Global Research

Based on independent social media and the testimony of Iraqis living inside and outside Iraq, the Portuguese Iraq Tribunal reports the following information:

1. The military success of the insurrection and the collapse of the armed forces of the government of Nuri al-Maliki prove that the Iraqi population is fed up with the regime. The general sentiment is that “nothing could be worse than what we have.” Lacking support, the regime has reached a breaking point.

2. The struggle has the participation of different organizations and political forces. Both in the combats and in the governments of the liberated cities, the action has been coordinated by a Revolutionary Military Council made up of former Iraqi officers, young revolutionaries and tribal members.

3. The participation in the movement of the Ba’ath Party, the Revolutionary Brigades of 1920, the military leaders of the former Iraqi armed forces, the Islamic organizations of resistance belie the exclusive role that the western political media has given to organizations like the ISIL-ISIS (Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant or the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria). This distortion of the facts, quickly repeated by the social media, is aimed at making it easier to neutralize public opinion with the charge that what is going on is a “terrorist” movement and thus justify a military intervention with troops or for indiscriminate bombings carried out by the regime installed in Baghdad.

4. The targets of the insurrection are clear: the government and all of the power structure led by Maliki, who is the heir of the political system imposed by the U.S. occupation – and, along with this, the domination exercised by U.S. imperialism and the influences of all external forces that have been involved in the Iraqi conflict.

5. The insurrection underway has a nationalist and patriotic character. The last communiqué of the Revolutionary Military Council (June 14) specified the following objectives of the popular uprising:

— To restore justice and not to seek revenge. All settling of accounts must be done according to the law and through a fair trial.

— To respect neighboring states and their sovereignty.
– To end the sectarianism and political repression that the occupation implanted. — To begin a constitutional process that will represent all Iraqis. ”

6. Eyewitness reports from the liberated cities reveal that the population is participating in the organization of daily life. There is no news of massacres or acts of revenge. The presence of non-Iraqi forces is insignificant. Barriers to the movement of people have been removed. The population that fled at the beginning of the insurrection, especially from Mosul, is now returning home. Its major worry is that the Maliki government or the U.S. military will respond with bombing raids, as was done in Fallujah and Ramadi.

7. Different organizations, both religious and secular, have declared support for the revolt and called up the population and on the combatants to maintain unity, reject sectarian actions and treat the population of the liberated cities with extreme care in order that “these cities become a model that others wish to emulate” (open letter from the Association of Muslim Scholars in Iraq).

The events of the last few days were only surprising by the lightning-like nature of the military actions of the insurgents. But they are not stunning if one takes into account the extent of the suffering of the Iraqi population in the last 10 years and the resistance that has opposed the occupation and the barbarous regime that followed it. What is happening now is the culmination of the armed resistance of 2003-2006, the mass demonstrations of 2011, the generalized protests of 2012-2013 repressed by the regime with live gunfire. And it answers the miserable living conditions, the arbitrary massacres and the theft of the national resources. In these 10 years conditions matured for an enormous change within Iraq.

So writes Patrick Cockburn, the veteran Middle East correspondent for the Independent in London. A fierce critic of the US-British War on Iraq he is now urging the US and Iran to collaborate in stopping the ISIS or ISIL forces that are sweeping through Iraq, a country he loves more than any of the despotic politicians who have run it now or then.

The American media has taken up the cry—not for cooperation with Iran that has heartily denounced the latest round of US intervention in the country it warred with for seven years—but with lurid coverage of the force at first labeled “terrorists,” and now ”insurgents or just “militants.” The difference is that ISIS/ISIL seizes and holds territory operating like an army, not hit and run faction.

It is said to be connected to Al Qaeda but we don’t know how or if Qaeda still exists. Separating truth from propaganda has never been more difficult.

Even as ISIS portrays itself more as a corporation than a gang of brigands, all we see or hear about in our media are bloody killings and beheadings as if savagery is uniquely to be found in the Islamic world.

Never mind the reporting of the McClatchy newspapers explaining that

“The Islamic State of Iraq and Syria sprang from a largely self-funded, corporation-style prototype…The militant group Baghdadi inherited had in place a sophisticated bureaucracy that was almost obsessive about record-keeping. Its middle-managers detailed, for example, the number of wives and children each fighter had, to gauge compensation rates upon death or capture, and listed expenditures in neat Excel spreadsheets that noted payments to an “assassination platoon” and “Al Mustafa Explosives Company.”

Too bad, our corporations don’t disclose, much less quantify, the metrics of the negative social impacts they cause, and what that costs society or the world.

The more lurid the reporting on the butchery now underway, the more we forget the one million plus dead as a result of the 2003 US invasion and occupation or how state violence inevitably inspires a violence of resistance. It is a violence that anti-colonial theorists like Franz Fanon approved of in his “The Wretched of the Earth,” because of he believed it has a positive psychological impact on the oppressed.

Selective reporting on the atrocities of the other side always emboldens a sense of righteousness, even as our counter-violence assumes the form of less visible and far more deadly ‘shock and aweful’ airpower, or the use of weapons with nuclear materials like depleted uranium.

Throughout this war, there have been few reports on U.S. war crimes in our controlled media with its history of loyal embeds and patriotic correctness.

No one in the mainstream media here has reminded us of the US torturers of Abu Ghraib prison or the counter terror campaigns we waged against towns like Fallujah and the people we demonized as “bad guys.”

It may also be time revisit our own baggage, by going deeper into our own history, the history before the imperial era and the U.S. invasions of The Philippines, Haiti and Vietnam.

Pick up a copy of the latest edition of the NY Review of Books to read about the unspeakable crimes that Americans imposed on each other during the civil war, supposedly the war for freedom against slavery.

Civil war expert James M. McPherson tells us about professional historian Michael C.C. Adam’s new book, Living Hell: The Dark Side of the Civil War (Johns Hopkins University Press.) It is an American story of gore, not glory in which black solders who surrender are slaughtered and POWs on both sides perish in unspeakably horrific prison camps on both sides.

“The guerrilla warfare that wracked parts of the South and the border states,” notes McPherson, “was especially vicious, sometimes featuring ‘the burning alive of enemy civilians thrown into flaming buildings as well as random torturing and killing accompanied by grisly trophies including ears, genitals, scalps.” Rape and plunder was pervasive, justified as the “spoils” of war. (Adams wrote an earlier book with similar evidence in a dissection of the myth of World War 11. See his, The Best War Ever: America and World War 11, 2004.)

The point here is not to rationalize ISIS brutality, but to take the luster off US hypocrisy, to make the old point about who is calling the kettle black? In our faith in American “exceptionalism,” recently re-enunciated by President Obama, most of our media and educators ignore crimes committed but rarely acknowledged in our name.

Our failure to demand or take part in a truth and reconciliation process in Iraq not only makes us culpable, but assured the spectacle that we are seeing.  In fact, according to journalist Dahr Jamail, US policymakers systematically pursued divide and conquer policies reinforcing a Sunni/Shia divide.

To complain now that Iraq President al Maliki is not representative of all communities there is a disgrace, especially after President Obama and his predecessor hailed our great victory in Iraq. Al Makiki was pushed into prominence by a former U.S. Ambassador.

Saddam Hussein and his era suddenly looks far better than the legacy of our war for “Iraqi Freedom.”

Who helped create and fund ISIS? Is Rand Paul correct in suggesting the US played a role? What role was played by our “allies,” the Kuwaitis, Saudis and Qataris? Shouldn’t the media try to find out?  Why are ordinary Iraqis telling reporters that they prefer ISIS to the brutal Iraqi Army, even welcoming them in some areas as liberators.

When did “we” know about ISIS attack plans? According the Telegraph in London as relayed by VICE news:

“…Kurdish sources tipped off US and UK intelligence agencies about ISIS plans five months ago. Apparently, a plan to seize northern Iraqi cities and move on Baghdad had been in the works for months. The Telegraph quotes a senior Kurdish intelligence official as saying “We had this information then, and we passed it on to your [British] government and the US government. We used our official liaisons. “We knew exactly what strategy they were going to use, we knew the military planners. It fell on deaf ears.”

Why are ISIS people saying they welcome US air strikes because they will once again demonstrate Washington’s complicity with the hated al-Maliki dictatorship? (Their forces are apparently well dispersed to neutralize the effectiveness of targeted bombing.)

Does anyone remember the media hype around “democratic elections” in Iraq with all those voters with purple inked fingers waving them aloft for the cameras? Were those elections free and fair? Apparently not!

Those fraudulent exercises only postponed the inevitable counter-push that may not prevail but will leave Iraq even more devastated, if not dismembered.

Israel is cheering on the country’s break-up now that Kurdish oil is flowing to Tel Aviv’s pipelines. Oil is once again at the center of this conflict everywhere but in the media.

Not surprisingly, Israeli commentators like Isi Leibler who writes in Israel Hayom (“This is Where We Stand”), “Our Adversaries are inhuman barbarians.”

He argues, “The major problem today is that the international community denies the barbaric nature of Islamic fundamentalism … the whole region is a scorpions’ den of barbaric activity.”

Bear in mind that the term “barbarian” is commonly used to refer to the “uncivilized.” It is always a reference to “the others,’ the never quite humans we demonize and stereotype before seeking to kill.

And now, the Iranians are said to be moving militarily to support Shia groups using drones they built on our designs, and shipping weapons to the border so this conflict promises to escalate into a regional war.

Significantly, at the same time, the organizers of a film festival in Iran are calling attention to an anniversary: the shooting down of the (civilian) Iran air flight 655 by the United States Navy guided missile cruiser USS Vincennes on July 3, 1988. The US never apologized for the incident and the ship’s commanders won recognition.

To recognize the anniversary The Ammar Popular Film Festival has prepared some posters with a brief summary of the crimes they say US governments have committed against humanity:

USA crimes Against American: http://en.ammarfilm.ir/gall.php?id=36
USA crimes against Iranian: http://en.ammarfilm.ir/gall.php?id=37
USA crimes in the world: http://en.ammarfilm.ir/gall.php?id=38

Once you see them, you realize how the past is never past, and that hatred of past crimes, in the absence of power sharing through negotiations and justice for war criminals, easily turns into fuel for future ones.

News Dissector Danny Schechter blogs at Newsdissector.net and works on Mediachannel.org.  He has directed a film and written two books on media complicity in the Iraq War. Comments to dissector at mediachannel.org.

“Poverty and income inequality, Scott, are shaping up to be key issues, not just here in the capital this year but at the White House as well.”

——Reporter Nancy Cordes to anchor Scott Pelley (CBS Evening News, 1/8/14)

With poverty at 15 percent, inequality rising and Republican politicians talking about addressing the problem by cutting federal programs that help the poor, one might expect poverty to occupy a solid spot on media agendas.

This isn’t the case, according to a new FAIR study of nightly network news shows. The study looked at ABC World News, CBS Evening News and NBC Nightly News for a 14-month period (1/1/13– 2/28/14) in the wake of the 2012 elections. FAIR examined stories in the Nexis news database that included and discussed the terms “poverty,” “low income,” “food stamps,” “welfare” or “homeless.” (Stories that included only passing mentions of these terms, without even a minimal discussion, were excluded.)

Image: Billionaires like to own media “because they believe in quality work and a robust press,” NBC informed viewers.

A total of 23 such segments were found, three of which were “rip and read” briefs, anchor-read stories containing no sources. The other pieces included a total of 54 sources, less than half of which—22—were people personally affected by poverty. That means, on average, someone affected by poverty appeared on any nightly news show only once every 20 days.

By comparison, over the same period the network news shows aired almost four times as many stories, 82, that included the term “billionaire.” There are 482 billionaires in the US, compared to nearly 50 million living in poverty, according to Census standards, which some scholars say greatly undercount the poor (Extra!, 9/12).

Stories on the rich often painted them in a favorable light. NBC Nightly News (8/5/13) aired a story about the recent trend of billionaires, including Warren Buffett and Jeff Bezos, buying up newspapers—in “many cases,” anchor Brian Williams explained, “because they believe in quality work and a robust press.”

ABC World News (1/26/14) aired a story on billionaire Tom Perkins’ claim that there’s a war against the rich in the US. In the piece, Perkins compared criticism of the wealthy to Kristallnacht, the murderous 1938 Nazi rampage against German Jews.

An average of just 2.7 seconds per 22-minute nightly news program was devoted to segments where poverty was mentioned. This overstates the coverage, as many of these segments were not primarily about poverty, but included only a brief discussion of the subject. For instance, in a 130-second CBS Evening News segment about Congress passing a bill to get air traffic controllers furloughed by the sequester back to work, Rep. Steny Hoyer (D-Mary-land) was quoted in an 14-second soundbite criticizing the narrowness of the bill:

Seventy thousand children will be kicked out of Head Start. Nothing in this bill deals with them. Four million fewer Meals on Wheels for WIC. Six hundred thousand people dropped off WIC, nothing in here for them.

CBS Evening News featured the most segments discussing poverty, with 12, followed by NBC with eight. Throughout 2013, NBC featured a poverty-focused feature called “In Plain Sight,” underwritten by the Ford Foundation*, that accounted for five of the network’s eight poverty segments. (Much of the feature’s content was online-only.) ABC discussed poverty in just three stories in the 14-month period—a rate of one story every 20 weeks.

Image: NBC’s “In Plain Sight” went to a food bank in Lincoln, Nebraska. “It takes a lot of time and effort to be poor,” said one client.

The depth of coverage varied widely, from some relatively long and informative segments that shed light on conditions and remedies, to segments that were almost uselessly brief or even dismissive.

For instance, a 150-second NBC Nightly News “In Plain Sight” segment (11/1/13), long by nightly news standards, featured reporter Mike Taibbi examining how the expiration of a food stamp subsidy affected three families in dire economic straits.

Contrast that with an awkward, 40-word “rip and read” by ABC World News anchor Diane Sawyer (2/4/14), who seemed to minimize the $8 billion in cuts to the EBT program (better known as the food stamp program) included in the recently passed Farm Bill:

After a two-year fight today, the Senate passed a farm bill which cuts $8 billion from the food stamp program. But that’s far less than the $40 billion Republicans wanted to cut. And the president is expected to sign this bill.

In a longer segment that included some of those affected, it would have been harder to look on the bright side of an $8 billion cut in food aid.

Of 54 sources, nine were politicians, two were academics/experts, seven were public interest advocates and four were volunteers. Three were clergy members working at food pantries. As noted, less than half, 22, were sources affected by poverty. Twenty-five of all sources were women, including 11 of the sources affected by poverty.

Thirty-nine of the 54 sources, or 72 percent, were white, 12 were black and three were Latino. Of the sources affected by poverty, 13 were white, six were black and two were Latino.

In 2007, FAIR (Extra!, 9/07) conducted a similar study, using the same search terms and parameters. The results show very little change. The recent study shows a tiny increase in the frequency of poverty stories: In 2007, there were 58 stories over the course of a 38-month study, for a rate of 1.5 poverty segments each month on the three networks combined. The current study shows 23 segments on the same shows over the course of 14 months, for a rate of 1.6 stories each month.

In 2007 (9/07), we quoted the Tyndall Report’s finding that there were just 2.5 seconds of poverty coverage in the average 22-minute nightly newscast in the months leading up to Hurricane Katrina in August 2005. FAIR’s 2007 study looked at how well network news fulfilled the promise of television journalists like NBC’s Brian Williams, who, after witnessing the crucial role economic hardship played in the suffering caused by Hurricane Katrina and the government’s response to it, vowed to make an extra effort to pay attention to poverty (Extra!, 8/06).

According to the 2007 study, that effort resulted in the average nightly news increasing coverage slightly, to four seconds per newscast. FAIR’s current study shows that the coverage, at 2.7 seconds per nightly newscast, has nearly returned to its 2005 low point.

FAIR’s study (Extra!, 9/12) of how poverty was covered during the 2012 political campaign cited a dodge journalists occasionally employ to justify not covering a crucial issue: How can we pay attention to something politicians aren’t talking about? And it was true that the almost nonexistent coverage of poverty in the campaign corresponded with a failure of either major party to make poverty an issue.

That has not been the case during the period of the current study. While Democrats may have been silent, Republicans have attempted to make an issue of poverty, arguing for cutting federal poverty programs and transferring their funds to the states (CBS Evening News, 1/8/14). Now that politicians are talking about poverty, media have run out of excuses.

*Ford has provided grant money to FAIR.

Research assistance by Melanie Nakashian and Lane Wollerton.

The following text is the Abstract of a detailed scientific study by Environmental Health Perspectives

Read the full report here

Background: Gestational exposure to several common agricultural pesticides can induce developmental neurotoxicity in humans, and has been associated with developmental delay and autism.

Objectives: To evaluate whether residential proximity to agricultural pesticides during pregnancy is associated with autism spectrum disorders (ASD) or developmental delay (DD) in the Childhood Autism Risks from Genetics and Environment (CHARGE) Study.

Methods: The CHARGE study is a population-based case-control study of ASD, developmental delay (DD), and typical development. For 970 participants, commercial pesticide application data from the California Pesticide Use Report (1997-2008) were linked to the addresses during pregnancy. Pounds of active ingredient applied for organophophates, organochlorines, pyrethroids, and carbamates were aggregated within 1.25km, 1.5km, and 1.75km buffer distances from the home. Multinomial logistic regression was used to estimate the odds ratio (OR) of exposure comparing confirmed cases of ASD (n = 486) or DD (n = 168) with typically developing referents (n = 316).

Results: Approximately one-third of CHARGE Study mothers lived, during pregnancy, within 1.5 km (just under one mile) of an agricultural pesticide application. Proximity to organophosphates at some point during gestation was associated with a 60% increased risk for ASD, higher for 3rd trimester exposures [OR = 2.0, 95% confidence interval (CI) = (1.1, 3.6)], and 2nd trimester chlorpyrifos applications: OR = 3.3 [95% CI = (1.5, 7.4)]. Children of mothers residing near pyrethroid insecticide applications just prior to conception or during 3rd trimester were at greater risk for both ASD and DD, with OR’s ranging from 1.7 to 2.3. Risk for DD was increased in those near carbamate applications, but no specific vulnerable period was identified.

Conclusions: This study of ASD strengthens the evidence linking neurodevelopmental disorders with gestational pesticide exposures, and particularly, organophosphates and provides novel results of ASD and DD associations with, respectively, pyrethroids and carbamates.

Read the full report here

Few people, if any, would argue the existence of the ISIS terrorists.  Fewer still doubt the origins and motivation of the group.  Appearing on CNN’s “State of the Union” Senator Rand Paul (R-Kentucky) said: “I think we have to understand first how we got here,” …..”I think one of the reasons why ISIS has been emboldened is because we have been arming their allies. We have been allied with ISIS in Syria.”   ISIS features prominently in every new outlet around the world – but what’s with the Twitter?

 Curiously, while the conflict in Syria has destroyed its infrastructure, amidst the bombing, fleeing, starvation, power cuts and fuel shortages, mainstream media would have us believe that ISIS has successfully set up shop in Syria to recruit “jihadist” using Google Chat, Skype, and Twitter (CNN).   Clearly, these terrorists are tech-savvy and know how to use in Twitter Digital Terrorism.

 In their study, Burson-Marsteller concluded that Twitter was ‘a powerful channel for digital diplomacy’ – but what of propaganda?  To borrow from President Eisenhower, surely, Twitter propaganda ‘has proved its right to a place of dignity in our military arsenal.’

Let us recall the role Twitter played in Iran’s 2009 presidential elections. While the mainstream media in the US hailed the success of “Twitter Revolution” in Iran, Wired Magazine  dispelled the notion in an aptly titled article “Iran: Before You Have That Twitter-Gasm…” pointing to the origins of the tweets (US) and their irregularity.  Elsewhere, it was revealed that much of the mischief behind the ‘newsfeed’ from Iran traced back to Israel.

Egypt was another example.  The Western media contributed to the success of the Egyptian revolution to social media, Facebook and Twitter, earning Google boy Wael Ghonim a glorious, albeit fleeting moment in history.   This narrative obfuscated America’s role in the uprisings. Freedom House had provided “advanced training on civic mobilization, strategic thinking, new media, advocacy and outreach“.   In 2010, Freedom House boasted of teaching new media tools to Egypt’s “hope”.

This much said, what is the purpose behind tweeting gruesome images of mass killings in Iraq; proposing that Westerners are being recruited, and in some cases, ‘ordered to go back to Britain’ to continue the ‘jihad’; prompting the British PM David Cameron to warn that ‘jihadist were planning to attack Britain’ (The Telegraph)? Regardless of where these tweets are being originated, one must surely wonder Cui bono?

To understand to whose benefit, we must look at the potential impact of these messages.  Without a doubt, the fear instilled by seeing images of these atrocities could break down or weaken resistance.  This is an old tactic using modern technology.   For example, during the Persian Gulf War of 1991, PSYOP units dropped over 29 million leaflets to encourage Iraqi soldiers to surrender, usually by stressing the inevitability of their defeat.   Estimates show that “nearly 98% of all Iraqi prisoners acknowledged having seen a leaflet; 88% said they believed the message; and 70% said the leaflets affected their decision to surrender.” Of the estimated 100,000 soldiers who deserted or surrendered, many were found carrying leaflets in their hands or carrying them in their clothes[i].  It is plausible that surrender is a motive behind these tweets.

Additionally, both fear-induced surrender and revenge could serve to draw in fighters to side with one group or another, lubricating the killing machine.   As importantly, if not more so, the tweets promoted by mainstream media are intended not only for Western audiences, but also as far and wide as the media’s reach takes it.   Accompanied by propagandist commentaries and language such as another 9/11 is upon us, the US (with help from some allies) has presented a justification for intervention and occupation of sovereign lands – a plan in the making for decades (see Terror in Iraq; Roots and Motivation).

 In all this, there is another prize.  The US-led countries that devastated Iraq, Libya, and Syria in the last decade alone have been harshly criticized for barring refugees from entering their country, even those Iraqi interpreters who helped the allied forces.    The ‘threat’ of “jihadists” going to Britain (France, Germany, or elsewhere) ensures that that door is slammed shut in the faces of those who escape from the mayhem created by the “free and civilized world” (with help from local allies).

It may well be that these tactics are not without some forethought. In 2006, Max Boot who was introduced to a gathering at the Milken Institute as one of the top 500 most influential people in the making of US foreign policy in America, addressed the matter of  ‘homebound terrorists’.  Using 21^st century terminology ‘Jihadist’, he was referring to the 1859 invasion of Sudan by the British and the ease with which the crazy ‘jihadist Mahdi’ and his followers were gunned down without any fear of repercussion that the enemy – Sudanese who had been terrorized,  would follow them back to England.  In his view, these days, open borders posed a problem which could open the door to ‘enemy Jihadists’ retaliating.    Rest easy Max.  Twitter has solved the problem for you.

Soraya Sepahpour-Ulrich is an independent researcher and writer with a focus on U.S. foreign policy and the role of lobby groups in influencing US foreign policy.

Editor’s note: This story is one in a continuing series on Washington, D.C.’s information industry. The series seeks to illuminate the sometimes-misleading methods used by special interest groups to gain support for their agendas from government and average Americans.

When Arthur C. Brooks stepped on stage in December, the influential conservative’s mission was simple, yet ambitious: “If I do my job,” Brooks began his speech, “in the next few minutes I’m going to give you the secret to happiness.”

Standing before large block letters that spelled “H-A-P-P-I-N-E-S-S,” the charismatic president of the American Enterprise Institute, a conservative think tank, explained how genetics, major life events and choices all contribute to one’s well-being.

Brooks mentioned the importance of forging close relationships with family, promoted charitable giving and emphasized that “money doesn’t buy happiness.”

Nearing the end of his nearly 20-minute speech, Brooks said happiness also depends on … free markets?

“The earned-success system that brings you happiness is the system of free enterprise that lifts people out of poverty,” Brooks said. “Don’t work for the stateism, the collectivism that suppresses this,” he added. “Work for the free enterprise that makes this possible.”

Don’t worry, be happy

Proponents say the free market system encourages investment, stimulates innovation and increases efficiency. But according to Brooks, it also makes you happy and improves your well-being — even if you’re poor.

The message appears to be part of a new public relations initiative spearheaded by America’s most high-profile free-market advocates: Charles and David Koch, the billionaire brothers who have built a powerful political empire based on libertarian principles.

Brooks, whose high-profile think tank receives Koch funding, was recently tapped to serve on the advisory board of the Charles Koch Institute’s “Well-Being Initiative,” which “aims to advance our understanding of the meaning, foundations, and drivers of human flourishing” through research, education and discussion.

The initiative may be billed as a way to explore well-being, but some critics of the Koch brothers are skeptical.

“The question needs to be: Whose well-being are we talking about?” asks Tony Carrk, a director at the Center for American Progress, a liberal advocacy group that serves as a counterweight to the Koch brothers’ political operation. “The policies that the Koch brothers have promoted and put forward seem to only benefit those at the very top, at the expense of everyone else.”

Officials from the Charles Koch Institute did not respond to requests for comment.

The Kochs oversee a political ecosystem whose influence stretches far and wide — from think tanks and universities to trade associations and political action committees. As their public profile has risen, so too has criticism.

In January, Koch Industries, America’s second-largest privately held company, hired Steve Lombardo of global public relations firm Burson-Marsteller as “part of an effort by the Koch brothers to tell their story better,” according to Politico.

“Koch Industries is working to improve the daily life of people around the world,” he said, “and I look forward to working with the team to bring this story to the global marketplace.”

In May, Politico reported on a memo from the Koch brothers’ powerful political group Americans for Prosperity, which laid the groundwork for its future political operations.

“[W]e consistently see that Americans in general are concerned that free-market policy — and its advocates — benefit the rich and powerful more than the most vulnerable of society,” the memo read. “We must correct this misconception.”

Koch and the ‘true nature of well-being’

Charles Koch informally introduced the Well-Being Initiative in a January blog post titled, “The importance of well-being.”

“Through sound research, broad education and robust discussion, the Initiative aims to advance understanding of what it means to flourish, how to understand and measure the various aspects of well-being, and how to empower individuals to live better lives,” he wrote.

The Charles Koch Foundation, a separate nonprofit from Koch Institute and supporter of the Well-Being Initiative, recently posted on its website calls for research proposals, seeking “doctoral students interested in contributing to the academic exploration of the role free societies play in advancing human well-being and prosperity,” one proposal request states.

Before it recently underwent a redesign and many old links died, the Charles Koch Institute’s website had highlighted past well-being events and work published by Brooks and other board members dating back to last fall. It also linked to Brooks’ “Secret to Happiness” speech.

In December, Brooks published an op-ed in The New York Times titled, “A Formula for Happiness,” which mirrored his American Enterprise Institute speech. A few months later, in a Times op-ed about income inequality and what he referred to as the “rising sympathy for income redistribution,” he argued that there is “a strong link between economic envy and unhappiness.”

And in February, Brooks even managed to pull off the unthinkable: He got the Dalai Lama, a self-described socialist, to visit the American Enterprise Institute, which decries socialism.

The title of the panel discussion featuring the Tibetan leader: “Happiness, free enterprise, and human flourishing.”

Brooks did not respond to requests for comment.

Some recent well-being forums sponsored by the Charles Koch Institute have featured panel discussions on the economy, criminal justice and higher education, among others.

On Wednesday, the Charles Koch Institute will host what it’s calling its “Inaugural Well-Being Forum” at the Newseum in downtown Washington, D.C.

Not-so-diverse board

The five-member advisory board of the Well-Being Initiative includes Ángel Cabrera, president of George Mason University and Tyler Cowen, a popular libertarian professor at the school who has been dubbed “America’s Hottest Economist.”

As the Center reported in March, two of the six private charitable foundations the Koch brothers control and personally fund combined in 2012 to pump more than $12.7 million into colleges and universities. George Mason University has received more Koch money than any other school.

“The Charles Koch Foundation has been generous to the university, and they have supported various efforts in areas that are important to us, so this time around they wanted my guidance and advice, and I thought it would be a great thing to do,” Cabrera told the Center for Public Integrity in an interview.

Cabrera — not a libertarian, he says — explained that the Koch’s Well-Being Initiative lines up with the university’s strategic plan, which includes a well-being component. He refuted the idea that this initiative was all about promoting the Koch brothers’ libertarian ideology.

“If they had a pre-defined definition or ideology that they wanted to push with this effort, the last thing you want is free, independent thinkers telling you what to do,” he pointed out.

The initiative seeks to explore various research areas, including something called “neuroeconomics” — a field of study that merges brain science and economics to explore economic decision-making.

Advisory board member Paul Zak, aka “Dr. Love,” is a neuroeconomist and founding director of the Center for Neuroeconomics Studies at Claremont Graduate University. He is widely known for his research into the brain chemical oxytocin — which he calls the “moral molecule” that is key to improving social interactions, including those involving financial transactions.

Zak has concluded in his research that free markets are inherently moral.

In an interview, Zak told The Center for Public Integrity that he had reservations about joining the advisory board when he was first approached by Koch Institute officials about nine months ago.

“I said, ‘You guys have kind of a dicey reputation,’” Zak recalled, noting that he disagrees with some of the Koch brothers’ political efforts. “And they said, ‘Yeah, we know, and we want to start funding some good science so that we can allow people to draw their own conclusions.’”

Zak said officials convinced him that the Well-Being Initiative is apolitical.

“It seems non-agenda driven,” he said.

“We really want to understand [well-being] better and we want lots of people to use this. Let’s try to make a really global, useful, broad index and just see what it tells us about government policies, about economic growth, about all of these things that can affect people’s well-being.”

Still, Zak acknowledges that the initiative’s advisory board is dominated by libertarians. “Could [the board] be more diverse?” he asked. “Probably.”

More libertarianism

The other two advisory board member positions are filled by William Inboden, a professor of public affairs at the University of Texas-Austin, and Chris Rufer, the president and founder of the Morning Star Company.

A former fellow at the American Enterprise Institute, Inboden was previously the senior vice president of the London-based Legatum Institute, which publishes the “Prosperity Index,” ranking countries based on wealth, economic growth and quality of life.

Rufer is a board member of the Free to Choose Network, which produces broadcast programs that air on PBS stations. Last November, the network produced “Economic Freedom in Action: Changing Lives,” a documentary about how the “rise in economic freedom has led to increased prosperity and longevity, allowing more people to rise out of poverty and build positive futures for themselves and their children.”

The program, funded in part by Chris Rufer and his wife, aired on stations all across the country.

In an interview with the Center, Rufer said the Koch brothers’ message has been misinterpreted by the liberal media.

“Is it a PR move?” he asked. “Call it PR. What do you do when you put on a better shirt so you think the girls will look at you? Is that fraud? It’s not fraud. You’re just trying to represent yourself.”

This initiative, though, is good PR to a good end, he said.

“If you’re maliciously trying to deceive, well that’s bad,” he said. “But look at well-being and look at libertarianism and I think you’ll see it’s pretty consistent … because that is the objective of libertarianism: human welfare.”

Erin Quinn contributed to this story.

The wealthiest nation in the world cannot house its own people. Capitalist greed has eroded the stock of affordable housing, while bankers’ servants in government have systematically demolished public housing. State “homeless” programs blame the victims, assuming “that people experiencing homelessness are in some way individually inept.”

“Murdering and brutalizing people sleeping in public space is this system’s primary response to its homelessness problem.”

The problem of homelessness in the US is a crime of the capitalist system. Since US capitalism entered its last stage of neo-liberal imperialism beginning in the late 1970’s, the US ruling class has waged an all-out offensive on the working class and poor. Gains won through collective working class struggle in the early to mid-20th century went straight to Washington’s chopping block beginning in the 1980’s. Over the same period, the social necessity of housing became a lucrative market for speculative financial capitalists looking to turn a quick profit through predatory mortgage lending. The combination of these racist and exploitative practices has created a permanent and growing homelessness problem for the working class and poor in the so-called richest nation-state empire on the planet.

Homelessness has its roots in the 77 percent decrease in HUD (Housing and Urban Development) funding instituted by the Reagan Administration in 1983. Federal dollars for new low-income housing units were stopped. The remaining funds were invested in  “homeless programs” legislated into official policy through the McKinney Homeless Assistance Act (1987). This Act reinforced the racist and anti-poor ideology of neo-liberal imperialism. Instead of building new public housing units, Washington diverted funds into state and locally “targeted” emergency shelters, transitional programs, and “supportive services” as defined by the Act. Each “homeless” program rested on the assumption that people experiencing homelessness were in some way individually inept.  It was implied (and enforced) through these piece-meal services that what people experiencing homelessness needed was a reduction in personal “defect” rather than a home to live in.

“Homelessness has its roots in the 77 percent decrease in HUD (Housing and Urban Development) funding instituted by the Reagan Administration in 1983.”

Perpetual reductions in federal housing assistance and the shift to targeted homeless policies paved a clear path for finance capital to consolidate its rule over the housing market. Not only did imperialist banks red-line neighborhoods through racially discriminatory mortgage lending and create the conditions for the financial collapse of 2008, but the same financial institutions were also began their move to privatize public housing in collaboration with Washington. In 1992, Congress funded a program called Urban Revitalization Demonstration (URD), which in 1999 became the HOPE IV program. This program was advertised as a renovation project for public housing units. However, it was clear that both programs were Washington’s policy excuse to demolish existing public housing units at the request of the capitalist class.

Racism, as usual, justified the displacement of the poor. Advocates in Washington claimed that HOPE IV would alleviate “concentrated poverty” in US cities, comforting white hopes of displacing the Black community for resettlement and gentrification. Since 1995, 150,000 public housing units have been lost to demolition or sale and 300,000 project-based section-8 units have closed due to private ownership opting out of contracts with the Federal government. For the last three decades, the ruling class’s war on the poor and working class has created a growing sector of displaced persons who can neither afford privately owned houses and apartments nor access disintegrating subsidized housing programs. This is the primary cause of homelessness in the belly of US imperialism.

Recent counts conducted yearly of individuals experiencing homelessness in the US have totaled around 3.5 million. This number does not include families and only counts the number of emergency shelter beds and individuals sleeping on the streets in one particular day of January.  Meanwhile, there are eighteen million vacant homes in the US. To put this atrocity in perspective, capitalist Bill Gates has enough accumulated income to purchase every home in the city of Boston. Instead of ending the assault on public housing, opening vacant homes for the millions of people sleeping on the streets or shelters, and jailing the bankers responsible for both the austerity and foreclosure crisis, the US imperial state has criminalized homelessness with deadly consequences.  Police harassment, public humiliation, and in the case of the UK and Canada, concrete spikes in public spaces are daily punishments for being homeless in the US.  In 2011, Kelly Thomas was homeless when he was beaten to death by a swarm of police in Fullerton, California. This year, Albuquerque police murdered a homeless man, lethally shooting him outside of his outdoor encampment. The rulers of US neo-liberal imperialism have made it clear that murdering and brutalizing people sleeping in public space is this system’s primary response to its homelessness problem.

“The US imperial state has criminalized homelessness with deadly consequences.”

What allows the atrocities that stem from homelessness to occur is neo-liberal imperialism’s racist ideological foundation. Austerity, privatization, militarized policing, imperialist war, and economic “globalization” are all guided and justified by white settler racism. This diseased mentality conditions white superiority into the fabric of US imperial society. Poor and working class people are taught by the neo-liberal imperialist social structure to hate themselves and, for the white working class, to see all social safety net programs as a “hand-out” for Black Americans and darker skinned peoples who “choose” to live off “the system.” Such neo-liberal, racist ideology distorts the facts and divides poor and working class people from each other. Under these conditions, homelessness is normalized to the extent that many people experiencing it are more likely to blame Black people and immigrants for their plight than the US capitalist power structure responsible for the problem.

I work with people experiencing homelessness everyday. And each day, I see how the ideological and material conditions of US neo-liberal imperialism have stunted the political development of the very people experiencing homelessness. Many people I work with do not believe they deserve the right to a home.  This is a crime. Washington and the corporate ruling class are the guilty culprits. Neo-liberal imperialism possesses zero ability to address the housing crisis it created. For the working class and poor subjected to homelessness, this means that the US ruling circle will not stop its ideological and economic assault until the people stop it. Housing is a human right but it won’t be until we have power to make it so.

Danny Haiphong is an activist and case manager in the Greater Boston area. You can contact Danny at: [email protected].

The anger that erupted in the streets of Port-au-Prince on Jun. 5,10, and 19 also flared in the streets of New York on Thursday, Jun. 19, 2014.

Over 100 Haitians and North American activists, mobilized with only 48 hours notice, protested against the Happy Hearts Fund of super-model Petra Nemcova awarding Haitian President Michel Martelly a prize for his “leadership in education” in a sumptuous Manhattan ceremony. The foundation also gave the former President Bill Clinton a “Lifetime Achievement Award.”

One of the main chants of the demonstrators on 42nd Street outside the Cipriani restaurant was “Clinton, where is the money for reconstruction?” The answer was “in whose pockets?”

Clinton was responsible for overseeing the billions of dollars in aid pledged to Haiti after the devastating earthquake there four years ago. While rubble has finally been cleared from the streets, some 200,000 people still live in tents. Only a fraction of the permanent housing promised and needed has been built. Those built are often poorly designed, badly located, or incomplete.

Some schools and other public buildings have been replaced. The jobs promised shortly after the disaster were scattered and temporary.

Some of the demonstrators’ signs and chants charged that President Barack Obama has continued the Clinton policy toward Haiti i.e. neo-liberalism.

Image: From left to right, Prime Minister Laurent Lamothe, President Michel Martelly, and singer Sheryl Crow at one of the fundraiser’s 52 tables. The event brought in $2.5 million for the Happy Hearts Fund

Another issue raised both in Port-au-Prince and New York was the United Nations “peacekeeping” force, which has now been in Haiti over a decade. Haiti is at peace, demonstrators point out; the UN is just in Haiti to “enforce” the U.S. agenda there. Events in both Haiti and New York called for the MINUSTAH military occupation of the UN to leave Haiti immediately. Clinton is the UN Secretary General’s Special Envoy to Haiti.

In October 2010, the UN brought cholera to Haiti by the dumping untreated feces in Haiti’s largest river. To date, more than 830,000 Haitians have been sickened from cholera, while more than 8,000 have died. Despite the overwhelming evidence of its guilt, the UN has refused any form of redress for Haitian cholera victims with strong support from the United States and other imperialist powers on the UN Security Council.

As one sign said: “Reparations: the UN is standing on a lie. The UN knows, the UN is responsible, the UN is guilty!”

For the Jun. 19 protesters, the prize given to Martelly for his “initiative” in the domain of education is an “insult” not just to the Haitian diaspora in the United States but to the people living in Haiti.

Another charge raised in both Haiti and New York is that Martelly is a thief. Although the theft is unlikely to be proven in a court of law while he is president (a judge investigating his corruption suspiciously died one year ago), it is clear that President Martelly loves ostentatious luxury in the numerous trips abroad he makes. He reportedly gives himself a per diem expense account of $20,000. (Haiti Sentinel, December 13, 2012). This per diem does not cover other regular members of his entourage, like his wife. They get their own.

Image: On June 19, demonstrators rallied outside the Cipriani restaurant on 42nd Street to denounce the ceremony honoring Haitian president Michel Martelly and former US president Bill Clinton

“The ceremony inside the Cipriani restaurant is disgusting and hypocritical,” said Ray Laforest of the International Support Haiti Network (ISHN), one of the organizations that called the New York rally.

“Petra Nemcova, as Prime Minister Lamothe’s girlfriend, is a part of the Martelly government. Martelly himself calls her his Ambassador. The Martelly government is just giving itself an award, carrying out yet another charade, thinking that we Haitians are to stupid to understand the bluff. We hope that some of the clueless celebrities inside hear our voices.”

Many protesters in Port-au-Prince were teachers who have not been paid for months and students who came to support them.

The Cipriani restaurant, where the ceremony took place prize, is owned by an international company with a long history of conflict with Local 6 of the union UNITE-HERE and has been repeatedly prosecuted for how it distributes tips and salaries. It is often used for bourgeois celebrations.

The ceremony itself was conducted by Petra Nemcova, who founded the Happy Hearts Fund ten years ago. The event attracted a number of celebrities such as actress Naomi Watts, figure skater Scott Hamilton, radio personality Dr. Ruth, singers Sheryl Crow and Bono, and members of the musical group Black Eyed Peas.

According to the”Page 6″ column of the New York Post, “when Nemcova auctioned off a trip to Ibiza on a private jet (complete with a seven-night stay on a yacht) for $85,000, she said she’d throw in a kiss, but then brandished a red ruler and told the crowd she’d spank the lucky winner if they ponied up $100,000.”

With tickets sales and the auction, the foundation raised $2.5 million, according to the Daily News.

Designer Donna Karan, reading from a script clearly given to her by the government, claimed that the Martelly government “has increased school attendance from 46% in 2012 to 83% in 2013 while subsidizing over 1.4 million school children’s tuition,” statistics which are as precise as they are suspicious. The Martelly/Lamothe government is infamous for throwing out concocted figures to give their propaganda an allure of reality. Martelly has “truly uplifted the country,” Ms. Karan said.

She then presented the award to Martelly, who took the floor to say that “today I am here to talk about children’s education, which is the centerpiece of my vision for Haiti.” To prove it, Martelly explained that “my first act on May 14, 2011 was to inaugurate with Petra the Happy Hearts School.” Making the inauguration of the school of his business partner’s girlfriend’s NGO is not exactly presidential.

During the ceremony, President Martelly sang two duets with Haitian singer Wyclef Jean: “Let It Be Me” and “No Woman, No Cry.” Protesters booed Wyclef when he entered the restaurant. Martelly, Lamothe, and Clinton found it wiser to enter through a rear door.

Mr. Clinton, presented by Ms. Nemcova, also spoke after receiving his award.

The Dessalines Coordination (KOD), KAKOLA, and ISHN were among the Haitian groups sponsoring the New York rally, which also included many members of the Lavalas Family chapter in New York. The International Action Center, the ANSWER Coalition, Harlem Tenants Council, and Socialist Action were among the North American groups who supported and came out for the rally.

Maude Barlow, founder of the Blue Planet Project and Chair of Food & Water Watch, recently visited Detroit, Michigan in the United States and heard firsthand accounts from residents who were having their water services cut off by the Detroit Water and Sewerage Department (DWSD). This report was produced from information gathered by Maude Barlow, the Michigan Welfare Rights Organization, and the Detroit People’s Water Board. The Detroit People’s Water Board is campaigning to have these essential services restored to the thousands of households currently without water service pursuant to a just and affordable rate structure, and to prevent future cut-offs.

About the Detroit People’s Water Board

The Detroit People’s Water Board is a coalition that includes AFSCME Local 207, Detroit Black Community Food Security Network, Detroit Green Party, East Michigan Environmental Action Council, Food & Water Watch, For Love Of Water (FLOW), Great Lakes Bioneers Detroit, Matrix Theater, Michigan Emergency Committee Against War & Injustice, Michigan Welfare Rights Organization, Rosa and Raymond Parks Institute, Sierra Club and Voices for Earth Justice. The coalition advocates for access, protection, and conservation of water and promotes the human right to water.

About the Blue Planet Project

The Blue Planet Project is a global initiative that works with organizations and activists around the world to promote water as a human right and a commons. This includes working with local organi-zations and activists on grassroots struggles to protect democratic, community control of water, and building a movement to see the full implementation of the human right to water and sanitation. The Blue Planet Project is affiliated with international networks including Friends of the Earth Interna-tional, Red Vida (the Americas Network on the Right to Water) and the People’s Health Movement.

About Food & Water Watch

Food & Water Watch works to ensure the food, water and fish we consume is safe, accessible and sustainably produced. So we can all enjoy and trust in what we eat and drink, we help people take charge of where their food comes from, keep clean, affordable, public tap water flowing freely to our homes, protect the environmental quality of oceans, force government to do its job protecting citizens, and educate about the importance of keeping the global commons – our shared resources – under public control.

About the Michigan Welfare Rights Organization

The Michigan Welfare Rights Organization represents and fights for the victims of poverty. We organize to eliminate poverty and to stop the war against the poor. We are working with people to deal with the current water crisis in the City of Detroit by advocating for low income people to demand fair treatment, registering complaints against the Detroit Water and Sewerage Department (DWSD), organizing protests at the DWSD offices and Detroit local government buildings, alerting people to resources – when available – to help with their water bills, and speaking out on the human right to water in the media and at public events.

Violation of the Human Right to Water and Sanitation in the  City of Detroit, Michigan, U.S.

Context:

The City of Detroit is facing a major water crisis as a result of decades of policies that have put corporate business and profit ahead of the public good and human rights. Social programs and investments in essential infrastructure have been slashed. According to the Detroit News, the City of Detroit’s water department runs a chronic deficit and, like many other public water infrastructure systems, needs more than $5 billion for urgently needed upgrades to the city’s water system.¹

In 2009, the DWSD asked the state regulatory authority, the Michigan Department of Environmental Quality (MDEQ), to modify its permit to eliminate the release of raw sewage into the Detroit and Rouge Rivers. The DWSD claimed economic hardship, contending that upgrades to its aging sewer system would place an undue financial burden on the system. MDEQ and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency agreed, allowing the DWSD to cut costs by giving the department more time to comply with the Clean Water Act.

Until recently, every winter, hundreds of aging pipes spewed water from leaks as the water had not been turned off in thousands of abandoned houses and boarded-up businesses. While there have been efforts to address this recently, it continues to be an ongoing problem.

With globalization and the hollowing out of the once mighty auto industry, wealth and businesses fled to the suburbs in Detroit, draining the city of its tax base and the water department of its revenues. There are now 1 million fewer people living in Detroit than there were in the 1950s.

The case of water cut-offs in the City of Detroit speaks to the deep racial divides and intractable economic and social inequality in access to services within the United States. The burden of paying for city services has fallen onto the residents who have stayed within the economically depressed city, most of whom are African-American. These residents have seen water rates rise by 119 per cent within the last decade. With official, understated unemployment rates at a record high and the official, understated poverty rate at about 40 per cent, Detroit water bills are unaffordable to a significant portion of the population.

