortar a água vindo do Eufrates [1] ? Ah! Como é bela essa Europa que manipula através do jogo “Te amo, mas vá ver se estou lá na esquina, benzinho, vai lá…” !

Hoje, pela primeira vez depois de muito tempo as ruas estão vazias e sem gente, sendo que nos dias anteriores tudo estava como que surrealista. De um lado tinha-se alegria, bandeiras e buzinas dos automóveis, assim como cartazes patriotas com figuras dos sírios vivendo no estrangeiro, os quais votaram massivamente por amor a nossa pátria, para grande prejuizo dos nossos inimigos. Mas pelo outro lado se tinha a desolação, as sirenes, e a imensa dor daqueles que por um acaso a desgraça escolheu de marcar mais duramente que os outros, uns através de matá-los, outros através de tirar a vida de seus entes queridos. Não sei se você compreende, mas isso continua… e não está muito longe de nós.

Mais do que nunca eles tentam nos intimidar agora, como se as pessoas de Alepo não soubessem quem é essa pretendida “oposição moderada“, como se as pessoas não tivessem visto, com seus próprios olhos, ospor assim dizer, ASL [Exército Sionista Livre] ,em pacto com os terroristas, para nos mostrar as estrelas do meio dia, assim como se DAECH [EIIL : Emirado Islâmico do Iraque e do Levante] ainda nem mesmo tivesse nascido!

Mais do que nunca eles tentam nos arrancar com todas as raizes, como se eles ainda não tivessem galopado suficientemente nas costas dos refugiados da Síria, que eles mesmos dispersaram, para aperfeiçoar essa sua sinistra conspiração, assim como para tentar nos humilhar. E aqui tem-se que o governo libanês se mete ele também a decretar, na ocasião das eleições presidenciais, a proibição de retorno para todos os refugiados sírios que tiverem estado na Síria a partit do 1º- de junho do corrente [2]… Então, você agora talvez possa compreender quando eu não paro de repetir : nós ficaremos aqui, na nossa casa, e aqui continuaremos a estar, mortos ou vivos!

FOTO/ SÍMBOLO E TEXTO EM ÁRABE

Você já ouviu falar da última? De perfeito acordo com as democracias ocidentais sobre a pretendida “ilegitimidade das eleições da Síria”, os terroristas abaixo de suas bandeiras negras, vieram a declarar Damasco como “zona militar”, por todo o tempo da duração das eleições [3] e que todos os centros eleitorais serão considerados como alvos legítimos ! Não é nem necessário dizer que isso nós já sabemos o que significa. Agora ainda resta a saber se nós seremos enquadrados abaixo do mesmo, ou se teremos o direito a armas as mais sofisticadas, e “menos letais” vindas da França, dos Estados Unidos, de Israel, da Líbia e da Ucrânia, via Jordânia, esse querido país irmão…

Mas tranquilize-se, nós tomamos as coisas da maneira como elas se apresentam. Nós já preparamos nossos testamentos, e as nossas carteiras de identidade, para ir votar, bem cedo, amanhã de manhã. Nós não precisamos ir muito longe. Foi instalado um local de votação na nossa rua. Teremos sorte ou azar? Você, de certeza, o ficará sabendo logo.

Mouna Alno-Nakhai

02/06/2014

Terça-feira, 3 de junho de 2014, 11h.

 

O telefone toca novamente : eu tenho sorte de ter uma linha assegurada… sem essa eu não poderia lhe telefonar…É difícil de näo se cair no desespero de quando vendo Alepo “se deslocando/quebrando”… Eu näo encontro uma outra palavra. Até onde eles irão, e até quando conseguiremos resistir? Quem se interessa pela nossa sorte? Quem saberá o que nos estará a chegar? Eu ouvi as noticias… quase que nada sobre a nossa situação real!

Ontem, por volta das cinco da tarde, logo depois de nos termos falado no telefone, toda a cidade começou a estremecer de novo. Dessa vez a explosão veio dos subterrâneos do bairro al-Midane…Ele merece o nome que tem, porque é a “arena” das agressões, as mais violentas, contra os civís culpados de não se curvar frente a coalisão de todos os criminosos histéricos, disfarçados de democratas…É a mesma coisa para o bairro Sleimaniyê, e aquele do hospital al-Razi…um pesadelo terrífico no qual  “eles “ nos afundam dia após dia!

Depois da calma muito relativa desse fim de noite, as bombas de gás começaram como que a chover de todos os lados. “Eles nos haviam prometido 2000 desses “presentes”. A força aérea bem que apareceu nos céus, mas por não mais de poucos segundos. Como poderia essa conseguir distinguir entre os combatentes e a população, uma vez que esses combatentes estão por todos os lugares e entre tudo o mais, enquanto as pessoas se refugiam nas caves e abaixo das escadas dos imoveis já tombados?

É um delúgio de “canhões do inferno” desde as sete horas dessa manhã. Ouça…ouça as sirenes das ambulâncias! Veja, você compreende, duas explosões bem aqui perto de onde estou. Como isso é simples! Como é engenhoso! Toda essa resistência, todos os sucessos militares do nosso exército, e nós a mercê desses bombardeamentos ilegais!

Ah! tinha esquecido, auge dos auges, a eletricidade e a água estäo cortadas de novo. E agora essa também. Meu marido acabou de chegar do lado do que resta do hospital. Ele me descreveu o horror dessa guerra de bandos sanguinários, apoiados por outros bandos de paletó e gravata, sobre a impunidade desses que carregando as cores da ONU, da Casa “Negra”, sem que nos esqueçamos dos palácios da União Européia, e dos Champs Élysée… Com a “Cruz Vermelha” o meu marido ajuda o tanto quanto pode. Mas como confortar os feridos, esvaindo-se em sangue e amontoados, as dezenas, entre os muros, ainda em pé, de certos de nossos hospitais? Como melhorar os ferimentos físicos e morais de uns que estão em estado de choque e de outros gritando pelos seus filhos, ou pais que perderam a vida? Como enterrar, para não dizer “estocar” os cadáveres dos que nunca mais poderão dizer qualquer coisa outra, além de que nós lhes devemos o não ceder, e de ir ao mais próximo local de votações, apesar de tudo?

