All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the “Translate Website” drop down menu on the top banner of our home page (Desktop version).

***

The pro-government press in Ukraine has announced that President Volodymyr Zelensky is to go to the Donbass conflict zone tomorrow, April 8. That means that within hours he will arrive in what is at the moment the world’s most dangerous hot spot, fraught as it is with the potential for a confrontation between the world’s two major nuclear powers. No details have been provided concerning the proposed trip.

This will occur against the backdrop of Ukraine pulling out of the Minsk talks with the Trilateral Contact Group on Ukraine that were initiated seven years ago. It will also happen when Russia has not had an ambassador in the U.S. since March 21, when Anatoly Antonov was summoned back to Moscow.

It’s not too far-fetched to wonder how the Berlin Crisis or the Cuban Missile Crisis would have culminated if the U.S. and USSR weren’t speaking to each other.

It is inconceivable that Zelensky would have decided on such a gesture – to visit a war zone after withdrawing from one of two key peace talk formats – without not only notifying the U.S. and NATO but having their express approval.

To underscore the above assumption, the Ukrainian press disclosed today that more than one U.S. official has recently discussed Ukraine being brought into NATO as a full member. Being a member would entitle it to call for a consultation with the other members of the military bloc under it’s Article 5 collective military assistance provision. If Ukraine won its case with NATO all thirty members would be obligated to participate in military action on its side.

What has been said lately by American and other NATO member states is not tantamount to Ukraine’s admission to NATO, of course, but is precariously close to suggesting Ukraine may be a de facto Article 5 partner by extension, one degree removed. That it would in effect be under NATO’s military – and nuclear – umbrella.

Yesterday White House spokesman Jen Psaki said, as related in a summary of her statement by Reuters, that

“Ukraine has long aspired to join NATO as a member and that the Biden administration has been discussing that aspiration with the country.” She added: “We are strong supporters of them, we are engaged with them…but that is a decision for NATO to make.”

The operative words are “We are strong supporters of them, we are engaged with them.” That is what is intended to be heard by both Ukraine and Moscow.

Earlier this year the Ukrainian parliament, the Verkhovna Rada, passed a draft law amending legislation on the Security Service of Ukraine. Today’s local press quoted U.S. Chargé d’Affaires Kristina Kvien who, after meeting with the deputy leading the reform measure, affirmed that “Reforming the Security Service of Ukraine in line with the Euro-Atlantic principles will become Ukraine’s key step on its path toward NATO.”

The same American envoy who appears to be overseeing Ukrainian lawmakers’ actions, to put it politely, is also telling them which internal policies need to be adjusted to enter the U.S.-dominated military bloc.

Lithuanian Foreign Minister Gabrielius Landsbergis is also quoted in the Ukrainian press as recommending the nation be granted a program that is the final stage to NATO membership, stating: “I’m convinced, NATO could have reiterated its offer on providing a Membership Action Plan to Ukraine, and we have just started coordinating the issue with our colleagues from [the] Baltic States.” In rhetoric that has become prevalent among Western officials in recent days the measure he’s urging would send “a strong signal to Russia that Ukraine is choosing a Transatlantic path, and that this saw feedback from among NATO Allies.”

As the Ukrainian president leaves for the Donbass conflict zone the foreign minister of Poland, Zbigniew Rau, will arrive in Kiev for talks with his Ukrainian counterpart. Interfax-Ukraine says this of their impending meeting:

“The foreign ministries’ heads will also pay attention to the aggravation of the security situation in eastern Ukraine and in the temporarily occupied Crimea, discuss the buildup of Russian troops near the borders of Ukraine, the growth of the intensity of Russian propaganda.”

Poland is at the moment threatening its neighbor Belarus over the treatment of ethnic Polish activists in the latter country. Belarus is the last neutral state on Russia’s entire western border. Since last summer Belarusian President Alexander Lukashenko has warned of the threat of a NATO-sanctioned invasion of the western part of his country by Poland and Lithuania. The Polish and Ukrainian foreign ministers may well lay the groundwork for simultaneous moves against Eastern Ukraine and Western Belarus..

What the U.S. and NATO client Volodymyr Zelensky says and does in the Donbass will be known in a few hours . One thing is certain: his words and actions will not contribute to deescalating the worsening crisis there.

*

Note to readers: please click the share buttons above or below. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.

All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the “Translate Website” drop down menu on the top banner of our home page (Desktop version).

***

Joe Biden’s presidency has been welcomed by Western media outlets as signifying a return to using diplomacy to peacefully resolve differences between nations. Yet in the 3 months since his inauguration President Biden has not dialled back from the anti-China rhetoric that was the hallmark of the Trump presidency. In fact, Biden has done quite the opposite and significantly increased American criticism of China for its so-called human rights abuses in Xinjiang, Hong Kong and for its apparent threats to Taiwan.

Central to this Cold War propaganda narrative regarding China are the endlessly repeated claims that China is committing massive human rights violations in Xinjiang. China is allegedly guilty of mass use of forced labour, forced sterilisation of Uygur women and the mass imprisonment of Uygur adults. However, these American claims have seriously ratcheted up with the accusation that China is committing acts of genocide against its Uygur population.

This is a serious stepping up of the US Cold War propaganda offensive against China. This trend is accompanied by the stepping up of economic sanctions by the US and its allies against China and the expansion of US military bases around China. Taken together it is clear that the United States is heading towards a military confrontation with China that threatens the world with nuclear conflict.

Grayzone exposes US regime narrative regarding China

Max Blumenthal and his fellow journalists at the Grayzone, have written numerous articles about the dangers of the US regime change narrative on China which utilises the so called ‘’genocide’’ of the Uygur as a weapon to attack Beijing with. The have taken apart the many claims made by Adrian Zenz who has been a key source for the US government.

In a recent podcast for the Grayzone Blumenthal called out the true intent behind American claims against China. He stated that we have recently passed anniversaries regarding the illegal US/UK invasion of Iraq in 2003 and the war against Libya in 2011 whose objective was regime change. Now the US narrative is aimed at bringing about the overthrow of the CCP government in China:

“Libya, Iraq these are formally stable states that are now in disarray and make no mistake that is exactly what the United States and its allies like to do to Xinjiang and would like to do to China. That is the point of these humanitarian interventions deceptions which have been deployed and advanced by many of the same people who presided over the assaults in Libya, the proxy war in Syria, the coup in Ukraine, which has Ukraine into a mirror reflection of Russia in the 90s, when Russia saw 3.5 million excess deaths.’’

The mainstream media, corporate politicians across the political spectrum and even sections of the so called alt media all uncritically repeat the US claims that China is committing crimes against humanity and acts of genocide. These are very serious allegations whose provenance warrants examination and scrutiny.

The misnamed Chinese Communist Party (CCP) celebrates its centenary this year. Back in 1921 the Chinese Communist Party was a vibrant democratic organisation which rapidly developed roots amongst the super exploited working-class and amongst sections of the intelligentsia. A century later the CCP has degenerated into a totalitarian monolith that has nothing in common with the tenets of communism on which it was originally founded a century before.

Having said this, it does not mean we should just blithely accept at face value these serious allegations which threaten a significant deterioration in relations between the world’s two superpowers.

US claims against China part of the new Cold War

First of all, we should note the utter hypocrisy of the United States in calling out China for human rights abuses when its own record both past and present involves a huge number of human rights violations committed in dozens of countries since the end of the Second World War. The American historian William Blum noted in the introduction to his seminal book, Killing Hope that an American Holocaust had taken place during the 20th century. Blum noted how, ‘a few million people had died in the American Holocaust and many more millions had been condemned to lives a misery and torture as a result of US interventions extending from China and Greece in the 1940s to Afghanistan and Iraq in the 1990s’.

Secondly, these American claims of Chinese acts of genocide and crimes against humanity must be set against the backdrop of the intensified economic struggle between Washington and Beijing. They are part of the US fightback against its economic rival whose rapid emergence threatens American hegemony over the global economy.

American claims that China is committing crimes against humanity and acts of genocide in Xinjiang province are uncritically accepted by the Western media and entire political class. Never do they stop to question the veracity of these extremely serious allegations. At no point do they stop and think where is the evidence to substantiate these allegations?

Ajit Singh of the Grayzone has commented:

“As Washington advances its new Cold War strategy, it has amplified accusations of genocide and other atrocities against the Chinese government, all focused on Beijing’s policy in Xinjiang. To broaden support for the dubious narrative, the US government has turned to a series of pseudo-academic institutions and faux experts to generate seemingly serious and independent studies.

Any critical probe of the reams of reports on Xinjiang and the hawkish institutions that publish them will quickly reveal a shabby propaganda campaign dressed up as academic inquiry. Western media’s refusal to look beneath the surface of Washington’s information war against China only highlights its central role in the operation.’’

Max Blumenthal has pointed out that there are three strands to this narrative that China is committing crimes against humanity and acts of genocide against the Uyghurs Muslims. Testimonies from Uyghurs exiles together with so-called leaked documents from the Chinese government are two strands of this narrative. However the essential underpinning of these claims are the numerous anti-China narratives contained in so called academic studies.

Claims of China committing genocide

A recent example of this being the 55 page report produced by the Newlines Institute for Strategy and Policy. The NewLines Insititute is in its own words is aiming to ‘provide concrete policy advice’ that includes ‘suggestions on countermeasures that U.S. policymakers can engage in to mitigate risk’ when dealing with their geo-political rivals. Does that sound like a neutral academic body that will will impartially weigh up situations without any bias?

A cursory examination of articles on its website reveals how Newlines Institute is yet another Neo-Con think tank, which abound in American academia. Its founder and president is a Dr.Ahmed Alwani who is, ‘a businessman based in northern Virginia with investments in the poultry, real estate, and education/training sectors’. The NewLines website notes that Alwani is motivated by, ‘a desire to help improve the human condition’. He has previously served as a member on the advisory board of that beacon of peace and brotherly love: the U.S. military’s Africa Command.

The foreword to the NewLines report entitled, The Uiygur genocide: An Examination of China’s Breaches of 1948 Genocide Convention was written by Dr. Azeem Ibrahim Director Special Initiatives Newlines Institute for Strategy and Policy. Dr. Ibrahim who co-authored this ‘independent’ report is Adjunct Research Professor at the Strategic Studies Institute, US Army War College. Are we supposed to believe in the impartiality of a report which counts among its co-authors someone who works for the US Army War College?

Radio Free Asia another American source for the NewLine genocide report

Another ‘independent’ source that crops up with great regularity in the NewLines genocide report is Radio Free Asia which is funded by the United States Agency for Global Media (USAGM) whose apparent purpose is to, ‘inform, engage, and connect people around the world in support of freedom and democracy’. This US government outfit funds Voice of America and Radio Free Europe and various other propaganda outlets that were set up during Cold War 1.0 to oppose the Soviet Union.

Are we supposed to take the genocide report seriously when many of its sources of information lack any kind of credibility? In fact many of its so called sources are mere mouthpieces for American Cold War propaganda.

Investigative reporter Ajit Singh sums up this “new’’ report nicely when observes that it merely ‘regurgitates old, discredited “evidence”. He adds that it, “presents no new material on the condition of Uyghur Muslims in China’’.

Western criticism of China designed to stifle its economic development and fan Cold War 2.0

Under the CCP one-party dictatorship working people across China, not just in Xinjiang, are subject to massive state surveillance state, attacks on trade unions, workers protests and a denial of basic democratic rights.

Having said this, the United States and its allies are using the human rights card to further their regime change narrative regarding China. It reflects an intensification of the acute economic rivalry between Chinese and American capitalism.

The lack of democratic rights facing working people across all provinces of China is no business of American imperialism and its allies. The Chinese people have a long and proud revolutionary history. At some point, just as in the Tiananmen Square protests of 1989, the Chinese masses will once again strive to reclaim their revolutionary traditions and fight for the basic democratic rights denied to them since the inception of Mao’s regime in 1949.

American imperialism is steadily losing ground to China on so many different economic fronts and in the realms of technological development. By the end of the 2020s it is estimated that China will have overtaken the US to become the world’s largest economy. History is replete with examples of declining empires that resort to conflict when confronted by a rising state that challenges their hegemonic position.

The current human rights narrative being used by the US to attack China is yet another example of that same historical process. Biden’s much trumped plan for rebuilding US infrastructure is a belated recognition of how far it has fallen behind China in a key economic metric.

Since 2008 American capital has failed to resolve the many structural problems facing its economic system. Instead of attempting to carry out reforms to try and shore up the system American capital has accelerated the parasitic financialization of the US economy.

This has resulted in one of the greatest wealth transfers in history that has led to a massive inflation of paper assets such as stocks and bonds. It has greatly exacerbated the huge wealth gap between the 1% whose wealth has grown tremendously and the bottom 60% which has suffered declining living standards since the 1980s.

This process poses many dangers for the medium to long term stability of American capitalism.

The incessant attacks on China are also part of the ideological crusade designed to divert ordinary Americans attention away from the real source of their problems and put the blame on China. Not surprisingly, the anti-China rhetoric is leading to a rising wave of attacks against Asian-Americans within the US.

The current ideological offensive of the United States utilises the fig leaf of human rights with which to attack China. This will not weaken the CCP regime, quite the opposite. It will strengthen President Xi’s attempts to whip up nationalist feeling as a means of consolidating public support for his regime.

*

Note to readers: please click the share buttons above or below. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.

All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the “Translate Website” drop down menu on the top banner of our home page (Desktop version).

***

As Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu appeared in court on Monday in his trial on corruption, bribery and breach of trust charges, a senior member of his Likud Party said a majority of members of the new Knesset would be vote for him to become president. This election must be held between April 9th and June 9th ahead of the expiry of incumbent Reuvin Rivlin’s term on July 9. A Likud source told The Jerusalem Post that most Knesset members would vote for Netanyahu if he decides to become president.

If elected he would, in theory, have a new seven-year term in office which would put prosecutions on hold as Israel’s basic law prohibits charges against a president and perhaps, give him time to evade the charges altogether, as they say, by hook or by crook. Netanyahu would, however, give up policymaking and accept that his main role would be deciding who would form a government following an election. While this is an important role, a president’s other duties are largely ceremonial and bore Netanyahu who loves wheeling-and-dealing on Israel’s fractured political scene. Although his legal troubles could complicate a Netanyahu election to the presidency because he would enter the presidential race while on trial, he is said to be considering such a bid. The high court of justice might have to decide if he could run. Other scenarios involve plea bargains and pardons.

Without Netanyahu, the paper’s informant argued that the Likud would choose who among its Knesset members would be most likely to form a stable Likud-led coalition with other right-leaning parties which refuse to serve under Netanyahu.

Although he remains popular, like Donald Trump in the US with his “base” of followers, Netanyahu, like Trump, faces an influential anti-Netanyahu constituency.  Indeed, thousands of protesters have demonstrated outside both the prime minister’s residence and his personal home for months with the object of forcing the Likud to drop him or him to stand down. His detractors have dubbed him the “crime-minister”.

Now for his trial. The Israeli police began investigating him for corruption in 2016 and began to lay charges in 2019. His trial began in May 2020 in the Jerusalem District Court but the presentation of evidence was postponed until February and then, due to the latest Knesset election, April 2021. Scores of witnesses will, reportedly, be called.

Netanyahu faces indictments over three out of five possible cases.  In the first case, he has been charged with receiving gifts worth more than $500,000 over 20 years from a wealthy Israeli businessman and his Australian friend in exchange for favours.

In the second case, Netanyahu and the editor of Yedioth Aronoth are accused of conspiring to limit the circulation of a rival newspaper in exchange for positive coverage of the prime minister and his family.

The third case, again involved Netanyahu’s quest for friemdly media coverage from the popular web portal, Walla!, one of the first in Israel, which is owned by the communications firm Bezeq.

He could spend up to 10 years in prison for bribery and a maximum of three years for fraud and breach of trust.

If Netanyahu is convicted and sentenced, he would be the second Israeli prime minister to go to prison.  The first, Ehud Olmert, also of the Likud, was jailed for six years bribery and influence peddling while he served as mayor of Jerusalem and prime minister. His sentence was reduced to 27 months and he gained early release in 2017.

Israeli presidents can also be charged and jailed. Moshe Katsav (in office from 2000-2007) was charged with rape and abuse by staff and imprisoned for six years.

Corruption is widespread among Israeli politicians. Ten ministers, 17 Knesset members, two chief rabbis, half a dozen mayors, and a number of other officials have been convicted and sent to prison.  Some public figures have avoided jail.

Netanyahu’s wife, Sara, was convicted in 2019 of appropriating $100,000 in state funds to spend on lavish meals from restaurants while she had a fulltime chef working in her household. Following a plea bargain, she was fined $15,000 and escaped prison. Two years earlier she was ordered to pay $47,000 in damages to a housekeeper who accused her and her husband of bullying and she continues to face similar allegations by another employee.  Their son, Yair, has also had scrapes with the law.

Corruption has always dogged Israeli politicians but the Netanyahu saga is a far cry from smaller scandals that enveloped his predecessors. For instance, the scale of the Netanyahus’ abuses is much greater than the 1977 scandal involving then prime minister Yitzak Rabin who withdrew his candidacy ahead of a Knesset election and stepped back from politics after it was revealed that, in violation of Israeli law, he and his wife had not closed accounts in the National Bank of Washington in 1973 when they left the US capital where he was Israel’s ambassador. Although she claimed there had been less than $2,000 in her account, it was found that the there were two accounts with a total of $18,000 when the Rabins departed and about $10,000 when the information was made public. Rabin was forgiven and became prime minister a second time in 1992 until his assassination in November 1995.

*

Note to readers: please click the share buttons above or below. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.

All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the “Translate Website” drop down menu on the top banner of our home page (Desktop version).

***

On Tuesday, April 5, the Iranian ship Saviz was attacked off the coast of Djibouti in the Red Sea.

“The day before the incident, an unidentified helicopter scouted Saviz ship for 5 to 10 minutes,” one of the ship’s crew told Noornews.

The source added, “On the day of the incident, more than 4 hours after the attack on the ship, from 10:00 to 11:00 local time, two unidentified speedboats were scouting near the ship.”

Also in this regard, the Iranian Foreign Ministry spokesman Saeed Khatizadeh told reporters that the Saviz ship was struck by a blast at around 6 a.m. local time (0300 GMT) on Tuesday, April 5, near the coast of Djibouti, and sustained minor damage.

In accordance with the previous official announcement and in coordination with the International Maritime Organization (IMO), the non-military Saviz ship was stationed in the Red Sea and the Gulf of Aden to provide maritime security and to protect Iranian merchant ships against piracy.

The ship has acted as Iran’s logistic station in the Red Sea and the Gulf of Aden, and its mission had been announced to the IMO.

The Iranian Press TV website cited a New York Times story published on Wednesday quoting an anonymous US official telling the newspaper that the Tel Aviv regime notified the United States that Israeli forces had attacked an Iranian ship in the Red Sea.

The unnamed US official said Israel called the strike a retaliation, and that the ship had been hit below the waterline.

In a similar incident last month, an Iranian cargo ship was damaged after it was targeted by a terrorist attack en route to Europe in the Mediterranean Sea.

*

Note to readers: please click the share buttons above or below. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.

Featured image is from Mehr News Agency

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on New Details on Explosion at Iranian Ship Saviz in Red Sea
  • Tags: ,

All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the “Translate Website” drop down menu on the top banner of our home page (Desktop version).

***

In Syria’s Greater Idlib, Hay’at Tahrir al-Sham continues its attempts at rebranding, all the while keeping up its usual militant activity.

As per the Russian Reconciliation Center, militants in Greater Idlib shelled the surrounding areas 32 times on April 6th.

Another al-Qaeda affiliated militant group in Greater Idlib, Ansar al-Islam, posted photographs of its activities in Idlib province. The footage showed the work of terrorist snipers targeting the Syrian Arab Army. This is more than likely a tool to show that the Damascus government cannot impede their activities, and serves as a recruitment method.

The Russian Aerospace Forces continue responding to all violations by striking militant positions. On April 6th, an air raid was carried out near the settlement of Basankul in Idlib.

In spite of the Damascus Government and Russia’s attempt to deter the militants, the United Nations sent 88 trucks of humanitarian aid to Syria’s Idlib. The aid is supposed to be distributed among the needy people in Idlib and its surrounding areas. It is more likely that it is being used by Hay’at Tahrir al-Sham and other militant groups to consolidate their grip on the region.

In addition to countering the activities of the Greater Idlib factions, the Syrian Arab Army, with its Russian support is containing ISIS in the central region.

In the 72 hours leading into April 6th, the Russian Aerospace Forces killed at least 29 ISIS terrorists in their strikes. A large number were heavily wounded. These attacks were centered on the Hama province, and stretched all the way to the border of the Deir Ezzor province.

Still, limited ISIS operations continue. On April 6th, one civilian was killed, several were injured and a large number of citizens were abducted in the town of al-Sa’an in the eastern countryside of the Al-Salamiyah region in Hama.

The terrorists ambushed government forces who were protecting the civilians. In total 19 were abducted, out of them 11 were civilians.

ISIS minefields also remain, and need to be cleared sometime in the future. On April 5th, a civilian was killed and another injured in a blast, at the Bowera site on the Jabal Abu Rajmein road, north of Palmyra.

The United States profits from chaos, wasting no time in smuggling resources away from the local population.

On April 5th, according to Syrian media, US forces smuggled out a convoy of trucks loaded with wheat stolen from the silos of Tal Alou in Yarubiyah in the northeastern countryside of Hasaka.

Additionally, on the very next day, Washington’s troops smuggled out a further convoy of 34 tanks and trucks carrying stolen quantities of oil and wheat also from the Syrian al-Jazeera region into northern Iraq.

Every party involved in Syria is fighting tooth and nail for their own interests  and any small opportunity is being exploited, as is clear to see.

*

Note to readers: please click the share buttons above or below. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.

SUPPORT SOUTHFRONT:

PayPal: [email protected], http://southfront.org/donate/ or via: https://www.patreon.com/southfront

All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the “Translate Website” drop down menu on the top banner of our home page (Desktop version).

***

Here is the scandal. In 2016 under the Obama administration, Congress with strong bipartisan support passed the 21st Century Cures Act. It required the Food and Drug Administration to use “Real World Evidence,” or RWE, for approval of drugs. During the Trump administration, this statute was not invoked by the White House task force under Dr. Fauci. But it should have been used early in the pandemic.

Starting a year ago, courageous front-line doctors generated RWE because they were curing COVID patients with protocols that kept patients out of hospitals. Real world data showed the effectiveness of cheap generics like hydroxychloroquine and ivermectin to cure and prevent COVID-19. Dr. Vladimir Zelenko used RWE language early on and this February, in light of over 2 million COVID deaths globally, noted: “The problem is that the medical world and governments ignored REAL WORLD EVIDENCE.”

Other physicians and the organizations leading the cause did not invoke RWE, namely America’s Frontline Doctors, the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons, and the Front Line COVID-19 Critical Care Alliance. Nor have conservative and liberal media informed the public about the legal mandate to use RWE.

In my recent book, “Pandemic Blunder,” I used RWE to conclude that 70 to 80% of COVID deaths could have – and still can be – prevented by using the cheap and effective protocols.

This, too, was noted: “In a December 2016 article in the New England Journal of Medicine titled ‘Real World Evidence – What Is It and What Can It Tell Us?’ all twelve authors were from the FDA. A big point was that RWE would come from clinical care and home or community settings as opposed to research-intensive or academic environments. … In order to assess patient outcomes and to ensure that patients get treatment that is right for them, real-world data needs to be utilized.” Perfectly applicable for supporting use of hydroxychloroquine and ivermectin protocols.

Outrageously, despite huge numbers of hospitalizations and deaths, the government did not use RWE to support use of documented protocols for early home/outpatient COVID treatment and prophylactic use.

Just the opposite, in fact. NIH and FDA created blocks to wide use of these protocols. The emphasis was on contagion controls, like masking and shutdowns, and expensive medicines for hospitalized patients and vaccines.

The ubiquitous Fauci in endless media appearances never invoked the 2016 law and RWE. He ignored it. Worse, he often dismissed observational studies using clinical data. But the European Medicines Agency concluded: “Real-world evidence generated by observational studies is fundamental to understanding the benefits and risks of medicines when used in clinical practice for the prevention and treatment of COVID-19.”

Joy Pullmann got it exactly right: “What Fauci does is not science. It is public manipulation in the name of science. His entire professional history has not been one of testing observable phenomena and accurately reporting the results. It has been in wearing a lab coat while playing politics.”

To be clear, there is no conflict between following the science and using RWE. Public confidence in the “follow the science” mantra has surely fallen because “experts” and politicians have only followed selected data and ignored a whole lot more.

RWE is so important because formal, expensive randomized clinical trials do not fully account for the entire patient population of a particular disease. FDA said: “RWE can be generated by different study designs or analyses, including but not limited to, randomized trials, including large simple trials, pragmatic trials, and observational studies (prospective and/or retrospective).” All the latter supported use of hydroxychloroquine and ivermectin.

“The FDA is approaching the generation of real-world evidence for Covid-19 with a sense of urgency to learn what we can, as soon as we can, from patients who are receiving care right now,” said a senior FDA official in early 2020. But not for early treatment protocols.

The Department of Health and Human Services emphasized that “the Cures Act places focus on the use of real-world data to support regulatory decision-making, including the approval of new indications for existing drugs.” And RWE “is a key priority for the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS).” Another broken promise.

Hydroxychloroquine and ivermectin had many decades of wide, safe use for a variety of illnesses and under the law deserved approval early in the pandemic for COVID treatment. But it did not happen.

Now, we see pandemic hypocrisy because articles are appearing promoting use of COVID vaccines by invoking RWE.

Days ago, this was a headline: “Real-World Evidence Confirms Efficiency of mRNA COVID-19 Vaccines.” The article notes, “A CDC study used real-world evidence to find that both Pfizer and Moderna’s COVID-19 vaccines reduced risk of infection 90% two or more weeks after the second dose.”

Every time you see data on COVID deaths remember that most could have been prevented if the government had honored the statutory mandate to use RWE. Following the science legally means using RWE.

Now, some “experts” are calling for more shutdowns, mask mandates and school closing. Congress should hold a hearing and put Fauci and other officials on the spot. How can they justify not obeying the 2016 law? How can they ignore all the RWE for protocols proven to cure COVID patients when given early to them?

*

Note to readers: please click the share buttons above or below. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.

This article was originally published on WND.

Dr. Joel S. Hirschhorn, as a full professor at the University of Wisconsin, Madison, directed a medical research program between the colleges of engineering and medicine. At the Congressional Office of Technology Assessment and the National Governors Association, he directed major health-related studies. He has testified at over 50 U.S. Senate and House hearings and authored hundreds of articles in journals and on websites, plus op-ed articles in major newspapers. He has been an executive volunteer at a major hospital for more than 10 years. His newest book is “PandemicBlunder.”

246 Vaccinated Michigan Residents Diagnosed with COVID, 3 Dead, State Health Dept. Confirms

By Megan Redshaw, April 07 2021

As many as 246 Michigan residents fully vaccinated against COVID-19 were later diagnosed with the virus, and three of them died, Michigan Department of Health and Human Services confirmed Monday.

The Significance of the Nuremberg Code: The Universal Right of Informed Consent to Medical Interventions

By Alliance for Human Research Protection, April 07 2021

“Every human being of adult years and sound mind has a right to determine what shall be done with his own body; and a surgeon who performs an operation without his patient’s consent commits an assault for which he is liable in damages.”

Government in Israel Sharing Personal Information on Unvaccinated People

By Carolyn Hendler, April 07 2021

A new law in Israel will allow the government to share a list of names of those who did not get the COVID-19 vaccine, along with other personal identifying information. The list, which will include the names, phone numbers, ID card numbers and addresses.

The WHO Confirms that the Covid-19 PCR Test is Flawed: Estimates of “Positive Cases” are Meaningless. The Lockdown Has No Scientific Basis

By Prof Michel Chossudovsky, April 07 2021

One year later the WHO retracts. They don’t say “We Made a Mistake”. It’s carefully formulated. While they do not officially deny the validity of their misleading January 2020 guidelines, they recommend RT-PCR “Re-testing” (which everybody knows is an impossibility).

Why Did John Le Carré Become an Irish Citizen?

By Tom Clifford, April 07 2021

The former British diplomat, secret agent, captivating espionage writer, and presumed Englishman, Le Carré died an Irish citizen, his son confirmed. It’s like being told his fictional hero and the quintessential Englishman George Smiley was actually working for Moscow all along.

Latest Vaccine Flip-flop Gives the Vaccine Game Away

By Dr. Meryl Nass, April 07 2021

The Astra-Zeneca “cheap and easy to store” “workhorse” vaccine causes blood clots in general, and in particular clots in the venous sinuses of the brain, which have killed or wounded a number of people, especially women under 55. The J and J vaccine was associated with blood clots in its clinical trial data presented to FDA.

Masks Are a Ticking Time Bomb

By Dr. Joseph Mercola, April 07 2021

The planet may be facing a new plastic crisis, similar to the one brought on by bottled water, but this time involving discarded face masks. “Mass masking” continues to be recommended by most public health groups during the COVID-19 pandemic, despite research showing masks do not significantly reduce the incidence of infection.

“The Great Reset” Is Here: Follow the Money. “Insane Lockdown” of the Global Economy, “The Green Agenda”

By F. William Engdahl, April 07 2021

The top-down reorganization of the world economy by a technocratic cabal led by the group around the Davos World Economic Forum– the so-called Great Reset or UN Agenda 2030– is no future proposal. It is well into actualization as the world remains in insane lockdown for a virus.

Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity on Avoiding War in Ukraine

By Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity, April 07 2021

We last communicated with you on December 20, 2020, when you were President-elect. At that time, we alerted you to the dangers inherent in formulating a policy toward Russia built on a foundation of Russia-bashing. While we continue to support the analysis contained in that memorandum, this new memo serves a far more pressing purpose.

Dr. Ryan Cole Blows the Whole COVID-19 Propaganda Away

By Bill Sardi, April 07 2021

Dr. Ryan Cole is the CEO and Medical Director of Cole Diagnostics, one of the largest independent labs in the State of Idaho. Dr. Cole has conducted over 100,000 Covid-19 lab tests and treated over 350,000 patients over his medical career.

  • Posted in NO READ MORE LINK
  • Comments Off on Selected Articles: The Universal Right of Informed Consent to Medical Interventions
  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on India to Continue Buying Russian Weapons Despite US Sanction Threats

Masks Are a Ticking Time Bomb

April 7th, 2021 by Dr. Joseph Mercola

All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the “Translate Website” drop down menu on the top banner of our home page (Desktop version).

***

The planet may be facing a new plastic crisis, similar to the one brought on by bottled water, but this time involving discarded face masks. “Mass masking” continues to be recommended by most public health groups during the COVID-19 pandemic, despite research showing masks do not significantly reduce the incidence of infection.1

As a result, it’s estimated that 129 billion face masks are used worldwide each month, which works out to about 3 million masks a minute. Most of these are the disposable variety, made from plastic microfibers.2

Ranging in size from five millimeters (mm) to microscopic lengths, microplastics, which include microfibers, are being ingested by fish, plankton and other marine life, as well as the creatures on land that consume them (including humans3).

More than 300 million tons of plastic are produced globally annually — and that was before mask-wearing became a daily habit. Most of it ends up as waste in the environment, leading researchers from the University of Southern Denmark and Princeton University to warn that masks could quickly become “the next plastic problem.”4

Why Disposable Masks May Be Even Worse Than Plastic Bottles

The bottled water crisis is now well-known as a leading source of environmental plastic pollution, but it’s slated to be outpaced by a new mask crisis. While about 25% of plastic bottles are recycled, “there is no official guidance on mask recycle, making it more likely to be disposed of as solid waste,” the researchers stated. “With increasing reports on inappropriate disposal of masks, it is urgent to recognize this potential environmental threat.”5

Not only are masks not being recycled, but their materials make them likely to persist and accumulate in the environment. Most disposable face masks contain three layers — a polyester outer layer, a polypropylene or polystyrene middle layer and an inner layer made of absorbent material such as cotton.

Polypropylene is already one of the most problematic plastics, as it’s widely produced and responsible for large waste accumulation in the environment, as well as being a known asthma trigger.6 Further, the researchers noted:7

“Once in the environment, the mask is subjected to solar radiation and heat, but the degradation of polypropylene is retarded due to its high hydrophobicity, high molecular weight, lacking an active functional group, and continuous chain of repetitive methylene units. These recalcitrant properties lead to the persistence and accumulation in the environment.”

They also stated that when the masks become weathered in the environment, they can generate a large number of microsized polypropylene particles in a matter of weeks, then break down further into nanoplastics that are less than 1 mm in size.

Because masks may be directly made from microsized plastic fibers with a thickness of 1 mm to 10 mm, they may release microsized particles into the environment more readily — and faster — than larger plastic items, like plastic bags.

Further, “Such impacts can be worsened by a new-generation mask, nanomasks, which directly use nanosized plastic fibers (e.g., diameter <1 mm) and add a new source of nanoplastic pollution.”8 A report by OceansAsia further estimated that 1.56 billion face masks may have entered the world’s oceans in 2020, based on a global production estimate of 52 billion masks manufactured that year, and a loss rate of 3%, which is conservative.

Based on this data, and an average weight of 3 to 4 grams for a single-use polypropylene surgical mask, the masks would add 4,680 to 6,240 additional metric tons of plastic pollution to the marine environment, which, they note, “will take as long as 450 years to break down, slowly turning into microplastics while negatively impacting marine wildlife and ecosystems.”9

Masks Entering Marine Environments Pose Additional Risks

Plastic particles are known to travel great distances, posing immense risks to virtually every part of the globe. Small, weathered pieces of plastic — suggesting they’d been on a long journey — have been found at the top of the Pyrénées mountains in southern France10 and “in the northernmost and easternmost areas of the Greenland and Barents seas.”11

Calling the Greenland and Barents seas area a “dead end” for the plastic debris, researchers hypothesized that the seafloor below would be a catch-all for accumulating plastic debris.12 In separate research, it was also revealed that plastic pollution has reached the Southern Ocean surrounding Antarctica — an area believed to be mostly free of contamination.13 According to the featured study:14

“When not properly collected and managed, masks can be transported from land into freshwater and marine environments by surface run-off, river flows, oceanic currents, wind, and animals (via entanglement or ingestion). The occurrence of waste masks has been increasingly reported in different environments and social media have shared of wildlife tangled in elastic straps of masks.”

Such plastics also contain contaminants, such as polycyclic hydrocarbons (PAHs), which may be genotoxic (i.e., causing DNA damage that could lead to cancer), along with dyes, plasticizers and other additives linked to additional toxic effects, including reproductive toxicity, carcinogenicity and mutagenicity.15

Aside from the chemical toxicity, ingestion of microplastics from degraded masks and other plastic waste is also toxic due to the particles themselves as well as the potential that they could carry pathogenic microorganisms.

Another issue that’s rarely talked about is the fact that when you wear a mask, tiny microfibers are released, which can cause health problems when inhaled. The risk is increased when masks are reused. This hazard was highlighted in a performance study to be published in the June 2021 issue of Journal of Hazardous Materials.16

Researchers from Xi’an Jiaotong University also said scientists, manufacturers and regulators need to assess the inhalation of microplastic and nanoplastic debris shed from masks — both disposable and cloth — noting:17

“… [C]omplaints of throat irritation or discomfort in the respiratory tract by children, the elderly, or other sensitive individuals after wearing these may be alerting signs of excessive amounts of respirable debris inhaled from self-made masks and respirators.”

In the featured study researchers also called on the environmental research community to “move fast to understand and mitigate these risks,” suggesting that reusable cloth masks be promoted in lieu of disposable options and that mask-only trash cans be set up to assist in proper disposal.18However, another option would be to loosen or eliminate mask mandates, which may turn out to cause more harm than good.

Mask Use May Pose a Risk for Advanced Stage Lung Cancer

While it’s well-known that gut microbiota affect your immune system and risk of chronic diseases, it was long thought that lungs were sterile. Now it’s known that microbes from your mouth, known as oral commensals, frequently enter your lungs.19 Not only that, but researchers from New York University (NYU) Grossman School of Medicine revealed that when these oral commensals are “enriched” in the lungs, it’s associated with cancer.20

Specifically, in a study of 83 adults with lung cancer, those with advanced-stage cancer had more oral commensals in their lungs than those with early-stage cancer. Those with an enrichment of oral commensals in their lungs also had decreased survival and worsened tumor progression.

While the study didn’t look into how mask usage could affect oral commensals in your lungs, they did note, “The lower airway microbiota, whether in health or disease state, are mostly affected by aspiration of oral secretions, and the lower airway microbial products are in constant interaction with the host immune system.”21

It seems highly likely that wearing a mask would accelerate the accumulation of oral microbes in your lungs, thereby raising the question of whether mask usage could be linked to advanced stage lung cancer. The National Institutes of Health even conducted a study22 that confirmed when you wear a mask most of the water vapor you would normally exhale remains in the mask, becomes condensed and is re-inhaled.23

They went so far as to suggest that wearing a moist mask and inhaling the humid air of your own breath was a good thing, because it would hydrate your respiratory tract. But given the finding that inhaling the microbes from your mouth may increase advanced cancer risk, this hardly sounds like a benefit.

Not to mention, the humidity inside the mask will allow pathogenic bacteria to rapidly grow and multiply and, since the mask makes it more difficult to breathe, you’re likely to breathe heavier, thereby risking inhaling the microbes even deeper inside your lungs.

Masks Are Harming Children and Adults

The “new normal” of widespread masking is affecting not only the environment but also the mental and physical health of humans, including children. It’s largely assumed that face masks are “safe” for children to wear for long periods, such as during school, but no risk assessment has been carried out.24 Further, as evidenced by Germany’s first registry recording the experience children are having wearing masks.25

Using data on 25,930 children, 24 health issues were reported that were associated with wearing masks that fell into the categories of physical, psychological and behavioral issues.26 They recorded symptoms that:27

“… included irritability (60%), headache (53%), difficulty concentrating (50%), less happiness (49%), reluctance to go to school/kindergarten (44%), malaise (42%), impaired learning (38%) and drowsiness or fatigue (37%).”

They also found 29.7% reported feeling short of breath, 26.4% being dizzy and 17.9% were unwilling to move or play.28 Hundreds more experienced “accelerated respiration, tightness in chest, weakness and short-term impairment of consciousness.”

It’s also known that microplastics exist in human placentas,29 and animal studies show that inhaled plastic particles pass through the placenta and into the heart and brains of fetuses.30 The fetuses exposed to the microplastics also gained less weight in the later part of the pregnancy.31

“We found the plastic nanoparticles everywhere we looked — in the maternal tissues, in the placenta and in the fetal tissues. We found them in the fetal heart, brain, lungs, liver and kidney,” lead research Phoebe Stapleton of Rutgers University told The Guardian.32

Dr. Jim Meehan, an ophthalmologist and preventive medicine specialist who has performed more than 10,000 surgical procedures and is also a former editor of the medical journal Ocular Immunology and Inflammation, also conducted an evidence-based scientific analysis on masks, which shows that not only should healthy people not be wearing masks but they could be harmed as a result.33

Meehan suggests that the notion of mask-wearing defies common sense and reason, considering that most of the population is at very low or almost no risk of becoming severely ill from COVID-19. He also compiled 17 ways that masks can cause harm:34

  • Medical masks adversely affect respiratory physiology and function
  • Medical masks lower oxygen levels in the blood
  • Medical masks raise carbon dioxide levels in the blood
  • SAR-CoV-2 has a “furin cleavage” site that makes it more pathogenic, and the virus enters cells more easily when arterial oxygen levels decline, which means wearing a mask could increase COVID-19 severity
  • Medical masks trap exhaled virus in the mouth/mask, increasing viral/infectious load and increasing disease severity
  • SARS-CoV-2 becomes more dangerous when blood oxygen levels decline
  • The furin cleavage site of SARS-CoV-2 increases cellular invasion, especially during low blood oxygen levels
  • Cloth masks may increase the risk of contracting COVID-19 and other respiratory infections
  • Wearing a face mask may give a false sense of security
  • Masks compromise communications and reduce social distancing
  • Untrained and inappropriate management of face masks is common
  • Masks worn imperfectly are dangerous
  • Masks collect and colonize viruses, bacteria and mold
  • Wearing a face mask makes the exhaled air go into the eyes
  • Contact tracing studies show that asymptomatic carrier transmission is very rare
  • Face masks and stay at home orders prevent the development of herd immunity
  • Face masks are dangerous and contraindicated for a large number of people with pre-existing medical conditions and disabilities

Adding insult to injury, the first randomized controlled trial of more than 6,000 individuals to assess the effectiveness of surgical face masks against SARS-CoV-2 infection found masks did not statistically significantly reduce the incidence of infection.35

Considering the lack of evidence for their use, and the potential harms to human health and the environment, it’s no wonder that calls for peaceful civil disobedience against mandatory masking are growing. The U.S. nonprofit Stand for Health Freedom has a widget you can use to contact your government representatives to let them know wearing a mask must be a personal choice.

*

Note to readers: please click the share buttons above or below. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.

Notes

1, 35 Annals of Internal Medicine November 18, 2020 DOI: 10.7326/M20-6817

2, 4, 5, 7, 8, 14, 18 Front. Environ. Sci. Eng. 2021, 15(6): 125

3 PLOS One April 11, 2018

6 The Lung Association Ontario 2009

9 OceansAsia December 7, 2020

10 WWF Analysis, No Plastic in Nature: Assessing Plastic Ingestion From Nature To People 2019

11 Science Advances April 19, 2017

12 Reuters April 19, 2017

13 Science of the Total Environment November 15, 2017

15 Current Opinion in Environmental Science & Health February 2018, Volume 1, Pages 1-5

16 Journal of Hazardous Materials June 5, 2021; 411: 124955

17 Environ Pollut. 2021 Jan 1; 268: 115728

19 Geopolitic News February 4, 2021

20, 21 Cancer Discov. 2021 Feb;11(2):293-307. doi: 10.1158/2159-8290.CD-20-0263. Epub 2020 Nov 11

22 Biophysical Journal February 11, 2021 DOI: 10.1016/j/bpj.2021.02.002

23 Healthing.ca February 16, 2021

24 The Telegraph March 18, 2021

25, 27 Research Square, 2021; doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-124394/v2

26, 28 Montana Daily Gazette, January 25, 2021

29 Environmental International January 2021, Volume 146, 106274

30 Particle and Fibre Toxicology volume 17, Article number: 55 (2020)

31, 32 The Guardian March 18, 2021

33, 34 MeehanMd.com November 20, 2020

All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the “Translate Website” drop down menu on the top banner of our home page (Desktop version).

***

Tuesday (April 6) saw the Pretoria High Court hand down the following order:

  • That a pharmacist, medical practitioner and any other person registered under the Health Professions Act may sell a medicine that contains ivermectin to a patient on prescription.
  • “Unregistered ivermectin-containing finished pharmaceutical products remain accessible under the present programme” through authorised suppliers.
  • A medical practitioner may initiate treatment with ivermectin at the same time as submitting an application for the individual to the South African Health Products Regulatory Authority (Sahpra).

The respondents (without admission of any liability) were ordered to pay a total of R1.8 million to the applicants.