The City of Detroit declared bankruptcy in the summer of 2013. A high-priced bankruptcy lawyer was named its Emergency Manager with a mandate to get the city back on its feet financially by imposing a savage austerity regime. Nothing is off the chopping block, including water utilities, which are being considered for regionalization, sale, lease, and/or a public-private partnership and are currently subject to mediation by a federal district judge. The Detroit People’s Water Board fears that authorities see people’s unpaid water bills as a “bad debt” and want to sweeten the pot for a private investor by imposing even more of the costs of the system on those least able to bear them. The service cut-offs for anyone more than two months behind in payments appear to be the city’s last-ditch attempt to make up for lost revenues. A contract with a private operator seeking prof-its will only lead to greater hikes in service fees and even less affordable, more unjust barriers to equitable access to vital water. That this massive human rights atrocity is occurring near the largest group of freshwater lakes on the planet, with very little media attention, is a foreboding sign of the times.

The Michigan Welfare Rights Organization (MWRO) argues that these water cut-offs to poor Detroit households need to be understood within a broader context of Detroit’s appeal in the real estate market. With its proximity to the Great Lakes and the Canadian border, the city is considered prime real estate, and is available at fire sale prices. People’s overdue water bills are being transferred to their property taxes and people are losing their homes as a result. Given the utility’s lack of interest in cutting costs or generating revenues by collecting on the arrears of business users, fixing leaking pipes, and cutting off services to abandoned homes, the organization sees the crackdown as a ploy to drive poor people of color out of the city to facilitate gentrification – what the Michigan Welfare Rights Organization refers to as a “land-grab.”

Water cut-offs

In March 2014, the water and sewer department announced it would begin shutting off water service for 1,500 to 3,000 customers per week.²

According to a DWSD document obtained by the Sierra Club, there are more than 179,000 residential water accounts in Detroit. By April 30, 2014, more than 83,000 of them were past due. The aver-age amount owed per household was just over $540.³

In a report by the DWSD’s Director, dated May 28, 2014, it is noted there were “44,273 notices sent to customers in April 2014, resulting in 3,025 shut-offs for non-payment.”⁴ The water department has said it will turn the water off to all residences that owe money by the end of the summer.

In a phone conversation, city spokesperson Greg Eno confirmed that the city would be ramping up cut-offs to 3,000 residents per week starting June 2. The city would not confirm exact figures over the phone of how many people in Detroit are without water, and did not respond to a follow-up email request.

The Detroit People’s Water Board is hearing directly from people impacted by the water cut-offs who say they were given no warning and had no time to fill buckets, sinks and tubs before losing access to water. In some cases, the cut-offs occurred before the deadline given in notices sent by the city. Sick people have been left without running water and working toilets. People recovering from surgery cannot wash and change bandages. Children cannot bathe and parents cannot cook.

The MWRO is working with people who have been affected by the crisis. According to the MWRO, mass water shut-offs began in April. The organization estimates that as many as 30,000 households will have had water shut off over the next few months.

The MWRO was contacted in June by a woman who had been living without water since February. She applied for State Emergency Relief, but was denied because she has no income, having reached the 60-month time limit on her welfare benefits. She was living on loans from friends and her church.

According to the organization, there are thousands of other people in similar situations who have exceeded the five-year limit on their welfare benefits. Many have been told that they don’t qualify for disability benefits even though they are disabled.

With two-thirds of the water cut-offs happening in homes with children, families are concerned and afraid to speak out. They understandably fear, based on experience, that child welfare authorities will remove children from their homes in accordance with state policy that there be working utilities in all homes housing children.

Detroit Free Press

According to an article in the , there are many low-income families that are struggling to keep their utilities on.“The need is huge,” said Mia Cupp, Director of Development and Communications for the Wayne Metropolitan Community Action Agency, one organization that is trying to assist families. “There are families that have gone months and months without water.”⁵

The MWRO says some families have been living without water for over a year and eventually be-come homeless as a result. These people are forced to abandon their homes after they run into problems with cracked pipes in the winter. Once people leave their homes, the houses get broken into, are stripped of valuable materials and become unsafe to return to.

Families concerned about children being taken away by authorities due to lack of water and sanitation services in the home have been sending their children to live with relatives and friends, which has an impact on school attendance and related activities. Teachers and social workers are required to contact authorities when they become aware that children are living without water at home.

The Blue Planet Project was contacted by a teenager whose home had its water services disconnected for a day and a half. The family had to purchase bottled water to meet their basic needs and was unable to prepare food.

The MWRO says that even when people make efforts to pay a portion of their water bill, the water department will not turn their water back on unless they pay 30 per cent of the amount owing, which in many cases is thousands of dollars. In fact, the amount owing on people’s bills is often in dispute, and the water department is unwilling to restore service (or to halt the shut-off process) while the dispute is being resolved.

The MWRO was recently contacted by a woman who moved in to care for her ailing father, who had received a shut-off notice from the DWSD. She offered to make the full payment, but was told the DWSD would not accept the payment because the bill was in her father’s name and she did not have papers to show she was his representative. Her picture I.D. has the same address as his, but the DWSD would not accept payment.

The MWRO reports similar concerns of unnecessary administrative barriers for people who try to get their connection restored after moving into new homes. Once your connection is shut off, the administrative and monetary requirements for getting connections restored have kept people cut off for longer than necessary.

One person whose water was cut off recently offered the following statement in an e-mail to the MWRO on May 27, 2014:

“Yes, my water has been off since Friday, May 16, and I have paid my full bill in full ($320) on Monday, [May] 19, and still do not have water due to the extreme hurdle one has to comply with to get it turned back on, [including producing a] deed to the property, lease agreement-notarized, mortgage documents, tax records, driver’s licence, social security cards, notarized statements from the owners of the property, background checks, etc. My father’s house is in probate court and I cannot have the water turned on!”

According to Maureen Taylor, Chairperson of the MWRO, the DWSD is issuing past due notices that have a red line across the front of the bill. Notices are issued when bills reportedly reach $150 or more, with a 10-day window before water shut-offs can happen.

When Maude Barlow spoke to groups campaigning for water connections to be restored, she was told that as a cost-cutting measure, the water department stopped sending bills, expecting residents to figure out their own bills. It then installed “smart meters” that read retroactively and many families were hit with bills for thousands of dollars. Many of these bills were from former tenants, and many included water bills from nearby abandoned houses, but that didn’t matter to the authorities. The MWRO recently spoke to a woman whose water was shut off without any notice from the city. She reported that when she and her Department of Human Services worker called the water department, she was informed that if people have outstanding bills for more than two months no advance notice is required. In another instance, a woman was sent a shut-off notice, and then the contractor (the water department has private contractors doing the shut-offs) showed up two days prior to the date indicated on the notice. She reported that the contractor refused to give her or her pregnant neighbor time to fill any containers before they shut off the water.

The MWRO has heard from people who are being charged as much as $500 per month for water. One member estimated the average water bill for a family of four is $150 to $200 per month. The MWRO says, “for thousands of people in this city – and in the surrounding suburbs as well – this represents as much as 20 per cent of their monthly income.” These bills include two charges: one for water service and another charge for sewerage service. The sewerage charges are about twice the water charges.

A MWRO volunteer explains:

“Many poor people are forced to accept payment plans that they know they can’t afford just to keep their water on (or lights, gas, telephone) until the next shut-off notice. They end up defaulting on these agreements, try to set up new ones and the next one is worse. The utility companies ask for a higher deposit and higher payment plan.”

Many corporations and institutions are also in arrears on their bills, but have not been targeted in the same way as residential users. A Sierra Club representative attended one of the department’s finance committees and learned that 57 per cent of “city commercial” users had not paid their water bills (10,042 out of 18,057) with an average bill totaling $1,976.98. Fifty-five per cent of “city industrial” users were delinquent (869 out of 1,588) with an average bill totaling $10,817.96. In total, there are 10, 911 delinquent commercial and industrial users owing the city $29,253,599.93. The Detroit People’s Water Board argues it would be more just and efficient for the DWSD to spend its resources collecting unpaid bills from commercial and industrial users than depriving house-holds of basic services.

Conclusion

The Blue Planet Project, Food & Water Watch, the Detroit People’s Water Board and the Michigan Welfare Rights Organization are outraged about the violation of the human right to water and sanitation in the City of Detroit and call on the authorities to take immediate action to restore water services and stop further cut-offs.

Recommendations:

1.We call on the State of Michigan and the U.S. government to respect the human right to water and sanitation.

2. We call on the city to restore services to households that have been cut off immediately.

3. We call on the city to abandon its plan for further cut-offs.

4. We call on the federal and state governments to work with the city to ensure a sustainable public financing plan and rate structure that would prevent a transfer of the utility’s financial burden onto residents who are currently paying exorbitant rates for their water services.

5. We call for fair water rates for the residents of Detroit.

6. We call on the City of Detroit to implement the original water affordability program immediately.

 

Notes:

1 Detroit News, Editorial: Water cut-offs send notice to scofflaws, March 26, 2014.

2 http://www.clickondetroit.com/news/investigations/sinking-in-unpaid-water-bills-dwsd-owed-118-mil- lion/25370670

3 Detroit Water and Sewerage Department Retail Delinquency Report by Sales Class – accounts billed between April 1 and April 30, 2014.

4 http://dwsd.org/downloads_n/about_dwsd/director/directors_report_2014-05-28.pdf

5 http://www.freep.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=2014303220010

The United Nations has condemned the administration of the US city of Detroit for violating the basic human rights of its citizens by turning off their water taps.

On Monday, a coalition of activist groups appealed to the UN’s special rapporteur over reports that cash-strapped residents in Detroit are being disconnected from water services.

According to reports, about half of the Detroit Water and Sewerage customers have not paid their bills.

The department has started cutting off water supplies to these customers on a large scale, three UN rights experts said in a statement issued on Wednesday.

“Disconnection of water services because of failure to pay due to lack of means constitutes a violation of the human right to water and other international human rights,” the experts said.

“The households which suffered unjustified disconnections must be immediately reconnected,” they added.

In July 2013, Detroit, the birthplace of the US auto industry, became the largest American city to ever file for bankruptcy protection.

In December 2013, a federal judge ruled that Detroit was eligible for bankruptcy in what has become the largest municipal bankruptcy in US history. The city is $18.5 billion in debt.

Catarina de Albuquerque, an expert on the right to water and sanitation, called on the US government take action to help protect families living in poverty against disconnections.

“When there is genuine inability to pay, human rights simply forbids disconnections,” she said.

Leilani Farha, the expert on the right to adequate housing, said that water shutoffs were having devastating consequences, with social services removing children from their homes.

And “if these water disconnections disproportionately affect African Americans they may be discriminatory, in violation of treaties the United States has ratified,” she noted.

Watch video here

The Race to the Bottom under global, militarized capitalism creates communities of shared misery. Increasingly, it is almost as dangerous to be inside U.S. borders as on the outside. “Iraq was invaded with soldiers, guns and bombs. Detroit was invaded by the corporate ‘suits’ who made a fast buck for themselves.” Both are plundered by the same bandits.

“All of former mayor Kwame Kilpatrick’s incompetence could not have created the ongoing occupation of Detroit by the thieves in high places.”

The ugly face of empire and disaster capitalism is visible all over the world. Detroit, Michigan, was once a thriving city but was sent into a tailspin by the deindustrialization of the United States, white flight, and institutional racism which blamed black people who were in fact the victims of catastrophe. The coup de grace was delivered by big banks like UBS, Bank of America and Barclays, which sold risky derivatives schemes to corrupt Detroit politicians. When the financial deal inevitably headed south, the banks were the creditors first in line for a payout.

Far back in that line were the workers and people of Detroit. The emergency manager, Kevyn Orr, whose very position they had voted against establishing, rules the city. The new mayor is a figurehead and the people have no representation as the Republican governor and emergency manager remake the city for capital and the gentrifying settler class.

A world away in Iraq, a nation is crumbling under the weight of eleven years of violent occupation by the United States. The once developing nation is now a ruin, with all of its infrastructure and systems from health care to education destroyed by western avarice. The prime minister who was chosen with America’s blessing, Nouri al-Maliki, has now become an inconvenience and faces a bleak fate.

“In the United States, residents of a major city must plead to the international community for the right to access water.”

The Bush administration and now the Obama team determined that promoting one side in sectarian political disputes would make for a smooth running and profitable occupation. Instead they brought war between Sunni and Shia and with goal of knocking down more dominoes, continued to fund jihadists who always upset their plans. Now Maliki is being told to get out of office if he wants help in crushing the enemies that America made for his country.

Just as Iraq’s infrastructure has been destroyed, Detroit residents now live without basic services which ought to be regarded as the right of every human being. In the United States, a country which boasts of its high level of advancement, residents of a major city must plead to the international community for the right to access water.

In a city already on the brink, the powers that be chose to pressure struggling people to pay increased fees for water. They have also used harsh and sometimes improper methods to deprive even those who have paid their bills. No one can survive at all without water to drink, and one cannot survive very well without water for cooking, cleaning and sanitation. Very powerful people in boardrooms and government offices made decisions that turned Detroit into an Iraq in America’s midst and now sneer at pleas for mercy.

Desperate Detroiters represented by the Blue Planet Project, the Michigan Welfare Rights Organization, Food & Water Watch and the Detroit People’s Water Board, have made their case to the United Nations Special Rapporteur on the Human Right to Safe Drinking Water. They issued a report which outlines the latest scheme to destroy Detroit as a city and as a home to poor and working people. The plan will ultimately privatize the water system and make Detroit another location for prime real estate and riches for the few.

“Very powerful people in boardrooms and government offices made decisions that turned Detroit into an Iraq in America’s midst and now sneer at pleas for mercy.”

President Obama and his cohorts in the Democratic and Republican parties will go to any lengths to prop up the empire, but do little to help people in need. American allies in Ukraine or Iraq and other countries receive astronomical sums of money in order to help maintain Manifest Destiny. Poor people in Detroit and the rest of the country are not so lucky. They are seen only as obstacles to putting the rule of capital firmly in place.

Iraq was invaded with soldiers, guns and bombs. Detroit was invaded by the corporate “suits” who made a fast buck for themselves. The end result is the same for Michiganders and Iraqis alike. They end up suffering in a plundered society while other people make out like the bandits that they really are.

The organizations which reached out to the U.N. took an important step in changing the Detroit narrative. Politicians and the corporate media dismiss the city’s troubles as the fault of incompetent black people. All of former mayor Kwame Kilpatrick’s incompetence could not have created the ongoing occupation of Detroit by the thieves in high places. The outreach to the United Nations is important for another reason. It points out that millions of Americans live an existence far from the myth of the great country. They are struggling to survive just like millions in the so-called third world. It is the gangsters who run the show in Baghdad and in Michigan too.

 

Margaret Kimberley‘s Freedom Rider column appears weekly in BAR, and is widely reprinted elsewhere. She maintains a frequently updated blog as well as at http://freedomrider.blogspot.com.  

Ms. Kimberley lives in New York City, and can be reached via e-Mail at Margaret.Kimberley(at)BlackAgendaReport.com.

Paul Singer, the billionaire hedge fund manager, has claimed victory in a lawsuit to force Argentina to fork out almost 17 times more than he paid to buy bonds issued by the country.

After Argentina’s economy crashed in 2001 and it defaulted on $80 billion in bonds, Singer’s Elliott Capital Management paid $49 million to buy $220 million in Argentine debt. Over the last 13 years, the value of these bonds has risen to $832 million which Singer wants paid off in full. Singer has been joined by several other Wall Street speculators such as Aurelius Capital Management and Blue Angel who together hold a total of $1.3 billion in Argentine debt.

In the meantime, after extensive negotiations, almost all other holders of Argentina’s total $93 billion in debt agreed to forgive as much as 70 percent of what they were owed, recognizing that the country was in dire financial straits.

“Society needs a way to allow people to start over again. This is why we have bankruptcy,” writes Martin Wolf in the Financial Times. “Indeed, we allow the most important private actors in our economies – companies – to enjoy limited liability. The ease with which US corporations can walk away from their creditors is breathtaking. A similar logic applies to countries.”

Image: Protest outside Elliott Capital Management offices in New York. Photo: Jubilee Debt Campaign. Used under Creative Commons license.

But there is no international bankruptcy court for countries. Instead, beginning in 2009, Singer and his friends took advantage of the fact that much of the debt was issued under New York laws and went after Argentina in U.S. courts.

This is not the first time that Singer, a lawyer trained at Harvard, has taken advantage of governments in dire straits. The Democratic Republic of the Congo was forced to pay him $90 million for $20 million in debt in 2002 and Peru had to pay him $58 million for debt he bought for $11 million in 1995.

But Argentina has refused to play ball so far. “We will not reward loan sharks who bought defaulted bonds for next to nothing and have refused a deal that would have represented a clear profit, asking much more, even several times the amount they spent,” wrote Hector Timerman, the Argentine minister of foreign affairs in the Huffington Post.

“If Argentina beats Paul Singer and others, the consequence may well be a world where vulture funds’ actions against developing countries are history. A place free of these scavengers would benefit not only my country, but also other poor nations in Africa and Latin America.”

It has been an uphill struggle for Argentina, however. In November 2012, a U.S. court ruled that the country to pay all the bondholders at the same time. The problem with this ruling that if Argentina paid Singer and his friends the full amount they want, other creditors could well want to be paid in full also, making the country liable for as much as $15 billion immediately, more than half the country’s reserves. All told Argentina might face a total debt of some $120 billion.

Argentina appealed the decision at the U.S. Supreme Court but the judges refused to hear the case last week. Now Argentina faces a June 30 deadline when it is supposed to pay the next installment of interest to all bondholders.

Other countries have waded into this battle. Brazil, France and Mexico supported Argentina in its losing bid at the U.S. Supreme Court while a Ghanian court allowed Singer’s group to seize an Argentine vessel ARA Libertad last October.

Despite Argentina’s court losses, progressives say that its citizens are vastly better off today because of the country’s hard-nosed negotiations with bond holders to date and its refusal to cut social spending to pay off its debt back in 2001.

“For comparison, look at Greece,” writes Mark Weisbrot, the co-director of the Center for Economic and Policy Research.

“After six years of austerity-driven recession, which included a 40 percent cut in health care spending, the unemployment rate stands at 26.8 percent (and more than double that rate for youth) and the net public debt has grown to 169 percent of the country’s gross domestic product.”

Over the past two dozen years, the massive damage that the U.S. has inflicted on Iraq’s population, infrastructure and environment includes the residue from American “depleted uranium” weapons that can cause cancer and other illnesses.

A new report from the Netherlands based on U.S. Air Force firing coördinates shows that the U.S. military fired its armor-piercing munitions  ¾  made of waste uranium-238 which is called “depleted uranium” or DU  ¾  into civilian areas of Iraq and at Iraqi troops during the 2003 invasion and occupation, defying the U.S. Air Force’s own legal advice that the toxic and radioactive ammunition be used only against hardened targets in compliance with the Laws of War.

The study, “Laid to Waste,” by the Dutch organization PAX found that the lack of legal obligations on U.S.-led militaries in Iraq to help clean-up after using DU weapons has resulted in Iraqi civilians and workers continuing to be exposed to the highly toxic heavy metal years after the war. The health risks posed by the inadequate management of Iraq’s DU contamination are unclear because neither U.S.-led forces nor the Iraqi government have supported health research into civilian DU exposures.

President George W. Bush and members of his national security team in Iraq in 2007

High-risk groups include people living near or working on dozens of Iraqi scrap metal sites where thousands of military vehicles  ¾ destroyed in the 1991 and 2003 bombardments  ¾  are stored or processed. Waste sites often lack official oversight and in places it has taken more than 10 years to decontaminate military wreckage from residential neighborhoods.

Hundreds of locations that were hit by the weapons, many of which are in populated areas, remain undocumented, and concern among Iraqi civilians over potential health effects from exposure, ingestion and inhalation is widespread.

“To help clean-up we urgently need to know the location and quantities of DU fired,” said the report’s author Wim Zwijnenburg. “The Iraqi government is also in dire need of technical support to help manage the many scrap metal sites where contaminated vehicles are stored.”

The ongoing refusal by the United States to release targeting information continues to hinder the assessment and management of DU in Iraq. The Dutch military contributed a few thousand troops to the Coalition Forces in Iraq, and peacekeepers in Kosovo, and raised alarms over contamination in 2001 and 2006.

A handful of U.S. targeting coordinates held by the Dutch Ministry of Defense, and released after a Freedom of Information Act request, show that U.S. war planes used DU weapons against a far wider range of targets and sites than previously suspected, including Iraqi troops. The U.S. and British governments have long asserted that DU is only for use against armored vehicles. They have often been called “tank busters.”

Depleted Uranium, a by-product of uranium enrichment for reactor fuel and H-bombs, is categorized as an intermediate-level radioactive waste; contaminated rubble and scrap metal are considered low-level radioactive waste. The Dutch study finds that international guidelines for dealing with both kinds of waste  ¾  from the International Commission on Radiological Protection  ¾ were ignored and that the Iraqi government did not have the technical capacity to safely manage such contamination.

Unlike anti-personnel landmines and other explosive remnants of war, no treaty currently obliges DU users to help clean-up after the war. However, civil radiation protection standards place the responsibility firmly at the foot of the polluters.

Low estimates suggest that at least 440,000 kilograms (488 tons) of DU was fired by the United States in both Gulf Wars in 1991 and 2003. Civilians living near contaminated sites, scrap-yard workers, Iraqi doctors and researchers have repeatedly voiced concerns over the effects of DU on health and the environment.

Hans von Sponeck, a former UN Assistant Secretary General and UN humanitarian coördinator for Iraq, told the Guardian last October, “There is definitive evidence of an alarming rise in birth defects, leukemia, cancer and other carcinogenic diseases in Iraq after the war.”

“In 2001, I saw in Geneva how a World Health Organization mission to conduct on-spot assessments in Basra and southern Iraq, where DU had led to devastating environmental health problems, was aborted under U.S. political pressure,” Sponeck said.

 

John LaForge is a Co-director of Nukewatch, a nuclear watchdog and environmental justice group in Wisconsin, edits its quarterly newsletter, and writes for PeaceVoice.

Douglas Valentine’s The Phoenix Program is vital for understanding the history of terrorism and its role in political warfare. Few other historical accounts provide as much detail on how the U.S. government and the CIA began to use programs for counterterrorism to implement political policy through secretive, coldblooded actions. Understanding such history is critical to making sense of what is happening in our world today.

Although implemented as a means of countering terrorism, Valentine shows how the Phoenix Program was in practice a CIA-controlled campaign of terror in Vietnam. Hidden behind terms like pacification and neutralization, Phoenix implemented a program of terror and psychological warfare against the civilian population. Under the guise of counter terrorism, tens of thousands of civilians were kidnapped, tortured, and murdered.

Valentine explains how the purpose of Phoenix was to terrorize the people into submission, not only causing them to fear any possible association with the enemy but also as a means to crush dissent. Unfortunately for many Vietnamese peasants, they were caught in a world in which they were terrorized by both sides in the long-lasting conflict. Using psychological warfare techniques, Phoenix promised to protect the people from terrorism while simultaneously terrorizing them.

The book describes the history of the program well. Phoenix and its precursor ICEX aligned the CIA-supported Provincial Reconnaissance Units (PRUs) with police and paramilitary programs to create a system for capturing or killing suspects in targeted ways. Once captured and brought in for interrogation, the suspect was as good as dead. The growing fear of this program led to further abuses including false accusations and payoffs. The contractor Pacific Architects and Engineers built interrogation centers in every province and doubled as an employment front for other CIA operatives.

The U.S. Army’s participation in Phoenix led to the military purposefully targeting civilians. In 1968, Defense Secretary Clark Clifford called for Phoenix to be “pursued more vigorously.” In March of that year 504 men, women and children were killed in My Lai. Although it was covered up, Valentine argues that My Lai was a product of Phoenix, under CIA control.

Many of the characters in Valentine’s book went on to play infamous roles in other scandals. Clark Clifford, for example, went on to lead the notorious Bank of Credit and Commerce International (BCCI), discovered to be a CIA-controlled terrorist network. Clayton McManaway, hired by William Colby as a Phoenix program manager, later became a principal advisor in the ransacking of Iraq under L. Paul Bremer in 2003. Most remarkably, control of Phoenix was transferred to Ted Shackley in 1969. Shackley would become the leader of the “CIA within the CIA,” and was implicated in events like the Iran-Contra crimes. These facts demonstrate that once something like Phoenix is created and allowed to flourish, the philosophy and machinery behind it does not go away.

This book is well written and every page holds the reader’s attention. More importantly, it provides great historical background and analysis that is crucial to understanding terrorism and how it drives government policy today.

The Phoenix Program is now part of a new series edited by Mark Crispin Miller called the Forbidden Bookshelf.

Hillary Clinton, indeed, speaks out strongly for and supports women’s rights – except when they get in the way of the true top interest of Clinton and people like her: US plutocratic gain.

Thus, Hillary Clinton has supported or, despite her huge platform, done nothing to oppose, the most extreme crimes against women (and everyone else) throughout her political ascension.

Policies Hillary Clinton has supported or been unopposed to have killed, maimed, crippled, scarred, made homeless, and orphaned millions of little girls and women. See various sections in this record.

Here are two particularly egregious examples of Clinton’s specific prioritization of US plutocratic gain over women’s rights:

Afghanistan / Saudi Arabia:

While acting as a bastion of women’s rights, Hillary Clinton utters barely a peep about major US allies, like Saudi Arabia and Bahrain, who wickedly repress women and others through murder, beatings, floggings, stoning, torture, and other forms.

Saudi Arabia is the only country where women are not allowed to drive.

When asked about women trying to obtain the right to drive cars in US-backed Saudi Arabia, Clinton made some mild statements, outside of Saudi Arabia, and the Obama/Clinton regime continued to heavily support (biggest weapons shipments in US history) and work closely with (arming jihadists) Saudi Arabia, which Clinton herself stated in a (leaked) diplomatic cable is the world’s biggest supporter of Sunni terrorism, as well as the Taliban and Al Qaeda (see “Terrorism” section).

Clinton’s mild rhetoric regarding extremist repression of women by this major US ally (and others) stands in stark contrast to her rhetoric about leaders of US-deterrent states. This applies to Putin, regarding his bloodless absorption of Crimea (which faces far less opposition from the international community than annexation (Israel) and criminal sanction (Cuba) policies supported by the USA). For Crimea, Clinton referred to Putin as Hitler. She saves her strong rhetoric for people who stand in the way of US imperial domination goals, not for US allies who abuse women, ethnically cleanse, commit genocide, torture children, and the like. (See various sections herein.) Nor is Clinton’s strong rhetoric used for US officials (including herself) who commit torture, aggression, terrorism, genocide, occupation, annexation, and sponsor systematic abusers of women like the Saudis, the Taliban, and various other jihadists.

Clinton’s record, in virtually every instance, consists of prioritizing forceful US domination of the world over women’s rights, human rights, democracy, and the like. Those terms are good for propaganda, but when they present obstacles to the real interests of US power, the concepts are ignored, blocked, prevented, and/or intentionally destroyed.

On Hillary Clinton and support for the Taliban from Bill Clinton and US corporations, such as dirty energy company “Unocal”:

“[W]hen a [Bill] Clinton official was reminded that the Taliban persecuted women, he said, “We can live with that.” (here)

As Hillary Clinton, despite her huge platform, remained silent on numerous acts of terror and genocide committed by the USA, thus passively supporting or accepting those acts (see various sections herein), she remained silent, when she was supposed to, on support for the Taliban from her husband and US corporations:

“…a strong campaign [was] waged by rights activists in America, particularly the Feminist Majority led by Eleanor Smeal and Mavis Leno, which lobbied Hilary Clinton and Madeleine Albright very fiercely to stop the Unocal project and come out against the Taliban’s repression of women. [But] the Clinton administration viewed the Taliban’s rise favorably… [because, in addition to two other strategic reasons] the U.S. wanted to build this pipeline. There was a lot of support from the Pentagon and the State Department for the Unocal effort.” (here)

Thus, for US plutocratic gain and imperial strategic reasons, Hillary Clinton, champion of “women’s rights”, dutifully kept her mouth shut, and outright refused to open it and take advantage of her platform as First Lady, while the Taliban brutally abused women and others, with US support.

“As it became clearer that Taliban policy-makers were beginning to lean toward Bridas [a non-US oil company] by late 1997, the Clinton administration responded by suddenly paying heed to human rights/women’s groups who had been protesting Taliban conduct for the past two years. In November 1997, after years of relative quiet, Clinton’s Secretary of State Madeleine Albright publicly condemned the Taliban’s treatment of women… [but] it was only when absolute [US] control of that oil was challenged that the Taliban regime was openly discredited…” (here)

The Bill Clinton regime, including Hillary Clinton, used women as a tool of US imperial, plutocratic gain. Maybe this was one of Hillary’s “hard choices”, or maybe supporting the brutalization of women to try to secure a gas project for some US company was a no-brainer.

Also note: the USA’s sponsorship of the terrorist jihadists who eventually became the Taliban started in the mid to late 1970s, before, and specifically to incite, the Soviet Union’s invasion of Afghanistan. As late as the 2000s, the USA, still trying to make a partner of the Taliban, was trying to get the terrorist fundamentalists to expand their brutal regime to cover all of Afghanistan. Details and sources here.

For an extensive record of Hillary Clinton’s support for war and other depravities, see here.

 

Robert Barsocchini is a historical researcher, investigative journalist, and writer for the film industry.

Iraq vuelve a ser noticia de portada. Y una vez más la imagen que se nos presenta en los medios dominantes occidentales es una mezcla de medias verdades, falsedades, desinformación y propaganda. Los medios dominantes no le dirán que Estados Unidos está apoyando a ambos bandos en el conflicto iraquí. Washington apoya abiertamente al gobierno chií iraquí al tiempo que de forma encubierta adiestra, arma y financia al sunní Estado Islámico de Iraq y Siria (ISIS, por sus siglas en inglés). Apoyar la entrada de brigadas terroristas a Iraq es un acto de agresión extranjera. Pero los medios dominantes le dirán que el gobierno de Obama está “preocupado” por los actos que cometen los terroristas.

El relato favorito en los medios dominantes estadounidenses y de la mayor parte de Occidente es que la situación actual se debe a la “retirada” estadounidense que acabó en diciembre de 2011 (en Iraq permanecen más de 200 soldados y asesores militares estadounidenses). Este retrato de los hechos en el que la retirada estadounidense es la culpable de la insurgencia no establece relación alguna entre la invasión estadounidense de 2003 y la ocupación que hubo a continuación. También ignora los escuadrones de la muerte adiestrados por asesores estadounidenses en Iraq tras la invasión y que son clave en la situación actual.

Como de costumbre, los medios dominantes no quieren que usted entienda lo que está sucediendo. Su objetivo es dar forma a percepciones y opiniones elaborando un punto de vista del mundo que sirve a intereses poderosos. Por lo que se refiere a Iraq, le dirán que se trata de una guerra civil.

Lo que se está llevando a cabo es un proceso de “caos constructivo” urdido por Occidente. La desestabilización de Iraq y su fragmentación se planearon hace tiempo y forma parte de “la ‘hoja de ruta militar’ anglo-israelo-estadounidense para Oriente Próximo”, como explicaba este artículo en 2006:

“[…] Este proyecto, que se había estado fraguando durante varios años, consiste en crear un campo de inestabilidad, de caos y de violencia que se extienda desde Líbano, Palestina y Siria a Iraq, el Golfo Pérsico, Irán y las fronteras del Afganistán que mantiene la OTAN.

Washington y Tel Aviv presentaron públicamente el proyecto del “Nuevo Oriente Próximo” con la esperanza de que Líbano fuera el punto de tensión para la reorganización total de Oriente Próximo y de ese modo desencadenar las fuerzas del “caos constructivo”. Por su parte, este “caos constructivo” -que genera condiciones de violencia y de guerra en toda la región- será utilizado para que Estados Unidos, Gran Bretaña e Israel puedan retrazar el mapa de Oriente Próximo en función de sus necesidades y objetivos estratégicos. […]

Retrazar y desmembrar Oriente Próximo, desde las orillas mediterráneas orientales de Líbano y Siria hasta Anatolia (Asia Menor), Arabia, el Golfo Pérsico y la llanura iraní responde a amplios objetivos económicos, estratégicos y militares que forman parte de una ya antigua agenda anglo-israelo-estadounidense en la región. […]

De una guerra más amplia en Oriente Próximo pueden resultar unas fronteras estratégicamente retrazadas ventajosas para los intereses anglo-israelo-estadounidenses. […]

Los intentos de crear intencionadamente animosidad entre los diferentes grupos étnico-culturales y religiosos de Oriente Próximo han sido sistemáticos. De hecho, forman parte de una agenda de inteligencia oculta cuidadosamente diseñada.

Mucho más inquietante, muchos gobiernos de Oriente Próximo, como el de Arabia Saudí, ayudan a Washington a fomentar divisiones entre las poblaciones de Oriente Próximo. El objetivo final es debilitar el movimiento de resistencia contra la ocupación extranjera por medio de la “estrategia del divide y vencerás” que sirve a los intereses anglo-israelo-estadounidenses en toda la región.” (Mahdi Darius Nazemroaya, Plans for Redrawing the Middle East: The Project for a “New Middle East”, noviembre 2006 [Traducción al castellano, El proyecto de un “Nuevo Oriente Próximo”: Planes de retrazado de Oriente Próximo].

Aunque la estrategia de divide y vencerás no es nueva, sigue funcionando gracias a las cortinas de humo de los medios.

[Leyenda del mapa: países que gana territorio en negro, los que lo pierden en rojo y los que permanecen igual en gris.]

Fraguar una guerra civil es la mejor manera de dividir un país en varios territorios. Funcionó en los Balcanes y está bien documentado que se utilizaron las tensiones étnicas, y se abusó de ellas, para destruir Yugoslavia y dividirla en siete entidades diferentes.

A todas luches hoy estamos asistiendo a la balcanización de Iraq con la ayuda de la herramienta favorita del imperialismo, esto es, las milicias armadas, a las que se califica de oposición democrática o de terroristas dependiendo del contexto y del papel que han desempeñado en la psicología colectiva.

Los medios y gobiernos occidentales no las definen por quienes son, sino por quién lucha contra ellas. En Siria constituyen una “oposición legítima, luchadores por la libertad que luchan por la democracia en contra de una dictadura brutal”, mientras que en Iraq son “terroristas que luchan contra un gobierno elegido democráticamente y apoyado por Estados Unidos”:

“Como es sabido y está documentado, Estados Unidos y la OTAN utilizaron en muchos conflictos a entidades afiliadas a Al Qaeda como ‘bazas de inteligencia’ desde el momento de auge de la guerra soviético-afgana. En Siria los rebeldes de Al Nusrah [Rama siria del ISIS. N. de la t.] y del ISIS son los soldados de a pie de la alianza militar occidental, que supervisa y controla el reclutamiento y adiestramiento de las fuerzas paramilitares.

Washington decidió enviar su apoyo (de manera encubierta) a una entidad terrorista que opera tanto en Siria como en Iraq, y que tiene bases logísticas en ambos países. El califato sunní del Estado Islámico de Iraq y de al-Sham coincide un viejo proyecto estadounidense de dividir tanto Iraq como Siria en tres territorios diferentes: un califato islamista sunní, un república árabe chií y una república del Kurdistán.

Mientras que el gobierno de Bagdad (un representante de Estados Unidos) compra armamento moderno a Estados Unidos, incluidos aviones de combate F16 comprados a Lockheed Martin, la inteligencia occidental apoya de forma encubierta al Estado Islámico de Iraq y de al-Sham, que lucha contra las fuerzas del gobierno iraquí. El objetivo es fraguar una guerra civil en Iraq en la que ambos bandos estén controlados indirectamente por Estados Unidos y la OTAN.

El escenario es armar y equipar a ambos bandos con armamento moderno y entonces ‘dejarles luchar’. […]

Bajo la bandera de una guerra civil se está luchando una guerra de agresión secreta que fundamentalmente contribuye a destruir aún más todo el país, sus instituciones y su económica. Esta operación secreta forma parte de un plan de inteligencia, un proceso planificado que consiste en transformar Iraq en un territorio abierto.

Mientras tanto se lleva a la opinión pública a creer que lo que está en juego es una confrontación entre chiíes y sunníes.” (Michel Chossudovsky, The Engineered Destruction and Political Fragmentation of Iraq. Towards the Creation of a US Sponsored Islamist Caliphate, 14 de junio de 2014)

Antes del inicio de la guerra contra el terrorismo sabíamos bien que Arabia Saudí era uno de los apoyos principales del terrorismo islámico. Pero como es un aliado incondicional de Estados Unidos, Arabia Saudí es la excepción de la regla proclamada por George W. Bush después de los atentados terroristas del 11 de septiembre: “No haremos distinción alguna entre quienes cometan estos actos y quienes los protejan”.

El hecho es que siempre hacen esa distinción cuando se trata de Arabia Saudí. Pero aunque los medios dominantes reconocen su apoyo al terrorismo, estos medios ignoran el hecho de que Estados Unidos esté apoyando (indirectamente) a entidades terroristas. Además, los periodistas de los medios dominantes nunca abordan la razón por la que Estados Unidos no reacciona ante el apoyo saudí a los terroristas. Los hechos son claros: Estados Unidos está apoyando el terrorismo a través de aliados como Arabia Saudí y Qatar. El hecho de que quienes dan forma al discurso en los medios dominantes no establezcan una relación entre diferentes hechos se debe únicamente a que no quieren hacerlo.

En Oriente Próximo, Arabia Saudí sirve tanto a los intereses estadounidenses como a los suyos propios. La alianza de Estados Unidos con Arabia Saudí muestra el desprecio que Estados Unidos en realidad tiene por la democracia. Solo esta alianza indica claramente que el objetivo de la invasión estadounidense de Iraq no era llevar la democracia y la libertad a los iraquíes. Para Arabia Saudí, un Iraq democrático hubiera sido una pesadilla y una amenaza para su represivo régimen monárquico:

“Desde el derrocamiento del régimen de Saddam en 2003, el régimen saudí ha sido rotundamente hostil a Iraq. Este se debe fundamentalmente a su profundamente arraigado miedo a que el éxito de la democracia en Iraq sin lugar a dudas inspirara a su propio pueblo. Otra razón es el profundamente arraigado odio a lo chií que siente la extremista clase dirigente religiosa wahhabí salafista de Arabia Saudí. El régimen saudí también acusa a Maliki de dar carta blanca a Irán para aumentar de manera exponencial su influencia sobre Iraq. El régimen no oculta que su prioridad absoluta es minar gravemente lo que considera una extremadamente peligrosa aunque creciente influencia iraní.

A pesar de que el régimen saudí se oponía vehementemente a la retirada estadounidense de Iraq, sin embargo en diciembre de 2011 Siria se convirtió en vez de Iraq en el principal objetivo de Arabia Saudí para el cambio de régimen. El régimen saudí siempre ha considerado al régimen sirio de Bashar Al Assad un insustituible aliado estratégico de su enemigo principal, Irán. Los saudíes se precipitaron a apoyar a los insurgentes armados desplegando sus servicios de inteligencia, cuyo papel fundamental en el establecimiento del Frente Al Nusra puso de relieve una revista de inteligencia publicada en París en enero de 2013. El régimen saudí también utilizó su enorme influencia no solo sobre los líderes tribales sunníes en el oeste de Iraq, sino también sobre los miembros saudíes del Al Qaeda en Iraq (AQI) y los convenció de que su principal campo de batalla debía ser Siria y que su fin último tenía que ser derrocar al régimen alawuita de Bashar Al Assad ya que su derrocamiento rompería el eje del gobierno iraquí dirigido por chiíes e inevitablemente disminuiría la influencia iraní sobre Iraq.” (Zayd Alisa, Resurgence of Al Qaeda in Iraq, Fuelled by Saudi Arabia, 3 de marzo de 2014) 

De Paul Bremer a John Negroponte

Pero la pieza más importante del rompecabezas iraquí es el apoyo encubierto de Washington a los terroristas. Para entender mejor la violencia sectaria que asola el país actualmente, tenemos que entender lo que Estados Unidos estuvo haciendo durante la ocupación. Paul Bremer, autor de My year in Iraq, the Struggle to Build a Future of Hope [Mi año en Iraq, la lucha para construir un futuro de esperanza], desempeñó un papel fundamental cuando fue Gobernador Civil de Iraq en 2003 y 2004. Cuando se ve lo que hizo durante aquel año habría que preguntarse para quién era un futuro lleno de esperanza. Sin lugar a dudas, no para los y las iraquíes:

“Cuando Paul Bremer disolvió la seguridad nacional y las fuerzas de policía iraquíes, formó otras con mercenarios y milicias sectarias que apoyaban la ocupación. En realidad, el motivo principal de las muertes de la violencia sectaria los años 2006 y 2007 fueron los espantosos crímenes cometidos por estas fuerzas.

Según los Protocolos de la Convención de Ginebra, la ocupación representada por Bremer no solo no cumplió con su deber de proteger a la población del país ocupado, sino que oficialmente formó milicias y bandas armadas para ayudarle a controlar el país.

Paul Bremer cometió crímenes contra la humanidad y un acto de limpieza [étnica] y de genocidio en Iraq al atacar a miles de civiles inocentes por medio del ministerio del Interior y los comandos de fuerzas especiales.” (Prof. Souad N. Al-Azzawi, US Sponsored Commandos Responsible for Abducting, Torturing and Killing Iraqis. The Role of Paul Bremer, 4 de enero de 2014)

En 2004-2005, el embajador estadounidense John Negroponte continuó el trabajo de Bremer. Con su experiencia en aplastar a la disidencia en América [Central] con la ayuda de los sangrientos escuadrones de la muerte en la década de 1980, Negroponte era “el hombre indicado para la tarea” en Iraq:

“Los escuadrones de la muerte patrocinados por Estados Unidos fueron reclutados en Iraq a partir de 2004-2005 en una iniciativa lanzada bajo la dirección del embajador de Estados Unidos John Negroponte, que fue enviado a Bagdad por el Departamento de Estado de Estados Unidos en junio de 2004.

Negroponte era el “hombre indicado” para esa tarea. Como embajador de Estados Unidos en Honduras de 1981 a 1985, Negroponte desempeñó un papel clave en el apoyo y la supervisión de la Contra nicaragüense basada en Honduras, así como en la supervisión de las actividades de los escuadrones de la muerte militares hondureños. […]

En enero de 2005, el Pentágono confirmó que estaba considerando:

“la formación de escuadrones de asesinos de combatientes kurdos y chiíes para atacar a dirigentes de la insurgencia iraquí [Resistencia] en un giro estratégico copiado de la lucha estadounidense contra guerrillas izquierdistas en Centroamérica hace 20 años” .

Bajo la así llamada “Opción El Salvador”, fuerzas iraquíes y estadounidenses fueron enviadas para matar o secuestrar a dirigentes de la insurgencia, incluso en Siria, donde se piensa que algunos se refugiaron. […]

Los escuadrones serían controvertidos y probablemente secretos.

Aunque el objetivo declarado de la “Opción Salvador en Iraq” era “eliminar a la insurgencia”, en la práctica las brigadas terroristas patrocinadas por Estados Unidos estaban involucradas en los asesinatos rutinarios de civiles a fin de fomentar la violencia sectaria. Por su parte, la CIA y MI6 estaban supervisando unidades de “Al Qaeda en Iraq” involucradas en asesinatos selectivos dirigidos contra la población chií. Es importante señalar que los escuadrones de la muerte estaban integrados y asesorados por Fuerzas Especiales de Estados Unidos encubiertas.” (Prof Michel Chossudovsky, Terrorism with a “Human Face”: The History of America’s Death Squads, 4 de enero de 2013, [Traducción a l castellano, “Terrorismo con “cara humana”: La historia de los escuadrones de la muerte de EE.UU.”].

Ahora se nos dice que el ISIS ha logrado hacerse con sofisticadas armas elaboradas en Estados Unidos. No hay que confundirse, estas armas no llegaron ahí por casualidad. Estados Unidos sabía perfectamente lo que hacía cuando armó y financió a la “oposición” en Libia y Siria. Lo que hacía no era insensato. Sabía qué iba a ocurrir y eso era lo que quería. Algunos medios progresistas hablaron de le había salido el tiro por la culata, cuando una acción de inteligencia va en contra de sus patrocinadores. No hay nada de eso. Si es lo que es, es un “tiro por la culata” cuidadosamente planificado. 

La política exterior estadounidense, ¿fallida, estúpida o diabólica?

Algunas personas afirmarán que la política exterior estadounidense en Oriente Próximo es una política “fallida”, que los políticos son “estúpidos”. No es un fracaso y no son estúpidos. Eso es lo que quieren que usted crea porque creen que usted es estúpido.

Lo que ocurre ahora se planificó hace mucho tiempo. La verdad es que la política exterior estadounidense es diabólica, brutalmente represiva, criminal y no democrática. Y la única manera de salir de este sangriento caos es “volver a la ley”:

“Solo hay un antídoto para la “guerra civil” que divide Iraq y es una volver a la ley e invocar justicia. La guerra emprendida por los dirigentes del gobierno en 2003 contra el pueblo de Iraq no fue un error, fue un crimen. Y había que llevar a esos dirigentes ante la justicia por las decisiones que tomaron.” (Inder Comar, Iraq: The US Sponsored Sectarian “Civil War” is a “War of Aggression”, The “Supreme International Crime”, 18 de junio de 2014) 

Selección de artículos

Los siguientes artículos de Global Research proporcionan una valoración detallada de los recientes acontecimientos en Iraq. También señalamos a nuestros lectores Global Research’s Iraq Report, que contiene un extenso archivo de artículos compuesto por más de mil artículos.

The Iraq Report (archive of over 700 GR articles and reports, in reverse chronological order (2003-2014) ,

The Engineered Destruction and Political Fragmentation of Iraq. Towards the Creation of a US Sponsored Islamist Caliphate, Michel Chossudovsky,

Plans for Redrawing the Middle East: The Project for a “New Middle East”, Mahdi Darius Nazemroaya, [traducción al castellano, El proyecto de un “Nuevo Oriente Próximo”: Planes de retrazado de Oriente Próximo].