Não, eu ainda não fui votar. Estou esperando pelo meu marido. Se eu tenho medo? Seria mentir se eu lhe dissesse que sou zen-budista. Me sinto mal do estômago e da garganta…Será certamente a raiva aumentando. De onde me encontro vejo o local das eleições. Além dos militares, de aparência imperturbável, eu não vejo ninguém, nenhum civil…Irão eles ganhar a luta? Terão eles nos derrotado?

Antes de desligar. eu quero que você veja a foto que a nossa amiga…colocou em seu Facebook… a respeito do que se passa frente a sua casa. Você pode ver o estrago causado por um só desses projéteis do inferno? De qualquer maneira ela foi votar! Quantos terão essa coragem? Eu vou lhe telefonar depois das 19h para lhe dizer como foi. Eu vou telefonar, se ainda estiver nesse mundo…

“Creio que não pararei de rezar daqui até lá! E você, ainda sabe rezar? “

Mouna Alno-Nakhal

03/06/2014

 

Notas:

[1] Les eaux potables de la discorde

http://www.letemps.ch/Page/Uuid/50d3fd62-5119-11e2-8673-87da6709989d%7C2

[2] Zohbi : La décision de Machnouk est destinée à empêcher les Syriens de voter

http://www.lorientlejour.com/article/869841/zohbi-la-decision-de-machnouk-est-destinee-a-empecher-les-syriens-de-voter.html

[3] Traduction du communiqué « militaire » des opposants modérés :

En-tête sous bannière noire : Chambre des opérations – Damas – Notre décision est le fait de l’Oumma.

Au nom de Dieu le très miséricordieux,

Dieu n’avait fait cela que pour vous apporter une bonne nouvelle et qu’avec cela vos cœurs se rassurent, car la victoire ne vient que de Lui, le très vénéré et le très sage.

_________________________________________________

Informação Militar

A Câmara Operativa de Damasco informa o que segue:

1. A segunda etapa da batalha contra os Kabt al-Khaibine (os perdedores) já começou

2. Damasco é uma zona militar durante todo o periodo eleitoral, que se desenrola apesar do sangue e das destruição.

3. Todos os nossos parentes prisioneiros de Damasco deverão manter-se dentro de suas casas durante todo o período eleitoral

4. Todos os centros eleitorais são alvos legítimos para nós

Damasco em 1 de junho de 2014 [3/Chaabane/1430h]

Copyright © 2014 Mondialisation.ca

 

 Traduzido por Anna Malm, artigospoliticos.wordpress.com, para Mondialisation.ca

  • Posted in Português
  • Comments Off on As presidenciais da Síria : votar ou morrer frente aos ”canhões do inferno” ?

O regime de Kiev não é “oficialmente” um governo neo-nazi

June 4th, 2014 by Prof Michel Chossudovsky

Há “ultra-conservadores” no governo de Kiev mas “eles não são neo-nazis”. Segundo os media do ocidente, é tudo parte de “uma implacável ofensiva de propaganda do Kremlin que utiliza expressões e imagens da II Guerra Mundial”.

Os media alternativos, contudo, têm reconhecido que o regime de Kiev é “uma coligação frouxa de centro-direita” integrada por dois partidos neo-nazis (Svoboda e Right Sector) “mas não é um governo neo-nazi”. Tanto o Svoboda como o Right Sector exibem emblemas nazis.

Será ela uma coligação frouxa? Se um governo exibe oficialmente emblemas nazis será que isso não sugere que o governo está comprometido com a ideologia nazi?

Quando o regime de Kiev exibe “oficialmente” emblemas nazis para identificar entidades do seu aparelho de segurança nacional e militar qualquer um normalmente supõe que seja de um governo neo-nazi. 

Abaixo está o emblema nazi da Guarda Nacional, a qual é definida como Reservas das Forças Armadas Ucranianas. Elas operam sob a jurisdição do Ministério da Administração Interna. A Guarda Nacional faz parte das chamadas “Tropas internas da Ucrânia”. O emblema é uma suástica estilizada (ver abaixo).

Imagine o que aconteceria se a National Guard dos EUA exibisse símbolos como a suástica.

É significativo que a Guarda Nacional da Ucrânia seja financiada directamente pela administração Obama, tendo em vista proteger o estilo de democracia americana na Ucrânia.

O público americano desconhece que o governo dos EUA está a canalizar apoio financeiro, armas e treino a uma entidade neo-nazi.

Ninguém na América sabe acerca disto porque as palavras neo-nazi e fascista são um tabu em relação à Ucrânia. Eles excluíram-nas do léxico da reportagem de investigação.

Outra entidade – que faz parte da Guarda Nacional da Ucrânia – é o Batalhão Azov . O Batalhão Azov – que ostenta o emblema nazi da SS (ver imagem) – é descrito pelo regime de Kiev como “um batalhão voluntário de defesa territorial”. É um batalhão da Guarda Nacional sob a jurisdição do Ministério da Administração Interna. Baseado oficialmente em Berdyank, no Mar de Azov, foi formado pelo regime para combater a oposição insurgente na Ucrânia do Leste e do Sul. É também financiado pela administração dos EUA.

Esta milícia que porta o emblema SS nazi é patrocinada pelo Ministério da Administração Interna da Ucrânia, o equivalente ao Department of Homeland Security dos EUA.

É tudo para uma boa causa. A democracia está no fim do jogo.

Segundo o New York Times, “Os Estados Unidos e a União Europeia abraçaram a revolução aqui como outra “florescência de democracia, um golpe no autoritarismo e na cleptocracia no interior do antigo espaço soviético”. (NYTimes.com , March 1, 2014).

Não é preciso dizer que o “apoio” à formação de uma governo na Ucrânia com “tendências neo-nazis” de modo algum implica o desenvolvimento de “tendências fascistas” dentro da Casa Branca, do Departamento de Estado e do Congresso dos EUA.