Background

As the Covid-19 pandemic swept across the world, indiscriminately infecting and killing helpless victims, with no known cure, there were those who resorted to desperate measures.

Many experimented with ivermectin, an antiparasitic drug mainly used in the treatment of parasites in animals. And whereas the death toll in hospitals mounted, those who used ivermectin on the sly started singing its praises.

The use of ivermectin in the treatment of Covid-19 was supported by many medical professionals.

But Sahpra stood firm, on January 28 issuing a press release warning of “lack of adequate evidence to support its use”, that its quality could not be guaranteed because of “widespread unregulated use”, and the lack of any clinical trial.

Infections continued, death rates mounted, well-known personalities and loved ones were felled. “Do you know a farmer” became a topic of conversation. 

Section 21 programme allowing access

On January 28, Sahpra set up the Ivermectin Controlled Compassionate Use Programme Guideline for access to unregistered ivermectin for human use under Section 21 of the Medicines and Related Substances Act.

Essentially, this provided that medical practitioners could apply for approval for the use of unregistered ivermectin per an individual patient. This application had to be supported by substantive documentation.

Sahpra warned of “unclear evidence of both benefit and harm”, “reports of illicit products entering the South African market”, and that veterinary products were being used.

Sahpra established a tiered mechanism to control access and monitor use, and required stringent reporting.

The authorisation could be granted for the manufacture, importation, wholesaling or distribution of a medicine, and for licensed healthcare facilities to hold bulk stock. Authorisation had to be granted to a registered medical practitioner per named patient, and the “patient outcomes” had to be reported.

A small allowance was made for urgent cases, in that treatment could start at the same time that an application was made, but that authorisation was not guaranteed.

Sahpra did not constrain itself by regulating the number of days by which it had to respond to an application, including an urgent application.

The average time of receiving an ‘authorisation’ from Sahpra is not known.

Treatment for rosacea

A light appeared on the horizon when, on March 16, Sahpra registered a product containing ivermectin for the treatment of rosacea, a human skin condition.

Because the Medicines and Related Substances Act requires that only registered medicines can be mixed together (compounded), this new registration for human use essentially meant that ivermectin could be compounded with other registered medicines, and made accessible in accordance with the act, for the treatment of Covid-19.

But it was necessary to approach the court for an order compelling Sahpra to allow this.

Four different applications were made to court:

  • AfriForum, Dr George Coetzee, Gideon Samson Gumeda and Geelbooi Motsipa.
  • The African Christian Democratic Party and Doctors for Life.
  • ‘I can make a difference, and the Doctors and Medical Practitioners Group.
  • Pharma Valu Irene CC, Marx & Marx CC, JJ Strydom CC, Menlo Park Apteek CC, JJ Strydom Apteek CC, Pharma Valu Newlands CC, and Strydom & Pretrius CC.

The respondents in all applications were Sahpra and Health Minister Zweli Mkhize – with the director-general of the Department of Health and the member of the Executive Council for Health in Gauteng as additional respondents in one of the applications, Sahpra CEO Boitumelo Semete-Makokotla and President Cyril Ramaphosa as respondents in another, and the Department of Health mentioned in one application.

The position of the minister and Sahpra

The minister of health, who is cited as a respondent in all the applications, and the president, who is cited as a respondent in one of the applications, felt compelled to place on record that:

  • They have carried out their constitutional and statutory duties in protecting the public health against the Covid-19 pandemic.
  • Sahpra is held accountable and provides the requisite reports.
  • The minister relies on the “expertise, recommendations and consultations” in regard to medicines of Sahpra and approves the actions and decisions made by Sahpra.
  • Sahpra is to provide the public with “accurate information regarding the safety, efficacy, and quality of ivermectin” as well as any other treatment or preventative medicine for Covid-19.

*

Note to readers: please click the share buttons above or below. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.

Why Did John Le Carré Become an Irish Citizen?

April 7th, 2021 by Tom Clifford

All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the “Translate Website” drop down menu on the top banner of our home page (Desktop version).

***

Tinker, Tailor, Soldier, Irishman. A plot twist that might have been considered too bizarre for even John Le Carré. But the master of suspense shows, from beyond the grave, how to get the obituary writers rushing to update their paeans. The former British diplomat, secret agent, captivating espionage writer, and presumed Englishman, Le Carré died an Irish citizen, his son confirmed. It’s like being told his fictional hero and the quintessential Englishman George Smiley was actually working for Moscow all along.

Nicholas Cornwell said his father, best known for his Cold War thrillers, became an Irish citizen before his death, aged 89, in December. The reason for the change of heart? One word. Brexit. It infuriated le Carre

. “This is without doubt the greatest catastrophe and the greatest idiocy that Britain has perpetrated since the invasion of Suez,” Le Carré said of Brexit at the time. “Nobody is to blame but the Brits themselves – not the Irish, not the Europeans.”

He thought it was a massive own goal.

“The idea, to me, that at the moment we should imagine we can substitute access to the biggest trade union in the world with access to the American market is terrifying,” he said.

The author of Tinker, Tailor, Soldier, Spy and The Spy Who Came in From the Cold was eligible for an Irish passport through his grandmother, Olive Wolfe, who was born in County Cork.

Le Carré was actually born as David Cornwell and worked for the secret services while studying German in Switzerland at the end of the 1940s. Inspired by his MI5 colleague, the novelist John Bingham, he began publishing thrillers under the pseudonym of John le Carré.

His spies did not sip Martinis, frequent casinos nor have beautiful women as companions.  They were occupied by office politics, often egotistical, flawed and lonely.

A strange thing is happening.  For the first time in more than 840 years, since Henry II landed his forces in eastern Ireland in October 1171, it can be argued that Ireland has more power, or at least access to power, than Britain.

Ireland, like Mexico, found itself in the wrong place, at the wrong time, in history. Too far from god, and intrusive neighbors. We had what is now referred to as soft power, the music, and political influence in Boston, New York and Chicago, as well as Liverpool, Glasgow and many other communities. Britain had real power, diplomatic and military that spanned the globe. But right now in 2021 it seems that Britain is diplomatically speaking adrift, at least compared to Ireland.

The reason? In 1962 former US secretary of state Dean Acheson remarked Britain has lost its empire and is seeking a role. The search continues. If its plight was advertised in a lonely hearts column it would read; Nation, on edge of Europe, seeks companionship and friendship. May lead to something better. All can apply. Sensitive about past, hopeful of the future. Please send response to Whitehall, London.

Brexit means Ireland is part of a bloc of 27 countries that, to put it politely, is bigger and more powerful than Britain. The six-letter word has changed the relationship. Like a couple seeking divorce, the husband, demanding to explore new opportunities and recapture his youth, realizes too late that all the assets are in the wife’s name.

Of course it’s not just Le Carré.

There has been a surge in applications for Irish passports from Britain.

The number of Irish passports issued in Great Britain rocketed in the years following the Brexit referendum.

This was most marked in 2019. That year saw 120,800 passports issued by Ireland’s London embassy, double that of 2016.

Now the focus turns elsewhere. After all, if Le Carré is Irish then who else? There is no indication, just yet, that god is going to deny he is an Englishman.

*

Note to readers: please click the share buttons above or below. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.

Tom Clifford is a renowned journalist and geopolitical analyst based in Beijing. He is a frequent contributor to Global Research.

Featured image is from Wikimedia Commons

All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the “Translate Website” drop down menu on the top banner of our home page (Desktop version).

***

As many as 246 Michigan residents fully vaccinated against COVID-19 were later diagnosed with the virus, and three of them died, Michigan Department of Health and Human Services confirmed Monday.

According to The Detroit News, 246 “breakthrough cases” were reported between Jan. 1 and March 31. All cases occurred in people who tested positive 14 or more days after the last dose in the vaccine series, said Lynn Sutfin, spokeswoman for the Michigan Department of Health and Human Services, in an email.

“Some of these individuals may ultimately be excluded from this list due to continuing to test positive from a recent infection prior to being fully vaccinated,” she said. But these “cases are undergoing further review to determine if they meet other [Centers for Disease Control and Prevention] CDC criteria for determination of potential breakthrough, including the absence of a positive antigen or PCR test less than 45 days prior to the post-vaccination positive test.”

Sutfin said these persons were more likely to be asymptomatic or mildly symptomatic, adding that hospitalization data were available for 117 of the cases, while 129 were incomplete.

Of the 117 with hospitalization data entered, 11 were hospitalized, 103 were not hospitalized and three are reported as unknown. The three people who died were all 65 or older and two “were within three weeks of completion of vaccination,” Sutfin said.

According to Dr. Nick Gilpin, Beaumont’s medical director for infection prevention, eight patients who had been “fully vaccinated” were being treated for COVID at Beaumont Health’s hospitals on Monday.

“While the majority of the population develops full immunity within 14 days of completion of their vaccine series, a small proportion appear to take longer to mount a full antibody response,” Sutfin explained. “The CDC is actively working to better understand the risk characteristics of this group.”

As The Defender reported April 5, scientists have challenged health officials on vaccinating people who’ve already had COVID, arguing the science supporting vaccination of those primed with COVID doesn’t exist and there’s a potential risk of harm, including death, in vaccinating those who’ve already had the disease or were recently infected.

Dr. Hooman Noorchashm, surgeon and patient safety advocate, has written several letters to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration urging the agency to require pre-screening for SARS-CoV-2 viral proteins — which would be present in someone who has already been infected with COVID — in an effort to reduce COVID vaccine injuries and deaths.

According to Noorchasm, it is scientifically established that once a person is naturally infected by a virus, antigens from that virus persist in the body for a long time after viral replication has stopped and clinical signs of infection have resolved. When a vaccine reactivates an immune response in a recently infected person, the tissues harboring the persisting viral antigen are targeted, inflamed and damaged by the immune response.

“In the case of SARS-CoV-2, we know that the virus naturally infects the heart, the inner lining of blood vessels, the lungs and the brain,” explained Noorchasm. “So, these are likely to be some of the critical organs that will contain persistent viral antigens in the recently infected — and, following reactivation of the immune system by a vaccine, these tissues can be expected to be targeted and damaged.”

J. Patrick Whelan M.D., Ph.D., expressed similar concern that COVID vaccines aimed at creating immunity against the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein could have the potential to cause microvascular injury to the brain, heart, liver and kidneys in a way that does not currently appear to be assessed in safety trials of these potential drugs.

As The Defender reported March 31, Washington, Florida, South Carolina, Texas, New York, California and Minnesota have all reported breakthrough cases of COVID, and two deaths are under investigation by the Department of Health in Washington.

Breakthrough cases have also been reported in Oregon, Idaho, Nebraska, Louisiana, Utah, North Carolina and Hawaii.

*

Note to readers: please click the share buttons above or below. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.

Megan Redshaw is a freelance reporter for The Defender. She has a background in political science, a law degree and extensive training in natural health.

All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the “Translate Website” drop down menu on the top banner of our home page (Desktop version).

***

Dr. Ryan Cole is the CEO and Medical Director of Cole Diagnostics, one of the largest independent labs in the State of Idaho.  Dr. Cole has conducted over 100,000 Covid-19 lab tests and treated over 350,000 patients over his medical career.

Click here to watch the video.

  • Coronavirus infections are seasonal
  • Average COVID-19 age of death 78.6 years. Average annual US age of death historically 78.6 years.
  • Face mask wearing outdoors is absolute insanity. No study shows any super-spreader event outdoors.  The best mask of all is your immune system.
  • There is no such thing as cold and flu season. There is only low vitamin D season.
  • Inflammatory (cytokine) storm cannot be controlled without adequate vitamin D levels.
  • Massive numbers of Americans have low vitamin D levels.
  • 96% of ICU patients are vitamin D deficient
  • You cannot synthesize vitamin D from sunlight during fall and winter at 35-degrees north.
  • You living in northern climates you are immune suppressed if you do not supplement with vitamin D during fall and winter.
  • Scandinavian countries (Finland, Norway, Sweden) test their citizens twice a year for vitamin D and fortify 35 foods with vitamin D.
  • Our population is left vulnerable to any seasonal viral infection without a public health program to promote vitamin D adequacy.
  • There is not social disparity of care but the fact darker skin pigmentation inhibits sunshine vitamin D synthesis in the skin.
  • Fauci says he personally takes 8000-9000 units of vitamin D per day but why has this has not become a public health message?
  • The top three public health messages should be: 1- vitamin D; 2- vitamin D; 3- vitamin D.
  • By law, the federal government cannot approve a vaccine if there is a proven treatment. That would be Ivermectin.
  • The government is in bed with a vaccine company; both the federal government and Moderna co-hold patents on their RNA vaccine. The “fox is guarding the henhouse.”
  • The drug Remdesivir only works during the first 2-3 days of the infection. It does not increase survival.  It is like “peeing on a forest fire.”
  • Four billion doses of Ivermectin have safely taken Ivermectin. Death rate decreased 70-90% in hospitals treating COVID-19 patients.
  • Of the half million COVID-19 deaths in North America, there would be 375,000 less deaths if Ivermectin were used! Public health officials have blood on their hands.  100% of Ivermectin-treated patients don’t get ill.  Works for all genetic variants.
  • The vaccines are an experiment on society.
  • The vaccine is unproven and long-term safety data is not even being
  • You can get Ivermectin from doctors online. Myfreedoctor.com.

*

Note to readers: please click the share buttons above or below. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.

Featured image is from dreamstime

All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the “Translate Website” drop down menu on the top banner of our home page (Desktop version).

***

Since the first COVID-19 vaccine received Emergency Use Authorization in the U.S., some physicians and scientists have challenged the recommendation by U.S. health agencies that people who have already had COVID and as a result acquired natural immunity still get the vaccine.

Some experts say the science to support vaccinating those primed with COVID doesn’t exist and there’s a potential risk of harm, including death, in vaccinating those who’ve already had the disease or were recently infected.

In December 2020, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices issued a report authored by 15 scientists that falsely claimed a Pfizer study proved the vaccine was highly effective or showed “Consistent high efficacy” for people who’d already had coronavirus — “SARS-CoV 2.”

Award-winning scientist and Congressman Thomas Massie (R-Ky.) called out the CDC when he found that vaccine studies showed no benefit to people who had coronavirus and that getting vaccinated didn’t change their odds of getting reinfected.

The CDC claimed “the COVID vaccine would save your life or save you from suffering, even if you’ve already had the virus and recovered, which has not been demonstrated in either the Pfizer or Moderna trials,” Massie said in an interview with Full Measure.

Massie contacted officials at the CDC about the misinformation. They acknowledged it was false, but instead of correcting it, tried to rephrase their mistake. Massie and other scientists said the new wording still wrongly implies vaccines work in people who previously had COVID.

“And instead of fixing it, they proposed repeating it and just phrasing their mistake differently. So, at that point, right now I consider it a lie. I think the CDC is lying about the efficacy of the vaccine based on the Pfizer trials, for those who have already had the coronavirus,” Massie said.

The CDC recommends people get vaccinated even if they’ve already had COVID, as experts do not know how long “you are protected from getting sick again after recovering from COVID, and it is possible — although rare — that you could be infected with the virus that causes COVID again.”

On Feb. 23, Francis Collins, director of the National Institutes of Health (NIH), published a blog post stating that people who’ve had COVID still needed the vaccine, while referencing a study that suggested they didn’t.

Citing a pre-print published on medRxiv, Collins wrote that the immune response to the first vaccine dose in a person who’s already had COVID is equal to, or in some cases better, than the response to the second dose in a person who hasn’t had COVID. He said the “results raise the possibility that one dose might be enough for someone who’s been infected with SARS-CoV-2 and already generated antibodies against the virus.”

Yet, Collins made the case that people who have already had COVID would have a robust antibody response when later exposed to the virus — whether that’s through natural exposure or via the spike protein from a COVID vaccine.

To better understand immune memory of SARS-CoV-2, researchers led by Drs. Daniela Weiskopf, Alessandro Sette and Shane Crotty from the La Jolla Institute for Immunology analyzed immune cells and antibodies from nearly 200 people who had been exposed to COVID and recovered.

The results, published in Science, showed the immune systems of more than 95% of people who recovered from COVID had durable memories of the virus up to eight months after infection. Previous studies showed that natural infection induced a strong response, but this study showed that response lasted, Weiskoph said.

Another study in Nature assessed the lasting immunogenic effect of T-cell reactivity to SARS and SARS-2. Data showed that natural immunity was very robust — and likely more robust than any immunity derived from a vaccine.

Increased risk of vaccine injury in those with previous infection

On March 19, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) issued an emergency authorization for a new test to detect COVID infections — one that stands apart from the hundreds already authorized, reported STAT.

Developed by Seattle-based Adaptive Biotechnologies in partnership with Microsoft, the new test, called T-Detect COVID, looks for signals of past infections in the body’s adaptive immune system — specifically, the T cells that help the body remember what its viral enemies look like.

Adaptive’s approach involves mapping antigens to their matching receptors on the surface of T cells, which would help scientists unlock information to help diagnose past COVID infections.

Dr. Dara Udo, urgent and immediate care physician at Westchester Medical Group, received the COVID vaccine a year after having the disease and had a very strong immune response very similar to what she experienced while having COVID.

In an opinion piece published by The Hill, Udo explained that infection from any organism, including COVID, activates several different arms of the immune system, some in more robust ways than others and that this underlying activation due to infection or exposure, combined with a vaccination, could lead to overstimulation of the immune response.

Udo thought this might explain the symptoms she had, as well as her frontline colleagues who had high rates of COVID antibodies (known as seroprevalence) prior to becoming vaccinated.

“For high-risk, vulnerable groups, emerging data suggest that seroprevalence of COVID-19 infection is likely higher than tested and reported. Therefore, a natural question arises of whether there may be a smarter way to administer the vaccines in high seroprevalent groups,” Udo wrote.

Udo called for an intentional, well-planned approach to avoid eliciting adverse immune responsesin those who had COVID and subsequently get vaccinated.

Udo suggested a person already “COVID-primed” may be better off with a one-dose rather than a two-dose vaccine, or that the vaccine administered should be dependent on whether the person already had COVID. For example, someone who is “COVID-naive” might do better with a vaccine like Pfizer or Moderna, while the COVID-primed might need a less robust immune response from the one-dose Johnson & Johnson vaccine.

In order to implement this protocol, rigorous, effective and efficient antibody prescreening tools to identify these individuals would be required, Udo said.

Dr. Hooman Noorchashm, an accomplished surgeon, patient safety advocate and staunch supporter of the new COVID vaccines, has written several letters to the FDA urging the agency to require pre-screening for SARS-CoV-2 viral proteins in order to reduce COVID vaccine injuries and deaths.

According to Noorchasm, it is scientifically established that once a person is naturally infected by a virus, antigens from that virus persist in the body for a long time after viral replication has stopped and clinical signs of infection have resolved. When a vaccine reactivates an immune response in a recently infected person, the tissues harboring the persisting viral antigen are targeted, inflamed and damaged by the immune response.

“In the case of SARS-CoV-2, we know that the virus naturally infects the heart, the inner lining of blood vessels, the lungs and the brain,” explained Noorchasm. “So, these are likely to be some of the critical organs that will contain persistent viral antigens in the recently infected — and, following reactivation of the immune system by a vaccine, these tissues can be expected to be targeted and damaged.”

Colleen Kelley is an associate professor of infectious diseases at Emory University School of Medicine and principal investigator for Moderna and Novavax phase 3 vaccine clinical trials in Atlanta. In an interview with Huffington Post, Kelley said there have been reported cases in which those who previously had the virus endured harsher side effects after they received their vaccines.

“Anecdotally, it does appear that people who may have had COVID-19 before their vaccine do tend to have those longer duration of symptoms,” Kelley added. “But we’re still gathering additional scientific data to really support this.”

In a public submission to the FDA, J. Patrick Whelan M.D. Ph.D., expressed similar concern that COVID vaccines aimed at creating immunity against the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein could have the potential to cause microvascular injury to the brain, heart, liver and kidneys in a way that does not currently appear to be assessed in safety trials of these potential drugs.

Based on several studies, Whelan said it appeared that the viral spike protein in the SARS-CoV02 vaccines is also one of the key agents causing damage to distant organs that may include the brain, heart, lung and kidney.

“Before any of these vaccines are approved for widespread use in humans, it is important to assess in vaccinated subjects the effects of vaccination on the heart,” wrote Whelan. “As important as it is to quickly arrest the spread of the virus by immunizing the population, it would be vastly worse if hundreds of millions of people were to suffer long-lasting or even permanent damage to their brain or heart microvasculature as a result of failing to appreciate in the short-term an unintended effect of full-length spike protein-based vaccines on these other organs.”

At the very minimum, Noorchasm said in a letter to FDA officials, “Pfizer and Moderna should “institute clear recommendations to clinicians that they delay immunization in any recently convalescent patients, as well as, any known symptomatic or asymptomatic carriers — and to actively screen as many patients with high cardiovascular risk as is reasonably possible, in order to detect the presence of SARS-CoV-2, prior to vaccinating them.”

On March 19, 32-year-old Benjamin Goodman died after receiving Johnson & Johnson’s experimental COVID vaccine. According to a Facebook post by his step-mother, Goodman knew his family’s difficult history with vaccines but got vaccinated at a pop-up vaccine site at a local Walgreen’s because people were pushing the travel pass.

Goodman felt ill, experienced a headache, woke up with a fever and chills at 1 a.m., went into cardiac arrest at 4 a.m. and was declared dead two hours later. Like many others, Goodman had not been tested to see if he had previously had COVID or was recently infected.

Noorchasm sent a third communication to the FDA warning that deaths like Goodman’s could have been prevented, and that there will be more deaths unless people are screened before being vaccinated. As The Defender reported earlier this month, Noorchashm believes that a #ScreenB4Vaccine campaign could save millions from vaccine injuries.

“We are deploying this defensive weapon [the COVID vaccine] wildly indiscriminately in the midst of a pandemic outbreak, while many are ‘the recently infected.’ It is my professional opinion as an immunologist and physician that this indiscriminate vaccination is a clear and present danger to a subset of the already infected,” Noorchasm told The Defender.

*

Note to readers: please click the share buttons above or below. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.

Megan Redshaw is a freelance reporter for The Defender. She has a background in political science, a law degree and extensive training in natural health.

Featured image is from Children’s Health Defense

Jordan: Why King Abdullah’s Troubles Are Not Over

April 7th, 2021 by David Hearst

All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the “Translate Website” drop down menu on the top banner of our home page (Desktop version).

***

The real message that Prince Hamzah, who claims he is wrongly accused of stoking discontent in the kingdom, wanted the world and his country to hear after he had been confined to house arrest was this one: “I am the son of Hussein!”

In appearance, bearing and speech, the prince resembles his late father, King Hussein, whose life was cut short by illness.

He wanted Hamzah to inherit the throne. Hamzah was too young at the time, and his half brother Abdullah, the eldest son of Princess Muna, Hussein’s second wife, acceded to the throne. Abdullah named his half brother crown prince in line with their father’s wishes but soon afterwards stripped him of that title in favour of his own son Hussein.

But Hamzah has never forgotten his father’s bequest. He still behaves as if he is the rightful heir to the throne.

Prince Hamzah is popular in the kingdom. He talks to disaffected Eastern Jordanian tribal leaders who are traditionally loyal to the Hashemites. When Hamzah visited the family of one of the patients who died of Covid-19 in the hospital in al Salt because it ran out of oxygen, he was warmly thanked by relatives. When his half brother the king turns up at the hospital, some in the crowd reminded him that under his rule, the country is drowning.

The video he sent the BBC soon after the visit by Major General Yousef Huneiti carries the same message. Hamzah positions his face in line with the portrait of his father on the wall. Was it just a happy coincidence that the red keffiyeh his late father wore merges with the 41-year-old’s head, so that he appears as the true heir of his father? I don’t think so.

But nor is there any concrete evidence – so far at least – of a specific plot to oust Abdullah or to what extent Hamzah is involved in it. Rather, there is an increasingly marginalised head of state, cut off from his main donors, in bad relations with Israel, in charge of a landlocked country being ravaged by the Covid-19 pandemic.

Regional tensions

The issues on which Abdullah has refused to play ball are stacking up. To his credit, Abdullah did not accept former US President Donald Trump’s “deal of the century“, but he paid a price for that. In moving closer to Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas, Abdullah has moved away from the two countries, Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates, which were channelling funds to Jordan.

At one point, Abdullah was fully signed up to the plan to anoint Mohammed Dahlan, the Palestinian exile living in Abu Dhabi, as Abbas’s successor. No more.

Neither of their crown princes, Mohammed bin Salman and Mohammed bin Zayed, showed any sympathy or comradeship with Jordan, and Abdullah was at pains to show them their normalisation deals with Israel would have dire consequences for Jordan. Mohammed bin Salman, with Israel’s blessing, openly eyed a hostile takeover of the Hashemite’s historic role of guardianship of the holy places in Jerusalem.

The king’s relations with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu have gone from bad to worse.

Image below: Prince Hamza Hussein (Source: Wikimedia Commons)

Prince Hamzah Bin Husein.jpg

When Abdullah’s son, Crown Prince Hussein, was supposed to visit and pray at Al Aqsa Mosque, over which Jordan has custodianship, a row broke out between the Jordanian mukhabarat and Shin Bet about how many of his bodyguards could carry arms.

Humiliated, the crown prince cancelled the visit. In retaliation, the helicopter which was supposed to carry Netanyahu to Amman, where he would pick up a private jet sent by Mohammed bin Zayed for a photo-op in Abu Dhabi, was denied permission to cross Jordanian airspace.

In truth, the whole spat was a charade, as Netanyahu may have been under orders to stay at home. His wife Sara was undergoing surgery. After Netanyahu had an extramarital affair, Israel has been flooded with rumours that the prime minister signed a contract with his wife which stipulates that she accompanies him on overnight visits.

In the real world, Jordan is suffering from Israel’s cold shoulder. Netanyahu is prevaricating on a request by Jordan for water. This is the water that Israel pumps out of the river Jordan, and the kingdom under a peace treaty often requests that Israel transfers this water back to Jordan during dry spells. In punishment for the airspace episode, Netanyahu is not doing that, despite being urged by his security chiefs to do so.

The shortage of vaccines in Jordan is another source of tension with Israel. Jordan is being ravaged by the virus. Israel is conducting “vaccine diplomacy”, helping out countries as far afield as Guatemala, but not its nearest neighbour Jordan. Israel’s neglect of Jordan is all of a piece with its burgeoning relationship with Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates.

This is sheer folly from Israel’s own security interests, and if Netanyahu wants to know what will happen to his vulnerable eastern border if Jordan falls apart, his own security chiefs will be only too keen to tell him.

But it is the fashion and follows the logic of everything Jared Kushner, Trump’s son in law, and David Friedman, the former US ambassador, did in concocting Arab normalisation deals with Israel. Ignore the Palestinians, trash talk of their state, and go directly over their heads, and Jordan’s, and head straight for the Aladdin’s cave of cash from Saudi and Emirati sovereign wealth funds.

Saudi links

While no evidence links Prince Hamzah to the alleged coup attempt, it is also significant that Jordan security sources picked out to the foreign media, the role of two of the 20 or so who have been arrested.

They did so because of their links with Saudi Arabia. They were directing the finger of blame to the Gulf when most of the action is taking place inside the kingdom. The two men are Hassan bin Zayed, a member of the royal family, and Bassem Awadallah.

Awadallah was once very close to King Abdullah. Awadallah served as economic secretary to the Jordanian premier from 1992 to 1996. He was appointed head of Jordan’s royal court in 2007, before being sacked from the position less than a year later. When he left Jordan, Awadallah moved to Dubai, setting up a company called Tomouh. Awadallah shuttled between the Emirates and Saudi, where he still acted as Jordan’s special envoy.

Awadallah’s role was terminated in 2018, when the king was persuaded that his envoy was closer to Riyadh than he was to Jordan. Awadallah holds both Saudi and Jordan citizenship.

Awadallah had meanwhile set up a network of prominent businessmen and was working as a consultant for the Saudi crown prince. He became Mohammed bin Salman’s economic adviser and is helping the planning of his futuristic city Neom. He also forged strong ties with bin Zayed and was appointed to the board of directors of the University of Dubai. According to sources inside the Emirati court, Awadallah is more important to MbZ than the exiled Palestinian security chief Mohammed Dahlan.

Some news media outlets called Awadallah one of the masterminds of the privatisation of Aramco. Mastermind is a curious epithet as this has largely failed. But Awadallah appeared alongside his new master bin Salman at the annual Future Investment Initiative in Riyadh, the so-called Davos in the Desert, in January.

Arresting Awadallah is the biggest one finger sign Abdullah could have made to both bin Salman and bin Zayed.

But Jordan cannot confront Saudi Arabia openly. If they did, and accused Saudi of sending messages to Hamzah through Awadallah to mount a coup d’etat, it would mean the expulsion of Jordanian workers and businessmen from Saudi which  would spell economic ruin for the kingdom.

Within hours of the news of Awadallah’s arrest, a Saudi delegation headed by the foreign minister requested permission to visit Amman. According to an intelligence source of an unnamed Middle Eastern country monitoring these events, which was quoted by the Washington Post, the Saudis requested the release of Awadallah. “The Saudis were saying that they won’t leave the country without him,” the official said. “It would appear that they are worried about what he would say,” the Post reported.

Nor can Jordan confront Israel directly. It was the Israeli media that delved into the past of Roy Shaposhnik, the Israeli living in Europe who offered a private jet to Hamzah, so that his wife and children could leave the country.

Shaposhnik denied he was a member of Mossad, but he worked for Erik Prince, established his own company RS Logistical Solutions which provided services to Prince’s company for training Iraqi soldiers in Jordan. He met Hamzah through mutual contacts and their families became close friends.

These connections explain why Abdullah is suspicious. Hamzah has ambitions, and the Saudis, the Emiratis and Israel all have an agenda to weaken Jordan.

Desperation

Abdullah must feel he is running out of options. He no longer trusts those closest to him. He has been prepared in the past to tack with the prevailing wind, just as long as Jordan got the money. He was quite willing to join the condemnation of Turkey and Qatar when the counter revolution against the Arab Spring was in the ascendance.

As conditions in the kingdom have worsened, there is a political impasse: there are huge unresolved problems with teachers, with the tribes, and vast numbers unemployed – Prince Hamzah who has never abandoned his ambitions is looking increasingly attractive as a possible alternative.

There was possibly no specific coup involving Hamzah. But his popularity was growing and that of the king weakening. If anything, Hamzah’s international profile and his domestic popularity has increased since Saturday. Before, few outside the kingdom knew anything about him. Now, he has been dramatically elevated to leader of the opposition.

Last night a mediation effort hosted by Abdullah’s uncle Prince Hassan was underway. Ironically, the man picked to mend family fences was displaced by Abdullah himself and left the kingdom. Hassan was the crown prince under his brother, late King Hussein, for many decades and considered his successor.

A letter was signed in which Hamzah agreed to stand behind the king.

“In light of the developments of the past two days I place myself in the hands of his Majesty the King. I hereby affirm that I shall remain observant to the covenant of the forefathers and loyal to their legacy, walking their path, sincere to their history and mission and to his Majesty the King, adhering to the constitution of the dear Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan. I shall always be and aid and support for his Majesty the King and his Crown Prince,” the letter read.

By Tuesday at least, King Abdullah had achieved statements of international and regional support even by those he knew were trying to weaken him, and he also got the verbal backing of Prince Hamzah for his rule and that of his son, the crown prince.

But internally things are less clear. Hamzah’s popularity will, if anything, have increased, and none of the dramatic entrances and exits of the last 48 hours have changed things in the kingdom one iota. Abdullah is still sitting on a pile of domestic discontent.

Above all,  it is not the letter that Jordanians will remember but the audio of the meeting between the army chief and Hamzah, which has gone viral overnight.

“Sir, I am a free Jordanian, the son of my father, I have every right to mingle with the sons of my people and country and to serve my country as I promised him and made an oath to him while he was on his death bed. And now you come, sir forgive me, where were you twenty years ago? I was the crown prince in this country by order from my father, may Allah have mercy on him. I made an oath to him that I would continue to serve my country and people so long as I am alive. And now, you, after all the muddling that is taking place, and that is not because of me, and that I have nothing do with, you come to tell me to adhere?” Hamza says.

Abdullah’s troubles are not over.

*

Note to readers: please click the share buttons above or below. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.

David Hearst is co-founder and editor-in-chief of Middle East Eye. He is a commentator and speaker on the region and analyst on Saudi Arabia. He was The Guardian’s foreign leader writer, and was correspondent in Russia, Europe, and Belfast. He joined the Guardian from The Scotsman, where he was education correspondent.

Featured image: Portraits of late King Hussein (M), Prince Hamzah (L) and King Abdullah of Jordan (R) (Illustration by Hossam Sarhan via Middle East Eye)

Saving Our Economy

April 7th, 2021 by Philip A Farruggio

All Global Research articles can be read in 27 languages by activating the “Translate Website” drop down menu on the top banner of our home page (Desktop version).

***

After seeing what some Democrats in Congress wish to adopt by way of taxation of the Super Rich, let me weigh in.

The plan put forth by Senator Warren, Rep. Jayapal and Rep. Boyle is to tax 2% of net worth  of $ 50 million to $ one billion per annum, and 3% of net worth over $ one billion per annum.

This does not go far enough, and allows literally millions of millionaires off the hook. Why do I say this? Well, look at the top federal income tax bracket NOW, which is 37%, and compare it to the ones in 1961 and 1981: In 1961 the top bracket was at 91%  for single filers earning $200k a year and married filers earning $400k per year.

In 1981 the top bracket was 50% for single filers earning $ 41k a year and 50% for married couples earning $85k a year. Now look at our most recent top tax bracket: 37% for single filers earning $ 518kper year, and married couples earning $622k per year. Do you think that the 12 million millionaire households in our country have it pretty good, while us working stiffs still fork out billions of dollars in taxes?

Sadly, as with most of the so called ‘Progressive Democrat’ plans, it seems that they just cannot stray too far from their corporate masters. I say this not proudly at all. It seems that the very Super Rich they say they want to hold more ‘accountable’  always are able to pull back on the reins. Do you think that Jeff Bezos is going to cry for very long, knowing that he will still be way ahead in the tax game? How would he have felt in 1961, or even in Ronald Reagan’s 1981, having to fork over much more of his wealth?

Here is the ‘Farruggio Plan’ for Economic Fairness and of course Economic Stimulus:

  • Flat 50% Surtax on ALL Earnings over $1,000,000 per annum- with NO deductions of any kind. Translated: The first $ 1,000,000 is taxed at the same top rate as now, 37%. Accountants can do their duty to their customers as always, but NOT for anything over that first $ million. Think of how much more those 12 million millionaire households will be sending in to Uncle Sam to help the rest of us.
  • Permanent Payroll Tax Forgiveness Plan- I believe it was Robert Reich, former Clinton Administration Labor Secretary (I won’t hold that against him now) who trumpeted this plan. Simply put, the Payroll Tax  (7.65%) on the first $20k of wages is forgiven for the employee AND employer’s contributions. That comes out to around $ 1530 per year for each party. Imagine how that money can come in handy for the worker AND small business employer? (My plan would cap the forgiveness for employer contributions at the first 100 employees of a business.)
  • Universal Basic Income for All Citizens- The one time stimulus check was all well and good, but… Let’s do this each and every month for? Imagine each of us receiving, let us say, $ 1400 a month, with each child (up to two per family) getting $ 700 per month. All you corporate retail heads out there, like car manufacturers and retail stores, restaurants etc., you want more customers? The UBI will do it, and in spades!! Some folks may use the extra money to save for a house, or go back to school for higher education. The limits to what this could do for working stiffs nationwide are endless!
  • Cutting this Obscene Military Spending & Overreach- Well, the old standby is still circling around our wallets and moral compass. When half of our federal taxes goes for the (laughable term) discretionary spending for military funding, our economy suffers. Factor that with the approximate 1000 overseas US military bases and you have not only a fiscal nightmare, but a major reason why so many in so many countries (we have bases in around 100 countries) hate us. How many generations of Americans looked upon the Soviet Union with disdain for all their military bases and personnel in what they termed ‘Iron Curtain’ countries? The right wing Reagan administration, in joyous conjunction with the War Economy and Pentagon, used our tax dollars to cause the Soviet Union to continue to match us with their military spending… and they went out of business. Of course, working stiffs here at home suffered by Reagan’s cutting of our safety net and labor gains since the New Deal. Bottom line: ‘Guns and Butter’ just does not work! We need to cut military spending by at least 25% ASAP, close many of those overseas bases, send our personnel home to domestic bases (increasing the economies of those towns nationwide that host the bases) Just for starters.

Let us leave it at that for Part A. More to come… and needed.

*

Note to readers: please click the share buttons above or below. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.

Philip A Farruggio is a contributing editor for The Greanville Post. He is also frequently posted on Global Research, Nation of Change, Countercurrents.org, and Off Guardian sites. He is the son and grandson of Brooklyn NYC longshoremen and a graduate of Brooklyn College, class of 1974. Since the 2000 election debacle Philip has written over 400 columns on the Military Industrial Empire and other facets of life in an upside down America. He is also host of the ‘It’s the Empire… Stupid‘ radio show, co produced by Chuck Gregory. Philip can be reached at [email protected].

All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the “Translate Website” drop down menu on the top banner of our home page (Desktop version).

***

A new law in Israel will allow the government to share a list of names of those who did not get the COVID-19 vaccine, along with other personal identifying information. The list, which will include the names, phone numbers, ID card numbers and addresses of the unvaccinated, can be shared with local government officials, including the director general of the education ministry and the welfare ministry for the purpose of encouraging citizens to get the vaccine.1 2 If a citizen fails to show up for their second dose of the COVID-19 vaccine, the date of their first dose would also be shared.3

The list reportedly will only be provided to local government officials who request it and advise the Health Ministry about how they will use the information.4 Lawmakers contend that the law would only allow “trustworthy sources” to contact unvaccinated individuals to encourage them to get the vaccine and not for any other purpose.5 6 The list of the unvaccinated along with their personal information must be deleted within 60 days of its use. When someone on the list is contacted by authorities they will have the right to demand they not to be contacted again and that their information be deleted.7

“Handing Over Such Data Is A Slippery Slope”

The new law passed with a vote of 30-13 after three rounds of votes using a special process that allowed the vote to be conducted much quicker than regular legislation.8 Haim Katz of Netanyahu’s Likud party defended the law stating, “I’ve been asked what about people’s privacy: Is privacy more important than life itself?”9

The law faced outspoken opposition. Merav Michaeli, Labor party leader, said that the Prime Minister is, “denying citizens their right to the privacy of their medical information.”10 Tamar Zandberg, a Knesset member of the Meretz party, was critical of the legislation warning that it would violate Israeli citizens privacy and that, “Handing over such data is a slippery slope,” and “it could fall into the wrong hands”11

Public Health Physicians Lobbied Against the Legislation

The Israeli Association of Public Health Physicians lobbied against the legislation stating that it would undermine public trust in local governments, authorities and local councils and calling it, “an unprofessional action [that] could possibly cause serious harm.”12 Doctors and physicians had similar concerns about the legislation and argued that it could violate medical privacy and confidentiality.13 The Doctors Association stated that it was a slippery slope and reasoned that if vaccination justified releasing a citizen’s private medical information then it should follow that their weight and smoking status should also be shared for the sake of health.14 The Physicians Association said:

Encouraging vaccination is the order of the day and a national goal, but hasty legislation that could harm individual rights will not contribute significantly to this goal, and may even cause harm The bill would allow health maintenance organizations to pass on the medical information in their possession, which would be an explicit violation of the Basic Law on Human Dignity and Liberty, which enshrines the right to privacy, said the association. Such a law could be legitimate only if it could be proven that its purpose was appropriate and its application proportional.15

Growing Concern About the Rights of the Unvaccinated

According to officials, approximately 10 percent of Israeli citizens over the age of 16 do not plan to get the COVID-19 vaccine.16 A survey of 503 adults conducted by Channel 12 found the number of Israeli adults planning to forgo the vaccine to be as high as 25 percent (margin of error 4.4 percent).17 There is currently no legislation protecting the rights of those who choose not to be vaccinated and guaranteeing that they will not lose their job for exercising their informed consent rights.18 Furthermore, according to a poll conducted by the Rushinek Research Institute, 29 percent of parents do not intend on vaccinating their children ages 6-16, 30 percent are unsure and about 41 percent intend to vaccinate their children.19

Choosing to not vaccinate comes with harsh consequences. On Feb. 21, 2021, Israel officially implemented a “Vaccine Passport” called the green pass that restricts access to everyday activities, such as entry to restaurants, gyms and cultural events, only to the fully vaccinated or to those who have recovered from COVID-19.20 21 22 However, shops, malls, markets, museums and libraries will allow the unvaccinated, as well as the vaccinated, to enter.23

By the end of February, 88.77 out of 100 people had received at least one dose of the vaccine.24 So far, approximately 3.2 million Israeli citizens qualify for the green pass, which includes 2.5 million people who received two shots of the Pfizer/BioNTech vaccine and 700,000 people who have recovered from the viral infection. The green pass can be printed out and carried or be used as a QR code on a smart phone and is valid for six months after the second shot.25 26 Health Minister Yuli Edelstein tweeted…

Those who are not vaccinated will be left behind. The coronavirus cabinet has confirmed our stance that only vaccinated and recovering people will enjoy gyms and leisure culture. Go get vaccinated!27

Approximately one-third of the nine million people living in Israel have received two shots of the Pfizer/Biotech vaccine.28 The country plans to vaccinate 6.2 million by the start of April.29According to Johns Hopkins, more than 5,600 people have died of COVID-19 in Israel.30

Officials in the United Kingdom are closely monitoring Israel’s green pass system because they are considering implementing a similar program in the U.K. But, Dave Archard, Chair of the U.K.’s Nuffield Council on Bioethics questioned the scientific validity of program, referring to the fact that it is unknown how protective the COVID vaccines are against infection and transmission of the virus rather than only preventing severe COVID disease.31 He stated:

The whole point of the vaccine certificate is to show that the holder of it, in virtue of having been vaccinated, will not transmit COVID-19 or its variants. At the moment, the evidence is not in.32

*

Note to readers: please click the share buttons above or below. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.

Notes

1 Israel adopts law allowing sharing names of the unvaccinated. i24news Feb. 24, 2021.

2 Lis J. ‘Slippery Slope’: Israeli Doctors Association Blasts Bill That Would Hand Over Details of Unvaccinated. Haaretz Feb. 23, 2021.

3 Ibid.

4 Ibid.

5 Wilkinson J. Israeli government to share names of unvaccinated people. Daily News Feb. 24, 2021.

6 Israel approves bill allowing names of unvaccinated to be shared with authorities.Middleeasteye Feb. 25, 2021.

7 Steinbuch Y. Israel to share names of people not vaccinated against COVID-19. New York PostFeb. 25, 2021.

8 Lis J. ‘Slippery Slope’: Israeli Doctors Association Blasts Bill That Would Hand Over Details of Unvaccinated. Haaretz Feb. 23, 2021.

9 Israel adopts law allowing sharing names of the unvaccinated. i24news Feb. 24, 2021.

10 Steinbuch Y. Israel to share names of people not vaccinated against COVID-19. New York Post Feb. 25, 2021.

11 Lis J. ‘Slippery Slope’: Israeli Doctors Association Blasts Bill That Would Hand Over Details of Unvaccinated. Haaretz Feb. 23, 2021.