Resurgence of Al Qaeda in Iraq, Fuelled by Saudi Arabia, Zayd Alisa,

The Truth About US Troops “Sent to Iraq” , Tony Cartalucci,

Terrorism with a “Human Face”: The History of America’s Death Squads, Michel Chossudovsky, [traducción al castellano, “Terrorismo con “cara humana”: La historia de los escuadrones de la muerte de EE.UU.”],

The Iraq ISIS Insurgency and the Anglo-American Battle For Oil, Felicity Arbuthnot,

American Imperialism and Non-Conventional Warfare in Iraq: Premeditated Covert Operations and the ISIS Insurgency, Phil Greaves,

Iraq: ISIS Terrorists Target Native Assyrian Christians in Nineveh, The Assyrian American Association,

ISIS “Made in USA”. Iraq “Geopolitical Arsonists” Seek to Burn Region, Tony Cartalucci,

The Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIS): An Instrument of the Western Military Alliance, Michel Chossudovsky,

US Sponsored Commandos Responsible for Abducting, Torturing and Killing Iraqis. The Role of Paul Bremer, Prof Souad N. Al-Azzawi,

Iraq: The US Sponsored Sectarian “Civil War” is a “War of Aggression”, The “Supreme International Crime”, Inder Comar,

Al Qaeda: The Database, Pierre-Henri Bunel.

 

Fuente: http://www.globalresearch.ca/us-sponsored-terrorism-in-iraq-and-constructive-chaos-in-the-middle-east/5387653

Traducido del inglés para Rebelión por Beatriz Morales Bastos.

Evo Morales, President of Bolivia, gave this talk at the summit of the Group of 77 plus China, meeting in Santa Clara, Bolivia, on June 14, 2014.

Fifty years ago, great leaders raised the flags of the anticolonial struggle and decided to join with their peoples in a march along the path of sovereignty and independence.

The world superpowers and transnationals were competing for control of territories and natural resources in order to continue expanding at the cost of impoverishing the peoples of the South.

In that context, on June 15, 1964, at the conclusion of an UNCTAD[3] meeting, 77 countries from the South (we are now 133 plus China) met to enhance their trade bargaining capacities, by acting in a bloc to advance their collective interests while respecting their individual sovereign decisions.

During the past 50 years, these countries went beyond their statements and promoted resolutions at the United Nations and joint action in favor of development underpinned by South-South cooperation, a new world economic order, a responsible approach to climate change, and economic relations based on preferential treatment.

In this journey the struggle for decolonization as well as for the peoples’ self-determination and sovereignty over their natural resources must be highlighted.

Notwithstanding these efforts and struggles for equality and justice for the world’s peoples, the hierarchies and inequalities in the world have increased.

Today, 10 countries in the world control 40% of the world’s total wealth and 15 transnational corporations control 50% of global output.

Today, as 100 years ago, acting in the name of the free market and democracy, a handful of imperial powers invades countries, blocks trade, imposes prices on the rest of the world, chokes national economies, plots against progressive governments and resorts to espionage against the inhabitants of this planet.

A tiny elite of countries and transnational corporations controls, in an authoritarian fashion, the destinies of the world, its economies and its natural resources.

The economic and social inequality between regions, between countries, between social classes and between individuals has grown outrageously.

About 0.1% of the world’s population owns 20% of humanity’s assets. In 1920, a business manager in the United States made 20 times the wage of a worker, but today he is paid 331 times that wage.

This unfair concentration of wealth and predatory destruction of nature are also generating a structural crisis that is becoming unsustainable over time.

It is indeed a structural crisis. It impacts every component of capitalist development. In other words, it is a mutually reinforcing crisis affecting international finance, energy, climate, water, food, institutions and values. It is a crisis inherent to capitalist civilization.

The financial crisis was prompted by the greedy pursuit of profits from financial capital that led to profound international financial speculation, a practice that favored certain groups, transnational corporations or power centers that amassed great wealth.

The financial bubbles that generate speculative gains eventually burst, and in the process they plunged into poverty the workers who had received cheap credit, the middle-class savings-account holders who had trusted their deposits to greedy speculators. The latter overnight went bankrupt or took their capital to other countries, thus leading entire nations into bankruptcy.

We are also faced with an energy crisis that is driven by excessive consumption in developed countries, pollution from energy sources and the energy hoarding practices of the transnational corporations.

Parallel with this, we witness a global reduction in reserves and high costs of oil and gas development, while productive capacity drops due to the gradual depletion of fossil fuels and global climate change.

The climate crisis is caused by the anarchy of capitalist production, with consumption levels and unharnessed industrialization that have resulted in excessive emissions of polluting gases that in turn have led to global warming and natural disasters affecting the entire world.

For more than 15,000 years prior to the era of capitalist industrialization, greenhouse gases did not amount to more than 250 parts per million molecules in the atmosphere.

Since the 19th century, and in particular in the 20th and 21st centuries, thanks to the actions of predatory capitalism, this count has risen to 400 ppm, and global warming has become an irreversible process along with weather disasters the primary impacts of which are felt in the poorest and most vulnerable countries of the South, and in particular the island nations, as a result of the thawing of the glaciers.

In turn, global warming is generating a water supply crisis that is compounded by privatization, depletion of sources and commercialization of fresh water. As a consequence, the number of people without access to potable water is growing apace.

The water shortage in many parts of the planet is leading to armed conflicts and wars that further aggravate the lack of availability of this non-renewable resource.

The world population is growing while food production is dropping, and these trends are leading to a food crisis.

Add to these issues the reduction of food-producing lands, the imbalances between urban and rural areas, the monopoly exercised by transnational corporations over the marketing of seeds and agricultural inputs, and the speculation in food prices.

The imperial model of concentration and speculation has also caused an institutional crisis that is characterized by an unequal and unjust distribution of power in the world in particular within the UN system, the International Monetary Fund and the World Trade Organization.

As a result of all these developments, peoples’ social rights are endangered. The promise of equality and justice for the whole world becomes more and more remote and nature itself is threatened with extinction.

We have reached a limit, and global action is urgently needed to save society, humanity and Mother Earth.

Bolivia has started to take steps to address these issues. Up to 2005, Bolivia applied a neoliberal policy that resulted in concentration of wealth, social inequality and poverty, increasing marginalization, discrimination and social exclusion.

In Bolivia, the historic struggles waged by social movements, in particular the indigenous peasant movement, have allowed us to initiate a Democratic and Cultural Revolution, through the ballot box and without the use of violence. This revolution is rooting out exclusion, exploitation, hunger and hatred, and it is rebuilding the path of balance, complementarity, and consensus with its own identity, Vivir Bien.

Beginning in 2006, the Bolivian government introduced a new economic and social policy, enshrined in a new community-based socioeconomic and productive model, the pillars of which are nationalization of natural resources, recovery of the economic surplus for the benefit of all Bolivians, redistribution of the wealth, and active participation of the State in the economy.

In 2006, the Bolivian government and people made their most significant political, economic and social decision: nationalization of the country’s hydrocarbons, the central axis of our revolution. The state thereby participates in and controls the ownership of our hydrocarbons and processes our natural gas.

Contrary to the neoliberal prescription that economic growth ought to be based on external market demand (“export or die”), our new model has relied on a combination of exports with a domestic market growth that is primarily driven by income-redistribution policies, successive increases in the national minimum wage, annual salary increases in excess of the inflation rate, cross subsidies and conditional cash transfers to the neediest.

As a consequence, the Bolivian GDP has increased from $9 billion to over $30 billion over the past eight years.

Our nationalized hydrocarbons, economic growth and cost austerity policy have helped the country generate budget surpluses for eight years in a row, in sharp contrast with the recurrent budget deficits experienced by Bolivia for more than 66 years.

When we took over the country’s administration, the ratio between the wealthiest and poorest Bolivians was 128 fold. This ratio has been cut down to 46 fold. Bolivia now is one of the top six countries in our region with the best income distribution.

It has been shown that the peoples have options and that we can overcome the fate imposed by colonialism and neoliberalism.

These achievements produced in such a short span are attributable to the social and political awareness of the Bolivian people.

We have recovered our nation for all of us. Ours was a nation that had been alienated by the neoliberal model, a nation that lived under the old and evil system of political parties, a nation that was ruled from abroad, as if we were a colony.

We are no longer an unviable country as we were described by the international financial institutions. We are no longer an ungovernable country as the US empire would have us believe.

Today, the Bolivian people have recovered their dignity and pride, and we believe in our strength, our destiny and ourselves.

I want to tell the entire world in the most humble terms that the only wise architects who can change their future are the peoples themselves.

Therefore, we intend to build another world, and several tasks have been designed to establish the society of Vivir Bien.

First: We must move from sustainable development to comprehensive development [desarrollo integral] so that we can live well and in harmony and balance with Mother Earth

We need to construct a vision that is different from the western capitalist development model. We must move from the sustainable development paradigm to the Bien Vivir comprehensive development approach that seeks not only a balance among human beings, but also a balance and harmony with our Mother Earth.

No development model can be sustainable if production destroys Mother Earth as a source of life and our own existence. No economy can be long lasting if it generates inequalities and exclusions.

No progress is just and desirable if the well-being of some is at the expense of the exploitation and impoverishment of others.

Vivir Bien Comprehensive Development means providing well-being for everyone, without exclusions. It means respect for the diversity of economies of our societies. It means respect for local knowledges. It means respect for Mother Earth and its biodiversity as a source of nurture for future generations.

Vivir Bien Comprehensive Development also means production to satisfy actual needs, and not to expand profits infinitely.

It means distributing wealth and healing the wounds caused by inequality, rather than widening injustice.

It means combining modern science with the age-old technological wisdom held by the indigenous, native and peasant peoples who interact respectfully with nature.

It means listening to the people, rather than the financial markets.

It means placing Nature at the core of life and regarding the human being as just another creature of Nature.

The Vivir Bien Comprehensive Development model of respect for Mother Earth is not an ecologist economy for poor countries alone, while the rich nations expand inequality and destroy Nature.

Comprehensive development is only viable if applied worldwide, if the states, in conjunction with their respective peoples, exercise control over all of their energy resources.

We need technologies, investments, production and credits, as well as companies and markets, but we shall not subordinate them to the dictatorship of profits and luxury. Instead, we must place them at the service of the peoples to satisfy their needs and to expand our common goods and services.

Second: Sovereignty exercised over natural resources and strategic areas

Countries that have raw materials should and can take sovereign control over production and processing of those materials.

Nationalization of strategic companies and areas can help the state take over the management of production, exercise sovereign control over its wealth, embark on a planning process that leads to the processing of raw materials, and distribute the profit among its people.

Exercising sovereignty over natural resources and strategic areas does not mean isolation from global markets; rather, it means connecting to those markets for the benefit of our countries, and not for the benefit of a few private owners. Sovereignty over natural resources and strategic areas does not mean preventing foreign capital and technologies from participating. It means subordinating these investments and technologies to the needs of each country.

Third: Well-being for everyone and the provision of basic services as a human right

The worst tyranny faced by humankind is allowing basic services to be under the control of transnational corporations. This practice subjugates humanity to the specific interests and commercial aims of a minority who become rich and powerful at the expense of the life and security of other persons.

This is why we claim that basic services are inherent to the human condition. How can a human being live without potable water, electrical energy or communications? If human rights are to make us all equal, this equality can only be realized through universal access to basic services. Our need for water, like our need for light and communications, makes us all equal.

The resolution of social inequities requires that both international law and the national legislation of each country define basic services (such as water, power supply, communications and basic health care) as a fundamental human right of every individual.

This means that states have a legal obligation to secure the universal provision of basic services, irrespective of costs or profits.

Fourth: Emancipation from the existing international financial system and construction of a new financial architecture

We propose that we free ourselves from the international financial yoke by building a new financial system that prioritizes the requirements of the productive operations in the countries of the South, within the context of comprehensive development.

We must incorporate and enhance banks of the South that support industrial development projects, reinforce regional and domestic markets, and promote trade among our countries, but on the basis of complementarity and solidarity.

We also need to promote sovereign regulation over the global financial transactions that threaten the stability of our national economies.

We must design an international mechanism for restructuring our debts, which serve to reinforce the dependence of the peoples of the South and strangle their development possibilities.

We must replace international financial institutions such as the IMF with other entities that provide for a better and broader participation of the countries of the South in their decision-making structures that are currently in the grip of imperial powers.

We also need to define limits to gains from speculation and to excessive accumulation of wealth.

Fifth: Build a major economic, scientific, technological and cultural partnership among the members of the Group of 77 plus China

After centuries under colonial rule, transfers of wealth to imperial metropolises and impoverishment of our economies, the countries of the South have begun to regain decisive importance in the performance of the world economy.

Asia, Africa and Latin America are not only home to 77% of the world’s population, but they also account for nearly 43% of the world economy. And this importance is on the rise. The peoples of the South are the future of the world.

Immediate actions must be taken to reinforce and plan this inescapable global trend.

We need to expand trade among the countries of the South. We also need to gear our productive operations to the requirements of other economies in the South on the basis of complementarity of needs and capacities.

We need to implement technology transfer programs among the countries of the South. Not every country acting on its own can achieve the technological sovereignty and leadership that are critical for a new global economy based on justice.

Science must be an asset of humanity as a whole. Science must be placed at the service of everyone’s well-being, without exclusions or hegemonies. A decent future for all the peoples around the world will require integration for liberation, rather than cooperation for domination.

To discharge these worthy tasks to the benefit of the peoples of the world, we have invited Russia and other foreign countries that are our brothers in needs and commitments to join the Group of 77.

Our Group of 77 alliance does not have an institution of its own to give effect to the approaches, statements and action plans of our countries. For this reason, Bolivia proposes that an Institute For Decolonization and South-South Co-operation be established.

This institute will be charged with provision of technical assistance to the countries of the South, as well as further implementation of the proposals made by the Group of 77 plus China.

The institute will also supply technical and capacity-building assistance for development and self-determination, and it will help conduct research projects. We propose that this institute be headquartered in Bolivia.

Sixth: Eradicate hunger among the world’s peoples

It is imperative that hunger be eradicated and that the human right to food be fully exercised and enforced.

Food production must be prioritized with the involvement of small growers and indigenous peasant communities that hold age-old knowledge in regard to this activity.

To be successful in hunger eradication, the countries of the South must lay down the conditions for democratic and equitable access to land ownership, so that monopolies over this resource are not allowed to persist in the form of latifundia. However, fragmentation into small and unproductive plots must not be encouraged either.

Food sovereignty and security must be enhanced through access to healthy foods for the benefit of the people.

The monopoly held by transnational corporations over the supply of farm inputs must be eliminated as a way to foster food security and sovereignty.

Each country must make sure that the supply of the basic food staples consumed by its people is secured by enhancing productive, cultural and environmental practices, and by promoting people-to-people exchanges on the basis of solidarity. Governments have an obligation to ensure the supply of power, the availability of road connections and access to water and organic fertilizers.

Seventh: Strengthen the sovereignty of states free from foreign interference, intervention and/or espionage

Within the framework of the United Nations, a new institutional structure must be promoted in support of a New World Order for Vivir Bien.

The institutions that emerged after World War II, including the United Nations, are in need of a thorough reform today.

International agencies that promote peace, eliminate global hegemonism and advance equality among states are required.

For this reason, the UN Security Council must be abolished. Rather than fostering peace among nations, this body has promoted wars and invasions by imperial powers in their quest for the natural resources available in the invaded countries. Instead of a Security Council, today we have an insecurity council of imperial wars.

No country, no institution and no interest can justify the invasion of one country by another. The sovereignty of states and the internal resolution of the conflicts that exist in any country are the foundation of peace and of the United Nations.

I stand here to denounce the unjust economic blockade imposed on Cuba and the aggressive and illegal policies pursued by the US government against Venezuela, including a legislative initiative offered at the US Senate Foreign Relations Committee designed to apply sanctions to that country to the detriment of its sovereignty and political independence, a clear breach of the principles and purposes of the UN Charter.

These forms of persecution and internationally driven coups are the traits of modern colonialism, the colonial practices of our era.

These are our times, the times of the South. We must be able to overcome and heal the wounds caused by fratricidal wars stirred by foreign capitalist interests. We must strengthen our integration schemes in support of our peaceful coexistence, our development and our faith in shared values, such as justice.

Only by standing together will we be able to give decent lives to our peoples.

Eighth: Democratic renewal of our states

The era of empires, colonial hierarchies and financial oligarchies is coming to an end. Everywhere we look, we see peoples around the world calling for their right to play their leading role in history.

The 21st century must be the century of the peoples, the workers, the farmers, the indigenous communities, the youth and the women. In other words, it must be the century of the oppressed.

The realization of the peoples’ leading role requires that democracy be renewed and strengthened. We must supplement electoral democracy with participatory and community-based democracy.

We must move away from limited parliamentary and party-based governance and into the social governance of democracy.

This means that the decision-making process in any state must take into consideration its parliamentary deliberations, but also the deliberations by the social movements that incorporate the life-giving energy of our peoples.

The renovation of democracy in this century also requires that political action represents a full and permanent service to life. This service constitutes an ethical, humane and moral commitment to our peoples, to the humblest masses.

For this purpose, we must reinstate the codes of our ancestors: no robar, no mentir, no ser flujo y no ser adulón [do not steal, do not lie, do not be weak and do not flatter].

Democracy also means distribution of wealth and expansion of the common goods shared by society.

Democracy means subordination of rulers to the decisions of the ruled.

Democracy is not a personal benefit vested in the rulers, nor is it abuse of power. Democracy means serving the people with love and self-sacrifice. Democracy means dedication of time, knowledge, effort and even life itself in the pursuit of the well-being of the peoples and humanity.

Ninth: A new world rising from the South for the whole of humanity

The time has come for the nations of the South.

In the past, we were colonized and enslaved. Our stolen labour built empires in the North.

Today, with every step we take for our liberation, the empires grow decadent and begin to crumble.

However, our liberation is not only the emancipation of the peoples of the South. Our liberation is also for the whole of humanity. We are not fighting to dominate anyone. We are fighting to ensure that no one becomes dominated.

Only we can save the source of life and society: Mother Earth. Our planet is under a death threat from the greed of predatory and insane capitalism.

Today, another world is not only possible, it is indispensable.

Today, another world is indispensable because, otherwise, no world will be possible.

And that other world of equality, complementarity and organic coexistence with Mother Earth can only emerge from the thousands of languages, colours and cultures existing in brotherhood and sisterhood among the Peoples of the South.

 

Evo Morales Ayma, president of the Plurinational State of Bolivia and pro-tempore president of the Group of 77 plus China

Notes

[1] For a recent discussion of this concept, see Raúl Zibechi, Brasil Potencia, now available in English.

[2] A common error of G77 members is to equate anti-imperialist solidarity with political support of member governments. A glaring example was provided by Bolivia’s parliament immediately after the summit, when it awarded a human rights medal to the president of Sri Lanka, whose government is notorious for waging a genocidal war against the country’s minority Tamil nation — strange conduct indeed by Bolivia’s “Plurinational Legislative Assembly.”

[3] United Nations Conference on Trade and Development.

Neoconservatives like Paul Wolfowitz planned regime change in Iraq more than 20 years ago … in 1991.

But the goal wasn’t just regime change (or oil).  The goal was to break up the country, and to do away with the sovereignty of Iraq as a separate nation.

The Guardian noted in 2003:

President Hosni Mubarak of Egypt predicted devastating consequences for the Middle East if Iraq is attacked. “We fear a state of disorder and chaos may prevail in the region,” he said.

***

They are probably still splitting their sides with laughter in the Pentagon. But Mr Mubarak and the [Pentagon] hawks do agree on one thing: war with Iraq could spell disaster for several regimes in the Middle East. Mr Mubarak believes that would be bad.The hawks, though, believe it would be good.

For the hawks, disorder and chaos sweeping through the region would not be an unfortunate side-effect of war with Iraq, but a sign that everything is going according to plan.

***

The “skittles theory” of the Middle East – that one ball aimed at Iraq can knock down several regimes – has been around for some time on the wilder fringes of politics but has come to the fore in the United States on the back of the “war against terrorism”.

Its roots can be traced, at least in part, to a paper published in 1996 by an Israeli thinktank, the Institute for Advanced Strategic and Political Studies. Entitled “A clean break: a new strategy for securing the realm”, it was intended as a political blueprint for the incoming government of Binyamin Netanyahu. As the title indicates, it advised the right-wing Mr Netanyahu to make a complete break with the past by adopting a strategy “based on an entirely new intellectual foundation, one that restores strategic initiative and provides the nation the room to engage every possible energy on rebuilding Zionism …”

***

The paper set out a plan by which Israel would “shape its strategic environment”, beginning with the removal of Saddam Hussein and the installation of a Hashemite monarchy in Baghdad.

With Saddam out of the way and Iraq thus brought under Jordanian Hashemite influence, Jordan and Turkey would form an axis along with Israel to weaken and “roll back” Syria. Jordan, it suggested, could also sort out Lebanon by “weaning” the Shia Muslim population away from Syria and Iran, and re-establishing their former ties with the Shia in the new Hashemite kingdom of Iraq. “Israel will not only contain its foes; it will transcend them”, the paper concluded.

***

The leader of the “prominent opinion makers” who wrote it was Richard Perle – now chairman of the Defence Policy Board at the Pentagon.

Also among the eight-person team was Douglas Feith, a neo-conservative lawyer, who now holds one of the top four posts at the Pentagon as under-secretary of policy.

***

Two other opinion-makers in the team were David Wurmser and his wife, Meyrav (see US thinktanks give lessons in foreign policy, August 19). Mrs Wurmser was co-founder of Memri, a Washington-based charity that distributes articles translated from Arabic newspapers portraying Arabs in a bad light. After working with Mr Perle at the American Enterprise Institute, David Wurmser is now at the State Department, as a special assistant to John Bolton, the under-secretary for arms control and international security.

A fifth member of the team was James Colbert, of the Washington-based Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs (Jinsa) – a bastion of neo-conservative hawkery whose advisory board was previously graced by Dick Cheney (now US vice-president), John Bolton and Douglas Feith.

***

With several of the “Clean Break” paper’s authors now holding key positions in Washington, the plan for Israel to “transcend” its foes by reshaping the Middle East looks a good deal more achievable today than it did in 1996. Americans may even be persuaded to give up their lives to achieve it.

(Before assuming prominent roles in the Bush administration, many of the same people – includingRichard Perle, Paul Wolfowitz, Dick Cheney, John Bolton and others – advocated their imperial views during the Clinton administration via their American think tank, the “Project for a New American Century”.)

Thomas Harrington – professor of Iberian Studies at Trinity College in Hartford, Connecticut – writes:

[While there are some good articles on the chaos in Iraq, none of them] consider whetherthe chaos now enveloping the region might, in fact, be the desired aim of policy planners in Washington and Tel Aviv.

***

One of the prime goals of every empire is to foment ongoing internecine conflict in the territories whose resources and/or strategic outposts they covet.

***

The most efficient way of sparking such open-ended internecine conflict is to brutally smash the target country’s social matrix and physical infrastructure.

***

Ongoing unrest has the additional perk of justifying the maintenance and expansion of the military machine that feeds the financial and political fortunes of the metropolitan elite.

In short … divide and rule is about as close as it gets to a universal recourse the imperial game and that it is, therefore, as important to bear it in mind today as it was in the times of Alexander the Great, Julius Caesar, the Spanish Conquistadors and the British Raj.

To those—and I suspect there are still many out there—for whom all this seems too neat or too conspiratorial, I would suggest a careful side-by side reading of:

a) the “Clean Break” manifesto generated by the Jerusalem-based Institute for Advanced Strategic and Political Studies (IASPS) in 1996

and

b) the “Rebuilding America’s Defenses” paper generated by The Project for a New American Century (PNAC) in 2000, a US group with deep personal and institutional links to the aforementioned Israeli think tank, and with the ascension of  George Bush Junior to the White House, to the most exclusive  sanctums of the US foreign policy apparatus.

To read the cold-blooded imperial reasoning in both of these documents—which speak, in the first case, quite openly of the need to destabilize the region so as to reshape Israel’s “strategic environment” and, in the second of the need to dramatically increase the number of US “forward bases” in the region ….

To do so now, after the US’s systematic destruction of Iraq and Libya—two notably oil-rich countries whose delicate ethnic and religious balances were well known to anyone in or out of government with more than passing interest in history—, and after the its carefully calibrated efforts to generate and maintain murderous and civilization-destroying stalemates in Syria and Egypt (something that is easily substantiated despite our media’s deafening silence on the subject), is downright blood-curdling.

And yet, it seems that for even very well-informed analysts, it is beyond the pale to raise the possibility that foreign policy elites in the US and Israel, like all virtually all the ambitious hegemons before them on the world stage, might have quite coldly and consciously fomented open-ended chaos in order to achieve their overlapping strategic objectives in this part of the world.

Antiwar’s Justin Raimondo notes:

Iraq’s fate was sealed from the moment we invaded: it has no future as a unitary state. As I pointed out again and again in the early days of the conflict, Iraq is fated to split apart into at least three separate states: the Shi’ite areas around Baghdad and to the south, the Sunni regions to the northwest, and the Kurdish enclave which was itching for independence since well before the US invasion. This was the War Party’s real if unexpressed goal from the very beginning: the atomization of Iraq, and indeed the entire Middle East. Their goal, in short, was chaos – and that is precisely what we are seeing today.

***

As I put it years ago:

“[T]he actual purpose was to blow the country to smithereens: to atomize it, and crush it, so that it would never rise again.

“When we invaded and occupied Iraq, we didn’t just militarily defeat Iraq’s armed forces – we dismantled their army, and their police force, along with all the other institutions that held the country together. The educational system was destroyed, and not reconstituted. The infrastructure was pulverized, and never restored. Even the physical hallmarks of a civilized society – roads, bridges, electrical plants, water facilities, museums, schools – were bombed out of existence or else left to fall into disrepair. Along with that, the spiritual and psychological infrastructure that enables a society to function – the bonds of trust, allegiance, and custom – was dissolved, leaving Iraqis to fend for themselves in a war of all against all.

“… What we are witnessing in post-Saddam Iraq is the erasure of an entire country. We can say, with confidence: We came, we saw, we atomized.”

Why? This is the question that inevitably arises in the wake of such an analysis: why deliberately destroy an entire country whose people were civilized while our European ancestors were living in trees?

The people who planned, agitated for, and executed this war are the very same people who have advanced Israeli interests – at America’s expense – at every opportunity. In “A Clean Break: A New Strategy for Securing the Realm,” a 1996 document prepared by a gaggle of neocons – Perle, Douglas Feith, James Colbert, Charles Fairbanks, Jr., Robert Loewenberg, David Wurmser, and Meyrav Wurmser – Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu was urged to “break out” of Israel’s alleged stagnation and undertake a campaign of “regime change” across the Middle East, targeting Lebanon, Libya, Syria, Iraq, and eventually Iran. With the exception of Iran – and that one’s still cooking on the back burner – this is precisely what has occurred. In 2003, in the immediate wake of our Pyrrhic “victory” in Iraq, then Prime Minister Ariel Sharon declared to a visiting delegation of American members of Congress that these “rogue states” – Iran, Libya, and Syria – would have to be next on the War Party’s target list.

(Indeed.)

And Michel Chossudovsky points out:

The division of Iraq along sectarian-ethnic lines has been on the drawing board of the Pentagon for more than 10 years.

What is envisaged by Washington is the outright suppression of the Baghdad regime and the institutions of the central government, leading to a process of political fracturing andthe elimination of Iraq as a country.

This process of political fracturing in Iraq along sectarian lines will inevitably have an impact on Syria, where the US-NATO sponsored terrorists have in large part been defeated.

Destabilization and political fragmentation in Syria is also contemplated: Washington’s intent is no longer to pursue the narrow objective of “regime change” in Damascus. What is contemplated is the break up of both Iraq and Syria along sectarian-ethnic lines.

The formation of the caliphate may be the first step towards a broader conflict in the Middle East, bearing in mind that Iran is supportive of the al-Maliki government and the US ploy may indeed be to encourage the intervention of Iran.

The proposed re-division of both Iraq and Syria is broadly modeled on that of the Federation of Yugoslavia which was split up into seven “independent states” (Serbia, Croatia, Bosnia-Herzegovina, Macedonia (FYRM), Slovenia, Montenegro, Kosovo).

According to Mahdi Darius Nazemroaya, the re division of Iraq into three separate states is part of a broader process of redrawing the Map of the Middle East.

The above map was prepared by Lieutenant-Colonel Ralph Peters. It was published in the Armed Forces Journal in June 2006, Peters is a retired colonel of the U.S. National War Academy. (Map Copyright Lieutenant-Colonel Ralph Peters 2006).

Although the map does not officially reflect Pentagon doctrine, it has been used in a training program at NATO’s Defense College for senior military officers”. (See Plans for Redrawing the Middle East: The Project for a “New Middle East” By Mahdi Darius Nazemroaya, Global Research, November 2006)

Notes: While a senior Bush adviser said that the Iraq war was launched to protect Israel, that is too simplistic an explanation. The architects of foreign policy in both the U.S. and Israel are either literally one and the same – e.g. Richard Perle – or see things identically.

And if you think things are different under the Obama administration, please note that not only are the Neocons back, they never actually left.

On June 6, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit handed down a ruling that will serve as important precedent for the ongoing federal legal battles over the Keystone XL and Flanagan South tar sands pipelines.

In the Delaware Riverkeeper v. Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) case, judges ruled that a continuous pipeline project cannot be segmented into multiple parts to avoid a comprehensive National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) review. This is what Kinder Morgan proposed and did for its Northeast Upgrade Project.

As reported on DeSmogBlog, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers did the same thing to streamline permitting for both the southern leg of TransCanada’s Keystone XL and Enbridge’s Flanagan South. Sierra Club and co-plaintiffs were denied injunctions for both pipelines in October and November 2013, respectively.

Delaware Riverkeeper v. FERC dealt with breaking up a new 40-mile long pipeline upgrade into four segments. For the other two cases, the Army Corps of Engineers shape-shifted the two projects — both hundreds of miles long each — into thousands of “single and complete” projects for permitting purposes.

On the day of the Delaware Riverkeeper v. FERC decision, Sierra Club attorney Doug Hayes submitted the case as supplemental authority for the ongoing Flanagan South case.

On May 5, Hayes also submitted paperwork to appeal the Keystone XL South decision in front of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit, which was docketed by the clerk of Ccurt the next day.

Hayes told DeSmogBlog his side will file an opening brief for the appeal on July 30. It seems likely Delaware Riverkeeper v. FERC will be a key part of that appeal.

In a sign of the importance of the outcome for the oil and gas industry, the American Petroleum Institute (API) entered the Sierra Club v. Army Corps of Engineers case on Keystone XL as an intervenor on May 16, represented by corporate law firm Hunton & Williams.

At the federal level, Hunton & Williams lobbies on behalf of Koch Industries, a company with a major stake in tar sands leases and refining.

“No Uncertain Terms”

Hayes told DeSmogBlog that Delaware Riverkeeper v. FERC could prove a game-changer for the Keystone XL southern leg (now dubbed the Gulf Coast Pipeline Project) appeal, the Flanagan South decision and far beyond.

“Delaware Riverkeeper is important in many respects,” Hayes said.

“In general, the D.C. Circuit is considered the second most powerful court in the country and here it held, in no uncertain terms, that agencies must analyze all parts of these interrelated projects under NEPA to get the full picture of the environmental impacts.”

Photo Credit: C-Span Screenshot

The case depicts a collision between long-standing principles of environmental law and President Barack Obama’s March 2012 Executive Order expediting pipeline reviews — an order issued six days after delivering a speech in front of the pipe segments that would two years later be pieced together as Keystone XL South, now open for business.

Executive Order 13604

Executive Order 13604, signed on March 28, 2012, said

“agencies shall…coordinate and expedite their reviews…as necessary to expedite decisions related to domestic pipeline infrastructure projects that would contribute to a more efficient domestic pipeline system for the transportation of crude oil.”

The Army Corps of Engineers’ deployment of Nationwide Permit 12 — usually reserved for smaller infrastructure projects — served as the weapon of choice to “coordinate and expedite their reviews” for TransCanada‘s Gulf Coast Pipeline Project and Enbridge‘s Flanagan South.

In fulfilling the dictates of Executive Order 13604, both TransCanada and Enbridge have dodged doing a more robust NEPA analysis.

“The oil industry has gone to great lengths to break projects into thousands of smaller pieces to avoid a true analysis of pipelines’ environmental impacts,” Hayes said.

Doug Hayes; Photo Credit: Sierra Club Environmental Law Program

“This has been especially true of the Enbridge system, and of pipelines that are approved by the Corps using Nationwide Permit 12. In Flanagan South, NEPA was unquestionably triggered because the agencies prepared three separate EAs for different parts of the pipeline.”

In other words, the approach called for by Executive Order 13604 may no longer hold legal water.

“The issue is whether agencies can segment a project into smaller pieces, and prepare a narrow analysis for each part, without looking at an entire project in a single NEPA analysis,” said Hayes.

“The Delaware Riverkeeper v. FERC decision was a resounding ‘no.’ It held that a linear pipeline can only be ‘segmented’ into smaller components if the individual parts would have independent utility.”

Pipeline companies put “on notice”

Aaron Stemplewicz, Delaware Riverkeeper’s attorney for the case, said the court’s precedent-setting decision should put all pipeline companies “on notice.”

“The D.C. Circuit’s decision today should put other pipeline companies on notice that the practice of segmenting pipeline projects before the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission will no longer be tolerated,” he told New Jersey’s Star-Ledger.

As evidenced by the May 16 API intervention in the Sierra Club v. Army Corps of Engineers case, the oil industry has taken notice. So too has corporate law firm giant K&L Gates, issuing a memo on the Delaware Riverkeeper v. FERC ruling published June 20, just two weeks after the decision was handed down.

“Some may say, so what?,” wrote K&L Gates.

“The projects are already built, so if the agency has to go through an academic and theoretical exercise, it has no real world implications. Those who think this do so at their own peril.”

“Future investors and developers should be concerned…[that] these decisions may well impact how FERC, and other agencies, consider future ‘related’ projects.”

Hunton & Williams, API’s counsel for Sierra Club v. Army Corps of Engineers, also issued its own client alert on Delaware Riverkeeper v. FERC, serving as a prelude to what will be its ongoing involvement in chipping away at the ruling.

Clearly, both sides have taken notice. With both billions of dollars of industry profits and a sustainable planet at stake, to the victors go the spoils.

It looked just like an infomercial, but with a lot more frowning.

In an example of Orwellian newspeak, the CNN show The Lead with Jake Tapper took on Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth over its decision to distribute information pamphlets outside the National September 11 Memorial and Museum at Ground Zero in New York City. The pamphlets mimic the design of the “official” ones, but instead of the official story, they contain key scientific forensic evidence indicating that the three World Trade Center towers were brought down with explosives and incendiaries. Unlike the official version, the photo on the cover of the AE pamphlet shows the Twin Towers and Building 7.

The Tapper report is a hysterical compendium of all the empty slogans and anti-conspiracy-theory talking points that make up the mainstream media’s continuing attack on the 9/11 Truth Movement. It didn’t take more than a couple of seconds into the report to see how Tapper was going to play the story.

He tells us that “the conspiracy group” AE911Truth plans to stand outside the museum and hand out fake museum pamphlets that look exactly like the real ones. The volunteers handing them out are described as “so-called truthers,” and the whole exercise is labeled an “affront to the victims’ families.”

“Can’t these people give it a rest for one day out of respect for the families?” an exasperated Tapper queries, adding that the 9/11 memorial is “sacred.” Indeed, since 9/11 itself, the grounds have been transformed from a place of truth-seeking to a pathologically sacred shrine to “not asking questions about 9/11.”

Tapper contends that truthers are using the opening of the museum as an opportunity to spread their lies about the attacks. He reads from the AE pamphlet: “Welcome to the other 9/11 story,” but then adds, “the false one.”

Of AE, he says:

“Of course they don’t prove anything except for man’s capacity to believe crazy things and man’s insensitivity to, for instance, the families of the approximately 3,000 people killed at the World Trade Center, the Pentagon, and in a field in Pennsylvania by Islamic terrorists with al-Qaeda, as every credible investigation has actually proven.”

Brochure comparison: Official vs Unofficial

I’m not sure if he’s talking about the 9/11 Commission Report, which even commission members have called a “cover-up,” or the NIST report, which the 2,100 technical and building professionals with Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth have shown to be rooted in fantasy, not science.

Tapper had on the air as his guest Emily Bazelon, a senior editor of Slate magazine, whose job it was to help Tapper figure out just what is psychologically motivating all these “truthers.”

She says,

“Usually, with a conspiracy theory, you imagine that people are trying to make sense of the senseless. But with 9/11, we have a real conspiracy called al-Qaeda. And so, one has to imagine that the anti-government motivation of the 9/11 truthers is really what’s driving this. Because if you could imagine the government made up 9/11 as a hoax, then the government is completely monstrous, and there’s no reason to believe anything any federal official says, and certainly no reason to pay your taxes.”

Wow. This “journalist” does a lot of imagining.

First, she admits that her pet theory about making sense of the senseless (which we hear regularly from the official story apologists) doesn’t fit the situation. But that doesn’t deter her, as her remarks then take a turn toward the surreal. In her world, if you don’t unquestioningly swallow whole the story of Islamic terrorists with box cutters, then you must think every government official is in on it, and therefore you don’t have to continue funding that government.

Perhaps Ms. Bazelon, who seems to pluck her theories out of thin air with absolutely no basis in fact or evidence, could provide us with even one example of a 9/11 truther whose views have their genesis in an anti-government sentiment or in a desire to avoid paying taxes. I wonder if either Bazelon or Tapper could come up with anything at all to back up anything they say in this report.

Still frowning, Tapper asks, “What happens when this nonsense hits the echo chamber of the Internet?” This prompts more incoherence from Bazelon:

“You see these dark corners of the Internet where people pile on, and there’s this minute parsing of the technicalities of the supposed evidence, and more and more detail gets added and accumulated, and it kind of feeds on itself,” she responds.

Huh? Is that sort of like saying that people on the Internet examine all the evidence and accumulate and discuss their findings? Perhaps if the mainstream media did some examining of evidence, then the truth about 9/11 might be clearer to everyone by now, including their viewers. But that doesn’t appear to be their role in this scenario.

Not to be outdone, Tapper risks straining himself with some political analysis.

“Historically, we see that these conspiracies come after very upsetting events like the Kennedy assassination, the assassination of Martin Luther King Jr. – is there a pattern there?”

Could it be that people get upset by conspiracies to kill public figures for political reasons, and they get just as upset when the government and media collaborate in covering them up? And could it be that one of the reasons these events are so upsetting is that the conventional explanations for them are so transparently fraudulent?

Furthermore, these explanations are always wrapped in phony emotion so that the rational doesn’t have to be addressed. Do we all see that pattern? Our “journalist” friends would have us believe that the only appropriate way that we can and should react to an event like 9/11 is emotionally. The museum itself focuses on the heroism and the emotion of the day – whatever it takes to stay away from the facts, which overwhelmingly contradict the paper-thin official story.

Tapper attempts to clarify just what truthers are actually saying:

“And the idea here is not just that the three buildings were destroyed by explosives, but that it’s all part of this grand conspiracy where the U.S. government – and let me state, if I haven’t made it clear enough, none of this is true, this is all just crazy talk – that the U.S. government faked it, killed all these people intentionally, and it was just to start a war in Iraq and another one in Afghanistan. Is that the idea they’re going for here?”

Here’s where even Bazelon has to admit there were some problems with how the Iraq war started.

“That’s the idea, and just to state it is to show how horrifying it is. I suppose that given that the American government did put forward some false ideas to motivate going into Iraq – in particular the whole idea that there were weapons of mass destruction there – that’s the tiny, tiny kernel of truth that is in some way related to this completely crazy theory.”

“Some false ideas.” Bazelon can’t even bring herself to state that the governmentlied to the American people to go to war. She minimizes the importance of these “false ideas,” which have led to the deaths of hundreds of thousands of innocent people, and she makes sure to get the word “crazy” in there to counter her subtle admission that the war was started under false pretenses.

Up to this point in the report, the really big gun hasn’t been brought out, but Tapper takes care of that with his predictable accusation that truthers are motivated by anti-Semitism.

“There’s also a lot of scapegoating with the 9/11 truther stuff,” he says. “There’s anti-Semitism, anti-Israel, anti-corporations.”

Anti-corporations? Is that exclusive to 9/11 truthers? Are we to understand that being critical of corporations now pegs one as a conspiracy theorist as well? From her place in the official story echo chamber, Bazelon responds:

“Exactly. And I think you see these virulent strains that are related to each other from familiar right-wing talk, and they all get weirdly braided together in this particular theory.”

The anti-Semitism charge is a common one, and it seems to be thrown at truthers more and more often as time goes on (the theme of “contagion” with the term “virulent strains” is also a part of this). The physics of 9/11 are not anti-Semitic; neither is anything else on the popular 9/11 Truth Movement website,AE911Truth.org.

During his recent Canadian tour, AE911Truth founder Richard Gage, AIA, was interviewed by Sun News journalist Michael Coren, who accused truthers in general and Gage in particular of believing that all the Jews were told to stay away from the World Trade Center on 9/11. Coren even used the word “virulent.” Of course, Gage has never made such a comment (I covered this in two recent articles on my blog, Truth and Shadows, here and here). All the same talking points that we see in the CNN piece were there in Coren’s report.

This propaganda masquerading as news is actually a carefully crafted attack on anyone who questions what the media tell us and on anyone who is not satisfied with the official cover-up of 9/11, and it is far from the only recent example. Newsweek, for example, has just produced a cover story ominously entitled, “The plots to destroy America.” In this attack on “conspiracy theorists,” we are told that it goes beyond craziness and insensitivity – that public health and public policy are threatened by those who question the official line.

It seems that those of us who question 9/11 must be making progress if the mainstream media have to pull out this kind of propaganda against the Movement. It also seems that the purveyors of the 9/11 official story may have assumed enormous risk in deciding to enshrine their story in a museum of glass, steel, and concrete, because now they have given the Truth Movement a focal point on which to direct their efforts to expose the fraudulent events and criminal perpetrators of 9/11.

Craig McKee is a journalist and the creator of the blog Truth and Shadows

A final number for real US GDP growth in the first quarter of 2014 was released today. The number is not the 2.6% growth rate predicted by the know-nothing economists in January of this year. The number is a decline in GDP of -2.9 percent.

The negative growth rate of -2.9 percent is itself an understatement. This number was achieved by deflating nominal GDP with an understated measure of inflation. During the Clinton regime, the Boskin Commission rigged the inflation measure in order to cheat Social Security recipients out of their cost-of-living adjustments. Anyone who purchases food, fuel, or anything knows that inflation is much higher than the officially reported number.

It is possible that the drop in first quarter real GDP is three times the official number.

Regardless, the difference is large between the January forecast of +2.6 percent growth and the decline as of the end of March of -2.9 percent.

Any economist who is real and unpaid by Wall Street, the government, or the Establishment knew that the +2.6 percent forecast was a crock. Americans’ incomes have not grown except for the one percent, and the only credit growth is in student loans, as those many who cannot find jobs mistakenly turn to “education is the answer.”

In an economy based on consumer demand, the absence of income and credit growth means no economic growth.

The US economy cannot grow because corporations pushed by Wall Street have moved the US economy offshore. US manufactured products are made offshore.

Look at the labels on your clothes, your shoes, your eating and cooking utensils, your computers, whatever. US professional jobs such as software engineering have been moved offshore. An economy with an offshored economy is not an economy.  All of this happened in full view, while well-paid free market shills declared that Americans were benefiting from giving America’s middle class jobs to China and India.

I have been exposing these lies for a decade or two, which is why I am no longer invited to speak at American universities or to American economic associations. Economists love the money that they receive for lying. A truth teller is the last thing that they want in their midst.

An official decline of -2.9 percent in the first quarter implies a second quarter GDP decline. Two declines in a row is the definition of recession.

Imagine the consequences of a recession. It means that years of unprecedented Quantitative Easing failed to revive the economy. It means that years of Keynesian fiscal deficits failed to revive the economy. Neither fiscal nor monetary policy worked. What then can revive the economy

Nothing except to force the return of the economy that the anti-American corporations moved offshore. This would require credible government. Unfortunately, the US government has been losing credibility since the second term of the Clinton regime. It has none left.

Today no one anywhere in the world believes the US government except the brain dead Americans who read and listen to the “mainstream media.” Washington’s propaganda dominates the minds of Americans, but produces laughter and scorn everywhere else.

The poor US economic outlook has brought America’s two largest business lobbies–the US Chamber of Commerce and the National Association of Manufacturers (or what is left of them) into conflict with the Obama regime’s threat of further sanctions against Russia.

According to Bloomberg News, beginning tomorrow (June 26), the business groups will run advertisements in the New York Times, Wall St Journal, and Washington Post opposing any further sanctions on Russia. The US business organizations say that the sanctions will harm their profits and result in layoffs of American workers.

Thus, America’s two largest business organizations, important sources of political campaign contributions, have finally added their voice to the voices of German, French, and Italian business.

Everyone, except the brainwashed American public, knows that the “crisis in Ukraine” is entirely the work of Washington. European and American businesses are asking: “why should our profits and our workers take hits in behalf of Washington’s propaganda against Russia.”

Obama has no answer. Perhaps his neocon scum, Victoria Nuland, Samantha Powers, and Susan Rice can come up with an answer. Obama can look to the New York Times, Washington Post, Wall Street Journal, and Weekly Standard to explain why millions of Americans and Europeans should suffer in order that Washington’s theft of Ukraine is not endangered.

Washington’s lies are catching up with Obama. German chancellor Merkel is Washington’s complete whore, but German industry is telling Washington’s whore that they value their business with Russia more than they value suffering in behalf of Washington’s empire. French businessmen are asking Hollande what he proposes to do with their unemployed workers if Holland goes along with Washington. Italian businesses are reminding that government, to the extent that Italy has one, that uncouth Americans have no tastes and that sanctions on Russia mean a hit to Italy’s most famous and best recognized economic sector–high style luxury products.

Dissent with Washington and Washington’s two-bit puppet rulers in Europe is spreading. The latest poll in Germany reveals that three-quarters of Germany’s population reject permanent NATO bases in Poland and the Baltic states. The former Czechoslovakia, currently Slovakia and the Czech Republic, although NATO members, have rejected NATO and American troops and bases on their territory. Recently, a German minister said that pleasing Washington required giving free oral sex for nothing in return.

The strains that Washington’s morons are putting on NATO might break the organization apart. Pray that it does. NATO’s excuse for existence disappeared with the Soviet collapse 23 years ago. Yet, Washington has increased NATO far beyond the borders of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization. NATO now runs from the Baltics to Central Asia. In order to have a reason for NATO’s continued expensive operation, Washington has had to construct an enemy out of Russia.