Imagens seleccionadas de “combatentes da liberdade” do Batalhão Azov:
 

     
     
     
     
     
Fonte das imagens: news.pn/en/public/104475
O original encontra-se em www.globalresearch.ca/…

Este artigo foi traduzido em português por http://resistir.info/ 

  • Posted in Português
  • Comments Off on O regime de Kiev não é “oficialmente” um governo neo-nazi

The Partnership for Civil Justice (a public interest legal organization which the Washington Post called “the constitutional sheriffs for a new protest generation”) reported this week that the Obama administration treated a peaceful boycott as a terrorist threat:

4,000 pages [of documents] obtained by the Partnership for Civil Justice Fund [through Freedom of Information Act requests] reveal that Fusion Centers and their personnel even conflate their anti-terrorism mission with a need for intelligence gathering on a possible consumer boycott during the holiday season. There are multiple documents from across the country referencing concerns about negative impacts on retail sales.

The Executive Director of the Intelligence Fusion Division, also the Joint Terrorism Task Force Director, for the D.C. Metropolitan Police Department circulated a 30-page report tracking the Occupy Movement in towns and cities across the country created by the trade association the International Council of Shopping Centers (ICSC).

He directed that the recipients of the document, who included top staff at the Washington, D.C. Fusion Center, “develop a one page product that we can send to our District Commanders to make them aware of the potential threat.”

DC Fusion Center Circulating International Retailers Report - 1
The Executive Director of the Intelligence Fusion Division, also the Joint Terrorism Task Force Director, for the D.C. Metropolitan Police Department instructs D.C Fusion Center regarding the “potential threat” of the Black Friday BoycottRetailers Association Report - pg8
Page 7 of an International Council of Shopping Centers (ICSC) report on Occupy’s planned Black Friday Boycott, circulated through counter-terrorism officialsRetailers Association Report - pg19
Page 18 of an International Council of Shopping Centers (ICSC) report on Occupy’s planned Black Friday Boycott, circulated through counter-terrorism officials

The ICSC report detailing Occupy Black Friday “threats” includes images of “Sample Anti-Black Friday Icons and Posters” with slogans urging people to “buy local” or “do your shopping at a small independent merchant.” The report identifies among “Specific Known Threats” “buy nothing day tactics which might be used by Occupy and other protesters” including credit card cut ups, free non-commercial street parties, and alternative mass green transport activities.

Additional “Specific Known Threats” in the report are identified by individual Occupy locations from Occupy Bee Cave, Texas (“Assessment … Aim: to educate how military spending has affected the economy – consistent with anti-war agenda of the group”) to Occupy Seattle (“Assessment … leafleting likely in order to draw attention”).

The intelligence reporting and communications apparatus was in full throttle over potential Occupy Black Friday boycotts. One sample document issued from the Baltimore police shows a distribution list ranging from the Maryland Fusion Center, the FBI, the DHS, the Middle Atlantic-Great Lakes Organized Crime Law Enforcement Network, the Secret Service, the NYPD and other city and state law enforcement, the manager of corporate security for an energy company, university personnel, and the Federal Reserve.

The “counter-terrorism” documents contain multiple references to Black Friday boycotts as well as potential negative impacts on retails sales.

PCJF Executive Director Mara Verheyden-Hilliard stated: “It is outrageous that counter-terrorism officials used their anti-terrorism authority and funding to “protect” corporate America from a consumer boycott. It is well past time that the vast flow of tax-payer money to the Fusion Centers be ended.”

Watch this must-see interview for context:

In fact – through both word and deed – the government has repeatedly demonstrated that it may treat anyone who questions mainstream ideology as a terrorist.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Peaceful Protest in America is Now Categorized As “Terrorism”

Twenty-five years ago today, every U.S. media outlet, along with then President Bush and the U.S. Congress were whipping up a full scale frenzied hysteria and attack against the Chinese government for what was described as the cold-blooded massacre of many thousands of non-violent “pro-democracy” students who had occupied Tiananmen Square for seven weeks.

The hysteria generated about the Tiananmen Square “massacre” was based on a fictitious narrative about what actually happened when the Chinese government finally cleared the square of protestors on June 4, 1989.

The demonization of China was highly effective. Nearly all sectors of U.S. society, including most of the “left,” accepted the imperialist presentation of what happened.

At the time the Chinese government’s official account of the events was immediately dismissed out of hand as false propaganda. China reported that about 300 people had died in clashes on June 4 and that many of the dead were soldiers of the Peoples Liberation Army. China insisted that there was no massacre of students in Tiananmen Square and in fact the soldiers cleared Tiananmen Square of demonstrators without any shooting.i

The Chinese government also asserted that unarmed soldiers who had entered Tiananmen Square in the two days prior to June 4 were set on fire and lynched with their corpses hung from buses. Other soldiers were incinerated when army vehicles were torched with soldiers unable to evacuate and many others were badly beaten by violent mob attacks.

These accounts were true and well documented. It would not be difficult to imagine how violently the Pentagon and U.S. law enforcement agencies would have reacted if the Occupy movement, for instance, had similarly set soldiers and police on fire, taken their weapons and lynched them when the government was attempting to clear them from public spaces.

In an article on June 5, 1989, the Washington Post described how anti-government fighters had been organized into formations of 100-150 people. They were armed with Molotov cocktails and iron clubs, to meet the PLA who were still unarmed in the days prior to June 4.

What happened in China, what took the lives of government opponents and of soldiers on June 4, was not a massacre of peaceful students but a battle between PLA soldiers and armed detachments from the so-called pro-democracy movement.