12 Ibid.

13 Ibid.

14 Ibid.

15 Lis J. ‘Slippery Slope’: Israeli Doctors Association Blasts Bill That Would Hand Over Details of Unvaccinated. Haaretz Feb. 23, 2021.

16 Israel’s unvaccinated Fear Exclusion. Yahoo! News Feb. 26, 2021.

17 Poll: Some 25% of Israelis who haven’t vaccinated have no intention of doing so. The Times of Israel Feb. 17, 2021.

18 Israel’s unvaccinated Fear Exclusion. Yahoo! News Feb. 26, 2021.

19 Ibid.

20 Israel adopts law allowing sharing names of the unvaccinated. i24news Feb. 24, 2021.

21 Netanyahu says Israel could see economy completely reopen by April. i24News Feb. 24, 2021.

22 Poll: Some 25% of Israelis who haven’t vaccinated have no intention of doing so. The Times of Israel Feb. 17, 2021.

23 Israel’s unvaccinated Fear Exclusion. Yahoo! News Feb. 26, 2021.

24 Stikings T, Jewers C. Israel passes law allowing names and phone numbers of anyone who has not been vaccinated to be shared by the government. Daily Mail Feb. 24, 2021.

25 Guenot M. Israel is waging a war on the unvaccinated as it races to be the world’s first inoculated nation. Insider Feb. 19, 2021.

26 Israel lifts Covid restrictions as ‘green passport’ system introduced. Jewish News Feb. 23, 2021.

27 Stikings T, Jewers C. Israel passes law allowing names and phone numbers of anyone who has not been vaccinated to be shared by the government. Daily Mail Feb. 24, 2021.

28 Israel adopts law allowing sharing names of the unvaccinated. i24news Feb. 24, 2021.

29 Steinbuch Y. Israel to share names of people not vaccinated against COVID-19. New York Post Feb. 25, 2021.

30 Wlkinson J. Israeli government to share names of unvaccinated people. Daily News Feb. 24, 2021.

31 Plater R. You Can Still Spread, Develop COVID-19 After Getting a Vaccine: What to Know. Healthline Jan. 19, 2021.

32 Stikings T, Jewers C. Israel passes law allowing names and phone numbers of anyone who has not been vaccinated to be shared by the government. Daily Mail Feb. 24, 2021.

Featured image is from The Vaccine Reaction

All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the “Translate Website” drop down menu on the top banner of our home page (Desktop version).

***

In recent months, and ramping up in recent weeks especially, attacks by the terrorist groups in the areas near Total’s massive gas project became regular.

Uncontained ISIS now is taking on the Mozambican army and seizes entire towns. It threatens the French giant’s project that is worth $20 billion; and all the projects in the region are collectively worth nearly $60 billion.

Prior to the large-scale attacks, there was little talk of Mozambique’s chaotic north.

NGOs were frequently calling for international assistance to the locals. Reports of beheaded soldiers, women and even children were commonplace.

Most recently, on March 24th, another offensive began by ISIS – it attacked the town of Palma, which is the nearest to the Total project. About 60 people were killed. 7 foreigners were among the victims. Approximately 180 people, including Total’s workers, were trapped in a hotel in Palma. After a three-day siege the people were evacuated.

After a few more days of fighting, ISIS announced that it had captured the town. This was accompanied by gruesome photographs of devastation, and corpses of beheaded men, women and children on the streets.

This is not uncommon for the region, but it has become rather mainstream after the massive gas projects were jeopardized. After all, the insurgency has been happening since 2017, and the United States designated the militants as “terrorist” only on March 11th, 2021.

Total’s project is halted, and when such massive amounts of money are under threat, the “international community” mobilizes itself immediately.

The United States announced that it would sent green berets to help train the Mozambican Army.

The UK claimed it was sending its Special Air Service forces to search for a British man who disappeared in Cabo Delgado.

Portugal is going to deploy soldiers at the beginning of April in Mozambique where they will train local troops.

The Mozambican army and its foreign support will need to exert great effort to expel ISIS and restart Total’s project, but when it comes down to billions, it is likely that nothing is impossible.

At the same time, on the other side of the African continent, China is beginning a massive oil project in Benin.

The China National Petroleum Corporation (CNPC), which is extracting a valuable resource in Agadema, Niger, is reportedly planning to build a pipeline through Benin in order to avoid passing through unsecured areas in Nigeria, Chad or Cameroon.

The Lake Chad area is infested by Boko Haram, but also by ISWAP. Both groups are fighting for dominance against each other, and against any local authority in the region.

Whether China’s project would be plagued by the same problems that any other foreign, or local, project needs to deal with will become apparent with time. It is, furthermore, obvious that the “international community” will not come to Beijing’s rescue if the project is endangered.

It is, however, an indisputable fact that the terrorist hotspots that are the Sahel, Lake Chad, as well as Mozambique’s Cabo Delgado go unnoticed until they impede a massive Western project, or another type of investment.

*

Note to readers: please click the share buttons above or below. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.

SUPPORT SOUTHFRONT:

PayPal: [email protected], http://southfront.org/donate/ or via: https://www.patreon.com/southfront

All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the “Translate Website” drop down menu on the top banner of our home page (Desktop version).

***

Seven members of Britain’s armed forces won an award for their ‘vital operational’ work supporting the US military after it killed Iranian general Qasem Soleimani in a drone strike last year, Declassified has found.

The assassination of Iranian general Qasem Soleimani, ordered by President Donald Trump in January 2020, brought Iran and the West to the brink of war.

A UN expert said the killing was illegal under international law and Iranian officials demanded revenge.

Soleimani was one of Iran’s top commanders, leading the Revolutionary Guard’s elite Quds Force on military missions in the Middle East.

It can now be revealed that a secretive team of British troops based in Bahrain, which is 190km from Iran, played a key role in a “period of increased activity and tension that followed the death” of Soleimani.

Their efforts were quietly recognised in November with a commendation from the Royal Air Force (RAF), but the announcement did not mention the Soleimani strike. Instead it simply stated the location of their unit: Muharraq, a US military base in Bahrain.

Little is known about the presence of British troops at Muharraq, and no other details of their award were published until a freedom of information request by Declassified forced further disclosure.

We have obtained a summary of the award citation – the full version remains classified to prevent “a potential enemy wishing to attack the UK” from gaining “sensitive information” on the movement of British troops.

The summary shows UK military commanders regarded the assassination’s aftermath as “arguably the most dynamic and intense situation faced by Naval Forces in recent years”.

Soleimani’s death on 3 January created “a period of increased activity and tension” which saw four members of the RAF and three from the Royal Navy dispatched to Muharraq.

Over the next nine days they provided logistical support to UK and US forces “who were deployed into the central Arabian Gulf”.

Soleimani

The Muharraq team “were tasked to deliver vital operational and high priority related stores and coordinate the transfer of personnel to and from ships at sea”.

As a matter of “urgency”, they secured “load space on a US Sea Dragon helicopter and helped to establish key lines of communications to vital assets.”

The Sea Dragon is a heavy-lift, long-range aircraft.

Stop the War Coalition convener Lindsey German told Declassified:

“The assassination of Qasem Soleimani brought us very near to war with Iran, a war which would have had bloody consequences across the whole region.

“This revelation shows the involvement of British troops in its aftermath – something which has never been divulged publicly here in Britain.”

She added:

“This lack of transparency is typical of the way in which British forces – and by implication the British government – operate in the region, but it also demonstrates the way that the demonisation of and increasing confrontation with Iran depends on these sorts of covert and illegal operations.

“All those who campaign against war in the Middle East must demand a full public explanation of British troops’ involvement.”

World War 3

The US assassination of Iran’s most high-profile military officer caused the phrase “World War 3” to trend on Twitter, such was the concern that Britain, Russia and China could all be drawn into the crisis.

According to The New York Times, the US had “plans to strike a command-and-control ship and conduct a cyber attack to partly disable Iran’s oil and gas sector” if the situation escalated after the assassination.

Trump claimed to have approved a list of 52 targets in Iran, including cultural sites, that he said “WILL BE HIT VERY FAST AND VERY HARD”.

Meanwhile Bahrain, which is home to the US Navy’s Fifth Fleet and a major base for British minesweepers, could have been among the first set of targets for Iran’s short-range missiles.

Fearing they might be caught in the crossfire, Britain withdrew some of its non-essential troops from Iraq, while boosting its naval presence in the Gulf to protect British-flagged oil tankers – a task which the Muharraq team most likely assisted.

Although Iran did retaliate with a rocket attack on a US military base in Iraq, tensions fell after Tehran tragically shot down a passenger airline it mistook for an incoming missile.

What is Muharraq?

Muharraq is a former British air base dating back to Bahrain’s time as a UK “protectorate” (or colony). It is now run by the US navy.

During the first Gulf War in 1991, British pilots flew from Muharraq to bomb Saddam Hussein’s forces in Iraq.

That conflict, known as Operation Granby, appears to be the last time UK military personnel have earned awards from operations in Muharraq, until the Soleimani strike.

Last May, MPs were told that it costs the taxpayer £270,000 a year to keep British troops at Muharraq – however, that information has since been removed from the Parliament website in an apparent technical glitch.

Police stations near the base are notoriously used for torturing critics of the Bahraini regime, which is one of the most repressive in the region, and a close British ally.

The issue of torture recently generated controversy when British home secretary Priti Patel visited a police facility in Muharraq.

Bahrain is ruled by a dictator, King Hamad bin Isa Al Khalifa. He does not tolerate press freedom or dissent, and liquidated the largest opposition party, Al Wefaq.

Ali Alaswad, a senior figure in Al Wefaq, told Declassified that Britain should obtain “the approval of the people” of Bahrain to have military bases in the country.

He expressed concern at the threat to Bahrainis “in the event that the British navy wages an offensive war against any of the [neighbouring] countries through Bahraini lands or from its territorial waters”.

A Ministry of Defence spokesperson said: “Qassem Soleimani posed a threat to all our interests and was responsible for a pattern of disruptive, destabilising behaviour in the region.

“Following Qassem Soleimani’s death, we urged all sides to de-escalate, exercise restraint and prevent further conflict.”

*

Note to readers: please click the share buttons above or below. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.

Phil Miller is staff reporter at Declassified UK, an investigative journalism organisation that covers the UK’s role in the world.

Featured image is from OneWorld 

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Trump’s Illegal Drone Strike on Iranian General Soleimani: Sets the Stage for War on Iran?
  • Tags:

All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the “Translate Website” drop down menu on the top banner of our home page (Desktop version).

***

Open and wide-scale hostilities appear unavoidable in Eastern Ukraine.

Kiev is on the war path, with the “unwavering” support of the US and NATO.

Over April 5th, and going into April 6th, the Ukrainian Armed Forces (UAF) continued their usual activities of deploying more troops to the demarcation line.

Russia is also transferring forces to the border with Ukraine and in the Crimea.

In total, over the last 24 hours 7 separate ceasefire violations were recorded, each including a high number of shots and shells.

Two UAF soldiers were killed.

Near the Luhansk People’s Republic (LPR), the UAF has several armored personnel carriers deployed at the village of Schstastye.

Still, the LPR said its militia was fully prepared to deal with any Ukrainian provocation, as according to them 60% of Kiev’s military hardware was entirely non-operational.

The Donetsk People’s Republic (DPR) reported that its militia had thwarted an attempt by a Ukrainian sabotage group to conduct reconnaissance near the borders of the Republic in the area of the village of Shumy near Horlivka.

Incidents of Ukrainian servicemen being blown up by their own mines continue.

Russia, for its part, is making further deployments, as footage showed that Nona-S self-propelled howitzers were being delivered towards the potential frontline.

It is also deploying the units of the 76th Guards Air Assault Division, commonly known as the Pskov paratroopers.

Ukraine is continually blaming Russia for the concentration of forces, while it keeps shelling both the DPR and LPR.

It is negotiating with its allies, speaking with British Prime Minister Boris Johnson and others.

NATO’s military attaché and its advisers are expected to arrive on the front line in Ukraine and provide their military expertise in the potential upcoming hostilities.

The active movement of military transport aircraft between NATO countries and the Ukraine continues.

The United States and its allies continue to saturate the Ukrainian army with military equipment, including UAVs, electronic warfare systems, anti-tank systems, MANPADS and other modern high-precision systems.

Meanwhile, the US carried out a typical diplomatic maneuver when a war may break out.

It said it would hold discussions with Moscow, as that is the precise form of support Kiev is likely to receive in the case that open hostilities take place.

The toolkit includes a willingness to partake in the discussion, and sending Washington’s hopes and prayers.

War between Russia and Ukraine seems to be highly likely.

Many military-political experts claim that the current situation can only be resolved by a military conflict.

Some of them declare a war now is preferable to a war later for Russia.

*

Note to readers: please click the share buttons above or below. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.

SUPPORT SOUTHFRONT:

PayPal: [email protected], http://southfront.org/donate/ or via: https://www.patreon.com/southfront

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Video: Kiev’s Forces Are Primed for Attack if They Can Overcome Their Own Minefields
  • Tags: ,

All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the “Translate Website” drop down menu on the top banner of our home page (Desktop version).

***

It is the 6th of April again and the western establishment’s corporate media intelligence propaganda system has again been cranking out black propaganda that continues to buttress the false narratives about genocide in Central Africa. Under this falsification of consciousness, the victims become the killers and the killers become the victims, and the true role and involvement of the Western powers remains entirely obscured.

“On eve of the 27th anniversary of the genocide in Rwanda being observed on Wednesday,” writes one popular journal, echoing the establishment line, “experts are debating the role of media that played a critical role in inciting and prolonging the violence. The massacre that started on April 7, 1994, killed one million people belonging to a mainly Tutsi ethnic community and moderate Hutus in a span of 100 days.”

The establishment narrative excludes the long history of violence perpetrated by the elite Tutsi monarchy; it excludes the deep historiography of elite Tutsi hit-and-run terrorism against the newly independent Rwandan nation, 1959-1970; it excludes the invasion of the sovereign country of Rwanda by Ugandan soldiers in October 1990—soldiers backed by the United States and its allies; it excludes the four years of mass atrocities, war crimes, crimes against humanity and genocide by the invading Ugandan soldiers—led by Paul Kagame—against Rwandan Hutus, Tutsis and Twas, from October 1990 to April 1994; and it excludes the definitive proof that Paul Kagame and the Rwandan Patriotic Front/Army orchestrated the double presidential assassinations of 6 April 1994.

Instead we get Hollywood fictions, emotionally potent oversimplifications, racist mythologies and media soundbites cranked out, over and over, to cement the false narrative into the heads of the infotainment consuming western public.  Instead we get “experts” regurgitating old stale theories and citing fabricated evidence to perpetuate the deeply seeded and deeply seated mythology. Instead we get the whitewashed “miracle” of Rwanda’s economic recovery—achieved at the expense of over 7 million Rwandan, Ugandan, Burundian and Congolese lives.

Rwanda’s rise to power has been achieved through a perpetual orgy of war crimes, crimes against humanity, genocide, misery and suffering and pure starvation on an unprecedented scale, and it comes through the ongoing rape and plunder of the resources and people of Central Africa. This is what Hotel Rwanda hero Paul Rusesabagina calls the “grinding machine”.[1]

While the world is subjected to the annual onslaught of insufferable propaganda, the latest victim of the Rwandan genocide industry—Paul Rusesabagina of Hotel Rwanda fame—is being quick-shuffled through the corrupt Rwandan court system in a sham “trial” reminiscent of the judicial charade that led to the brutal and botched execution of Nigerian playwright Ken Saro-Wiwa. The parallels are unsettling, and the outcome may be equally unconscionable.

Ken Saro-Wiwa was the leader of the Movement for the Survival of the Ogoni people, a human rights defender who struggled to free the indigenous peoples of the Niger River Delta from the yoke of slavery and destruction and the great western corporate petroleum genocide.  While the truth was obscured by a massive propaganda campaign orchestrated by Shell Oil Company with the complicity of Newsweek, the New York Times and all the rest, Saro-Wiwa and eight other Ogoni activists suffered on death row until their execution by hanging on 10 November 1995.

Like Ken Saro-Wiwa, Rwanda’s humanitarian freedom fighter Paul Rusesabagina has been framed, faces false charges fabricated by a brutal arrogant pathological military regime, and the complete obliteration of all due process in Rwanda’s caricature of judicial proceedings. As it was with Saro-Wiwa, so it is with Rusesabagina: the world “community” is engaged in hand-wringing, denials, apologetics, mental masturbation, blatant disinformation, and outright lies.

“The nickname for my country is ‘the land of thousands of hills,’” wrote Paul Rusesabagina, in his autobiography, An Ordinary Man, “but this signifies a gross undercount. There are at least half a million hills, maybe more we are the children of the hills, the grassy slopes, the valley roads, the spider patterns of rivers, and the millions of rivulets and crevasses and buckles of earth. In this country, we don’t talk about coming from a particular village, but from a particular hill.”

Paul Rusesabagina was born into a family of nine children, farmers, on the side of a steep hill, in a home made of mud and sticks. The Rwanda of his youth was green and bright, full of cooking fires and sisters murmuring and drying sorghum and corn leaves in the wind and in the warm arms of his mother. But this image of a happy, quiet youth spent in the quaint hills of some far-off place is not one the western world holds in its modern memory of Rwanda. Instead we are confronted by a perpetual pornography of horror.

Paul Rusesabagina can no longer visit his particular hill. He was made famous by the film Hotel Rwanda,[2] a Hollywood story inspired by his actions in the face of inhumanity, but Paul Rusesabagina fled Rwanda on 6 September 1996, after an attempted assassination, and he is today in exile from his own country. Paul Kagame’s agents tracked him in Belgium, where he was awarded citizenship after arriving there as a refugee, and even in the United States, where he toured and spoke. He has been derided and threatened. He also received the Medal of Freedom hung round his neck by then president George W. Bush.

In an 7 April 2007 ceremony held in Rwanda to mark the 13th anniversary of the genocide, President Paul Kagame called him a “swindler” and “gangster” who works with other swindlers and gangsters who support him. The speech has raised fears in Rwanda, and amongst the Rwandan Diaspora around the world. It was not the slander of Paul Rusesabagina that has upset the Rwandan people, but the other things that President Kagame said, and the way that he said them, in Kinyarwanda. In keeping with the general climate of silence and disinformation about the political realities in Rwanda, Paul Kagame’s words went untold by the Western press.

A once-revered citizen living in Rwanda, Paul Rusesabagina became one of Paul Kagame’s fiercest critics in exile. On 27 August 2020, Rusesabagina was lured and kidnapped by the Rwandan government, renditioned to Kigali in complete contravention of international laws and treaties. Even Rwanda’s own Penal Code qualifies abduction as a serious and punishable offence:

Article 151: Abduction and unlawful detention of a person:

“Any person who, by violence, deception or threats, abducts or causes to be abducted, unlawfully detains or causes to be detained another person, commits an offence. Upon conviction, he/she is liable to imprisonment for a term of not less than five (5) years and not more than seven (7) years.”

“Rwandan dictator Paul Kagame is a dictator who does not tolerate dissent,” wrote Brian Endless, PhD, Director of African Studies and the African Diaspora at Loyola University Chicago, in a lengthy report detailing the true history and false charges brought by the Rwandan government. Kagame “slanders and intimidates critics of his government, including calling them “terrorists”, who has a long record of imprisoning and even killing those he considers to be critics or political opponents.” [3]

For Paul Kagame and the RPF, the goal of their seizure of power—premised on the aristocratic Tutsi’s historical and deeply inculcated psychological narrative of Tutsi entitlement—has always been to eliminate as many Rwandans inside Rwanda as possible, seize and occupy the long-dreamed of but heavily populated Rwandan hills, and take revenge. Hutus were the primary targets, but ‘interior’ Tutsis were also targeted.

The RPF’s ascension to power in central Africa parallels the rise of the Directorate of Military Intelligence, a complex, ultra-secretive, layered organization comprised of thousands of military and civilian intelligence operatives, assassins, infiltrators, informants and handlers. Under the direct control of Paul Kagame and his top Tutsi commanders, the structure, methods and tactics of the DMI resemble the structures of intelligence and control that obtained during the bloody terror epochs under the last Tutsi kings (mwamis) of the Nyaginya dynasty: Kigeli IV Rwabugiri (reign: 1853-1895) and Yuhi Musinga (reign: 1896-1931). The DMI watches everything and everyone.

Kagame uses the DMI and special ‘technicians’ to instill fear in everyone, modeling his reign of power on the reign of absolute terror that obtained under King Rwabugiri. The system of power and control relies on structures, concepts and systems that originated in the traditional precolonial Nyaginya kingdoms. The Intore, for example—‘the chosen ones’—were elite fighters attached to the king’s household. The RPF has deployed thousands of Intore, chosen from all walks of life—“bus drivers, teachers, nurses, doctors, civil servants, journalists and other professionals”—as infiltrators, spies, informants, murderers and assassins trained at secret camps and diffused throughout Rwanda and its thousand hills.[4] Kagame and the DMI’s network of spies and assassins also proliferate outside Rwanda.[5]

Rwanda is built on a culture of lying and deception—a very sophisticated intellectual and psychological practice known as Ubwenge—inherited from the aristocratic Tutsis and their pre-colonial and colonial traditions.[6] Lying is routine, calculated, without conscience.  Paul Kagame is the supreme liar, and the ‘Rwanda genocide’ is the supreme lie.

The greatest difference between Rwabugiri’s reign is that Kagame has adapted modern technologies and perfected the techniques, methods and sophistication of the system of power, intimidation, and control.

For one stark example, the Arusha Peace Accords (1993) legitimized the RPF’s illegal invasion of Rwanda and they gave the RPF a disproportionate share of power. The accords served as a devastating policy instrument used against the Rwandan government of Juvenal Habyarimana to force concessions favorable to the RPF: the accords were a monumental charade that the RPF had no intentions of honoring.  The accords also served the duplicitous RPF tactic of ‘fight and talk’ and each diplomatic demarche of this sort allowed the RPF to further infiltrate and consolidate its power.

Under the accords the RPF troops demanded a military presence to protect RPF officials in Kigali: a contingent of 600 RPA soldiers (with over 100 DMI operatives) were stationed at the Centre Nationale de Developpement (CND) parliament in Kigali.  Kagame’s DMI operatives and technicians used the CND as a base to terrorize Kigali from August 1993 to April 1994: RPF dissidents have confessed to bombing cafes and buses, assassinating Hutu leaders, fomenting chaos everywhere.

The ‘technicians’ reported to the DMI high command, directly under the control of Paul Kagame. Even before the 100 days of carnage, the DMI was enacting the most horrible, cold-blooded revenge.  While ‘interior’ Tutsis were also targeted, the actions against Hutus— described by RPF defectors—constitute genocide on no uncertain terms.

Commanded by Paul Kagame, the Rwandan Patriotic Army—comprised of English speaking Tutsis (many with Ugandan citizenship) who had fought for Yoweri Museveni in the genocidal war in Uganda and funded by powerful Tutsi elites in the diaspora—killed hundreds of thousands of Hutus between 1990 and 1995, and they killed Tutsis by staging attacks so that the blame would fall on the Habyarimana government.

From October 1990 the RPA scorched earth through northern Rwanda, obliterating entire villages. Practicing a bad-faith strategy of “talk and fight,” the RPA displaced over a million Rwandans. Famine, starvation, assassinations, and massacres attended the RPA’s every duplicitous advance. The masses in Rwanda justifiably feared renewed subjugation under the exiled Tutsi guerrilla from Uganda—who they saw depopulating and seizing their beloved Rwandan hills. Meanwhile, the RPA solidified their victor’s narrative—Hutus as killers, Tutsis as victims—through the Western press and human rights nexus.

Hutus suffered most, but “interior” Tutsis— French-speaking Tutsis who stayed behind or returned to Rwanda after the “Hutu revolution” of 1959 and the subsequent Tutsi refugee warrior Inyenzi attacks of the 1960s—were also churned to blood and dust by the RPA grinding machine. The elite Tutsi military’s assassination of Burundi’s Hutu president (1993) and the RPA’s double-presidential assassinations of Rwanda and Burundi’s Hutu presidents on April 6, 1994 sparked the violence of the so-called “100 days of genocide”.

“The thesis of Mr. Kagame’s RPF, considered today as the ‘official’ thesis, claims that the Hutus prepared acts of genocide against the Tutsis.” Cameroonian journalist Charles Onana nailed it. “That genocide would not have been possible, however, without the attack against the airplane. The key question is, therefore, who shot down the airplane?”

“The Bush and Clinton administrations, with their British counterparts, supported Kagame and the RPA because Habyarimana, though originally installed in a CIA-supported coup in 1973, had become a proxy of the French. After Habyarimana’s killing Clinton urged the removal of UN forces so the RPA would win Rwanda’s civil war.” How deeply did the Pentagon, CIA, NSA, Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA), USAID, U.S. Special Forces, Canadian Security Intelligence Services, and MI-6 back the RPA juggernaut?

French journalist Charles Onana reported that the UN’s Rwanda Emergency Office, set up in Nairobi (Kenya) in April 1994, was staffed by U.S. Army officers (and others) who acted as the Operational Headquarters for the RPA, listened in on all the Rwandan government’s military (Forces Armées Rwandaises) communications, provided intelligence, and directed RPA field operations.

“Whoever shot down the plane, the killing began within hours, as Kagame and his Tutsi army fought their way toward Kigali to stop the genocide they had helped provoke.” U.S. scholar-diplomat Stephen Weissman wrongly asserts the false narrative where “Kagame and his Tutsi army” stopped the genocide, and the authors of the assassinations are unknown, but he also flags covert operative Roger Winter. “Traveling with them, by his own account, was at least one American—[Kagame’s] friend Roger Winter. Should Congress ever investigate America’s role in the Rwandan holocaust, Mr. Winter would be a star witness.”

Roger Winter was not the only foreign intelligence operative involved in the aristocratic Tutsis’ war to reclaim Rwanda. Israeli Mossad spy-master David Kimche was believed to be in the field with the RPA. Other officials who should be tried in an international war crimes and genocide tribunal include: Herman Jay Cohen, Prudence Bushnell, Richard A. Clarke, Brian Atwood, Andrew Young, Madeleine Albright, and U.S. defense attachés Lt. Col. Thomas P. Odom, Richard Skow, Lt. Col. Richard K. Orth, Lt. Colonel Bud Rassmusen, and the DIA’s Africa spymaster William G. Thom.

*

On April 6, 1994, at 8:22 PM, two MANPADS surface-to-air missiles (SAMs) were fired at Rwandan president Juvenal Habyarimana’s presidential plane as it prepared to land at Kigali International Airport. One missile missed; the second missile hit the plane causing it to explode over the Habyarimana presidential residence. The presidents of Rwanda and Burundi, their aides, Rwanda’s military chief of staff, two Burundian cabinet ministers, and the French crew of Jacques Heraud, Jean-Pierre Minaberry, and Jean-Michel Perrine were killed. The French crew were operating “in official service” to France.

Within hours of the murders the RPA had mobilized a major assault on Kigali, impossible absent substantial a priori planning. Luc Marchal, the Belgian UNAMIR commander of the UN Assistance Mission in Rwanda (UNAMIR), “was astounded how fast RPF forces—between 25,000 and 30,000 troops—moved into position after the plane was shot down.”

The U.S. military heavily backed the RPF tactically and strategically. Key to the operation were “former” Special Operations Forces (Ronco Company) providing military equipment and ferrying RPA troops from Uganda to Rwanda, the Pentagon’s logistical and communications support, and DIA and CIA operatives.

The SAMs used in the double presidential attack came from U.S. military stockpiles seized during the first Iraq war and were reportedly assembled at a warehouse in Kigali rented by a CIA Swiss front company. French anti-terrorist Judge Jean-Louis Bruguiere spent several years investigating the shoot-down on behalf of the families of the French flight crew. Bruguiere told Boutros-Boutros Ghali, secretary-general of the UN in 1994, that the CIA was involved in shooting down the plane.

Contrary to Pentagon and U.S. State Department claims that satellite reconnaissance photos of Rwandan (or Zaire) territory were unavailable, the Pentagon provided very clear satellite imagery shot over Rwanda at the height of the “100 days of genocide” to the Department of Homeland Security for its unjust framing and prosecution of Rwandan refugees hunted by the Kagame regime.

What happened in Rwanda from 1990 to 1994 can be counted amongst the Western defense and intelligence apparatus’ most sanguinary achievements: a U.S.-sponsored coup d’etat that dis- placed French interests in Central Africa in favor of North American, British, Belgian, and Israeli interests. These interests revolve around plunder and private profit, and they prevail through de-population, destruction, and terrorism as policy.

In 1990, the RPF created the Directorate of Military Intelligence (DMI) to oversee their military structure. “The DMI is hated and feared by most of the Rwandan population, inside and out- side of Rwanda due to its reputation for cruelty and killing operations,” reads a “Top Secret” UN report documenting RPF terrorism (suppressed by the UN for years). “Most of the massacres attributed to the RPA were committed by the DMI.

Under Jack Nziza, head of special actions at the DMI, operatives infiltrated government-controlled zones wearing Hutu army uniforms and assassinated prominent Hutus and Tutsis, while routinely committing sabotage. On the hills of Rwanda, the RPF massacred Hutus in batches of tens, hundreds, and sometimes thousands, buried them in mass graves, dug up these graves, and burned the bodies to disappear all evidence.

The crimes committed by the RPF are so horrible that the perpetrators only want to forget them: “Injecting syringes of kerosene into ears. Smothering people with plastic bags. Choking with ropes and cords. Impaling women and girls with tools. Using agafuny—the RPF’s war hammer—to crack skulls and spill brain matter out like porridge. Burying people alive. Shooting women and children in the back. Forcing victims to dig their own graves. The methods are intimate, sadistic. They were used before, during and after the genocide, and are still being used on civilians by the Directorate of Military Intelligence.”

In the environment of lies, distortions, and terror, no one can be trusted, informants proliferate, people are perpetually watched, and friends and neighbors are interrogated, arrested, charged with crimes they didn’t commit. Rwandans are forced to confess and recant (depending on the prerogatives of the day), while the highest officials are sometimes assassinated, and people are routinely disappeared. Survivors of atrocities suffer unbearable grief, social isolation, and loss of meaning in life due to their inability to exhume, celebrate, bury, and mourn their dead loved ones, and the suffering is worsened by the political climate of unspeakability that prevents victims from discussing who was killed and who killed them.

Power and control are maintained by instilling terror, and this translates to silencing all dissent, all discussion. The DMI provides a structure that is both hierarchical and overlapping, with checks and balances ensuring total domination and total subservience. Hutu, Tutsi, Twa, anyone and everyone in Rwanda from the poorest peasant to Kagame’s closest military “comrades” are living and dying in a climate of absolute fear and insecurity dictated by a twisted, modernized, more fascistic and sadistic version of the traditional pre-colonial ideology of aristocratic Tutsi supremacy. At the pinnacle of this elite extremist terror space is Paul Kagame.

The RPF war created a huge population of internal refugees and a state of absolute terror across the northern sectors of Rwanda. UN Rapporteur Ndiaye cited 350,000 displaced prior to February 1993, and between 800,000 and one million by August 1993. These desperate internally displaced people fled to and surrounded Kigali.

“In Byumba—where the RPF first invaded Rwanda from Uganda in October 1990—Kagame went to a market and committed so many atrocities,” says Dr. Eliel Ntakirutimana, a Rwandan medical doctor practicing in Laredo, Texas. Philip Gourevitch judged and convicted Pastor Elizaphan Ntakirutimana, Eliel Ntakirutimana’s father, in his fictitious book even before the pastor had been arrested. “More than a million people fled to Kigali. All their farms had been taken, all their goats killed, they were living on the streets. When these people hear that the RPF is coming to Kigali, what do you think they are going to do? They are going to FIGHT!”

Rwanda was no tragedy in the geopolitical eyes of Western capitalist corporate power; it was a resounding success story celebrating the implementation of the new “humanitarian” intervention and the whitewashing of genocide. Paul Kagame and his elite Tutsi commandos committed war crimes, crimes against humanity, and genocide before, during, and after the “100 days of carnage” of 1994, and they continue doing so to this day. They are also responsible for the genocide against Tutsis.

*

Note to readers: please click the share buttons above or below. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.

Notes

[1] See: Keith Harmon Snow interview with Paul Rusesabagina: “The Grinding Machine: Terror and Genocide in Rwanda,” Toward Freedom, April 24, 2007.

[2] See: Keith Harmon Snow, “Hotel Rwanda: Hollywood and the Holocaust in Central Africa,” http://allthingspass.com/journalism.php?catid=47 .

[3] Brian Endless, PhD, Paul Rusesabagina, the MRCD and the FLN: what s the real story? A report to confront the false charges brought by the Rwandan government,” March 2021.

[4] Judi Rever, In Praise of Blood: The Crimes of the Rwandan Patriotic Front, Random House Canada, 2018: 122.

[5] See, e.g.: Amy Greenbank, Spies in our Suburbs: Unearthing an Alleged Shadowy Network of Spies and their Efforts to Silence Dissent, Australian Broadcasting Corporation, August 19, 2019; and Keith Harmon Snow, “The US Sponsored ‘Rwanda Genocide’ and its Aftermath: Psychological Warfare, Embedded Reporters and the Hunting of Refugees,” Global Research, April 12, 2008.

[6] See: Tutsi Prince Antoine Nyetera, Rwandan Culture and Mindset, https://jdloperfectingtheunion.wordpress.com/2018/07/05/rwandan-mindset-and-culture-a-document/; and Gaspard Musabyimana, “The Culture of Lying in Rwanda,” https://jdloperfectingtheunion.wordpress.com/2019/06/17/the-culture-of-lying-in-rwanda/. The latter document was first published in French with the title, “La Culture du Mensonge au Rwanda,” by a Rwandan exiled in France in support of French writer, Pierre Pean, who was sued by Paul Kagame because he wrote a book titled Noires Fureurs, blancs menteurs (2005) in which the author accused Paul Kagame of hatred towards both Hutus and Tutsis. Pierre Pean wrote that Kagame and all Rwandans in general use systematically ‘lying’ and ‘covering up’ or ‘concealment’ as a modus operandi and culture.

Latest Vaccine Flip-flop Gives the Vaccine Game Away

April 7th, 2021 by Dr. Meryl Nass

All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the “Translate Website” drop down menu on the top banner of our home page (Desktop version).

***

The Astra-Zeneca “cheap and easy to store” “workhorse” vaccine causes blood clots in general, and in particular clots in the venous sinuses of the brain, which have killed or wounded a number of people, especially women under 55.  

The European Medicines Agency, the European Union’s regulator, said it is investigating at least 44 cases of the rare brain clots and at least 14 deaths among about 9.2 million vaccinations in 30 European countries...

As of March 29, Germany’s regulator has reported 31 cases of the unusual blood clots in 2.7 million people vaccinated with the AstraZeneca vaccine, nine of whom have died. 

The J and J vaccine was associated with blood clots in its clinical trial data presented to FDA.  Both vaccines use an adenovirus vector to deliver DS DNA that codes for spike protein, and human cellular machinery produces this protein, for an uncertain period of time in uncertain quantities. So blood clotting may be due to the adenovirus vector, or to the spike protein, or to something entirely different.

The mRNA vaccines use mRNA to code for the spike, using cellular machinery to produce the spike protein.  The end result of all 4 vaccines is similar, and again, we do not know for how long the body makes this protein.

If the spike itself induces clotting, which is a reasonable hypothesis scientists have put forth, but is unproven, then all 4 vaccines would be thrombogenic (induce clotting). Dr. Patrick Whelan tried to warn the FDA about this possibility, but was ignored.  He wrote:

Meinhardt et al. (Nature Neuroscience 2020, in press) show that the spike protein in brain endothelial cells is associated with formation of microthrombi (clots), and like Magro et al. do not find viral RNA in brain endothelium. In other words, viral proteins appear to cause tissue damage without actively replicating virus.

Is it possible the spike protein itself causes the tissue damage associated with Covid-19? Nuovo et al (in press) have shown that in 13/13 brains from patients with fatal COVID-19, pseudovirions (spike, envelope, and membrane proteins) without viral RNA are present in the endothelia of cerebral microvessels.

This is frightening information, providing a strong hint of the spike protein’s potential toxicity.

*

How did 20 countries deal with the clotting issue?

First they halted the vaccinations until they could review all the available data and get their narratives aligned. They then decided the A-Z vaccine did cause clots.  But you cannot waste Covid vaccine (unless you are Emergent BioSolutions) so it had to be used.  But in whom?  In poorer countries of course.  But what about the supplies already purchased by western Europe?

The public health leaders came up with a great idea.  Restrict it, just for the elderly.  If they die, there is almost always a preexisting condition to blame. But apparently that wasn’t enough.  So they have started testing this vaccine in children.

A few countries stopped the A-Z vaccine altogether.

France, Germany, Sweden and Canada are among those restricting its use in younger people, while Denmark and Norway have maintained a complete pause.

Can you imagine what the informed consent says?  “We are testing a vaccine known to cause lethal blood clots in children, who almost never get severe Covid–therefore the benefits won’t exceed the risks of the vaccine in this demographic.  Your child is at greater risk of dying from the vaccine than the disease.”  How many parents would sign?  Obviously, there must be lies on the consent form.  Here is a legal case for you British barristers.

As I was writing this, the news appeared that the clinical trials of the A-Z vaccine in children were finally paused, just today. Which is 2-3 weeks after the blood clotting issue surfaced.

How well does the Astra-Zeneca vaccine work in the elderly?  Only two months ago the leaders of France and Germany told us:

Officials in Germany claim the Astra-Zeneca vaccine  is only 8% effective in those over 65. French President Macron has complained to Agence France Press that the A-Z vaccine was only “quasi-ineffective for people over 65.”

So, in order to use up the supply, or perhaps for other purposes, Germany will now use the vaccine only in those over 60, and France will use it only in those over 55 — which are the age groups in whom they claimed it didn’t work.

In case it is not yet clear, this latest flip-flop from Macron and Merkel reveals the truth.  The purpose of the vaccines is obviously not to protect us. The vaccines enrich Pharma. The vaccine passports enable much greater control over the citizenry. There may be additional agendas.  But this is clearly not about our health.

*

Note to readers: please click the share buttons above or below. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.

Featured image is from Collective Evolution

Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity on Avoiding War in Ukraine

April 7th, 2021 by Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity

All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the “Translate Website” drop down menu on the top banner of our home page (Desktop version).

***

MEMORANDUM FOR: The President

FROM: Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity (VIPS)

SUBJECT: Avoiding War in Ukraine

Dear President Biden,

We last communicated with you on December 20, 2020, when you were President-elect.

At that time, we alerted you to the dangers inherent in formulating a policy toward Russia built on a foundation of Russia-bashing. While we continue to support the analysis contained in that memorandum, this new memo serves a far more pressing purpose. We wish to draw your attention to the dangerous situation that exists in Ukraine today, where there is growing risk of war unless you take steps to forestall such a conflict.

At this juncture, we call to mind two basic realities that need particular emphasis amid growing tension between Ukraine and Russia.

First, since Ukraine is not a member of NATO, Article 5 of the NATO Treaty of course would not apply in the case of an armed conflict between Ukraine and Russia.

Second, Ukraine’s current military flexing, if allowed to transition into actual military action, could lead to hostilities with Russia.

We think it crucial that your administration immediately seek to remove from the table, so to speak, any “solution” to the current impasse that has a military component. In short, there is, and can never be, a military solution to this problem.

Your interim national security strategy guidance indicated that your administration would “make smart and disciplined choices regarding our national defense and the responsible use of our military, while elevating diplomacy as our tool of first resort.” Right now is the perfect time to put these words into action for all to see.

We strongly believe:

1. It must be made clear to Ukrainian President Zelensky that there will be no military assistance from either the US or NATO if he does not restrain Ukrainian hawks itching to give Russia a bloody nose — hawks who may well expect the West to come to Ukraine’s aid in any conflict with Russia. (There must be no repeat of the fiasco of August 2008, when the Republic of Georgia initiated offensive military operations against South Ossetia in the mistaken belief that the US would come to its assistance if Russia responded militarily.)

2. We recommend that you quickly get back in touch with Zelensky and insist that Kiev halt its current military buildup in eastern Ukraine. Russian forces have been lining up at the border ready to react if Zelensky’s loose talk of war becomes more than bravado. Washington should also put on hold all military training activity involving US and NATO troops in the region. This would lessen the chance that Ukraine would misinterpret these training missions as a de facto sign of support for Ukrainian military operations to regain control of either the Donbas or Crimea.

3. It is equally imperative that the U.S. engage in high-level diplomatic talks with Russia to reduce tensions in the region and de-escalate the current rush toward military conflict. Untangling the complex web of issues that currently burden U.S.-Russia relations is a formidable task that will not be accomplished overnight. This would be an opportune time to work toward a joint goal of preventing armed hostilities in Ukraine and wider war.

There is opportunity as well as risk in the current friction over Ukraine. This crisis offers your administration the opportunity to elevate the moral authority of the United States in the eyes of the international community. Leading with diplomacy will greatly enhance the stature of America in the world.

For the Steering Group, Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity

  • William Binney, former Technical Director, World Geopolitical & Military Analysis, NSA; co-founder, SIGINT Automation Research Center (ret.)
  • Marshall Carter-Tripp, Foreign Service Officer & former Division Director in the State Department Bureau of Intelligence and Research (ret.)
  • Bogdan Dzakovic, former Team Leader of Federal Air Marshals and Red Team, FAA Security (ret.) (associate VIPS)
  • Graham E. Fuller,Vice-Chair, National Intelligence Council (ret.)
  • Robert M. Furukawa, Captain, Civil Engineer Corps, USNR (ret.)
  • Philip Giraldi, CIA, Operations Officer (ret.)
  • Mike Gravel, former Adjutant, top secret control officer, Communications Intelligence Service; special agent of the Counter Intelligence Corps and former United States Senator
  • John Kiriakou, former CIA Counterterrorism Officer and former Senior Investigator, Senate Foreign Relations Committee
  • Karen Kwiatkowski, former Lt. Col., US Air Force (ret.), at Office of Secretary of Defense watching the manufacture of lies on Iraq, 2001-2003
  • Edward Loomis, NSA Cryptologic Computer Scientist (ret.)
  • Ray McGovern, former US Army infantry/intelligence officer & CIA presidential briefer (ret.)
  • Elizabeth Murray, former Deputy National Intelligence Officer for the Near East & CIA political analyst (ret.)
  • Pedro Israel Orta, CIA Operations Officer & Analyst; Inspector with IG for the Intelligence Community (ret.)
  • Todd E. Pierce, MAJ, US Army Judge Advocate (ret.)
  • Scott Ritter, former MAJ., USMC, former UN Weapon Inspector, Iraq
  • Coleen Rowley, FBI Special Agent and former Minneapolis Division Legal Counsel (ret.)
  • Kirk Wiebe, former Senior Analyst, SIGINT Automation Research Center, NSA
  • Sarah G. Wilton, CDR, USNR, (ret.); Defense Intelligence Agency (ret.)
  • Robert Wing, U.S. Department of State, Foreign Service Officer (former) (associate VIPS)
  • Ann Wright, U.S. Army Reserve Colonel (ret) and former U.S. Diplomat who resigned in 2003 in opposition to the Iraq War

*

Note to readers: please click the share buttons above or below. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.