Russia has no intention of being Washington’s or NATO’s enemy and has made that perfectly clear. But Washington’s military/security complex, which absorbs about $1 trillion annually of US hard-pressed taxpayers’ money, needs an excuse to keep the profits flowing.

Unfortunately the Washington morons picked a dangerous enemy. Russia is a nuclear armed power, a country of vast dimensions, and with a strategic alliance with China.

Only a government drowning in arrogance and hubris or a government run by psychopaths and sociopaths would pick such an enemy.

Russia’s President Vladimir Putin has pointed out to Europe that Washington’s policies in the Middle East and Libya are not merely total failures but also devastatingly harmful to Europe and Russia.  The fools in Washington have removed the governments that suppressed the jihadists. Now the violent jihadists are unleashed. In the Middle East the jihadists are at work remaking the artificial boundaries set by the British and French in the aftermath of World War I.

Europe, Russia and China have Muslim populations and now must worry if the violence that Washington has unleashed will bring destabilization to regions of Europe, Russia and China.

No one anywhere in the world has any reason to love Washington. Least of all Americans, who are being bled dry in order that Washington can parade military force around the world.  Obama’s approval rating is a dismal 41 percent and no one wants Obama to remain in office once his second term is complete. In contrast, two-thirds of the Russian population want Putin to remain president after 2018.

In March the poling agency, Public Opinion Research Center, released a report that Putin’s approval rating stood at 76 percent despite the agitation against him by the US financed Russian NGOs, hundreds of fifth column institutions that Washington established in Russia during the past two decades.

On top of US political troubles, the US dollar is in trouble. The dollar is kept afloat by rigged financial markets and Washington’s pressure on its vassal states to support the dollar’s value by printing their own currencies and purchasing dollars. In order to keep the dollar afloat, much of the world will be inflated. When people finally catch on and rush into gold, the Chinese will have it all.

Sergey Glazyev, an adviser to President Putin, has told the Russian president than only an anti-dollar alliance that crashes the US dollar can halt Washington’s aggression. That has long been my opinion. There can be no peace as long as Washington can print more money with which to finance more wars.

As the Chinese government stated, it is time to “de-Americanize the world.” Washington’s leadership has totally failed the world, producing nothing but lies, violence, death, and the promise of more violence. America is exceptional only in the fact that Washington has, without remorse, destroyed in whole or part seven countries in the new 21st century. Unless Washington is replaced with more humane leadership, life on earth has no future.

The letter from Lawyers for Palestinian Human Rights is followed by the statement from 11 human rights organisations.

 

For the attention of: Right Hon William Hague MP

Right Hon William Hague MP
Foreign Secretary
Foreign and Commonwealth Office
King Charles Street
City of Westminster
London
SW1A 2AH

Email: [email protected]

24 June 2014

Dear Mr. Hague,

Re: Unnecessary violation of fundamental human rights and collective punishment by Israeli military during Operation Brother’s Keeper

We write further to disturbing reports of Israel’s recent extensive military activity in the occupied West Bank which raise serious concerns regarding unnecessary violation of fundamental human rights and collective punishment. We urge the British government to ensure that Israel’s military cease actions which disregard the safety, welfare and basic rights of the Palestinian population.

Reports of widespread rights violations during Operation Brother’s Keeper

Human rights organisations in Israel and the Occupied Palestinian Territory have been documenting Israel’s extensive military incursions in the West Bank as part of their action called Operation Brother’s Keeper, beginning 12 June 2014, and the associated harm caused to Palestinian individuals and communities. These reports indicate that the current military action being implemented to gain the safe return of the abducted Israeli teenagers – Eyal Yifrah, Naftali and Gil-Ad Shaar – is being conducted without full adherence to relevant human rights norms of international law.

Military incursions, mass arrests and house raids

The Palestinian Centre for Human Rights reported on 21 June 2014 that the Israeli military had conducted more than 220 incursions into Palestinian towns, villages and refugee camps in the West Bank, and arrested at least 320 Palestinian civilians, including the Speaker of the Palestinian Legislative Council (PLC) and six of its members. The Addameer Prisoner Support and Human Rights Association report that ‘none of those arrested have been charged, in direct violation of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights which provides that all those arrested should be informed of their charges upon arrest.’

B’Tselem reports there have been over 1,000 house raids and that, in some cases, the Israeli military has appeared to have also caused damage to property.

Fatalities and injuries to Palestinian civilians

Two Palestinian youths have been killed by the alleged firing of live ammunition by the Israeli military: 15 year old Mohammed Dudin from Dura, a minor, and 20 year old Ahmad Samada from Jalazoun. A third Palestinian civilian, 27 year old Ahmad Said Khalid from al-‘Ein Refugee Camp, was reportedly shot dead by the Israeli military at close range when on his way to a mosque for dawn prayers, because he did not obey orders to stop. His family reports that he suffered from mental health problems and epilepsy.

There have additionally been several reported injuries from military house raids and clashes according to corroborated reports from human rights organisations.

Severe movement restrictions

Severe movement restrictions have been imposed on Palestinian residents of Hebron, including preventing all Hebron residents under age 50 from leaving Israel via the Allenby border terminal and preventing entry to Israel for work. Gisha reports that the already severe restrictions on movement of persons and goods to and from Gaza have been intensified.

Administrative detention

B’Tselem reports that the Israeli Minister of Internal Security has been authorized to set guidelines for making prison conditions harsher and that family visits have been cancelled for all Palestinian prisoners. In addition, according to information published by Addameer on 19 June 2014, 77 Palestinians have been apprehended as administrative detainees since the start of Operation Brother’s Keeper.

LPHR has long had serious concerns over Israel’s normalised use of detention without charge or trial on the basis of secret information. Figures published by Addameer show that on 1 May 2014 there were 192 Palestinian administrative detainees in Israeli custody. This huge figure, which is significantly inflated since the commencement of Operation Brother’s Keeper, strongly suggests that Israel is utilising administrative detention as a matter of routine practice in breach of international law, rather than as a permissible exceptional measure.

Urgent intervention required to protect the Palestinian population during Operation Brother’s Keeper

The various extensive actions taken by the Israeli military as part of Operation Brother’s Keeper raise serious concerns of disproportionate and unnecessary violations of basic rights. of Palestinians under international law, including the right to life. Moreover, their cumulativeffect appears to amount to the implementation of collective punishment against the Palestinian civilian population of the West Bank and Gaza, which is absolutely prohibited by international humanitarian law.

We therefore respectfully request the following steps are urgently undertaken by the British government:

1. Urge the Israeli government to fully adhere to their international legal obligations to respect the welfare and safety of the Palestinian population by ceasing action which violate basic rights and appears to amount to the implementation of collective punishment;

2. Urge the Israeli government to ensure that the Israeli military commence thorough, credible and transparent criminal investigations into the deaths and serious injuries caused to Palestinian civilians during the course of Operation Brother’s Keeper, including: Mohammed Dudin, Ahmad Samada, and Ahmad Said Khalid;

3. Urge the Israeli government to immediately withdraw the reported harsher conditions imposed on Palestinian prisoners held in the West Bank and in Israel; and

4. Urge the Israeli government to release all administrative detainees or prosecute them in accordance with the standards of due process for the offences allegedly committed.

We look forward to your urgent intervention and for your written response.

Yours sincerely,

Tareq Shrourou
Director, Lawyers for Palestinian Human Rights

Image: What are the principles of intervention? “We could not and did not turn a blind eye when Gaddafi turned his forces against innocent civilians” said British foreign secretary William Hague, here in Benghazi, June 2011, where he travelled in order to offer judicious support to the Libyan rebels against Gaddafi. Photo by Ian Nicholson/AFP/Getty Images

 

Human Rights Organizations: “Refrain from Collectively Punishing Palestinians.”

Media release from 11 human rights’ organisations
June 22, 2014

Concern that many of the military’s actions in the Occupied Territories do not directly serve the aim of locating and returning the three abducted Israelis and are severely and unnecessarily violating basic human rights.

Image: IDF soldiers still on armed patrols/searches in Hebron, Thursday, June 19, 2014. Photo by Majdi Mohammed / AP

This morning, 22 June 2014, human rights organizations active in the Occupied Territories sent an urgent letter to the heads of the Israeli security establishment and military commanders in the West Bank, demanding that they refrain from collectively punishing the civilian Palestinian population in the West Bank and Gaza Strip as part of Operation Brother’s Keeper. The letter also demanded that the more stringent restrictions imposed on the detention conditions of Palestinian prisoners be withdrawn.

The letter – by the directors of Amnesty International, B’Tselem, Gisha, the Association for Civil Rights in Israel, the Public Committee Against Torture in Israel, HaMoked: Center for the Defence of the Individual, Yesh Din, Adalah, Physicians for Human Rights – Israel, Rabbis for Human Rights and Breaking the Silence – was sent to the Minister of Defense and Minister of Public Security and made clear that the abductions constitute a violation of the fundamental principles of law and morals and must be condemned. The need to return the abducted Israelis safe and sound to their homes and families is clear. Yet, there is concern that many of the actions undertaken harm the Palestinian population and do not serve this purpose.

The large number of raids and arrests over the last week raises concerns that some of these operations are not the result of pressing operational needs. Overall, the measures adopted and their extent do not seem to serve a military need that can justify the damage they have caused. This is the case in terms of the military activity that has taken place in city centers as well as the sweeping and arbitrary travel restrictions. These actions have caused, and continue to cause, disproportionate harm to the basic rights of Palestinians, including the right to safety, health, freedom of movement and the right to earn a living.

Furthermore, the imposition of restrictive and punitive conditions on Palestinian prisoners solely because of their organizational affiliation is a blatant violation of the prohibition against collective punishment. Similarly, in terms of administrative detainees, it is hard not to question if there is really an immediate, essential military need that entailed the swift detention without trial of dozens of people.

The undersigned organizations emphasize that actions designed to intimidate and pressure the local population are illegal and untenable.

The following organizations signed the letter:

Amnesty International, B’Tselem,
Gisha – Legal Center for Freedom of Movement,
The Association for Civil Rights in Israel,
The Public Committee Against Torture in Israel,
HaMoked: Center for the Defence of the Individual,
Yesh Din, Adalah, Physicians for Human Rights – Israel,
Rabbis for Human Rights, Breaking the Silence.

The first of a new generation of genetically modified crops is poised to win government approval in the United States, igniting a controversy that may continue for years, and foreshadowing the future of genetically modified crops.

The agribusiness industry says the plants—soy and corn engineered to tolerate two herbicides, rather than one—are a safe, necessary tool to help farmers fight so-called superweeds. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and Department of Agriculture appear to agree.

However, many health and environmental groups say the crops represent yet another step on what they call a pesticide treadmill: an approach to farming that relies on ever-larger amounts of chemical use, threatening to create even more superweeds and flood America’s landscapes with potentially harmful compounds.

Public comments on the Environmental Protection Agency’s draft review of the crops will be accepted until June 30. As of now, both the EPA and USDA’s reviews favor approval. Their final decisions are expected later this summer.

“We’re at a crossroads here,” said Bill Freese, a science policy analyst at the Center for Food Safety, an advocacy group. “With these, we’re dramatically increasing farmer dependence on herbicides.” In a letter to the USDA, the Center and 143 other public-interest and environmental groups warned of a “chemical arms race with weeds,” in which the new crops offer “at best temporary relief.”

The crops under consideration were engineered by Dow AgroSciences, a Dow Chemical Company subsidiary. They’re part of what Dow calls the Enlist Weed Control System: Enlist, a proprietary mixture of glyphosate and 2,4-D herbicides, and the plants onto which Enlist can be sprayed without causing them harm as it kills surrounding weeds.

A similar approach to designing solely glyphosate-tolerant crops—Monsanto’s Roundup Ready trait—has made glyphosate the most widely-used herbicide in the United States. Those crops now account for more than 80 percent of U.S. corn and cotton, and 93 percent of all American soybeans.

When Roundup Ready crops were first introduced in the 1990s, some scientists warned that weeds would eventually evolve tolerance to glyphosate: After all, any herbicide-hardy weed would have an enormous reproductive advantage. Monsanto said that wouldn’t happen. It did, sooner rather than later. Such weeds are now an enormous problem, infesting roughly 75 million acres of fields, an area roughly equivalent to the size of Arizona.

Farmers have been sent scrambling for solutions, and products like Enlist andsimilar multiple herbicide-resistant crops developed by other companies are the agriculture industry’s solution. “Enlist Duo herbicide will help solve the tremendous weed control challenges growers are facing,” said Damon Palmer, the U.S. commercial leader for Enlist, in a press release accompanying the EPA’s draft announcement.

According to Dow, weed resistance can be forestalled this time around. But critics say it’s inevitable, and that applying 2,4-D at the anticipated landscape scales could harm both humans and the natural environment. The companies consider those fears to be overblown and based on a biased interpretation of the science. That is also what critics say of them.

If there’s any common ground, it’s this: If the Enlist system is approved, much more herbicide will be used in the United States. According to the USDA, somewhere between 78 and 176 million pounds of additional 2,4-D could be used on U.S. crops by 2020, up from 26 million in 2011.

Herbicides and Health

Among the galaxy of chemicals found in agriculture and everyday modern life, 2,4-D is comparatively well-researched. Scores of studies over the last several decades have looked for population-level patterns linking exposures to human health problems, or described the effects on animals experimentally exposed to 2,4-D.

Considerable disagreement exists, however, on how to interpret that research. Critics of the 2,4-D resistant crops emphasize the population-level epidemiology, which raises cause for concern. Dow and the EPA place much more weight on results from laboratory animal exposures, from which the effects of anticipated human exposures are extrapolated.

Based on the animal research, “we have looked at the possibility that Enlist could be used on every acre of corn and soybeans and concluded there would be no human health risk from such use,” the EPA said in a statement provided to WIRED.

Their evaluation fits with the state of the science as described by Dow toxicologist and former Society of Toxicology president James Bus, who said that even farm workers who handle 2,4-D on a daily basis are exposed to levels “that are 1,000-fold below doses which in animals cause no effect.”

“Almost all the key toxicology studies are in the peer-reviewed public literature. They’re not hidden in company files,” said Bus, who described the misgivings of Enlist’s critics as resulting from a lack of familiarity with the literature, or giving too much credence to findings of harm that involved unrealistically high doses or impure 2,4-D formulations.

In turn, the Environmental Working Group, an environmental advocacy group, said in a June 4 letter to the EPA that the agency’s health reviews were flawed, incomplete and “significantly underestimate the real harm to human health.”

Broadly speaking, health concerns fall into two categories: whether 2,4-d might cause cancer, and whether 2,4-D might disrupt the human endocrine system, perhaps causing reproductive or neurological damage. On a possible link to cancer, most research suggests otherwise: Both the EPA and World Health Organization’s International Agency for Cancer Research have previously declared that 2,4-D does not appear to be carcinogenic to humans.

A more recent review of the epidemiology by two WHO cancer researchers did find a significant link between 2,4-D exposures and non-Hodgkins lymphoma. Dow’s own review of the epidemiology, published in Critical Reviews in Toxicology, found no connection.

On the risk of endocrine disruption, however, the science is more ambiguous. The EPA acknowledged in a 2005 evaluation of 2,4-D that, based on experimental effects on animal thyroids and gonads, “there is concern regarding its endocrine disruption potential.” But Bus pointed to a recent Dow-run study of rat exposures that figured prominently in the EPA’s evaluation and was published last September in the journal Toxicological Sciences. In those experiments, damage arose only at exposure levels far higher than is found in real-world settings.

Some research has pointed in a different direction, though. In a 2012 letter to the EPA, a group of 70 public health scientists and health professionals cited several population-level epidemiological studies that linked 2,4-D exposures and birth defects in several midwestern states.

Epidemiology shows statistical correlations, not cause-and-effect, and is necessarily messy: It can be hard to isolate one chemical’s signal from a sea of variable factors. On the other hand, epidemiology deals with real-world dynamics, and for 2,4-D resonates with some experimental observations. In a 2008Environmental Health article researchers wrote that “even though the evidence is sparse, some chlorophenoxy herbicides, in particular 2,4-D, have neurotoxic potentials and may cause developmental neurotoxicity.”

One of the study’s authors was environmental health professor Philippe Grandjean of the Harvard School of Public Health. Asked whether he still stood by that claim, Grandjean said that he does. “We know too little about the risks of developmental neurotoxicity” to dismiss concerns, he said.

A 2009 Archives of Neurology study also found suggestions of a link between 2,4-D exposures and Parkinson’s disease, though the number of cases was small. According to EPA, such reports will continue to be monitored as Enlist use is periodically reviewed, but may have resulted from older 2,4-D formulations that were contaminated by dioxin, an extremely toxic compound generated as a byproduct of 2,4-D manufacture.

Dioxin contamination is “no longer a factor in the modern manufacturing processes for 2,4-D,” said the EPA in its draft review. Again, critics are not reassured. “When you’re cooking it up, it’s inevitable that you’ll end up with dioxins being formed,” said Lynn Carroll, senior scientist at the nonprofit Endocrine Disruption Exchange.

A 2010 Environmental Science & Technology study by Australian toxicologists of dioxin contamination in 2,4-D found it to be an ongoing concern, though Enlist was not among the formulations evaluated. While buyers of Enlist seeds will be contractually obligated to use Dow’s reportedly cleaner formulations, Freese worries that farmers will evade those restrictions. “Based on general knowledge of enforcement of regulations in the field, it seems extremely likely that a lot of 2,4-D use will involve generic versions,” he said.

Schematic showing possible routes of 2,4-D through the environment.  EPA

Environmental Impacts

In addition to possible human health impacts, many questions remain about the effects of 2,4-D on ecological health. In its statement to WIRED, the EPA said, “We are confident that there will be no off-site exposure to the choline salt of 2,4-D”—Dow’s new formulation—”that would be of concern for effects to plant or animals.”

But the agency’s own ecological risk assessment strikes a more uncertain tone: While stating that 2,4-D poses no direct poisoning threat to birds, fish, aquatic plants or insects, it noted a lack of empirical information about risks to mammals and terrestrial plants. “There is insufficient information to determine how the proposed new uses of 2,4-D choline salt will directly affect mammals … and terrestrial plants, and indirectly affect all taxonomic groups,” wrote the EPA’s ecologists.

That plants in areas adjacent to farm fields, or receiving soil-runoff water expected to contain 2,4-D, could be at risk seems self-evident: After all, 2,4-D is a herbicide, toxic to most plants that don’t have needles for leaves. “There are more and more concerns being raised about the drift problem,” said agroecologist Bruce Maxwell of Montana State University.

“These field edges are some of the last remaining harbors” of biodiversity in the midwestern United States, Maxwell said. They provide vital habitat and forage to many animals, in particular pollinators such as bees and butterflies, populations of which are in precipitous decline. The collapse of monarch butterflies has already been tied to the rise of glyphosate use.

The EPA’s draft review of Enlist, which emphasized the “practically non-toxic” direct effect of 2,4-D on bees, gave little weight to indirect effects, in part because the agency assumes farmers will use Enlist in ways that minimize its accidental spread beyond field edges. “If this product is used according to the label directions, no unreasonable adverse effects would result,” said the EPA in its statement.

It may be unreasonable, though, to expect farmers to always follow those directions, which include recommendations that Enlist not be sprayed closer than 30 feet to field edges, when wind is blowing above 2 and below 10 miles per hour, or when it’s too hot and dry. “Everyone knows these assumptions are unreal,” said Freese.

The Future of Superweeds

Such tensions between intentions and expediency are also evident in arguments over the potential for weeds to evolve in response to heavy 2,4-D and glyphosate use, just as they did in response to glyphosate alone.

According to Dow, this is unlikely, both because 2,4-D resistance is a relatively difficult trait for plants to acquire and because the company is committed to promoting growing practices—such as crop rotations and non-chemical weed control measures—that reduce selection pressures favoring herbicide-tolerant weeds.

Yet tolerance to 2,4-D has already been documented in several weed species that have elsewhere become glyphosate-resistant superweeds, including waterhempand horseweed. Particularly troubling, said Maxwell, is the existence of mutations that confer broad-spectrum herbicide tolerance. These could spread through weed populations much more rapidly than constellations of several mutations, each conferring a piecemeal defense.

Weeds that can survive doses of multiple herbicides have already been found—not 2,4-D and glyphosate, at least not yet, but the potential is clearly there. “Stacking up tolerance traits may delay the appearance of resistant weeds, but probably not for long,” concluded a recent Nature editorial, which also argued that real-world practicalities may preclude good intentions.

“A farmer making good money in the age of biofuel crop subsidies may be loath to switch to a different crop,” wrote Nature‘s editors. “And farmers may be hesitant to invest the money needed to properly manage weeds, when their farms could end up infested with weeds from less-assiduous neighbours.”

Herbicide resistance expert Pat Tranel of the University of Illinois said that multiple herbicide-resistant crops like Enlist could be useful tools for farmers, “but we’re concerned that, as with any new tool, it will be overused.”

Ideally, said Tranel, “we’d be using herbicides as part of a system, and using other strategies such as crop rotation and more-diversified cropping.” Indeed, research by Tranel’s colleague Adam Davis has demonstrated the industrial-scale potentialof such a balanced approach. But for now, said Tranel, “that’s not perceived as an economic alternative.”

The EPA’s draft assessment does not require farmers to rotate Enlist and non-Enlist crops. Instead, responsibility for slowing the rise of future superweeds is given largely to Dow. Farmers will be asked to scout their fields, reporting signs of Enlist-resistant weeds to Dow, which will investigate and decide whether to notify the EPA.

That raises obvious conflict-of-interest concerns, said Freese, citing as precedent Monsanto’s poor track record in monitoring the evolution of rootworm tolerance to genetically-engineered Bt corn. That was ultimately verified by independent academic researchers, not industry investigators. And even if Dow’s monitoring system is thorough, it may be insufficient.

“You can have the best surveillance system in the world, and the numbers are going to get you,” said Maxwell. “Resistance is going to be there. It will escape notice. And once it occurs at even a low, recognizable level, it’s going to continue to be there.”

Should that happen, the next logical step—at least from a commercial perspective—is to develop crops resistant to even more herbicides. Another of Dow’s soybean varieties, now being reviewed by the USDA, tolerates three herbicides; also in the regulatory pipeline are multiple herbicide-resistant crops from Monsanto and Syngenta, as well as crops that tolerate both herbicides and pesticides.

Freese pointed one of Dow’s patents, for a mechanism that would allow up to nine types of herbicide resistance to be engineered into a single plant. A patent claim is no guarantee that a technology will be used, but it may be an apt symbol for the near future of agricultural biotechnology.

“In the end, we’re going to render most of our chemical solutions obsolete,” said Maxwell. “In the meantime, unfortunately, we’re going to do some damage.”

What’s really happening in Eastern Ukraine” What are the people in Donbass fighting for?

This video focuses on the criminal punitive operation waged by the Kiev regime, directed against the people of Eastern Ukraine.

Supported by the West, the Kiev regime says that these people are “terrorists” and “subhumans”.  The western media applauds.

The National Guard largely made of Right Sector Neo-Nazis has committed countless atrocities.

It’s called “Western style democracy”.

Save Donbass.

Save the Children of Eastern Ukraine.

Spread the word.

Support Truth in Media.

Michel Chossudovsky GR Editor, June 25, 2014

We bring to the attention of GR readers the abstract of this important scientific study.

To consult the full article click here: http://www.enveurope.com/content/26/1/14

.

Abstract

Background

The health effects of a Roundup-tolerant NK603 genetically modified (GM) maize (from 11% in the diet), cultivated with or without Roundup application and Roundup alone (from 0.1 ppb of the full pesticide containing glyphosate and adjuvants) in drinking water, were evaluated for 2 years in rats. This study constitutes a follow-up investigation of a 90-day feeding study conducted by Monsanto in order to obtain commercial release of this GMO, employing the same rat strain and analyzing biochemical parameters on the same number of animals per group as our investigation.

Our research represents the first chronic study on these substances, in which all observations including tumors are reported chronologically. Thus, it was not designed as a carcinogenicity study. We report the major findings with 34 organs observed and 56 parameters analyzed at 11 time points for most organs.

Results

Biochemical analyses confirmed very significant chronic kidney deficiencies, for all treatments and both sexes; 76% of the altered parameters were kidney-related. In treated males, liver congestions and necrosis were 2.5 to 5.5 times higher. Marked and severe nephropathies were also generally 1.3 to 2.3 times greater. In females, all treatment groups showed a two- to threefold increase in mortality, and deaths were earlier. This difference was also evident in three male groups fed with GM maize. All results were hormone- and sex-dependent, and the pathological profiles were comparable. Females developed large mammary tumors more frequently and before controls; the pituitary was the second most disabled organ; the sex hormonal balance was modified by consumption of GM maize and Roundup treatments.

Males presented up to four times more large palpable tumors starting 600 days earlier than in the control group, in which only one tumor was noted. These results may be explained by not only the non-linear endocrine-disrupting effects of Roundup but also by the overexpression of the EPSPS transgene or other mutational effects in the GM maize and their metabolic consequences.

Conclusion

Our findings imply that long-term (2 year) feeding trials need to be conducted to thoroughly evaluate the safety of GM foods and pesticides in their full commercial formulations.

by Gilles-Eric Séralini^1*, Emilie Clair¹, Robin Mesnage¹, Steeve Gress¹, Nicolas Defarge¹, Manuela Malatesta², Didier Hennequin³ and Joël Spiroux de Vendômois¹

Author Affiliations

¹ Institute of Biology, EA 2608 and CRIIGEN and Risk Pole, MRSH-CNRS, Esplanade de la Paix, University of Caen, Caen 14032, Cedex, France

² Department of Neurological, Neuropsychological, Morphological and Motor Sciences, University of Verona, Verona 37134, Italy

³ Risk Pole, MRSH-CNRS, Esplanade de la Paix, University of Caen, Caen 14032, Cedex, France

© 2014 Séralini et al.; licensee Springer

This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

(Photos: Dahr Jamail; Edited: JR / TO)

As the impacts of anthropogenic climate disruption (ACD) continue to escalate, drought, wildfires, flooding and other extreme weather events continue to intensify and last longer as a result.

In parts of Africa, the sociopolitical translation of this means wars over water, crops and animals, as drought and theensuing conflict spinning out of it have become the norm.

In the United States, this looks like ever-increasing food prices, growing evidence of overt animosity towards the government, and increasing economic and health concerns about what the future holds as drought, wildfires and temperature extremes continue to intensify.

As a growing number of US citizens wonder what they might be able to do to take care of themselves as this dystopian future comes into focus, silver linings are emerging from the darkening clouds.

One of them is a small farm on the outskirts of one of the largest cities in the country.

(Photo: Dahr Jamail)

More Than a Farm

The 23-acre Blackwood Educational Land Institute grows everything from peaches, pears and plums to kale, broccoli and figs, constitutes three ecosystems (Piney Woods, Black Prairieland and Savannah Post Oak), runs a community-supported agriculture (CSA) operation, and hosts yoga retreats, wilderness first-responder training and children’s education programs.

One would not expect a place like this to be only a half-hour drive from downtown Houston, Texas, nestled within an area not known for having progressive politics, let alone making advanced preparations for ACD.

Hans Hansen, the horticulturist who oversees the gardening operations at Blackwood, told Truthout he is already acutely aware of the need to make adjustments for what is already well underway.

Horticulturist Hans Hansen, with the Blackwood Educational Land Institute since it started in 1989, hopes their work creates a “basic language to communicate to as many sectors of the community as we can.” (Photo: Dahr Jamail)

“We’re having to adapt our crops and techniques to climate change and the growing season changes that it is causing,” Hansen explained. “And my goal is to raise consciousness levels in Southeast Texas in regards to our relationship with the planet, as well as growing food.”

The institute, founded in 1989, is small-scale, sustainable, organic and functions as a CSA: It provides regular shipments of food to distribution points in Houston so that people there have access to affordable, organic produce.

Hansen is optimistic about the future of agriculture on a local level, in that he believes Houston “has shifted in recent years from post-modern thinking to having sectors that are taking a leadership role in sustainable food and where it intersects with the culinary world.”

Cath Conlon, the president and CEO of the institute, believes that not only will we be healthier and happier if we learn how to feed ourselves, but that we must also concentrate on learning other skills for self-sufficiency.

“We provide Wilderness First Responder (WFR) training to all our [nature camp] counselors,” she said. “But also with kids who come here who are graduating college. Look at our medical system . . . people don’t know how they are going to be taken care of. So hopefully by giving training, we can help alleviate that concern.”

Cath Conlon, the president and CEO of the Blackwood Educational Land Institute. (Photo: Dahr Jamail)

Currently Blackwood has direct working relationships with eight middle and high schools, which have incorporated the institute’s work into their curriculum.

Conlon believes society needs people within every workplace environment who know how to take care of themselves and others during an emergency, as well as on an organic, basic living level.

“We offer that kind of training here, in that we grow our own food, we offer the WFR training, we compost, and we stress conscious living,” she said. “We also model social justice, supporting environmental issues, and how to support our health and spirit. I don’t know of other places around here that teach all this.”

The institute is sustained, according to Conlon, by “grants, gifts, and hard work. But mostly hard work.”

Using permaculture and biodynamic farming, the institute aims to “work towards creating the world we want to live in, here and now,” Conlon said.

Conlon showing the water level of all the rainwater harvesting tanks used at the institute. (Photo: Dahr Jamail)

Nine people work at the institute and on the farm, which also harvests rainwater for all of its drinking and irrigation needs.

When the farm hosts nature camps, WFR trainings, yoga retreats and gardening classes, all of the participants are fed directly from what the farm produces.

In addition to being a CSA provider, the farm feeds everyone who attends workshops and retreats at the institute. (Photo: Dahr Jamail)

“We teach folks about riparian corridors, how to manage a canoe and kayak, water safety, how to cook, religious tolerance, and conflict management,” Conlon added. “We also bring in 20 kids from Taiwan and mix them in with local kids for mutual learning, in something we call the Mandarin Camp.”

The institute also participates in Bioneers, a group that describes itself as working to provide and promote “visionary solutions for the world’s most pressing environmental and social challenges.” Bioneers does so, in part, by holding annual national and local conferences, hosting radio programs and engaging in extensive media outreach.

Conservation and Renewal

“The garden is like someone’s body,” Conlon explained. “All our land here was raped because they used fertilizers and grew hay which locked up the natural process. So we had to rehab this land, just as humans sometimes need drug rehab, the land goes through the same processes.”

Hansen agreed.

“Our theme is the parallels with the body of the earth and the human body, and soil is like the microflora in our gut,” he said. “I like to have people relate to the land as part of their body and to integrate this understanding.”

Teachings and practices at the institute meld spirit, mind, body and earth. (Photo: Dahr Jamail)

Hansen aims to do all the work at the institute “with a sense of spirit, intelligence and compassion” in the hope that these values might spread.

However, as the city of Houston continues to undergo another economic boom driven by fracking and the ongoing expansion of the oil and gas industry, both Hansen and Conlon are worried about encroachment as the city grows.

“I would think others around here would be concerned about the encroachment too,” Conlon said. “I mean, where will kids go to be able to see how food grows?”

Nevertheless, the institute’s work continues to grow; it already has several students from nearby high schools who want to work there, and apparently that is what will be necessary as the institute looks to the future.

Although small, the institute continues to slowly grow in size and personnel over time. (Photo: Dahr Jamail)

“It takes every person here to keep all the moving parts working,” Conlon said. “And we’re always looking at how we can stay ahead of the curve, to keep learning and growing and adapting, along with the planet.”

Given the advancement of ACD and what this means for our ability to feed and care for ourselves, Blackwood farm could well be a model for our collective future.

Copyright, Truthout. Reprinted witht permission.

In the wake of a Bundy Ranch crisis sparked by a militarized federal land-grab effort in Nevada, it seems that the Department of Interior has set its sights on a new prize – this time targeting once protected Indian reservation land on Pine Ridge in South Dakota.

The Oglala Sioux and Lakota Sioux of the reservation have been told by the Federal Government that the National Parks Service will be taking land that comprises the South Unit of the Badlands National Park as a new ‘Tribal National Park’, only the wording in the bill clearly indicates that it will be a federally managed national park under the Department of Interior, giving mere lip service to its tribal title. The Congressional bill has already been written, and if passed through Congress, both tribal members and non tribal members will be stripped of their deeded land – at a price set by the federal government. If owners do not accept Washington’s offer (expected to be a meager one), the land can be acquired at no cost because the measure has waived all appraisal rights and stipulates that Washington can simply take Indian land by force under ‘eminent domain’.

Thousands of tribe members will be affected by the land-grab. Some residents will be forced to relocate, and many more others will lose their income from grazing allotments on the land – a result which will ultimately force any remaining independent cattle ranchers out of business. In addition to all this, Tribal members will lose their share of income from entrance fees collected at the adjacent North Gate of the Badlands National Park – a punitive measure which will further compound the existing economic depression on a reservation where the average annual income is around $8,000 per year.

Washington may be pining for yet another ‘Wounded Knee’, as many residents and tribal members are prepared to stand their ground in the face of a federal imperialist policy inside US borders – a trend which many Americans have experienced first-hand, particularly in western states like Utah, Nevada, New Mexico, Arizona and California.

Pine Ridge and Sioux cattle rancher Bud May with father Avery (Photo credit: Bud May)

Tribal member and local cattle rancher Bud May believes the issue is not confined to Pine Ridge.

May states, “There is a feeling of common cause between attached parties on this issue – namely tribes and other reservations. The bottom line is we’ll all be under dictatorial control if something is not done quick”.

The federal move initially gained traction after a Tribal Ordinance passed by the Tribal Council in the spring of 2013. Many Tribal members have been frustrated with the tribal council, which has gone against the will of the people to back the park. All 9 districts on the reservation have passed unanimous resolutions against the park along with the Shannon County Commissioners and several South Dakota State legislators.

Badlands’ located on the Pine Ridge Sioux Indian Reservation in South Dakota (Photo Credit: Bud May)

To add insult to injury, it appears that all landowners were only notified of the measure until after it had passed, with their first news of the federal plan coming in the form of eviction notices issued by the Bureau of Indian Affairs Land Operations department in the fall of 2013.

The Tribal Council of 19 has yet to allow a democratic referendum on the federal takeover, although sources confirm that the referendum option is on the agenda for next month’s council meeting.

‘Cowboys and Indian’ in Common Cause

The federal land-grab crisis was elevated to national news in April when Nevada independent rancher Cliven Bundy and his supporters stood toe to toe in an armed standoff with the the Department of Interior’s Bureau of Land Management (BLM) over Bundy’s private property and land rights which trace back to 1870′s.

Lory Storm, a Nebraska radio host who has been following recent developments at Pine Ridge describes the synergy now happening between what were previously strange bedfellows. Storm explains,

“The difference between this situation and the Bundy Ranch conflict? It will be the first time in the history of our Country that the Cowboys and Indians pose a united front against a federal government that is used to winning battles by first dividing and then conquering.”

Already, many land owners are taking the position that they will not comply with the latest order from the government – leaving many to wonder whether this potential standoff will become the third ‘Wounded Knee’ incident involving a standoff between the Sioux Nation and the US Federal government.

June 25^th is the anniversary of the infamous conflict at the Little Big Horn between General Custer, the Northern Cheyenne and the Lakota Sioux, and this year’s anniversary will see residents of the Pine Ridge Reservation along with other protesters gathering again Wounded Knee to protest the theft of their land by the Federal Government.

Crowds will gather to protest and a symbolic ride will take place today, where tribal riders will be joined by riders from ranches in Nebraska and South Dakota in the afternoon at the Gordon Legion in a show of solidarity on the issue of private property rights and grazing rights.

A number of new reports confirm that the European economy continues to stagnate and is threatened with a deflationary spiral.

The latest Purchasing Managers’ Index (PMI), which measures the future purchasing plans of key companies in the euro zone, registered a downturn in June for two of the continent’s key economies. The PMI index estimate for June hit a six-month low of 52.8, with both services and manufacturing branches declining.

Europe’s second biggest economy, France, registered a PMI of 48. Any figure under 50 represents a contraction. The June figure means that the French private sector has now contracted for four of the last six months. The PMI figure for Germany, while above 50, was also down. A separate statistic for Germany, the Ifo business climate index, also fell in June to its lowest level since December 2013.

Following years of economic decline in many countries throughout Europe as a result of the harsh austerity policies dictated by the European Union, European Central Bank and the International Monetary Fund, the growth recorded in Europe’s biggest economy, Germany, was regarded as a positive exception to the continental trend.

The latest figures, however, confirm that the economic crisis is increasingly shifting from the periphery to the core of Europe.

France is Germany’s single biggest trading partner, and its contraction has a negative affect on Germany’s leading export industries. Another factor cited by the business press for the slowdown in Germany, however, is the continuing crisis in Ukraine, which threatens the country’s energy supplies and its extensive interests in eastern Europe. Moreover, the crisis in Iraq has pushed up the price of oil and increased costs for many industries.

The latest figures contradict a series of media reports and declarations by economic institutions that the European economy was emerging from recession. In its April economic report, the OECD declared: “The euro area economies, including those most heavily hit by the crisis, appear to be turning the corner after many years of low and uneven growth.”

In fact. the European Central Bank has already downgraded its modest estimate for growth in the euro zone in 2014 to just 1 percent. The downgrade came after figures released at the start of this month revealed that inflation across the euro zone had fallen to 0.5 percent in May, down from 0.7 percent in April. The figure for inflation considered by the ECB to be compatible with economic growth is 2 percent.

In a separate report released on June 16, the Center for Economic Policy Research declared that the “extremely weak economic developments since early 2013” indicate that the euro zone recession was not over.

While austerity cuts into spending throughout the continent, levels of private and public debt continue to soar. Unemployment throughout Europe remains at the highest levels since figures have been collected. The extent of the social devastation in Europe was most recently recorded in the June report from the International Labour Organisation.

Every intervention by the European Central Bank, such as its recent decision to introduce a negative interest rate, has only encouraged the hedge funds and major investors to engage in even more risky forms of speculation. It is this process of providing cheap money to speculators that has driven up stock markets, such as the German DAX, to record levels in recent weeks.

There is nothing accidental about this process

At the heart of the economic developments in Europe is a massive redistribution of wealth from the working population to a tiny elite of millionaires and billionaires who have been able to massively expand their portfolios over the past five years.

The latest discussions in Brussels over future economic policy and the haggling over a new president for the EU commission are directed at intensifying this process.

The European finance and political elite are intent on imposing in France and Italy the type of political reforms to the labour market that were introduced by a Social Democratic Party government in Germany a decade ago. The Agenda 2010 program introduced by Gerhard Schröder resulted in a massive cheap wage sector that has driven down wage levels and maximized profits for German companies and banks.

In addition, the Agenda 2010 program slashed German government spending as a ratio of GDP. Now, the same process is to be undertaken in France, Italy and throughout the continent.

Behind all the current platitudes from European leaders on the need for jobs and growth, the European Commission is preparing a fresh round of even more devastating attacks on the working class.

At the beginning, the video shows a bus with children leaving their home with tears in their eyes. Their parents and relatives are standing beside the bus. 

Then the video shows what the people of Slavyansk have to go through during artillery and bombing attacks by the Kiev regime.  This “government” which is integrated by two Neo-Nazi parties is supported by the self-proclaimed international community.

The “anti-terrorist operation” in Eastern Ukraine is coordinated by the National Security and National Defense Committee (RNBOU). (Рада національної безпеки і оборони України), which is controlled by Svoboda and Right Sector.

Dmytro Yarosh, Neo-Nazi leader of the Right Sector delegation in the parliament, oversees the National Guard, a loyal civilian militia created in March with the support of Western military advisers.

The Western media has described the Neo-Nazi Brown shirts as “freedom fighters”.

While the media presents the crisis as a confrontation between “pro-Russian” and “Ukrainian nationalists”, the grassroots movement in Eastern Ukraine is largely directed against the Neo-Nazi Kiev regime supported by the West.

Meanwhile, new reports inform  us that there is democracy in Ukraine, with the advent of a duly elected president and that Russia is the Aggressor.

Save the People in Donbass, Save the Children,

Spread the word far and wide. Support Truth in media.

Michel Chossudovsky, GR Editor

The long-suppressed Justice Department memo released Monday establishes that the president of the United States, Barack Obama, in the most calculated and criminal manner, authorized the murder of an American citizen, Anwar al-Awlaki.

Reading this document, with its crude arguments supporting the targeting and drone killing of a man far from any battlefield, who was never charged with a crime, is itself a chilling experience. The tortured pseudo-legalisms of its author only underscore the premeditated character of the act.

The drone attack that killed Awlaki and three others in Yemen on September 30, 2011, including a second US citizen, Samir Khan, was not carried out in the heat of battle. Neither was the drone attack one month later that obliterated Awlaki’s teenage son.

Obama’s secret decision to place Awlaki on his “kill list” was leaked to the press in April of 2010. The memo by the then-head of the Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel, David Barron, claiming that the Constitution and US laws gave the president the power to kill a US citizen, without charge or trial, was sent to Attorney General Eric Holder in July of 2010. Awlaki’s father filed a suit in federal court to remove his son from the kill list, but the case was thrown out in December of 2010.

Thus the murder of Awlaki was organized over a protracted period of time. It was a cold-blooded extra-judicial killing by the state.

Awlaki had not been indicted prior to his killing. In fact, it has not been established to this day that he had committed a criminal act. None of the assertions by the government of his role as an “operational leader” of an Al Qaeda group or his alleged involvement in terror plots against the US were ever substantiated, although Barron in his memo treats them all as indisputable fact.

It may be the case—and not even this is clear—that he engaged in propaganda hostile to the policies of the US government. But even if this is so, such behavior is not necessarily criminal, let alone grounds for execution without trial.

Awlaki’s background raises a host of questions. He was, in fact, well known to the Pentagon and the FBI, having collaborated with them a decade before.

It seems that Awlaki was selected for an extra-judicial state killing because he had acquired a public persona that—and here the media played a vital role—would make him an “acceptable” target. In this sense, Awlaki was a guinea pig. His murder was calculated to establish a precedent for virtually unlimited executive power—and it has.

There is no precedent for such an act in American history. With the state murder of Awlaki, the United States entered into uncharted territory. The lack of any significant response from any section of the political establishment has demonstrated that so-called American democracy is rotting from within.

If the deliberate murder of a US citizen is not an impeachable act, a “high crime and misdemeanor,” then nothing is. But there has been no congressional investigation into the killing of Awlaki. There have been no public hearings. There has been no move to impeach Obama or prosecute him and his CIA and Pentagon accomplices. This is because the entire state is complicit.

It is instructive to compare the killing of Awlaki to other presidential acts that led to impeachment proceedings or, at least, congressional hearings. In 1868, President Andrew Johnson was impeached by the House of Representatives for having violated the Tenure of Office Act. He avoided conviction by the Senate and removal from office by a single vote. The underlying cause of the impeachment crisis involved conflicts with Congress over policy toward the defeated South.

Richard Nixon resigned under duress in August 1974 after the House Judiciary Committee passed three articles of impeachment relating to the Watergate burglary and the bombing of Cambodia. Many of his subordinates resigned and were later sent to prison.

In the 1980s, President Ronald Reagan became mired in the Iran-Contra affair that should have led to impeachment proceedings but did not. There were, however, public congressional hearings into the secret sale of weapons to Iran in exchange for the release of US hostages, and the use of the proceeds from the sales to fund the Nicaraguan contras, in violation of the Boland Amendment. Later, there were trials and convictions.

Bill Clinton was impeached by the House in 1998 and tried in the Senate for lying to a grand jury about private sexual relations.

None of these cases involved the killing of an American citizen. Yet today, Obama publicly acknowledges having ordered the assassination of Awlaki, and there are no legal consequences. In the aftermath of Awlaki’s killing, the violations of the Constitution and democratic rights become more and more grotesque: military aggression launched without even the pretense of congressional approval, pervasive government spying on the American people, de facto martial law in Boston, etc.

The attitude of the political establishment is summed up by the fact that Obama nominated Barron—the author of the memo that sanctioned Awlaki’s killing—to join the federal Court of Appeals. His promotion was confirmed by the Senate, with all but two Democrats voting in favor.

The absence of broad public protest reflects not agreement with Obama’s crime, but the deep alienation of the great mass of the people from the political system. They know by now that what they think or feel counts for nothing. There is, in fact, no mechanism within the political or even the legal system through which their opposition can find expression.

What has produced this malignant crisis? It is the product of a fatal combination of imperialist militarism, the extreme concentration of wealth at the very top, and the unrestrained exercise of corporate power.

Vast and ominous changes have taken place in America. The entire official political set-up is in an advanced stage of putrefaction. History teaches that, “in the course of human events,” there comes a point when a critical mass of people concludes that the existing system has become so intolerable that it must be radically changed. Such a point is fast approaching in the United States.

As a legacy chemical that was one half of Agent Orange, 2,4-D should be on its way out. But widespread “superweed” resistance to Roundup Ready crops, and a regulatory system complicit in supporting the failed genetically engineered (GE) agricultural model has set us on a course for an unprecedented increase in the use of this herbicide.

Dow AgroSciences has asked EPA to expand 2,4-D uses on its GE corn and soybeans to control Roundup-resistant weeds. Its new product, Enlist Duo, a formulation with 2,4-D and glyphosate (the chemical in Roundup), is set to be sprayed on GE crops across the country, putting agricultural communities and the surrounding environment at risk of toxic exposure from drift and runoff.

2,4-D is associated with increased cancer risks, especially for non-Hodgkin lymphoma. It is also a potent neurotoxin and hormone-disruptor. Studies show that exposure to 2,4-D is associated with an increased risk of Parkinson’s disease, reduced sperm counts, and birth defects.

An unprecedented increase in 2,4-D would inevitably pose risks to public health, farmers, and the environment. 

Tell EPA To DENY Expanded Uses of 2,4-D!

Despite claims by Dow that this latest version of 2,4-D is less prone to drift, the risk from increased 2,4-D use threatens non-GE and organic crops, endangered species, and increased drift and runoff will contaminate water and non-target sites. Unfortunately, EPA’s preliminary ecological assessment is filled with data gaps, and does not address concerns of 2,4-D-induced weed resistance, or the potential synergistic and additive effects with a 2,4-D and glyphosate mixture.

TELL EPA NO TO MORE 2,4-D!