On one avenue in western Beijing, demonstrators torched an entire military convoy of more than 100 trucks and armored vehicles. Aerial pictures of conflagration and columns of smoke have powerfully bolstered the [Chinese] government’s arguments that the troops were victims, not executioners. Other scenes show soldiers’ corpses and demonstrators stripping automatic rifles off unresisting soldiers,” admitted the Washington Post in a story that was favorable to anti-government opposition on June 12, 1989.ii

The Wall Street Journal, the leading voice of anti-communism, served as a vociferous cheerleader for the “pro-democracy” movement. Yet, their coverage right after June 4 acknowledged that many “radicalized protesters, some now armed with guns and vehicles commandeered in clashes with the military” were preparing for larger armed struggles. The Wall Street Journal report on the events of June 4 portrays a vivid picture:

As columns of tanks and tens of thousands soldiers approached Tiananmen many troops were set on by angry mobs … [D]ozens of soldiers were pulled from trucks, severely beaten and left for dead. At an intersection west of the square, the body of a young soldier, who had beaten to death, was stripped naked and hung from the side of a bus. Another soldier’s corpse was strung at an intersection east of the square.”iii

The massacre that wasn’t

In the days immediately after June 4, 1989, the New York Times headlines, articles and editorials used the figure that “thousands” of peaceful activists had been massacred when the army sent tanks and soldiers into the Square. The number that the Times was using as an estimate of dead was 2,600. That figure was used as the go-to number of student activists who were mowed down in Tiananmen. Almost every U.S. media outlet reported “many thousands” killed. Many media outlets said as many 8,000 had been slaughtered.

Tim Russert, NBC’s Washington Bureau Chief, appearing later on Meet the Press said “tens of thousands” died in Tiananmen Square.iv

The fictionalized version of the “massacre” was later corrected in some very small measure by Western reporters who had participated in the fabrications and who were keen to touch up the record so that they could say they made “corrections.” But by then it was too late and they knew that too. Public consciousness had been shaped. The false narrative became the dominant narrative. They had successfully massacred the facts to fit the political needs of the U.S. government.

“Most of the hundreds of foreign journalists that night, including me, were in other parts of the city or were removed from the square so that they could not witness the final chapter of the student story. Those who tried to remain close filed dramatic accounts that, in some cases, buttressed the myth of a student massacre,” wrote Jay Mathews, the Washington Post’s first Bureau Chief in Beijing, in a 1998 article in the Columbia Journalism Review.

Mathews’ article, which includes his own admissions to using the terminology of the Tiananmen Square massacre, came nine years after the fact and he acknowledged that corrections later had little impact. “The facts of Tiananmen have been known for a long time. When Clinton visited the square this June, both The Washington Post and The New York Times explained that no one died there [in Tiananmen Square] during the 1989 crackdown. But these were short explanations at the end of long articles. I doubt that they did much to kill the myth.”v

At the time all of the reports about the massacre of the students said basically the same thing and thus it seemed that they must be true. But these reports were not based on eyewitness testimony.

What really happened

For seven weeks leading up to June 4, the Chinese government was extraordinarily restrained in not confronting those who paralyzed the center of China’s central capital area. The Prime Minister met directly with protest leaders and the meeting was broadcast on national television. This did not defuse the situation but rather emboldened the protest leaders who knew that they had the full backing of the United States.

The protest leaders erected a huge statue that resembled the United States’ Statue of Liberty in the middle of Tiananmen Square. They were signaling to the entire world that their political sympathies were with the capitalist countries and the United States in particular. They proclaimed that they would continue the protests until the government was ousted.

With no end in sight the Chinese leadership decided to end the protests by clearing Tiananmen Square. Troops came into the Square without weapons on June 2 and many soldiers were beaten, some were killed and army vehicles were torched.

On June 4, the PLA re-entered the Square with weapons. According to the U.S. media accounts of the time that is when machine gun toting PLA soldiers mowed down peaceful student protests in a massacre of thousands.

China said that reports of the “massacre” in Tiananmen Square were a fabrication created both by Western media and by the protest leaders who used a willing Western media as a platform for an international propaganda campaign in their interests.

On June 12, 1989, eight days after the confrontation, the New York Times published an “exhaustive” but in fact fully fabricated eyewitness report of the Tiananmen Massacre by a student, Wen Wei Po. It was full of detailed accounts of brutality, mass murder, and heroic street battles. It recounted PLA machine gunners on the roof of Revolutionary Museum overlooking the Square and students being mowed down in the Square. This report was picked up by media throughout the U.S.vi

Although treated as gospel and irrefutable proof that China was lying, the June 12 “eyewitness” report by Wen Wei Po was so over the top and would so likely discredit the New York Times in China that the Times correspondent in Beijing, Nicholas Kristof, who had served as a mouthpiece for the protestors, took exception to the main points in the article.

Kristof wrote in a June 13 article, “The question of where the shootings occurred has significance because of the Government’s claim that no one was shot on Tiananmen Square. State television has even shown film of students marching peacefully away from the square shortly after dawn as proof that they were not slaughtered.”

“The central scene in the [eyewitness] article is of troops beating and machine-gunning unarmed students clustered around the Monument to the People’s Heroes in the middle of Tiananmen Square. Several other witnesses, both Chinese and foreign, say this did not happen,” Kristof wrote.

There is also no evidence of machine-gun emplacements on the roof of the history museum that were reported in the Wen Wei Po article. This reporter was directly north of the museum and saw no machine guns there. Other reporters and witnesses in the vicinity also failed to see them.

The central theme of the Wen Wei Po article was that troops subsequently beat and machine-gunned students in the area around the monument and that a line of armored vehicles cut off their retreat. But the witnesses say that armored vehicles did not surround the monument – they stayed at the north end of the square – and that troops did not attack students clustered around the monument. Several other foreign journalists were near the monument that night as well and none are known to have reported that students were attacked around the monument,” Kristof wrote in the June 13, 1989 article.vii

The Chinese government’s account acknowledges that street fighting and armed clashes occurred in nearby neighborhoods. They say that approximately three hundred died that night including many soldiers who died from gunfire, Molotov cocktails and beatings. But they have insisted that there was no massacre.

Kristof too says that there were clashes on several streets but refutes the “eyewitness” report about a massacre of students in Tiananmen Square, “… Instead, the students and a pop singer, Hou Dejian, were negotiating with the troops and decided to leave at dawn, between 5 A.M. and 6 A.M. The students all filed out together. Chinese television has shown scenes of the students leaving and of the apparently empty square as troops moved in as the students left.”

Attempted counter-revolution in China

In fact, the U.S. government was actively involved in promoting the “pro-democracy” protests through an extensive, well-funded, internationally coordinated propaganda machine that pumped out rumors, half-truths and lies from the moment the protests started in mid-April 1989.