The Great Rwanda “Genocide Coverup”

April 7th, 2021 by Prof Peter Erlinder

All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the “Translate Website” drop down menu on the top banner of our home page (Desktop version).

***

First published in February 2008.

Remembering the “Rwanda Genocide”, April 7, 1994

***

As George Bush begins his much bally-hooed African safari, he has already begun to heap praise on Rwandan President Kagame as a “model for Africa.”  But, recently issued French and Spanish international “war-crimes” warrants and new evidence at the UN Rwanda Tribunal have exposed Kagame as the war-criminal who actually touched-off the 1994 “Rwanda Genocide” by assassinating the previous President and who is benefiting from a decades-long U.S.-sponsored “cover-up” of Pentagon complicity in massacres committed by Kagame’s regime, which even Britain’s Economist has called “the most repressive in Africa.” [1]

Multiple “War Crimes” Warrants Issued for Rwanda ’s Leaders

Just last week, a Spanish Judge issued 40 international warrants for current and former members of Kagame’s government, including senior staff at Rwanda ’s Washington Embassy. The warrants charge Kagame’s clique with war-crimes and crimes against humanity, that may even fit the definition of “genocide.”  But, these are not the only international arrest warrants issued for Rwanda’s current leaders.

French Judge Bruguiere (famous for indicting “the Jackal”) has also issued international warrants against nearly a dozen members of Kagame’s inner circle, too. Bruguiere also met with Kofi Annan in late 2006 to personally urge the U.N. Rwanda Tribunal to prosecute Kagame for the assassination of Juvenal Habyarimana, the war-crime that re-ignited the four-year Rwanda War and the massive civilian killings in the war’s final 90-days.

Could it be that no-one in the Bush Administration was aware of these pending charges against their Rwandan hosts….or is it that they just don’t care? In either case, the French and Spanish international arrest warrants have pierced the wall of US/UK/Rwandan propaganda about who bears responsible for the massive tragedy that unfolded in Rwanda …but the “official story” has actually been unraveling for some time (although largely un-reported in the U.S. media).

Chief UN Prosecutor del Ponte in 2003: “Rwanda ’s Leaders Guilty of War Crimes”

In the summer of 2003, Chief Prosecutor for the United Nations International Criminal Tribunals for Rwanda (ICTR), Carla del Ponte, publicly announced that she would soon begin prosecuting members of Kagame’s Government for the same kinds of crimes charged in the French and Spanish warrants. But, nearly 5 years later not one case has been filed against one member of Kagame’s government, nor against Kagame himself.

The del Ponte announced prosecutions did not go forward because she was replaced, within 90-days of her announcement, by Abubacar Jallow, a US/UK-approved Prosecutor who pledged not to prosecute on Kagame’s side….no matter what the del Ponte and the European judges’ findings! Prosecutor del Ponte’s long-time press-aide, Florence Hartmann, published a book in Paris in September 2007, that explains exactly how del Ponte was replaced.

Chief UN Prosecutor del Ponte was called to Washington just after her 2003 announcement and threatened with removal from office by Bush’ “war-crimes ambassador”, Pierre Prosper, because of the political quid pro quo between Washington and the Kagame regime that is spelled out in detail in the book. (Ironically, Prosper was a former ICTR prosecutor under del Ponte, and must have had access to the same information motivated her announcement). When she refused to ignore her UN-mandate, to prosecute all crimes committed during the 1994 Rwanda War, she was sacked by the U.S. and U.K. [2]

ICTR Chief Investigator in 1997: “Rwanda ’s Kagame Assassinated Previous President”

But this is not the first time that crimes of Kagame have been “covered-up” at the ICTR. According to sworn affidavits placed in the ICTR record in early 2006, more than 10 years ago, ICTR Lead Investigative Prosecutor, well-respected Australian QC Michael Hourigan, recommended that Kagame, himself, be prosecuted for the assassination of Habyarimana. But, in 1997, then-Chief UN Prosecutor Louise Arbour of Canada ordered him to drop the Kagame investigation; to forget it ever happened; and, to burn his notes! Hourigan resigned rather than comply and copies of his original notes are now part of the ICTR public record for all to see. [3]

The “Rwanda Genocide” Cover-up on Clinton ’s Watch

The Hourigan affidavit makes clear that the “Rwanda Genocide”– Cover-up has been going on for at least a decade…but the reasons for the cover-up did not become clear until late 2007, when a senior Clinton Administration diplomat, Brian Atwood, was confronted with UN documents describing a 1994 “cover-up” meeting with the Rwandan Foreign Minister in Kigali and the UN’s Kofi Annan. According to the UN documents, U.S.-sponsored human rights reports by investigator, Robert Gersony, had documented massive military-style executions of civilians by Kagame’s troops, during and after the final 90-days of the four-year Rwanda War. [4]

The former Rwandan Foreign Minister at the meeting, Jean Marie Ndagiyimana, testified at the ICTR that, rather than participate in the proposed “cover-up,” he resigned and went into exile where he remains today. His ICTR testimony confirmed that Clinton’s USAID Chief for Africa, Brian Atwood, and the chief of the UN Department of Peace Keeping Operations Kofi Annan, were both in his office in late October 1994 urging him to assist in the “cover-up” the war-crimes committed by Kagame’s forces. [5]

The “Inconvenient Truth” Behind the Cover-up: Pentagon Complicity in the 1994 Rwanda War

The damning “Gersony Report” included first-hand evidence of tens of thousands of civilians being massacred by Kagame’s troops in eastern Rwanda, later confirmed by similar reports by Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International. The U.N. Document (also in the ICTR record) says that Annan told the Foreign Minister that public knowledge of the Report would be “embarrassing to the UN” and the U.S. Former Clinton-diplomat, Brian Atwood, not only confirmed he was at the meeting, but explained that he had engaged Gersony, and that Gersony’s findings of war-crimes being committed by Kagame were “…an inconvenient truth” for both the United States and the UN.

According to Atwood, unknown to the State Department, “the Pentagon had been supporting Kagame since before the 1990 invasion, when he was the head of Military Intelligence for the Museveni government of Uganda.” The “Gersony Report” tied the Pentagon to the crimes of Kagame’s invading, Pentagon-trained and funded forces. More UN documents in the ICTR record reveal that the State Department was negotiating for a peaceful settlement of the war at the same time the Pentagon was supporting Kagame’s invasion. The Clinton Administration to enlisted Atwood and Kofi Annan in keeping evidence of Kagame’s crimes from ever seeing the light of day, to prevent Pentagon involvement in the “Rwandan Genocide” from ever coming to light. [6]

The existence of a separate Pentagon foreign policy on Rwanda also tallies with the ICTR testimony of former Ambassador Robert Flaten, who testified that he seriously doubted that Habyarimana’s supporters planned to kill civilians on a massive scale because the CIA and other intelligence agencies would have reported it when he was in Rwanda from 1990 to late 93. [7] He said that his requests for Pentagon-DIA spy satellite photographs showing the progress of the war in the countryside were turned down because of “clouds over Rwanda,” during his entire 3-plus years in Rwanda. [8] He also noted that support from Uganda for the 1990 Kagame invasion coincided with increased Ugandan military funding by the U.S./U.K. Flaten also testified that he personally warned Kagame that he would be responsible for massacres like just happened in Burundi, if Kagame broke the cease-fire and re-started that war.

In short, the evidence that now is in the public record shows that during the 1994 Rwanda Genocide, the Pentagon could have stopped the carnage with a phone call….and the State Department apparently did not know enough about the Pentagon’s close ties to Kagame to ask them to do so, at least until USAID’s Atwood was informed of Pentagon reaction to the “Gersony Report,” in the summer of 1994.

Other de-classified State Department documents show that it was the invading Kagame forces that were the aggressors, and were blocking the State Departments efforts to implement the Arusha Accords, peace agreement. [9] The UN’s General Dallaire has testified that Kagame would not agree to a ceasefire to use troops to stop the massacres because “he was winning the war.” [10]   And, now we know what Dallaire may not have known, until later…Kagame was winning with the Pentagon’s help.

The Great “Rwanda Genocide” Cover-up Continues under Bush

The “Rwanda Genocide” – Cover-up of Pentagon complicity in Kagame’s crimes is almost complete, as the U.S. cuts Rwanda Tribunal funding to shut it down by the end of 2008. Carla del Ponte’s replacement, Abubacar Jallow, will be conveniently unable to carry out the prosecutions that del Ponte urged in 2003, or those initiated by Judge Bruguiere in 2006, or Judge Ag____, just last week.

However, the international warrants are still in effect, the del Ponte book and Hourigan’s affidavit have begun to unravel the whole sordid manipulation… .but, unless the “Rwanda Genocide” Cover-up makes it onto Page One in Europe and North America, it may be too late for the ICTR detainees….who are being held responsible for the crimes of the Kagame regime, a bit like the UN holding the Japanese responsible for Hiroshima and the Germans for the fire-bombing of Dresden.

With U.S. and U.K. support, Kagame’s government is actively campaigning to have all ICTR matters transferred to Rwanda and has issued 40,000 warrants for Kagame’s Hutu and Tutsi opponents in the worldwide Rwandan diaspora. (A movement that includes such as figures Paul Rusesabagina, the real hero of the Hotel Rwanda).

Correcting the Historical Record and Ending the Cover-up

But, I have to disclose my own bias because, under the laws of Rwanda, I too am a criminal “negationist” for writing this essay and President Kagame has personally denounced me as a “genocidaire” for my work as an ICTR defense lawyer. My former investigator is seeking asylum in Europe and the ICTR Prosecutor who replaced Carla del Ponte is now prosecuting defense investigator for asking too many questions in Rwanda, but denounced Judge Bruguiere’s request for the UN to prosecute Kagame and Spanish Judge Abreau, as well.

An ICTR defense lawyer, like me, has to hope that, despite all that is now known about the manipulations of the ICTR by the U.S. and U.K. for their own political purposes, the ICTR Judges will not be influenced by the sacking of del Ponte and that they will carefully evaluate the evidence in my client’s case….but it is hard to be too optimistic.

At least my conscience is clear, now that the Great “Rwanda Genocide”— Cover-up has been exposed. But, I wonder if the Judges, Prosecutors, other UN-ICTR officials (who now know about the manipulation of their best efforts) will be able to say the same, if they allow the ICTR “Rwanda Genocide”- Cover-up to continue?

During the week’s festivities in Rwanda, the Presidents Bush and Kagame are sure to find much in common, as would Tony Blair, who has recently signed-on as an “unpaid”-advisor to Kagame.   All three stand accused of war crimes, and are mutually benefiting from the US/UK/Rwandan “cover-up” of their own complicity in the “Rwandan Genocide” tragedy….that should put all three in the dock at the UN-ICTR.

*

Note to readers: please click the share buttons above or below. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.

Prof. Peter Erlinder, Wm. Mitchell College of Law, St. Paul , MN 55105 (651-290-6384) peter.erlinder@ wmitchell. edu .   Past- President of the National Lawyers Guild and is Lead Defence Counsel for former Major Aloys Ntabakuze in the Military 1 Trial at the ICTR, the central case in the Tribunal.   All of the documents and testimony referenced above are in the court record at the ICTR, except for the interview of Ambassador Brian Atwood, which occurred in December 2007 at his office at the University of Minnesota , Humphrey Institute.

Notes

[1] The Economist , April, 2004

[2] Hartmann, Paix et chatiment: les guerres del la politique (2007 Flammarion, Paris)

[3] See Hourigan Affidavit and related documents in Miltary 1 record at the ICTR.

[4] See, UN documents in the Military 1 trial record at the ICTR.

[5] See ICTR Testimony of Ndagiyimana, November 2006, and related documents

[6] Interview with Dean Brian Atwood, Humphrey Institute, University of Minnesota , December 22, 2007.

[7] See Flaten ICTR testimony, July 2006.

[8] Interview with Robert Flaten in Arusha TZ, July 2006.

[9] See, April 1, 1994 Cable from U.S. Embassy in Kigali to Kampala Uganda in the ICTR Military 1 Trial Record.

[10] See ICTR Testimony of Gen. Romeo Dallaire and associated documents, January 2006.

Britain’s Role in Rwanda’s 1994 Genocide

April 7th, 2021 by Mark Curtis

All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the “Translate Website” drop down menu on the top banner of our home page (Desktop version).

***

First published in January 2017

An edited extract from Web of Deceit: Britain’s Real Role in the World

In the hundreds of media articles on the 1994 Rwanda genocide, there is barely a mention of Britain being a permanent member of the UN security council and in any way responsible for what happened. I recounted Britain’s role in my previous book, The Great Deception, so I will not repeat everything here. Since then, however, another book, by Linda Melvern, an investigative journalist, confirms the quite terrible British, and US, role.

After the killings began in early April 1994, the UN security council, instead of beefing up it’s peace mission in the country and giving it a stronger mandate to intervene, decided to reduce the troop presence from 2,500 to 270. This decision sent a green light to those who had planned the genocide that the UN would not intervene. A small UN military force arrived merely to rescue expats, and then left. Belgium’s senior army officer in the UN peace mission believed that if this force had not been pulled out, the killing could have been stopped. Canadian general Romeo Dallaire, who commanded the UN force in Rwanda, later said that this evacuation showed “inexcusable apathy by the sovereign states that made up the UN, that is completely beyond comprehension and moral acceptability”.

It was Britain’s ambassador to the UN, Sir David Hannay, who proposed that the UN pull out its force; the US agreed. According to Melvern, it was left to the Nigerian ambassador, Ibrhaim Gambari, to point out that tens of thousands of civilians were dying at the time. Gambari also pleaded with the security council to reinforce the UN presence. But the US objected and Britain agreed, suggesting only to leave behind a token force, which became the 270 personnel.

On the security council at the time sat – by chance – Rwanda, as one of the ten non-permanent members. So British and US indifference and their policy of reducing the UN force, as expressed in the security council, was reported back to those directing the genocide in Rwanda. Melvern notes that “confident of no significant international opposition, it was decided to push ahead with further ‘pacification’ in the south” of the country. This led to tens of thousands more murders.

Romeo Dallaire, who had pleaded for reinforcements, complained that:

“My force was standing knee deep in mutilated bodies, surrounded by the guttural moans of dying people, looking into the eyes of dying children bleeding to death with their wounds burning in the sun and being invaded by maggots and flies. I found myself walking through villages where the only sign of life was a goat, or a chicken, or a songbird, as all the people were dead, their bodies being eaten by voracious packs of wild dogs”.

By May, with certainly tens of thousands and perhaps hundreds of thousands already dead, there was another UN proposal – to despatch 5,500 troops to help stop the massacres. This deployment was delayed by pressure mainly from the US ambassador, but with strong support from Britain. Dallaire believes that if these troops had been speadily deployed, tens of thousands more lives could have been saved. But the US and the British argued that before these troops went in, there needed to be a ceasefire in Rwanda, a quite insane suggestion given that one side was massacring innocent civilians. The US also ensured that this plan was watered down so that troops would have no mandate to use force to end the massacres.

Britain and the US also refused to provide the military airlift capability for the African states that were offering troops for this force. The RAF, for example, had plenty of transport aircraft that could have been deployed. Eventually, with delays continuing and thousands being killed by the day, Britain offered a measly 50 trucks. Lynda Chalker, then minister for overseas development, visited Dallaire in Rwanda in July. He gave her his list of requirements at the same time as noting that “I was up to my knees in bodies by then”. The 50 trucks had still not yet materialised. But later, on BBC2’s Newsnight, Chalker blamed Dallaire’s lack of resources on “the UN” which “ought to get its procurement right”.

Britain also went out of its way to ensure that the UN did not use the word “genocide” to describe the slaughter. Accepting that genocide was occurring would have obliged states to “prevent and punish” those guilty under the terms of the Geneva convention. In late April 1994, Britain, along with the US and China, secured a security council resolution that rejected the use of the term “genocide”. This resolution was drafted by the British.

The Czech republic’s ambassador to the UN, Karel Kovanda, confronted the security council about the fact of genocide at this time. He said that talking about withdrawing peacekeepers and getting a ceasefire was “rather like wanting Hitler to reach a ceasefire with the Jews”. There were objections to his comments, Kovanda said, and British and US diplomats quietly told him that on no account was he to use such inflammatory language outside the security council.

A July 1994 resolution spoke of “possible acts of genocide” and other security council documents used similarly restrained language. A year after the slaughters, the British Foreign Office sent a letter to an international enquiry saying that it still did not accept the term genocide. It said that it saw a discussion about whether the massacres constituted genocide as “sterile”.

Linda Melvern was told by UN Secretary General Boutros Boutros-Ghali that during the genocide he had individual private meetings with the British and US ambassadors (the US ambassador was Madeleine Albright, who went on to become Clinton’s secretary of state). Boutros-Ghali urged both of them to help stop the killing but said their reaction was: “Come on, Boutros, relax… Don’t put us in a difficult position…the mood is not for intervention, you will obtain nothing…we will not move”.

Let me summarise the British government’s contribution to the genocide in Rwanda. Britain used its diplomatic weight to severely reduce a UN force that, according to military officers on the ground, could have prevented the killings. It then helped ensure the delay of other plans for intervention, which sent a direct green light to the murderers in Rwanda to continue. Britain also refused to provide the capability for other states to intervene, while blaming the lack of such capability on the UN. Throughout, Britain helped ensure that the UN did not use the word “genocide” so the UN would not act, using diplomatic pressure on others to ensure this did not happen. British officials went out of their way to promote these policies and rebuffed personal pleas to help stop the killings from the UN Secretary General and the commander of the UN force. 

All this information is publicly available. We do not need to look over the Atlantic to think of trials of those who have acquiesced in genocide. There is a long list of British policy makers who are to some degree responsible – Prime Minister John Major, Foreign Secretary Douglas Hurd, Defence Secretary Malcolm Rifkind, Overseas Development Minister Lynda Chalker and UN ambassador Sir David Hannay foremost among them. But these people are being protected by the silence of the media and academia as well as the extreme lack of accountability in the political system.

Melvern notes that, especially in the early stages of the genocide, the press insisted on reporting events as “chaos and anarchy”, not a systematic campaign well planned in advance by Hutu extremists. In her view, “the media’s failure to report that genocide was taking place, and thereby generate public pressure for something to be done to stop it, contributed to international indifference and inaction, and possibly to the crime itself”.

There was only one press article I could find that went into any detail on Britain’s role on the security council. It noted that Britain’s ambassador at the UN was still dealing regularly with the ambassador of the government engaged in state-sponsored genocide.

Neither did the mother of parliaments attempt to address the British role in genocide – either at the time, or since. A debate in the House of Commons did not take place until nearly two months after the slaughter began. According to Melvern, “the Labour party waited until May before putting pressure on the government to act, and then only because Oxfam telephoned the office of David Clark, shadow secretary of state for defence”.

*

Note to readers: please click the share buttons above or below. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.

Help Us Protect the Future of GlobalResearch.ca

April 6th, 2021 by The Global Research Team

Dear Readers,

We have been bringing you independent news and analysis for over 19 years. Our intention is to continue to relentlessly promote independent voices that speak out on issues too often neglected by the corporate media. There are no two ways about it: to deliver on this intention, we need your help.

Do you value the reporting and in-depth analysis we provide, free of charge, on a daily basis? Do you think this resource should be maintained and preserved as a research tool for future generations? Bringing you 24/7 updates from all over the globe has real costs associated with it. Please give what you can to help us meet these costs! Click below to donate or click here to become a member of Global Research. With your help we can meet our monthly running costs…

Click to donate:

Click to make a one-time or a recurring donation


Click to become a member (receive free books!):

Click to view our membership plans


We thank you for your essential support!

Selected Articles: Vaccines Are the New ‘Purity Test’

April 6th, 2021 by Global Research News

Vaccines Are the New ‘Purity Test’

By Dr. Joseph Mercola, April 06 2021

As predicted last year, vaccine passports are being rolled out across the world, including the U.S. As reported by Ron Paul in his Liberty Report,1,2 which streamed live March 29, 2021, the Biden Administration is “seriously looking into establishing some kind of federal vaccine passport system.

Rwanda: Installing a US Protectorate in Central Africa

By Prof Michel Chossudovsky, April 06 2021

From the outset of the Rwandan civil war in 1990, Washington’s hidden agenda consisted in establishing an American sphere of influence in a region historically dominated by France and Belgium. America’s design was to displace France by supporting the Rwandan Patriotic Front and by arming and equipping its military arm, the Rwandan Patriotic Army (RPA)

Video: Myanmar: US-backed Opposition Is Armed

By Brian Berletic, April 06 2021

After weeks of denying the violence carried out by US-backed opposition groups in Myanmar, US-funded propaganda outlets like “Myanmar Now” are finally admitting and making excuses for the opposition fighting government security forces with war weapons.

A Fresh Voice Debunking Disinformation on Syria with Real Eyewitness Testimonies and a Genuine Anti-Hegemonic Context

By Dr. Ibrahim Alloush, April 06 2021

Moving back and forth between personal eyewitness testimonies and a broader objective contextualization of the Syrian conflict, “Voices from Syria” debunks disinformation about Syria with primary personal accounts, evidence, documentation, common sense, and sheer reason.

Human Rights for Children: Saving Children from COVID Measures Abuses

By Peter Koenig, April 06 2021

Children’s mask wearing (as well as for senior adults) causes chronic headaches and fatigue, because blood and brain receive insufficient oxygen which may lead to lasting damage, including memory loss. Children suffer psychological traumas. Depression and suicide rates increase exponentially.

COVID-19: Pandemic? Or Cult?

By Michael J. Talmo, April 06 2021

For the overwhelming majority of people, COVID-19 is a religion. On faith, they blindly accept that SARS-CoV-2 is the virus that causes COVID-19. On faith they believe that COVID-19 PCR, antigen and antibody tests are accurate.

Why Is the Biden Administration Pushing Ukraine to Attack Russia?

By Rep. Ron Paul, April 06 2021

On March 24th, Ukraine’s President Vladimir Zelensky signed what was essentially a declaration of war on Russia. In the document, titled Presidential Decree No. 117/2021, the US-backed Ukrainian leader declared that it is the official policy of Ukraine to take back Crimea from Russia.

Goodbye War on Terror, Hello Permanent Pandemic

By Children’s Health Defense, April 06 2021

Those in positions of power have long recognized that conditions of fear and panic furnish exploitable opportunities to restructure society. COVID-19 is certainly a textbook example of this observation, illustrating that well-tuned fear campaigns can persuade many people to abandon essential medical and individual freedoms.

UK Government Has Planned for Vaccine Passports All Along

By Steve Watson, April 06 2021

Despite consistently denying it, the UK government has planned for the rollout of vaccine passports all along, prompting charges that the “Covid passes are shrouded in government cover ups, lies and shady contracts.”

The Agri-Food Model, Unregulated Gene Editing Technologies

By Colin Todhunter, April 06 2021

The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation and an assortment of high-profile figures and policy makers are pushing for unregulated gene-editing technologies, the rollout of bio-synthetic food created in laboratories, the expanded use of patented seeds and the roll back of subsidies and support for farmers in places like India.

  • Posted in NO READ MORE LINK
  • Comments Off on Selected Articles: Vaccines Are the New ‘Purity Test’

All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the “Translate Website” drop down menu on the top banner of our home page (Desktop version).

***

Starting on 7 April 1994, in less than three months, nearly one million Rwandans – the exact figure has not yet been determined – were exterminated because they were (or supposed to be) Tutsis. Tens of thousands of moderate Hutus were also slaughtered. This was indeed a genocide, that is, the deliberate destruction of an entire community through mass murder in the aim of preventing their biological and social reproduction.

In this context, it is crucial to investigate the role played by international financial institutions. Everything we know leads us to believe that the policies imposed by these institutions, the main financial backers of General Juvénal Habyarimana’s dictatorial regime accelerated the process resulting in the genocide. In general, the negative impact of these policies is not taken into consideration to explain the tragic unfolding of the Rwandan crisis. Only a few authors highlight the responsibilities of the Bretton Woods institutions [1], which have rejected any kind of responsibility.

At the beginning of the 1980s, when the debt crisis exploded in the Third World, Rwanda (like its neighbour Burundi) had very little debt. Whereas in other parts of the world, the World Bank and IMF were abandoning their go-go loan policy and preaching abstinence, they adopted a very different attitude with respect to Rwanda to which they granted major loans. Between 1976 and 1994, there was a twenty-fold increase in Rwanda’s external debt. In 1976, it amounted to $49 million, while it was nearly $1 billion in 1994, increasing especially rapidly as of 1982. Its principal creditors were the IFIs or International Financial Institutions — the World Bank, the IMF, and similar institutions, and the WB and the IMF played the most active role in this debt process. In 1995, IFIs held 84% of Rwanda’s external debt.

The dictatorship in place since 1973 guaranteed that there would be no progressive structural changes in the country. That explains why it was actively supported by Western powers such as Belgium, France, and Switzerland. In addition, it could be a rampart against the countries in the region that were still mulling over thoughts of independence and progressive change (for instance, neighbouring Tanzania where there was the progressive President Julius Nyerere, one of the African leaders in the Non-Aligned Movement).

Image on the right: The massacre at Nyarabuye took place in the grounds of a Catholic Church and school. Hundreds of Tutsis, including many children, were slaughtered at close range, Rwanda, 1994.

Throughout the 1980s and up until 1994, Rwanda received many loans, but the dictator Habyarimana embezzled much of them. The loans granted were supposed to be used to better integrate Rwanda’s economy into the world economy by developing its capacities to export coffee, tea, and tin (its three main export products), which was detrimental to the crops cultivated there to satisfy local needs. This model worked until the middle of the 1980s, when the price of tin, then that of coffee, and finally tea, collapsed. Rwanda, for which coffee was the main source of hard currency, was hit hard by the breaking up of the coffee cartel at the beginning of the 1990s by the United States.

Using international loans to prepare for the genocide

Only a few weeks before the Patriotic Front of Rwanda launched its offensive in October 1990, the government of Rwanda signed an agreement with the IMF and the WB in Washington to implement structural adjustment measures.

When they were implemented in November 1990, the Rwandan currency dropped by 67%. By way of compensation, the IMF granted strong currency loans for quick disbursement so that the country could keep importing goods. The funds were used to artificially improve the balance of payments. The prices of imported goods skyrocketed: for instance, the price of petrol went up by 79%. Selling imported goods on the domestic market made it possible for the government to pay the army’s wages, and the number of recruits increased in staggering proportions. The structural adjustment measures included a decrease in public spending, wages were frozen, and there were massive layoffs in the civil service, but part of the savings were used for the army.

Whereas the prices of imported goods increased, the price at which producers could sell coffee was frozen, as imposed by the IMF. As a result, hundreds of thousands of small coffee producers went bankrupt [2], and together with the most deprived layers of city dwellers they became a permanent supply of soldiers for Interahamwe and army recruiters.

The following measures were among the ones the WB and IMF imposed in Rwanda: an increase in consumption taxes and a decrease in corporate taxes, an increase in direct taxes on low-income families through a reduction of fiscal advantages for large families, and restrictions on credit facilities to farmers.

To account for its use of loans from the IMF/WB, Rwanda was allowed to submit old invoices for imported goods. This practice made it possible for the government to pay for the massive purchase of weapons intended for the genocide. Military expenses increased three-fold between 1990 and 1992 [3]. Over this period of time, the WB and the IMF sent out several missions of experts, who highlighted the positive consequences of the austerity policies enforced by Habyarimana, yet threatened to discontinue payments if military expenses increased further.

The Rwandan government then used various ploys to conceal military expenses: Lorries bought for the army were accounted for in the budget of the transport ministry, a significant portion of the petrol used in the army or militia vehicles was part of the budget for the ministry of health. The WB and the IMF eventually stopped providing financial support in early 1993, but they did not expose the existence of bank accounts the Rwandan government had in foreign banks on which there were substantial amounts of money still available to buy more weapons. It can be said that they failed in their duty to control the use of the funds loaned. They should have stopped their loans in early 1992 when they learned the money was being used to buy weapons. They should have warned the UN at once. As they went on supplying support until 1993, they helped a government that was preparing a genocide. As early as 1991, human rights organisations had tried to draw international attention to the massacres that paved the way for the genocide. The World Bank and the IMF systematically supported a dictatorial regime, with the help of the US, France, and Belgium.

Exacerbated social contradictions

For the genocidal project to be achieved, more than just a government was needed to devise it and acquire the necessary tools; the people also had to be impoverished and driven to a level of desperation at which they were ready to do anything. 90% of the population in Rwanda was living in the countryside, and 20% of farm families owned an acre or less. From 1982 to 1994, most of the farming population fell into poverty, while a few others at the other end of the social spectrum were accumulating a huge amount of wealth. Professor Jef Maton states that in 1982 the richest 10% of the population made 20% of rural income; in 1992 they had grabbed 41%, in 1993 45%, and in early 1994 51% [4]. The disastrous social consequences of the IMF and WB enforced policies combined with the plummeting price of coffee (itself a consequence of policies applied by the Bretton Woods institutions, and the US doing away with the cartel of coffee producers at that time) played a key role in the Rwanda crisis. Habyarimana’s regime exploited the widespread social discontent to carry out the genocide.

The genocide’s financiers

Betwen 1990 and 1994, Rwanda’s main arms suppliers were France, Belgium, South Africa, Egypt and China. China also provided 500,000 machetes. Egypt – whose joint minister of Foreign Affairs, responsible for relations with the African continent, was none other than Boutros Boutros-Ghali – granted Rwanda a 6 million-dollar interest-free loan in 1991 to purchase arms for its infantry divisions. When the genocide got under way, France and the British firm Mil-Tec provided arms to the rampaging army via the Goma airport across the border in Zaire – violating the 11 May 1994 UN embargo on arms sales to Rwanda (Toussaint, 1996b). Once the Rwandan capital, Kigali, had been overrun by the opposition FPR, a certain number of the key leaders of the genocide were received by the French president. Rwandan leaders-in-exile set up the head office of the Banque Nationale du Rwanda in Goma, with the help of the French army. Until August 1994, the Banque disbursed funds to repay debts for previous arms purchases and to buy new arms. Private banks (Belgolaise, Générale de Banque, BNP, Dresdner Bank, among others) accepted payment orders from those responsible for the genocide and repaid those who financed the genocide.

Rwanda after the genocide

After the fall of the dictatorship in July 1994, the World Bank and the IMF demanded that the new Rwandan government limit the number of public-sector employees to 50% of the number agreed upon before the genocide. The new government complied.

Initial financial assistance provided by the USA and Belgium in late 1994 went towards repaying the Habyarimana regime’s debt arrears with the World Bank. Financial aid from the West has been barely trickling into the country since then, despite the urgent need to rebuild the country, and provide for the more than 800,000 refugees on its soil since November 1996.

According to David Woodward’s report for Oxfam, agricultural production did recover somewhat in 1996. However, it was 38% lower than usual first harvests and 28% lower than usual second harvests. Industry was taking longer to recover: only 54 out of 88 industrial concerns in operation before April 1994 had resumed activity; most were operating well below previous levels. At the end of 1995, the total value of industrial production was 47% of its 1990 levels.

A 20% wage increase in the public sector in January 1996 was the first such rise since 1981; official estimates, however, are that 80% of public-sector workers live below the poverty line. It comes as no surprise that Rwandans prefer to work in NGOs as drivers and cooks rather than in the public sector. These poverty statistics are not peculiar to the public sector: in 1996, the World Bank estimated that 85 to 95% of Rwandans lived below the threshold of absolute poverty.

It should be noted that there has been a significant increase in the number of households run by women: from 21.7% before the genocide to 29.3% now, with peaks of 40% in some districts. Their situation is particularly disturbing in view of the profound discrimination against women in such matters as inheritance, access to credit and property rights. Even before the genocide, 35% of women heads of households earned less than 5,000 Rwandan francs (17 dollars) per month; the corresponding figure for men was 22%.

In spite of a high rate of adoption of orphans (from the genocide and AIDS deaths), there are between 95,000 and 150,000 children without families.

In the education system, only 65% of children are enrolled in primary schools; and no more than 8% in secondary schools (Woodward, 1996).

In 1994, Rwanda’s foreign debt had reached nearly one billion dollars, the totality of which had been contracted by the Habyarimana regime. Five years later, the debt had increased by about 30% and Rwanda repaid 31 million dollars (figures for 1999).

The debt contracted before 1994 fits the definition of “odious debt” perfectly: it follows that the new regime should have been totally exonerated from paying it off. The multilateral and bilateral creditors knew very well who they were dealing with when they lent money to Habyarimana’s regime. After the change of regime, there was not the slightest justification for transferring their claims onto the new Rwanda. Nevertheless, it was done quite shamelessly.

The new Rwandan government that came into power in 1994 tried to persuade the WB and the IMF to renounce their loans. The two institutions refused, threatening to cut off funding if Kigali persisted. They put pressure on Kigali to keep quiet about the aid they had provided to the Habyarimana regime, in exchange for new loans and a promise of future debt cancellation as part of the initiative in favour of the Heavily Indebted Poor Countries (HIPC), launched in 1996.

One can only deplore that the government should have accepted such blackmail. The consequences are pernicious: continued structural adjustment, with its disastrous social and economic consequences, and an increase in foreign debt. In complying, the government of Kigali has gained “good pupil” status in the eyes of the IMF, the WB and the Paris Club. Worse still, the Rwandan regime has become the accomplice of the USA and Great Britain whose policy is to weaken the Democratic Republic of Congo, by taking part, as of August 1998, in the military occupation of its neighbour, the DRC, and by plundering its natural resources.

***

Interview with Eric Toussaint, spokesperson and co-founder of the international network of the Committee for the Abolition of Illegitimate Debt (CADTM). Interview by Benjamin Lemoine

Debt audits: an abortive precedent – the examples of Rwanda and the Democratic Republic of Congo

What were the first testing grounds of the CADTM method for countering illegitimate debt?

That should be put in the context of the convergence between the CADTM and various movements active in France and elsewhere. The CADTM was very much involved, for example, in solidarity with the neo-Zapatista movement, which appeared publicly on 1 January, 1994 in Chiapas (Mexico), and we travelled to Mexico several times. The CADTM also participated as a co-organiser of the big mobilisation of October 1994 in Spain against the meeting the World Bank and the IMF held to celebrate their half-century of existence. That action was part of the worldwide “Fifty years, it’s enough” campaign. As for the contacts in France, I mentioned the LCR, the “Ca suffat comme ci” campaign of 1989, and the “Other Voices of the Planet” collective, created in 1996 to organise the counter-G7; to those we need to add AITEC [5] and the CEDETIM [6], led by Gus Massiah [7]. There is also the Survie (Survival) movement, led at that time by François-Xavier Verschave [8], which struggled against France’s domination of Africa and well understood the importance of the issue of debt. Survie had close ties with the CADTM, in part because Survie, like the CADTM, was very active in denouncing the genocide in Rwanda in 1994 and “Operation Turquoise,” organized by Mitterrand. In 1995, a delegation from the CADTM went to Rwanda and an international CADTM assembly was held in Brussels with the question of the genocide and the responsibilities of creditors at the core of the program. And, starting in 1996, the CADTM launched the audit of Rwanda’s debt with, at that time, the new regime in Kigali headed by Paul Kagamé still in power. Kagamé wanted to achieve clarity about the debt, and a team of two people who worked closely with the CADTM was set up. Michel Chossudovsky, a Canadian, a university professor in Ottawa who often wrote for Le Monde diplomatique, and Pierre Galand, then Secretary of Oxfam in Belgium, went to Kigali and conducted the investigation in close liaison with the CADTM. I talked extensively with them and wrote an article entitled “The Financiers of the Genocide,” which attracted a certain amount of attention [9].

Did that inspire the CADTM’s methodology regarding debt audits?

Yes, even if the experience ended up being frustrating. Not many people know that one of the missions of Operation Turquoise was to get hold of all the documentation of Rwanda’s central bank in Kigali and transfer it all in a container to Goma in the DRC, to prevent the new authorities from getting access to written evidence revealing how strong France’s support for the genocidal regime of Juvénal Habyarimana had been. When Laurent-Désiré Kabila launched his offensive against Mobutu in 1996 from eastern Congo, Kagamé was able to get that container and bring it back to Kigali, and opened the archives, which Michel Chossudovsky and Pierre Galand worked on [10]. 

In other words, they found the “black box”… 

Absolutely, and the French banks’ involvement in financing General Habyarimana’s weapons purchases was clear. Egypt and China were also implicated because they supplied a lot of the machetes, but the French provided the more sophisticated equipment to the genocidal Rwandan army. So originally – and this is an element that reappears in our later experiences – internationalist movements made contact with a head of State, Paul Kagamé, who wanted transparency and who made documentation that usually remains secret available to the experts. Kagamé, with that resource in hand, threatened the USA, France, the World Bank, and the IMF with publicizing the financing of the genocide. Washington and Paris, along with the World Bank and the IMF, all said, in essence: “Don’t spill the beans! In exchange for your silence, we’ll reduce Rwanda’s debt by opening a maximum line of credit at the World Bank and the IMF. We’ll reduce the amount of the repayment, and we’ll pre-finance it with new loans.” And Kagamé played along. It was a very frustrating experience, not only in terms of energy and ethics, but also because of the precedent it would have set. Because before the Habyarimana regime, the level of Rwanda’s debt was very low; the entire debt repayment being demanded of Rwanda was debt contracted by a despotic regime, and so was a typical example of the doctrine of odious debt, somewhat like the debt the DRC faced. 

In the Democratic Republic of Congo, after the overthrow of the dictator Mobutu in 1996-1997, Pierre Galand and I worked in collaboration with the new authorities in Kinshasa (Pierre Galand was the one who maintained the actual contacts) and above all with the social movements. Several Congolese members and sympathisers of the CADTM who had spent 20 years in exile in Belgium had returned to their country after Mobutu’s fall and held posts in Kinshasa [11]. We also had long-standing contact with Jean-Baptiste Sondji, a Congolese former Maoist militant who had become Minister of Health in the Kabila government. 

In these cases, what support or alliances do you look for?

Personally I made an outright priority of relations with social movements (trade unions, small farmers’ organisations, student organizations, etc.) I didn’t have a great deal of trust in the new DRC government, except to some degree Jean Baptiste Sondji as an individual. The issue was to challenge the repayment of the debt that was being demanded of the DRC by regimes and institutions that had supported Mobutu and enabled him to remain in power for over 30 years. Laurent-Désiré Kabila had set up an Office des biens mal acquis (“Office of illicitly acquired property”) and there was a clear link between personal enrichment related to corruption and the country’s indebtedness. And in fact in that also turned out to be a disappointment, because Kabila negotiated a deal with the Swiss bankers at a time when there was the possibility that the DRC could get the Swiss courts to force Swiss bankers who were complicit in Mobutu’s misappropriations to return the money he’d deposited with them. But scandalously, Kabila agreed to a secret transaction with the Swiss bankers and abandoned the legal action that was under way. 

I went to Kinshasa during the summer of 2000 to work with the Congolese social movements and NGOs on the issue of the odious debt the DRC was being required to repay. My book Your Money Or Your Life was very successful in the academic community and among the Congolese Left [12]. In Belgium, the former colonial power, the CADTM had developed a strong campaign for cancellation of the DRC’s odious debt and freezing of the Mobutu clan’s assets in Belgium [13]. We had helped author a brochure common to all NGOs and North/South solidarity organisations active in Belgium demanding cancellation of the DRC’s debts [14]. Along with these activities conducted by the CADTM, organisations in the DRC became members of the international CADTM network (in Kinshasa, the Bakongo area, Lubumbashi and Mbuji-Mayi). The lesson to be learned from these attempts to denounce odious debt in Rwanda and in the DRC is that the governments can’t be trusted. Absolute priority has to be given to working with the grass-roots citizens’ organisations, with the social movements and with individuals who are determined not to give up until clarity is achieved and action is taken by the governments.

Translated by Snake Arbusto, Suchandra De Sarkar and Vicki Briault.

***

 

*

Note to readers: please click the share buttons above or below. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.

Eric Toussaint is a historian and political scientist who completed his Ph.D. at the universities of Paris VIII and Liège, is the spokesperson of the CADTM International, and sits on the Scientific Council of ATTAC France. He is the author of Debt System (Haymarket books, Chicago, 2019), Bankocracy (2015); The Life and Crimes of an Exemplary Man (2014); Glance in the Rear View Mirror. Neoliberal Ideology From its Origins to the Present, Haymarket books, Chicago, 2012 (see here), etc.
See his bibliography. He co-authored World debt figures 2015 with Pierre Gottiniaux, Daniel Munevar and Antonio Sanabria (2015); and with Damien Millet Debt, the IMF, and the World Bank: Sixty Questions, Sixty Answers, Monthly Review Books, New York, 2010. He was the scientific coordinator of the Greek Truth Commission on Public Debt from April 2015 to November 2015.

Notes

[1] Chossudovsky, Michel et al. 1995. « Rwanda, Somalie, ex Yougoslavie : conflits armés, génocide économique et responsabilités des institutions de Bretton Woods » (Rwanda, Somalia, ex-Yugoslavia: armed conflicts, economic genocide, and the responsability of Bretton Woods institutions); Chossudovsky, Michel and Galand, Pierre, « Le Génocide de 1994, L’usage de la dette extérieure du Rwanda (1990-1994). La responsabilité des bailleurs de fonds » (The Genocide of 1994. The use of Rwanda’s external debt (1990-1994). The responsability of financial institutions), Ottawa and Brussels, 1996. See also: Duterme, Renaud Rwanda : une histoire volée (Rwanda: a stolen history), Co-edition Tribord and CADTM, 2013 http://cadtm.org/Rwanda-une-histoire-volee-Dette-et

[2] Maton, Jef. 1994. Développement économique et social au Rwanda entre 1980 et 1993. Le dixième décile en face de l’apocalypse. (Economic and Social Development in Rwanda between 1980 and 1999.)

[3] Nduhungirehe, Marie-Chantal. 1995. Les Programmes d’ajustement structurel. Spécificité et application au cas du Rwanda.(Structural Adjustment Programmes: Specificities and Application to the Case of Rwanda.)

[4] Maton, Jef. 1994. Ibid.

[5] Association Internationale de Techniciens, Experts et Chercheurs (International Association of Technicians, Experts, and Researchers), http://aitec.reseau-ipam.org/spip.php?article130

[6] Centre d’études et d’initiatives de solidarité internationale (Centre for research and action for international solidarity), http://www.reseau-ipam.org/spip.php?page=rubrique&id_rubrique=47/ (in French)

[9] http://www.cadtm.org/Rwanda-the-financiers-of-the Article published in 1997: Eric Toussaint, “Rwanda: the Financiers of the Genocide”, 5 p., in Politique, La Revue, Paris, April 1997 (French version).