EPA is currently taking public comment on this new use of 2,4-D until June 30th.

 

Download podcast

A recently declassified report by Sandia National Laboratory, published today by the National Security Archive, provides new details on the 1961 Goldsboro, North Carolina, nuclear weapons accident. Both multi-megaton Mk 39 bombs involved in the mishap were in the “safe” position. Yet the force of the crash initiated mechanical actions that normally required human intervention. In both cases, the “fuzing sequence” had begun: an important step toward arming a nuclear bomb. Weapon 1, the one that came closest to detonation, landed intact, but by the time Weapon 2 hit the ground, it was in the “armed” setting because of the impact of the crash. The arming switch that had prevented Weapon 1 from detonating was in itself highly vulnerable. The Goldsboro incident is an alarming example of the great danger inherent in nuclear accidents.

Since the advent of the nuclear age, the nightmarish possibility of an accidental detonation has made weapons safety a boiler-plate item in the U.S. nuclear weapons program — yet potentially serious errors continue to occur. A series of 2013 reports on the Goldsboro accident provided a fresh reminder of the role of luck in preventing nuclear disaster: the same switch involved in the 1961 event had failed in other incidents.[1]

Eric Schlosser’s extraordinary book Command and Control Nuclear Weapons, the Damascus Accident, and the Illusion of Safety,raises important questions about the record of nuclear weapons safety in the United States during and after the Cold War. Two major studies by Sandia National Laboratory, cited by Schlosser in his book, have been recently released by the Department of Energy in response to National Security Archive Mandatory Declassification Review requests and are included in this publication. Both are demanding studies which require attentive readers. One is a 1959 study of nuclear weapons safety when experts at the national nuclear laboratories were beginning to review the problem more comprehensively. The other is an overview of safety history published in 1987 which reviews the impact of changing weapons design on safety policy, the impact of accidents on policy, and initiatives taken by experts at Sandia to improve safety.

One of the two Mk39 thermonuclear weapons that landed when a B-52 bomber broke up over Goldsboro, North Carolina in February 1961. This was the weapon that came closest to detonation.

The T-249 switch used to arm nuclear bombs on Strategic Air Command bomber aircraft. Photo courtesy of Glenn’s Computer Museum

Also included in today’s posting are recently declassified Joint Chiefs of Staff documents from early 1958 which address a problem that increased apprehensions about safety: the introduction of sealed-pit nuclear weapons into the arsenal. Embedding plutonium pits or highly-enriched uranium in the bombs or warheads themselves, unlike previous nuclear weapons where fissile material capsules were kept separate until arming occurred, this development made the weapons ready for use but created new vulnerabilities, including greater contamination risk. While the Joint Chiefs of Staff dismissed the risk of an accidental detonation — special features on the weapons allegedly made the probability a “negligible factor” — sealed-pit weapons would figure in the major accidents of the following years, including Jonesboro (1961), Palomares, Spain (1966) and Thule, Greenland (1968), where they would do considerable environmental damage.

Some of the highlights of the documents:

A memorandum of conversation involving President Dwight D. Eisenhower, JCS Chairman Nathan Twining, and British Prime Minister Harold Macmillan in which the two Americans made optimistic statements about weapons safety. Atomic Energy Commission chairman Lewis Strauss soon asserted that those statements did not address the conditions that would emerge when sealed-pit weapons entered the stockpile. He presciently observed that “In case of [high explosives/HE] detonation on crash there would be plutonium scattered outside of the HE danger area, and this might necessitate evacuation of personnel and even clean-up operations.”

• A statement in one of the JCS papers laid out the requirement that made future accidents possible by SAC bomber aircraft flying sealed-pit weapons: “A portion of SAC must be kept on continual alert status fully armed and ready for instant implementation of emergency war plans.”

• A declassified State Department letter from early 1958 indicating a growing risk of accidents in the European Command area because of the eventual “saturation” of nuclear stockpiles.

• According to a Sandia Laboratory 1959 study, the Cold War goal of keeping nuclear weapons in a high state of readiness meant that safety was “fundamentally a matter of playing percentages.” This meant that “absolute” nuclear safety was illusory and that giving ground “safety-wise” was necessary in order to have “useful” weapons.

• According to the same report, one of the dangers of an accidental nuclear detonation was that it could produce “public and diplomatic reactions leading to disastrous curtailment of military readiness and nuclear capability.” Even worse, “an accident might be mistaken for the opening round of an unannounced nuclear war.”

• A safety policy review performed in the late 1960s developed risk criteria for accidental nuclear detonations: in either “normal” or “abnormal” environments (where an accident had occurred) the annual risk of such an accident would be no greater than one in a million for an arsenal of ten thousand weapons or more.

• Studies at Sandia Laboratory of stockpile safety in the mid-1970s identified four nuclear weapons systems which needed review on a “time-urgent basis because of nuclear detonation safety concerns.”

• The author of the 1986 safety policy history asserted that “the perceived need to keep weapons fully assembled and deployed on combat-ready systems … prevents us from claiming, in an absolute sense, that we take every action…. to ensure their safety.”

This collection includes a declassified State Department history on two major U.S. overseas nuclear accidents, one near Palomares, Spain in January 1966, the other near Thule, Greenland, two years later, in January 1968. First published on the Archive’s Web-log Unredacted, this history, prepared by James Miller, provides a detailed account of how the U.S. government tried to manage the diplomatic furor that both accidents triggered. As the AEC had forecast in 1958, accidents involving sealed-pit weapons posed risks of contamination of radioactive material and the Palomares and Thule incidents required major clean-ups which the United States had to undertake. The recovery operation at Palomares was particularly challenging because one of the hydrogen bombs was lost underwater for several months.

 

The Documents

Documents 1A -C: Introduction of Sealed-Pit Weapons

A: Note by the Secretaries to the Joint Chiefs of Staff on the Exercising of Special Munitions, 5 March 1958, J.C.S. 2019/287, with letters, memoranda, and memorandum of conversation attached, Top Secret, Excised Copy

B: Report by the Joint Strategic Plans Committee to the Joint Chiefs of Staff on Custody, Maneuver, and Exercise of Special Munitions, 21 March 1958, J.C.S. 2019/290, Top Secret, Excised Copy

C: “Briefing for the President on SAC Operations with Sealed-Pit Weapons,” [29 August 1958], Top Secret, Excised copy

Sources: A and B: National Archives, College Park, Md, Records of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Record Group 218, Files of Chairman Admiral Arthur Radford, box 16, file 471.6 (8-15-45) ; C: Dwight D. Eisenhower Library, Office of White House Staff Secretary, Defense Department Series, box 1, Defense Department, Vol. II (9), also available on Digital National Security Archive

These reports show how civilian and military officials began to focus on the safety problems raised by sealed-pit weapons. When President Eisenhower and JCS Chairman Twining spoke with British Prime Minister Macmillan about nuclear safety they were not aware that a new nuclear weapons design was being introduced into the arsenal that raised new safety concerns. AEC director Lewis Strauss raised them, including the risk of contamination caused by the detonation of high explosives (HE), which were already being discussed in the military. The Strategic Air Command had plans for routine nuclear-armed airborne alert operations in the works which prompted new safety issues over and above those already raised by air and ground transportation of nuclear weapons.

The Joint Chiefs wrote assuring words that the risks of an inadvertent detonation by sealed-pit weapons were reduced to a “negligible factor” because of the existence of various safety controls and the “four separate control mechanisms” needed to detonate a weapon. Some months later, when President Eisenhower received a briefing on sealed-pit weapons, the briefing officer asserted with great confidence that “the probability of an inadvertent nuclear detonation of a sealed-pit weapon with proper safety controls is extremely remote-in fact, it approaches zero.”

The two JCS documents (as well as the sealed-pit briefing) have numerous excisions, some of them describing the safety arrangements (spelled out in detail in documents 2 and 3 below), but also technical terms describing types of nuclear weapons. Some of the excisions are probably references to “two-stage” thermonuclear weapons (the detonation of an atomic bomb “primary” [stage one] ignites the “secondary” [stage two] producing a thermonuclear reaction). For example, document 1A at page 6 of the PDF cites the Mark 39 Mod 1 thermonuclear weapon (hydrogen bomb) as being in the “[excised] configuration.” The two-stage Mark 39, which contained highly-enriched uranium in its primary, came dangerously close to detonation during the 1961 Goldsboro incident. A number of the excisions, such as document 1B at page 9 of the PDF, read like, and have enough characters to be, “sealed-pit”, but this is a puzzle because the term sealed-pit appears elsewhere in these documents.

 

Document 2: Letter from George S. Vest, Office of the Political Adviser, U.S. European Command, to B. E. L. Timmons, Bureau of European Affairs, 12 March 1958, Secret

Source: National Archives, College Park, Record Group 59, Department of State Records, Office of European Regional Affairs. Politico-Military Numeric Files, 1953-1962, box 7, Safety

A recent nuclear mishap at the U.S. Air base in Sidi Slimane, Moroccoraised consciousness among U.S. officials about the possibility of future incidents. George Vest, a political adviser at the U.S. European Command, noted that as Western Europe “becomes saturated with nuclear stockpiles, the chances of accidents will naturally increase.” Most would not occur on U.S. bases but when, for example, an Air Force plane carrying nuclear weapons “overshoots” the base at Rhein-Main. U.S. diplomats must be prepared and so should local officials.

 

Document 3: Sandia Corporation, with the Advice and Assistance of the Los Alamos Scientific Laboratory and the University of California Ernest O. Lawrence Radiation Laboratory, A Survey of Nuclear Weapon Safety Problems and the Possibilities for Increasing Safety in Bomb and Warhead Design , RS3466/26889, February 1959, Secret, Excised copy

Source: Mandatory declassification review request

The problem that concerned George Vest — the growing risk of accidents caused by the eventual saturation of nuclear weapons stockpiles — also worried scientists at U.S. nuclear laboratories. Apparently drafted by Carl Carlson, then a young physicist at Sandia, this demanding and highly technical study is a “summary of studies and investigations” that had been conducted partly in response to a Defense Department request but also because of concern about the introduction of sealed-pit weapons into the arsenal.[2] As the author notes, the sealed-pit weapon was a “new species,” which “contributed to increased military concern on the safety question.” Also making an appraisal of safety policy essential was the fact that growing absolute numbers of nuclear weapons increased the risk of an accidental detonation. A nuclear weapons disaster could produce “public and diplomatic reactions leading to disastrous curtailment of military readiness and nuclear capability.” Even worse, “an accident might be mistaken for the opening round of an unannounced nuclear war.” Thus, to minimize the “probability of a nuclear disaster,” it was necessary to apply “science, art, and intelligence.”

Carlson’s report shows how nuclear safety policy began to take shape in the late 1950s, when the growing size of the U.S. nuclear arsenal encouraged senior defense officials and lower-level scientific experts to press for more systematic review of safety issues. Carlson reviewed the problem systematically, collecting accident data from recalcitrant armed services and assessing normal and abnormal hazard risks, which he defined in some detail, from risks of a launch of an armed bomb or missile (normal hazard) to detonation by an “overzealous” officer or accidental spontaneous nuclear detonation, both in the category of abnormal hazards. The risk of spontaneous detonation (exclusive of human error), Carlson rated at 10^-8, or one in a hundred million.

At the time of this report the idea of one-point safety was beginning to take hold — nuclear yield would not be produced in the event of an accidental detonation at a given point in the weapons’ high explosive components — and it eventually became a requirement.[3] But this study shows how much more there was to the problem than one-point safety. An important chapter focuses on the role of electrical systems in preventing the accidental arming and release of nuclear weapons — for example, the T-249 on-off/arming switch, which was then the “almost universal aircraft monitor and control box.” Installed on a panel near the weapon, the T-249 played a key role in the Goldsboro NC incident a few years later.[4] According to Carlson, the Air Force had plans underway to make the T-249 more secure by putting it under lock and key, but other fixes were under consideration, including a “war-peace” switch behind a glass barrier (like a fire alarm) and remote-control arming. Through these and other means, Carlson believed it important to make the weapons resistant to human error or “gross human misconduct, sabotage, and impulsive or psychotic actions.” To reduce the opportunity for “human activity” around “critical bomb and weapons assemblies,” Carlson favored the concept of a “wooden” bomb that was sealed and tamper-proof. Nevertheless, he believed that military readiness requirements meant that absolute safety was impossible and that it was necessary to “play the percentages,” as “uncomfortable” as that was.

Carlson made two basic recommendations. One was the establishment by the Pentagon of a “uniform” policy treating the “safety problem in its entirety, in terms of all hazards, their causes their relative likelihood, and the severity of their consequences.” The other was that the Defense Department establish a channel that relayed information on all accidents and incidents to the AEC. Whether and when such a channel was created needs to be learned, but the 1987 Sandia historical overview of nuclear safety suggests that a “uniform” policy remained a work in progress for decades after 1959.

 

Document 4: Letter from Commander-in-Chief Strategic Air Command General Thomas Power to Air Force Chief of Staff Thomas White, 27 February 1959, Secret

Source: Library of Congress, Manuscript Division, Thomas D. White Papers, box 27, Command-SAC

In this letter, CINCSAC Power found the possibility of an accidental detonation to be “extremely remote,” in part because he was confident of the safety arrangements on SAC bombers, including mechanical and electrical controls in the cockpit and the “Two-Man Policy.” Nevertheless, Power was dissatisfied with some of the safety controls, such as lanyards used to extract the safing pins (special pins that have to be pulled from the mechanism as part of the arming process) and proposed arrangements that he believed would be more advantageous operationally. Exemplifying Carlson’s point about the relationship between safety and military imperatives, Power highlighted the importance of “a point of balance” between safety and “weapon reliability and quick reaction time.”

 

Document 5: J. M. de Montmollin and W. R. Hoagland, Sandia Corporation, “Analysis of the Safety Aspects of the MK 39 MOD 2 Bombs Involved in B-52G Crash Near Greensboro, North Carolina,” SCDR 8-81, February 1961, No classification markings, excised copy

Source: FOIA request

The Goldsboro B-52 crash prompted an investigation by experts from Sandia, Los Alamos, and the AEC’s Albuquerque Operations Office (ALO). Subsequently, some of the weapons components were taken to Sandia for further analysis, which led to a detailed report on what happened to both MK 39 bombs during the accident. According to the report, the impact of the aircraft breakup initiated the fuzing sequence for both bombs. For example, on Weapon 1, the crash yanked the safing pins from the Bisch generator which provided electric power to the weapon. Moreover, the lanyards (that General Power had proposed scrapping) actually pulled the safing pins from the weapons. Weapon 1, which landed essentially intact, was in the “safe” position when it dropped, preventing detonation. The T-249 Arm/Safe switch worked exactly as it was supposed to, preventing a nuclear explosion. Nevertheless, the incident deeply worried Secretary of Defense Robert McNamara: a few years later, he observed that “by the slightest margin of chance, literally the failure of two wires to cross, a nuclear explosion was averted.”[5]

The report provides significant information on Weapon 2. It landed in a free-fall. Without the parachute operating, the timer did not initiate the bomb’s high voltage battery (“trajectory arming”), a step in the arming sequence. While the Arm/Safe switch was in the “safe” position, it had become virtually armed because the impact of the crash had rotated the indicator drum to the “armed” position. But the shock also damaged the switch contacts, which had to be intact for the weapon to detonate. While Weapon 2 was not close to detonation, the fact that the physical impact of a crash could activate the same arming mechanism that had kept Weapon 1 safe showed the danger of such accidents.

The faulty operation of the lanyards worried the analysts. A modification program, ALT 197, was already underway to remove them and the analysts recommended rapid implementation of this change to all weapons in the “MK 15/39 family” involved in the airborne alert program.

 

Document 6: R. N. Brodie, A Review of the U.S. Nuclear Weapons Safety Program- 1945 to 1986, Sandia National Laboratories, SAND86-2955, February 1987, Secret/Restricted Data, Excised copy

Source: Mandatory declassification review request

This demanding and technical Sandia nuclear safety study focused on the impact of changing weapons design, major accidents, and the weapons systems safety organization at Sandia Laboratory. Before the introduction of sealed-pit weapons, safety was achieved in a “visible and almost absolute manner by ensuring that the fissile material was kept physically separate” from the high explosives. But when sealed-pit weapons entered the arsenal, safety policy did not adequately or immediately address the problems they raised, leading government officials to take “frantic” efforts to remedy some of them.

Several accidents later — Brodie provides an overview of the major episodes of the 1960s, including the Jonesboro accident — a “new” approach was taken and basic criteria for nuclear safety were reconsidered. That review established a new standard: that in either normal or abnormal environments (in the event of an accident), the annual risk of detonation would be no greater than one in a million for an arsenal of ten thousand weapons or more. To mitigate risks, safety experts developed new design safety concepts and techniques to reduce the danger of contamination by using “insensitive high explosives.”

Whatever was done after 1968 was not enough because in the mid-1970s Sandia experts identified new problems, notably that some weapons on continuous alert might be unsafe in “abnormal” environments. A formal review of stockpile safety found that for all weapons it was not possible to predict the “probability threshold for a nuclear detonation” in certain “abnormal environments.” It was not even possible analytically to show “how ‘unsafe’ a weapon was.” That level of uncertainty could lead to the conclusion that the whole stockpile had to be replaced, but senior officials concluded that because an accidental detonation had not occurred it was acceptable to “do more studies” and gradually improve the situation as better weapons became available. Experts at Sandia found this “laissez-faire” approach disturbing and prepared new studies identifying which weapons should be retired or retrofit and modified because of “nuclear detonation safety concerns.” Four weapons — the B-28 bomb, Nike-Hercules, Genie, and the B53 — needed to be addressed on a “time urgent” basis. The Defense Department accepted the recommendations in principle in 1979, which led to changes that put the stockpile in an “improved safety position.” Nevertheless, the same four weapons remained a concern.

Among Brodie’s conclusions was that as long as the Pentagon found it necessary to deploy nuclear weapons “fully assembled and deployed on combat-ready systems” it could not be claimed that “in an absolute sense, that we take every action… to ensure their safety.” Indeed, the existence of assembled nuclear weapons meant the existence of a “nonzero probability that it could be unintentionally detonated.” Thus as long as nuclear weapons were “deployed on ready-alert systems,” the burden of preventing accidents and incidents would mainly fall on safe weapons design. “Constant vigilance” was essential to prevent nuclear weapons accidents.

 

Document 7: James Miller, U.S. Department of State, Office of the Historian, Nuclear Accidents at Palomares, Spain in 1966 and Thule, Greenland in 1968, Historical Research Project No. 1421, April 1985, Secret, Excised Copy [originally posted on Unredacted]

Source: FOIA request

This study covers two major nuclear accidents and their consequences: the B-52 crash near Palomares, Spain and Thule, Greenland in 1966 and 1968 respectively, which cumulatively triggered the safety review described in Document 6, above. Both involved nuclear armed B-52 bombers on routine airborne alert patrols.[6] In the former accident, a bomber crashed into a KC-135 refueling tanker midair over the coastal village of Palomares. Seven crew members were killed and HE in three of the weapons exploded, causing plutonium contamination. One of weapons went missing in the Mediterranean until divers recovered it. In the Greenland accident, where a B-52 crashed on an ice-covered bay near Thule air base, four nuclear weapons broke up, scattering radioactive debris widely. One crew member was killed while others ejected safely.

Both accidents posed difficult public relations challenges for the U.S. government which followed a strict “neither confirm nor deny” policy on its overseas nuclear deployments. Thus, goaded by inquisitive journalists, but complying with Spanish government requests to avoid the nuclear aspect, Air Force press officers went through contortions to acknowledge that “the thing that is not a bomb” had still not been found.[7]

Prepared in 1985 by James Miller, then with the Office of the Historian at the State Department, this report was commissioned by the Department’s Bureau of Politico-Military Affairs, which wanted to know if any lessons could be learned from the accidents. According to Colonel Michael Barrett Seaton, a Bureau official who wrote the foreword, overseas U.S. nuclear deployments were a “fact of life,” and the risk of accident was always present. Thus, U.S. officials believed that “the degree of damage to U.S. national security from any future nuclear accident or incident would depend in large part on the quality of U.S. Government and host government management of the emergency.” In this connection, Seaton found Miller’s study helpful because it provided “insight” into the demands that an accident could make on U.S. embassy staffs.

After a FOIA appeal, a State Department panel declassified most of the previously withheld information, as indicated by gray areas on the document. This included substantial portions of the foreword, information on the post-accident cleanup at Palomares, diplomatic negotiations over U.S. nuclear access, and the supporting documents appended to the history.[8] The appeals review panel left two excisions; both relate to the Thule incident (see PDF page 21). One is of a statement made by a U.S. official to a Danish diplomat a few days after the crash; the other concerns the search and clean-up efforts afterwards. The second deletion may relate to a missing piece of one of the H-bombs — what Danish scholar Svend Aage Christensen calls the bomb’s “spark plug,” the uranium-235 in the weapon’s second stage or “secondary.” Despite strenuous underwater search efforts, the “spark plug,” around the size of a “marshal’s baton,” was never found. A BBC story suggested that only three of the four bombs were destroyed and that an entire H-bomb may have gone missing, but Christensten’s fascinating study for the Danish Institute of International Affairs convincingly argues otherwise.[9]

 

Notes

The significance of the TPP – Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement and the TTIP – Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership Agreement has your head spinning already, now add another globalist gift to the Corporatocracy model of total trade domination, the TISA – Trade In Services Agreement. According to the trade group, Coalition of Service Industries,

“the TISA is currently being negotiated in Geneva, Switzerland with 50 participants that represent 70 percent of the world’s trade in services . . . The TISA has the opportunity to address major and fundamental barriers to trade in services affecting the United States and the globe. Some barriers to services trade include limited movement of data across borders, unfair competition from state-owned enterprises, lack of transparency and need for due process of law, and forced local ownership and discrimination in obtaining business licenses and permits.”

What a noble goal, Transparency. When did you hear about this updated GATS and WTO agreement? Well, if you are watching the pressitute media, you probably are in the dark. However, the Office of United State Trade Representative just loves formulating international rules, requirements and regulations, since the benefits are so dramatic. “If business services were to achieve the same export potential as manufactured goods globally, U.S. exports could increase by as much as $800 billion.”

Just one question, that never seems to get an answer. Why do all these “so called” beneficial trade agreements doom the United States to a permanent balance of trade deficit?

Trading Economics reports, US Trade Deficit Widens to 2-Year High,

“US trade gap increased to USD 47.2 billion in April of 2014 from a revised USD 44.2 billion in March, as imports recorded the highest value on record. Purchases of automobiles, capital goods, food and consumer goods all hit record highs in April.”

“The United States recorded a trade deficit of 47236 USD Million in April of 2014. Balance of Trade in the United States averaged -12476.56 USD Million from 1950 until 2014, reaching an all time high of 1946 USD Million in June of 1975 and a record low of -67235 USD Million in August of 2006. Balance of Trade in the United States is reported by the U.S. Census Bureau.”

Even the globalist flagship social control financial institution, the World Bank grudgingly admits that America is the world leader in red ink.

The video, A Plan Only Banksters Will Love: WikiLeaks Reveals Trade Deal Pushing Global Financial Deregulation, sets the stage for understanding the danger from this agreement. So what is the expectation from the Secret Trade in Services Agreement (TISA)? Thanks to WikiLeaks, reading the TISA details are available online. If left up to those financial technocrats, ordinary consumers need not know why they are barely able to survive.

“The US and the EU are the main proponents of the agreement, and the authors of most joint changes, which also covers cross-border data flow. In a significant anti-transparency manoeuvre by the parties, the draft has been classified to keep it secret not just during the negotiations but for five years after the TISA enters into force.”

RT acknowledges the Secret trade agreement covering 68 percent of world services published by WikiLeaks. Yet the interpretation and effects of sections within the agreement vary greatly from the Chamber of Commerce advocacy.

Note two examples.

From The Age article, Secret deal: bank free-for-all.

“Dr. Patricia Ranald, a research associate at the University of Sydney and convener of the Australian Fair Trade and Investment Network, told the paper that the documents suggest the US wants to “tie the hands” of other governments, including allied ones, by way of sheer deregulation.”

“Amendments from the US are seeking to end publicly provided services like public pension funds, which are referred to as ‘monopolies’ and to limit public regulation of all financial services,” she said. ”They want to freeze financial regulation at existing levels, which would mean that governments could not respond to new developments like another global financial crisis.”

Compare this viewpoint with the PRNewswire, Secret Trade Deal Puts Public Services at Risk Around the World, as published by CNBC.

“This massive trade deal will put public health care, child care, postal, broadcasting, water, power, transport and other services at risk. The TISA will lock in the privatisations of services-even in cases where private service delivery has failed-meaning governments can never return water, energy, health, education or other services to public hands. The TISA will also restrict a government’s right to regulate stronger standards in the public’s interest. For example, it will affect environmental regulations, licensing of health facilities and laboratories, waste disposal centres, power plants, school and university accreditation and broadcast licenses. The proposed deal will also restrict a government’s ability to regulate key sectors including financial, energy, telecommunications and cross-border data flows.”

Both accounts raise concerns that various sovereign governments would be restricted from legislating indigenous protections for their own populations. Ostentatiously, a free market advocate might be tempted to favor limiting the role and scope of your own government. However, the fundamental objective of any of these trade agreements is to place the bulk of commerce under international treaty preeminence.

The invisible hand of Adam Smith must bow a genuflected knee to the globalist elites, who foster the free trade fraud that only benefits their mastery and control of the planet.

Look at the TISA concept as a giant “Commerce Clause” for the New World Order. Under treaty arrangements, each individual nation subordinates their autonomy to become part of the intercontinental club, using that colorful pejorative “community of nations”, while acting as a band of monopolists. Allowing one’s own country to become servants to the decrees of EU bureaucrats in Brussels, or jurists in The Hague, and especially banksters at the Bank of International Settlements, cannot and will never achieve widespread prosperity.

Here lies the lesson. Achieving the uplifting of humanity, both economically and socially, has never been the goal, much less the plan of the internationalists. Corporatists are transnational racketeers bent on eliminating real competition, while pulling the strings of governmental puppets. The elites want the extinction of the nation state, and trade agreements hasten global assimilation into a commercial system where only obedient vassals participate. Apparently, the establishment wants the TISA hidden for a very good reason.

For days now, since their dramatic June 10 taking of Mosul, Western mainstream media have been filled with horror stories of the military conquests in Iraq of the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria, with the curious acronym ISIS.

ISIS, as in the ancient Egyptian cult of the goddess of fertility and magic. The media picture being presented adds up less and less.

Details leaking out suggest that ISIS and the major military ‘surge’ in Iraq – and less so in neighboring Syria – is being shaped and controlled out of Langley, Virginia, and other CIA and Pentagon outposts as the next stage in spreading chaos in the world’s second-largest oil state, Iraq, as well as weakening the recent Syrian stabilization efforts.

Strange facts

The very details of the ISIS military success in the key Iraqi oil center, Mosul, are suspect. According to well-informed Iraqi journalists, ISIS overran the strategic Mosul region, site of some of the world’s most prolific oilfields, with barely a shot fired in resistance. According to one report, residents of Tikrit reported remarkable displays of “soldiers handing over their weapons and uniforms peacefully to militants who ordinarily would have been expected to kill government soldiers on the spot.”

We are told that ISIS masked psychopaths captured “arms and ammunition from the fleeing security forces” – arms and ammunition supplied by the American government. The offensive coincides with a successful campaign by ISIS in eastern Syria. According to Iraqi journalists, Sunni tribal chiefs in the region had been convinced to side with ISIS against the Shiite Al-Maliki government in Baghdad. They were promised a better deal under ISIS Sunni Sharia than with Baghdad anti-Sunni rule.

According to the New York Times, the mastermind behind the ISIS military success is former Baath Party head and Saddam Hussein successor, General Ibrahim al-Douri. Douri is reportedly the head of the Iraqi rebel group Army of the Men of the Naqshbandi Order as well as the Supreme Command for Jihad and Liberation based on his longstanding positions of leadership in the Naqshbandi sect in Iraq.

In 2009, US ‘Iraqi surge’ General David Petraeus, at the time heading the US Central Command, claimed to reporters that Douri was in Syria. Iraqi parliamentarians claimed he was in Qatar. The curious fact is that despite being on the US most wanted list since 2003, Douri has miraculously managed to avoid capture and now to return with a vengeance to retake huge parts of Sunni Iraq. Luck or well-placed friends in Washington?

The financial backing for ISIS jihadists reportedly also comes from three of the closest US allies in the Sunni world—Kuwait, Qatar and Saudi Arabia.

US passports?

Key members of ISIS it now emerges were trained by US CIA and Special Forces command at a secret camp in Jordan in 2012, according to informed Jordanian officials. The US, Turkish and Jordanian intelligence were running a training base for the Syrian rebels in the Jordanian town of Safawi in the country’s northern desert region, conveniently near the borders to both Syria and Iraq. Saudi Arabia and Qatar, the two Gulf monarchies most involved in funding the war against Syria’s Assad, financed the Jordan ISIS training.

Advertised publicly as training of ‘non-extremist’ Muslim jihadists to wage war against the Syrian Bashar Assad regime, the secret US training camps in Jordan and elsewhere have trained perhaps several thousand Muslim fighters in techniques of irregular warfare, sabotage and general terror. The claims by Washington that they took special care not to train ‘Salafist’ or jihadist extremists, is a joke. How do you test if a recruit is not a jihadist? Is there a special jihad DNA that the CIA doctors have discovered?

Militants from the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL) parading with an Iraqi army vehicle in the northern city of Baiji in the in Salaheddin province. (AFP Photo / HO / Youtube)

Jordanian government officials are revealing the details, in fear that the same ISIS terrorists that today are slashing heads of ‘infidels’ alongside the roadways of Mosul by the dozens, or hundreds if we believe their own propaganda, might turn their swords towards Jordan’s King Abdullah soon, to extend their budding Caliphate empire.

Former US State Department official Andrew Doran wrote in the conservative National Review magazine that some ISIS warriors also hold US passports. Now, of course that doesn’t demonstrate and support by the Obama Administration. Hmm…

Iranian journalist Sabah Zanganeh notes,

“ISIS did not have the power to occupy and conquer Mosul by itself. What has happened is the result of security-intelligence collaborations of some regional countries with some extremist groups inside the Iraqi government.”

Iraq’s Chechen commander

The next bizarre part of the ISIS puzzle involves the Jihadist credited with being the ‘military mastermind’ of the recent ISIS victories, Tarkhan Batirashvili. If his name doesn’t sound very Arabic, it’s because it’s not. Tarkhan Batrashvili is a Russian – actually an ethnic Chechen from near the Chechen border to Georgia. But to give himself a more Arabic flair, he also goes by the name Emir (what else?) Umar al Shishani. The problem is he doesn’t look at all Arabic. No dark swarthy black beard: rather a long red beard, a kind of Chechen Barbarossa.

According to a November, 2013 report in The Wall Street Journal, Emir Umar or Batrashvili as you prefer, has made the wars in Syria and Iraq “into a geopolitical struggle between the US and Russia.”

That has been the objective of leading neo-conservatives in the CIA, Pentagon and State Department all along. The CIA transported hundreds of Mujahideen Saudis and other foreign veterans of the 1980s Afghan war against the Soviets in Afghanistan into Chechnya to disrupt the struggling Russia in the early 1990s, particularly to sabotage the Russian oil pipeline running directly from Baku on the Caspian Sea into Russia. James Baker III and his friends in Anglo-American Big Oil had other plans. It was called the BTC pipeline, owned by a BP-US oil consortium and running through Tbilisi into NATO-member Turkey, free of Russian territory.

Batrashvili is not renowned for taking care. Last year he was forced to apologize when he ordered his men to behead a wounded ‘enemy’ soldier who turned out to be an allied rebel commander. More than 8,000 foreign Jihadist mercenaries are reportedly in ISIS including at least 1,000 Chechens as well as Jihadists Saudi, Kuwait, Egypt and reportedly Chinese Uyghur from Xinjiang Province.

Jeffrey Silverman, Georgia Bureau Chief for the US-based Veterans Today (VT) website, told me that Batrashvili “is a product of a joint program of the US through a front NGO called Jvari, which was set up by US Intelligence and the Georgian National Security Council, dating back to the early days of the Pankisi Gorge.”

Jvari is the name as well of a famous Georgian Orthodox monastery of the 6th century. According to Silverman, David J. Smith—head of something in Tbilisi called the Georgian Foundation for Strategic and International Studies, as well as the Potomac Institute in Washington where he is listed as Director of the Potomac Institute Cyber Centerr—played a role in setting up the Jvari NGO.

Silverman maintains that Jvari in Rustavi, near the capital, Tbilisi, gathered together Afghan Mujahideen war veterans, Chechens, Georgians and sundry Arab Jihadists. They were sent to the infamous Pankisi Gorge region, a kind-of no-man’s lawless area, for later deployment, including Iraq and Syria.

Batrashvili and other Georgian and Chechen Russian-speaking Jihadists, Silverman notes, are typically smuggled, with the assistance of Georgia’s Counterintelligence Department and the approval of the US embassy, across the Georgia border to Turkey at the Vale crossing point, near Georgia’s Akhaltsikhe and the Turkish village of Türkgözü on the Turkish side of the Georgian border. From there it’s very little problem getting them through Turkey to either Mosul in Iraq or northeast Syria.

Silverman believes that events in Northern Iraq relate to “wanting to have a Kurdish Republic separate from the Central government and this is all part of the New Great Game. It will serve US interests in both Turkey and Iraq, not to mention Syria.”

Very revealing is the fact that almost two weeks after the dramatic fall of Mosul and the ‘capture’ by ISIS forces of the huge weapons and military vehicle resources provided by the US to the Iraqi army. Washington has done virtually nothing but make a few silly speeches about their ‘concern’ and dispatch 275 US special forces to allegedly protect US personnel in Iraq.

Whatever the final details that emerge, what is clear in the days since the fall of Mosul is that some of the world’s largest oilfields in Iraq are suddenly held by Jihadists and no longer by an Iraqi government determined to increase the oil export significantly. More on this aspect in an upcoming article.

William Engdahl is an award-winning geopolitical analyst and strategic risk consultant whose internationally best-selling books have been translated into thirteen foreign languages.

As the war of words between Europe and Russia has escalated, one of the outcomes that has emerged is that just like in false flag war over Syria, the Ukraine war was about the simplest possible thing, and yet so very complicate: a gas pipeline. Of course, it was never a secret that the prize in controlling Ukraine was possession of the vast pipeline infrastructure that left Russia and entered Europe, but since it was all Gazprom’s gas in the first place, it didn’t really matter if Kiev had possession of the gas as it transits to Europe, or if, as the case is now, Ukraine is merely a transit hub with all Russian gas delivered to European countries and none of it staying in the civil war torn country. After all as of this moment Ukraine can’t afford any Russian gas, and if it siphons off any of the product destined for Germany and beyond it would simply antagonize its new NATO best friends, who also happen to be Gazprom clients.

No, the pipeline that has emerged with a starring role in the Ukraine conflict has nothing to do with Ukraine, but is a pipeline that crosses several hundred kilometers south of Ukraine – the South Stream project, which leaves the Russian black sea coast south of Crimea, crosses the black sea, and traverses Bulgaria, Serbia, Hungary and ends up in the gas hub in Baumgarten, Austria from where it proceeds to all points in central Europe, mostly Germany.

The project, which was conceived in 2007, was meant explicitly to bypass Ukraine, and to be an alternative to the now mothballed Nabucco gas pipeline which, with the backing of the US and Europe, would have taken Caspian gas (mainly Azerbaijan and Turkmenistan) and traverse Turkey before emerging in Bulgaria, and then followed the European path of the South Stream into the Austrian hub and beyond.

Not surprisingly, it was the key transit hub of the South Stream, Bulgaria, that started making problems for Putin even as he succeeded in trumping Nabucco (when in June 2013 the CEO of Austrian energy giant OMV, Gerhard Roiss, announced the project as “over” after the Turkish Shah Deniz consortium chose the Trans-Adriatic Pipieline over Nabucco as a gas export route which would supply Italy instead of Austria).

Recall that it was in January, two months before the Ukraine government was overthrown that the prime minister of Bulgaria – a country that has a very distinguished love/hate relationship with Russia (a relationship which the US would love to make more “hate”) – Plamen Oresharski, surprisingly ordered a halt to work on the South Stream, on the recommendation of the EU. The decision was announced after his talks with US senators.

“At this time there is a request from the European Commission, after which we’ve suspended the current works, I ordered it,” Oresharski told journalists after meeting with John McCain, Chris Murphy and Ron Johnson during their visit to Bulgaria on Sunday. “Further proceedings will be decided after additional consultations with Brussels.”

At the time McCain, commenting on the situation, said that “Bulgaria should solve the South Stream problems in collaboration with European colleagues,” adding that in the current situation they would want “less Russian involvement” in the project.

“America has decided that it wants to put itself in a position where it excludes anybody it doesn’t like from countries where it thinks it might have an interest, and there is no economic rationality in this at all. Europeans are very pragmatic, they are looking for cheap energy resources – clean energy resources, and Russia can supply that. But the thing with the South Stream is that it doesn’t fit with the politics of the situation,”

Ben Aris, editor of Business New Europe told RT.

It was also in January when EU authorities ordered Bulgaria to suspend construction on its link of the pipeline, which is planned to transport Russian natural gas through the Black Sea to Bulgaria and onward to western Europe. Brussels wants the project frozen, pending a decision on whether it violates the EU competition regulations on a single energy market. It believes South Stream does not comply with the rules prohibiting energy producers from also controlling pipeline access.

Therein, of course, lies the rub, because as Europe has learned the hard way so many times, its overreliance on Russia for both the production and the transit of gas means that it has absolutely no leverage over the Kremlin – something recent events in Ukraine have only confirmed.

Putin, earlier today, merely cemented the reality that it is not so much about who controls the energy transit pipelines, but whose influence controls Europe: America’s or Russia’s. “The US opposes the Russian South Stream gas pipeline project because it wants to supply gas to Europe itself, President Putin said on Tuesday. He called the situation an “ordinary competitive struggle.”

“They do everything to disrupt this contract. There is nothing unusual here. This is an ordinary competitive struggle. In the course of this competition, political tools are also being used,” the Russian president said after holding talks with his Austrian counterpart, President Heinz Fischer, in Vienna.

“We are in talks with our contract partners, not with third parties. That our US friends are unhappy about South Stream, well, they were unhappy in 1962 too, when the gas-for-pipes project with Germany was beginning. Now they are unhappy too, nothing has changed, except the fact that they want to supply to the European market themselves,”

Putin stated.

Should this happen, American gas “will not be cheaper than Russian gas – pipe gas is always cheaper than liquefied gas,” Putin stressed.

Which in turn brings us to the culmination of the political struggle over the South Stream, when earlier today, in yet another coup for the Kremlin, one of the most stable and respected European countries, AAA-rated Austria gave its final approval to the “controversial” Russian gas pipeline project early Tuesday, defying EU officials and welcoming Russian President Vladimir Putin to the neutral country that has been a long-standing energy customer for Moscow.

As Reuters reports, “the chief executives of Russia’s Gazprom and Austria’s OMV sealed the deal to build a branch of the South Stream gas pipeline to Austria, a staunch defender of the project in the face of opposition from the European Commission.”

In other words, one short month after Putin concluded the Holy Grail deal with Beijing, he not only managed to formalize his conquest of Europe’s energy needs with yet another pipeline, one which completely bypasses Ukraine (for numerous reasons but mostly one: call it a Plan B), but scored a massive political victory by creating a fissure in the heart of the Eurozone, after Austria openly defied its European peers and sided with Putin.

Needless to say, the European Commission is furious, and is digging in its heels saying South Stream does not comply with EU competition law because it offers no access to third parties. South Stream also, as noted above, counters the EU’s policy of diversifying supply sources to reduce dependence on Russia.

But OMV CEO Gerhard Roiss, in a stunning moment of realpolitik clarity and admission that when it comes to the energy future of Europe, Putin is more important than Mario Draghi, told a news conference after the signing: “Europe needs Russian gas. Europe will need more Russian gas in future because European gas production is falling … I think the European Union understands this, too.”

Of course, they do. The only issue is they don’t want to admit it because doing so seals Europea’s fate as a vassal energy state of Russia. As for Europe’s pipedream, pardon the pun, alternative of receiving LNG from the US, it was none other than Cnehiere CEO Charif Souki who said in April, when asked if Cheniere’s terminal could rescue eastern European countries from their dependence on Russia, that “It’s flattering to be talked about like this, but it’s all nonsense. It’s so much nonsense that I can’t believe anybody really believes it.”

They don’t, but it’s all politics. And in politics it is all about wielding power, or submitting to it. Austria did the latter today, and by defecting on its European peers, it may have started a process that leads to the splintering of the Eurozone itself, with none other than Vladimir Putin once again pulling the strings.

The project has pitted European industry against politicians in Brussels, and divided South Stream supporters – which stretch from Germany through the heavily Russia-dependent central and southeastern Europe – from other EU member states.

On a one-day working visit to Vienna that drew some criticism in the EU, Putin spoke of close business ties to Austria, the first western European country to sign, in 1968, long-term gas supply deals with Moscow.

He called Austria an “important and reliable” partner for Russia, which is Austria’s third-biggest non-EU trading partner after the United States and Switzerland.

Austrian President Heinz Fischer also defended the South Stream project, saying: “No one can explain to me – and I can’t explain to the Austrian people – why a pipeline that crosses EU and NATO countries can’t go 50 km into Austria.”

Oh and for the record, the Austrian president said “He said he opposed sanctions against Moscow”… just in case the next time Europe dares to pass off any Russian sanctions over Ukraine decision as unanimous.

And speaking of Ukraine, things got downright bizarre in Vienna when the head of Austria’s chamber of commerce reminded Putin that part of Ukraine had belonged to Austria in 1914. “What is that supposed to mean? What are you proposing?” Putin quipped, eliciting laughter from the business elite. Next thing you know Putin will be joking about annexing Hungary…

And there you have it, just in case it was still unclear: what is happening in Ukraine is all a big joke to the power brokers in Europe, the “business elite” – the decision has long since been made that Putin will see no objection by said elite to whatever his intentions with regard to the irrelevant and civil war-torn country are. Aside, of course, from the token CIA and US theater fit simply for lower common denominator consumption.

The joint South Stream Austria project will be 50 percent owned by Gazprom – Russia’s largest gas producer – and 50 percent owned by Austria’s OMV Group, the country’s largest oil and gas company.

Austria’s president Fischer stated that if anyone criticizes Austria, they should also criticize other member countries and their companies.

“I suppose that there will be no such moment when such a country as Austria will not be holding talks with a partner, which has intense relations with us, and will not be ready to negotiate with it,” the Austrian leader said.

“We know such a dialogue does not contradict any EU decision,” he added. What he meant is that nobody in Europe can tell Putin what to do.

As for the logistical issues of the pipeline, now that the agreement has been signed, they will all be resolved in due course: Gazprom chief Alexei Miller said earlier he was in weekly if not daily contact with European Energy Commissioner Guenther Oettinger about winning approval for the South Stream project.

“We solve problems as they come up, and now the problem of construction of the pipeline is to be solved,” Miller said.

The pipeline deal does not address the question of third-party access, which is required by EU law to prevent the owner of an energy source from monopolising its distribution channels. OMV’s Roiss said the issue must be negotiated with Brussels.  Roiss said the Austrian part of the pipeline, which is planned to be built in 2016 and deliver its first gas supplies around the start of 2017, would comply fully with European law.

Gazprom and OMV said they would split the 200 million euro ($272 million) costs of building the 50-km (31- mile) Austrian stretch of South Stream, which in total will be 2,446 km long. The total cost of the South Stream pipeline is $40 billion.

At the end of the day it’s only capex: money that is more than returned to the investor in the long-run. America may remember capex – it’s what companies did before they pushed financial engineering beyond the edge, all in the pursuit of short-term capital appreciation gains. And if Gazprom can’t fund it, we are confident China would be delighted to invest in the project by buying a few billion Renminbi-denominated bonds.

So congratulations to Putin: today he merely further cemented his status as Europe’s default energy provider. But not only that. As Reuters noted some politicians have warned that Putin may try to exploit divisions between friendly EU states, such as neutral Austria with its traditionally good ties to Moscow, and those like Britain that want to take a harder line.

“Obviously … Putin wants to split the European Union. That’s nothing new. That’s what the Russians always try to do when they are in a corner,” Swedish Foreign Minister Carl Bildt told Austrian broadcaster ORF on Monday.

Well, Mr. Bildt, Russia certainly succeeded in sowing the seeds of even more discord in the European Union, whose most stable country just sided with Putin and told all of its European “partners”, Merkel and Cameron included, a big fuck you. As for your completely wrong remark about just who is “in the corner” we will let it slip: after all, as that other European career politician Jean-Claude Juncker taught us, when it gets serious, you have to lie.

Despite public reassurances of independence during its recent launch, the Canadian International Institute for Extractive Industries and Development (CIIEID) is a poorly conceived instrument of the Canadian government to support the mining sector abroad.

In a presentation to the Mining Association of Canada last year, former International Development Minister Julian Fantino promised industry representatives that the Institute “will be your biggest and best ambassador.”

And in a January submission to the Canadian government, the Prospectors and Developers Association of Canada (PDAC) proposed that the University of British Columbia-housed Institute could be a “key delivery device” for influencing natural resource management in resource-rich countries.

The CIIEID was established through a $24.6 million donation from the former Canadian International Development Agency (CIDA), now part of the Department of Foreign Affairs, Trade and Development (DFATD). It was formally launched on January 29, 2014 as a partnership between the University of British Columbia (UBC), Simon Fraser University (SFU), and Montreal’s École Polytechnique.

The Institute’s purported mission is to work with national, regional, and local governments so that resource extraction will contribute to sustainable growth and poverty reduction. A contribution agreement was signed between UBC and CIDA in May 2013 to establish it.

MiningWatch Canada has produced a brief analysis of the CIDA-UBC Contribution Agreement and a summary of past Canadian involvement in natural resource management in Latin America that underline why these public funds are misdirected and destined to privilege Canadian mining investment and profitability over poverty reduction and protection of communities, workers, and the environment.

“While mining-affected communities could make use of independent academic expertise, the CIIEID is not independent, nor is it likely to have much credibility given its close ties with the Canadian government and industry,” remarks Jen Moore, Latin America Program Coordinator for MiningWatch Canada.