The goal of the U.S. government was to carry out regime change in China and overthrow the Communist Party of China which had been the ruling party since the 1949 revolution. Since many activists in today’s progressive movement were not alive or were young children at the time of the Tiananmen incident in 1989, the best recent example of how such an imperialist destabilization/regime change operation works is revealed in the recent overthrow of the Ukrainian government. Peaceful protests in the downtown square receive international backing, financing and media support from the United States and Western powers; they eventually come under the leadership of armed groups who are hailed as freedom fighters by the Wall Street Journal, FOX News and other media; and finally the government targeted for overthrow by the CIA is fully demonized if it uses police or military forces.

In the case of the “pro-democracy” protests in China in 1989 the U.S. government was attempting to create a civil war. The Voice of America increased its Chinese language broadcasts to 11 hours each day and targeted the broadcast “directly to about 2,000 satellite dishes in China operated mostly by the Peoples Liberation Army.”viii

The Voice of America broadcasts to PLA units were filled with reports that some PLA units were firing on others and different units were loyal to the protestors and others with the government.

The Voice of America and U.S. media outlets tried to create confusion and panic among government supporters. Just prior to June 4 they reported that China’s Prime Minister Li Peng had been shot and that Deng Xiaoping was near death.

Most in the U.S. government and in the media expected the Chinese government to be toppled by pro-Western political forces as was starting to happening with the overthrow of socialist governments throughout Eastern and Central Europe at the time (1988-1991) following the introduction of pro-capitalist reforms by Gorbachev in the Soviet Union in 1991.

In China, the “pro-democracy” protest movement was led by privileged, well-connected students from elite universities who were explicitly calling for the replacement of socialism with capitalism. The leaders were particularly connected to the United States. Of course, thousands of other students who participated in the protests were in the Square because they had grievances against the government.

But the imperialist-connected leadership of the movement had an explicit plan to topple the government. Chai Ling, who was recognized as the top leader of the students, gave an interview to Western reporters on the eve of June 4 in which she acknowledged that the goal of the leadership was to lead the population in a struggle to topple the Communist Party of China, which she explained would only be possible if they could successfully provoke the government into violently attacking the demonstrations. That interview was aired in the film the “Gate of Heavenly Peace.” Chai Ling also explained why they couldn’t tell the rank and file student protestors about the leaders’ real plans.

“The pursuit of wealth is part of the impetus for democracy,” explained another top student leader Wang Dan, in an interview with the Washington Post in 1993, on the fourth anniversary of the incident. Wang Dan was in all the U.S. media before and after the Tiananmen incident. He was famous for explaining why the elitist student leaders didn’t want Chinese workers joining their movement. He stated “the movement is not ready for worker participation because democracy must first be absorbed by the students and intellectuals before they can spread it to others.”ix

Twenty-five years later – U.S. still seeks regime change and counter-revolution in China

The action by the Chinese government to disperse the so-called pro-democracy movement in 1989 was met with bitter frustration within the United States political establishment.

The U.S. imposed economic sanctions on China at first, but their impact was minimal and both the Washington political establishment and the Wall Street banks realized that U.S. corporations and banks  would be the big losers in the 1990’s if they tried to completely isolate China when China was further opening its vast domestic labor and commodities market to the direct investment from Western corporations. The biggest banks and corporations put their own profit margins first and the Washington politicians took their cue from the billionaire class on this question.

But the issue of counter-revolution in China will rear its head again. The economic reforms that were inaugurated after the death of Mao opened the country to foreign investment. This development strategy was designed to rapidly overcome the legacy of poverty and under-development by the import of foreign technology. In exchange the Western corporations received mega profits. The post-Mao leadership in the Communist Party calculated that the strategy would benefit China by virtue of a rapid technology transfer from the imperialist world to China. And indeed China has made great economic strides. But in addition to economic development there has also developed a larger capitalist class inside of China and a significant portion of that class and their children are being wooed by all types of institutions financed by the U.S. government, U.S. financial institutions and U.S. academic centers.

The Communist Party of China is also divided into pro-U.S. and pro-socialist factions and tendencies.

Today, the United States government is applying ever greater military pressure on China. It is accelerating the struggle against China’s rise by cementing new military and strategic alliances with other Asian countries. It is also hoping that with enough pressure some in the Chinese leadership who favor abandoning North Korea will get the upper hand.

If counter-revolution were to succeed in China the consequences would be catastrophic for the Chinese people and for China. China would in all likelihood splinter as a nation as happened to the Soviet Union when the Communist Party of the Soviet Union was toppled. The same fate befell the former Yugoslavia. Counter-revolution and dismemberment would hurtle China backwards. It would put the brakes on China’s spectacular peaceful rise out of under-development. For decades there has been a serious discussion within the U.S. foreign policy establishment about the dismemberment of China which would weaken China as a nation and allow the United States and Western powers to seize its most lucrative parts. This is precisely the scenario that cast China into its century of humiliation when Western capitalist powers dominated the country.x

The Chinese Revolution has gone through many stages, victories, retreats and setbacks. Its contradictions are innumerable. But still it stands. In the confrontation between world imperialism and the Peoples Republic of China, progressive people should know where they stand – it is not on the sidelines.

Notes

i Jim Abrams, “Rival military units battle in Beijing,” Associated Press, June 6, 1989.

ii John Burgess, “Images Vilify Protesters; Chinese Launch Propaganda Campaign,” Washington Post, June 12, 1989

iii James P. Sterba, Adi Ignatius and Robert S. Greenberger, “Class Struggle: China’s Harsh Actions Threaten to Set Back 10-Year Reform Drive — Suspicions of Westernization Are Ascendant, and Army Has a Political Role Again — A Movement Unlikely to Die,” Wall Street Journal, June 5, 1989

iv Jay Mathews, “The Myth of Tiananmen and the Price of a Passive Press,” Columbia Journalism Review September/October 1998

v Mathews, ibid.

vi Wen Wei Po, “Turmoil in China; Student Tells the Tiananmen Story: And Then, ‘Machine Guns Erupted’” New York Times, June 12, 1989

vii Nicholas Kristof, “Turmoil in China; Tiananmen Crackdown: Student’s Account Questioned on Major Points,” New York Times, June 13, 1989

viii  “Voice of America Beams TV Signals to China,” New York Times, June 9, 1989

ix Lena Sun, “A Radical Transformation 4 Years After Tiananmen,” Washington Post, June 6, 1993.

x “PSL Resolution: For the defense of China against counterrevolution, imperialist intervention and dismemberment,” China: Revolution and counterrevolution, PSL Publications, 2008. Read online at http://www.pslweb.org/liberationnews/pages/for-the-defense-of-china.html

 

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on What Really Happened in Tiananmen Square 25 Years Ago

PSYOPS – Wars Are Fought On and Off the Battlefield

June 4th, 2014 by Online Psychology Degrees

What are PSYOPS?