[10] See Chossudovsky, Michel and Galand, Pierre, The Use of Rwanda’s External Debt (1990-1994). The Responsibility of Donors and Creditors. Preliminary Report. Ottawa and Brussels, November 1996. http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/CHO403E.html (English version of French original) See also: Chossudovsky, Michel et al. 1995. “Rwanda, Somalie, ex Yougoslavie : conflits armés, génocide économique et responsabilités des institutions de Bretton Woods” (“Rwanda, Somalia, ex-Yugoslavia: armed conflicts, economic genocide and responsibilities of the Bretton Woods institutions”), 12 p., in Banque, FMI, OMC : ça suffit !, CADTM, Brussels, 1995, 182 p. (in French) and Chossudovsky, Michel, “IMF-World Bank policies and the Rwandan holocaust” http://www.hartford-hwp.com/archives/35/033.html

[11] These included Genero Ollela of the Lumumbist FLNC, who upon his return to Kinshasa held a position at the Office des biens mal acquis (OBMA). A year later he was put in prison for completely unjust reasons and the CADTM worked toward his release.

[14] CNCD-OPERATION 11.11.11 (Centre national de coopération au développement), Pour une annulation des créances belges sur le République Démocratique du Congo (Toward Cancellation of Belgian-held debt claims over the Democratic Republic of Congo), Brussels, 2002, 34 p.

Vaccines Are the New ‘Purity Test’

April 6th, 2021 by Dr. Joseph Mercola

All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the “Translate Website” drop down menu on the top banner of our home page (Desktop version).

***

As predicted last year, vaccine passports are being rolled out across the world, including the U.S. As reported by Ron Paul in his Liberty Report,1,2 which streamed live March 29, 2021, the Biden Administration is “seriously looking into establishing some kind of federal vaccine passport system, where Americans who cannot (or will not) prove to the government they have been jabbed with the experimental vaccine will be legally treated as second-class citizens.”

Paul warns that this system “will quickly morph into a copy of China’s ‘social credit’ system, where undesirable behaviors are severely punished.” I’ve been saying the same thing for many months now, and there’s every reason to suspect that this is indeed where we’re headed.

Indeed, listen to Ilana Rachel Daniel’s emotional plea from Jerusalem, Israel, where a “Green Pass” is now required if you want to enter any number of public venues and participate in society.

Daniel, who emigrated from the U.S. to Israel 25 years ago, is a health adviser, activist and information officer for a new political human rights party called Rappeh.

The COVID-19 data simply don’t support the rollout of this kind of draconian measure, as the virus is clearly in decline and has become endemic in most parts of the world. In the absence of a serious, truly massively lethal threat (which COVID-19 isn’t), having to show vaccine papers in order to travel and enter certain social venues is clearly more about imposing top-down government control than actually safeguarding public health.

We’re Looking at the End of Human Liberty in the West

Mandatory vaccine passports will be massively discriminating, and are quite frankly senseless, considering the so-called COVID-19 “vaccines” don’t work like vaccines. They’re designed to lessen symptoms when the inoculated person gets infected, but they do not actually prevent them from getting infected in the first place, and they don’t prevent the spread of the virus.

As such, vaccine passports are nothing but loyalty cards, proving you’ve submitted to being a lab rat for an experimental injection and nothing more, because in reality, vaccinated individuals are no safer than unvaccinated ones. It’s a truly mindboggling ruse, and unless enough people are able to see it for what it is, the world will rather literally be turned into a prison planet.

As noted by former Clinton adviser and author Naomi Wolf (whom I hope to interview in the near future), mandatory COVID-19 passports would spell the “end of human liberty in the West.” In a March 28, 2021, interview with Fox News’ Steve Hilton, she said:3,4

“‘Vaccine passport’ sounds like a fine thing if you don’t understand what those platforms can do. I’m [the] CEO of a tech company, I understand what these platforms can do. It is not about the vaccine, it’s not about the virus, it’s about your data.

Once this rolls out, you don’t have a choice about being part of the system. What people have to understand is that any other functionality can be loaded onto that platform with no problem at all. It can be merged with your Paypal account, with your digital currency. Microsoft is already talking about merging it with payment plans.

Your network can be sucked up. It geolocates you everywhere you go. You credit history can be included. All of your medical and health history can be included.

This has already happened in Israel, and six months later, we’re hearing from activists that it’s a two-tiered society and that basically, activists are ostracized and surveilled continually. It is the end of civil society, and they are trying to roll it out around the world.

It is absolutely so much more than a vaccine pass … I cannot stress enough that it has the power to turn off your life, or to turn on your life, to let you engage in society or be marginalized.”

Largest Medical Experiment in the History of the World

As noted by Donald Rucker, who led the Trump Administration’s health IT office, the individual tracking that goes along with the vaccine passport will also help officials to evaluate the effectiveness and long-term safety of the vaccines. He told The Washington Post:5

“The tracking of vaccinations is not just simply for vaccine passports. The tracking of vaccinations is a broader issue of ‘we’re giving a novel biologic agent to the entire country,’ more or less.”

In other words, health officials know full well that this mass vaccination campaign is a roll of the dice. It’s the largest medical experiment in the history of the world, and vaccine certificates will allow them to track all of the millions of test subjects. This alone should be cause enough to end all discussions about vaccine mandates, yet the experimental nature of these injections is being completely ignored.

Again, by shaming people who have concerns about participating in a medical experiment and threatening to bar them from society, government officials are proving that this is not for the greater good. It’s not about public health. It’s about creating loyal subjects — people who are literally willing to sacrifice their life and the life of their children at the request of the government, no questions asked.

Vaccinations Are the New ‘Purity Test’

Wolf also points out the horrific history of IBM, which developed a similar but less sophisticated system of punch cards that allowed Nazi Germany to create a two-tier society and ultimately facilitated the rounding up of Jews for extermination. I will be publishing an entire article about this in a couple of days.

Suffice it to say, some of the most gruesome parts of history are now repeating right before our eyes, and we must not turn away from this ugly truth. Doing so may turn out to be far more lethal than COVID-19 ever was.

Watch the video here.

The short video above features a 93-year-old Holocaust survivor who compares mask wearing to, as a Jew, having to wear a yellow star to mark their societal status. However, back then, everyone understood what was happening, she says.

At no point were they lied to and told that wearing the star was for their own good, which is what’s happening now. So, in that respect, the current situation is far more insidious. She says the “hypocrisy in the public narrative,” which claims that we need to wear masks to protect the old, “is absolutely unbearable.” “I would love to die in a state [of] freedom,” she says, “than live like this.”

She adds that at her age, her life expectancy is short, and she would gladly exchange her death for the life and happiness of the next generations. She wants the younger generations to have the freedom “to live their lives, as I have lived mine.” “To see people defile their children with masks is something totally unbearable to me,” she says. Vaccine credentials, in my view, are even more comparable to the Jewish yellow star, but in reverse.

Not having the certificate will be the yellow star of our day, which will allow business owners, government officials and just about anyone else, to treat you like a second-class citizen and deny you access to everything from education, work and travel, to recreation, social engagements and daily commerce — all under the false guise of you being a biological threat to all those who have been vaccinated.

According to the public narrative, vaccine certificates are a key aspect of getting life back to normal, but the reality is the complete converse, as they will usher in a markedly different society that is anything but normal.

Florida Bucks the Trend

As a resident of Florida, I must applaud Gov. Ron DeSantis who announced March 29, 2021,6 he will issue an executive order forbidding local governments and businesses from requiring vaccine certificates. He’s further calling on the state legislature to create a measure that will allow him to sign it into law.

“It’s completely unacceptable for either the government or the private sector to impose upon you the requirement that you show proof of vaccine to just simply participate in normal society,” he said.

States and countries that do decide on such a requirement are also bound to face the problem of black market vaccination certificates, which have already started emerging.7,8

As reported by the Daily Beast,9,10 a number of health care workers have been caught bragging about forging vaccination cards on their social media channels. Apparently, they have not yet realized the public nature of the internet, but that’s beside the point.

In Florida, a man working at a web design company was fired after posting a TikTok video advertising fake vaccine cards,11 and in Israel, where the two-tier society is already forming, a man was recently arrested for making and selling forged COVID-19 vaccination certificates, which are now required for entry into restaurants, bars, clubs, hotels, swimming pools and other public venues throughout the country.12

Around the world, people are also being arrested for administering fake vaccines13,14,15,16,17 and selling bogus COVID-19 tests.18,19

Eugenics and Hygiene Obsessions

While it’s often considered bad policy to compare anything to the Nazi regime, the comparisons are growing more readily identifiable by the day, which makes them hard to avoid.

Aside from the parallels that can be drawn between mask wearing and/or vaccine “papers” and the Jewish yellow star, there’s the Nazi’s four-step process for dehumanizing the Jews,20 — prejudice, scapegoating, discrimination and persecution — a process that indoctrinated the German people into agreeing with, or at least going along with the plan to commit genocide.

In present day, the public narrative is not only building prejudice against people who refuse to wear masks or get an experimental vaccine, but is also using healthy people as scapegoats from the very beginning, blaming the spread of the virus on asymptomatically infected people.

With the rollout of vaccine certificates, we are stepping firmly into discrimination territory. The last step will entail persecution of non-vaccinated individuals. This in and of itself also harkens back to the Nazi regime, which was obsessed with “health guidelines” that eventually led to the mass-purging of “unclean” Jews. As reported by Gina Florio in a December 2020 Evie Magazine article:21

“When Hitler first came to power in Nazi Germany, he kicked off a series of public health schemes. He started by setting up health screenings all over the country, sending vans around to every neighborhood to conduct tuberculosis testing, etc.

Next up was factory cleanliness — he launched a robust campaign encouraging factories to completely revamp their space, thoroughly clean every corner … After the factories, the next mission was cleaning up the asylums …

What started as seemingly innocent or well-meaning public health campaigns quickly spiraled into an extermination of races and groups of people who were considered dirty or disgusting. In short, the beginning of Hitler’s reign was a constant expansion of who was contaminated and who was impure …

We’re seeing an obsession with covering our faces all the time so we don’t spread disease or deadly germs; most public places we walk into won’t even allow us to enter without slathering our hands in hand sanitizer; and people act terrified of someone who isn’t wearing a mask.

Nobody can say with a straight face that this is normal behavior … We’re even seeing people advocate for some kind of tracking device to show that a person is vaccinated or ‘clean’ enough to enter a venue … Let’s hope we can all learn the lessons from the past and we don’t witness history repeat itself.”

History Is Repeating Itself

Indeed, everyone calling for vaccine certificates — which became part of the public narrative early on in the pandemic — is guilty of following in the well-worn footsteps of this infamous dictator, repeating the very same patterns that were universally condemned after the fall of the Third Reich.

Highlighting them all would be too great a task for one article, so two glaring examples will have to suffice. In December 2020, Andrew Yang, an entrepreneurial attorney with political ambitions, tweeted the following:22

“Is there a way for someone to easily show that they have been vaccinated — like a bar code they can download to their phone? There ought to be … Tough to have mass gatherings like concerts or ballgames without either mass adoption of the vaccine or a means of signaling.”

Signaling what, if not your “unclean” biohazard state? In his March 2021 Tweet, law professor, political commentator and former U.S. attorney for the Western District of Pennsylvania, Harry Litman, was more direct about the ill intent behind vaccine certificates, saying:23

“Vaccine passports are a good idea. Among other things, it will single out the still large contingent of people who refuse vaccines, who will be foreclosed from doing a lot of things their peers can do. That should help break the resistance down.”

Comments like these demonstrate that vaccine passports are about creating justification for segregation, discrimination and elimination of certain groups of people, in this case, people who don’t want to be part of the experimental vaccine program.

The justification is that they’re too “unclean,” too “unsafe” to freely participate in public society and must therefore be identified and shut out. In reality, it’s really about identifying the noncompliant.

During the Nazi reign, those slated for segregation, discrimination and elimination were identified by their affiliation with Judaism (there’s controversy as to whether Jewishness is an issue of race, ethnicity, religion, national identity or familial bonds, which you can learn more about on JewInTheCity.com,24 but all were relevant criteria in the Nazi’s hunt for Jews).

Today, the global elimination strategy foregoes such identities, and focuses instead on identifying who will go along with the program and who will be a noncompliant troublemaker.

In short, vaccine passports are a device to identify who the loyal subjects of the unelected elite are, and who aren’t. Those unwilling to enter the new world of technocratic rule without a fuss are the ones that need to be eliminated, and willingness to be a test subject for an unproven experimental treatment is the litmus test. It’s really not more complicated than that.

Are You Ready To Be an Outcast?

This is essentially the conclusion drawn by Mike Whitney as well, detailed in a recent article25posted on The Unz Review. I would encourage you to read the entire article as it succinctly summarizes the reasons behind the current censorship. I’ve reached out to Whitney and hope to be able to interview him about this in the near future.

In his article, he points out that behavioral psychologists have been employed by the government to promote the COVID-19 vaccination campaign and maximize vaccine uptake. They also have a “rapid response team” in place to attack the opinions of those who question the “official narrative.”

Mike also highlights a National Institutes of Health report26 titled, “COVID-19 Vaccination Communication: Applying Behavioral and Social Science to Address Vaccine Hesitancy and Foster Vaccine Confidence,” which lays out the intent to turn vaccine refusers into social outcasts as a tool to coerce compliance.

“This is very scary stuff,” Whitney writes.27 “Agents of the state now identify critics of the COVID vaccine as their mortal enemies. How did we get here? And how did we get to the point where the government is targeting people who don’t agree with them? This is way beyond Orwell. We have entered some creepy alternate universe …

If behavioral psychologists helped to shape the government’s strategy on mass vaccination, then in what other policies were they involved? Were these the ‘professionals’ who conjured up the pandemic restrictions?

Were the masks, the social distancing and the lockdowns all promoted by ‘experts’ as a way to undermine normal human relations and inflict the maximum psychological pain on the American people?

Was the intention to create a weak and submissive population that would willingly accept the dismantling of democratic institutions, the dramatic restructuring of the economy, and the imposition of a new political order? These questions need to be answered …

Vaccination looks to be the defining issue of the next few years at least. And those who resist the edicts of the state will increasingly find themselves on the outside; outcasts in their own country.”

Will You Obey?

As detailed in “Will You Obey the Criminal Authoritarians?” the 1962 Milgram Experiment (embedded above for your convenience), tested the limits of human obedience to authority, proving most people will simply follow orders, even when those orders go against their own sound judgment. They’ll commit atrocious acts of violence against others simply because they were told it’s OK by an authority figure.

We’ve already seen examples of this during the past year’s mask mandates. Suddenly, people felt empowered to verbally harass, pepper spray and physically attack others simply for not wearing a mask. Families were kicked off planes because their toddlers wouldn’t wear a mask. People were even shot for the grievous “crime” of not wearing a mask.

If those things were allowed to happen over mask wearing, one can only imagine what will be tolerated, if not encouraged, when vaccine certificates take full effect. The most obvious answer is to take a firm stand against devolution into inhumanity, regardless of whether you think COVID-19 vaccinations are a good idea or not. The question is, will you? In many ways, the months and years ahead will test the ethics and humanity of every single one of us.

The National Vaccine Information Center (NVIC) recently posted more than 50 video presentations from the pay-for-view Fifth International Public Conference on Vaccination held online October 16 to 18, 2020, and made them available to everyone for free.

The conference’s theme was “Protecting Health and Autonomy in the 21st Century” and it featured physicians, scientists and other health professionals, human rights activists, faith community leaders, constitutional and civil rights attorneys, authors and parents of vaccine injured children talking about vaccine science, policy, law and ethics and infectious diseases, including coronavirus and COVID-19 vaccines.

In December 2020, a U.K. company published false and misleading information about NVIC and its conference, which prompted NVIC to open up the whole conference for free viewing. The conference has everything you need to educate yourself and protect your personal freedoms and liberties with respect to your health.

Don’t miss out on this incredible opportunity. I was a speaker at this empowering conference and urge you to watch these video presentations before they’re censored and taken away by the technocratic elite.

*

Note to readers: please click the share buttons above or below. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.

Notes

1 YouTube Ron Paul Liberty Report March 29, 2021

2 The Verge March 29, 2021

3 Real Clear Politics March 29, 2021

4 The Epoch Times March 29, 2021

5 Washington Post March 28, 2021 (Archived)

6 Bay News 9 March 29, 2021

7 France 24 February 2, 2021

8 Info Security February 10, 2021

9 Daily Beast March 29, 2021

10 Daily Beast March 29, 2021 (Archived)

11 Yahoo News March 29, 2021

12 Jerusalem Post March 22, 2021

13 Huffington Post January 27, 2021

14 Fox 22 March 27, 2021

15 BBC News February 16, 2021

16 Hindustan Times September 26, 2020

17 Metro UK January 15, 2021

18 MSN November 6, 2020

19 ABC News December 7, 2020

20 BahaiTeachings Hitler’s Four-Step Process for Dehumanizing the Jews

21 Evie Magazine December 19, 2020

22 Twitter Andrew Yang December 18, 2020

23 Twitter Dr. Mercola March 29, 2021

24 Jew in the City

25, 27 The Unz Review March 25, 2021

26 NIH.gov COVID-19 Vaccination Communication: Applying Behavioral and Social Science to Address Vaccine Hesitancy and Foster Vaccine Confidence

Featured image is from Mercola

All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the “Translate Website” drop down menu on the top banner of our home page (Desktop version).

***

Canadians for Justice and Peace in the Middle East (CJPME) is highly concerned by a Statistics Canada publication on hate crimes in Canada which referenced claims from a non-rigorous “audit” on antisemitism by the lobby group B’nai Brith Canada. CJPME is concerned that the inclusion of B’nai Brith’s claims in a Statistics Canada publication not only gives undeserved credibility to a flawed methodology, but also inadvertently perpetuates the false notion that protesting Israel’s human rights abuses is equivalent to hate crimes and antisemitic violence.

In its publication “Police-reported hate crime, 2019,” Statistics Canada showed that according to police-reported metrics, hate crimes targeting the Jewish population decreased by 20% in 2019, albeit remaining at an unacceptably high level. However, Statistic Canada contradicted its own conclusion by comparing it with B’nai Brith Canada’s “Annual Audit of Antisemitic Incidents” for 2019, noting their finding of “a record number of anti-Semitic incidents for the fourth consecutive year.”

CJPME notes that it is highly unusual for Statistics Canada to highlight studies or claims from non-statistical, non-governmental organizations. In fact, B’nai Brith’s “audit” notes up front that it “focuses on antisemitic incidents that both meet, and fall short of, the Criminal Code definition of a hate crime,” thus making its conclusions incomparable with Statistics Canada data. Moreover, although Statistics Canada made it clear that B’nai Brith’s conclusions differed from its own, it did not explain the discrepancy but instead presented B’nai Brith’s conclusions as a potentially credible alternative.

The apparent endorsement by Statistics Canada of B’nai Brith’s “audit” is troubling due to its methodology, which purposefully conflates horrific incidents of antisemitism and white supremacist violence alongside legitimate political expression about Israel and its violations of human rights. Some of the “incidents” in B’nai Brith’s 2019 audit include a “Boycott Israeli Apartheid” sticker positioned next to Israeli products in grocery stores; a politician expressing concern about a Palestinian lawmaker held indefinitely under Israeli administrative detention; federal funding for a “Muslim Voting Guide” which presented a boycott of Israel in a positive light; and a pro-Palestinian protest against a York University event promoting the Israeli Defense Forces. B’nai Brith’s failure to distinguish between cases like these and incidents involving swastikas or racist slurs, for example, makes its conclusions about overall numbers and trends highly suspect.

CJPME notes that prominent Canadian researchers on antisemitism have pointed out the flaws with B’nai Brith’s methodology. In a recent study, Robert Brym (University of Toronto) and Rhonda Lenton (York University) outline a number of reasons to “temper the alarm generated by the B’nai Brith Canada data,” including that they “lump together under the rubric of antisemitism actions that are clearly antisemitic with various types of action that are critical of Israel.” The study further points to survey-based research from eleven Western countries showing a “comparatively low” degree of correlation between those who hold antisemitic views and those who hold anti-Israel attitudes, providing further evidence why these dimensions should not be conflated. For reasons such as these, CJPME believes that B’nai Brith’s audit should not be listed next to rigorous government-produced data on the Statistics Canada Website, and has reached out asking for a correction. CJPME also argues that B’nai Brith’s audit should be treated with significant skepticism, and not given undue credence by reputable government agencies like Statistics Canada.

*

Note to readers: please click the share buttons above or below. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.

Joe Biden recluta gli alleati

April 6th, 2021 by Manlio Dinucci

Joe Biden lo aveva annunciato nel suo programma elettorale: «Mentre il presidente Trump ha abbandonato alleati e partner, e abdicato alla leadership americana, come presidente farò immediatamente passi per rinnovare le alleanze degli Stati uniti, e far sì che l’America, ancora una volta, guidi il mondo» (il manifesto, 10 novembre 2020). Promessa mantenuta. La portaerei Dwight D. Eisenhower e il suo gruppo di battaglia, composto da 5 unità lanciamissili, hanno «attaccato dal Mediterraneo Orientale postazioni dello Stato Islamico in Siria e Iraq» poiché questo «ha rivendicato un attacco a Palma in Mozambico». Lo comunica ufficialmente la US Navy il 31 marzo, senza spiegare come l’Isis, sconfitto in Siria e altrove soprattutto in seguito all’intervento russo, ricompaia ora minaccioso con sospetta puntualità.

Dopo aver lanciato l’attacco dal Mediterraneo Orientale – area delle Forze navali del Comando Europeo degli Stati uniti, con quartier generale a Napoli-Capodichino – la portaerei Eisenhower ha attraversato il 2 aprile l’appena riaperto Canale di Suez, entrando nell’area del Comando Centrale Usa che comprende il Golfo Persico. Qui si è unita alla portaerei francese Charles de Gaulle che, su richiesta di Washington, ha assunto il 31 marzo il comando della Task Force 50 del Comando Centrale Usa, schierata non contro l’Isis ma in realtà contro l’Iran. Il fatto che Washington abbia chiesto a Parigi di guidare con la sua nave ammiraglia una forza navale Usa rientra nella politica della presidenza Biden, che mantiene comunque il controllo della catena di comando poiché la Task Force 50 dipende dal Comando Centrale Usa.

Lo conferma l’esercitazione Warfighter che, pianificata dall’Esercito Usa, viene effettuata dal 6 al 15 aprile da divisioni statunitensi, francesi e britanniche a Fort Hood e Fort Bliss in Texas, a Fort Bragg in North Carolina, e a Grafenwoehr in Germania. In questa esercitazione, brigate francesi e britanniche operano all’interno di una divisione Usa, mentre brigate Usa operano all’interno di divisioni francesi e britanniche, sempre però secondo il piano Usa. La Warfighter integra la grande esercitazione in corso Defender-Europe 21, che l’Esercito Usa in Europa e Africa effettua fino a giugno insieme ad alleati e partner europei e africani, per dimostrare «la capacità degli Stati uniti di essere partner strategico nei Balcani e nel Mar Nero, nel Caucaso, in Ucraina e Africa».

Partecipa alla Defender-Europe 21 il V Corpo dell’Esercito Usa che, appena riattivato a Fort Knox nel Kentuky, ha costituito il proprio quartier generale avanzato a Poznan in Polonia, da dove comanda le operazioni contro la Russia. Il 31 marzo, su richiesta statunitense, il generale polacco Adam Joks è stato nominato vice-comandante del V Corpo dell’Esercito Usa. «È la prima volta- comunica l’Ambasciata Usa a Varsavia – che un generale polacco entra nella struttura di comando militare degli Stati uniti». In altre parole, il generale Adam Joks continua a far parte dell’esercito polacco ma, quale vice-comandante del V Corpo Usa, dipende ora direttamente dalla catena di comando che fa capo al Presidente degli Stati uniti.

Rientrano nella stessa politica le nuove Brigate di assistenza delle forze di sicurezza, unità speciali dell’Esercito Usa che «organizzano, addestrano, equipaggiano e consigliano forze di sicurezza straniere». Sono impegnate «a sostegno di una legittima autorità di governo» in Medioriente, Asia, Africa, America Latina ed Europa, attualmente nel quadro della Defender-Europe. Esse sono un efficace strumento per lanciare, con la copertura dell’«assistenza», operazioni militari di fatto sotto comando Usa.

Ciò spiega perché, dopo una relativa tregua, il capo di stato maggiore ucraino, Ruslan Khomchak, ha dichiarato il 1° aprile che l’esercito di Kiev «si sta preparando per l’offensiva nell’Ucraina orientale», ossia contro la popolazione russa del Donbass, usando anche «forze di difesa territoriale» (come il reggimento neonazista Azov), e che in tale operazione «è prevista la partecipazione di alleati Nato».

Manlio Dinucci

  • Posted in Italiano
  • Comments Off on Joe Biden recluta gli alleati

Rwanda: Installing a US Protectorate in Central Africa

April 6th, 2021 by Prof Michel Chossudovsky

Today April 6, 2021, we commemorate the April 7, 1994 Genocide.

***

Originally written in May 2000, the following text is Part II of Chapter 7 entitled “Economic Genocide in Rwanda”, of the Second Edition of The Globalization of Poverty and the New World Order , Global Research, 2003. 

This text updates the author’s analysis on Rwanda written in 1995 , which was published in the first edition.

To order  The Globalization of Poverty, click here .

***

This text is in part based on the results of a study conducted by the author together with Belgian economist and Senator Pierre Galand on the use of Rwanda’s 1990-94 external debt to finance the military and paramilitary.

***

The civil war in Rwanda and the ethnic massacres were an integral part of US foreign policy, carefully staged in accordance with precise strategic and economic objectives.

From the outset of the Rwandan civil war in 1990, Washington’s hidden agenda consisted in establishing an American sphere of influence in a region historically dominated by France and Belgium. America’s design was to displace France by supporting the Rwandan Patriotic Front and by arming and equipping its military arm, the Rwandan Patriotic Army (RPA)

From the mid-1980s, the Kampala government under President Yoweri Musaveni had become Washington’s African showpiece of “democracy”. Uganda had also become a launchpad for US sponsored guerilla movements into the Sudan, Rwanda and the Congo. Major General Paul Kagame had been head of military intelligence in the Ugandan Armed Forces; he had been trained at the U.S. Army Command and Staff College (CGSC) in Leavenworth, Kansas which focuses on warfighting and military strategy. Kagame returned from Leavenworth to lead the RPA, shortly after the 1990 invasion.

Prior to the outbreak of the Rwandan civil war, the RPA was part of the Ugandan Armed Forces. Shortly prior to the October 1990 invasion of Rwanda, military labels were switched. From one day to the next, large numbers of Ugandan soldiers joined the ranks of the Rwandan Patriotic Army (RPA). Throughout the civil war, the RPA was supplied from United People’s Defense Forces (UPDF) military bases inside Uganda. The Tutsi commissioned officers in the Ugandan army took over positions in the RPA. The October 1990 invasion by Ugandan forces was presented to public opinion as a war of liberation by a Tutsi led guerilla army.

Militarization of Uganda

The militarization of Uganda was an integral part of US foreign policy. The build-up of the Ugandan UPDF Forces and of the Rwandan Patriotic Army (RPA) had been supported by the US and Britain. The British had provided military training at the Jinja military base:

“From 1989 onwards, America supported joint RPF [Rwandan Patriotic Front]-Ugandan attacks upon Rwanda… There were at least 56 ‘situation reports’ in [US] State Department files in 1991… As American and British relations with Uganda and the RPF strengthened, so hostilities between Uganda and Rwanda escalated… By August 1990 the RPF had begun preparing an invasion with the full knowledge and approval of British intelligence. 20

Troops from Rwanda’s RPA and Uganda’s UPDF had also supported John Garang’s People’s Liberation Army in its secessionist war in southern Sudan. Washington was firmly behind these initiatives with covert support provided by the CIA. 21

Moreover, under the Africa Crisis Reaction Initiative (ACRI), Ugandan officers were also being trained by US Special Forces in collaboration with a mercenary outfit, Military Professional Resources Inc (MPRI) which was on contract with the US Department of State. MPRI had provided similar training to the Kosovo Liberation Army (KLA) and the Croatian Armed Forces during the Yugoslav civil war and more recently to the Colombian Military in the context of Plan Colombia.

Militarization and the Ugandan External Debt

The buildup of the Ugandan external debt under President Musaveni coincided chronologically with the Rwandan and Congolese civil wars. With the accession of Musaveni to the presidency in 1986, the Ugandan external debt stood at 1.3 billion dollars. With the gush of fresh money, the external debt spiraled overnight, increasing almost threefold to 3.7 billion by 1997. In fact, Uganda had no outstanding debt to the World Bank at the outset of its “economic recovery program”. By 1997, it owed almost 2 billion dollars solely to the World Bank. 22

Where did the money go? The foreign loans to the Musaveni government had been tagged to support the country’s economic and social reconstruction. In the wake of a protracted civil war, the IMF sponsored “economic stabilization program” required massive budget cuts of all civilian programs.

The World Bank was responsible for monitoring the Ugandan budget on behalf of the creditors. Under the “public expenditure review” (PER), the government was obliged to fully reveal the precise allocation of its budget. In other words, every single category of expenditure –including the budget of the Ministry of Defense– was open to scrutiny by the World Bank. Despite the austerity measures (imposed solely on “civilian” expenditures), the donors had allowed defense spending to increase without impediment.

Part of the money tagged for civilian programs had been diverted into funding the United People’s Defense Force (UPDF) which in turn was involved in military operations in Rwanda and the Congo. The Ugandan external debt was being used to finance these military operations on behalf of Washington with the country and its people ultimately footing the bill. In fact by curbing social expenditures, the austerity measures had facilitated the reallocation of State of revenue in favor of the Ugandan military.

Financing both Sides in the Civil War

A similar process of financing military expenditure from the external debt had occurred in Rwanda under the Habyarimana government. In a cruel irony, both sides in the civil war were financed by the same donors institutions with the World Bank acting as a Watchdog.

The Habyarimana regime had at its disposal an arsenal of military equipment, including 83mm missile launchers, French made Blindicide, Belgian and German made light weaponry, and automatic weapons such as kalachnikovs made in Egypt, China and South Africa [as well as … armored AML-60 and M3 armored vehicles.23 While part of these purchases had been financed by direct military aid from France, the influx of development loans from the World Bank’s soft lending affiliate the International Development Association (IDA), the African Development Fund (AFD), the European Development Fund (EDF) as well as from Germany, the United States, Belgium and Canada had been diverted into funding the military and Interhamwe militia.

A detailed investigation of government files, accounts and correspondence conducted in Rwanda in 1996-97 by the author –together with Belgian economist Pierre Galand– confirmed that many of the arms purchases had been negotiated outside the framework of government to government military aid agreements through various intermediaries and private arms dealers. These transactions –recorded as bona fide government expenditures– had nonetheless been included in the State budget which was under the supervision of the World Bank. Large quantities of machetes and other items used in the 1994 ethnic massacres –routinely classified as “civilian commodities” — had been imported through regular trading channels. 24

According to the files of the National Bank of Rwanda (NBR), some of these imports had been financed in violation of agreements signed with the donors. According to NBR records of import invoices, approximately one million machetes had been imported through various channels including Radio Mille Collines, an organization linked to the Interhamwe militia and used to foment ethnic hatred. 25

The money had been earmarked by the donors to support Rwanda’s economic and social development. It was clearly stipulated that funds could not be used to import: “military expenditures on arms, ammunition and other military material”. 26 In fact, the loan agreement with the World Bank’s IDA was even more stringent. The money could not be used to import civilian commodities such as fuel, foodstuffs, medicine, clothing and footwear “destined for military or paramilitary use”. The records of the NBR nonetheless confirm that the Habyarimana government used World Bank money to finance the import of machetes which had been routinely classified as imports of “civilian commodities.” 27

An army of consultants and auditors had been sent in by World Bank to assess the Habyarimana government’s “policy performance” under the loan agreement.28 The use of donor funds to import machetes and other material used in the massacres of civilians did not show up in the independent audit commissioned by the government and the World Bank. (under the IDA loan agreement. (IDA Credit Agreement. 2271-RW).29 In 1993, the World Bank decided to suspend the disbursement of the second installment of its IDA loan. There had been, according to the World Bank mission unfortunate “slip-ups” and “delays” in policy implementation. The free market reforms were no longer “on track”, the conditionalities –including the privatization of state assets– had not been met. The fact that the country was involved in a civil war was not even mentioned. How the money was spent was never an issue.30

Whereas the World Bank had frozen the second installment (tranche) of the IDA loan, the money granted in 1991 had been deposited in a Special Account at the Banque Bruxelles Lambert in Brussels. This account remained open and accessible to the former regime (in exile), two months after the April 1994 ethnic massacres.31

Postwar Cover-up

In the wake of the civil war, the World Bank sent a mission to Kigali with a view to drafting a so-called loan “Completion Report”.32 This was a routine exercise, largely focussing on macro-economic rather than political issues. The report acknowledged that “the war effort prompted the [former] government to increase substantially spending, well beyond the fiscal targets agreed under the SAP.33 The misappropriation of World Bank money was not mentioned. Instead the Habyarimana government was praised for having “made genuine major efforts– especially in 1991– to reduce domestic and external financial imbalances, eliminate distortions hampering export growth and diversification and introduce market based mechanisms for resource allocation…” 34, The massacres of civilians were not mentioned; from the point of view of the donors, “nothing had happened”. In fact the World Bank completion report failed to even acknowledge the existence of a civil war prior to April 1994.

In the wake of the Civil War: Reinstating the IMF’s Deadly Economic Reforms

In 1995, barely a year after the 1994 ethnic massacres. Rwanda’s external creditors entered into discussions with the Tutsi led RPF government regarding the debts of the former regime which had been used to finance the massacres. The RPF decided to fully recognize the legitimacy of the “odious debts” of the 1990-94. RPF strongman Vice-President Paul Kagame [now President] instructed the Cabinet not to pursue the matter nor to approach the World Bank. Under pressure from Washington, the RPF was not to enter into any form of negotiations, let alone an informal dialogue with the donors.

The legitimacy of the wartime debts was never questioned. Instead, the creditors had carefully set up procedures to ensure their prompt reimbursement. In 1998 at a special donors’ meeting in Stockholm, a Multilateral Trust Fund of 55.2 million dollars was set up under the banner of postwar reconstruction.35 In fact, none of this money was destined for Rwanda. It had been earmarked to service Rwanda’s “odious debts” with the World Bank (–i.e. IDA debt), the African Development Bank and the International Fund for Agricultural Development (IFAD).

In other words, “fresh money” –which Rwanda will eventually have to reimburse– was lent to enable Rwanda to service the debts used to finance the massacres. Old loans had been swapped for new debts under the banner of post-war reconstruction.36 The “odious debts” had been whitewashed, they had disappeared from the books. The creditor’s responsibility had been erased. Moreover, the scam was also conditional upon the acceptance of a new wave of IMF-World Bank reforms.

Post War “Reconstruction and Reconciliation”

Bitter economic medicine was imposed under the banner of “reconstruction and reconciliation”. In fact the IMF post-conflict reform package was far stringent than that imposed at the outset of the civil war in 1990. While wages and employment had fallen to abysmally low levels, the IMF had demanded a freeze on civil service wages alongside a massive retrenchment of teachers and health workers. The objective was to “restore macro-economic stability”. A downsizing of the civil service was launched.37 Civil service wages were not to exceed 4.5 percent of GDP, so-called “unqualified civil servants” (mainly teachers) were to be removed from the State payroll. 38

Meanwhile, the country’s per capita income had collapsed from $360 (prior to the war) to $140 in 1995. State revenues had been tagged to service the external debt. Kigali’s Paris Club debts were rescheduled in exchange for “free market” reforms. Remaining State assets were sold off to foreign capital at bargain prices.

The Tutsi led RPF government rather than demanding the cancellation of Rwanda’s odious debts, had welcomed the Bretton Woods institutions with open arms. They needed the IMF “greenlight” to boost the development of the military.

Despite the austerity measures, defense expenditure continued to grow. The 1990-94 pattern had been reinstated. The development loans granted since 1995 were not used to finance the country’s economic and social development. Outside money had again been diverted into financing a military buildup, this time of the Rwandan Patriotic Army (RPA). And this build-up of the RPA occurred in the period immediately preceding the outbreak of civil war in former Zaire.

Civil War in the Congo

Following the installation of a US client regime in Rwanda in 1994, US trained Rwandan and Ugandan forces intervened in former Zaire –a stronghold of French and Belgian influence under President Mobutu Sese Seko. Amply documented, US special operations troops — mainly Green Berets from the 3rd Special Forces Group based at Fort Bragg, N.C.– had been actively training the RPA. This program was a continuation of the covert support and military aid provided to the RPA prior to 1994. In turn, the tragic outcome of the Rwandan civil war including the refugee crisis had set the stage for the participation of Ugandan and Rwandan RPA in the civil war in the Congo:

“Washington pumped military aid into Kagame’s army, and U.S. Army Special Forces and other military personnel trained hundreds of Rwandan troops. But Kagame and his colleagues had designs of their own. While the Green Berets trained the Rwandan Patriotic Army, that army was itself secretly training Zairian rebels.… [In] Rwanda, U.S. officials publicly portrayed their engagement with the army as almost entirely devoted to human rights training. But the Special Forces exercises also covered other areas, including combat skills… Hundreds of soldiers and officers were enrolled in U.S. training programs, both in Rwanda and in the United States… [C]onducted by U.S. Special Forces, Rwandans studied camouflage techniques, small-unit movement, troop-leading procedures, soldier-team development, [etc]… And while the training went on, U.S. officials were meeting regularly with Kagame and other senior Rwandan leaders to discuss the continuing military threat faced by the [former Rwandan] government [in exile] from inside Zaire… Clearly, the focus of Rwandan-U.S. military discussion had shifted from how to build human rights to how to combat an insurgency… With [Ugandan President] Museveni’s support, Kagame conceived a plan to back a rebel movement in eastern Zaire [headed by Laurent Desire Kabila] … The operation was launched in October 1996, just a few weeks after Kagame’s trip to Washington and the completion of the Special Forces training mission… Once the war [in the Congo] started, the United States provided “political assistance” to Rwanda,… An official of the U.S. Embassy in Kigali traveled to eastern Zaire numerous times to liaise with Kabila. Soon, the rebels had moved on. Brushing off the Zairian army with the help of the Rwandan forces, they marched through Africa’s third-largest nation in seven months, with only a few significant military engagements. Mobutu fled the capital, Kinshasa, in May 1997, and Kabila took power, changing the name of the country to Congo…U.S. officials deny that there were any U.S. military personnel with Rwandan troops in Zaire during the war, although unconfirmed reports of a U.S. advisory presence have circulated in the region since the war’s earliest days.39

American Mining Interests

At stake in these military operations in the Congo were the extensive mining resources of Eastern and Southern Zaire including strategic reserves of cobalt — of crucial importance for the US defense industry. During the civil war several months before the downfall of Mobutu, Laurent Desire Kabila basedin Goma, Eastern Zaire had renegotiated the mining contracts with several US and British mining companies including American Mineral Fields (AMF), a company headquartered in President Bill Clinton’s hometown of Hope, Arkansas.40

Meanwhile back in Washington, IMF officials were busy reviewing Zaire’s macro-economic situation. No time was lost. The post-Mobutu economic agenda had already been decided upon. In a study released in April 1997 barely a month before President Mobutu Sese Seko fled the country, the IMF had recommended “halting currency issue completely and abruptly” as part of an economic recovery programme.41 And a few months later upon assuming power in Kinshasa, the new government of Laurent Kabila Desire was ordered by the IMF to freeze civil service wages with a view to “restoring macro-economic stability.” Eroded by hyperinflation, the average public sector wage had fallen to 30,000 new Zaires (NZ) a month, the equivalent of one U.S. dollar.42

The IMF’s demands were tantamount to maintaining the entire population in abysmal poverty. They precluded from the outset a meaningful post-war economic reconstruction, thereby contributing to fuelling the continuation of the Congolese civil war in which close to 2 million people have died.

Concluding Remarks

The civil war in Rwanda was a brutal struggle for political power between the Hutu-led Habyarimana government supported by France and the Tutsi Rwandan Patriotic Front (RPF) backed financially and militarily by Washington. Ethnic rivalries were used deliberately in the pursuit of geopolitical objectives. Both the CIA and French intelligence were involved.

In the words of former Cooperation Minister Bernard Debré in the government of Prime Minister Henri Balladur:

“What one forgets to say is that, if France was on one side, the Americans were on the other, arming the Tutsis who armed the Ugandans. I don’t want to portray a showdown between the French and the Anglo-Saxons, but the truth must be told.” 43

In addition to military aid to the warring factions, the influx of development loans played an important role in “financing the conflict.” In other words, both the Ugandan and Rwanda external debts were diverted into supporting the military and paramilitary. Uganda’s external debt increased by more than 2 billion dollars, –i.e. at a significantly faster pace than that of Rwanda (an increase of approximately 250 million dollars from 1990 to 1994). In retrospect, the RPA — financed by US military aid and Uganda’s external debt– was much better equipped and trained than the Forces Armées du Rwanda (FAR) loyal to President Habyarimana. From the outset, the RPA had a definite military advantage over the FAR.

According to the testimony of Paul Mugabe, a former member of the RPF High Command Unit, Major General Paul Kagame had personally ordered the shooting down of President Habyarimana’s plane with a view to taking control of the country. He was fully aware that the assassination of Habyarimana would unleash “a genocide” against Tutsi civilians. RPA forces had been fully deployed in Kigali at the time the ethnic massacres took place and did not act to prevent it from happening:

The decision of Paul Kagame to shoot Pres. Habyarimana’s aircraft was the catalyst of an unprecedented drama in Rwandan history, and Major-General Paul Kagame took that decision with all awareness. Kagame’s ambition caused the extermination of all of our families: Tutsis, Hutus and Twas. We all lost. Kagame’s take-over took away the lives of a large number of Tutsis and caused the unnecessary exodus of millions of Hutus, many of whom were innocent under the hands of the genocide ringleaders. Some naive Rwandans proclaimed Kagame as their savior, but time has demonstrated that it was he who caused our suffering and misfortunes… Can Kagame explain to the Rwandan people why he sent Claude Dusaidi and Charles Muligande to New York and Washington to stop the UN military intervention which was supposed to be sent and protect the Rwandan people from the genocide? The reason behind avoiding that military intervention was to allow the RPF leadership the takeover of the Kigali Government and to show the world that they – the RPF – were the ones who stopped the genocide. We will all remember that the genocide occurred during three months, even though Kagame has said that he was capable of stopping it the first week after the aircraft crash. Can Major-General Paul Kagame explain why he asked to MINUAR to leave Rwandan soil within hours while the UN was examining the possibility of increasing its troops in Rwanda in order to stop the genocide?44

Paul Mugabe’s testimony regarding the shooting down of Habyarimana’s plane ordered by Kagame is corroborated by intelligence documents and information presented to the French parliamentary inquiry. Major General Paul Kagame was an instrument of Washington. The loss of African lives did not matter. The civil war in Rwanda and the ethnic massacres were an integral part of US foreign policy, carefully staged in accordance with precise strategic and economic objectives.

Despite the good diplomatic relations between Paris and Washington and the apparent unity of the Western military alliance, it was an undeclared war between France and America. By supporting the build up of Ugandan and Rwandan forces and by directly intervening in the Congolese civil war, Washington also bears a direct responsibility for the ethnic massacres committed in the Eastern Congo including several hundred thousand people who died in refugee camps.