“The Canadian government’s vested interest, its stated goal of promoting and protecting the interests of Canadian extractive companies operating overseas, and its poor track record in countries such as Honduras, Colombia, and Peru have already laid its path.”

Our analysis is available here in English, French and Spanish.

For more information:

• Jen Moore, Latin America Program Coordinator, MiningWatch Canada, (613) 569-3439, jen(at)miningwatch.ca

Attachment	Size
Brief: The Canadian International Institute for Extractive Industries and Development (CIIEID)	723.67 KB
Mémoire: L’Institut canadien international pour les industries extractives et le développement (ICIIED)	742.53 KB
Informe: El Instituto Canadiense Internacional para las Industrias Extractivas y el Desarrollo (CIIEID)	702.44 KB

On June 5, 2014, the Center for Constitutional Rights (CCR) and the Campaign to Preserve Mamilla Jerusalem Cemetery sent a letter to the Chairman of the Organization of Islamic Countries and the State of Palestine’s Representative to UNESCO urging them to take immediate action to oppose UNESCO’s relationship with the Simon Wiesenthal Center (SWC) and to urge UNESCO to preserve what remains of Mamilla Cemetery in Jerusalem.  This follows a recent complaint addressed by the OIC to UNESCO regarding the latter’s ongoing association with the SWC (see letters here, here, and here).

The SWC has continued its desecration of one of the oldest and most venerated Muslim cemeteries in Jerusalem despite CCR and the Campaign’s 2010 Petition to United Nations agencies and continued advocacy on behalf of descendants of those interred in the Cemetery. Rather than condemning the SWC’s actions and demanding that Israel and the SWC cease their destruction of this important cultural heritage site in violation of human rights principles that UNESCO is meant to uphold, UNESCO is co-organizing and hosting from June 12-20, 2014 a SWC exhibit entitled “People, Book, Land: The 3500 Year Relationship of the Jewish People with the Holy Land.” As the letter states, UNESCO’s endorsement of this exhibit “contributes to the perception that UNESCO is validating the SWC’s uprooting of Mamilla Cemetery in the Holy City of Jerusalem, an action which seeks to erase the long and deep history of Muslims and Palestinians in the same land.”

The letter further urges the representatives “to consider appropriate steps to suspend the associate status that SWC enjoys at UNESCO as long as it perseveres in its desecration of the Cemetery and continues to flaunt the standards of tolerance that it supposedly advocates, while blatantly contradicting the humanistic values that UNESCO stands for.”

The construction of the SWC’s “Museum of Tolerance” on the site of the Mamilla Cemetery has already resulted in the secretive removal of thousands of human remains during excavations and infrastructure work.  The project has faced wide-ranging opposition, including a public petition signed by nearly 10,000 individuals from around the world, Human Rights Council resolutions, a letter from 84 respected archaeologists decrying the destruction of a revered site as well as the illegal and unethical archaeological practices employed on the site, a letter from 45 Jerusalem community leaders, a resolution by the Central Conference of American Rabbis opposing the project, and the public outcry of numerous prominent Israeli scholars.

To read the full letter, click here.

For more information, see CCR’s Mamilla Case page and the Campaign’s website.

The Petitioners and the Campaign to Preserve Mamilla Jerusalem Cemetery which they initiated, is a wholly civil, volunteer initiative with no political coloring. All 60 individual petitioners are descendants of 15 of Jerusalem’s most prominent and longest established families and have no relation with previous individual or institutional claimants in Israeli courts. In addition, the Petition was supported by 16 human rights non-governmental organizations, based in Israel and the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including Jerusalem.

The UK-listed company, Equatorial Palm Oil (EPO), which is threatening to seize land owned by Liberians in defiance of commitments by Liberia’s President, will today receive a visit from affected communities. Members of the Jogbahn Clan, together with representatives from Liberian and international NGOs, will deliver a petition with over 90,000 signatures, reminding EPO that it does not have community consent to expand onto their lands, and that doing so could escalate violence. [1] EPO’s past operations in Liberia have triggered allegations of conflict and human rights abuses. The company has maintained that any expansion is legal. [2]

“EPO’s recent expansion efforts are a brazen example of a company defying international law, government orders and the rights of communities,” said Silas Kpanan’Ayoung Siakor, campaigner at the Sustainable Development Institute. “EPO has no claim to this land, it is owned by the communities who live on it.” [3]

Residents from the Jogbahn Clan in Liberia’s Grand Bassa County say that EPO has begun demarcating blocks of land in preparation for clearing, and have accused its security officers of threatening community members. These actions defy the March commitment by Liberian President Ellen Johnson Sirleaf that EPO could not expand onto the lands of the Joghban Clan without their permission. [4] The right of Liberian communities such as the Joghban Clan to give or withhold consent to projects that could have an impact on their land and resources is also provided under international human rights law, as well as the Principles and Criteria of the Roundtable on Sustainable Palm Oil (RSPO) of which EPO is a member. [5] The Joghban people have refused to give such consent.

EPO has a very poor track record in Grand Bassa County. In September of last year, officers from the EPO security team and the Liberian Police reportedly worked together to assault and beat Joghban community members who were peacefully protesting the company’s operations. Those arrested were soon released after it was determined by the government’s Grand Bassa attorney that there was no justification for continued detention. No government investigation report regarding this incident has been made public. [6]

EPO denied any involvement in the violence, saying that it had been “falsely accused”, and does not “condone or encourage such described behaviour,” and “never instructed or directed any of its staff or PSU officers to intimidate Jogbahn community members in September or at any time.” However, EPO admitted to Global Witness that it provided logistical support to the Liberian police who are accused of intimidating villagers on the plantation. The company further stated that it “respect[s] the Liberian community rights and land, and ha[s] followed the law and procedures laid out”, had taken “strict steps” to ensure that it only plants oil palm on its concession land and legally-acquired community land, and  is “a responsible company and committed to sustainable oil palm development.” [7]

EPO’s concessions in Liberia total 8,900 km² of land, which the company believes gives it the legal right to use the land to develop a palm oil concession.  The company is listed on the London-based AIM stock market, and is now majority owned by Malaysian palm oil giant Kuala Lumpur Kepong Bhd (KLK). Major brands including Kellogg’s, Kraft, Nestle, Unilever, Procter & Gamble, and General Mills have been reported as direct or indirect consumers of KLK palm oil. [8]

“We demand that EPO stops inciting conflict by preparing to clear our land,” commented Jogbahn Elder Joseph Chio Johnson, “EPO must stop threatening our people and accept that our no means no.”

 

Forest Peoples Programme, 1c Fosseway Business Centre, Stratford Road, Moreton in Marsh GL56 9NQ, UK Tel: +44 (0)1608 652893 www.forestpeoples.org Charity Registration Number: 1082158 A company limited by guarantee (England & Wales) Reg. No. 3868836

Notes:

1. Sustainable Development Institute and Friends of the Earth International, Tell Equatorial Palm Oil NO means NO!, Rainforest Rescue, Wir stoppen die Walddiebe!, Friends of the Earth US, Stop an abusive palm oil company from grabbing Liberian land, Milieudefensie, Laat Equatorial Palm Oil weten dat NEE echt NEE betekent!
2. Equatorial Palm Oil, Letter to Global Witness, 17 December 2013.  EPO’s full response can be found on Global Witness’ website at: www.globalwitness.org.
3. Customary land rights are protected under a range of international human rights laws applicable to Liberia, including the African Charter on Human & Peoples’ Rights (1981), the International Covenant on Economic, Social & Cultural Rights (1966), the International Covenant on Civil & Political Rights (1966), the Convention on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination (1965), as well as principles of customary international law expressed in the Universal Declaration on Human Rights (1948) and UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (2007).   
4. Sustainable Development Institute, SDI welcomes President Sirleaf’s commitment to protecting Joghban clan’s land from further encroachment by British palm oil company Equatorial Palm Oil, 6 March 2014; Global Witness, NGOs welcome Liberian President’s commitment to stop British palm oil company “taking” community land, 10 March 2014.
5. Free Prior and Informed Consent (FPIC) is a key principle of Liberia’s Community Rights Law with respect to Forest Lands (2009), which provides communities with a right to give or withhold their consent to activities planned on community land or which may impact on that land and the community. Article 7 of the Liberian Constitution provides for the maximum feasible participation by citizens of Liberia, in the management of Liberia’s natural resources. FPIC is also an established legal principle supported by numerous regional and international legal instruments to which Liberia is legally bound, including the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights (ACHPR). The decision of the African Commission on Human & Peoples’ Rights in the case of Endorois Welfare Council v. Kenya (276/2003) e.g. at para 209, including with regard to right to property (Art. 14 ACHPR), as well we the right to development (Art. 22 ACHPR). See also ACHPR Resolution 224 on a Human Rights-Based Approach to Natural Resources Governance, the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples as well as numerous other provisions and jurisprudence elaborated under the International Convention on the Elimination of all Forms of Racial Discrimination, the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.
6. Sustainable Development Institute, SDI calls on Equatorial Palm Oil to immediately cease land survey in Grand Bassa District #4, 25 September 2013. Sustainable Development Institute, Global Witness, FoE EWNI, FERN, Save My Future Foundation, UK’s Equatorial Palm Oil accused of human rights abuses in Liberia, 20 December 2013.
7. Equatorial Palm Oil, Letter to Global Witness, 17 December 2013.  EPO’s full response can be found on Global Witness’ website at: www.globalwitness.org. Meeting between Global Witness and EPO in London on 14 November, 2013. EPO, “Letter to Global Witness,” 17 December 2013.
8. Rainforest Action Network, Conflict Palm Oil in Practice: Exposing KLK’s role in rainforest destruction, land grabbing and child labour, 2 April 2014.

Contacts

• Silas Kpanan’Ayoung Siakor, Campaigner at Sustainable Development Institute: +231 (0) 880655712/ 0770001450, email: [email protected]
• Jonathan W. Yiah, Coordinator at Sustainable Development Institute: +231 (0) 770001453, email: [email protected]

• Jacinta Fay, Landgrab Campaigner, Friends of the Earth International: +231 (0)770001452, email: [email protected]

On Sunday, 22 June, at around 4:00 AM, Israeli Occupation Forces broke into the company premises of Turbo Computers and Software Co. Ltd., a graphic design firm established in 1985 and publisher of This Week in Palestine magazine, and into the premises of its sister company, Jeel Publishing Co. Ltd., publisher of the Arabic youth magazine Filistin Ashabab. Seven computers including the servers were confiscated, severely hampering the companies’ operating capacity.

As private-sector companies, we deplore such an action which not only clearly violates our personal rights, including freedom of expression, but also jeopardizes the livelihood of our employees. During our 28-year history, we have had no affiliation with any political faction. Our work includes graphic design and print-management services offered to a large number of institutions, both local and international, including the Office of the President. This Week in Palestine is a 15-year-old nonpolitical cultural publication that promotes and documents Palestine, and Filistin Ashabab is a platform for Palestinian youth to express and develop their writing skills as well as their photography and artistic skills.

We call upon the international community, particularly the US and the EU authorities that have been trying to encourage the development of the Palestinian private sector, to voice its opinion on these barbaric actions and recognize the obstacles that we face as a people under military occupation. Our full economic potential will never be realized if actions like this continue – actions that threaten our investments and, more importantly, the livelihood of our people.

The attack on This Week in Palestine and Filistin Ashabab is a message to our readers that they might be deprived of access to these two independent Palestinian publications. But we want to assure them that we will continue to publish both magazines, despite the hardships, in order to continue to play our part in building the independent, secular, and pluralistic society that we all dream of.

We question the uncivilized manner in which we were violated and our computers confiscated. With today’s technology anyone with adequate resources can easily tap into any system and have total access to its files. As totally transparent companies, we have nothing to hide and we pose no security threat to anyone.

We demand the immediate restoration of our computers, and we hold the Israeli authorities responsible for the integrity of the data that we have collected and worked on for over two decades. Finally, we reserve the right to claim reparation for damages incurred, and to consider legal action, both locally and internationally.

Current events in Ukraine are guided by the evil spirit of fascism and Nazism, though it seemed to have dissipated long ago, after World War II. Seventy years after the war, the genie has escaped from the bottle once again, posing a threat not merely in the form of the insignia and rhetoric of Hitler’s henchmen, but also through an obsessive Drang nach Osten policy.

The bottle has been uncorked, this time, by the Americans. Just as 76 years ago at Munich, when the British and the French gave Hitler their blessing for his eastward march, so in Kiev today, Washington, London and Brussels are inciting Yarosh, Tyahnybok, and other Ukrainian Nazis to war with Russia. One is forced to ask, why do this in the 21st century? And why is Europe, now united in the European Union, taking part in kindling a new war, as if suffering from a total lapse of historical memory?

Answering these questions requires, first of all, an accurate definition of what is happening. This, in turn, must start with identifying the key components of the events, based on facts. The facts are generally known: Yanukovych refused to sign the Association Agreement with the EU, which Ukraine had been under pressure to accept. After that, the United States and its NATO allies physically removed him from power by organizing a violent coup d’état in Kiev and bringing to power a government that was illegitimate, but fully obedient to them. In this article, it will be called “the junta.”

The goal of this aggression was to gain acceptance of the Association Agreement, as is evidenced by the fact it was indeed, prematurely, signed by the EU leaders and the junta only a month after the latter had seized power. They reported (the document bearing their signatures has not yet been made public!) that only the political part of the agreement has been signed, the part that obligates Ukraine to follow the foreign and defense policy of the EU and to participate, under EU direction, in settling regional civil and military conflicts. With this step, adoption of the Agreement as a whole has become a mere technicality.

In essence, the events in Ukraine mark the country’s forcible subordination to the European Union — what may be called “Euro-occupation.” The EU leaders, who insistently lecture us on obedience to the law and the principles of a law-based state, have themselves flouted the rule of law in this case, by signing an illegitimate treaty with an illegitimate government. Yanukovych was ousted because he refused to sign it. This refusal, moreover, needs to be understood in terms not only of the Agreement’s content, but also the fact that he had no legal right to accept it, because the Association Agreement violates the Ukrainian Constitution, which makes no provision for the transfer of state sovereignty to another party.

According to the Ukrainian Constitution, an international agreement that conflicts with the Constitution may be signed only if the Constitution is amended beforehand. The U.S.- and EU-installed junta ignored this requirement. It follows that the U.S. and EU organized the overthrow of Ukraine’s legitimate government, in order to deprive the country of its political independence. The next step will be to impose their preferred economic and trade policies on Ukraine, through its accession to the economic part of the Agreement. Furthermore, although the current Euro-occupation differs from the occupation of Ukraine in 1941 in that, so far, it has occurred without an invasion by foreign armies, its coercive nature is beyond any doubt. Just as the fascists stripped the population of occupied Ukraine of all civil rights, the modern junta and its American and European backers treat the opponents of Euro-integration as criminals, groundlessly accusing them of separatism and terrorism, imprisoning them, or even deploying Nazi guerrillas to shoot them.

As long as President Yanukovych was on track to sign the Association Agreement with the EU, he was the recipient of all kinds of praise and coaxing from high-ranking EU officials and politicians. The minute he refused, however, American agents of influence (as well as official U.S. representatives, such as the Ambassador to Ukraine, the Assistant Secretary of State, and representatives of the intelligence agencies), together with European politicians, began to castigate him and extol his political opponents. They provided massive informational, political, and financial aid to the Euromaidan protests, turning them into the staging ground for the coup d’état. Many of the protest actions, including criminal attacks against law enforcement personnel and government building seizures, accompanied by murders and beatings of a large number of people, were supported, organized, and planned with the participation of the American Embassy and European officials and politicians, who not only “interfered” in Ukraine’s domestic affairs, but carried out aggression against the country via the Nazi guerrillas they had cultivated.

The use of Nazis and religious fanatics to undermine political stability in various regions of the world is a favorite method of the American intelligence agencies. It has been employed against Russia in the Caucasus, in Central Asia, and now even in Eastern Europe. The Eastern Partnership program, which the U.S. encouraged the Poles and EU officials to initiate, was aimed against Russia from the outset, with the objective of breaking the former Soviet republics’ relations with Russia. This break was supposed to be finalized by contracting legal Association Agreements between each of these countries and the EU. In order to provide political grounds for these agreements, a campaign was launched to fan Russophobia and spread a myth called “the European choice.” This mythical “European choice” was then artificially counterposed to the Eurasian integration process, with Western politicians and the media falsely depicting the latter as an attempt to restore the USSR.

The Eastern Partnership program has failed in every single former Soviet republic. Belarus had already made its own choice, creating a Union State with Russia. Kazakhstan, another key Eurasian country (though not formally an Eastern Partnership target) likewise chose its own path, forming the Customs Union with Russia and Belarus. Armenia and Kyrgyzstan have decided to join this process. The province of Gagauzia has spurned the adoption of Russophobia as a cornerstone of Moldovan policy; the Gagauz referendum, rejecting European integration in favor of the Customs Union, challenged the legitimacy of Chişinău’s “European choice.” Georgia, the only republic to have made a relatively legitimate decision in favor of Association with the EU, paid for its “European choice” with the loss of control over a part of its territory, where people did not want to live under Euro-occupation. The same scenario is now being imposed on Ukraine — loss of a part of its territory, where the citizens do not accept the leadership’s “European choice.”

The coercion of Ukraine to sign the EU Association Agreement became entangled with Russophobia, as a reaction of the Ukrainian public conscience, wounded by the decision of the people of Crimea to join the Russian Federation. Since the majority of Ukrainians still do not automatically think of themselves as divided from Russia, there has been a strong push to inculcate a perception of this episode as Russian aggression and the annexation of part of their territory. This is why Brzezinski talks about the “Finlandization” of Ukraine, as a way to anesthetize the brains of our political elite during the American operation to sever Ukraine’s ties with historical Russia. While under anesthesia, we Russians are supposed to accept a feeling of guilt for our mythical oppression of the Ukrainian people, while the latter are force-fed loathing for Russia, with which they have allegedly battled for ages over Little Russia and Novorossiya.[1]

Only a superficial observer, however, would see the current anti-Russian hysteria in the Ukrainian media, so striking in its frenzied Russophobia, as a spontaneous reaction to the Crimean drama. In reality, it is a piece of evidence that the war being waged against Russia is now entering an overt phase. For two decades, we were fairly tolerant of the manifestations of Nazi ideology in Ukraine, not taking it too seriously, in view of the apparent absence of clear preconditions for Nazism. The lack of such preconditions, however, was completely compensated by the persistent sowing of Russophobia through support for numerous nationalist organizations. The discrepancy between their ideology and historical accuracy does not bother the fuehrers of these organizations. In return for a pittance from NATO member countries, they are completely unrestrained in painting Russia as the enemy image. The result is unconvincing, because of our common history, language and culture: Kiev is the mother of all Russian cities, the Kiev-Pechersk Lavra is a major holy site of the Orthodox world, and it was at the Kiev-Mohyla Academy that the modern Russian language took shape). Therefore wild lies are employed, playing on tragic episodes in our common history, such as the Revolution and the Civil War, as well as the Holodomor famine of the 1930s, which are falsely attributed solely to Russian tyranny. Russophobia, based on Nazism, is being made the cornerstone of Ukraine’s national identity.

This article is not concerned with exposing the objective absurdity of the Ukrainian Nazis’ hysterical Russophobia, but rather with establishing the reasons for its re-emergence in the 21st century. This requires an awareness that such “Ukrainian Nazism” is an artificial construct, created by the age-old enemies of the Russian world. Ukrainian exclusionary nationalism and fascism, cultivated from abroad, has always been aimed at Moscow. At first it was promoted by Poland, which viewed Ukraine as its own borderland, and established its own vertical power structure to administer it. Then came Austria-Hungary, which invested large amounts of money over a long period of time, to encourage Ukrainian separatism. During the German fascist occupation, these separatist tendencies were the ground in which the Bandera movement and the Polizei sprang up, aiding the German fascists in establishing their order in Ukraine, including though punitive operations and enslavement of the population. Their modern followers are now doing likewise: under the guidance of their American instructors, guerrillas of the Banderite Right Sector are conducting punitive operations against the population in the Donbass, helping the U.S.-installed junta “cleanse” cities of supporters of greater integration with Russia, and assuming police functions for the establishment of a pro-American, anti-Russian order.

It is obvious that without steady American and European support, neither the coup d’état nor the existence of the Kiev junta would have been possible. Unfortunately, as the famous dictum goes, “history teaches us, that history teaches us nothing.” This is a catastrophe for Europe, which has more than once had to deal with instances of the proto-fascist model of government that has now taken shape in Ukraine. It involves, essentially, a symbiotic relationship between the fascists and big capital. A symbiosis of this type gave rise to Hitler, who was supported by major German capitalists, seduced by the opportunity, under the cover of national-socialist rhetoric, to make money from government orders and the militarization of the economy. This applied not only to German capitalists, but also Europeans and Americans. There were collaborators with the Hitler regime in practically all the European countries and the United States.

Few people realized that the torch marches would be followed by the ovens at Auschwitz, and that tens of millions of people would die in the fires of World War II. The same dynamic is playing out in Kiev now, except that the shout of “Heil Hitler!” has been replaced by “Glory to the heroes!” — heroes whose great feat was to execute defenseless Jews at Babi Yar. Moreover, the Ukrainian oligarchy — including the leaders of some Jewish organizations — is financing the anti-Semites and Nazis of Right Sector, who are the armed bulwark of the current regime in Ukraine. The Maidan sponsors have forgotten that, in the symbiotic relationship between Nazis and big capital, the Nazis always get the upper hand over the liberal businessmen. The latter are forced either to become Nazis themselves, or to leave the country. This is already happening in Ukraine: the oligarchs who remain in the country are competing with the petty fuehrers of Right Sector in the domain of Russophobic and anti-“Muscovite” rhetoric, as well as in grabbing the property of those former Nazi-sponsors who have fled to Moscow.

The current rulers in Kiev count on protection from their American and European patrons, pledging to them daily that they will fight the “Russian occupation” to the last standing “Muscovite.”[2] They obviously underestimate how dangerous Nazis are, because Nazis truly believe they are a “superior race,” while all others, including the businessmen who sponsor them, are viewed as “sub-human” creatures, against whom violence of all sorts is permissible. That is why Nazis always prevail, within their symbiotic relationship with the bourgeoisie, who are then forced either to submit, or flee the country. There is no doubt that if the Bandera followers are not forcibly stopped, the Nazi regime in Ukraine will develop, expand, and penetrate more deeply. The only thing still in doubt will be Ukraine’s “European choice,” as the country reeks more and more of the fascism of 80 years ago.

Of course, Eurofascism today is very different from its 20th-century German, Italian, and Spanish versions. European national states have receded into the past, entering the European Union and submitting to the Eurobureaucracy. The latter has become the leading political power in Europe, easily quashing any bids for sovereignty by individual European countries. The bureaucracy’s power is based not on an army, but on its monopoly over the issuance of currency, over the mass media, and over the regulation of trade, all of which are managed by the bureaucracy in the interests of European big capital. In every conflict with national governments during the past decade, the Eurobureaucracy has invariably prevailed, forcing European nations to accept its technocrat governments and its policies. Those policies are based on the consistent rejection of all national traditions, from Christian moral standards to how sausages are produced.

The cookie-cutter, gender-neutral, and idea-free Europoliticians little resemble the raving fuehrers of the Third Reich. What they have in common is a maniacal confidence that they are in the right, and readiness to force people to obey. Although the Eurofascists’ forms of compulsion are far softer, it is still a harsh approach. Dissent is not tolerated, and violence is allowed, up to and including the physical extermination of those who disagree with Brussels’ policies. Of course, the thousands who have died during the drive to instill “European values” in Yugoslavia, Georgia, Moldova, and now Ukraine, do not compare with the millions of victims of the German fascist invaders during World War II. Entire European nations are disappearing in the crucible of European integration.

The Italian word fascio, from which “fascism” derives, denotes a union, or something bound together. In its current understanding, it refers to unification without preservation of the identity of what is integrated — whether people, social groups, or countries. Today’s Eurofascists are trying to erase not only national economic and cultural differences, but also the diversity of human individuals, including differentiation by sex and age. What’s more, the aggressiveness with which the Eurofascists are fighting to expand their area of influence sometimes reminds us of the paranoia of Hitler’s supporters, who were preoccupied with the conquest of Lebensraum for the superior Aryan race. Suffice it to recall the hysteria of the European politicians who appeared at the Maidan and in the Ukrainian media. They justified the crimes of the proponents of Eurointegration and groundlessly denounced those who disagreed with Ukraine’s “European choice,” taking the Goebbels approach that the more monstrous a lie is, the more it resembles the truth.

Today the driver of Eurofascism is the Eurobureaucracy, which gets its directions from Washington. The United States supports the eastward expansion of the EU and NATO in every way possible, viewing these organizations as important components of its global empire. The U.S. exercises control over the EU through supranational institutions, which have crushed the nation-states that joined the EU. Deprived of economic, financial, foreign-policy and military sovereignty, they submit to the directives of the European Commission, which are adopted under intense pressure from the U.S.

In essence, the EU is a bureaucratic empire that arranges things within its economic space in the interests of European and American capital, under U.S. control. Like any empire, it strives to expand, and does so by drawing neighboring countries into Association Agreements, under which they hand their sovereignty over to the European Commission. In order to make these countries accept becoming EU colonies, fear-mongering about an external threat is employed, with the U.S.-guided media portraying Russia as aggressive and bellicose, for this purpose. Under this pretext, the EU and NATO moved quickly to occupy the countries of Eastern Europe after the Soviet Union collapsed; the war in the Balkans was organized for this purpose. The next victims of Eurofascism were the Baltic republics, which Russophobic Nazis forced to join the EU and NATO. Then Eurofascism reached Georgia, where Nazis under American guidance unleashed civil war. Today, the Eurofascists are using the Georgian model in Ukraine, in order to force it sign the Association Agreement with the EU, as a subservient territory and a bridgehead for attacking Russia.

The U.S. sees the principal threat to its plans for putting the Eurobureaucracy in charge of the post-Soviet area, as being the Eurasian integration process, which is developing successfully around the Russia-Belarus-Kazakhstan Customs Union. The EU and the U.S. have invested at least $10 billion in building up anti-Russian networks, in order to prevent Ukraine from taking part in that process. In parallel, using the support of Polish and Baltic Russophobes, as well as media under the control of American media moguls, the United States is inciting European officials against Russia, with the goal of isolating the former Soviet republics from the Eurasian integration process. The Eastern Partnership program, which they inspired, is a cover for aggression against Russia in the former Soviet area. This aggression takes the form of forcing former Soviet republics to enter EU Association Agreements, under which they transfer their sovereign economic, trade, foreign-policy and defense functions to the European Commission.

For Ukraine, the Association Agreement with the European Union means transferring to Brussels its sovereign functions of regulating trade and other foreign economic relations, technical standards, and veterinary, sanitary, and pest inspections, as well as opening its market to European goods. The agreement contains a thousand pages of EU directives that Ukraine would be required to follow. Every section mandates that Ukrainian legislation be brought into compliance with the requirements of Brussels. Moreover, Ukraine would assume the obligation to comply not only with current Brussels directives, but also future ones, in the drafting of which Ukraine will have no part.

Plainly put, after signing the Agreement, Ukraine is to become a colony of the European Union, blindly obeying its demands. These include requirements which Ukrainian industry is unable to carry out, and which will harm the Ukrainian economy. Ukraine is to completely open its market to European goods, which will lead to a $4 billion increase in Ukraine’s imports and drive uncompetitive Ukrainian industrial products out of the market. Ukraine will be obliged to meet European standards, which would take 150 billion euro of investment in economic modernization. There are no sources for such amounts of money. According to estimates by Ukrainian and Russian economists, Ukraine, after signing the Agreement, can look forward to a deterioration of its already negative balance of trade and balance of payments, and, as a consequence, default.

Thus, signing the Association Agreement would mean an economic catastrophe for Ukraine. The EU would achieve certain advantages, by way of an expanded market for its products and the opportunity to acquire devalued Ukrainian assets. U.S. corporations, for their part, would gain access to shale gas deposits, which they would like to supplement with pipeline infrastructure and a market for nuclear fuel elements for power plants. The main goal, however, is geopolitical: after signing the Association Agreement, Ukraine would not be able to participate in the Customs Union with Russia, Belarus and Kazakhstan. It is for this outcome that the U.S. and the EU resorted to aggression against Ukraine, organizing an armed seizure of power by their protégés. While they accuse Russia of annexing Crimea, they themselves have taken over Ukraine as a whole, by installing a junta under their control. The junta’s mission is to strip Ukraine of its sovereignty and put it under the EU, through signing the Association Agreement.

The disaster in Ukraine may be termed aggression against Russia by the U.S. and its NATO allies. This is a contemporary version of Euro-fascism, which differs from the previous face of fascism during World War II in that it employs “soft” power with just some elements of armed action in cases of extreme necessity, as well as the use of Nazi ideology as a supplementary rather than an absolute ideology. One of the main defining elements of Eurofascism has been preserved, however, and that is the division of citizens into superior ones (those who support the “European choice”) and inferior ones, who have no right to their own opinions and toward whom all is permitted. Another feature is the readiness to use violence and commit crimes in dealing with political opponents. The final aspect that needs to be understood, is what drives the rebirth of fascism in Europe; without grasping this, it is impossible to develop a resistance plan and save the Russian world from this latest threat of Euro-occupation.

The theory of long-term economic development recognizes an interrelationship between long waves of economic activity and long waves of military and political tension. Periodic shifts from one dominant technological mode to the next alternate with economic depressions, wherein increased government spending is used as an incentive for overcoming the crisis. The spending is concentrated in the military-industrial complex, because the liberal economic ideology allows enhancement of the role of the state only for national security objectives. Therefore, military and political tension is promoted and international conflicts provoked, to justify increased defense spending. This is what is happening at present: the U.S. is attempting to resolve its accumulated economic, financial, and industrial imbalances at other countries’ expense, by escalating international conflicts that will allow it to write off debts, appropriate assets belonging to others, and weaken its geopolitical rivals. When this was done during the Great Depression of the 1930s, the result was World War II. The American aggression against Ukraine pursues all of the above-mentioned goals. First, economic sanctions against Russia are intended to wipe out billions of dollars of U.S. debt to Russia. A second objective is to take over Ukrainian state assets, including the natural gas transport system, mineral deposits, the country’s gold reserves, and valuable art and cultural objects. Third, to capture Ukrainian markets of importance to American companies, such as nuclear fuel, aircraft, energy sources, and others. Fourth, to weaken not only Russia, but also the European Union, whose economy will sustain an estimated trillion-dollar loss from economic sanctions against Russia. Fifth, to attract capital flight from instability in Europe, to the USA.

Thus, war in Ukraine is just business for the United States. Judging by reports in the media, the U.S. has already recouped its spending on the Orange Revolution and the Maidan by carrying off treasures from the ransacked National Museum of Russian Art and National Historical Museum, taking over potential gas fields, and forcing the Ukrainian government to switch from Russian to American nuclear fuel supplies for its power plants. In addition, the Americans have moved ahead on their long-term objective of splitting Ukraine from Russia, turning what used to be “Little Russia” into a state hostile to Russia, in order to prevent it from joining the Eurasian integration process.

This analysis leaves no room for doubt about the long-term and consistent nature of the American aggression against Russia in Ukraine. Washington is directing its Kiev puppets to escalate the conflict, rather than the reverse. They are also inciting the Ukrainian military against Russia, aiming to drag Russian ground forces into a war against Ukraine. They are encouraging the Nazis there to initiate new combat operations. This is a real war, organized by the United States and its NATO allies. Just like 75 years ago, it is being waged by Eurofascists against Russia, with the use of Ukrainian Nazis cultivated for this purpose.

What is surprising is the position of the European countries, which are tailing the U.S. and doing nothing to prevent a further escalation of the crisis. They should understand better than anybody, that Nazis can only be stopped with force. The sooner this is done, the fewer victims and less destruction there will be in Europe. The avalanche of wars across North Africa, the Middle East, the Balkans, and now Ukraine, incited by the U.S. in its own interests, threatens Europe most of all; and it was the devastation of Europe in two world wars that gave rise to the American economic miracle in the 20th century.

But the Old World will not survive a Third World War. To prevent such a war means that there must be international acknowledgement that the actions of the U.S. constitute aggression, and that the EU and U.S. officials carrying them out are war criminals. It is important to accord this aggression the legal definition of “Eurofascism” and to condemn the actions of the European politicians and officials who are party to the revival of Nazism under cover of the Eastern Partnership.

Sergei Glazyev is Academician of the Russian Academy of Sciences and Advisor to the President of the Russian Federation      

Notes

There was an awakening in New York last week as 9/11 Truth activists converged at the World Trade Centers for the Grand Opening of the September 11 Memorial Museum.

Handing out thousands of alternative museum brochures that bore a striking resemblance to the official brochures, 9/11 Truth activists exposed the museum’s glaring omissions to throngs of visitors as they made their way to the Memorial.

The educational brochures created by AE911Truth were the same ones that caused CNN’s Jake Tapper, host of “The Lead,” to fly into an unprofessional and mean-spirited rampage earlier in the week. Falsely labeling AE911Truth a “conspiracy group” that is spreading “lies,” Tapper collaborated with Slate Senior Editor Emily Bazelon to denigrate those who work on behalf of the nonprofit organization, calling them insensitive to victims, anti-Semitic, anti-Israel, anti-corporation, crazy, and — get this — probable tax cheats.

Image: AE911Truth held a “What you won’t find in this 9/11 museum” press conference at the entrance to the Memorial Grounds, speaking to a gathered audience of about two dozen people.

Image: Activist Rachel Colten, who handed out more than a dozen alternative museum guides, noted that people were very receptive to learning about really happened at the WTC on 9/11.

Image: Walking the $700M sprawling 9/11 Memorial Grounds and Museum was a surreal experience for the AE911Truth activists who knew the truth.

But if the media wasn’t attacking, it was ignoring, devoting the majority of their reportage to less controversial museum stories: one about an alcohol-fueled opening-night party for VIPs; another about the hideous decision to store pulverized human remains in the museum; another about a $24 admission charge; and still another about a gift shop that sells mugs, T-shirts, and, at one time, a 9/11-themed cheese plate — all headline-grabbing accounts of the Memorial Museum’s poor taste and blatant commercialism, but ultimately serving as distractions from an infinitely more important story.

The more important story is the one with historical implications that boldly asks: Why, within the hallowed walls of a $700 million museum complex that allegedly exists to preserve the record of events, is there not one mention of the catastrophic destruction of World Trade Center Building 7, of melted steel/iron, of thermite residue, of explosions, of pulverized concrete, of elevator modernization and fleeing elevator mechanics? It’s kind of like doing a tribute to Rock and Roll — but the guitar players are never mentioned.

Image: The museum does contain exhibits with samples of the curious, ubiquitous 100 micron-size particles of WTC dust, but doesn’t contain its incendiary ingredients.

Richard Gage, AIA, arrived in New York on Friday, May 23. Following interviews with Bonnie Faulkner and Gary Null of WBAI, Gage commenced the AE911Truth Press Conference at the Memorial Grounds, in which he and retired firefighter Rudy Dent, who had fire marshal status at the time he was on duty at the Twin Towers on 9/11, made comments.

The event was interrupted at the site by police, but was reconvened across the street. The full press conference, including Dent’s remarks, will be made available soon at AE911Truth.org. Gage described “what you will not find in the 9/11 Memorial Museum,” including the explosive evidence for the symmetrical near free-fall destruction of the three World Trade Center skyscrapers on 9/11.

The AE911Truth Press Release was distributed to dozens of mainstream media sources, who apparently chose not to cover the “story of the century” — namely, that 9/11 must have been some sort of inside operation involving elements in the US government and media, given that Al Qaeda could not have had the required inside access to three of the most highly secure buildings outside of the Pentagon.

In a noble effort to educate the public, New York and surrounding area activists Les Jamieson, David Ace, DJ Santiago, Gordon Bastian, and Rachel Colten spent several days during the Grand Opening handing out “look-alike” brochures to passersby entering the Memorial Grounds at the 9/11 Museum.Gage also met with Les Jamieson of NY911Truth. Jamieson shared some of the experiences that he and his fellow activists had while handing out brochures at the World Trade Center Wednesday through Friday.

“There was a constant flow of thousands and thousands of people, coming in so fast, it was impossible to give everyone a brochure,” said Jamieson, adding that “… the overall receptivity was incredible…” and that they encountered “… zero amount of resistance.”

Rudy Dent, who achieved fire marshal status with the NYFD, was on the pile on 9/11 and lost several friends. Hear his story here first, and second, third, fourth, and finally here.When asked about any unusual encounters, Jamieson recalled,

“Yes, there’s a notable one: A gentleman came over from Washington, D.C., and said, ‘Well, I also track what Architects and Engineers’ work is all about. I saw on their website that you also would be here with this brochure…. I support their work…. I have a friend in upstate New York who owns a demolition company and who knows that, after seeing the footage of the collapse of the towers…. that was nothing other than a demolition.'”

In the shadow of the “Freedom Tower,” conceived under the cover of the explosive destruction of its predecessors, activist Eric Rassi assists Gage in helping the public get real information about 9/11.

Activist Al Lucientas, when asked why he was there, responded,

“Despite the potential for complexity of this story, it really is a short list of well-documented facts that makes the official account completely untenable and impossible. And that’s it. It just doesn’t need to go any further than that. We know these buildings were brought down with pre-planted explosives, because that’s what the evidence overwhelmingly shows. And there’s a wide body of concordant facts, mutually supportive evidence that all points to that same conclusion.”

Gage responds, during the Q&A part of his presentation, to a question about access to the towers to plant explosives, saying that it could possibly have been done via a black ops project during the Ace Elevator modernization project, which Elevator World documented in its March 2000 issue.In the Q&A period that followed, a gentleman named Vance Green, whose sister was fortunate to have not been at work that day (she was employed by Cantor Fitzgerald on the 104th floor of Tower 1), spoke to the oft-repeated mainstream media accusation that those who question the official story are being insensitive to the victims and their loved ones.

“[W]hen you hear people on CNN and people on Fox, like Jake Tapper and Bill O’Reilly, and those people say that you’re disrespecting family members — no, you’re not. You’re not disrespecting me…. You’re not disrespecting Patty Casazza or Lorie Van Auken or Bob McIlvaine. There are dozens more family members between New York and New Jersey and Connecticut. You’re not offending us. So when these pundits tell you [they’re] speaking on behalf of family members, who most of them have probably never even sat next to or spoken to at length, call them. I mean, be respectful. Send a well-framed e-mail to them…. Fax them. Find them and tell them: ‘You’re wrong!'”

Image: Catherine Montano, the mother of a 9/11 victim of whom no traces were found, was comforted by fellow Cantor Fitzgerald family member Vance Green after she spoke movingly of her son, Craig, who was working in his office on that fateful day.Perhaps the most heart-wrenching testimonial was from a family member in the audience named Catherine Montano, a mother who lost her youngest son, Craig D. Montano, in the North Tower.

“No one escaped from the 104th floor who was there, because the plane went under them…. He was 38 years old, he was married with three young children. [weeping] And I have said to myself, ‘Before I die, I hope I know the truth of 9/11.’ And that’s what I’ve said so many times. ‘Before I die, I want the truth of 9/11.’ Because I don’t believe what we’ve gotten is anywhere near the truth, from the government, anyone.”

Image: The “doubters” are shown at the museum to have been “thoroughly debunked by Popular Mechanics.” See this incisive series of articles by AE911Truth in order to decide for yourself who has been debunked.

Image: After visitors are conditioned by the heart-wrenching exhibits depicting the horror of that day, they arrive at a very small exhibit that shows the “conspiracy theorists” (at least the ones who are holding the Building 7 signs!).

On his last day in the Big Apple, Richard Gage rode in a cab uptown with 9/11 Truth supporter Eric Rassi to meet Dr. William Pepper, the esteemed attorney who once worked side by side with Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.. Thirty-one years after King’s death, in 1999, Pepper won a civil court case in which the United States government was found guilty of conspiring to assassinate Dr. King. The purpose of Gage’s visit: to discuss legal action against CNN. “CNN’s characterization of ‘liars’ — referring to AE911Truth in a May 19, 2014, tirade against ‘conspiracy theorists’ — is defamation, and it must be remedied by them,” observed Gage.

The 9/11 Truth Movement’s New York activities associated with the Grand Opening of the Memorial Museum were an incredible opportunity to chip away at the official myth that is embodied in the installation of this $700 million edifice. AE911Truth is very grateful to and proud of all the activists and donors who supported this magnificent educational effort.

Please donate now in order to build a fund that will keep New York 9/11 activists stocked with the alternative museum brochures to hand out to the public!

On June 7, President Maduro issued a call to each grassroots unit of the United Socialist Party of Venezuela (PSUV) to submit 10 concrete proposals for ways to improve how the Bolivarian government functions. In response, throughout Venezuela, local units of PSUV militants, known as Battle Units Bolivar-Chavez (UBCh), devoted their weekly meetings to lively debates analyzing political problems and attempting to reach consensus on solutions. There are some 13,500 UBChs. Other Venezuelans joined the discussions through forums, meetings, editorial pages and social media.

A well attended forum in Catia, a working class district of western Caracas, set the tone for many other UBCh meetings. Catia is known and respected for being a center of Chavista militancy. Aporrea.org and other pro-revolution media repeatedly ran written and video-taped reports of the proposals made there by a Gonzalo Gomez, spokesperson from Marea Socialista (Socialist Tide), a leftist grouping within the PSUV and by Manuel Sutherland, a Marxist economist who coordinates the Center of Worker Investigations and Education and teaches at the Bolivarian University of Caracas (UBC).

Sutherland demonstrated with charts and detailed narrative how government negotiations with the owning class have not stopped the elites from amassing huge fortunes and from driving the economy into a deep ditch. He challenged the fantasy, held by some PSUV reformists, that business owners in Venezuela are patriotic and renounce super profits gained from fraudulent imports and currency speculation. Rather he showed how Venezuela’s 400,000 capitalists appropriate 60% of Venezuela’s gross domestic product (PIB) to the detriment of 13 million workers who receive the remaining 40%.

In other words, the bourgeoisie still controls the bulk of the economy, and by implication, political power in Venezuela. With this power, the owning class has squandered Venezuela’s dollar reserve in order to make astronomical profits. They import goods paid for in petrodollars and then sell them for as much as 1500% profit at home. The result is devaluation, inflation, and scarcity. Some call this “economic warfare” waged by the oligarchs. But, Sutherland insisted, the warfare metaphor implies that there can be peace and therefore underestimates the depth of the structural problem.

He proposed a major structural change for the governing PSUV: to nationalize all of Venezuela’s international trade. Sutherland pointed out that three years ago Hugo Chavez had made the same proposal. He quoted the revered PSUV founder, “Create a state corporation for imports and exports to end the bourgeoisie’s hegemony over imports. We look like pendejos (idiots, wimps) giving dollars to the bourgeoisie. They import, overcharge, buy whatever is desired for one dollar and charge five dollars here…”

Inside another UBCh Meeting

Several days later, across town in the upscale neighborhood of Baruta, UBCh militants took up Sutherland’s proposal in the context of a wide-ranging discussion of their own ten proposals to send to President Maduro. They sat in a circle in the modern, airy cafeteria on the 11th floor of a PSUV office building. It was a small group: mostly women, many of them professionals, many retired. Through the surrounding windows, the U.S.  flag could be seen flying from a pole in front of the U.S. Embassy, now closed to the public.

They began by talking about the problem of bureaucracy. A woman who dressed more humbly than the rest of the group suggested that the PSUV set up a storefront in every municipality to help people navigate the system. Another woman, a retired nurse, remarked that the Missions [government funded social programs] had been set up to circumvent the problem of bureaucracy, but that in many cases, they too had become bureaucratized. A sociologist and film maker remarked how the state is still controlled by the capitalists and implied that only socialism would solve the problem of bureaucracy. Then she frowned and added, “with the threats from the coup-plotters (golpistas), the state has its back against the wall and has to make deals with the bourgeoisie.” The woman who began the conversation sighed, more from impatience than resignation and said, “How long are they going to be giving in to the opposition and not to us?”

Then, for a moment, people aired related complaints. “The private monopolies are thieves.” “The Justice System is corrupt. They killed 400 campesinos and no one has ever been tried.” A few debated about which famous official was corrupt and which was simply misguided. A retired physician began to speak about Sutherland’s proposal to nationalize the import/ export function, but got bogged down in economic details.

A blonde woman who had a laptop with her to keep a record of the meeting but hadn’t touched a key, brought order to the meeting. “The Venezuelan state, in every stage of history, has been corrupt and bureaucratic. Ours is a tremendous improvement. But if we’re ever going to get rid of corruption and bureaucracy we need to organize the base, so that everyone is prepared to press forward with their complaints. Now, when a grassroots person makes a grievance it doesn’t go anywhere. We have to organize to make government accountable. Accountability should be a theme of the 3rd Congress.” Everyone nodded.

They brainstormed other problems: the lack of food sovereignty; scarcity of dollars,
bourgeois legalisms; too much individualism; and lack of pride in Venezuelan culture. They reached a consensus on the need for more political education, but did not formulate a specific proposal for implementation.

The spokesperson (vocero) for the Baruta UBCh, a computer expert and one of the only two men in the circle, launched into a history of the Bolivarian revolution because, “we need to understand the context before we finalize our proposals.” His narrative concluded with an analysis of the current tasks of PSUV: to struggle against U.S. imperialism and its allies in the Venezuelan bourgeoisie and to define the Bolivarian process to build 21st century socialism. However, he continued, three different currents inside the PSUV are vying for control to define strategies for carrying out those tasks. (1) The reformists who use petro dollars to placate the masses to accept perpetuation of the current structures. He called them social democrats and included the “Bolibourgeoisie”, the opposition’s 5th column in this group. (2) The Stalinists who think the state can solve every problem. They are bureaucrats, often members of the bourgeoisie who have been replaced. They protect their own power. (3) The proletarian Chavistas, the heart of the revolution. They must build their power from below, independent of the state. According to his assessment, they are currently the weakest of the forces within the PSUV.