Psychological Operations (PSYOP) has been alternatively known in the U.S. as Military Information Support Operations (MISO) since 2010

● According to the U.S. Department of Defense, psychological warfare is,

“The planned use of propaganda and other psychological actions having the primary purpose of influencing the opinions, emotions, attitudes, and behavior of hostile foreign groups in such a way as to support the achievement of national objectives.”

PSYOPS influence the behavior of governments, groups, organizations and individuals.

PSYOPS can be used during conflict or peacetime.

Psychological Warfare
Source: Online-Psychology-Degree.com

There Are Three Main Types of Psychological Operations:

○ Strategic
○ Operational
○ Tactical

Strategic
● Conducted outside of a military purpose
● Often have advanced or long-term objectives
● They are global in nature and may be directed toward very large audiences

Operational
● Conducted across many kinds of military operations in a predetermined operational area in order to promote the effectiveness of the joint force commander’s campaigns and strategies
● The purpose of an operational PSYOP can range from gaining support for U.S. operations to preparing a battlefield for combat

Tactical
● Conducted by a tactical commander in an assigned area to supposed tactical missions against opposing forces
● Used to secure immediate goals
● Often used as a way to lower the morale and efficiency of enemy forces

PSYOPS are not a form of force, but are force multipliers
● They use nonviolent means in often violent environments in order to persuade

PSYOPS use logic, fear, desire or other psychological factors to promote specific attitudes, emotions or behaviors
● This is to convince enemy, neutral or friendly nations and forces to take action favorable to the U.S. and allies
● Messages are conveyed through audio, visual and audiovisual media
○ Military tactical operations are usually delivered by loudspeaker
○ Other campaigns can be delivered through leaflets, radio or television

Psychological Warfare Has Been Used Through History

● 500 BCE – Sun Tzu wrote in The Art of War about the importance of intelligence and psychology in war and politics
○ “To capture the enemy’s entire army is better than to destroy it… To subdue the enemy without fighting is the supreme excellence.”
● 300 BCE – Alexander the Great conquered most of the known world by spreading stories of his savagery
○ One of his tactics involved the construction of oversized armor, that would fit “giants.” These were left on the battlefield before a conflict in order to inspire terror and, ultimately, a surrender… Even from armies that greatly outnumbered his own
● 1200’s CE – Gengis Khan and the Mongol Empire bloodily conquered of much of Asia and Europe
○ While the Mongols did kill many people, much of their success was gained through psychological warfare
○ Khan sent messengers ahead of his army to tell villages of the fierce and bloodthirsty Mongol army.
■ By the time the Mongols reached a village, communities were usually ready to surrender
● WWI – The birth of modern psychological warfare
○ Altered weapons, such as mortar, were used to spread leaflets across a wide area
● WWII
○ Many of the same tactics from WWI were used
○ Military powers began heavily using radio to spread propaganda
■ Tokyo Rose broadcast music, propaganda and discouragement toward the Allied forces
● Later, Hanoi Hannah and Seoul City Sue would do the same during the Vietnam War and Korean War
○ Radio was also implemented to spread false intelligence
■ American forces convinced German high commanders that the D-Day invasion would launch at Calais instead of Normandy
■ The British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC) began English-language lessons on a radio show widely listened to by German forces
● They taught the German military phrases like, “The boat is sinking,” and “I am burning”
○ This series convinced the German commanders that the British had found a way to set the English Channel on fire in the event that Germans launched an invasion by sea
● Cold War
○ Nations began broadcasting white noise to give the impression that encryption was being used
■ This led to other nations wasting a lot of money in an effort to decrypt messages that were not there
○ Governments began recruiting very innocent looking people to be spies or saboteurs, in order to cast doubt on more individuals
○ When captured, these spies would implicate as many innocent people as possible, creating confusion and widespread suspicion
● Recent history
○ During the Gulf War, the U.S. distributed pamphlets encouraging opposing forces to desert
○ Winning forces name captured towns and facilities
■ Example: The change from Iraq’s Saddam International Airport to Baghdad International Airport following Hussein’s removal from power
○ The use of vehicles as mobile broadcasting stations
■ This has allowed troops to agitate Taliban fighters until they come out of hiding places and engage with U.S. troops
○ Terrorism
■ Acts like the terrorist attacks on 9/11 and the bombing of the London tubes are physical attacks that are also meant to inspire fear in a community and break an enemy’s will

Today’s wars are won with military and messages. How will tomorrow’s be won?

Sources:
http://www.military.com/ContentFiles/techtv_update_PSYOPS.htm
https://www.newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/Psychological_warfare
http://www.psywarrior.com/psyhist.html
http://www.princeton.edu/~achaney/tmve/wiki100k/docs/Psychological_warfare.html
http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/449268_2

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on PSYOPS – Wars Are Fought On and Off the Battlefield

Goodbye to the America we once loved. Since it has been taken over, hijacked by  oligarchs dancing to the tune of global hegemony, the US as the beacon light of Western civilization, has already crested having run its course. In all its glory, it had its run. Now operating from the shadowy, secret cabal of  the World’s central Banks and billionaire mansions around the world, the New World Order descends upon a poisoned, with a permanent era of austerity and impoverishment.