US policy-makers were fully aware that a catastrophe was imminent. In fact four months before the genocide, the CIA had warned the US State Department in a confidential brief that the Arusha Accords would fail and “that if hostilities resumed, then upward of half a million people would die”. 45 This information was withheld from the United Nations: “it was not until the genocide was over that information was passed to Maj.-Gen. Dallaire [who was in charge of UN forces in Rwanda].” 46

Washington’s objective was to displace France, discredit the French government (which had supported the Habyarimana regime) and install an Anglo-American protectorate in Rwanda under Major General Paul Kagame. Washington deliberately did nothing to prevent the ethnic massacres.

When a UN force was put forth, Major General Paul Kagame sought to delay its implementation stating that he would only accept a peacekeeping force once the RPA was in control of Kigali. Kagame “feared [that] the proposed United Nations force of more than 5,000 troops… [might] intervene to deprive them [the RPA] of victory”.47 Meanwhile the Security Council after deliberation and a report from Secretary General Boutros Boutros Ghali decided to postpone its intervention.

The 1994 Rwandan “genocide” served strictly strategic and geopolitical objectives. The ethnic massacres were a stumbling blow to France’s credibility which enabled the US to establish a neocolonial foothold in Central Africa. From a distinctly Franco-Belgian colonial setting, the Rwandan capital Kigali has become –under the expatriate Tutsi led RPF government– distinctly Anglo-American. English has become the dominant language in government and the private sector. Many private businesses owned by Hutus were taken over in 1994 by returning Tutsi expatriates. The latter had been exiled in Anglophone Africa, the US and Britain.

The Rwandan Patriotic Army (RPA) functions in English and Kinyarwanda, the University previously linked to France and Belgium functions in English. While English had become an official language alongside French and Kinyarwanda, French political and cultural influence will eventually be erased. Washington has become the new colonial master of a francophone country.

Several other francophone countries in Sub-Saharan Africa have entered into military cooperation agreements with the US. These countries are slated by Washington to follow suit on the pattern set in Rwanda. Meanwhile in francophone West Africa, the US dollar is rapidly displacing the CFA Franc — which is linked in a currency board arrangement to the French Treasury.

Notes (Endnote numbering as in the original chapter)

  1. Written in 1999, the following text is Part II of Chapter 5 on the Second Edition of The Globalization of Poverty and the New World Order. The first part of chapter published in the first edition was written in 1994. Part II is in part based on a study conducted by the author and Belgian economist Pierre Galand on the use of Rwanda’s 1990-94 external debt to finance the military and paramilitary.
  • Africa Direct, Submission to the UN Tribunal on Rwanda, http://www.junius.co.uk/africa- direct/tribunal.html Ibid.
  • Africa’s New Look, Jane’s Foreign Report, August 14, 1997.
  • Jim Mugunga, Uganda foreign debt hits Shs 4 trillion, The Monitor, Kampala, 19 February 1997.
  • Michel Chossudovsky and Pierre Galand, L’usage de la dette exterieure du Rwanda, la responsabilité des créanciers, mission report, United Nations Development Program and Government of Rwanda, Ottawa and Brussels, 1997.
  • Ibid
  • Ibid
  • ibid, the imports recorded were of the order of kg. 500.000 of machetes or approximately one million machetes.
  • Ibid
  • Ibid. See also schedule 1.2 of the Development Credit Agreement with IDA, Washington, 27 June 1991, CREDIT IDA 2271 RW.
  • Chossudovsky and Galand, op cit
  • Ibid.
  • Ibid.
  • World Bank completion report, quoted in Chossudovsky and Galand, op cit.
  • Ibid
  • Ibid
  • See World Bank, Rwanda at http://www.worldbank.org/afr/rw2.htm.
  • Ibid, italics added
  • A ceiling on the number of public employees had been set at 38,000 for 1998 down from 40,600 in 1997. See Letter of Intent of the Government of Rwanda including cover letter addressed to IMF Managing Director Michel Camdessus, IMF, Washington, http://www.imf.org/external/np/loi/060498.htm , 1998.
  • Ibid.
  • Lynne Duke Africans Use US Military Training in Unexpected Ways, Washington Post. July 14, 1998; p.A01.
  • Musengwa Kayaya, U.S. Company To Invest in Zaire, Pan African News, 9 May 1997.
  • International Monetary Fund, Zaire Hyperinflation 1990-1996, Washington, April 1997.
  • Alain Shungu Ngongo, Zaire-Economy: How to Survive On a Dollar a Month, International Press Service, 6 June 1996.
  • Quoted in Therese LeClerc. “Who is responsible for the genocide in Rwanda?”, World Socialist website at http://www.wsws.org/index.shtml , 29 April 1998.
  • Paul Mugabe, The Shooting Down Of The Aircraft Carrying Rwandan President Habyarimama , testimony to the International Strategic Studies Association (ISSA), Alexandria, Virginia, 24 April 2000.
  • Linda Melvern, Betrayal of the Century, Ottawa Citizen, Ottawa, 8 April 2000.
  • Ibid
  • Scott Peterson, Peacekeepers will not halt carnage, say Rwanda, rebels, Daily Telegraph, London, May 12, 1994.

Video: Myanmar: US-backed Opposition Is Armed

April 6th, 2021 by Brian Berletic

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Video: Myanmar: US-backed Opposition Is Armed

All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the “Translate Website” drop down menu on the top banner of our home page (Desktop version).

***

Observers are in a passionate debate over what’s really driving the latest Donbass destabilization, with the most prominent hypotheses being either domestic Ukrainian politics or the US’ regional geostrategic ambitions, but the argument can also compellingly be made that the concept of so-called “vaccine nationalism” is playing a largely under-discussed role in events.

The Two Main Hypotheses

Donbass is on the brink of major destabilization once again, yet observers are in disagreement over what’s really driving the latest events. Some believe that domestic Ukrainian politics are to blame and that Kiev’s ruling party aims to provoke a regional crisis in order to distract from its plummeting popularity. Evidence in support of this hypothesis includes the government’s recent witch hunt against opposition figures and its draconian banning of many Russian-language media outlets in the country.

President Zelensky also promulgated a decree late last month which practically declares war on Russia and explicitly threatens Crimea. The other theory about the US’ regional geostrategic ambitions is backed up by the its ominous statement of support for Ukraine as well as Washington’s preexisting motives for destabilizing Moscow’s western periphery, which prompted Russia to promise its own ominously support for its passport holders in the country. Both theories have a lot of truth to them, but they’re missing a crucial component which could complete the strategic picture.

“Vaccine Diplomacy”

That’s the concept of so-called “vaccine nationalism”, which refers to countries’ efforts to promote their COVID-19 vaccines abroad while also sometimes simultaneously thwarting their competitors’ selfsame attempts. In the current context, Russia’s “vaccine diplomacy” of exporting Sputnik V across the world to save lives, restore the economy, and also for the supplementary purpose of expanding its multipolar influence is on the brink of a globally game-changing success after Politico reported over the weekend that “More EU Countries Eye Separate Deals With Russia For Sputnik Vaccine”.

This was preceded just a few days prior by a related report about how “Macron And Merkel Discuss Vaccine Cooperation With Russia”. The unmistakable trend is that Europe is quickly learning that it needs Russia more than the reverse despite American pressure to convince them to the contrary, which explains why CNN is freaking out so much that it recently published a scaremongering piece about how “Europe Is Torn Over Whether To Take Putin’s Help On Vaccines”.

The Donbass Dilemma

It’s against this strategic context that the latest destabilization in Donbass is unfolding. Each side blames one another for provoking it, but an objective assessment of the situation very strongly suggests that neither Russia nor the Russian-friendly rebels of Eastern Ukraine are responsible. After all, they’ve been trying to peacefully implement the Minsk Accords for the past few years, but it’s US-backed Kiev which has obstinately refused to make any tangible progress in this direction, both for domestic nationalist reasons and those related to American regional geostrategic ambitions as was earlier argued. Ukraine is also being crushed by the COVID-19 pandemic but isn’t being provided any real help from its American “ally”, which is why some in the country have looked eastward to Russia for much-needed relief. This inspired me to write about how “Sputnik V Is The Antidote To, Not Russia’s Weapon Of, Hybrid War In Ukraine” at the beginning of the year even though it’s extremely unlikely nowadays that Kiev will agree to cooperate with Moscow in this respect.

The US’ Strategic Failures

Not only has the US failed in its grand strategic goal of “isolating” Russia over the past seven years as seen by Moscow’s successful “balancing” act all across Eurasia that was commenced in response, but it’s also proven itself unable to convince Berlin to sabotage Nord Stream II by incorporating it into the ongoing German Hybrid War on Russia. The Central European country, to its credit, continues to pragmatically engage with Russia on several issues of significance, including Nord Stream II and most recently exploring the possibility of purchasing Sputnik V, though its silence in the face of the latest Donbass destabilization worryingly risks being interpreted as a carthe blanche by Kiev. Nevertheless, the silver lining is that Germany hasn’t condemned Russia for the recent escalations there like others have, and this observation greatly concerns the US. Considering the speed with which Russia’s “vaccine diplomacy” is attracting new partners Europe, it can’t be ruled out that the US wants to provoke a crisis in Eastern Ukraine so as to make Russian-EU Sputnik V cooperation politically impossible.

Towards A Russian-EU Rapprochement?

This shouldn’t sound all that surprising to the reader if they take the time to reflect on the insight that was just shared. “Vaccine diplomacy” is the quickest way to enter into strategic partnerships with other states or comprehensively reinforce those that already exist. Russia’s European interests in this respect rest with its desire to gently influence those countries to reduce and then ultimately lift the US-led sanctions regime that was imposed after Crimea’s reunification in 2014. Moscow would also like the European countries to show more consideration for its legitimate security interests by not rolling out the red carpet for NATO’s US-led unprecedented expansion along Russia’s western periphery. These two US-led developments in recent years – sanctions and military expansion – caused a crisis in Russian-EU relations, one for which Brussels bears partial responsibility because it willingly went along with it in response to Washington’s pressure. It didn’t have to do that, and its obsequiousness to American strategic demands made everything much worse.

Russia’s Soft Power Plans

Perhaps the most immediate strategic importance of Russia’s “vaccine diplomacy” is that it could win countless hearts and minds in Europe and therefore create a favorable grassroots social environment for facilitating those governments’ eventual lifting of their anti-Russian sanctions and their gradual rolling back of NATO’s US-led military expansion in the region. After all, it might soon be the case that Sputnik V is responsible for saving an untold number of lives in the continent in parallel with facilitating the bloc’s economic reopening, both of which would greatly improve the lives of the EU’s hundreds of millions of citizens. It might be very difficult for those governments to justify their decision to continue “punishing” Russia through economic and military means after Moscow saved them from the worst of World War C‘s ravages, which scares the US to no end since it rightly assumes that this might lead to the irreversible decline of its hegemonic influence there. It thus logically follows that the US has an urgent interest in provoking a crisis to make this scenario politically impossible.

Concluding Thoughts

Putting everything together, it can compellingly be argued that while domestic Ukrainian politics and the US’ regional geostrategic ambitions play very important roles in driving the recent destabilization in Donbass, any discussion of these developments is incomplete without incorporating the influence of “vaccine nationalism”. The US will do whatever it can to prevent Russian-EU Sputnik V cooperation since it fears that this would greatly reduce its hegemonic influence over the continent. Provoking a crisis in Ukraine, which was already boiling for a long time already even before last year’s COVID-19 outbreak, could help advance this agenda by making it politically impossible for the EU to purchase Russia’s vaccines. It would be very challenging for any country to go forward with such plans in the face of unprecedented American pressure to “reconsider” following what they’d be told was so-called “Russian aggression in Ukraine” even though Moscow wouldn’t be responsible for sparking any potential conflict. That could in turn prolong America’s fading hegemony over the EU.

*

Note to readers: please click the share buttons above or below. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.

This article was originally published on OneWorld.

Andrew Korybko is an American Moscow-based political analyst specializing in the relationship between the US strategy in Afro-Eurasia, China’s One Belt One Road global vision of New Silk Road connectivity, and Hybrid Warfare. He is a frequent contributor to Global Research.

Featured image is from OneWorld

All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the “Translate Website” drop down menu on the top banner of our home page (Desktop version).

***

Saudi Arabia is showing genuine concern that Marib could be lost to Ansar Allah, and it is doing all but impossible to defend it.

On April 3rd, media reported that Riyadh had deployed US-made MIM-104 Patriot air-defense systems to Marib, in an attempt to avoid the most negative scenario.

Since 2015, the Houthis (as Ansar Allah are known) have launched 115 ballistic missiles and 140 rockets at Ma’rib city.

The effectiveness of the Patriot defense batteries is questionable, as they failed to protect any of Aramco’s facilities back in 2019.

Also, on April 3rd, the Saudi-led coalition announced that it had thwarted an attack attempt by the Houthis with a booby-trapped boat.

The water-borne Improvised Explosive Device was destroyed off the coast of the town of al-Salif in western Yemen. Saudi-led coalition warships have been targeted repeatedly by such devices throughout the 6 years of the war. G_2(A)

The warships are predominantly used to shell al-Hudaydah, as well as other Houthi positions near the coast.

Saudi Arabia, furthermore, continues its heavy airstrike activity, with at least 17 carried out on April 3rd.

Despite that, the Houthis captured the al-Ahkum area in Hayfan district, southern Yemen. Heavy clashes are continuing in the area near Marib, in the Madghal district.

Meanwhile, in Syria, Russia continues its activities in support of the Damascus government, targeting ISIS terrorists in the central region, as well as the militants in Greater Idlib.

In Central Syria, the Russian Aerospace Forces carried out about 70 airstrikes on ISIS terrorists. At least 15 terrorists were killed in the recent wave of raids.

On April 4th, Russian forces lost their Orlan-10 drone in Greater Idlib, a few kilometers away from the Turkish border. It reportedly crashed as a result of a technical failure. The wreckage was recovered by the militants. In March, Russia lost a Forpost drone, and previously it lost another Orlan-10 drone back in February.

In Northern Syria, the fighting between Turkey, the factions it supports and the US-backed Syrian Democratic Forces is continuing.

On April 4th, a Turkish combat drone targeted a quarry controlled by the Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF) in al-Hasakah. A bulldozer was destroyed.

The SDF are currently being targeted both by Ankara, and by ISIS terrorists due to their activities against the interests of both.

There seems to be a lull in heavy hostilities in Syria, but this is more than likely a calm before the coming storm.

*

Note to readers: please click the share buttons above or below. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.

SUPPORT SOUTHFRONT:

PayPal: [email protected], http://southfront.org/donate/ or via: https://www.patreon.com/southfront

All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the “Translate Website” drop down menu on the top banner of our home page (Desktop version).

***

Background

The Geneva Academy of International Humanitarian Law and Human Rights is a postgraduate joint center located in Geneva, Switzerland. The faculty includes professors from both founding institutions and guest professors from major universities. – The Geneva Academy is affiliated with the University of Geneva.

Dr. Nils Melzer has been the Swiss Human Rights Chair (HR Chair) at the Geneva Academy since March 2016. As HR Chair he develops and promotes the Geneva Academy expertise in HR via policy work, cutting-edge research, expert meetings, the development of partnerships and teaching. Since November 2016, Nils Melzer has also been the UN Special Rapporteur on torture and other cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment or punishment.

*

Dear Dr. Melzer,

As UN special Rapporteur on Torture, your mandate comprises three main activities:

1) transmitting urgent appeals to States with regard to individuals reported to be at risk of torture, as well as communications on past alleged cases of torture;

2) undertaking fact-finding country visits; and

3) submitting annual reports on activities, the mandate and methods of work to the Human Rights Council and the General Assembly.

See this for full description of mandate.

Dr. Melzer, your first mandate as Special Rapporteur on Torture is appealing urgently on States and Nations with regard to individuals that are at risk of torture and cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment. This is the case with children, being forced to wearing masks, including in class, physical distancing, as well home schooling, out of touch with their friends and colleagues, but forced to be repeatedly covid tested in schools with the hurtful RT-PCT test (RT-PCT = reverse transcription of the polymerase chain reaction). A case in point – though not exclusive – is Switzerland, where cantonal authorities are compelling schools to periodically test children from as young as Kindergarten to pre-college level.

Children’s mask wearing (as well as for senior adults) causes chronic headaches and fatigue, because blood and brain receive insufficient oxygen which may lead to lasting damage, including memory loss. Children suffer psychological traumas. Depression and suicide rates increase exponentially.

At the same time, children are increasingly being coerced via teachers and community authorities to be vaccinated against Covid-19, even though the mRNA-type “vaccines” almost the only so-called vaccines available in Europe and the US, are not officially considered as “vaccines” by CDC, but “experimental gene therapies,” i.e. primarily the Pfizer, Moderna, AstraZeneca, Johnsons and Johnson and a number of other GAVI-supported COVAX injections, or so-called vaccines.

These so-called vaccines – or rather gene-therapy experimental inoculations – are known to be dangerous, see Doctors for Covid Ethics Rebuttal Letter to the European Medicines Agency (EMA) and bear special long-term risks for children.

Dr. Melzer, this is an Urgent Appeal – to save Human Rights for children around the world from cruel and inhuman covid measures applied to them, including to adolescents and young adults, measures that have nothing, but absolutely nothing to do with health protection but everything with oppression towards long-term slavery, and yes, a systematic and massive-style depopulation.

You recently said correctly and wisely “Sadly, today, torture remains a very real part of situations of conflict and violence”. What many of the 193 UN member governments are forcing their children to go through is a form of torture, especially considering their potential – and likely – long-term effects – see again the report of Doctors for Covid Ethics.

You added, that you won’t be able to:

save the world single-handedly as a Special Rapporteur, …..  that there are hundreds of stakeholders – organizations, NGO’s, UN agencies and individual experts – who have been working on torture issues for decades. [However], a Special Rapporteur’s independence means I can pick up issues that have remained under the radar of the international community, bring them to the table and try to drive cooperation.”

Dear Dr. Melzer, what I described before as cruel and inhuman acts against children, akin to torture, is one of those issues you mentioned. Therefore, my quest today – my Appeal to you, as Human Rights Representative – is to please pick up the issue of Covid-based Human Rights abuses on the world population, but particularly on children.

What the absurd covid measures do to the world is a crime, but what they are doing to children is beyond a crime; it is totally immoral, destructive for our powerless children, and for the future of these children, as well as for society as a whole, as children are our societies’ future. And worse of all, these measures have nothing to do with health protection – but absolutely nothing. They are sheer tyranny to control.

Children behind masks, social distancing, locked-down, remote schooling — deprived from meeting, talking and playing with their peers, friends, instead scaring them into losing their personalities, their self-assurance and self-esteem – results not only in a physical health problem, but also a psychological health issue which over time has untold, uncountable collateral damage, including total submissiveness for today’s children.

Our children are vulnerable – they are our future.

They need their Human Rights defended.

Dear Dr. Melzer – please speak up for them, at the UN, at UNICEF, in front of the 193 UN member governments, which follow all more or less the same insane covid narrative, the same covid Human Rights abuse – and especially the same Human Rights abuse on children.

Thank you.

*

Note to readers: please click the share buttons above or below. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.

Peter Koenig is a geopolitical analyst and a former Senior Economist at the World Bank and the World Health Organization (WHO), where he has worked for over 30 years on water and environment around the world. He lectures at universities in the US, Europe and South America. He writes regularly for online journals and is the author of Implosion – An Economic Thriller about War, Environmental Destruction and Corporate Greed; and  co-author of Cynthia McKinney’s book “When China Sneezes: From the Coronavirus Lockdown to the Global Politico-Economic Crisis” (Clarity Press – November 1, 2020)

He is a Research Associate of the Centre for Research on Globalization.

Featured image is from Prachatai/Flickr/cc

All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the “Translate Website” drop down menu on the top banner of our home page (Desktop version).

***

Carrying all of the attributes of a globalized unconventional war to affect “regime-change”, the war on Syria has polarized the regional and international landscape perhaps more than any other conflict since the collapse of the Soviet Bloc three decades ago.  A good part of that polarization still revolves around the “meaning” of a decade of ongoing death, destruction, displacement, and despair in Syria today.   

The narratives of the Syrian War couldn’t have been so diametrically opposed, with an anti-Syrian axis trying to impose, through its omnipotent presence, a self-serving version of events.  Only this concoction of international and regional villains has had a historically proven record of occupation, interventionism, covert operations, and reactionary proclivities.  Therefore, its charade of humanitarianism and liberal rhetoric goes not only against its quintessential grain, but against the very facts on the ground, namely: 1) their active support of terrorist, takfiri, and secessionist groups in Syria, be they local or imported from outside Syria, 2) their imposition of a criminal blockade on Syrians in those parts of the country which are not controlled by terrorist, takfiri, or secessionist mobs, that is, on most of Syria, 3) their pillage and plunder of natural resources in occupied parts of Syria, and 4) their launching of military strikes against the Syrian Arab Army and/or its allies, that is, against the only bulwark standing between terrorist, takfiri, and secessionist hordes on one hand, and Syria on the other.

Image on the right: Dr. Ibrahim Alloush (Source: Mark Taliano)

Moving back and forth between personal eyewitness testimonies and a broader objective contextualization of the Syrian conflict, “Voices from Syria” debunks disinformation about Syria with primary personal accounts, evidence, documentation, common sense, and sheer reason.

While deconstructing the fallacies shrouding the Syria War with lies and innuendos, “Voices from Syria” tells the story of a gruesome case-study of a Fourth Generation Warfare in progress, its mind games, and overlapping theaters of mayhem.  As such, Mark Taliano proceeds agilely to link this particular case-study with two important catalysts without which it cannot possibly be understood: 1) global strategies to subjugate independent states to an overarching matrix of hegemony, i.e., imperialism, 2) the dark forces lurking in the deep recesses of that matrix, i.e., international financial capital, and its links to its facades, and its regional and local proxies, be they state or non-state actors.

So in the end, “Voices from Syria” becomes a case-study of the use of local and foreign terrorists, foreign-financed NGO’s, massive disinformation campaigns, and regional allies in conducting asymmetrical warfare to subdue and tear an independent state asunder, in conjunction with standard tools from the imperialist toolkit like occupation and selective military strikes by the US government and NATO allies.

In terms of literary style, “Voices from Syria” is both personal enough to convey the suffering of the Syrians living through the calamities of the war on their country in their own voices, and general enough to tie that suffering into the wars on Iraq and Libya and the occupation of Palestine, that is, into imperialist designs for the region as a whole.

In the process, Mark Taliano emerges as an unconventional leftist, who uses his analytical tools to explore the topology of real contradictions on the ground, and to pick his side accordingly.  The point, after all, is to be anti-imperialist, if one is to be progressive at all.  Alas, this is precisely the point too often missed by the liberal leftists who end up storefront preachers for imperialism.

Especially in the 21st Century, pro-imperialists sometimes adopt leftist jargon, and those actually bearing the full brunt of the resistance against imperialist hegemony may sometimes seem too far removed from anything progressive by the standards of Western leftists.  Not being able to discern which stances are effectively anti-imperialist and which are not has been the downfall of too many a leftist.  Mark Taliano is one of the select few who do NOT make that mistake.  He is able to stay open to the nuances of the local culture without preconceived Euro-centric 19th Century notions.  This enabled him to see the alignment of forces on the ground as they actually are.  Reading reality rigorously is what it is all about.  In this case, “Voices from Syria” presents the reality of the war on Syria better than anything one can find in the mainstream.

*

Note to readers: please click the share buttons above or below. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.


Order Mark Taliano’s Book “Voices from Syria” directly from Global Research.

The pdf version of the Second Edition will shortly be available for purchase online at Global Research.

Mark Taliano combines years of research with on-the-ground observations to present an informed and well-documented analysis that refutes  the mainstream media narratives on Syria. 

Voices from Syria 

ISBN: 978-0-9879389-1-6

Author: Mark Taliano

Year: 2017

Pages: 128 (Expanded edition: 1 new chapter)

List Price: $17.95

Special Price: $9.95 

Click to order

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on A Fresh Voice Debunking Disinformation on Syria with Real Eyewitness Testimonies and a Genuine Anti-Hegemonic Context
  • Tags:

All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the “Translate Website” drop down menu on the top banner of our home page (Desktop version).

***

Crimea

Crimea held a referendum on March 16, 2014 and 89% of the Crimean citizens voted in favour of integration into the Russian federation, a referendum which started the provocations of the European Union (EU) against Russia. The Crimean peninsula is located on the northern coast of the Black Sea and has strong historical, economic, military and cultural ties with Russia.  Crimea’s strategic importance for Russia is well known to the EU. A bridge between east and west so to speak. Crimea always was part of Russia, until Sovjet leader Nikita Khrushchev (Ukrainian) decided to give it away as a sort of present to Ukraine. In 1954, the Presidium of the Supreme Soviet of the Soviet Union issued a decree transferring Crimea from the Russian Soviet Federative Socialist Republic to the Ukrainian SSR. The majority of the citizens of Crimea are etnic Russians and also, Sevastopol, the capital of Crimea is a strategically important port and naval base throughout history. The city has been a home to the Russian  Black Sea Fleet.

Since 2014, the EU is trying to use the minority Tatar community of Crimea to be part of the hybrid war, or trying to provoke a color revolution in Crimea. In 1944, at the end of WWII the ethnic Tatar population was expelled from parts of Crimea, because many members of its community collaborated with the German NAZI‘s. But the last twenty-five years, they gradually returned to Crimea, a reconciliation process has been conducted, the Western media and governments don‘t mention this in their news outlets, just saying that the Tatars were expelled, without giving a proper reason, or the historical context behind it.

Ukraine

Ukraine is the most important conflict and the main motif in provoking a conflict. In 2014 the EU and US conducted a color revolution, which has been called in the so-called history books of the EU, the Maidan (square) uprising. The color-revolution was partly funded by George Soros, who is the biggest sponsor of the EU and carried out by Victoria Nuland (US), Senator John McCain (+) of the US, Hans van Baalen (Dutch EU) and Guy Verhofstad (Belgium ex-prime minister EU). Unfortunately, a successful coup, whereas the Ukranian people didn‘t benefit from until now. Ukraine plunged in a bloody civil war, the eastern regions of Lughansk and Donetsk didn‘t want to bow for the Kiev (EU) regime and declared their autonomous status.

Decree to re-take Crimea

Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky on March 24, 2021 signed a document that you will not read about in the Western mainstream media. The decree that he signed makes it clear that Ukraine intends to re-take Crimea. Of course, Russia will never hand over Crimea because it‘s legally (since the 2014 referendum) Russian territory and so Ukraine can only take the peninsula by force, with the help of NATO. This decree is, in effect, a declaration of war against Russia. Zelensky would never have signed such a document or decree without the approval of the Biden government and EU. The Russian Federation is taking the current situation very seriously, while Western media and governments speak of  “Russian aggression“.  What most people in the West don’t know is that fighting has already broken out in eastern-Ukraine. The ceasefire that has been in effect since July 2020 has already been violated hundreds of times, in the past week. According to various news outlets Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov said that any attempts to start a new military conflict in Ukraine’s east could end up destroying Ukraine.

Ukraine’s military announced that it will hold joint military drills with NATO and British troops, the so-called Cossack Mace 2021 exercise. The exercise will involve more than 1,000 military personnel from at least five NATO member states. Furthermore, In 2021, Ukraine will host the Ukrainian-US exercises Rapid Trident 2021 and Sea Breeze 2021, the Ukrainian-British drills Cossack Mace 2021 and Warrior Watcher 2021, the Ukrainian-Romanian exercises Riverine 2021, and the Ukrainian-Polish drills Three Swords 2021 and Silver Sabre 2021. A real provocation and threat to the Russian Federation, although it‘s called exercise, all part of the hybrid war waged upon Russia.

Belarus

In June 2020, the EU in collaboration with the US and the deep state (Soros) was trying to conduct a color revolution in Belarus. Belarus is known as the last dictatorship in Europe, according to the Western and especially Dutch media. The tiny country of the Netherlands is playing a crucial role in the EU and the British (Atlantic Council) intelligence service.  The Dutch embassy in Minsk initiated two programs: the Human Rights Fund and the Netherlands Fund for Regional Partnership  called Matra (NFRP – MATRA). In principle, the Dutch Embassy was giving grants up to a maximum of € 50.000. The goal was to indoctrinate the youth, by organizing classes to force upon them the Western style doctrine of Human Rights, LGBTI and so on. Besides the Netherlands, it was funded by George Soros, who is known as “The Man Who Broke the Bank of England” because of his short sale of US $10 billion worth of pounds sterling, which made him a profit of $1 billion during the 1992 Black Wednesday UK currency crisis. He is trying to manipulate the world through his  Open Society Foundation.

Why a Color Revolution in Belarus? Not, of course, to bring democracy. Belarus is strategically the only obstacle for NATO and the EU. Belarus borders Ukraine, Poland, Latvia, Lithuania, and of course Russia. This will give NATO and the EU the possibility to come “closer“ to Russia and be able to station NATO troops along its borders. The attempted coup d‘etat failed, because of the bad pick of a new so-called opposition member Sviatlana Tsikhanouskaya, a schoolteacher without knowledge of politics or ruling a country, which is exactly the purpose of the West – install a puppet regime and control the country. The goal was to mobilise youth, blind them with a lot of promises, so-called freedom and better life, then send them, as learned at the Dutch embassy and NGO‘s  classes, on the street to confront the government of Lukashenko. This failed, the numbers were not high enough and Russia stood behind Belarus, a country which has more in common like history and culture with Russia than the EU.

Conclusion

Until now we could speak, as from 2007, when President Putin held his famous Munich speech, warning that Russia is on the road to become a part of the multipolar world, Russia indeed has become part of the multipolar world. The hybrid war intensified in 2014, the hybrid warfare on Russia from Western countries (EU-NATO-US) has a long history. But since the COVID-19 pandemic, which is used as a political tool in Western EU countries, the hybrid war can easily turn into a real conventional war, with the threat of using nuclear arms. Coming weeks or days are crucial for the peace and stability for the world. Let‘s hope the West will use it‘s common sense of not plunging into a conventional war, which will be destructive for mankind.

*

Note to readers: please click the share buttons above or below. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.

This article was originally published on InfoBrics.

Sonja van den Ende is an independent journalist.

Featured image is from InfoBrics

All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the “Translate Website” drop down menu on the top banner of our home page (Desktop version).

***

Hamas has been a strongly maligned actor within the western mainstream media.  The concise and well written “Engaging the World” by Daud Abdullah presents a clear picture of Hamas’ attempts to act as an international state actor while at the same time continuing its role as a liberation movement against Israeli occupation.  It is a very honest work, describing Hamas’ success in presenting a critical pragmatic formulation of its actions for other state actors, at the same time indicating where it has not succeeded, through its own relative political weakness in relation to considerable outside influences.

Starting positions

Above all it is not a polemical work attacking Israel or highlighting the history of Israel transgressions but limits itself strictly to what is indicated in the title.  It examines foreign policy, Hamas’ attempts, successful and otherwise, to present its position to other countries.  Yes, it does indicate its obvious position as considering “Israel in Palestine as a manifestation of European colonialism, acknowledging that the Zionist enterprise in Palestine could never have succeeded without western political and military support.”

Abdullah goes on to indicate that Hamas is “not attempting to establish a religious state or theocracy….it is seeking a civil state with an Islamic framework of reference through which the executive can be held accountable to the people.”  Having identified  those two large encompassing positions,  the book proceeds to examine how Hamas has attempted to be both idealistic and realistic at the same time, a rational actor in its attempts to pursue its relationships with outside political entities.

Much of that is regional as Hamas “sought to avoid involvement in disputes between competing regional alliances” a not easy task when Arab countries tend to have strong internal conflicts and disputes (e.g. Iraq invading Kuwait, Saudi Arabia against Yemen, Qatar et al).  Hamas reaches much farther abroad than its neighbours, engaging with the rest of the world.

Oslo

One position they do not accept – an internal one – is that of the PLO and its armed wing Fatah, considered to have been co opted through the Oslo process and and subsequent manipulation by the western community in its actions as being the enforcement police acting for the Israelis.  The second chapter, “Rejecting the call to Oslo” outlines Hamas initiative to “situate the movement within the framework of international law….to enhance the  international legitimacy of the movement…allowing it to reserve the right to accept or reject proposals or resolutions that did not uphold the rights of the Palestinian people.”

One of the more intriguing incidents is presented in chapter 3, “Opportunities from Marj az Zuhur” something I was vaguely familiar with but obviously had not recognized its importance before reading this section.  This history indicates how significant the PLO – Hamas split was, how the Arab League operated with double standards, how for Israel it was “ill conceived and destined to fail,” but for Hamas it was a turning point that “evoked the solidarity of people across religious and political divides.”

2006 and Gaza

A brief examination of “Relations with the USA” leads directly into another highly significant chapter and a major turning point, “The 2006 elections and the trial of democracy”.  It was this sequence of events which “highlighted all the posturing and pretence involved in the U.S. portrayal of itself as a champion of democracy in the Middle East and elsewhere.”

Abdullah recognizes that for “failing to see and avoid the trap that was set for them…both organizations [Hamas and the PLO] are responsible.”  However at the same time, Hamas’ position was strengthened “because its political leaders were seen as competent, open, untarnished by corruption and unwilling to compromise their ideals.” Since then, Israel has militarily attacked the Gaza enclave three times against all standards of humanitarian and war law.

Beyond…

The rest of the record examines Hamas’ relationships with the European Union, the global south, Russia, and China, all a mixture of successes and resistance. It ends with an interesting account of Hamas’ interactions with the government of Syria and other Syrian leaders during the protests and civil war in Syria.  Syria had been one of the strongest supporters of Hamas but the difficult situation in Syria proved too difficult for Hamas to negotiate its way through.  It was viewed as “an internal problem” that hopefully “no foreign powers would have an excuse to interfere in their internal affairs.”

Contentions

Perhaps, as with most historical accounts, current events do not fit well within most people’s perspectives.  There are two points, both intersecting with the U.S. and its allies, that fit within this possibly ‘too close for a good view’ perspective.  First is the apparent view that Syria’s problems were internal – yes, they were, but they were also seriously aggravated by U.S. interference along with its regional allies, notably Turkey, Saudi Arabia, and of course Israel.  It is noted that “A bloody civil war ensued.”  And again, yes it did, but highly influenced, highly interfered with by the just mentioned adversaries to the Assad government.

The second item I have difficulty with is the argument that “Although the right to armed struggle is upheld in UN Resolutions 2955 and 3034 of December 1972, the stronger trend in contemporary relations is for disputes to be resolved peacefully.”   The counterpoint to this is a simple examination of U.S. foreign policy, its use of extremist forces to do much of their work, to use both covert and overt actions to influence and overthrow a wide variety of non-obliging governments, and the current use of economic sanctions to strangle the economy of whatever country they deem offensive to their privileges.

Conclusion

Neither of these two points refutes the overall position of Hamas – it means that perhaps in another few years, these events may take on a different meaning.  In the closing Abdullah acknowledges that internal weaknesses need to be addressed, and “Ultimately, the greatest losses from the rift have accrued neither to Hamas nor Fatah but to the Palestinian national project.”

For the future, Abdullah recognizes that Hamas may have to face “realities on the ground” that may affect their favoured policy of non-alignment on the international scene.   He recognizes that “Palestine…no longer seems to be a central issue for many regional governments,” while at the same time “Palestine remains one of the great moral and political issues of our time; it unites people everywhere.”

He sees that the “international community moves towards a multipolar world”, an indicator that both my contention about U.S. foreign policy and the need for a political realignment “contributing to the formation of new global alliances,”  have actually been recognized and acknowledged.

A necessary read

“Engaging the World: The Making of Hamas’s Foreing Policy” deserves to be read by anyone interested in foreign affairs, in particular the MiddleEast (which admittedly affects most of the world).  It should serve as a guide for any academic programs that contends to be about international affairs, foreign policy, or any other formulation of geopolitical interests.  At the same time it is readily accessible to any other interested reader and while some background information on the overall history of the region is helpful, “Engaging the World” can also stand alone as an introduction to events in the Middle East.

*

Note to readers: please click the share buttons above or below. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.

Jim Miles is a frequent contributor to Global Research.

Featured image is from Middle East Monitor

All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the “Translate Website” drop down menu on the top banner of our home page (Desktop version).

***

On March 24th, Ukraine’s President Vladimir Zelensky signed what was essentially a declaration of war on Russia. In the document, titled Presidential Decree No. 117/2021, the US-backed Ukrainian leader declared that it is the official policy of Ukraine to take back Crimea from Russia.

The declaration that Ukraine would take back Crimea from Russia also followed, and was perhaps instigated by, President Biden’s inflammatory and foolish statement that “Crimea is Ukraine.”

US Secretary of State Antony Blinken, who was a chief architect of the US-backed coup against Ukraine in 2014, continued egging on the Ukrainians, promising full US support for the “territorial integrity” of Ukraine. Many Americans wonder why they are not even half as concerned about the territorial integrity of the United States!

Not to be outdone, at the beginning of this month US Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin – who previously served on the board of missile-maker Raytheon – called his counterpart in Ukraine and promised “unwavering US support for Ukraine’s sovereignty.” As the US considers Crimea to be Ukrainian territory, this is clearly a clear green light for Kiev to take military action.

Washington is also sending in weapons. Some 300 tons of new weapons have arrived in the past weeks and more is on the way.

As could be expected, Moscow has responded to Zelensky’s decree and to the increasingly bellicose rhetoric in Kiev and Washington by re-positioning troops and other military assets closer to its border with Ukraine. Does anyone doubt that if the US were in the same situation – for example, if China installed a hostile and aggressive government in Mexico – the Pentagon might move troops in a similar manner?

But according to the media branch of the US military-industrial-Congressional-media complex, Russian troop movements are not a response to clear threats from a neighbor, but instead are just more “Russian aggression.”

The unhinged US “experts” behind the 2014 coup against the elected Ukrainian president are back in power and they are determined to finish the job – even if it means World War III! The explicit US backing of Ukraine’s military ambitions in the region are a blank check to Kiev.

But it is a check that Kiev would be wise to avoid cashing. Back in 1956 the US government pumped endless propaganda into Hungary promising military backing for an uprising against its Soviet occupiers. When the Hungarians, believing Washington’s lies, did rise up they found themselves all alone and facing Soviet retaliation.

Despite the cruel US propaganda, at least Eisenhower was wise enough to realize that no one would benefit from a nuclear war over Budapest.

Why is it any of our business whether Crimea is part of Ukraine or part of Russia? Why is it any of our business if the Russian-speaking population of eastern Ukraine prefer being aligned with Russia?

Why, for that matter, are unproven allegations of Russian meddling in our elections a violation of the “rules-based international order” but an actual US-backed coup against an elected Ukrainian government is not?

We are seeing foreign policy made by Raytheon and the other US military contractors, through cut-outs in government like Austin and others. Feckless US foreign policy “experts” believe their own propaganda about Russia and are on the verge of taking us to war over it.

It seems as if Americans are sleepwalking through this dangerous minefield. Let us hope they soon wake up before we’re all blown up.

*

Note to readers: please click the share buttons above or below. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.

Featured image is from Stars and Stripes

Goodbye War on Terror, Hello Permanent Pandemic

April 6th, 2021 by Children’s Health Defense

All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the “Translate Website” drop down menu on the top banner of our home page (Desktop version).

***

Those in positions of power have long recognized that conditions of fear and panic furnish exploitable opportunities to restructure society. COVID-19 is certainly a textbook example of this observation, illustrating that well-tuned fear campaigns can persuade many people to abandon essential medical and individual freedoms.

One of the key elements in the propagandist’s toolkit for perpetuating fear is repetition, particularly if the fear messages come from different directions and sources and are cloaked in a veneer of officialdom and respectability.

Thus, in the first few months of 2021, we have seen a proliferation of admonishments telling Americans that pandemics pose an “existential threat” to the United States and are here to stay.

‘Existential threats’ — history repeats

In January, a bipartisan commission released a dramatic 44-page report calling for an “Apollo Program for Biodefense,” explicitly comparing the proposal to the efforts that first landed humans on the moon. The commission laid the groundwork for its report in 2015, when it published a National Blueprint for Biodefense.

Now, seizing the COVID-19 moment, the commission is making the case for a vastly expanded biodefense budget — amounting to billions of biodefense dollars annually — to implement its conveniently ready-to-go blueprint.

Key members of the Biodefense Commission used the “existential threat” language in the aftermath of 9/11 in reference to terrorism — the same language they are using now regarding pandemics. Commission Chair Joseph Lieberman championed the post-9/11 creation of the Department of Homeland Security; Co-chair Thomas Ridge served as the first Homeland Security director.

Around 2014, world leaders began signaling their intent to swap out the War on Terror for a new narrative. That fall, President Obama hosted the first major meeting of the Global Health Security Agenda (GHSA) — which he later elevated to a national priority — and soon thereafter pronounced the terrorist threat “over-inflated.”

Observing the downplaying of terrorism by Obama and senior administration officials, including then-Vice President Biden, journalists at The Guardian chimed in, calling assertions of an “existential [terrorist] threat” hyperbolic, “zany” and “absurd.” The next year, the Biodefense Commission issued its National Blueprint.

Brace yourself

Dovetailing with the Biodefense Commission’s report, the media are telling the public to “start planning for a permanent pandemic.” For example, deploying the loaded language so favored by propagandists, German-American writer Andreas Kluth warned Americans on March 24 (in Bloomberg) of a “global arms race” pitting “coronavirus mutations … against vaccinations,” suggesting that SARS-CoV-2 could “become our permanent enemy, like the flu but worse.”

A former writer for The Economist and a self-styled interpreter of historical successes and failures, Kluth conjures up a foe — a mutating virus too “protean and elusive” to ever be conquered — that undoubtedly hits the biodefense wonks’ sweet spot. Far from rejecting pandemic hyperbole as “zany” or “absurd,” Kluth instead cheerlessly advises Americans to brace for “endless cycles of outbreaks and remissions, social restrictions and relaxations, lockdowns and reopenings.”

Ironically, Kluth argued last July in favor of a revival of “classical liberalism,” clarifying that he meant “not in the American sense of ‘left’ but in the European sense of ‘freedom.’”

Kluth also assures residents of the U.S. and other wealthy nations that vaccination “a couple of times a year” will be part of the “new normal.” Arguing for realism, however, he cautions that vaccination against “the latest variant in circulation” will never occur “fast or comprehensively enough to achieve herd immunity.”

The most positive notes Kluth seems able to strike are his conclusions that this “Brave New World needn’t be dystopian” and that, with each successive lockdown, “we [will] damage the economy less than in the previous one.”

Global control grid

As Children’s Health Defense and others have pointed out, COVID-19 — and the spectre of pandemics more generally — offer a handy pretext for the wider financial and governance overhaul that is unfolding, benefiting the few while building out a global control grid for the many.

In this context, we should not be surprised to see that the Biodefense Commission’s report highlights 15 core technology priorities that would fundamentally restructure society and daily life — in both the physical and digital realms — in the service of pathogen vigilance. These include:

  • A National Public Health Data System to “integrate, curate and analyze” granular data at all levels in “real time.”
  • Artificial-intelligence-driven “digital pathogen surveillance” involving tracking of data sources like social media, online forums and internet search queries.
  • “Pathogen transmission suppression in the built environment,” including “air filtration and sterilization systems” that could involve diffusion of nanoparticles (no consent required) via HVAC systems.
  • “Needle-free” methods of drug and vaccine administration to “increase uptake” and work around “the logistical challenges of delivering these pharmaceuticals to potentially billions of people.”