Then he made a number of specific proposals to address Venezuela’s economic problems. First, he said, the banking system should be consolidated. “We’re not ready to nationalize banking, but we don’t need 50 banks either.” Second, “it would be political suicide to raise the price of gasoline, but for the sake of economy and the environment, the price of fuel cannot stay so artificially low. We should strengthen the public transit system and convert vehicles from using gasoline to gas.” Third, the Agriculture Ministry and the Food Ministry should be combined to streamline programs for food sovereignty. Fourth, the only way to get rid of inflation is to institute massive production. “We don’t need to be totally dependent on petrodollars. We should develop our gold and coltan resources to earn new sources of currency. Also we must shut down the foreign sectors of the economy like car assembly. We can and must produce 100% of our cars here.” The retired physician raised Sutherland’s proposal to control imports, but by then, the time for adjournment had passed.

Before the meeting broke up, two of the women agreed to write up the vocero’s proposals, plus the ones about holding corrupt officials accountable to grassroots complaints and the need for more political education. Then they would email them to the address Maduro had tweeted. When Venezuelanalysis.com asked if the group wasn’t going to review them again, she shook her head, “No, it’s not possible. In this revolution everything happens very fast. The proposals are due today.”

An open PSUV Congress promised

In the most recent issue of Vanguardia, the periodic publication of the PSUV, Carolys Perez, the Secretary of the Third Party Congress explained some of the measures they had taken to ensure a successful Congress. The aim is for breadth: to receive suggestions, opinions, and contributions not only from PSUV membership but also from political organizations that are part of the Gran Polo Patriotico (GPP), an alliance of left-wing organizations of which PSUV is the largest. “We want to open the door to deepen the revolution and design policies to help construct socialism.”  Venezuelanalysis.com contacted a spokesperson for the Afrodescendant Front of the GPP and a number of other Afrodescendant organizations about their plans to submit proposals to the Congress. So far there has been no response.

The Vanguardia article on the next page quoted Chavez’s 2011 self criticism about the need to challenge “bureaucratism, opportunism, sectarianism, nepotism and gradual distancing from the base.”  These problems, Chavez had explained, come from the persistence of capitalist culture—including capitalist culture within the Party. The Vanguardia author concluded that Chavez’s prescription for self criticism/criticism was more relevant than ever.

At a recent book signing in Austin, Texas, Hillary Clinton suggested that the Drudge Report and other independent media sites carry “bad information.”

The presumptive 2016 presidential candidate was asked about her recent accusations on NPR that Matt Drudge and Karl Rove of Rove.com were using their influence to plant “false information” about her.

“You know, I don’t know, there’s so much, so much opinion and information out in the world and the best way to deal with bad information is with good information, and the more the merrier, right?” she said.

It would appear that in her mind, sites like the Drudge Report, World Net Daily and Infowars consist of “bad information,” even though the stories reported on are routinely sourced from government documents and statements from officials.

On NPR, she called Drudge and Rove “gamers” who were trying to constantly raise “false canards.”

“I am so used to these people,” she said. “They’re like a bunch of, you know, gamers.”

“They are trying constantly to, you know, raise false canards, you know, plant, you know, false information, and that’s what they do.”

Clinton was at the BookPeople bookstore in Austin to sign copies of her latest book “Hard Choices” and the attendees of the event faced TSA-style security.

Visitors were not allowed to enter the bookstore with bags and before entering the top floor of the building, where Clinton was signing books, they were told to empty their pockets for a wand search.

Several secret service agents and Austin police officers were managing security, and one uniformed Austin SWAT officer was also present.

In addition to the security inside the building, at least one city street was closed off for three blocks.

Austin was stop number 10 for Clinton’s book tour, which so far has been fraught with disappointments.

Sales of her memoir in the first week were “well below expectations,” according to a veteran publishing source.

“They sold 60,000 hard covers first week and 24,000 ebooks,” the source told the Weekly Standard, adding that the publishing house was “hoping and praying for 150,000 print first week.”

“They will be lucky to sell 150,000 total lifetime,” he said, and to put that into context, other reports state that one million copies of the book have already been printed.

Some analysts said that Clinton released the memoir in order to paint her own narrative and defend her record ahead of another presidential campaign.

Unfortunately for her, the book was torn apart by critics.

“In this book, like in ‘The Lego Movie’ theme song, everyone is awesome!” Politico’s Mike Allen wrote.

Slate’s John Dickerson described it as “the low-salt, low-fat, low-calorie offering with vanilla pudding as the dessert.”

“She goes on at great length, but not great depth,” he added.

To top it all off, the “Ready For Hillary” book tour bus also broke down in Philadelphia.

“I think we have to understand first how we got here. We have been arming ISIS (the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria) in Syria.  ISIS, an al Qaeda offshoot, has been collaborating with the Syrian rebels whom the Obama administration has been arming in their efforts to overthrow Syrian President Bashar al-Assad.”  – Senator Rand Paul, Interview CNN

Today’s head-scratcher: How could a two-mile long column of jihadi-filled white Toyota Land rovers barrel across the Syrian border into Iraq–sending plumes of dust up into the atmosphere –without US spy satellites detecting their whereabouts when those same satellites can read a damn license plate from outer space? And why has the media failed to inquire about this massive Intelligence failure?

Barack Obama is a big proponent of “inclusive democracy” which is why he wants Iraqi prime minister Nouri al Maliki to either include more Sunnis in the government or resign as PM. In an interview with CNN, Obama said, “We gave Iraq the chance to have an inclusive democracy, to work across sectarian lines to provide a better future for their children and unfortunately what we’ve seen is a breakdown of trust…There’s no doubt that there has been a suspicion for quite some time now amongst Sunnis that they have no access to using the political process to deal with their grievances, and that is in part the reason why a better-armed and larger number of Iraqi security forces melted away when an extremist group, Isis, started rolling through the western portions of Iraq.

“Part of the task now is to see whether Iraqi leaders are prepared to rise above sectarian motivations, come together, and compromise. If they can’t there’s not going to be a military solution to this problem … There’s no amount of American firepower that’s going to be able to hold the country together and I’ve made that very clear to Mr Maliki and all the other leadership inside of Iraq (that) they don’t have a lot of time.” (New York Times)

Anyone who thinks Obama  gives a rip about sectarian problems in Iraq needs his head examined. That’s the lamest excuse for a policy position since the Bush administration announced they were sending troops to Afghanistan to “liberate” women from having to wear headscarves.  If Obama was serious about “inclusive democracy” as he calls it, then he’d withhold the $1.3 billion from his new dictator buddy, Generalissimo al Sisi of Egypt who toppled the democratically-elected government in Cairo, installed himself as top-dog in conspicuously rigged elections, and is now planning to execute 200-plus Egyptians for being members of a party that was legal just a few months ago.   Do you think Obama is pestering al-Sisi to be “more inclusive”?  No way. He doesn’t care how many people are executed in Egypt, anymore than he cares whether al Maliki blocks Sunnis from a spot in the government.

What matters to Obama and his deep-state puppet-masters is regime change, that is, getting rid of a nuisance who hasn’t followed Washington’s directives. That’s what this is all about. Obama and Co. want to give al Maliki the old heave-ho because he refused to let US troops stay in Iraq past the 2012 deadline and because he’s too close to Tehran. Two strikes and you’re out, at least that’s how Washington plays the game.

So Maliki has got to go, and all the hoopla over sectarian issues is just pabulum for the News Hour. It means nothing. The real goal is regime change. That, and the partitioning of Iraq. In fact, the de facto partitioning of Iraq has already taken place. The Sunnis have basically seized the part of the country where they plan to live.

The Kurds have nailed down their own territory, and the Shia will get Baghdad and the rest, including Basra. So, the division of Iraq has already a done deal, just as long as al Maliki doesn’t  gum up the works by deploying his army to retake the parts of the country that are now occupied by ISIS. But the Obama team probably won’t allow that to happen, mainly because the bigshots in Washington like things the way they are now.

They want an Iraq that is broken into smaller chunks and ruled by tribal leaders and warlords. That’s what this is all about, splitting up the country along the lines that were laid out in an Israeli plan authored by Oded Yinon 30 years ago.  That plan has already been implemented which means Iraq, as we traditionally think of it, no longer exists. It’s kaput. Obama and Co. made sure of that.  They weren’t satisfied with just killing a million Iraqis, polluting the environment, poisoning the water, destroying the schools, hospitals, roads, bridges, and leaving them to scrape by on meager rations, foul water and a tattered electrical grid. They had to come back and annihilate the state itself, erase the lines on the map,  and remove any trace of a nation that was once a prosperous Middle East hub. Now the country is gone, vanished overnight. Poof. Now you see it, now you don’t.

Of course, al Maliki could try to reverse the situation, but he’s got his own problems to deal with. It’s going to be hard enough for him just to hold onto power, let alone launch a sustained attack on a disparate band of cutthroats who are bent on wreaking havoc on oil wells, critical infrastructure, pipelines, reservoirs, etc as well as killing as many infidels as humanly possible. No matter how you cut it, al Maliki is going to have his hands full.  Obama has already made it plain, that he’s gunning for him and won’t rest until he’s gone. In fact, Secretary of State John Kerry is in the Middle East right now trying to drum up support for the “Dump Maliki” campaign. His first stopover was Cairo. Here’s a wrap-up form the Sunday Times:

“Secretary of State John Kerry arrived in Cairo on Sunday morning on the first leg of a trip that is intended to hasten the formation of a cross-sectarian government in Iraq. In his swing through Middle East capitals, Mr. Kerry plans to send two messages on Iraq. One is that Arab states should use their influence with Iraqi politicians and prod them to quickly form an inclusive government. Another is that they should crack down on funding to the Sunni militants in the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria. The group is largely self-sustaining because of success in extortion and its plundering of banks in Mosul, Iraq. But some funding “has flowed into Iraq from its neighbors,” said a senior official on Mr. Kerry’s plane.” (Kerry Arrives in Cairo on Trip to Push for New Iraqi Government, New York Times)

How’s that for priorities? First we get rid of al Maliki, says Kerry, then we move on to less important matters, like that  horde of jihadi desperados who are descending on Baghdad like a swarm of locusts. Doesn’t that seem a little backasswards to you, dear reader?

And why isn’t Obama worried about a jihadi attack on Baghdad?   Think of it: If they did attack Baghdad and the capital fell into jihadi hands, then what? Well, then the Dems would take the blame, they’d get their butts whooped in the upcoming midterms, and Madame Hillary would have to take up needlepoint because her chances of winning the 2014 presidential balloting would drop to zero.  So, the fallout would be quite grave. Still, Obama’s not sweating it, in fact, he’s not the least bit worried. Why?

Could it be that he knows something that we don’t know?  Could it be that US Intel agents have already made contact with these yahoos and gotten a commitment that they won’t attack Baghdad if they are allowed to remain in the predominantly Sunni areas which they already occupy? Is that it? Did Obama offer the Baathists and Takfiris a quid pro quo which they graciously accepted?

It’s very likely, mainly because it achieves Obama’s strategic objective of establishing a de facto partition that will remain in effect unless al Maliki can whip up an army to retake lost ground which looks doubtful at this point.

But, here’s the glitch;  al Maliki is not a quitter, and he’s not going anywhere. In fact he’s digging in his heels. He’s not going to be blackmailed by the likes of Obama. He’s going to this fight tooth and nail. And he’s going to have help too, because young Shia males are flocking to the recruiting offices to join the army and the militias. And then there’s Russia; in a surprise announcement  Russian president Vladimir Putin offered to assist al Maliki in the fight against the terrorists, a move that is bound to enrage Washington. Here’s a clip from the Daily Star:

“Russian President Vladimir Putin on Friday offered Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki Moscow’s total backing for the fight against jihadist fighters who have swept across the Middle East country.

“Putin confirmed Russia’s complete support for the efforts of the Iraqi government to speedily liberate the territory of the republic from terrorists,” the Kremlin said in a statement following a phone call between the two leaders…

Russia is one of the staunchest allies of Syrian strongman Bashar al-Assad and has helped prop up his regime during three years of fighting against a hotchpotch of rebel groups, including the ISIL.”  ( Putin offers Iraq’s Maliki ‘complete support’ against jihadists, Daily Star)

That makes a third front in which Russia and the US will be on opposite sides. It’s just like the good old days, right?  Putin seems to be resigned to the idea that Moscow and Washington are going to be at loggerheads in the future. He’s not only opposed to a “unitary world order”, he’s doing something about it, putting himself and his country’s future at risk in order to stop the empire’s relentless expansion and vicious wars of aggression.  Needless to say, proxy wars like this can lead to rapid escalation which is always a concern when both parties have nuclear weapons at their disposal.  Now check this out from the Oil Price website:

“Here’s why the threat goes beyond Iraq and Syria…Modern Syria is bordered by Turkey to the north, Iraq to the east, Jordan and Israel to the south and Lebanon to the west.

‘Greater Syria’ incorporates most of the territories of each.

This is what ‘Syria’ means in the mind of Middle Easterners, says Joshua Landis, director of the Center for Middle East Studies at the University of Oklahoma, and author of the respected blog SyriaComment.com

‘If we can teach people that so many Arabs still think of Syria as Greater Syria, they will begin to understand the extent to which Sykes-Picot remains challenged in the region,’ said Landis.

Sykes-Picot, of course refers to the secret agreement drawn up by two British and French diplomats — Sir Mark Sykes and Francois George-Picot — at the end of Word War I dividing the spoils of the Ottoman Empires between Britain and France by drawing straight lines in the sand.

To this day, many Arabs refuse to accept that division and think of ‘Syria’ as ‘Greater Syria.’ Some go so far as to include the Arab countries of North Africa – which from the Nile to the Euphrates forms ‘the Fertile Crescent,’ the symbol of many Muslim countries from Tunisia to Turkey. And some even go as far as including the island of Cyprus, saying it represents the star next to the crescent.

Given that, anyone who thinks ISIS will stop with Iraq is delusional.”  (Insiders reveal real US aims in redrawing map of ME: Greater Syria, oil price)

Interesting, eh? So, if Mr. Landis is right, then the fracas in Iraq and Syria might just be the tip of the iceberg. It could be that Washington, Tel Aviv and Riyadh –who we think are the driving force behind this current wave of violence–have a much more ambitious plan in mind for the future. If this new method of effecting regime change succeeds,  then the sky’s the limit. Maybe they’ll try the same stunt in other countries too, like Turkey, Tunisia, Cyprus, and all the way to North Africa. Why not? If the game plan is to Balkanize Arab countries wholesale and transform them into powerless fiefdoms overseen by US proconsuls and local warlords, why not go on a regime change spree?

By the way, according to the Telegraph, Obama and friends knew what ISIS was up to, and knew that the terrorist group was going to launch attacks on cities in the Sunni territories, just as they have. Get a load of this:

“Five months ago, a Kurdish intelligence “asset” walked into a base and said he had information to hand over. The capture by jihadists the month before of two Sunni cities in western Iraq was just the beginning, he said.

There would soon be a major onslaught on Sunni territories.

The Islamic State of Iraq and al-Sham (Isis), a renegade offshoot of al-Qaeda, was about to take its well-known cooperation with leftovers of the regime of Saddam Hussein,  and his former deputy Izzat al-Douri, to a new level.

His handlers knew their source of old, and he had always proved reliable, officials told The Telegraph. So they listened carefully as he said a formal alliance was about to be signed that would lead to the takeover of Mosul, the biggest city north of Baghdad, home to two million people. …

‘We had this information then, and we passed it on to your (British) government and the US government,’ Rooz Bahjat, a senior lieutenant to Lahur Talabani, head of Kurdish intelligence, said. ‘We used our official liaisons.’

‘We knew exactly what strategy they were going to use, we knew the military planners. It fell on deaf ears.’  (How US and Britain were warned of Isis advance in Iraq but ‘turned a deaf ear, Telegraph)

“Deaf ears”?

I’m not buying it. I think the intelligence went straight to the top, where Obama and his neocon colleagues came up with the plan that is unfolding as we speak. They figured, if they just look the other way and let these homicidal madhatters seize a few cities and raise a little Hell, they’d be able to kill two birds with one stone, that is,  get rid of al Mailiki and partition the country at the same time. But, it’s not going to work out like Obama expects, mainly because this is just about the dumbest plan ever conjured up. I would give it an 80 percent chance blowing up in Obama’s face in less than a month’s time. This turkey has failure written all over it.

As for the sectarian issue, well, Iraq was never a sectarian society until the war.  The problems arose due to a deliberate policy to pit one sect against the other in order to change the narrative of what was really going on the ground. And what was really going on was a very successful Guillaume war was being waged by opponents of the US occupation who were launching in excess of 100 attacks per day on US soldiers. To change the storyline–which was causing all kinds of problems at home where support for the war was rapidly eroding–US counterinsurgency masterminds concocted a goofy plan to blow up the Golden Dome Mosque, blame it on the Sunnis, and then unleash the most savage, genocidal counterinsurgency operation of all-time. The western media were instructed to characterize developments in Iraq as part of a bloody civil war between Shia and Sunnis. But it was all a lie. The bloodletting was inevitable result of US policy which the Guardian effectively chronicled in a shocking, but indispensable hour-long video which can be seen here. James Steele: America’s mystery man in Iraq – video

The US made every effort to fuel sectarian animosities to divert attention from the attacks on US soldiers. And due to a savage and deceptive counterinsurgency plan that employed death squads, torture, assassinations, and massive ethnic cleansing,  they succeeded in confusing Iraqis as to who was really behind the daily atrocities, the human rights violations and the mountain of carnage.

You’d have to be a fool to blame al-Maliki for any of this. As brutal as he may be, he’s not responsible for the divisions in Iraqi society. That’s all Washington’s doing.  Just as Washington is entirely responsible for the current condition of the country and for the million or so people who were killed in the war.

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

Now that the U.S. government has released parts of its We-Can-Kill-People-With-Drones memo, it’s hard to miss why it was kept secret until now.

Liberal professors and human rights groups and the United Nations were claiming an inability to know whether drone murders were legal or not because they hadn’t seen the memo that the White House said legalized them. Some may continue to claim that the redactions in the memo make judgment impossible.

I expect most, however, will now be willing to drop the pretense that ANY memo could possibly legalize murder.

Oh, and yall can stop telling me not to use the impolite term “murder” to describe the, you know, murders — since “murder” is precisely the term used by the no-longer secret memo.

The memo considers a section of the U.S. code dealing with the murder of a U.S. citizen by another U.S. citizen abroad, drawing on another section that defines murder as “the unlawful killing of a human being with malice aforethought.”

David Barron, the memo’s author, needed a loophole to make murder-by-missile a lawful killing rather than an unlawful killing, so he pulls out the “public authority justification” under which the government gets to use force to enforce a law.  It’s a novel twist, though, for the government to get to use force to violate the law, claiming the violation is legal on the Nixonian basis that it is the government doing it.

Alternatively, Barron suggests, a government gets to use force if doing so is part of a war. This, of course, ignores the U.N. Charter and the Kellogg Briand Pact and the illegality of wars, as well as the novelty of claiming that a war exists everywhere on earth forever and ever. (None of Barron’s arguments justify governmental murder on U.S. soil any less than off U.S. soil.)

In essence, Barron seems to argue, the people who wrote the laws were thinking about private citizens and terrorists, not the government (which, somehow, cannot be a terrorist), and therefore it’s OK for the government to violate the laws.

Then there’s the problem of Congressional authorization of war, or lack thereof, which Barron gets around by pretending that the Authorization for the Use of Military Force was as broad as the White House pretends rather than worded to allow targeting only those responsible for the 911 attacks.

Then there are the facts of the matter in the case of Anwar al Awlaki, who was targeted for murder prior in time to the actions that President Obama has claimed justified that targeting.

Then there are the facts in the other cases of U.S. killings of U.S. citizens, which aren’t even redacted, as they’re never considered.

Then there are the vastly more numerous killings of non-U.S. citizens, which the memo does not even attempt to excuse.

In the end, the memo admits that calling something a war isn’t good enough; the targeted victim has to have been an imminent threat to the United States.  But who gets to decide whether he or she was that?  Why, whoever does the killing of course.  And what happens if nobody ever even makes an unsupported assertion to that effect? Nothing, of course.

This is not the rule of law.  This is savage brute force in minimal disguise.  I don’t want to see any more of these memos.  I want to see the video footage of the drone murders on a television.  I want to see law professors and revolving-door State Department / human rights group hacks argue that dead children fall under the public authority justification.

Security is a slippery idea these days — especially when it comes to homes and neighborhoods.

Perhaps the most controversial development in America’s housing “recovery” is the role played by large private equity firms. In recent years, they have bought up more than 200,000 mostly foreclosed houses nationwide and turned them into rental empires. In the finance and real estate worlds, this development has won praise for helping to raise home values and creating a new financial product known as a “rental-backed security.” Many economists and housing advocates, however, have blasted this new model as a way for Wall Street to capitalize on an economic crisis by essentially pushing families out of their homes, then turning around and renting those houses back to them.

Caught in the crosshairs are tens of thousands of families now living in these private equity-owned homes. For them, it’s not a question of economic debate, but of daily safety and stability. Among them are the Cedillos of Chandler, Arizona, a tight-knit family in which the men work in construction and the oil fields, while the strong-willed women balance their studies with work and children, and toddlers learn to dance as early as they learn to walk. Their story of a private equity firm, a missing pool fence, and the death of a two-year-old child raises troubling questions about how, as a nation, we define security in housing and why, in the midst of what’s regularly termed a “recovery,” many neighborhoods may actually be growing increasingly vulnerable.

A Buying Frenzy

In early August 2013, the Cedillo family threw a pool party at their house in Chandler. It was the sixth birthday of Brenda Cedillo’s son, Jesus, and the family gave him a Batman-themed celebration, complete with a piñata in the driveway and a rented waterslide for the small pool in the backyard. Brenda, her brother Bryan, and her sister Christine had signed a one-year lease on the two-story structure three weeks earlier, which made the party special. It was the first family celebration that could be held in a house.

“We’ve always lived in apartments, apartments, apartments,” said Christine.

The three of them were excited to find a place they could afford that was big enough for their children, Christine’s partner Javier, and their parents Olga and Jesus. Christine’s oldest daughter, two-year-old Zahara, was so close to Brenda’s son that the two called each other brother and sister.

The only worry during the party was the pool, carefully monitored by the adults. Being unfenced, it had been a source of stress since they moved in. Repeated requests to the management company overseeing the property that one be installed had resulted in nothing. The Cedillos had no idea that the house’s real owner was a private equity firm called Progress Residential LP.  It had been founded in 2012 by Donald Mullen, a former Goldman Sachs partner, and Curt Schade, a former managing director at Bear Stearns, an investment bank that collapsed in 2008. Progress was financed by a $400 million credit line from Deutsche Bank.

The same month that the family rented the house at 1471 West Camino Court, Progress Residential purchased more homes in Maricopa Country than any other institutional buyer. Nationally, Blackstone, a private equity giant, has been the leading purchaser of single-family homes, spending upwards of $8 billion between 2012 and 2014 to purchase 43,000 homes in about a dozen cities. However, in May 2013, according to Michael Orr, director of the Center for Real Estate Theory and Practice at the W. P. Carey School of Business at Arizona State University, Progress Residential bought nearly 200 houses, surpassing Blackstone’s buying rate that month in the Phoenix area.

The condition and code compliance of these houses varies and is rarely known at the time of the purchase. Mike Anderson, who works for a bidding service contracted by Progress Residential and other private equity giants to buy houses at auctions, was sometimes asked to go out and look at the homes. But with the staggering buying rate — up to 15 houses a day at the peak — he couldn’t keep up. “There’d be too many, you couldn’t go out and look at them,” he said. “It’s just a gamble. You never know what you’ve got into.”

The House on West Camino Court

The two-story house that would soon become the Cedillo family’s home was in fine structural condition when the family signed the lease. It hadn’t sat vacant for long. Earlier that year, the former owner, Lloyd Carter, sold the house to avoid foreclosure after realizing that he owed $100,000 more on his mortgage than the house was worth. (“I didn’t even know who they sold it to,” Carter told me. “The title agency just sent the documents with the courier and met me at a Starbucks.”)

There were a number of small rehab issues: a cockroach infestation, oil that had spilled in the driveway, and a sloppy paint job. Christine recorded some of these problems and others on a walk-through inspection, but she wasn’t overly troubled. “All I was looking for was a place big enough for us to be together,” she said. Until then, she had been living in her parents’ apartment in Tempe with Zahara and her younger daughter Elysiah.

The one serious problem was the lack of that pool fence. Before the family moved in, Christine asked the Golba Group, the property management company hired by Progress to lease and maintain many of its houses, to install one. As she recalls, Lacey, the property agent, left for a moment and when she returned “said they weren’t going to put it up.” Christine offered to cover the cost and was informed that the family could install their own barrier, but only if it didn’t affect any of the landscaping and wasn’t fixed to any permanent structures, which to Christine sounded impossible.

The next week, the family moved in, increasingly nervous about the fenceless backyard, especially since they were unsure what steps they could legally take as renters. Christine’s father began collecting wood to build a barrier on the patio and the family agreed on a safety plan: both front and back doors were to remain locked at all times, and multiple adults had to supervise the children if they were outside. Christine says she called the company another time to ask for a fence, again offering to cover the cost.

Golba claims it has no record of these requests. Lacey (who declined to share her last name) said she doesn’t remember the Cedillos, no less whether they requested a fence. “If you knew the amount of properties we had,” she told me by phone. “It was over a year ago.”

The Private Equity Business Model

Global private equity firms have not been, historically, in the business of dealing with pool fences and the other hassles of maintaining single-family houses. But following the housing market collapse, the idea of buying a ton of these foreclosed properties suddenly made sense, at least to investors. Such private-equity purchases were to make money in three ways: buying cheap and waiting for the houses to gain value as the market bounced back; renting them out and collecting monthly rental payments; and promoting a financial product known as “rental-backed securities,” similar to the infamous mortgage-backed securities that triggered the housing meltdown of 2007-2008. Even though the buying of the private equity firms has finally slowed, economists (including those at the Federal Reserve) have expressed concern about the possibility that someday those rental-backed securities could even destabilize — translation: crash — the broader market.

Since Wall Street was overwhelmingly responsible for the original collapse of the housing market, many have characterized these new purchases as a land grab. In many ways, Progress CEO Donald Mullen is the poster-child for this argument. An investment banker who enjoyed a brief flurry of fame after losing a bidding war to Alec Baldwin at an art auction, he was the leader of a team at Goldman Sachs that orchestrated an infamous bet against the housing market. Known as “the big short,” it allowed that company to make “some serious money“ when the economy melted down, according to Mullen’s own emails. (They were released by the Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations in 2010.) As Kevin Roose ofNew York magazine has written, “A guy whose most famous trade was a successful bet on the full-scale implosion of the housing market is now swooping in to pick up the pieces on the other end.”

A Child’s Death

Unlike her cousin Jesus, two-year-old Zahara was afraid of the pool. She was much more likely to be found dancing in front of the television, or eating vegetables, which were — to her family’s surprise — her favorite food. She loved ketchup, and once disgusted her aunt Brenda by dipping her entire hand into the ketchup bowl at a restaurant and licking the condiment off her fingers. Describing herself as someone who “loves firsts,” Christine saved everything about her daughter’s life from her positive pregnancy test to the certificate she received for volunteering at Zahara’s Early Head Start program.

Tod Stewart, Christine Cedillo’s lawyer, remembers being shocked by the number of keepsakes the family had collected over Zahara’s short life. “I asked her for some pictures of Zahara,” Stewart told me, “and Christine sent me 1,200 photos.”

About a week before Zahara’s death, Christine reached out to her daughter’s Head Start teacher to inquire about swimming lessons. The girl still showed an extreme aversion to the pool, but Christine wanted to be careful. That birthday party weekend was, according to family members, the moment when her fear of the water must have evaporated, because that following Wednesday, while Christine was at work and Zahara was at home recovering from a fever with her grandmother Olga, the toddler crawled out through a doggie door and found her way into the pool.

“I literally went into shock,” says Christine after she got a call from Olga at the Subway outlet where she and Brenda worked. “I took off my apron and sped off to the hospital.”

Multiple Violations

As far as legal liability goes, Arizona pool laws are not very complicated.

If a property is out of compliance with city or state codes, the responsibility for possible injuries or death, such as a drowning, falls on the owner of the property — especially when the injured party is a minor. Reviewing photos of the West Camino house taken by the police and investigators, Doug Dieker, a personal injury lawyer in Scottsdale, explained that the place was clearly “in violation of city code.”

If an interior fence around a pool is lacking, city code requires one of three precautions: the doors with pool access need to be self-latching and self-closing; there needs to be a power cover for the pool; or there needs to be audible alarms on all the doors. None of these three things existed at the house at the time of the drowning, according to both photo evidence and testimony from the family.

Dieker, who has worked on a similar wrongful death case in which a 16-month-old child drowned in a pool in neighboring Glendale after crawling through a doggie door, explained, “Anytime you rent to a family with small children, the duty under Arizona law is that the landlord needs to take the precautions of a reasonably prudent person.”

As he reviewed the photos, he added, “The outside fence is in violation of city code, also.”

Not “Traditionally Correct” Practices

When Christine arrived at the hospital, Zahara was hooked up to a breathing tube and her stomach was dramatically inflated. Javier, who works in construction, was out of town on a job. Christine called to tell him to come home, now. The doctors informed her that even if they could get Zahara to breathe again, she would have suffered serious brain damage. Christine said she just wanted her daughter alive, so the doctors continued trying to resuscitate her.

“They were pressing and pressing on her and I said, ‘Just leave her alone,’” was how Christine described her daughter’s final moments. “We said a prayer and the priest blessed her body and I just fell on the floor and started crying.”

The family returned from the hospital and began a nine-day mourning period, but Christine didn’t stay idle for long. Brenda remembers that her sister almost immediately began attending to the preparations for her daughter’s funeral. In the process, as Christine tells it, she called Golba to let the company know what had happened. Rather than receive condolences, she was told to submit a police report.

Christine began researching the city building codes and laws on the subject, only to find herself shuttled from one agency to the next. “On the City of Chandler website, I looked up code enforcement,” she recalled. “I called a couple of times. It was very confusing; when I called code, they said to call [the Department of] Buildings. And when I called Buildings, they told me to call code.”

Finally she went down to the code office and told one of the inspectors how her daughter had died. She wanted to know if there was a violation at the house and, if so, how to report it. The inspector took her number and scheduled a time to come inspect the house. Instead, he called back that afternoon and left a voicemail suggesting that Christine call the Department of Buildings. When she recounted the exchange with Golba and the frustration with the city to the funeral director at Zahara’s service, Christine was advised to find herself a lawyer.

In a phone interview, Scott Golba, cofounder of the Golba Group, claimed that issues like drownings or code violations are not common at the investor-owned homes his company has managed. (Pool drownings in Maricopa County, it should be noted, are remarkably common; 10 children have drowned there so far in 2014, according to Children’s Safety First.)

Golba did, however, suggest that Progress’s need to achieve a high rate of returns for its investors had brought a financial pressure previously unheard of to the single-family rental market. “Institutional owners want to know, ‘How much money did I make on every single square foot? How much money did I have to put in capital wise, and how much money did I make on that capital?’… It’s all about spreadsheets when it comes to institutional owners.”

For Progress and other institutional investors, so far the returns on their single-family rental homes haven’t always proved to be a happily-ever-after story. Last summer, another private equity firm, American Homes 4 Rent, fired a number of its employees after posting losses. In February, data showed that the rents Blackstone was collecting from 3,207 houses that together made up the collateral for the first-ever “rental-backed security” had declined by 7.6%. “Single-family landlords have struggled to turn a profit while acquiring homes faster than they can fill them with tenants,” Bloomberg News reported last August.

Scott Golba explained that sometimes this gap between anticipated profits and actual ones led companies like Progress to skirt the rules to increase returns. “Initially they have to sell to their stockholders a certain dollar amount, and if it doesn’t come to that, when everything’s said and done, if they can’t make that much money out of the home, they have to explain that to their stockholders or the bank they lend to.”

“On the negative side,” he continued, “they’ll try to raise the rents or do something that isn’t traditionally correct to save money — or I should say, to make more money out of the property.”

The Fence

In the spring, while Christine and Javier were still coping with their grief, the Cedillos moved out. “We’ve got to learn to live without her for the rest of our lives,” Christine told me.

Zahara’s death affected other family members as well. Olga remained heartbroken, while Brenda felt the stress of keeping the family together, even as she held down a full-time job, finished her junior year of college, and cared for Jesus, who grew increasingly withdrawn and angry at school.  At the cemetery, Christine remembers the six-year-old exclaiming, “It’s just so stupid! Why couldn’t they just put up a fence?”

In fact, more than three months after the drowning, Progress did finally approve and pay for the installation of a fence at the house. But even that didn’t go according to plan because the fence was initially installed next door, at 1461 West Camino Court. (That home’s owner, Michael Hoard, remembers returning home to find an unexpected barrier in his backyard. “I got back Saturday, went outside, and there was a pool fence that I hadn’t asked to be installed. Two or three days later, I got back from work and it was gone.”)

Christine and Jesus are now preparing to file a wrongful death suit against Progress. So far, they’ve refused to put down a dollar amount on the compensation they would accept. Instead, they want to see local laws enacted that would require institutional investors like Progress to have their houses inspected to ensure that they are in compliance with local ordinances. “I just want this not to happen to someone else,” said Christine. Employees from Progress’s Scottsdale office did not return repeated requests for comment.

Rob Call, a graduate student in the department of Urban Planning at MIT, has researched institutional investor homes in Atlanta. What he’s found is that the sort of vulnerability experienced by the Cedillos is a distinguishing feature of the wave of private-equity ownership. “I see it as a business model that is anti-community control.” He sees the logic behind the private equity push into the rental market — essentially using housing as a “wealth extraction tool” from communities — as similar to the one lenders and mortgage companies employed in the years leading up to the 2007-2008 crash.

“If Wall Street is involved and willing to dump $20 billion into something, it’s because they think they can, and they plan on making a bunch of money on it,” he says. “Last time they got involved in housing, that’s exactly what they did. And then everything came crashing down.”

In the meantime, the Cedillos tend to a grave instead of a child, sad proof of what might be called “rental-backed insecurity” in a new American housing world.

TomDispatch regular Laura Gottesdiener is a journalist and the author of A Dream Foreclosed: Black America and the Fight for a Place to Call Home. She is an editor for Waging Nonviolence and has written for Playboy, Al Jazeera America, RollingStone.com, Ms., the Huffington Post, and other publications.

Follow TomDispatch on Twitter and join us on Facebook and Tumblr. Check out the newest Dispatch Book, Rebecca Solnit’s Men Explain Things to Me.Copyright 2014 Laura Gottesdiener

Speaking at the end of a day-long series of meetings in Baghdad, US Secretary of State John Kerry warned Monday that President Obama could order military strikes against Sunni militants without waiting for the political restructuring of the Iraqi government that Washington has been demanding.

Kerry underscored the debacle facing the regime of Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki, which has lost control of a third of the country’s territory to a Sunni uprising headed by the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS), an Islamic fundamentalist group with roots in Al Qaeda.

Indicating that US military action could come quickly, Kerry said that any decision by Obama to order an attack should not be considered an act of “support for the existing prime minister or for one sect or another.”

Pentagon officials also announced Monday that the Iraqi government had agreed to provide immunity from prosecution for all US military personnel deployed to Iraq in the course of the present crisis. This was the principal issue that blocked the conclusion of a Status of Forces Agreement between the US and Iraq in 2011, leading to the complete removal of all US troops from the country.

The US military has insisted on having such an agreement in place, ratified by the Iraqi parliament, to insure that no US officers or soldiers could face prosecution for war crimes. With that obstacle cleared, the 300 US Special Forces troops ordered to Iraq by Obama will begin arriving later this week to review the status of Iraqi Army units and gather targeting information for bomb and missile strikes.

Referring to the ISIS offensive, Kerry said, “They do pose a threat,” adding, “They cannot be given safe haven anywhere.” Given that the group controls significant territory in both eastern Syria and western Iraq, this statement amounts to a declaration that the US is preparing military action against Syria as well.

Underscoring the threat of a wider war, Israeli warplanes and missiles struck nine targets within Syria Monday, the biggest military action by Israel against Syria in the three years of mounting civil war in that country. The Israeli Defense Forces claimed the attack was retaliation for an incident in which an Israeli teenager was killed near the Syrian border, allegedly by an anti-tank missile. The IDF policy is to treat any armed attack from Syria, whether conducted by Assad supporters or rebels, as an official government action, and to target the Syrian military in response.

On the day of Kerry’s visit to the Iraqi capital, ISIS forces were consolidating their hold on nearly the entire western border of Iraq, after capturing key positions in a series of bloody battles on Saturday night and Sunday. Insurgents seized the towns of Qaim and al-Waleed, the last major Baghdad-controlled crossings into Syria.

Another ISIS force took Rutba, in the southwest corner of Anbar province, and attacked the town of Turabil, the main border crossing point into Jordan.

If the ISIS forces continue moving south, they would reach the Iraqi border with Saudi Arabia, which in alliance with the United States has financed and armed the organization and other Sunni Islamist groups as part of the operation in Syria.

There are no longer any effective Iraqi military forces along the entire stretch of border with Syria. The only remaining crossing point between Iraq and Syria not under ISIS control is held by the peshmerga, the militia force loyal to the Kurdish regional government in northern Iraq.

Iraqi military officials said they were trying to make a last stand in Sunni-populated Anbar province by concentrating their forces in the town of Haditha—site of one of the most notorious US war crimes during the occupation—and also the location of Iraq’s largest dam, controlling the flow of water for the Euphrates River, whose valley comprises the bulk of arable land in Iraq.

The conditions under which the US secretary of state visited Baghdad demonstrate the precarious state of the Maliki regime and its American patrons. Kerry was conveyed secretly to the center of the city, and filmed descending from his helicopter wearing a flak jacket, in a scene reminiscent of the last days of the US puppet regime in Vietnam. He did not spend the night in the Iraqi capital, instead flying to Amman, Jordan, where armed attacks were believed less likely.

Kerry met with Maliki and his top military and political aides, reportedly emphasizing the necessity for a political restructuring that would likely include the replacement of the prime minister by a Shiite figure less hated by the Sunni minority, and the incorporation of Sunni tribal and political leaders into the government. He later met with the leaders of Sunni, Kurdish and Shiite parties, including both allies of Maliki and bitter opponents.

Maliki has so far rebuffed demands that he step down, seeking instead to mobilize Shiite religious leaders and sectarian militias to bolster the crumbling military apparatus. On Saturday, tens of thousands of members of the Mehdi Army, the militia loyal to Shiite cleric Moqtada al-Sadr, marched through eastern Baghdad in an armed show of force.

The preferred US mechanism for engineering Maliki’s removal is a provision in the Iraqi constitution requiring parliament to convene and begin formation of a new government by July, following the elections held April 30. Maliki’s Shiite-based State of Law party won only 92 of the 325 seats. It is the largest single bloc, but would require support from Kurdish, Sunni or rival Shiite factions to establish a majority.

In 2010, after a similar splintered result in the parliamentary voting, Maliki simply ignored the constitutional requirement and held onto power until his rivals agreed to rubber-stamp a second term in office. This time around, both Washington and Maliki’s political enemies at home are using the constitutional deadline to provide leverage for his removal.

The official statement issued by the US and Iraq after Monday’s talks noted that Kerry “appreciated the Iraqi leaders’ commitment to the political process and its constitutional required dates.” Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani, the top Shiite cleric, seemed to give his backing to this maneuver, issuing an appeal read during Friday prayers calling on parliament to meet the constitutional deadline for forming a new government.

If the constitutional ploy fails, however, US support for the removal of Maliki by extralegal methods is certainly possible. There is little doubt that one reason Kerry chose to stop over in Cairo on his way to Baghdad, bestowing US benediction on the bloodstained military ruler and new president, former general Abdel Fattah al-Sisi, was to send a message to Maliki.

Al-Sisi wields supreme power after the military ouster of elected president Mohamed Mursi, which the US State Department assiduously refused to designate as a coup. The same thing could take place in Iraq, if Maliki proves obdurate.

For the time being, however, the Iraqi military is incapable of defending its own bases, let alone overthrowing the government. A scathing report in theWashington Post Monday was headlined, “Iraqi military facing ‘psychological collapse’ after losses, desertions,” and cited US analysts suggesting that complete dissolution of the army was possible.

Meanwhile a US senator blurted out the dirty secret of American policy in Iraq and Syria, during appearances on two Sunday morning television talk shows. Speaking on both NBC’s “Meet the Press” and CNN’s “State of the Union,” Kentucky Republican Rand Paul said that the crisis in Iraq was the result of the US arming of ISIS in the civil war in Syria against the Assad regime.

“I think we have to understand first how we got here,” he said on CNN. “We have been arming ISIS in Syria.” He continued, “We are where we are because we armed the Syrian rebels. We have been fighting alongside al Qaeda, fighting alongside ISIS. ISIS is now emboldened and in two countries. But here’s the anomaly. We’re with ISIS in Syria. We’re on the same side of the war. So, those who want to get involved to stop ISIS in Iraq are allied with ISIS in Syria. That is the real contradiction to this whole policy. “

Paul went on to endorse the policy being pursued by Obama in Iraq now, in sending in special forces to prepare for air strikes, thus demonstrating the bipartisan support of every Democrat and every Republican in Washington for the new crimes being prepared by American imperialism.

Research from Environment America shows that 2012 was a bigger year for toxic chemical dumping than most of us could have imagined.

Industrial facilities across the U.S. dumped more than 206 million pounds of toxic chemicals into waterways in 2012, according to the “Wasting Our Waterways” report. The figures about the nation, as a whole, are stark, as are figures about individual regions and companies. For instance, Tyson Foods Inc. alone dumped more than 18.5 million pounds—about 9 percent of the nationwide total.

“America’s waterways should be clean—for swimming, drinking and supporting wildlife,” said Ally Fields, clean water advocate for Environment America’s Research and Policy Center. “But too often, our waters have become a dumping ground for polluters. The first step to curb this tide of toxic pollution is to restore Clean Water Act protections to all our waterways.”

Click here for slideshow

Hope for such a legislative restoration explains the report’s timing. It arrives as the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency considers restoring protections to about 2 million miles of waterways. The public comment period for the proposal ends in October.

“Looking at the data from our report [last week], you can see why polluters might oppose any efforts to better protect our waters,” Fields said. “That’s why we are working with farmers, small businesses and hundreds of thousands of ordinary Americans to make sure our voices for clean water are heard in Washington D.C.

“The future of the waterways we love—from the Chesapeake Bay to the Colorado River—hangs in the balance.”

Here are some other findings:

• Watersheds receiving the highest volumes of toxic pollution were the Lower Ohio River-Little Pigeon River (Indiana, Illinois and Kentucky), the Upper New River (Virginia) and the Middle Savannah River (Georgia and South Carolina).

• Of the top 10 parent-companies releasing the largest amount of toxins, four are corporate agribusiness companies: Tyson, Cargill Inc., Perdue Farms Inc. and Pilgrims Pride Corp.

• Industrial facilities released more than 1.4 million pounds of chemicals linked to cancer into 688 local watersheds during 2012, including arsenic, benzene and chromium. The North Fork Humboldt River watershed in Nevada received the largest release of carcinogens among local watersheds, followed by the Lake Maurepas watershed in Louisiana.

The report also provides a state-by-state breakdown of the toxic dumping, along with a ranking of dumping companies around the country.

“It’s high time that we restore protections for the drinking water for 1 in 3 Americans,” said Fields. “That’s why [we released] this report and running an ad in Politico as part of a broad effort to educate the public and engage elected officials to weigh in with the Obama administration in support of its Clean Water Act rulemaking.”

As Iraq’s situation continues to deteriorate threatening its neighbors including Syria. Israel has stepped into the picture by launching several strikes against Syria in retaliation for an attack by an anti-tank missile that killed a teenager according to Israeli officials. It was not confirmed who was exactly behind the attack since the Golan Heights is being contested by both the Syrian government and the rebels. The Associated Press reported:

Israeli warplanes bombed a series of targets inside Syria early Monday, the Israeli military said, in response to a cross-border attack that killed an Israeli teenager the previous day. In all, Israel said it struck nine military targets inside Syria, and “direct hits were confirmed.” The targets were located near the site of Sunday’s violence in the Golan Heights and included a regional military command center and unspecified “launching positions.” There was no immediate response from Syria

In an already intense situation all across the Middle East, Israel has joined its staunchest ally, the United States by attacking Syrian military targets.

In Sunday’s attack, an Israeli civilian vehicle was struck by forces in Syria as it drove in the Israeli-controlled Golan Heights. A teenage boy was killed and two other people were wounded in the first deadly incident along the volatile Israeli-Syrian front since Syria’s civil war erupted more than three years ago. The Israeli vehicle was delivering water as it was doing contract work for Israel’s Defense Ministry when it was struck

The Report also stated Lt. Col Peter Lerner’s comments following the strikes:

“Yesterday’s attack was an unprovoked act of aggression against Israel, and a direct continuation to recent attacks that occurred in the area,” said Lt. Col. Peter Lerner, a military spokesman. He said the military “will not tolerate any attempt to breach Israel’s sovereignty and will act in order to safeguard the civilians of the state of Israel.”

It was confirmed that 10 Syrian soldiers was killed by the airstrikes as reported by the Times of Israel “At least 10 Syrian soldiers were killed in Israeli overnight air raids on positions near the Israeli-held Golan Heights, the Syrian Observatory for Human Rights monitoring group said on Monday.”

The Jerusalem Post was certain that Israel would retaliate when they published an article before the IDF coordinated the attacks ‘A dangerous escalation by the pro-Assad camp’ when they said ”Should the IDF reach the likely conclusion that combatants from the pro-Assad camp – either the Syrian army itself, Hezbollah, or someone acting on their behalf – is responsible for the firing of an anti-tank missile at an Israeli truck, it is difficult to imagine Israel sitting on the sidelines and failing to act to punish the aggressors and restore its deterrence.” Syria would not escalate any conflict with Israel especially after they went through a horrible civil war with the Free Syrian Army and other Al-Qaeda affiliates backed by the West which did result in over 100,000 deaths. Many parts of Syria are destroyed because of the war and now face a dangerous terrorist organization that has been making headlines called the Islamic State of Israel and Syria (ISIS) on their borders. Why would Syria instigate a war with Israel? It would not make any sense, especially when the Syrian government removed all of their Chemical weapons which satisfied the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW) according to RT news:

The last of Syria’s declared chemical weapons have been handed over. “All declared chemical weapons have left Syria,” OPCW Director General Ahmet Üzümcü told reporters at a press conference Monday.