Living in the most powerful and richest country on earth, Americans are lamenting and mourning what once was in their sentimental nostalgia for the onetime greatness they now have lost. But then they are suddenly jarred back to the real world reality they face, worrying over an uncertain future where the only certainty is the American Empire has seen better days in its angst-ridden spiral downward into despair and oblivion. While Isaac Newton looks down from above and reminds us, “What goes up, must come down,” a faint, far off sound can be heard, “Bye, bye Miss American pie…”

In a way the more rational and logical nature within us may be saying good riddance to the only world superpower that abused its privilege and authority, choosing to flex its military muscle in bloodthirsty lust and hollowed out glory. Its unquenchable thirst for more power and control over its earthly dominions have come at a heavy cost to both the American people and a severely exploited and victimized Third World. Two decades ago when the US was the only superpower left standing after the shattered demise of the Soviet Union, rather than continue to be the beacon of light and liberty for the rest of the world, like in Rome a millennium ago, an overreaching military Empire won out.

When no other nation on earth was left to compete with America as its enemy, from Reagan and George Bush senior through Clinton to George junior and finally to Obama, the US government has consistently elected to place its highest priority on out-of-control military spending, choosing to overextend its military might on multiple defeated warfronts while bleeding its middle class dry as its sacrificial lamb. And now what are we left with – by design a Middle East and North Africa comprised of hopelessly failed states, compliments of US Empire’s King Midas touch-in-reverse. “Destabilize, Will Travel, Inc.,” sadly that is what American Empire does and stands for. And now its clutches are spreading, digging its fatal claws deep into the heart of sub-Saharan Africa, in the form of Special Ops boots on the ground, busily militarizing the entire world into death squads, more night raids, more civil wars, more sovereign nations destabilized and destroyed.

Obama’s desperate false bravado claim clinging to his notion of America’s exceptionalism heard last week at West Point, proclaims that the US is too good to have to live by the rules that the rest of the world must comply with. The psychopath is truly showing his mental illness living in his own delusional world. It’s time for him to wake up and smell the rot he has brought not only to America but the entire world.

At some point, the out-of-control, two-headed, red, white and blue monster had to be stopped. Fomenting unrest in every corner of the globe, the US Empire agenda has promoted and is now forcing the East versus West showdown along every border nation with Russia and China. After aggressively and foolishly pinning the sleeping giants in, poking the Bear in the eye with the US backed Nazi debacle in Ukraine, and ramping up hostilities in Asia with more militarized zones of US presence in Philippines and South Korea, both Russia and China decided that they have had enough. US Empire transgressions have crossed their red line, and now they are finally through tolerating US arrogance and belligerence. They are now striking back with an emerging, growing alliance bent on stopping the global bully and one world policeman’s brutality once and for all. With the BRIC nations of not only Russia and China but also the emerging, resource-rich giants India and Brazil along with South Africa, the US dollar as the international currency is about to crash and burn. China is about to come-a-calling as the US creditor demands its due. Unable to pay up on its bloated debt, thanks to its reckless incompetent leadership, the United States of America is about to financially go belly up. Enter the UN Agenda 21.

Under the misguided, inconsistent leadership of two-faced Obama wavering constantly between in-your-face bully and egg-in-his-face wimp, his over-the-top, hot air rhetoric has become empty and meaningless. His psychopathic lies have destroyed any credibility or trust he once had. Meanwhile, American Empire’s longtime arrogance and aggression has only alienated the US from the rest of the world including its allies, while betraying US citizens both domestically and globally, forcing them to now pay for the sins of its leaders both past and present.

Look at how our government has failed our veterans. After promising to take care of them, sending them off to die and be harmed in battle, they have forsaken them letting them die in droves while criminally cooking the books hoping no one would notice its antiquated, overstretched and thoroughly broken system. It is neither a Republican nor a Democratic issue, only a human issue. After using our precious resource of young men and women willing to go off and fight for our nation on some far off foreign land, once they return home damaged in desperate need of help, care and support, the US government has simply abandoned them, pushing them away as discarded and forgotten into some invisible corner to die. If the US government can do this to our vets, it will certainly do it to the rest of us.

America is rotting out from within. Long neglecting its needy and poor currently living in war zones called inner cities, an angry, growing, disenfranchised class that has also had enough finds itself with nothing left to lose. With more than half of this country’s two plus million Americans of color trapped in prisons, the US is but one false flag away from declaring martial law and unleashing its FEMA roundups. Targeted will be those fighting back, the activists, dissidents, dissenters, the destitute, any and all Americans not part of the one third of the US population that make up the military security complex will be considered fair game. All those Halliburton-refurbished and newly built, empty privatized prisons at tax payer expense await to be filled by shackled and betrayed Americans of all colors.

The decimated, shrinking middle class can no longer find jobs. They don’t exist anymore in America, except sweeping up McDonald’s parking lots. Of course the growing underclass gave up looking for jobs that weren’t there for them decades ago. The upward mobility and rising standard of living that was once the bedrock of the American way of life guaranteed for generations, has joined the graveyard heap of the once shining but now dead and lost.

Without a manufacturing base, the US population is totally dependent on exports from China, Mexico and everywhere else that traitorous, disloyal US transnational corporations greedily chasing higher profit margins ran off to like outsourcing roaches. Like the roaches they are, the McDonalds and Walmarts may survive the coming nuclear winter holocaust, but the forsaken Americans they betrayed won’t. The retail stores and malls are increasingly becoming empty or going out of business. When the richest 85 people on the planet possess as much wealth as the bottom economic half of the entire global population, you know the oligarchs have already won and the lights are about to go out on the rest of us.

The karmic lesson has come home to roost. With rusted out bridges ready to literally crumble and fall in America, they serve as a sad yet fitting metaphor for the state of the once great nation that no longer exists. Over its own struggling people, the US Empire chose to build its spreading might-make-right boots on the ground strength, overstretching its killing machine tentacles to every continent off the backs of its hardworking taxpayers, while the long neglected infrastructure and safety net back home collapse.