In light of these stated priorities, it is interesting to note that the Biodefense Commission’s Ridge heads up an eponymous Beltway security consulting firm, while Lieberman serves as senior counsel for a New York law firm whose roster of financial services, real estate and (bio)technology clients includes Google and Israel’s Teva Pharmaceuticals.

Teva announced in February that it is in discussion with COVID-19 vaccine makers about possible “co-production” of some of the shots. The same day, Teva’s CEO told CNBC’s Meg Tirrell (who asked about this “very bright spot in Teva’s business”) that the company was “proud to be the partners” for the distribution and logistics of Pfizer’s experimental vaccine in Israel which, as of mid-March, had administered the shots to nearly 60% of the population, “more doses per capita than any other country,” according to Tirrell.

Teva’s CEO said nary a peep about the experts who are warning that Pfizer’s injection of Israelis is producing mortality far in excess of what would be expected from COVID itself.

Like Teva’s CEO, Andreas Kluth has been an enthusiastic booster of messenger RNA (mRNA) vaccine technology, happy about synthetic mRNA’s endless permutations and the possibility of telling cells “to make whatever protein we want.”

While acknowledging that experimental mRNA vaccines had problems in the past (such as their tendency to cause “fatal inflammation” in animals), Kluth celebrates the COVID-19 pandemic as the “grand debut of mRNA vaccines and their definitive proof of concept,” stating: “Henceforth, mRNA will have no problems getting money, attention or enthusiasm — from investors, regulators and policymakers.”

In short, permanent pandemics promise to be good for technocracy and good for Big Business.

*

Note to readers: please click the share buttons above or below. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.

Featured image is from Children’s Health Defense

Georgia’s New Voter Suppression Law and Corporate Support

April 6th, 2021 by Ciara Torres-Spelliscy

All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the “Translate Website” drop down menu on the top banner of our home page (Desktop version).

***

Something’s rotten in Georgia, and it’s not the peaches: Gov. Brian Kemp just signed into law a regressive omnibus bill containing a number of provisions that will make voting harder. This is the law that infamously makes it a crime to provide food or drink to anyone waiting in line to vote — and Black voters will likely suffer disproportionately because poll closures in predominantly Black communities have led to hours-long lines. In response, voting rights activists — such as members of the New Georgia Project and other groups — have been calling out corporations that made political contributions to the Republican lawmakers.

Coca-Cola, for instance, has been the target of plenty of backlash from voting advocates, in part because it’s one of the biggest companies based in Georgia. But Coca-Cola also made political contributions to the very politicians who wrote, passed, and signed this bill into law. For example, according to Follow the Money, Coca-Cola gave to Brian Kemp’s gubernatorial campaign in 2018. Other corporate donors to Governor Kemp included SunTrust BankPhilip Morris USAKoch IndustriesBlue Cross Blue Shield of GeorgiaHome DepotDelta Airlines, and Pfizer.

Republican State Rep. Barry Fleming, who authored some of the Georgia legislation, also received corporate donations from companies including United Health Group, Coca-Cola, Philip Morris USA, Comcast, Walmart, Allstate Insurance, AT&T, Publix, SunTrust Bank, Georgia-Pacific, General Motors, and Koch Industries.

This strategic focus on the corporate backers of Republican lawmakers has already had an impact: 72 current and former Black executives from a wide range of companies have all condemned the new Georgia law. This includes Kenneth Chenault, a former CEO of American Express; Kenneth Frazier, the chief executive of Merck; Roger Ferguson Jr., the chief executive of TIAA; Raymond McGuire, a former executive at Citigroup; Ursula Burns, a former chief executive of Xerox; and Richard Parsons, a former chairman of Citigroup. Delta, another Georgia-based company that initially offered a lukewarm endorsement of the bill, reversed course. CEO Ed Bastian wrote a memo to employees, stating,

“After having time to now fully understand all that is in the bill, coupled with discussions with leaders and employees in the Black community, it’s evident that the bill includes provisions that will make it harder for many underrepresented voters, particularly Black voters, to exercise their constitutional right to elect their representatives. That is wrong.”

Meanwhile, the CEO of Coca-Cola, James Quincysaid,

“This legislation is wrong, and needs to be remedied, and we will continue to advocate for it both in private and in now even more clearly in public.”

This newfound responsiveness on the part of these companies may have been inspired, at least in part, from threats to boycott. This is nothing new: boycotts have historically been used by activists of all political stripes in the United States. The successful Montgomery bus boycotts in the mid-1950s are now famous. But this is far from the only organized abstention used to advance the cause of civil rights. It’s largely forgotten now, but Martin Luther King Jr. called for boycotts of companies that had poor civil rights records in his final “Mountain Top” speech. In fact, King called for boycotts of companies including Wonder Bread and, notably, Coca-Cola. “Our agenda calls for withdrawing economic support from you,” he said. “Go out and tell your neighbors not to buy Coca-Cola . . .”

The very next day, King was assassinated.

Now, 53 years later, his daughter, Bernice A. King, is calling on Georgia corporations to uphold the pledges they made in 2020 in the wake of the murder of George Floyd. An open letter jointly penned by King, Al Vivian, and John-Miles Lewis, states that in the run-up to the omnibus bill’s passage, “Corporations did not go far enough to ensure every voting citizen had fair and equitable access to the most basic of American rights – the right to participate in the electoral process; the right to have a voice in our shared future. The failure of corporate leaders across our state to live up to their racial equity commitments made in the last year disregards and disrespects our fathers’ tireless work and jeopardizes the soul of Georgia and the promise of democracy. . . . when the first test came challenging our corporations to move from words to action, to stand on behalf of disenfranchised voters, there was shocking silence. . . . The lack of action is not only ethically wrong and morally reprehensible, it hurts the corporate bottom line. Racism is bad for business.”

Now that the legislative session in Georgia is over, the fight moves to the courts. So far three different lawsuits have challenged the new regressive law. It remains to be seen how forcefully Georgia corporations will aid (or oppose) this litigation. Will they put their money where their mouth is and end corporate contributions to the politicians who created this law? If not, they may face more sustained and robust boycotts that hit them where it hurts — although some, like Stacey Abrams, have noted that boycotts don’t just hurt companies, they hurt the people who work for them too.

At the end, the letter writers express, corporations should “[u]se your power to retire propagandized politics in the state legislatures and promote the passage of HR1 – For the People Act and the John Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act currently before the Congress.”

*

Note to readers: please click the share buttons above or below. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.

All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the “Translate Website” drop down menu on the top banner of our home page (Desktop version).

***

Iraqi Prime Minister Mustafa Al-Kadhimi visited Riyadh on March 31 and spoke with Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman in Al Yamamah palace. Following the exchange, the Iraqi Prime Minister said “relations with Saudi Arabia have accelerated in a positive direction,” adding “we have managed to overcome many challenges that were hindering the progress of our relationship.”

Because Iraq is in a dire economic situation, it needs to consolidate its relations with various regional partners. Iraq is facing a medical, economic and security crisis, hence the importance of Kadhimi’s trip to Saudi Arabia. His visit confirms that Baghdad’s relationship with Riyadh is improving, and this poses problems for Iran.

Kadhimi went to Riyadh with his ministers of Foreign Affairs, Finance, Interior, Oil, Agriculture and Housing. Judging by the Iraqi delegation, the trip had a mostly economic imperative. With this in mind, the two countries recently reopened their main border post at Arar, something more than symbolic since Saudi Arabia funded the reconstruction of the border post to the tune of $75 million. In addition to Arar, the two countries intend to reopen a second crossing point at Al-Jemayma. This will create another gateway for imports to reach Iraq as the majority arrives from Iran.

Saudi Arabia plans to increase its investments in Iraq with some 6,000 projects worth nearly $3 billion. Riyadh plans to finance projects in the food industry, energy and infrastructure. While it is not limited to the hydrocarbon sector, it remains the heart of the Iraqi economy. Oil infrastructure is damaged after 40 years of conflict despite the fact that Baghdad depends on oil revenues to finance 97% of the state budget.

Saudi investments are not only for economic intentions. In the context of the Saudi-Iranian rivalry, it looks like Iraq is back on the centre stage. Indeed, the powerful Iranian-backed Shi’ite militias in Iraq reacted negatively to the rapprochement with Riyadh. In a predominantly Shi’ite Iraq, the Iranian-backed Popular Mobilization Units (PMU) have great influence. Divided even among themselves, the PMU act according to nationalist and confessional beliefs, with many of the militias in the PMU completely subservient to Tehran.

This is where all the difficulty lies for the Iraqi government. The militias were intended, in the long term, to be integrated into the regular army. But these militias have sought to maintain their autonomy vis-à-vis the government with their own mode of financing based on quasi-institutionalized levies and taxation which parasitize the state budget and its functioning. However, Baghdad’s economic dependence on Iran remains significant, especially as electricity and gas come from the neighbouring country.

For Iran, it needs significant influence over Baghdad as it views Iraq as a buffer state and essential for its security. It is imperative for Tehran that Iraq is never again a threat like it was under Saddam Hussein. This is not Tehran’s unique interest however as Iraq is a strategic issue for every global and regional power. Even under the Trump administration, there were sanctions exemptions for Iraq. These exemptions were immediately extended by Joe Biden so that the Arab country can continue sourcing electricity and gas from Iran without punishment. Almost 30% of internal energy consumption comes from Iran.

Kadhimi’s trip to Riyadh aimed to balance regional powers and ensure that the Saudis become an important partner that can help reconfigure the regional order. By improving relations with Saudi Arabia, it could also suggest that Kadhimi, a Shi’ite himself, is rebalancing his country’s ideology back towards pan-Arabism after Iraq split along sectarian lines following the U.S. invasion in 2003. Using Iraq’s overwhelming Arab identity to counterbalance religious sectarianism, Kadhimi is engaged in a difficult task of balancing Iran and Saudi Arabia in order to be able to diversify his country’s economic partners.

For Baghdad, the endless rivalry between Iran and Saudi Arabia jeopardizes recovery and reconstruction. For Tehran, it relies on Iraq to serve as a buffer for its own security and is therefore unlikely to retract its relations with Iraq for building its ties with Saudi Arabia. For Riyadh, this is part of the long process of rapprochement with a lot of the Arab World after it backed ISIS, Al-Qaeda and other radical groups against Syria, Iraq and Libya, and thus allowed Iran and its new rival Turkey to have greater influence than they did previous to those countries’ respective wars. None-the-less, Baghdad must now play a very careful balancing game as it relies on Iran for energy but will need Saudi Arabia for reconstruction.

*

Note to readers: please click the share buttons above or below. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.

This article was originally published on InfoBrics.

Paul Antonopoulos is an independent geopolitical analyst.

Featured image is from InfoBrics

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Iraq’s Turn to Saudi Arabia for Economic Relief Is Sign of Its Regional Rebalancing
  • Tags:

All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the “Translate Website” drop down menu on the top banner of our home page (Desktop version).

***

Now that we are allowed to meet up in groups of six outside their homes, Matt Hancock is warning us not to do anything foolish, like hug one another or breach the two metre rule. “Do it safely,” he tweeted. “Don’t blow it now”.

But in fact, the people who shouldn’t “blow it” are Boris Johnson, Sir Patrick Vallance, Chris Whitty and, yes, Matt Hancock. That is the view of Martin Kulldorff, Professor of Medicine at Harvard Medical School, biostatistician and epidemiologist at the Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Massachusetts, and co-author of the Great Barrington Declaration.

Professor Kulldorff has told the UK Government and its scientific advisors exactly who they should be listening to and why if they want to save lives – and it doesn’t include vaccinating the entire population, including children. He said this on Twitter on March 15th – “Thinking that everyone must be vaccinated is as scientifically flawed as thinking that nobody should. Covid vaccines are important for older high-risk people and their care-takes. Those with prior natural infection do not need it. Nor children.” – and Twitter attached a health warning to his Tweet: “This tweet is misleading. Learn why health officials recommend a vaccine for most people.” Because, of course, a 22 year-old graduate in Whiteness Studies sitting in Twitter’s HQ in Silicon Valley knows much more about infectious diseases than a Harvard professor of medicine.

Speaking to me in an exclusive interview for Lockdown Sceptics, Kulldorff said:

That warning was rather silly. When making unscientific claims, media often refer to ‘health officials’ or ‘health experts’ without naming those experts. I challenge Twitter to name vaccine epidemiologists who think that everyone must get the Covid vaccine, including children and those with immunity from prior infection.

Equally strange, they even concur with my tweet when they say “most people” rather than “all people”. Right now, children are clearly not part of “most people”, since a Covid vaccine has not yet been approved for them and we know nothing about efficacy or potential adverse reaction in children. Since most children are asymptomatic or only mildly symptomatic, it will be hard to show that the vaccine can reduce symptoms, hospitalisations or mortality in children, requiring a large sample size in countries that still has considerable disease spread.

I have worked with vaccines for a couple of decades, but Twitter clearly thinks that scientific discussions about these things are dangerous. Maybe social media is dangerous to those in power. I do hope that social media is dangerous to the lockdowns that have done so much damage to public health during this past year. The enormous collateral public health damage, which is being documented by Collateral Global, is something that we will continue to live with, and die with, for many years to come. It truly is a public health tragedy of epic proportions.

The catastrophic impact of the lockdowns on public health has been exacerbated by headlines and adverts striking the fear of god into millions, making them less likely to seek medical help for non-Covid diseases.

The media has been very reluctant to report reliable scientific and public health information about the pandemic. Instead they have broadcast unverified information such as the model predictions from Imperial College, they have spread unwarranted fear that undermine people’s trust in public health and they have promoted naïve and inefficient counter measures such as lockdowns, masks and contact tracing.

While I wished that neither SAGE nor anyone else would argue against long-standing principles of public health, the media should not censor such information. During a pandemic, it is more important than ever that media can report freely. There are two major reasons for this: (i) While similar to existing coronaviruses, SARS-CoV-2 is a new virus that we are constantly learning more about and because of that, it takes time to reach scientific conclusions. With censorship it takes longer and we cannot afford that during a pandemic. (ii) In order to maintain trust in public health, it is important that any thoughts and ideas about the pandemic can be voiced, debated and either confirmed or debunked.

Kulldorff thinks that the UK Government and its scientific advisors’ response to the pandemic – England is now into its third lockdown – is “incomprehensible”. Chris Whitty and Patrick Vallance initially got it right, then did a disastrous U-turn

I hope that the UK Government will quickly reverse course to avoid further unnecessary damage from both COVID-19 and the lockdowns. Why the UK Government and SAGE are not looking at public health more broadly is incomprehensible to me. Chris and Patrick got it right in early March 2020, when they argued for focused protection of high-risk older people without a destructive lockdown for children and young adults. Chris, Patrick, take advice from yourself from a little over a year ago. You can complement that with the extensive knowledge of epidemiology professors such as Sunetra Gupta and Carl Heneghan at Oxford University, Ellen Townsend at the University of Nottingham, Francoix Balloux at University College London and Paul McKeigue at University of Edinburgh.

It should now be obvious to everyone that lockdowns, masks and contract tracing failed to protect older high-risk people, as it could not suppress and contain COVID-19, with far too many deaths as a result. Lockdowns are just a dragged out let-it-rip strategy. That was clear to most infectious disease epidemiologists already a year ago. The fatal logical flaw of the lockdowners has been that we must lock down because COVID-19 is dangerous. The opposite is true. Because it is a very dangerous disease among the old, they should have been properly protected through focused protection.

Instead of continuing to take advice from those who were wrong then, Boris should listen to those who were right. In the UK, you have the world’s preeminent infectious disease epidemiologist in professor Sunetra Gupta. She can help implement a focused protection strategy of older high-risk individuals through vaccination and other means, while removing the lockdowns. If the Prime Minister needs the comfort of company with other politicians, get in touch with Governor Ron DeSantis in Florida.

Life in Florida, as we know, is now almost back to normal. No mask mandates, no restrictions on freedom and no incoming digital vaccine passports. But that is all set to continue here in the UK, with, among other things, the Department for Education insisting that masks should continue to be worn in classrooms in secondary schools when kids return to school after the Easter break. As Jay Bhattacharya pointed out in an interview for Lockdown Sceptics, the evidence that masks protect the wearer from infection is weak and statistically insignificant – and Prof Kulldorff agrees.

In Sweden, kids are not required to wear masks in schools and schoolchildren don’t have to get tested either. Schools did require that kids with e.g. a fever or a cough stay home, whether or not it was due to Covid or some other bug. If headmasters do that, they can let kids be kids and live normal lives. Inducing unwarranted fear in the public goes against one of the basic principles of public health. It has had major negative public health consequences on both physical and mental health. For example, children should not be afraid of infecting others, of playing with other children, of going to school, of playing sports, of hugging friends or their grandparents, of going outside, of seeing a mask-less person. That must stop. Period.

*

Note to readers: please click the share buttons above or below. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.

The author is a staff journalist at a national newspaper group. Oliver May is a pseudonym.

Featured image is from Lockdown Sceptics

All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the “Translate Website” drop down menu on the top banner of our home page (Desktop version).

***

The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation and an assortment of high-profile figures and policy makers are pushing for unregulated gene-editing technologies, the rollout of bio-synthetic food created in laboratories, the expanded use of patented seeds and the roll back of subsidies and support for farmers in places like India.

These neoliberal evangelists despise democracy and believe that state machinery and public money should only facilitate the ambitions of their unaccountable mega-corporations.

Corporations are jumping on the ‘sustainability’ bandwagon by undermining traditional agriculture and genuine sustainable agrifood systems and packaging this corporate takeover of food as some kind of humanitarian endeavour.

The watchdog organisation Corporate Europe Observatory (CEO) notes that the European Commission has committed to a fundamental shift away from industrial agriculture. With a 50 per cent pesticide reduction target and a 25 per cent organic agriculture goal by 2030, CEO argues that business as usual is no longer an option. In effect, this creates an existential crisis for corporate seed suppliers and pesticide manufacturers like Bayer, BASF, Corteva (DowDupont) and Syngenta (ChemChina).

However, these corporations are fighting back on various fronts, not least by waging an ongoing battle to get their new generation of genetic engineering techniques excluded from European regulations. They do not want plants, animals and micro-organisms created with gene-editing techniques like CRISPR-Cas to be subject to safety checks, monitoring or consumer labelling. This is concerning given the real dangers that these techniques pose.

For example, a new paper published in the journal Environmental Sciences Europe, authored by Dr Katharina Kawall, indicates the negative effects on ecosystems that can result from the release of gene-edited plants. These unintended effects come from the intended changes induced by genome editing, which can affect various metabolic processes in the plants.

The new paper adds to a growing body of peer-reviewed research that calls into question industry claims about the ‘precision’, safety and benefits of gene-edited organisms.

Recent research by the Greens and the European Free Alliance in the European Parliament indicates that 86 per cent of Europeans who have heard of genetically engineered (GE) food want products containing GE organisms to be labelled as such. Some 68 per cent of respondents that have heard of new genetic engineering methods demand that food produced with these techniques, such as CRISPR, to be labelled as GE. Only three per cent agreed with the industry’s proposal to exempt these products from safety testing and labelling.

Regardless, with the help of 1.3 million euros from the Gates Foundation, the industry is paving the way for deregulation by widespread lobbying of policy makers and promoting these technologies on the basis of them protecting the climate and ‘sustainability’. Through greenwashing, the industry hopes its ‘save-the-planet’ products can dodge regulation and gain public acceptance in an era of ‘climate emergency’.

Not for the first time, the lobbying that the Gates Foundation is engaging in displays complete contempt for democratic processes or public opinion. In 2018, The European Court of Justice ruled that new genetic engineering technologies should be regulated. As described by Marie Astier and Magali Reinert in the French publication Reporterre, Gates is very much at the centre of trying to bypass this ruling.

Of course, it is not just the European agrifood sector that is being targeted by Bill Gates and global agrifood players. India has very much been in the news in recent months due to the ongoing mass protest involving farmers who want three recent farm acts repealed.

Environmentalist Vandana Shiva has described on numerous occasions how the Gates Foundation through its ‘Ag One’ initiative is pushing for one type of agriculture for the whole world. A top-down approach regardless of what farmers or the public need or want. The strategy includes digital farming, in which farmers are monitored and mined for their agricultural data, which is then repackaged and sold back to them.

Along with Bill Gates, this is very much the agrifood model that Amazon, Google, Microsoft, Facebook, Bayer, Syngenta, Corteva and Cargill have in mind. The tech giants recent entry into the sector will increasingly lead to a mutually beneficial integration between the companies that supply products to farmers (pesticides, seeds, fertilisers, tractors, drones, etc) and those that control the flow of data (on soil, weather, pests, weeds, land use, consumer preferences, etc) and have access to digital (cloud) infrastructure. A system based on corporate concentration and centralisation.

Those farmers who remain in the system will become passive recipients of corporate directives and products on farms owned by the Gates Foundation (now one of the largest owners of farmland in the US), agribusiness and financial institutions/speculators.

The three pieces of farm legislation in India (passed by parliament but on hold) are essential for laying the foundation for this model of agriculture. The legislation is The Farmers Produce Trade and Commerce (Promotion and Facilitation) Act, The Farmers (Empowerment and Protection) Agreement on Price Assurance and Farm Services Act and The Essential Commodities (Amendment) Act.

The foreign and home-grown (Mukesh Ambani and Gautam Adani) billionaires who have pushed for these laws require a system of contract farming dominated by their big tech, big agribusiness and big retail interests. Smallholder peasant agriculture is regarded as an impediment to what they require:  industrial-scale farms where driverless tractors, drones and genetically engineered seeds are the norm and all data pertaining to land, water, weather, seeds and soils is controlled by them.

It is unfortunate that prominent journalists and media outlets in India are celebrating the legislation and have attempted to unjustifiably discredit farmers who are protesting. It is also worrying that key figures like Dr Ramesh Chand, a member of NITI (National Institute for Transforming India) Ayog, recently stated that the legislation is necessary.

When these figures attack farmers or promote the farm acts, what they are really doing is cheerleading for the destruction of local markets and independent small-scale enterprises, whether farmers, hawkers, food processers or mom and pop corner stores. And by implication, they are helping to ensure that India is surrendering control over its food.

They are doing the bidding of the Gates Foundation and the global agrifood corporations which also want India to eradicate its buffer food stocks. Some of the very corporations which will then control stocks that India would purchase with foreign exchange holdings. At that stage, any notion of sovereign statehood would be bankrupt as India’s food needs would be dependent on attracting foreign exchange reserves via foreign direct investment or borrowing.

This would represent the ultimate betrayal of India’s farmers and democracy as well as the final surrender of food security and food sovereignty to unaccountable global traders and corporations.

The farm legislation is regressive and will eventually lead to the country relying on outside forces to feed its population. This in an increasingly volatile world prone to conflict, public health scares, unregulated land and commodity speculation and price shocks.

MSP, malnutrition and helping farmers

Consider that India has achieved self-sufficiency in food grains and has ensured that, in theory at least, there is enough food available to feed its entire population. Yet hunger and malnutrition are still major issues.

Initial results from the National Family Health Survey round 5 (NFHS-5) released in January indicate a stagnation or deterioration in most factors related to the nutrition status of the Indian population. These findings have not accounted for the effects of the COVID-19 lockdown, which could see severe long-term adverse impacts on poverty, health and nutrition.

The survey findings suggest that people’s ability to access good quality diets has been impacted by the economic slowdown in recent years and a subsequent deterioration in poverty and consumption. Such a conclusion might not be too far off the mark given the findings of the consumption expenditure survey of the National Statistical Office (2017-18).

In a December 2019 article, economist S Subramanian writes:

“Employing the modest Rangarajan Committee poverty line… we find that the… proportion of the population in poverty, has climbed up from 31% to 35%, thus inverting a long trend of declining poverty ratios. If the poverty line is raised by 20% to a less modest but still modest level, then we find… [poverty]… rises precipitously from 42% to 52%.”

Supporters of the farm legislation are fond of saying the impact will be higher income for farmers and greater efficiency in food distribution. They fail to acknowledge that the neoliberal policies they have backed over the years have driven many farmers out of agriculture, into debt or to the edge of bankruptcy. They are now pushing for more of the same under the banner of helping farmers.

These policies mainly stem from India’s foreign exchange crisis in the 1990s. In return for up to more than $120 billion in World Bank loans at the time, India was directed to dismantle its state-owned seed supply system, reduce subsidies, run down public agriculture institutions and offer incentives for the growing of cash crops to earn foreign exchange.

The plan involves shifting at least 400 million from the countryside into cities. We have seen the running down of the sector for decades, spiralling input costs, withdrawal of government assistance and the impacts of cheap, subsidised imports which depress farmers’ incomes. The result is an acute agrarian crisis.

Through the new farm laws, the Modi government is now trying to accelerate the planned depopulation of the countryside by drastically reducing the role of the public sector in agriculture to that of a facilitator of private capital.

There is a solution to poverty, hunger and rural distress. But it is being side-lined in favour of a corporate agenda.

The Research Unit for Political Economy (RUPE) notes that minimum support prices (MSP) via government procurement of essential crops and commodities should be extended to the likes of maize, cotton, oilseed and pulses. At the moment, only farmers in certain states who produce rice and wheat are the main beneficiaries of government procurement at MSP.

RUPE says that since per capita protein consumption in India is abysmally low and has fallen further during the liberalisation era, the provision of pulses in the public distribution system (PDS) is long overdue and desperately needed. RUPE argues that the ‘excess’ stocks of food grain with the Food Corporation of India are merely the result of the failure or refusal of the government to distribute grain to the people.

(For those not familiar with the PDS: central government via the Food Corporation of India (FCI) is responsible for buying food grains from farmers at MSP at state-run market yards or mandis. It then allocates the grains to each state. State governments then deliver to the ration shops.)

If public procurement of a wider range of crops at the MSP were to occur – and MSP were guaranteed for rice and wheat across all states – it would help address hunger and malnutritional as well as farmer distress.

Instead of rolling back the role of the public sector and surrendering the system to foreign corporations, there is a need to further expand official procurement and public distribution. This would occur by extending procurement to additional states and expanding the range of commodities under the PDS.

Of course, some will raise a red flag here and say this would cost too much. But as RUPE notes, it would cost around 20 per cent of the current handouts (‘incentives’) received by corporations and their super-rich owners which do not benefit the bulk of the wider population in any way.

Furthermore, if policy makers were really serious about ‘sustainability’ and boosting the rural economy, they would reject the fake high-tech corporate controlled ‘sustainability’ agenda and a reliance on rigged and unstable global markets. They would embrace an approach to agriculture based on agroecological principles, short supply chains and local markets. If the last 12 months have shown anything, it is that decentralised regional and local community-owned food systems are now needed more than ever.

But a solution that would genuinely serve to help address rural distress and malnutrition does not suit the agenda of the Gates Foundation and its corporate entourage.

*

Note to readers: please click the share buttons above or below. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.

Colin Todhunter is a frequent contributor to Global Research and Asia-Pacific Research.

All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the “Translate Website” drop down menu on the top banner of our home page (Desktop version).

***

Cultivated by the US government as human rights activists, Uyghur American Association leaders partner with far-right lawmakers and operate a militia-style gun club that trains with ex-US special forces.

On March 21, US-government-funded Uyghur activists were caught on video disrupting a gathering against anti-Asian racism in Washington DC, barking insults at demonstrators including, “Wipe out China!” and “F**k China!” The Uyghur caravan flew American and “East Turkestan” flags and drove vehicles adorned signs bearing slogans such as, “We Love USA,” “Boycott China,” and “CCP killed 80 million Chinese people.”

Organized by the Uyghur American Association (UAA), the drive-by heckling of anti-racist demonstrators drew widespread condemnation on social media, including from other sections of the Uyghur separatist movement. Salih Hudayar, the self-proclaimed “Prime Minister of the East Turkistan Government-in-Exile,” slammed “the UAA’s reckless drive-by” for causing “severe backlash against Uyghurs,” and insisted that Uyghur Americans were “not racist.”

The UAA has attempted to distance itself from accusations of extremism and racism, stating that its members’ actions were misrepresented. Despite refusing to rescind their call for China to be “wiped out,” the UAA declared that it “condemns any form of bigotry and stands with all victims of racism.”

However, an investigation by The Grayzone into the Uyghur separatist movement in the Washington DC area has uncovered a jingoistic, gun-obsessed subculture driven by the kind of right-wing ideology that was on display during the March 21 car caravan through downtown.

Leading figures of the UAA operate a right-wing gun club known as Altay Defense. Proudly dressed in US military fatigues, Altay Defense drill in advanced combat techniques with former members of US special forces who also train private mercenaries and active duty US service members. Members of the militia-style gun club espouse pro-Trump politics and anti-immigrant resentment.

From the Instagram account of Altay Defense

The UAA is the US-affiliate of the World Uyghur Congress (WUC), an international network whose first president outlined an objective to precipitate the “fall of China” and establish an ethno-state in Xinjiang. The recipient of millions of dollars of funding the National Endowment for Democracy (NED), a US government-sponsored entity, this network works closely with Washington and other Western governments to escalate hostilities with China.

Despite claiming to represent the interests of China’s Uyghur and Muslim minority populations, many of the UAA’s closest allies represent some of the anti-Muslim, far-right forces in Washington, from Republican Rep. Ted Yoho to the Family Research Council, as well as the FBI.

During the pandemic, the UAA and members of its affiliate organizations helped inflame anti-Asian resentment by spreading far-right propaganda referring to Covid-19 as the “Chinese virus,” and claimed that China was waging a “virus war” against the world, “[p]urposefully, intentionally export[ing] the virus to cause the pandemic.”

Behind its carefully constructed image as a peaceful human rights movement, the UAA and its offshoots in the DC-based Uyghur separatist lobby are driven by far-right ideology and envision themselves as militant foot soldiers for empire.

“I belong to America!” Uyghur human rights leader teams up with far-right, Islamophobes in anti-China crusade

The UAA’s ultra-patriotic reverence of the US and fanatical anti-China politics have been on full display under the organization’s current president, Kuzzat Altay.

A demonstration organized by the UAA in Washington DC on June 21st, 2020, to “thank the Congress and the White House for passing the [Uyghur Human Rights and Policy Act] into the law.”

Altay frequently takes to social media to make his allegiance to Washington known.

“May GOD bless you American Veterans! May GOD bless America!” declared Altay on Veterans Day in 2019.

Shortly following the illegal US assassination of Iranian Major General Qasem Soleimani, Altay left no doubt as to where he stands: “Looks like the war just started […] I belong to America!”

Amid the US uprisings against police brutality and systemic racism sparked by the murder of George Floyd, Altay chided Black Lives Matter protesters, saying that he “support[ed] peaceful protestors […] but do[es] not support looters, rubbers [sic] and criminals”

“Your LOVE for #America should be greater than your HATE for #Trump,” Altay pronounced.

The degree of Altay’s infatuation with the US is only matched by the ferocity of his enmity towards China. “The most normal thing that I could ever imagine is anti-China activities every freaking day,” Altay stated on July 25, 2020. “You should help us to stop China. China is ALREADY the common enemy of humanity.”

Kuzzat Altay (left) and fellow Uyghur separatists visiting Rep. Ted Yoho

Altay is a staunch supporter of Washington’s new Cold War agenda. Applauding the Trump administration’s trade and technology war, Altay declared “[a]ll counties [sic] should treat #Huawei as war criminals.”

Despite claiming to be the international representatives of Xinjiang’s predominantly Muslim, Uyghur ethnic group, and struggling against religious persecution, Altay and his comrades have routinely teamed up with far-right, Islamophobic forces in the US to advance their separatist campaign.

The UAA has worked closely with Republican Rep. Ted Yoho, a homophobic, anti-abortion ultra-conservative who once told a Black constituent that he was not sure if the Civil Rights Act was constitutional. Yoho was one of only four lawmakers to vote againstlegislation making lynching a federal hate crime. In a high-profile dust-up on Capitol Hill, he reportedly called Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez a “fucking bitch.” In 2019, Yoho was one of 24 members of Congress to vote against a resolution condemning bigotry because it included anti-Muslim discrimination.

Yoho has also ardently supported regime change in Venezuela, defended US missile strikes against Syria, and proclaimed that the “US army must defend Taiwan” against China.

A demonstration organized by the Uyghur American Association in Washington DC. Rep. Ted Yoho appears at the center of the photograph, with Kuzzat Altay to his right and Rushan Abbas to his left

In 2019, Altay spoke on a panel of US government-funded Chinese dissidents organized by the Family Research Council (FRC). The FRC has been designated a hate group by the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) due to

Retired US General and undersecretary for defense under former President George W. Bush, Jerry Boykin, serves as the FRC’s vice president. Boykin is a virulent Islamophobe who believes that the religion is evil and should be outlawed, and that there should be “no mosques in America.” During a sermon at an evangelical church during the US war on Iraq, Boykin boasted of taking on a Muslim warlord in Somalia: “I knew my God was bigger than his. I knew that my God was a real God and his was an idol,” he declared. Boykin’s anti-Muslim tirades grew so extreme that he was investigated by the US Department of Defense and drew a rebuke from Bush.

In recent years, Altay has organized several events for Uyghur Americans in collaboration with the FBI, the federal law enforcement agency notorious for its surveillance of Muslim Americans and ensnaring countless mentally troubled young Muslim American men in manufactured terror plots. In 2020, the UAA organized an “FBI Workshop for Uyghur Community” which aimed to teach Uyghur Americans about “the role of the FBI in protecting Uyghurs” and how “Uyghurs [can] communicate with the FBI”.

Graphic designed for an “FBI Citizens Seminar” hosted by the Uyghur American Association

Throughout the pandemic, Altay and fellow leaders of the Uyghur separatist movement have incessantly spread right-wing conspiracy theories blaming China for Covid-19 and all related deaths. Such disinformation has played a key role in whipping up anti-Asian racism in the US and West.

Altay’s Twitter page is an endless stream of noxious, far-right coronavirus-related propaganda.

“I support @realDonaldTrump’s decision to call it ChineseVirus,” declared Altay on March 18, 2020, defending Trump against criticism from “[p]eople whining about racism.”  Altay also routinely referred to Covid-19 as “Wuhan virus” and “CCP virus”, as have WUC leaders such as Dolkun Isa and Rushan Abbas.

Altay promoted Steve Bannon’s claims that the “CCP unleashed [Covid-19] on the world”, and would later echo this sentiment. “China [p]urposefully, intentionally exported the virus to cause the pandemic,” Altay declared on July 5, 2020. “No war has kileed [sic] more people than China’s Virus war.”

Altay also endorsed right-wing conspiracy theories which claimed that Covid-19 was engineered as a bioweapon in a Wuhan lab and the World Health Organization was controlled by the Chinese government 

Kuzzat Altay’s political activities are a reflection of the deeply rooted right-wing culture that pervades the Uyghur separatist movement.

Foot soldiers for empire: Uyghur human rights activists training with US military instructors for “mission readiness”

Leading members of UAA have founded Altay Defense, which arranges for constituents in the Uyghur separatist movement to receive arms training by former US special forces soldiers and instructors. The organization boasts that “[a]ll security training [is] provided by former special force officer!”

The Instagram page of Altay Defense

A mission statement published by Shadow Hawk Defense outlines a goal to train “elite armed security professionals, who serve the high threat needs of the US government, military, and intelligence communities,” including “hosting and training classified security personnel.” The facility employs “trainers [who] have years of experience training contractors for the U.S. Government” with the goal of “achieving mission readiness.”

In a recent interview, Shadow Hawk’s co-founder and Director of Training, Randy Weekely, described his work in detail: “I teach military contractors before they deploy to these ‘other places’, defensive tactics, CQB [close-quarters battle], pistol, rifle, bounding, attack on vehicles, all the skills that they need […] before they deploy.”

Screenshot of Shadow Hawk Defense website

Altay Defense receives instruction from James Lang, a former US Army Ranger who served in Afghanistan and Iraq and works as a firearm instructor for the US Department of Defense. Lang also operates Ridgeline Security Consultants, which provides firearms and tactical training to “prepare law enforcement officers [and] armed security professionals […] to survive and win deadly force confrontations.”

Altay Defense’s primary instructor is former US Army Ranger, Jim Lang

Leaving little to the imagination, UAA members conduct training using assault rifles while dressed in official-seeming battle dress fatigues bearing the US flag.

Altay Defense is led by Faruk Altay, brother of UAA President Kuzzat Altay and nephew of Rebiya Kadeer, who is perhaps the most prominent international figurehead of the Uyghur separatist movement.

A look at Faruk Altay’s online activity reveals him to be a far-right, anti-communist, ultra-nationalist.

“Trump is the best!!!” Altay posted to Twitter in 2018.  Altay also expressed support for Trump’s border wall and seemingly justified the “Stop the Steal” Capitol riot which took place on January 6, 2021. He has also shared an anti-immigrant meme comparing Central American migrants to the international criminal gang MS-13.

Faruk Altay flaunts his dedication to the US military, posting images on social media of himself dressed in US military fatigues, wearing a skull face mask, and holding an assault rifle, with captions reading: “I STAND WITH UYGHUR, TIBET, HONG KONG, AND FREEDOM AGAINST COMMUNISM”.

Altay refers to himself as a “freedom fighter” taking “revenge for my father,” and refers to his children as “[m]y future West Point officers!

Far from a lone wolf, Faruk Altay has been joined by leading figures of the Uyghur separatist movement. Social media posts show UAA President Kuzzat Altay, Murat Ataman, and Bahram Sintash, among others attending Altay Defense training sessions.

Kuzzat Altay (second from the left) at an Altay Defense training session

Faruk Altay (left), Kuzzat Altay (center), and Murat Ataman (right) at an Altay Defense training session

Murat Ataman is affiliated with the National Endowment for Democracy (NED)– the funding engine of the US government’s regime change apparatus – UAA offshoot Uyghur Human Rights Project. A veteran of the Uyghur separatist movement, Ataman he works for US military and intelligence contractor, General Dynamics, and has previously held positions at the Department of Defense, Department of Homeland Security and Department of Veteran Affairs.

Murat Ataman embracing Nancy Pelosi

Bahram Sintash is also affiliated with the NED-funded UHRP, authoring reports which allege that the Chinese government is demolishing Uyghur mosques and shrines. Sintash was a key player in lobbying efforts to urge the US Congress to pass the Uyghur Human Right Policy Act of 2019, visiting more than 380 members of Congress.

In his spare time, Sintash keeps company with the far-right, evangelical Xinjiang researcher Adrian Zenz. During a meeting at Radio Free Asia (RFA), Sintash referred to Zenz as “the CIA agent,” and the US government-sponsored broadcasting service as “the original CIA branch of RFA’s headquarters in DC.”

While Sintash may have been sarcastic, the New York Times has described RFA in no uncertain terms as part of a “Worldwide Propaganda Network Built by the CIA.”

Adrian Zenz (middle) and Bahram Sintash (right) at Radio Free Asia headquarters in Washington DC

As prone as they might be to unalloyed expressions of right-wing jingoism, the leaders of UAA operate at the heart of a multi-million dollar lobbying complex funded and cultivated by the US government.

Uyghur separatist movement cultivated by the US government for “toppling” Beijing

Established in 1998, the Uyghur American Association (UAA) is the Washington DC-based affiliate of the World Uyghur Congress (WUC), which claims to be “the sole legitimate organization of the Uyghur people” around the world. Portrayed by Western governments and media as the leading voice for Uyghur interests and human rights, the WUC has played a central role in shaping Western understanding of Xinjiang.

As The Grayzone previously reported, the WUC is a right-wing, anti-communist, and ultra-nationalist network of exiled Uyghur separatists who have stated their intention to bring about the “fall of China” and establish an ethno-state called “East Turkestan” in Xinjiang. The WUC has developed deep ties to Washington’s regime change establishment and received extensive US government-funding and training.

In recent years, the WUC has worked closely with US and Western governments, and partnered with fraud-prone pseudo-scholars such as Adrian Zenz to intensify their New Cold War against China, advocating for Chinese policy in Xinjiang to be labeled ‘genocide,’ along with sanctions and boycott.

The National Endowment for Democracy (NED) has been central to the rising international prominence of the Uyghur separatist movement. In 2020, the NED boasted that it has given Uyghur groups $8,758,300 since 2004 (including $75,000 in annual funding to the UAA) and claimed to be “the only institutional funder for Uyghur advocacy and human rights organizations.”

“As a result of NED’s support, the Uyghur advocacy groups have grown both institutionally and professionally over the years,” said Akram Keram, a program officer and regional expert at NED. “These groups played critical roles in introducing the Uyghur cause in various international, regional, and national settings against China’s false narratives, bringing the Uyghur voice to the highest international levels, including the United Nations, European Parliament, and the White House. They provided firsthand, factual resources documenting the atrocities in East Turkistan, informing and inspiring the introduction of relevant resolutions, sanctions, and calls for action to hold the Chinese Communist Party accountable.”

“The National Endowment for Democracy has been exceptionally supportive of UAA,” echoed former UAA President, Nury Turkel, in 2006, “providing us with invaluable guidance and assistance” and “essential funding.” According to Turkel, thanks to NED support, the “UAA and UHRP have gained a new level of influence and credibility among media organizations in the U.S. and other countries.”

“In short, NED has helped us to increase our credibility in Washington and throughout the world. We are very moved by and grateful for their steadfast assistance,” stated Turkel.

Turkel confirmed that the UAA aims to leverage Washington’s support to advance regime change in China. In 2006, he told his allies, “as we witnessed the ‘Tulip Revolution’ and the toppling of the former government of Kyrgyzstan, our hopes were again reinforced.” Turkel emphasized that the US-sponsored color revolution sent a “strong message” to China, and recalled how he was immediately summoned to Bishkek to coordinate with the new government.

The NED helped the UAA launch the Uyghur Human Rights Project (UHRP) in 2004, serving as its principal source of funding, with $1,244,698 in support between 2016 and ’19 alone. The UHRP has brought together leading figures of the WUC, including Turkel and Omer Kanat, and NED, with former NED Vice President, Louisa Greve, serving as the group’s Director of Global Advocacy.

The UAA’s leadership consists of US national security state operators including employees of the US government, US propaganda network Radio Free Asia, and the military-industrial complex. Past leaders of the organization include:

Nury Turkel, former President (2004-2006) — Co-founded the UHRP with the NED. In 2020, Turkel was appointed a commissioner on the US Commission on International Religious Freedom by Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi.

Rebiya Kadeer, former President (2006-2011) — A self-described oligarch and longtime figurehead of the Uyghur separatist movement. According to The New York Times, Kadeer’s “[d]issidence brought the end of her Audi, her three villas and her far-flung business empire”. Kadeer’s husband, Sidik Rouzi, worked for US government media outlets Voice of America and Radio Free Asia. Under Kadeer’s leadership, the WUC and UAA forged close ties with the Bush administration.

Ilshat Hassan Kokbore, former President (2016-2019) — Since 2008, Kokbore has worked with notorious private US military and intelligence contractor, Booz Allen Hamilton. Edward Snowden was employed at the firm when he decided to blow the whistle on the National Security Agency’s invasive, all-encompassing system of mass surveillance.