“The last of the remaining chemicals identified for removal from Syria were loaded this afternoon aboard the Danish ship Ark Futura. The ship made its last call at the port of Latakia in what has been a long and patient campaign in support of this international endeavor,” Üzümcü announced

After Israel’s attack, Defense Minister Moshe Ya’alon said “We will not tolerate any infringement of our sovereignty or harm to our soldiers and civilians. We will respond resolutely and powerfully to anyone who acts against us, at any time and place, as we’ve done tonight.”

Israel is trying to cripple Syria’s military capabilities to clear the path for a future US/NATO invasion. The US and its allies have failed to remove President Bashar al-Assad and now Israel is playing its part by destroying Syrian military targets. If Israel continues to launch airstrikes into Syrian territory, would it provoke Syria to respond militarily? Syria is refraining from military action although there are serious tensions between Syria and Israel since the start of the civil war. Iraq is already divided with an increase of Sectarian violence between Sunni and Shia groups which are at an all-time high. Unfortunately Iraq has been destroyed by Washington’s imperial agenda. Syria is now the focus for Western intervention. US President Barack Obama said that Syrian President Bashar al-Assad has lost his legitimacy and he has no place in Syria’s future at a meeting with the Syrian National Coalition (SNC) in Washington this past May. US Secretary of State John Kerry also criticized recent elections in Syria where Assad won a landslide victory by calling it a “farce.”  The latest attack by the Israeli air force is an attempt to further destabilize Syria. Western policies began the conflict in Syria which has killed 10’s of thousands of innocent people including those based in Israel. Foreign intervention does produce unintended consequences. War is now inevitable.

The US Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit on Monday released a redacted version of the hitherto secret Obama administration memo arguing for the legality of presidential assassinations, without charges or trial, of US citizens. The 47-page memo, dating from July 2010, was drafted and signed by then head of the Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel, David Barron, and addressed to Attorney General Eric Holder.

The memo constitutes prima facie evidence of crimes against international law, the US Constitution, and the democratic rights of the American people. It could serve as a key exhibit in impeachment proceedings and criminal prosecutions against high-level American officials, beginning with President Barack Obama, Attorney General Holder, US intelligence and military leaders and the author of the memo, Barron.

The document is a travesty of legal and constitutional analysis. It begins with the desired aim—to justify the negation of the Bill of Rights’ guarantee of “due process” and sanction the arrogation of quasidictatorial powers by the executive branch—and employs a grab bag of sophistic and cynical arguments to arrive at the desired conclusion.

The memo was written specifically to provide legal cover for the state murder of Anwar al-Awlaki, a New Mexico-born US citizen and Muslim cleric. He was branded an “operational leader” of Al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula and assassinated by a drone-fired missile in Yemen on September 30, 2011. Three others were killed in the attack, including a second US citizen, Samir Khan.

One month later, another drone strike in Yemen ordered by Obama and his military/intelligence accomplices killed Awlaki’s 16-year-old son, Abdulrahman al-Awlaki, along with six other people. The US government has acknowledged terminating a fourth US citizen in its campaign of drone killings, which have killed many thousands in Afghanistan, Pakistan, Yemen, Somalia and other countries.

The context in which the memo was released underscores the wholesale repudiation of the US Constitution and democratic rights by the political establishment. The New York-based Second Circuit ruled in April in support of a lawsuit filed by the New York Times and the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) under Freedom of Information laws demanding the publication of the Barron memo, which the administration had refused to provide.

In the meantime, Obama had nominated Barron to become a judge on the First Circuit Court of Appeals in Boston. Senate Democrats who have postured as opponents of National Security Agency spying and drone assassinations of Americans demanded the release of the Awlaki memo as a condition for voting to confirm Barron. In a cynical quid pro quo, the administration agreed not to appeal the appeals court ruling on the memo, and the court agreed to give the administration several months to purge the document of any content it wanted to conceal.

Last month, the Senate confirmed the promotion of Barron to the First Circuit, with all but two Democrats voting in favor, including supposed NSA critics Mark Udall, Martin Heinrich and Ron Wyden.

It is notable that the document deals only cursorily with the Fifth Amendment to the US Constitution, which states: [N]or shall any person…be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.” (These words are not cited in the memo). It is also striking that most of the redactions in the released document occur in the section dealing with the constitutional rights of US citizens.

Instead, the memo restates the now standard pseudolegal argument that in prosecuting the “war on terror” against Al Qaeda and “associated forces,” the president and his unelected military/intelligence aides have virtually unlimited powers, including the power to wage war and carry out killings, kidnappings and indefinite detention anywhere in the world, including within the US itself. It ignores the fact that the so-called “war on terror” was never declared by Congress and has no geographical or temporal limit.

The memo repeatedly cites the congressional Authorization for Use of Military Force, passed three days after the 9/11 attacks, as legal support for any and all actions taken in the name of fighting terrorists, including the assassination of US citizens and other repressive measures against Americans. At the time it was passed, the AUMF was presented as a narrowly defined sanction for retaliation against those responsible for the attacks.

It also cites the 2004 Supreme Court ruling in Hamdi vs. Rumsfeld, even though the court ruled 8 to 1 against the Bush administration’s asserted right to detain people without trial or due process.

Barron accepts uncritically all of the assertions of the government about Awlaki, his role as an “operational leader” of Al Qaeda and involvement in previous terror plots against the US, the “imminent” threat to Americans he supposedly represents, the “infeasibility” of capturing him, etc. in order to declare that the government can kill him without any independent trial of the facts or any opportunity for the victim to defend himself in a court of law. The presumption of innocence is a dead letter.

On this basis, the memo concludes: “[W]e do not believe that al-Aulaqi’s US citizenship imposes constitutional limitations that would preclude the contemplated lethal action under the facts represented to us by DoD [Department of Defense], the CIA and the Intelligence Community.”

The document is carefully worded so as not to limit the president’s asserted power to order the murder of Americans to the specific circumstances surrounding Awlaki. It states, for example, that the use of lethal forces is acceptable “at least” where government officials have determined capture is not feasible.

And it defines “imminent” in such as way as to render the term meaningless, declaring that the government does not need to know “precisely when such attacks will occur.”

Since the murder of Awlaki, the Obama administration has expanded the scope of its asserted power to act as judge, jury and executioner. Attorney General Holder has put forward the novel and unconstitutional theory that there is a difference between “due process,” which is guaranteed under the Constitution, and “judicial process,” which is not. According to Holder, discussions between Obama and his top military and intelligence aides over whether or not a particular citizen should be eliminated constitutes “due process.”

Following the February 2013 leaking of a “white paper” from Holder to Congress putting forward the administration’s legal justifications for extrajudicial assassinations of US citizens abroad, Holder asserted that the president has the right to order the killing of citizens within the borders of the United States. He did so in a letter to Republican Senator Rand Paul, and reiterated the position in subsequent testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee.

And in testimony last month before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, Defense Department and State Department lawyers argued that the president has unlimited war powers and does not require even the fig leaf of congressional authorization. The lawyers declared that the White House had the power to authorize the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq, the air war against Libya, indefinite detention, drone assassinations and all of the other illegal actions of the Bush and Obama administrations without reference to the Authorization for Use of Military Force, which up to now has served as the catch-all pseudolegal basis for such policies.

“The US has the authority to target individuals, including Americans, who pose an imminent threat to attack our country,” State Department Deputy Legal Adviser Mary McLeod told the committee. [Emphasis added].

The Barron memo has been released within the context of discussions within the political establishment over whether to amend or simply terminate the Authorization for Use of Military Force in order to more firmly institutionalize the quasidictatorial war powers of the president. There are those who want to put it aside in order to establish more firmly the right of the executive to wage war without any legal restraint.

The confirmation of Barron to a top federal court and the line-up of both parties behind presidential assassinations and unilateral military actions underscore the absence of any significant support for democratic rights within the ruling class.

The arguments put forward in the memo released Monday—justifying the abrogation of basic rights, state murder of citizens and dictatorial powers on the grounds of national security and the requirements of war—are identical to those put forward by every military and fascist regime, from Pinochet to Hitler.

The preparations for dictatorship can be halted only by the independent political mobilization of the American and international working class against militarism, social inequality and the assault on democratic rights.

“The civilized have created the wretched, quite coldly and deliberately, and do not intend to change the status quo; are responsible for their slaughter and enslavement; rain down bombs on defenseless children whenever and wherever they decide that their “vital interests” are menaced, and think nothing of torturing a man to death; these people are not to be taken seriously when they speak of the “sanctity” of human life, or the conscience of civilized world.” – James Baldwin

The human costs of the adventures of the U.S., EU/NATO and Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) axis of evil over the last decade have been enormous. In an all-too-familiar spectacle last week, the 500,000 human beings – men, women and children – who fled the war torn city of Mosul, joined the millions throughout the Middle East and worldwide whose lives have been turned into a living hell by the policies of a moribund Western elite who still believe that the world is their personal chess board and people and nations are disposable pawns to be used and discarded at will.

When Zbigniew Brzezinski, national security advisor under President Carter, formulated the plan to draw the Soviet Union into becoming more directly involved in Afghanistan by arming a force of anti-communist Islamic fundamentalists who would wage war on the secular and progressive nationalist government in that country, there was no consideration for  the consequences of that decision for the people of Afghanistan or even for what would happen to those glorious anti-communist warriors once they were no longer needed. For Carter, Brzezinski, Reagan, the Bushes, Clinton and all of the servants of the capitalist elite, the value attached to the lives of non-Westerners has always had a utilitarian quality that was based on the degree to which they served or were in alignment with Western interests.  And even when that was the case, those lives were only considered so long as they advanced the longer term interests of the West.

It is only as a result of the callous manipulations of the elites when they experience “blowback” in the form of a 9/11 attack or the uprising in Iraq that the reality of the “other” is recognized, but then only in the Fanonian sense that it is through the violent expressions of the “others” that the reality of their existence is acknowledged, though not their fundamental humanity.

Unfortunately, for the people of Iraq, the racist, colonialist fantasies of Bush, Rumsfeld and Cheney – who convinced themselves that the dignity of the Iraqi people was so thin that they would welcome foreign invaders as liberators – are once again being conjured with bizarre theories that U.S. airpower will somehow accomplish what thousands of ground forces were unable to do – defeat what is turning out to be a broad-based uprising among Sunnis, that includes the U.S. and GCC supported Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIS) – that has now evolved into a force with a significant degree of autonomy –  against what they see as a neocolonial Shia dominated government put in place by U.S. occupation forces.

Republicans, many Democrats, and (once again) some confused segments of the U.S. left are calling for some kind of intervention to block what is being widely reported in the Western media as a foreign invasion by ISIS.  While U.S. authorities make plans for some form of direct intervention, the people of Iraq are preparing themselves to once again be on the receiving end of a “humanitarian” war to save them from a situation that the U.S. created itself with the invasion in 2003 and the ill-fated attempt to dislodge al-Assad from the presidency in Syria.

The corporate capitalist airways are filled with the talking heads of empire who are disingenuously framing the rapid deterioration of the Iraqi government as the result of two factors: the decision not to force the Iraqi entity to enter into a status-of-forces agreement that would have allowed 10,000 soldiers to remain in the country; and the ineptitude of the al-Maliki government to properly manage the distorted state and obliterated society that the U.S. bestowed on the new government.

These private spokespersons, many of whom were the very same incompetents who developed and operationalized the criminal invasion in 2003, to a person have not discussed the three elements that really explain the current situation in Iraq – the 2003 invasion, the fact that the U.S. lost the war and was forced to retreat, and the predictable destabilization of Iraq as a consequence of arming Sunni extremists in Syria to overthrow the government of Bashir al-Assad.

On those first two elements, responsibility clearly rests with the war criminals of the Tony Blair and George W. Bush regimes. But on the last issue, the illegal arming and training of an insurgent force to undermine the sovereignty of an established state – that crime rests with President Barack Obama and his administration.

Democrats, including what is referred to as the “progressive” caucus, the Congressional Black Caucus and other caucus groups, along with the unprincipled and opportunist collection of Democratic party hacks at the Center for American Progress, the New American Foundation, Human Rights Watch and the other liberal and mainstream  institutions and publications who gave direct or tacit support to the foolish Bush era strategy to destroy Syria, all place the blame for the “debacle” in Iraq on al-Maliki. And while many of these elements opposed the Bush attack on Iraq, the moral basis for their opposition to direct war by the U.S. in Iraq under a Republican president failed them in response to the indirect war waged on Syria by a Democrat president. In both cases, it was war that was unleashed, and in both cases outside the parameters of international law and in opposition to the wishes and interests of the vast majorities of the peoples of those nations.

The delusional declaration that the foreign armies of the U.S. would be greeted as liberators in Iraq has been as devastating as the equally delusional support for a “moderate” opposition that would collaborate with foreign sources to wage war on their fellow citizens. All of this was predicted. Many of us who opposed the arrogant and illegal destabilization plan for Syria did so from the perspective that not only would the plan result in massive loss of life in Syria, but that its effect would inflame the entire region, especially since it was clear that the strategy was to sectarianize the battle in Syria. Even reports and analyses from publications on the right to more moderate and centrist publications like The National Interest recognized that the dangerous and incoherent policies in Syria were going to destabilize the entire region.

And even though for many of us the strategic necessity for opposing the machinations of the U.S., NATO and their GCC client-states in Syria was clear, the confused liberal left faced an ideological and political conundrum: While most opposed the illegal war on Iraq, they nevertheless surrendered to national and racial chauvinism and gave ideological and political support to the illegal war waged against Syria. But now, with the predictable result that the war in Syria has created conditions and a political argument for the militarists in favor of a military return to Iraq, the liberal/left is finding it hard to formulate a coherent let alone morally and politically consistent position on the issue of U.S. military involvement in Iraq.

And in light of the fact that policies operationalized over the last six year are responsible for the increased violence and destabilization in the region, the blame Bush position expressed by the defenders’ of Obama’s policy options in Iraq and the ongoing violence and chaos in the Middle-East is unconvincing.

These defenders of Obama are unable to accept that historically when reference is made to the criminal activities associated with the last gasps of empire in the Middle East, Obama’s policies and Obama himself will be linked to the infamous cast of war criminals alongside Tony Blair and George W. Bush – company that he has earned along with a legacy that will forever tarnish his presidency. But he will not be alone, with the blood that is flowing and will flow in Iraq and Syria, the hands of Democratic party operatives and their supporters who collaborated with U.S. power will also be stained with the blood of innocents.

Ajamu Baraka is a human rights activist, organizer and geo-political analyst. His latest publications include contributions to two recently published books “Imagine: Living in a Socialist USA” and “Claim No Easy Victories: The Legacy of Amilcar Cabral.” He can be reached at [email protected] and www.AjamuBaraka.com

Resistance to the global corporate education reform movement gained momentum last month as nearly 200 educators, students, and community allies from Mexico, Canada, and the US gathered in Chicago for the 11th Trinational Conference in Defense of Public Education. The conference was primarily attended by delegates from some of the most militant teacher unions from each of the three countries – all of whom have been fighting similar battles to defend against attacks on public education – but conference organizers also invited student leaders from each country to participate in the conference, as well as teacher union leaders from Puerto Rico and Japan and local education supporters in Chicago.

Taking place over 3 days from May 9th – 11th, the purpose of the gathering was to bring together education activists from the three countries to share experiences, build solidarity, and develop strategies for resisting the neoliberal education policies that have been advancing the privatization of schools, standardized testing, and budget cuts to education across North America. And upon arriving in Chicago, the attendees quickly sprung into action.

After a conference-opening visit to meet with teachers and students at Social Justice High School – a Chicago public school in one of the largest Mexican immigrant neighborhoods in the US that was only built after the community finally won the struggle to force the school board to make good on years of broken promises to build a new school through a 19-day hunger strike – the education activists launched a mobile demonstration through downtown Chicago, moving by bus from the Canadian consulate to the US Department of Education to the Mexican consulate.

 At each location, they rallied with pro-public education chants and speeches as delegations delivered a letter to officials at each institution demanding that the governments of the three nations cease their attacks on teachers, students, unions, and their communities and that that all three governments adopt a joint plan that would tax the rich and use the revenues to fully fund North American education systems with, among other things, universal early childhood programs, free college access, and wrap-around social services in schools.

Officials at the Canadian consulate locked the doors and refused to meet with the delegation – despite the request to meet coming from Canadian citizens – while officials at the Mexican consulate allowed a small group of Mexican teachers into the building, but declined to offer a response to the letter’s demands. Officials at the US Department of Education responded to the group’s presence by calling the police and demanding that they leave the premises. Having made its point, the group left peacefully, defiantly chanting, “We’ll be back!”

The urgency of the current moment

The lively demonstrations paled in comparison to last fall’s city-wide strike by the Chicago Teachers Union (CTU), but the spirit and energy of the strike remained. Chicago was chosen as the host city for the 11th Trinational Conference in an effort to continue to build on momentum gained and the space that the CTU’s strike created to push for alternatives.

The opening day’s visits to the consulates and Dept. of Education did a great deal to unify the voices and the sentiment of conferences attendees early on, and after a communal dinner in one of the oldest labor union halls in Chicago, the official proceedings of the 11th Trinational Conference began with a public forum on the University of Illinois – Chicago campus.

The forum featured addresses from leaders of Canadian, Mexican, and Puerto Rican teacher union – including remarks from a Mexican student activist – on the state of the education fights and policies in their respective countries.  Moderated by Nancy Serrano, a rank and file middle school teacher who helped found CTU’s Latino Caucus, the forum was keynoted by Karen Lewis, president of the CTU, who highlighted the urgency of the current moment, both in Chicago and across the continent.

“We are all being terrorized by neoliberal politics,” Lewis said. And in the wake of the CTU strike, she said, “we have a very small window of opportunity” before corporate-backed education reformers “legislate some new horror on our schools, our teachers, and our communities.”

The speakers who followed Lewis shared stories of their victories and of challenges common to all three countries. All of the speakers remarked on the ways in which standardized testing, attacks on pensions, cloning of Teach for America programs, and lack of investment in public schools are profoundly harming children, teachers, and their communities. But especially urgent was the common theme that the global corporate education reform movement’s austerity budgets and neoliberal policies have been accompanied across the continent by increasingly vicious forms of repression and intimidation against teacher unions and education activists.

 “The public and our parents expect us to speak out in defense of our children’s education,” Jim Iker, president of the British Columbia Teachers Federation, told the assembled teachers. But across the continent, and especially in Latin America, those who speak out are increasingly being targeted for retaliation.

Maria Elena Fontañez, president of the Puerto Rican Teachers Federation, spoke of teachers who had their teaching licenses – and thus, their livelihoods – revoked for life by the government in retaliation for organizing against education reform. And in Mexico, death threats, targeted killings of union leaders, and violent police repression are a chilling reality of the country’s political history and its current climate.

 But despite the constant threat of violent retaliation, teachers have continued to organize. Just last Fall, tens of thousands have engaged in massive, militant strikes and demonstrations across Mexico to resist and teachers, all organized by the National Coordinating Committee of Education Workers (CNTE, in Spanish), the dissident rank and file caucus of the larger, status-quo supporting National Union of Mexican Teachers (SNTE). And this winter, in response to a deceptively-timed Christmas Eve vote that decimated teacher pensions, Puerto Rican teachers occupied their Senate and shut down proceedings for two days.

 It is this kind of coordinated resistance that the Trinational Coalition hopes its conferences and the relationships formed therein will help to spread across the continent. But as political director of the CNTE Juan Melchor put it, he sees the Coalition’s struggle not only as part of what he called the “anti-imperialist” struggle against global corporate education reform, but it is also part of the global movement for democracy, and seeks to advance positive solutions for transforming education into an institution that truly serves all of society, not just the economy.

From creating regional “pedagogical circles” where teachers learn about social justice pedagogy and share strategies for bringing it to their classrooms, to the Coalition’s participation in the international Initiative for Democratic Education in the Americas, to its support of the Charter for Public Education, putting forward bottom-up solutions for creating a more just education system has been part of the Trinational’s DNA since its inception.

History of the Trinational Coalition

The 11th Trinational Conference marked the 20th year since the formation of the Trinational Coalition for the Defense of Public Education, an informal organization that brings together people from the three NAFTA countries who value public education and its contributions to democratic society to defend it against privatization, commodification, and other attacks from the neoliberal corporate reform agenda.

 The Trinational Coalition’s story had its beginnings in a 1993 gathering at Evergreen State College’s Labor Education Center in Olympia, Washington that was funded by teacher unions from Canada, Mexico, and the US in an effort organize a formal, educator-driven commission that could counter the call for a privatized “educational common market” included in the recently signed North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA).  The conference was attended by over 200 union delegates and saw the passage of the Olympia Declaration, which advocated for education as a social right and promoted a vision of education that supported cultural self-determination, was based on social participation, and guided by democratic process.

But by the end of the 1994 follow-up conference in Zacatecas, Mexico, the idea of a formal commission was abandoned in favor of a Trinational Coalition that would seek to coordinate the actions that unions across North America would take in defense of a truly public education system in each country.

Since then, the Trinational Coalition has operated as a grassroots organization that is guided by a common set of principles but has no formal membership. Educational union organizations participate based on their willingness to be involved in organizing and financing various projects, forums, and conferences, though there is no cost to participate.

As of now, over two dozen unions participate in the Trinational Coalition. But notably, none of the national teachers unions from any country participate in the Coalition’s fight against corporate education reform and its attacks on teachers. Instead, it is the dissident caucuses and reform-oriented union organizations like the CNTE, an opposition caucus inside of the larger National Mexican Teachers Union, and the CTU, which was taken over in recent years by the dissident Caucus Of Rank-and-file Educators (CORE), who are leading the fight to defend public education.

Despite having no budget and an informal structure, the Trinational Coalition has been effective in growing the collective power of educator unions in North America.  The international solidarity it has created has won victories for educators in each country that may have otherwise been lost, and continues to be an important coordinating infrastructure for education activists resisting corporate education reform and seeking to advance alternatives for a public education system that is just, benefits all of society, and serves the needs of democracy.

Students rising in the continental education struggle

As an organization that has its origins in teacher unions, student involvement is still relatively new for the Trinational Coalition. Students have attended the Trinational Conferences for only the most recent part of the last decade of its existence, but the Chicago conference was attended by over two dozen students from Mexico and the US (the two Canadian student delegates were prevented from attending by last-minute issues). It was the largest student contingent to ever attend a Trinational Conference.

 

A good deal of the students present attended the conference workshop on student organizing where they shared stories of the struggles they’ve been involved in, including a student group from Chicago, Chicago Students Organizing to Save Our Schools (CSOSOS), presenting on the work it has been doing to fight standardized testing and school closures, as well as a Mexican student representing who has been involved in a student organization called Tiempos Modernos and formerly in the youth-driven #YoSoy132 movement who spoke about organization building in at the National Autonomous University of Mexico.

The conversation then turned toward shared issues that are preventing students from creating broader, more sustainable students movements. A key issue that the students shared was the way that member turnover after graduation prevents all kinds of student movements from being able to shape long-lasting student organizations. Along with that, the average student body’s lack of political identity or analysis was named as another key stumbling block for building momentum in student organizing.

Throughout the remainder of the conference, the student contingent’s discussion about overcoming these challenges through supporting effective transitions in student movement leadership and broadening political education work continued, and was eventually joined by key members of CORE members and leaders of the Network for Social Justice Unionism. A small group of students and teachers met during one of the conference breaks to discuss creating closer partnerships between teacher unions and student groups that could serve as infrastructure to support more powerful and longer-lasting student movements and develop deeper solidarity among students and their teachers from all three nations.

The discussion culminated in the student contingent making an official proposal during the Trinational Conference’s final plenary to establish a “student section” of the Trinational Coalition that would seek to involve students more explicitly in the Trinational’s work, which was received with enthusiastic applause from the teachers and community supporters present.

A small group of teachers and students committed to continuing the conversation as to how the student section should be formalized and incorporated into the Trinational Coalition over the coming year, and many of the students present agreed to continue the effort to grow the student section of the Trinational Coalition through attending the Montreal Student Movement Convention this June where students from across North America will gather to build international student solidarity. Mexican students also offered an opportunity to extend the collaboration by inviting US and Canadian students to send a delegation to the August gathering of the Latin American and Caribbean Continental Students Organization (OCLAE, in Spanish) in Nicaragua.

“La lucha sigue”: the struggle continues

The formation of the new student section was only one of many resolutions for action coming out of the 11th Trinational. As the Trinational Conference occurs only once every two years, its tradition has been to set out goals and initiatives for work that is to be carried on in the interim. The final day of the conference saw various groups of attendees committing to, among other things, further developing international infrastructure to share best practices in social justice and democratic pedagogy, establishing efforts to provide legal support for Latin American colleagues fighting government repression of their work, and taking steps to elevate the visibility of adjunct professors in universities and other precarious education workers in the educational justice struggle.

In addition, Jim Iker of the BCTF signaled to the conference attendees that the Trinational would consider mounting efforts in the coming months to coordinate more joint actions to bring pressure for change upon common adversaries like Pearson, the world’s largest standardized testing corporation, or possibly the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, which is by far the largest single funder of national and international corporate reform initiatives.

Bolstered by the success of the conference’s opening joint actions at the consulates and Dept. of Education, CTU staff coordinator and Trinational Conference coordinator Jackson Potter said “I think it shows that there really is a common set of demands… we have these common threats but also alternatives that we believe in and that we share.”

Potter continued, noting that on top of the success of last year’s Chicago Teachers Union strike, “the British Columbian Teachers Federation and the Mexican CNTE have successfully restricted the use and abuse of standardized tests in significant and important ways through their efforts and advocacy.” The fact that leaders from all of these struggles are intentionally forming bonds of solidarity, he says, “signals that we’re stronger than just by ourselves when we link and connect the dots to figure out who’s behind all this and try and fight them together.”

Rebecca Martinez, another CTU staff organizer and member of the Latino Caucus, suggested the Latino Caucus is considering teacher exchange delegations between Mexico and the US. The purposed of such delegations would be to heighten the political understanding and analysis of neoliberal education reforms that teachers in Chicago and the US have, “because I think we’re a bit deficient in that way,” she remarked. “So hopefully talking to our sisters and brothers in Mexico and really knowing what they are going through every day and what they’re fighting would help folks come back and really feel more urgency in the work that needs to be done here.”

In terms of moving the North American struggle for democratic and socially just education policies forward, Potter commented that “it’s not rocket science. Everybody’s facing austerity budget cuts and efforts to privatize and restrict access to [education], this public good that is essential for a democratic and vibrant society. We have to stop that, and we need to provide our alternatives and strengthen that sector.”

 Teacher, student, and community-based attendees alike left the 11th Trinational Conference feeling energized and optimistic that the struggle for education justice is being and will be won. “I think it kind of jumpstarted us,” said Chicago middle school teacher Nancy Serrano. “I feel like we’re going to move faster now because of the success we had this weekend.”

 The significance of winning the struggle for education was summed up in the remarks that CNTE’s Juan Melchor shared about the three goals that have guided the CNTE teachers’ fight in Mexico: first, democratize the teachers’ union. Second, democratize the schools. Third, democratize the country.

If the teachers, students, and education activists of the Trinational Coalition In Defense of Public Education are successful, it would mean much more than better schools. It would mean more critical and engaged citizens. It would mean a blow to corporate imperialism and control. It would mean a more just society where education is seen as a human right and a public good, not as a private commodity or an economic market.

With the 2016 Trinational Conference In Defense of Public Education tentatively slated to take place in Vancouver, the education activists of the Trinational Coalition have their work cut out for them. But they can count on a growing base of support as more and more people across the continent – and across the globe – start to realize the harm that corporate education reform is doing to our communities, our schools, and our future.  So as the Mexican delegation’s favored chant from the weekend says, “La lucha sigue, sigue!”

This article was originally published in Popular Resistance.

Roshan Bliss is a student organizer, inclusivity & anti-oppression trainer, and democratic process specialist with a passion for empowering young people to defend their futures and democratize their schools. Bliss, a former occupy activist, serves as Assistant Secretary of Education for Higher Education for the Green Shadow Cabinet.

A major annual summit of the African Union (AU) will be held this week in Malabo, Equatorial Guinea. A number of key issues will be discussed by the continental organization composed of heads-of-state.

This summit will be followed later by one convened at the White House on August 5-6 that will bring together African leaders with President Barack Obama. The U.S. is late in following numerous other conferences over the last several years involving African presidents along with the leaders of China, South American states, Iran and Japan.

In light of the growing Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) and Pentagon involvement in key African states such a meeting with the Obama administration could not be held from a position of strength by the regional leaders. Such meetings only re-emphasize the dependent and subordinate role of the continent, its leaders and people to the whims and caprices of the western imperialist countries.

The primary focus of U.S. imperialism in Africa is military subordination, economic exploitation and the containment of China and other rival geo-political regions. Yet what Africa really needs is cooperation and capacity-building that can only grow out of mutual cooperation and genuine political and economic partnerships which Washington is incapable of providing.

This AU summit is being held under the theme of “Transforming Africa’s agriculture for shared prosperity and improved livelihoods; harnessing opportunities for inclusive growth and sustainable development.” The gathering began on June 20 and will extend until Friday the 27th.

The AU is the successor to the Organization of African Unity (OAU) which was formed in 1963 at a summit held in the Ethiopian capital of Addis Ababa. At the time of its founding, African people throughout the continent and the world were fighting militantly in various revolutionary struggles aimed at national liberation and socialism.

Real Growth in Imperialist Militarism

Today when Africa is being deemed as a rapidly growing continent economically, the United States Africa Command (AFRICOM), the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), the European Union Forces (EUFOR), the Israeli Defense Forces (IDF) and the French Armed Forces are increasing their interventionist policies throughout the region. In various conflicts taking place in South Sudan, Mali, the Central African Republic, Nigeria and Egypt, the AU’s role is closely tied with a more prominent and decisive mandate by AFRICOM, France and NATO.

The role of these imperialist forces is by no means bringing about peace and stability. In fact just the opposite is taking place in all of these geo-political regions.

In the Federal Republic of Nigeria, Africa’s most populous state and now registered as the largest economy on the continent, the abduction in April of nearly 300 school girls and the ongoing attacks by Boko Haram in the northeast, has provided an opening for further western militarist interventions. Apparently there is no significant positive correlation between economic growth and security capacity-building.

Even President Goodluck Jonathan has expressed concerns about the existence of supporters of Boko Haram within the national officialdom inside this oil-rich state. The military forces within Nigeria on the other hand have complained about the lack of commitment and efficiency on the part of the federal government in providing the armed forces with the necessary resources needed to combat Boko Haram.

The situation in Nigeria is replicated in various states throughout Africa where the escalating of instability is prompting imperialist invasions through their intelligence and military apparatuses. In Mali the French entered the country in January 2013 and remain there ostensibly due to the fact that the government in Bamako cannot defeat or reach a political settlement with various rebel and separatist movements in the North.

South Sudan, a close ally of Washington, is on the verge of political and social collapse resulting from a major split within the ruling Sudan People’s Liberation Movement/Army (SPLM/A). Since Dec. 15, 2013, fighting between forces loyal to President Salva Kiir and ousted Vice-President Riek Machar has resulted in the deaths of thousands and the displacements of at least hundreds of thousands more.

Instability and conflict in Somalia has brought the internal and external displacement of several million people. Hunger and famine has occurred repeatedly since the U.S. sponsored the intervention of Ethiopian forces in December 2006 designed to weaken the influence of the Union of Islamic Courts (ICU) which had taken a position independent of Washington’s foreign policy influence.

With respect to the North African state of Egypt, a military coup in July 2013 prompted the AU to suspend Cairo’s membership. Yet all it took was the massacre of thousands of Egyptians, the harsh and indefinite detention of thousands of others and the changing of uniforms by General Abdel-Fattah al-Sisi from military garb to civilian clothes to qualify this U.S.-backed regime for readmission to the continental body. Reports in the Egyptian media indicated that the newly-elected President Al-Sisi will address the AU Summit in Malabo.

50th Anniversary of the 1964 Summit in Cairo: From Nasser to Malcolm X

In July 1964 the second summit of the OAU was held in Egypt. During this time period anti-imperialist movements for national liberation and socialism were in evidence around the world including Africa.

President Gamal Abdel Nasser was ruling Egypt at the time and the country was a base for organizations seeking to overthrow colonialism and neocolonialism on the continent, in the Middle East and throughout the world. Egypt had fought a war with Britain, France and Israel in 1956 to regain control of the Suez Canal.

That same year (1964) Malcolm X traveled to Egypt to present an eight-page memorandum to the OAU requesting the assistance of the newly-independent African states and independence movements in the fight against national oppression and racial exploitation in the U.S. Malcolm X, representing the Organization of Afro-American Unity (OAAU), patterned in many ways on the framework concept of the-then OAU, asserted that Africa could not be truly free without the elimination of second-class citizenship and discrimination against their brothers and sister in the U.S.

In the memorandum Malcolm X said on behalf of the OAAU that “Our problem is your problem. It is not a Negro problem, nor an American problem. This is a world problem, a problem for humanity. It is not a problem of civil rights, it is a problem of human rights.”

He went on to poignantly note that “We pray that our African brothers have not freed themselves of European colonialism only to be overcome and held in check now by American dollarism. Don’t let American racism be ‘legalized’ by American dollarism.”

Some five decades later despite claims of phenomenal growth there is still a tremendous lack of development which manifests itself in the growing security crises in Africa. Without continental unity, political and economic integration Africa will remain subject to western imperialist interventions and destabilization led by the U.S.

During the 1964 OAU Summit, Dr. Kwame Nkrumah, the-then President of the Republic of Ghana and the leading strategist and tactician of the African Revolution, told the gathering that the formation of a united continent was central in achieving genuine development, independence and sovereignty. The cornerstone of Ghanaian foreign policy under Nkrumah and his Convention People’s Party (CPP) was the realization of a United States of Africa.

Nkrumah said “How much more effective would our efforts have been if we had spoken with the one voice of Africa’s millions. With all our minerals and waterpower and fertile lands, is it not a cause for shame that we remain poor and content to plead for aid from the very people who have robbed us of our riches in the past?”

The Pan-Africanist leader then asked “How can Egypt, strategically situated as is it, combat imperialism and neocolonialism and solve the pressing and urgent problems of the Middle East unless it has the backing of a Union Government of Africa? Only a Union Government can assist in the solution of the problems of the Middle East, including the Palestinian question.”

These words from both Malcolm X and Kwame Nkrumah ring loud today in relationship to the conditions of African people on the continent and those abroad. A renewed Pan-African movement is necessary to continue the struggle for sustainable unity, peace and security.

“[I]f the individual is no longer to be sovereign, if the police can pick him up whenever they do not like the cut of his jib, if they can ‘seize’ and ‘search’ him in their discretion, we enter a new regime. The decision to enter it should be made only after a full debate by the people of this country.”-–U.S. Supreme Court Justice William O. Douglas

The U.S. Supreme Court was intended to be an institution established to intervene and protect the people against the government and its agents when they overstep their bounds. Yet as I point out in my book A Government of Wolves: The Emerging American Police State, Americans can no longer rely on the courts to mete out justice. In the police state being erected around us, the police and other government agents can probe, poke, pinch, taser, search, seize, strip and generally manhandle anyone they see fit in almost any circumstance, all with the general blessing of the courts.

Whether it’s police officers breaking through people’s front doors and shooting them dead in their homes or strip searching innocent motorists on the side of the road, these instances of abuse are continually validated by a judicial system that kowtows to virtually every police demand, no matter how unjust, no matter how in opposition to the Constitution.

These are the hallmarks of the emerging American police state: where police officers, no longer mere servants of the people entrusted with keeping the peace, are part of an elite ruling class dependent on keeping the masses corralled, under control, and treated like suspects and enemies rather than citizens.

A review of the Supreme Court’s rulings over the past 10 years, including some critical ones this term, reveals a startling and steady trend towards pro-police state rulings by an institution concerned more with establishing order and protecting government agents than with upholding the rights enshrined in the Constitution.

Police officers can use lethal force in car chases without fear of lawsuits. In Plumhoff v. Rickard (2014), the Court declared that police officers who used deadly force to terminate a car chase were immune from a lawsuit. The officers were accused of needlessly resorting to deadly force by shooting multiple times at a man and his passenger in a stopped car, killing both individuals.

Police officers can stop cars based only on “anonymous” tips. In a 5-4 ruling inNavarette v. California (2014), the Court declared that police officers can, under the guise of “reasonable suspicion,” stop cars and question drivers based solely on anonymous tips, no matter how dubious, and whether or not they themselves witnessed any troubling behavior. This ruling came on the heels of a ruling by the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals in U.S. v. Westhoven that driving too carefully, with a rigid posture, taking a scenic route, and having acne are sufficient reasons for a police officer to suspect you of doing something illegal, detain you, search your car, and arrest you–even if you’ve done nothing illegal to warrant the stop in the first place.

Secret Service agents are not accountable for their actions, as long as they’re done in the name of security. In Wood v. Moss (2014), the Court granted “qualified immunity” to Secret Service officials who relocated anti-Bush protesters, despite concerns raised that the protesters’ First Amendment right to freely speak, assemble, and petition their government leaders had been violated. These decisions, part of a recent trend toward granting government officials “qualified immunity”–they are not accountable for their actions–in lawsuits over alleged constitutional violations, merely incentivize government officials to violate constitutional rights without fear of repercussion.

Citizens only have a right to remain silent if they assert it. The Supreme Court ruled inSalinas v. Texas (2013) that persons who are not under arrest must specifically invoke their Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination in order to avoid having their refusal to answer police questions used against them in a subsequent criminal trial. What this ruling says, essentially, is that citizens had better know what their rights are and understand when those rights are being violated, because the government is no longer going to be held responsible for informing you of those rights before violating them.

Police have free reign to use drug-sniffing dogs as “search warrants on leashes,” justifying any and all police searches of vehicles stopped on the roadside. In Florida v. Harris (2013), a unanimous Court determined that police officers may use highly unreliable drug-sniffing dogs to conduct warrantless searches of cars during routine traffic stops. In doing so, the justices sided with police by claiming that all that the police need to do to prove probable cause for a search is simply assert that a drug detection dog has received proper training. The ruling turns man’s best friend into an extension of the police state.

Police can forcibly take your DNA, whether or not you’ve been convicted of a crime. InMaryland v. King (2013), a divided Court determined that a person arrested for a crime who is supposed to be presumed innocent until proven guilty must submit to forcible extraction of their DNA. Once again the Court sided with the guardians of the police state over the defenders of individual liberty in determining that DNA samples may be extracted from people arrested for “serious offenses.” While the Court claims to have made its decision based upon concerns of properly identifying criminal suspects upon arrest, what they actually did is open the door for a nationwide dragnet of suspects targeted via DNA sampling.

Police can stop, search, question and profile citizens and non-citizens alike. The Supreme Court declared in Arizona v. United States (2012) that Arizona police officers have broad authority to stop, search and question individuals–citizen and non-citizen alike. While the law prohibits officers from considering race, color, or national origin, it amounts to little more than a perfunctory nod to discrimination laws on the books, while paving the way for outright racial profiling and destroying the Fourth Amendment.

Police can subject Americans to virtual strip searches, no matter the “offense.” A divided Supreme Court actually prioritized making life easier for overworked jail officials over the basic right of Americans to be free from debasing strip searches. In its 5-4 ruling in Florence v. Burlington (2012), the Court declared that any person who is arrested and processed at a jail house, regardless of the severity of his or her offense (i.e., they can be guilty of nothing more than a minor traffic offense), can be subjected to a virtual strip search by police or jail officials, which involves exposing the genitals and the buttocks. This “license to probe” is now being extended to roadside stops, as police officers throughout the country have begun performing roadside strip searches–some involving anal and vaginal probes–without any evidence of wrongdoing and without a warrant.

Immunity protections for Secret Service agents trump the free speech rights of Americans. The court issued a unanimous decision in Reichle v. Howards (2012), siding with two Secret Service agents who arrested a Colorado man simply for daring to voice critical remarks to Vice President Cheney. However, contrast the Court’s affirmation of the “free speech” rights of corporations and wealthy donors in McCutcheon v. FEC (2014), which does away with established limits on the number of candidates an entity can support with campaign contributions, and Citizens United v. FEC (2010) with its tendency to deny those same rights to average Americans when government interests abound, and you’ll find a noticeable disparity.

Police can break into homes without a warrant, even if it’s the wrong home. In an 8-1 ruling in Kentucky v. King (2011), the Supreme Court placed their trust in the discretion of police officers, rather than in the dictates of the Constitution, when they gave police greater leeway to break into homes or apartments without a warrant. Despite the fact that the police in question ended up pursuing the wrong suspect, invaded the wrong apartment and violated just about every tenet that stands between us and a police state, the Court sanctioned the warrantless raid, leaving Americans with little real protection in the face of all manner of abuses by police.

Police can interrogate minors without their parents present. In a devastating ruling that could very well do away with what little Fourth Amendment protections remain to public school students and their families–the Court threw out a lower court ruling in Camreta v. Greene (2011), which required government authorities to secure a warrant, a court order or parental consent before interrogating students at school. The ramifications are far-reaching, rendering public school students as wards of the state. Once again, the courts sided with law enforcement against the rights of the people.

It’s a crime to not identify yourself when a policeman asks your name. In Hiibel v. Sixth Judicial District Court of the State of Nevada (2004), a majority of the high court agreed that refusing to answer when a policeman asks “What’s your name?” can rightfully be considered a crime under Nevada’s “stop and identify” statute. No longer will Americans, even those not suspected of or charged with any crime, have the right to remain silent when stopped and questioned by a police officer.

The cases the Supreme Court refuses to hear, allowing lower court judgments to stand, are almost as critical as the ones they rule on. Some of these cases, turned away in recent years alone, have delivered devastating blows to the rights enshrined in the Constitution.

Legally owning a firearm is enough to justify a no-knock raid by police. Justices refused to hear Quinn v. Texas (2014) the case of a Texas man who was shot by police through his closed bedroom door and whose home was subject to a no-knock, SWAT-team style forceful entry and raid based solely on the suspicion that there were legally-owned firearms in his household.

The military can arrest and detain American citizens. In refusing to hear Hedges v. Obama (2014), a legal challenge to the indefinite detention provision of the National Defense Authorization Act of 2012 (NDAA), the Supreme Court affirmed that the President and the U.S. military can arrest and indefinitely detain individuals, including American citizens. In so doing, the high court also passed up an opportunity to overturn its 1944 Korematsu v. United States ruling allowing for the internment of Japanese-Americans in concentration camps.

Students can be subjected to random lockdowns and mass searches at school. The Court refused to hear Burlison v. Springfield Public Schools (2013), a case involving students at a Missouri public school who were subjected to random lockdowns, mass searches and drug-sniffing dogs by police. In so doing, the Court let stand an appeals court ruling that the searches and lockdowns were reasonable in order to maintain the safety and security of students at the school.

Police officers who don’t know their actions violate the law aren’t guilty of breaking the law. The Supreme Court let stand a Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals decision in Brooks v. City of Seattle (2012) in which police officers who clearly used excessive force when they repeatedly tasered a pregnant woman during a routine traffic stop were granted immunity from prosecution. The Ninth Circuit actually rationalized its ruling by claiming that the officers couldn’t have known beyond a reasonable doubt that their actions–tasering a pregnant woman who was not a threat in any way until she was unconscious–violated the Fourth Amendment.

When all is said and done, what these assorted court rulings add up to is a disconcerting government mindset that interprets the Constitution one way for the elite–government entities, the police, corporations and the wealthy–and uses a second measure altogether for the underclasses–that is, you and me.

Keep in mind that in former regimes such as Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union, the complicity of the courts was the final piece to fall into place before the totalitarian beast stepped out of the shadows and into the light. If history is a guide, then the future that awaits us is truly frightening.

Time, as they say, grows short.

John W. Whitehead is an attorney and author who has written, debated and practiced widely in the area of constitutional law and human rights. Whitehead’s aggressive, pioneering approach to civil liberties has earned him numerous accolades and accomplishments, including the Hungarian Medal of Freedom. His concern for the persecuted and oppressed led him, in 1982, to establish The Rutherford Institute, a nonprofit civil liberties and human rights organization in Charlottesville, Va. Whitehead serves as the Institute’s president and spokesperson.

Syria said that Israel had targeted sites inside the Syrian land on Sunday and Monday, killing four and wounding nine others.

In two identical letters sent to the United Nations Secretary-General and Chairman of the United Nations Security Council (UNSC), Foreign and Expatriates Ministry said the Israeli forces launched tank shells, mortars and two rockets, adding that five Israeli warplanes hit positions of the law-enforcement forces inside Syria. The Israeli attack against sites inside the Syrian land comes in the context of its continued support to armed terrorist groups in the disengagement zone, said the letters.

In parallel, the letters said, the Israeli hostile air attacks happened around the time of another attack by an armed terrorist group against sites of the law-enforcement forces that was aborted. The new Israeli attack happened in full view of the Under-Secretary-General of the Department of Peacekeeping Operations, Hervé Ladsous who is visiting Syria to inspect the status of the UN peace-keeping force in Syria.

The ministry saw that the attack is but a bid to shore up terrorist groups which sustained heavy losses by the Syrian law-enforcement forces, which it described as a violation of the Separation of Forces agreement that has been in place since 1974, the UN Charter and the international law. An agreement between Syria and Israel was achieved in May 1974 that stipulated the disengagement and separation of Israeli and Syrian military forces on Golan, and the creation of disengagement zones between the opposing armies. The aggression is, moreover, an act that puts at risk the UN personnel in the area, added the letters.

The letters pointed out that Syria, as it informs the UN Secretary-General and the Security Council about these grave Israeli attacks, demands that the UNSC assume its responsibilities and enforce its deterrent resolutions to prevent Israel from going farther in its incessant attempts to inflame the situation and jeopardize regional and international security and peace. Such aggressions constitute a brazen breach of the Separation of Forces agreement and an outright Israeli support to terrorist groups which are active in the disengagement zone, the letters affirmed.

The ministry concluded by demanding that the UNSC enforce an implementation of its resolutions-namely 242, 338 and 497-that oppose an Israeli occupation of Golan and call for an Israeli pullout from all occupied Arab lands.