The forsaken American population finds itself more in poverty (46.2 million people) as well as more in debt ($57 trillion) now than ever before in history. Young generations of the college educated are having to pay off mounting college loan debts ($1.2 trillion and rising) that without jobs they can never even hope to repay. Rather than marry, have kids and buy homes like generations before them, they worry how to pay the light bill and avoid eviction. Sometime when we weren’t looking, the American dream died in the last century. Foreclosures and unpaid debts are now sucking the lifeblood out of Americans.

After bailing out the banks and Wall Street, Americans learned that they got royally swindled. Yet the corporate white collar crime only continues unabated. Not one executive from the top firms that nearly brought down the financial system spent even a day in jail over the 2009 housing scandal. Instead the Justice Department had the coldhearted audacity to go after the home buyers charging them with mortgage fraud. The two-tiered, stacked and fixed legal system has one set of rules and consequences for the rest of us while the economic war criminals literally and legally get away with murder. While middle class Americans have been forced to give up their once comfortable lifestyle, the rich only got richer. And now whose going to bail out the middle and lower classes fast going under? The oligarchs? The disparity between the rich and poor in this nation – never worse since the Great Depression – spreads like an evil cancer. Tax burdens continue plaguing the disappearing middle class while the superrich got bailed out, only to make obscene record profits while still enjoying Bush-era tax cuts milking trickle-down Reaganomics for all the scam it is worth.

The oligarchs have managed to buy off virtually all the national governments in the world to do their NWO bidding. They believe they have already won. And why shouldn’t they? Their strategy of systematically dumbing down the world masses with GMO’s, chemtrails and homogenized propaganda piped into their brains 24/7 operates like a bad drug, causing people to fear and obey their masters as pliable, acquiescent, mindless robots who simply go quietly into the night to their eugenic slaughterhouse according to the oligarch plan to cull the global herd down from over seven to a mere half billion. With living conditions and gross injustice around the world only going from bad to worse, people feel increasingly helpless and powerless. Depression and suicide are skyrocketing, particularly among war veterans (nearly one each hour) and adolescent and young adults (third leading cause of death).

But what the oligarchs worry about the most in their undying addiction to power and control is an awakened, critical mind that sees through their lies and deception. They shudder at the thought of the masses of the world actually waking up, and seeing their blatant theft and destruction for what it really is. And what they dread and fear the most is a worldwide grassroots movement of mindful human beings united in committed solidarity who refuse to play their game any longer. As a collective power of world citizens acting together as one, as free-thinking individuals who vastly outnumber the 1%, we can make a difference. To roll over and play dead, we are merely joining the ranks of the many already walking dead amongst us. As individuals with minds of our own, we do have the power and strength to say enough is enough. We just need to come together and exercise our collective free will and power.

Two thirds of the fifty United States have already called for a Constitutional Convention, giving the legal authority to convene and in open debate formulate amendments that can restore rule of law that has criminally been violated and missing since the Patriot Act. As citizens we need to learn what the US Constitution actually says. The Supremacy Clause in Article 6, Clause 2 of the US Constitution states “This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof the Constitution shall be the supreme law of the land.” If a federal statute fails to meet the mandatory condition that it “is in pursuance” of the Constitution, then it simply is not the rule of law. Any federal law enacted that does not fulfill this “pursuant clause” requirement becomes null and void. That means that Bush’s Patriot Act, his Authorization to Use Military Force Act (AUMF), most of his and Obama’s presidential executive orders and every National Defense Authorization Act including the 2012 one the US Supreme Court recently decided to not review giving the military full authorization to arrest any citizens in their homes without charges or warrants and imprison for an unlimited length of time without trial, legal access to representation or Constitutional rights, are all invalid because they are all unconstitutional. All laws enacted that are not in compliance with constitutional law are simply not legally enforceable.

Thus, even though since 9/11 the US government has betrayed its citizens inasmuch as it has betrayed the Constitution and its rule of law, from the local and state levels we the people can fight back through the courts. Every elected representative, every judge and every soldier in America has taken a sworn oath to uphold the US Constitution. By their actions too many in the federal government and military have clearly violated their oaths. Those who are not full blown psychopaths need to allow whatever conscience they do have to permit them to stop violating constitutional law through their overt and brutal acts of tyranny and oppression.

Other steps that we citizens can do to take back our country can be implemented on many fronts and many levels, legally, economically, socially and ethically, empowering the resourcefulness and independence of our local communities and states. We need to start growing our own food using community coops. We need to go off the grid as much as possible with green energy utilizing the sun and wind power. These can also be community owned and shared. Worker owned cooperatives offer an ideal economic model by which to begin exercising increasing localized and regional independence. The power of corporate boycott and bartering are also viable tools at our disposal. Together we as a people and a human race can become activists committed toward positive change. Since our federal government has failed us miserably, we can neither rely on it to take care of us nor care about us. It will be left up to us as citizens to come together as communities and begin taking care of and caring for each other.

Joachim Hagopian is a West Point graduate and former Army officer. His written manuscript based on his military experience examines leadership and national security issues and can be consulted at http://www.redredsea.net/westpointhagopian/. After the military, Joachim earned a masters degree in psychology and became a licensed therapist working in the mental health field for more than a quarter century. He now focuses on writing.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on The Fall of the American Empire… And What We Can do About It

Israel’s Medieval Ban on Intermarriage

June 4th, 2014 by Jonathan Cook

Here is a simple infographic (possibly behind the Haaretz paywall) setting out how Israel has engineered a series of hurdles to prevent intermarriage, especially between Jews and non-Jews.

There are no civil institutions in Israel dealing with marriage (and many other personal status issues), meaning that only hardline Orthodox rabbis get to determine who marries a “real Jew”.

Israel dresses this up as an attempt to protect religious tradition, but actually it’s religious coercion designed to prevent assimilation – the greatest threat to Zionism, Israel’s state ideology.So this kind of medieval enforcement of segregation according to sect, tribe or race (depending on how you look at it) is actually required by the very nature of a Jewish state – sorry, I meant Jewish and democratic state.

www.haaretz.com/jewish-world/shavuot/.premium-1.596576 

Jonathan Cook is a Nazareth-based journalist and winner of the Martha Gellhorn Special Prize for Journalism.
  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Israel’s Medieval Ban on Intermarriage