Omer Kanat, former Vice President – Serves as the WUC’s Chairman of the Executive Committee. Kanat helped found the WUC and has been a permanent fixture in its executive leadership. The veteran operative has a lengthy history of work with the US government, from serving as senior editor of Radio Free Asia’s Uyghur Service from 1999 to 2009 to covering the US wars on Iraq and Afghanistan and interviewing the Dalai Lama for the network. In an interview with Grayzone editor Max Blumenthal at a 2018 NED awards ceremony in the US Capitol building, Kanat took credit for furnishing many of the claims about internment camps in Xinjiang to Western media.

Rushan Abbas, former Vice President — Previously boasted in her bio of her “extensive experience working with US government agencies, including Homeland Security, Department of Defense, Department of State, and various US intelligence agencies.” Served the US government and Bush administration’s so-called war on terror as a “consultant at Guantanamo Bay supporting Operation Enduring Freedom.” Following a disastrous publicity appearance on Reddit’s “Ask Me Anything” question and answer forum, during which participants blasted Abbas as a “CIA Asset” and US government collaborator, she has attempted to scrub her biographic information from the internet. Abbas currently heads the WUC affiliate organization, Campaign for Uyghurs.

The UAA current leadership includes:

Kuzzat Altay, President — Nephew of Rebiya Kadeer. As documented above, Altay is a rabid anti-communist and ardently pro-US. He has favorably compared the establishment of Israel to the separatist movement for “East Turkestan.”

Elfidar Itebir, Secretary — Sister of Elnigar Itebir, who was appointed by the Trump administration as Director for China in the White House National Security Council. Itebir’s father, Ablikim Baqi Iltebir, worked for the US government media outlet, Radio Free Asia, from February 2000 to August 2017

Arslan Khakiyev, Treasurer  — Previously worked at Radio Free Asia for over 18 years. Khahkiyev’s wife, Gulchehra Hoja, has worked for Radio Free Asia since 2001.

The weekly deluge of US media reports of Uyghur oppression in Xinjiang is clearly designed to appeal to liberal sensibilities, presenting the struggle of an oppressed minority against a tyrannical government, and omitting any pieces of context that might prove disruptive to the David-versus-Goliath narrative. But it is becoming clear that some profoundly illiberal forces lie behind the veneer of a peaceful campaign for human rights.

The US government has engaged in a marriage of convenience with a Uyghur separatist movement that is firmly aligned the gun-obsessed, anti-immigrant subculture of Trumpism. As the Biden administration turns up the heat on China, it has turned a blind eye to the far-right politics of one of its most important proxy groups.

The UAA did not respond to multiple requests for interviews from The Grayzone sent by email and on Twitter.

*

Note to readers: please click the share buttons above or below. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.

Ajit Singh is a lawyer and journalist. He is a contributing author to Keywords in Radical Philosophy and Education: Common Concepts for Contemporary Movements (Brill: 2019). He tweets at @ajitxsingh.

All images in this article are from The Grayzone unless otherwise stated

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on “Wipe Out China!” US-funded Uyghur Activists Train as Gun-toting Foot Soldiers for Empire
  • Tags: , ,

All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the “Translate Website” drop down menu on the top banner of our home page (Desktop version).

***

Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov is visiting India and Pakistan this week. His trip to South Asia is a major event because of the larger strategic context in which it’s occurring. Russia’s top diplomat will be accompanied by Russian Special Envoy for Afghanistan Zamir Kabulov, who’s expected to brief both regional countries about the latest progress in the Afghan peace process. Moscow recently hosted yet another round of talks on this issue which saw all sides make progress towards a political solution to the long-running war, but it wasn’t without a little bit of controversy.

Some in India were upset that their country wasn’t invited to participate. That wasn’t an intentional slight on Russia’s part since it clarified that only those states which have ties with both warring parties – the Kabul government and the Taliban (which is designed by many as a terrorist group) – would join the talks in order to facilitate further progress. India doesn’t have any ties with the Taliban and had also only participated in previous rounds of Russian-hosted talks in an unofficial capacity as a result. Nevertheless, Mr. Kabulov is expected to bring the Indians up to speed about what was accomplished.

The Russian Foreign Minister might also update India about the outcome of his recent trip to China. Moscow previously praised February’s synchronized disengagement agreement between Beijing and New Delhi which saw them responsibly take steps to peacefully resolve last summer’s dispute along the Line of Actual Control (LAC). Russia passionately believes in the merits of trilateral coordination through the Russia-India-China (RIC) framework, so its top diplomat will probably discuss that as well even though it isn’t the main item on his agenda. It’s important for Russia, India, and China to more closely cooperate against American aggression.

Speaking of which, India’s planned purchase of Russia’s S-400 air defense systems will probably be among the most important topics that Foreign Minister Lavrov discusses during his trip. The US is threatening to sanction India if it goes through with this deal under the controversial “Countering America’s Adversaries Through Sanctions Act” (CAATSA). This stance is extremely counterproductive for its own national interests since it stands to complicate those two countries’ newfound strategic partnership. India thought that it could trust the US as a reliable ally but it’s quickly learning that such an optimistic expectation might have been premature.

Russia is arguably a much more reliable ally for India than the US ever will be, but economic ties between the two continue to disappoint their supporters. It’s for this reason that Foreign Minister Lavrov will likely discuss ways to scale them up in order for trade to finally reach its full potential with time. One of the most exciting means through which this could be accomplished is through the Vladivistok-Chennai Maritime Corridor (VCMC) that both sides unveiled in September 2019 during Prime Minister Modi’s attendance at the Eastern Economic Forum in Vladivistok as President Putin’s guest of honor at the time.

Moving along to Pakistan, Foreign Minister Lavrov’s trip will be first time in many years that Russia sent its top diplomat to the South Asian country. Russia and Pakistan used to be Cold War-era rivals and even fought a proxy war in Afghanistan in the 1980s, which is why it’s ironic that it’s Afghanistan of all issues that’s largely responsible for their rapid rapprochement in the present day. Both sides will of course discuss the Afghan peace process, but also other topics of shared interest such as anti-terrorist cooperation and energy. Earlier this year, Russia agreed to build the Pakistan Stream Gas Pipeline, which will begin construction this summer.

Moreover, Foreign Minister Lavrov will likely learn more about Pakistan’s multipolar grand strategy that its political, diplomatic, and military leaders simultaneously unveiled in the middle of last month during the inaugural Islamabad Security Dialogue. Pakistan envisions itself serving as the “Zipper of Eurasia”. It believes that its geostrategic location and hosting of the Belt & Road Initiative’s (BRI) flagship project of the China-Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC) enable it facilitate the integration of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization, the Eurasian Economic Union, and the South Asian Association for Regional Cooperation (SAARC).

It’s for these strategic reasons why Foreign Minister Lavrov’s trip to South Asia is a major event. Not only will it advance the Afghan peace process, but it’ll also strengthen Russia’s regional presence in South Asia. Moscow will reinforce its traditional relations with New Delhi while continuing to pioneer its new partnership with Islamabad. This shows how important South Asia has become, both for the 21st century in general and Russian grand strategy in particular. Russia’s balanced approach in dispatching Foreign Minister Lavrov to both India and Pakistan perfectly epitomizes the win-win principles of President Putin’s Greater Eurasian Partnership.

*

Note to readers: please click the share buttons above or below. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.

This article was originally published on OneWorld.

Andrew Korybko is an American Moscow-based political analyst specializing in the relationship between the US strategy in Afro-Eurasia, China’s One Belt One Road global vision of New Silk Road connectivity, and Hybrid Warfare. He is a frequent contributor to Global Research.

Featured image is from OneWorld

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Russia’s Strategy in South Asia: Lavrov’s Trip to India and Pakistan Is a Major Event
  • Tags: , ,

All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the “Translate Website” drop down menu on the top banner of our home page (Desktop version).

***

As the murder trial of Derek Chauvin for killing George Floyd proceeds, the prosecution will try to portray the defendant as a “bad apple.” In his opening statement, prosecutor Jerry Blackwell alerted the jurors that they would hear police officials testify Chauvin used excessive force in violation of departmental policy to apply restraints only as necessary to bring a person under control. However, this argument obfuscates the racist violence inherent in the U.S. system of policing.

The first prosecution witness to testify about Minnesota Police Department (MPD) policies was retired Sgt. David Ploeger, the supervising police sergeant on duty the day Chauvin killed Floyd. It was his job to conduct use of force reviews. Ploeger testified,

“When Mr. Floyd was no longer offering up any resistance to the officer,” when he was handcuffed on the ground and no longer resisting, “they could have ended the restraint.”

Lt. Richard Zimmerman of the MPD also testified about what constitutes authorized use of force. He said that once a person is secure or handcuffed, “you need to get him out of the prone position as soon as possible because it restricts their breathing.” When a person is cuffed behind his back (as Floyd was), “it stretches the muscles back,” making it “more difficult to breathe.” Once cuffed, Zimmerman added, “you have to turn them on their side or have them sit up,” noting, “you have to get them off their chest” because that constricts the breathing “even more.”

“If your knee is on a person’s neck, that could kill him,” Zimmerman said. “Pulling him down to the ground facedown and putting your knee on a neck for that amount of time, it’s just uncalled for,” he declared. Zimmerman saw “no reason why the officers felt they were in danger,” which is “what they would have to feel to use that kind of force.” The restraint of Floyd “should have stopped once he was prone on the ground and had stopped putting up resistance,” he stated.

But many Minneapolis police officers receive “Killology training” through the police union, where they are taught to kill rather than de-escalate conflict situations. This training violates the UN Basic Principles on the Use of Force and Firearms by Law Enforcement Officials, which require officers to, “as far as possible,” use nonviolent techniques before resorting to force and firearms.

The MPD reported that its officers used violence against Black people at seven times the rate they used violence against white people, during the period from 2015 to 2020.

Prosecutors will likely try to isolate Chauvin as one of “a few bad apples.” That may be an effective prosecutorial strategy to convince jurors they should convict him. But this “rogue cop” characterization — also used after the 1991 Rodney King beating and the police killings of Michael Brown, Philando Castile, Alton Sterling and Breonna Taylor — obscures the systemic nature of police violence against Black and Brown people in the United States. Even the best training in the world cannot teach police, who are licensed to kill and deployed to enforce a racist system, not to be racist.

Black people who are unarmed or not attacking police are 3.5 times more likely to be killed by police than white people, the Brookings Institution found. Moreover, police kill Black people at more than twice the rate of whites even though Black people account for less than 13 percent of the U.S. population. More than 75 percent of the time, chokeholds are applied on men of color.

Prosecutors were compelled to bring charges against Chauvin because the whole world had seen him kill Floyd. After massive protests erupted following the horrifying video of Chauvin’s torture of Floyd — now known to have lasted nine minutes and 29 seconds — the MPD fired Chauvin and prosecutors charged him with third-degree murder and second-degree manslaughter. They later added a charge of second-degree murder.

But what would have happened if eyewitnesses had not recorded Floyd’s death? Would Chauvin have been fired and charged with murder?

Police Impunity Is the Norm

Officers know that they rarely face any semblance of accountability for killing Black people. “Officers were charged with a crime in only one percent of all killings by police,” Mapping Police Violence reported in 2020.

For nine minutes and 29 seconds, Chauvin continued to choke Floyd as several bystanders watched, many visibly recording the killing. Chauvin didn’t try to hide what he was doing. As eyewitness Genevieve Hansen testified, Chauvin looked “comfortable” with his weight on Floyd’s neck.

Other police killings of Black people have happened in similarly open ways. Michael Brown was killed while walking down a public street, his body left on the ground for four hours. Eric Garner was choked to death on a public sidewalk after he was suspected of selling illegal untaxed cigarettes. Both of those killings, which occurred in 2014, sparked public outrage. Although there was video footage in each case, none was as clear and graphic as the images that documented Floyd’s death. Neither Officer Darren Wilson who killed Michael Brown nor Officer Daniel Pantaleo who killed Eric Garner was ever indicted.

“Excited Delirium” Is a Racist Myth Used to Blame Victims

As eyewitness after eyewitness who saw Chauvin torture Floyd to death presents emotional testimony, the defense is attempting to distract the jury’s attention away from his brutal murder by laying the ground work to falsely claim that Chauvin’s knee on Floyd’s neck for more than nine minutes was not the cause of death.

Defense attorney Eric Nelson alerted the jury during his opening statement that it would “learn about things such as … excited delirium.” MPD Officer Thomas Lane pointed his gun at Floyd who was sitting in his car before he was pulled out and choked to death. Although Lane aided and abetted Chauvin by holding Floyd’s legs, Lane asked at one point while Chauvin was choking Floyd, “Should we roll him on his side?” Chauvin replied, “No, staying put where we got him.” Lane then said, “I am worried about excited delirium or whatever,” as Chauvin maintained his knee on Floyd’s neck.

“Excited delirium” is a catch-all defense used to absolve police for killing Black people. According to the Brookings Institution, “[t]he diagnosis is a misappropriation of medical terminology, used by law enforcement to legitimize police brutality and to retroactively explain certain deaths occurring in police custody.” This diagnosis “inaccurately and selectively combines various signs and symptoms from real medical emergencies.”

Indeed, Chauvin’s defense attorneys are falsely implying that Floyd died from drug abuse, as Mike Ludwig reported in Truthout. Pursuant to the “war on drugs,” Black people are disproportionately targeted by police, although they use drugs at the same rate as whites.

Derek Chauvin is a rotten apple. So is Officer Lane who held Floyd’s legs, and Officer J.A. Kueng who held Floyd’s back while Chauvin choked him to death. So is Officer Tou Thoa who kept bystanders from providing aid to Floyd.

But they are only four of myriad officers who kill Black people with impunity. They are not just “a few bad apples.” These officers are emblematic of the systemic racist police violence against Black people in the United States. Regardless of the outcome in the Chauvin trial, the entire system must be indicted as racist and violent, in and of itself.

The International Commission of Inquiry on Systemic Racist Police Violence against People of African Descent in the United States, for which I am serving as a Rapporteur, heard testimony from family members and attorneys about police killings of 43 Black people and the paralyzing of another, all of whom were unarmed or not threatening the officers or others. The commission, which is investigating whether police violence against Black people in the U.S. amounts to gross violations of international human rights and fundamental freedoms, will release its 200-page report in mid-April. It contains recommendations addressed to national and international policy makers.

As Chauvin’s trial continues, we must remember that this is not simply the story of one “rogue cop.” It is a window into the anti-Black violence perpetrated routinely by police in this country, as part of a brutal and racist system.

*

Note to readers: please click the share buttons above or below. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.

Copyright © Truthout. Reprinted with permission.

Marjorie Cohn is professor emerita at Thomas Jefferson School of Law, former president of the National Lawyers Guild, deputy secretary general of the International Association of Democratic Lawyers and a member of the advisory board of Veterans for Peace. Her most recent book is Drones and Targeted Killing: Legal, Moral, and Geopolitical Issues

She is a frequent contributor to Global Research.

All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the “Translate Website” drop down menu on the top banner of our home page (Desktop version).

***

Vor circa einem Jahrzehnt hatte ich das Vergnügen, in Seattle mit amerikanischen Bürgern zusammenzuleben. Ihre Herzlichkeit, Hilfsbereitschaft und Offenheit haben mich zutiefst beeindruckt – und überrascht: hatte ich doch wegen der mörderischen US-amerikanischen Kriegspolitik und den weltweiten „Kreuzzügen“ der US- Regierungen starke Vorbehalte mitgebracht.

Rolf Winter, ein deutscher Journalist, der einige Jahre in New York City lebte und die Vereinigten Staaten durchreiste, dokumentierte seine Erkundungen in drei Büchern. Das bekannteste ist der Bestseller von 1989 „Ami go home“ (1). Diese eindeutige Aufforderung kommt einem wieder in den Sinn, wenn man die von der US-Regierung initiierte psychologische Kriegsführung gegen Russland in den Massenmedien über sich ergehen lassen muss und nach dem Sinn des militärischen Manövers „Defender Europe 21“ auf dem Balkan nahe der russischen Grenze fragt. Siehe hierzu „Global Research“.

 

„Krieg liegt in der Luft“

Bereits kurz nach Ausrufung der Corona-Pandemie bezeichnete der ehemalige sowjetische Staatschefs Michail Gorbatschow die politische Lage als äußerst besorgniserregend und meinte laut „Sputnik News“ vom 12. März 2020: „Krieg liegt in der Luft.“ (2)

Und der ehemalige stellvertretende Sekretär des US-Finanzministeriums und Mitherausgeber des „Wall Street Journals“ Paul Craig Roberts schrieb am 25. März einem Artikel in “Global Research” mit dem Titel: Die Samen des Krieges säen. Mangel an Vertrauen in China und Russland. ‚Washingtons hegemoniale Bestrebungen könnten zu einem verheerenden Krieg führen‘“ (3).

„Operation Balkan: Werbung für Krieg und Tod“ 

Die älteren Bürger Serbiens haben in den späten 1990er Jahren schmerzlich erlebt, wie der Angriffskrieg der US-Regierung und der NATO-Vasallen gemeinsam mit „eingebetteten“ Journalisten der Massenmedien vorbereitet wurde, welche Verbrechen unter dem Kriegs-Code-Namen „Barmherziger Engel“ von den Aggressoren begangen wurden und wie unbarmherzig deren Völkermord bis heute bei Jung und Alt nachwirkt.

Die Balkanexpertin und Wiener OSZE-Diplomatin Mira Beham und der Politikwissenschaftler Jörg Becker haben mit ihrem Buch „Operation Balkan: Werbung für Krieg und Tod“ ein einmaliges Dokument über die Vorgehensweise und Wirkung von Public Relations PR (Öffentlichkeitsarbeit) verfasst (4):

„Dass Regierungen PR-Unternehmen beauftragen, um ihr Image aufzubessern, ist bekannt. Wenig bekannt ist allerdings, dass es von Regierungen in Auftrag gegebene PR-Kampagnen gibt, um Feindbilder aufzubauen, Kriege vorzubereiten oder Diktaturen zu beschönigen. Die Autoren zeigen anhand der Balkankriege und auf der Grundlage einer Analyse von 157 Verträgen zwischen ex-jugoslawischen Kunden und amerikanischen PR-Agenturen exemplarisch, wie mit Hilfe von Publik Relations Krisen- und Kriegskommunikation betrieben wird. Dabei wird untersucht, wie es mittels PR-Strategien als quasi privatisierter Propaganda gelingt, geschlossene Kommunikationskreisläufe zwischen Politik, Militär, Medien, NGOs und think tanks herzustellen, in denen die immer gleichen Kernbotschaften zirkulieren. Diskutiert werden auch die Konsequenzen dieser Privatisierung von (Kriegs-) Kommunikation.“ (5)

„Wir Europäer sagen NEIN zu einem Krieg gegen Russland!“

Am 8. Mai 2018 initiierte ich zusammen mit meinem Freund, dem Sozial- und Politikwissenschaftler Ullrich Mies, eine Öffentliche Erklärung in den fünf Sprachen Deutsch, Englisch, Niederländisch, Serbisch und Russisch:

„Wir Europäer sagen NEIN zu einem Krieg gegen Russland!“

Diese Erklärung erschien in diversen Online-Zeitungen und wurde von vielen europäischen Bürgern und namhaften Persönlichkeiten unterschrieben. Sie kann in der „Neuen Rheinischen Zeitung NRhZ“ noch immer eingesehen und unterschrieben werden (6). Die Erklärung im Wortlaut:

Zwei Weltkriege sind genug!

In der Vergangenheit ließ sich Deutschland in den Ersten Weltkrieg hineinziehen und hat im Zweiten Weltkrieg dem russischen Volk unermessliches Leid zugefügt.

Wir werden nicht zulassen, dass sich dies noch einmal wiederholt!

Wenn die deutsche Vasallen-Regierung in Komplizenschaft mit den Kriegstreibern in Großbritannien und Frankreich unter der Führung der USA und der NATO einen neuen Angriffskrieg gegen Russland plant, dann tut sie das nicht in unserem Namen! 

Zu Krieg und Frieden haben wir, die Bürgerinnen und Bürger, das letzte Wort!

Wir sagen NEIN zu Krieg und Gewalt in den internationalen Beziehungen und verurteilen die fortgesetzte Kriegstreiberei, Aufrüstung und Militarisierung!

Angefügt ist die Urteilsbegründung des Internationalen Militärgerichtshofs in Nürnberg 1946:

„Die Entfesselung eines Angriffskrieges ist nicht bloß ein internationales Verbrechen. Es ist das schwerste internationale Verbrechen, das sich von anderen Kriegsverbrechen nur dadurch unterscheidet, dass es in sich alle Schrecken der anderen Verbrechen einschließt und anhäuft.“ (7)

„Plädoyer für den Abschied von einem gewalttätigen Land“

Das ist der Untertitel von Rolf Winters Bestseller „Ami Go home“. In einem weiteren Buch aus dem Jahr 1990 mit dem Titel „Die amerikanische Zumutung. Plädoyers gegen das Land des real existierenden Kapitalismus“ schreibt Winter:

„Bemerkenswert ist die ständig wachsende Bereitschaft der Welt, sich mit der amerikanischen Unerträglichkeit abzufinden, sie, sozusagen, zu ignorieren oder so zu tun, als hätte es mit ihr doch ihre Ordnung.“ (8)

Dieser Einschätzung des Amerika-Kenners kann man sich uneingeschränkt anschließen:

Was habt ihr Amis hier in Europa sowie im Nahen, Mittleren und Fernen Osten zu suchen?

„Imperium USA: Eine skrupellose Weltmacht“ ist der Titel eines neueren Buches des Schweizer Friedensforschers Daniele Ganser (9). Dieses Imperium ist die größte Bedrohung für den Weltfrieden.

Deshalb: Ami Go Home!

*

Note to readers: please click the share buttons above or below. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.

Dr. Rudolf Hänsel ist Diplom-Psychologe und Erziehungswissenschaftler.

Fußnoten

(1) Winter, R. (1989). AMI GO HOME. Plädoyer für den Abschied von einem gewalttätigen Land. Hamburg

(2) https://de.rt.com/meinung/115202-vier-jahre-albtraum-ohne-neuen-krieg/

(3) https://www.globalresearch.ca/sowing-seeds-war/5740893

(4) Becker, J., Beham, M. (20082). Operation Balkan: Werbung für Krieg und Tod. Baden-Baden

(5) A. a. O. Rückdeckel

(6) http://www.nrhz.de. Wer noch unterzeichnen möchte, schicke bitte eine eMail mit (Titel), Vorname, Nachname und Ort (Ort wird nicht veröffentlicht). Bitte hier klicken und das sich öffnende eMail-Fenster verwenden

(7) A. a. O.

(8) Winter, R. (1990). Die amerikanische Zumutung. Rückdeckel

(9) Ganser, D. (2020). Imperium USA: Die skrupellose Weltmacht. Zürich

Featured image: Halstuch, entworfen von Pablo Picasso für die dritten Weltjugendfestspiele in Berlin (DDR), 1951 (from Dr. Rudolf Hansel)

  • Posted in Deutsch
  • Comments Off on Truppenaufmarsch auf dem Balkan und psychologische Kriegsführung der US-NATO als Warnsignal für militärische Operation gegen Russland

All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the “Translate Website” drop down menu on the top banner of our home page (Desktop version).

***

The official expert scientists in the ruling class have declared that getting COVID after being fully “vaccinated” with the experimental gene therapies is “expected.” Meaning these shots don’t work as vaccines and are being mislabeled.

Using all the buzzwords to get the brainwashed masses to believe they still need this vaccine, many missed reading between the lines.  They have admitted now that the “vaccines” don’t protect against getting or spreading COVID-19. They have also admitted now that it is gene therapy, not a vaccine, and it will alter your genetic material.

Epidemiologists in Washington state have now admitted that they have evidence of at least 102 fully vaccinated people testing positive for COVID-19 since the beginning of February, the state’s health department confirmed Tuesday.

It’s fascinating that people can read these words with their own brain, then proceed to share Pfizer or Moderna’s “studies” that magically conclude that the mRNA shots provide immunity, when we are being told they don’t.  So who’s lying? Big Pharma? Or the ruling class?

Even slave master Fauci says you can still get and spread COVID after being “vaccinated”:

The rulers want you to know that the number of people who come down with COVID after vaccination is small. The cases after getting “vaccinated” are expected, according to the DOH, and the 102 people represent just .01% of the 1,000,000 fully vaccinated Washingtonians.

“Finding evidence of vaccine breakthrough cases reminds us that, even if you have been vaccinated, you still need to wear a mask, practice socially distancing, and wash your hands to prevent spreading COVID-19 to others who have not been vaccinated,” said Umair A. Shah, MD, MPH, Secretary of Health, according to a report by K4 News Oklahoma. an NBC affiliate. So even if you are vaccinated, you can still get COVID-19 and spread it.

Let’s follow the illogic of this statement for a moment.  If the vaccinated can still get COVID and spread it to the unvaccinated, when the unvaccinated become vaccinated they can still spread it to? Because if the vaccinated can still get it, vaccinating everyone won’t stop the virus from spreading. So what is the real reason we are all expected to take the gene therapy shots?

These seem to be questions that most Americans are too dumbed down to even ponder, let alone ask.

Additionally, are 1 million Washingtonians fully vaccinated? Can we trust their numbers? We already know we can’t trust their COVID numbers and we are being lied to constantly.

Stay alert.  People are figuring this hoax out in bigger numbers.  But we know the ruling class won’t let this go and the “vaccines” are a part of the New World Order agenda.

We need to remain alert and prepared. It’s hard to say what they will try to pull off next as people wake up to their enslavement.

*

Note to readers: please click the share buttons above or below. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.

All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the “Translate Website” drop down menu on the top banner of our home page (Desktop version).

***

US Europe Command has raised its posture to the highest level, “potential imminent threat”, as USAF surveillance flights have tracked Russia’s border over the past 48 hours.

The current flare of tensions sparked on March 26, when four Ukrainian military servicemen were killed by a landmine while inspecting minefields near the village of Shumy. Kiev and their partners the US and NATO used the deaths to blame the forces of the Donetsk People’s Republic, who denied any attacks.

Dmitry Peskov, the Russian presidential spokesman, said the Kremlin was worried the Ukrainian side might create the risk for a civil war if they initiated provocation in southeastern Ukraine.  Peskov added that Russia would take “additional measures” if NATO were to use provocation.

The US forces are now on high alert in Europe and blaming “Russian aggression” in the area. An official from NATO said to Reuters that Russia was undermining efforts to reduce tensions in eastern Ukraine.

Rebels seized parts of the Donetsk and Luhansk region in April 2014, and the Kremlin says Russian “volunteers” have been assisting the rebels.

Maria Zakharova, the Russian Foreign Ministry Spokeswoman, said during Friday’s briefing,

“I would like to warn the Kiev regime and the hotheads that are serving it or manipulating it against further de-escalation and attempts to implement a forceful scenario in Donbass.”

Zakharova said that Ukrainian officials regularly accuse Russia, while not adhering to, and implementing the agreements reached previously on settlement in eastern Ukraine.

“At the same time, Kiev is trying to convince everyone that Moscow is allegedly a conflict side and that it allegedly has some obligations within the Minsk Package of Measures,” Zakharova added.

The Minsk Agreements outline the conflict sides in Donbass as Kiev, Donetsk, and Lugansk. However, Kiev attempts to place blame on Moscow.

Zakharova said,

“The unwillingness of Ukrainian negotiators to recognize this fact and their refusal to find agreements with Donbass is the reason that hinders the establishment of long-lasting peace in the region.”

US President Joe Biden spoke by phone with Mr. Zelensky in Kiev on Friday. The White House said in a statement that the call “affirmed the United States’ unwavering support for Ukraine’s sovereignty and territorial integrity in the face of Russia’s ongoing aggression in the Donbas and Crimea.”

The Nord Stream 2 gas pipeline project bypasses Ukraine.  When completed it will connect Russia’s Ust-Lug and Germany’s Greifswald with natural gas. The construction of the pipeline from the coast of Russia through the Baltic Sea was expected to be completed before the end of 2019 and will be 1,220 km long.

Ukraine, the US, Poland, and the Baltic States oppose the pipeline, while Russia’s Gazprom is in alliance with several European companies.

Ukraine stands to lose approximately $3 billion annually in gas transit fees because of the bypass.

Source: Mideast Discourse

The US is pressuring European allies, and private companies, involved in the pipeline to stop their involvement in Nord Stream 2, and the US is planning broader sanctions against the Russian project within the month.

The Rose Revolution was a US-instigated ‘regime change’ project in Georgia in November 2003, which culminated in the ousting of President Eduard Shevardnadze. At the same time, it served as a proxy attack on Russia, which had been close to Georgia.

Demonstrators led by Mikheil Saakashvili, who was funded by George Soros, stormed the Parliament session with red roses in hand.

US support for the Shevardnadze government declined from 2000 to 2003, with pressure coming from George Soros, Richard Miles, the US ambassador to Georgia, and allies of the Bush administration, including a visit from James Baker, the former U.S. Secretary of State.

The US and allied organizations gave financial assistance to NGOs and opposition parties within Georgia. This tactic was classical US State Department procedure to bring about ‘regime change’, or other manipulations in foreign countries.

The 2014 Ukrainian revolution from November 2013 to February 2014 culminated in the ousting of the elected Ukrainian President, Viktor Yanukovych, who had been close to Russia, and the overthrow of the Ukrainian government.

US Senator John McCain came in December 2013 to rally protesters,

“We are here to support your just cause, the sovereign right of Ukraine to determine its own destiny freely and independently, and the destiny you seek lies in Europe.”

The Obama administration backed ‘regime change’ in Ukraine, and Vice President Joe Biden was handed the Ukrainian file to manage.

Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov arrived in China on March 22 and met with the Chinese State Councilor and Foreign Minister Wang Yi.  The two discussed recent developments with the US and urged the US to rethink the damage it has caused to international peace.

Lavrov and Yi urged the US to stop its global bullying tactics, and interference in other countries’ internal affairs, and to stop forming alliances with other nations to manipulate and provoke confrontations.  The two urged all countries to follow the UN Charter to boost peaceful international relations.

Chinese spokesperson Hua Chunying said,

“China and Russia, standing shoulder to shoulder with close cooperation and firm opposition to hegemony and bullying, have been a pillar of world peace and stability.”

Lavrov called for promoting other international currencies that can replace the US dollar and gradually move away from the Western-controlled international payment system so that the risks posed by US or Western sanctions against Russia and China can be reduced, and several Russian banks have joined the China International Payment System to facilitate bilateral trade settlements.

The four dead Ukrainian servicemen may be used to stop Nord Stream 2 pipeline. The men who died while inspecting minefields may be used as a tool to blame Russia for Ukrainian inaction on the Minsk Agreements, and to prevent the important Russian pipeline from completion.  The US-NATO war machine has worked in collusion before in Serbia, Libya, and Syria. Biden’s bullying and manipulations in Ukraine and Russia may prove to be the first test of his administration on the world stage.

*

Note to readers: please click the share buttons above or below. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.

This article was originally published on Mideast Discourse.

Steven Sahiounie is an award-winning journalist. He is a frequent contributor to Global Research.

All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the “Translate Website” drop down menu on the top banner of our home page (Desktop version).

***

With the White House continually provoking tensions against Russia and China, the doyen of American foreign policy, Henry Kissinger, dramatically warned Washington last week to either agree to a new international system or continue pushing tensions that are leading to a situation similar to the eve of World War One.

In a Chatham House webinar with former British Foreign Secretary Jeremy Hunt last Thursday, 97-year-old Kissinger called on the U.S. to create a balance with existing global forces, adding

“if you imagine that the world commits itself to an endless competition based on the dominance of whoever is superior at the moment, then a breakdown of the order is inevitable. And the consequences of a breakdown would be catastrophic.”

The veteran diplomat urged the U.S. to understand that not every issue has “final solutions” and warned

“if we don’t get to an understanding with China on that point, then we will be in a pre-World War One-type situation in which there are perennial conflicts that get solved on an immediate basis but one of them gets out of control at some point.”

However, the idea that the U.S. should stop imposing its will on everyone else will not be easily accepted in Washington. This is attested by the sharp rhetoric and personal insults that U.S. President Joe Biden continually levels against his Russian and Chinese counterparts, Vladimir Putin and Xi Jinping.  

High-ranking Chinese official Yang Jiechi told U.S. Secretary of State Anthony Blinken on March 18 in Alaska that “the United States does not have the qualification to say that it wants to speak to China from a position of strength.” Then, Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov and his Chinese counterpart Wang Yi boldly said days later on March 22 during their meeting in Beijing that they “jointly safeguard multilateralism, maintain the international system with the UN at its core and the international order based on international law, while firmly opposing unilateral sanctions as well as interference in other countries’ internal affairs.”

Kissinger’s career is washed in blood when we remember his backing of Pakistan during Bangladesh’s War of Independence despite the massacre of hundreds of thousands of people and mass rape; orchestrated a military coup in Chile to remove democratically elected Allende in favor of the Pinochet dictatorship; tacitly supported Indonesia’s mass killing of hundreds of thousands of East Timorese; and, blessed Turkey’s invasion of northern Cyprus that led to 200,000 Greek refugees without a right of return – among many other things.

However, his most recent statement about the U.S. and the international system is actually a mature proposal that would be beneficial for world peace if the Biden administration accepts his advice that the global order is changing. It is unlikely that Washington is ready to unilaterally end its hard and soft power aggression as it falsely believes it can maintain a unipolar order.

It is always difficult for Great Powers to accept that the world has changed, especially when it is to their detriment. The behavior of the Biden administration, which deliberately uses threatening and inappropriate rhetoric, demonstrates that it will not rationally accept a multipolar world system, especially since Russophobia and Sinophobia are on the rise.

Personal insults against Putin and Xi are an expression of American impotence, especially when we consider that the U.S. historically did not engage in this kind of rhetoric when it was at the zenith of its power. The U.S. is no longer the world’s sole superpower and its rivals are no longer accepting such aggression, which is exactly why the Chinese delegation that went to Alaska last month clearly stated that it does not accept any language of force.

An additional problem for the U.S. is whether its allies will strain their relations with China and Russia, and whether they will accept being pushed into conflicts with them. There are indications that the most important European countries will resist U.S. demands. This is evidenced by the Nord Stream 2 issue where American attempts to prevent its construction are being met with resistance from important European Union countries despite the endless complaints from minnows like Lithuania and Poland.

Robert Gates, former director of the CIA and U.S. Secretary of Defense, admitted in a recent interview with the Washington Post that sanctions against Russia do not any good for the U.S. In The National Interest, Robert Kaplan describes Russia as a “problem from hell” because it cannot be subdued. Kaplan offered reasons why it is necessary for Russia to “move away from its one-sided alliance with China” and find balance with the U.S.

Washington’s misguided policy of aggression to maintain a unipolar world order worked in the favor of China and Russia, especially in accelerating their cooperation. The West can no longer suppress China’s economic power or Russia’s military power. Military strategists in the West are aware that the Russo-Sino cooperation cannot be compensated by anything. In the end, Washington will have to resort to a strategy resembling Kissinger’s suggestion of finding equilibrium, whilst also accepting the multipolar reality that has been established.

*

Note to readers: please click the share buttons above or below. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.

This article was originally published on InfoBrics.

Paul Antonopoulos is an independent geopolitical analyst.

All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the “Translate Website” drop down menu on the top banner of our home page (Desktop version).

***

GR Editor’s Note

It is worth noting that while AstraZenaka has been the object of suspension, the vaccine related deaths and injuries are significantly larger in regards to the Pfizer vaccine.

How is it that AstraZeneka has been the object of restrictions by 18 European governments, while no limitations have been considered with regard to Pfizer and Moderna Inc.

Are these Big Pharma companies competing with one another?

Below is the Eudra Vigilance data on vaccine deaths and injuries for the period December 27, 2020 to March 13, 2021 pertaining respectively to AstraZeneka, Pfizer and Moderna.

The deaths and injuries associated with the BioNTech/ Pfizer vaccine are significantly larger:

2,540 deaths and 102,100 injuries 

Moreover, the number of deaths  recorded in relation to the Moderna vaccine is more than double that of AstraZeneca:

973 deaths and 5939 injuries 

Here is the Breakdown:

Total reactions for the experimental vaccine AZD1222 (CHADOX1 NCOV-19) from Oxford/ AstraZeneca451 deaths and 54,571 injuries to 13/03/2021

Total reactions for the experimental mRNA vaccine Tozinameran (code BNT162b2, Comirnaty) from BioNTechPfizer: 2,540 deaths and 102,100 injuries to 13/03/2021

Total reactions for the experimental mRNA vaccine mRNA-1273 (CX-024414) from Moderna: 973 deaths and 5,939 injuries to 13/03/2021

EudraVigilance states with regard to the data:

“Only a detailed evaluation and scientific assessment of all available data allows for robust conclusions to be drawn on the benefits and risks of a medicine.”

Michel Chossudovsky  April 5, 2021

***

The Netherlands has temporarily halted the use of the AstraZeneca COVID-19 vaccine for people aged under 60 as a “precaution”.

In a statement on Friday afternoon, the country’s health ministry said it was acting on a new report from independent advisory body Lareb.

The report concerned five women in the country aged between 25 and 65 who had gone on to suffer blood clots after receiving the shot. “Similar reports have also come from other EU countries,” the Dutch authorities added.

Doctors have been advised to cancel all appointments for under-60s until further notice. About 400,000 people in the Netherlands have received the AstraZeneca jab so far, out of around 2.3 million doses of vaccine so far administered nationwide.

The ban comes two weeks after the European Medicines Agency had determined the AstraZeneca vaccine was “safe and effective”, but said it could not definitively rule out the increased risk of blood clots as a side effect of the jab.

The EMA’s pharmacovigilance committee is due to give an update on AstraZeneca next Wednesday, after which the Dutch authorities have said they will review the decision.

What next for AstraZeneca in the European Union?

Three days ago Germany also restricted the use of the AstraZeneca vaccine to people aged over 60 and those belonging to high-risk categories.

All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the “Translate Website” drop down menu on the top banner of our home page (Desktop version).

***

About a decade ago, I had the pleasure of living with American citizens in Seattle. Their warmth, helpfulness and openness impressed me deeply – and surprised me: after all, I had brought strong reservations with me because of the murderous US war policy and the worldwide “crusades” of the US governments.

Rolf Winter, a German journalist who lived in New York City for several years and travelled the United States, documented his explorations in three books. The best known is the 1989 bestseller “Ami go home” (1). This clear call comes to mind again when one has to endure the psychological warfare against Russia initiated by the US government in the mass media and asks about the sense of the military manoeuvre “Defender Europe 21” in the Balkans near the Russian border. See “Global Research“.

“War is in the air”

Former Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev, shortly after the Corona pandemic was declared, already described the political situation as extremely worrying and said, according to “Sputnik News” of 12 March 2020: “War is in the air.” (2)

And former Assistant Secretary of the US Treasury and Associate Editor of the “Wall Street Journal” Paul Craig Roberts wrote an article in “Global Research” on 25 March entitled: Sowing the seeds of war. Lack of confidence in China and Russia. ‘Washington’s hegemonic ambitions could lead to a devastating war” (3).

“Operation Balkans: Advertising War and Death” 

The older citizens of Serbia painfully experienced in the late 1990s how the war of aggression of the US government and NATO vassals was prepared together with “embedded” journalists of the mass media, what crimes were committed by the aggressors under the war code name “Merciful Angel” and how relentlessly their genocide continues to reverberate among young and old to this day.

The Balkans expert and Vienna OSCE diplomat Mira Beham and the political scientist Jörg Becker have written a unique document on the procedures and effects of public relations PR in their book “Operation Balkans: Advertising War and Death” (4):

“It is well known that governments hire PR companies to improve their image. What is little known, however, is that there are PR campaigns commissioned by governments to build up enemy images, prepare for wars or whitewash dictatorships. The authors use the Balkan wars and an analysis of 157 contracts between former Yugoslavian clients and American PR agencies as examples to show how public relations is used to communicate crises and wars. The study examines how PR strategies, as quasi-privatised propaganda, succeed in creating closed communication circuits between politics, the military, the media, NGOs and think tanks, in which the same core messages always circulate. The consequences of this privatisation of (war) communication are also discussed.” (5)

“We Europeans say NO to war against Russia!”

On 8 May 2018, together with my friend, the social and political scientist Ullrich Mies, I initiated a Public Declaration in the five languages German, English, Dutch, Serbian and Russian:

“We Europeans say NO to war against Russia!”

This declaration appeared in various online newspapers and was signed by many European citizens and well-known personalities. It can still be viewed and signed in the “Neue Rheinische Zeitung NRhZ” (6). The declaration in the wording:

Two world wars are enough!

In the past, Germany allowed itself to be dragged into the First World War and in the Second World War it inflicted immeasurable suffering on the Russian people.

We will not allow this to happen again!

If the German vassal government, in complicity with the warmongers in Britain and France, under the leadership of the USA and NATO, is planning a new war of aggression against Russia, it is not doing so in our name!

We, the citizens, have the last word on war and peace!

We say NO to war and violence in international relations and condemn the continued warmongering, armament and militarisation!

Attached is the reasoning of the judgement of the International Military Tribunal in Nuremberg 1946:

“The unleashing of a war of aggression is not merely an international crime. It is the most serious international crime, differing from other war crimes only in that it includes and accumulates within itself all the horrors of the other crimes.” (7)

“Plea to say goodbye to a violent country”

This is the subtitle of Rolf Winter’s bestseller “Ami Go home”. In another 1990 book entitled “The American Imposition. Pleas against the Land of Real Existing Capitalism” Winter writes:

“What is remarkable is the world’s ever-growing readiness to come to terms with American intolerability, to ignore it, so to speak, or to pretend that it is all right after all.” (8)

This assessment by the connoisseur of America can be unreservedly endorsed:

What are you Yanks doing here in Europe and in the Near, Middle and Far East?

“Empire USA: A Ruthless World Power” is the title of a recent book by the Swiss peace researcher Daniele Ganser (9). This empire is the greatest threat to world peace.

Therefore: Ami Go Home!

*

Note to readers: please click the share buttons above or below. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.

Dr. Rudolf Hänsel is a graduate psychologist and educationalist. He is a frequent contributor to Global Research.

Notes

(1) Winter, R. (1989). AMI GO HOME. Plea for a farewell to a violent country. Hamburg

(2) https://de.rt.com/meinung/115202-vier-jahre-albtraum-ohne-neuen-krieg/

(3) https://www.globalresearch.ca/sowing-seeds-war/5740893

(4) Becker, J., Beham, M. (20082). Operation Balkans: advertising war and death. Baden-Baden

(5) op. cit. back cover

(6) http://www.nrhz.de

(7) Op. cit.

(8) Winter, R. (1990). The American Imposition. Back cover

(9) Ganser, D. (2020). Imperium USA: The unscrupulous world power. Zurich

Featured image:  Neckerchief designed by Pablo Picasso for the Third World Youth Festival in Berlin (GDR), 1951 (Source: Dr. Rudolf Hansel)

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Troop Build-up in the Balkans: US-NATO “Psychological Warfare” as a Warning Signal for Military Operation Against Russia
  • Tags: ,

Kiev Leads New Escalation of Violence in Donbass and Crimea

April 5th, 2021 by Lucas Leiroz de Almeida

All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the “Translate Website” drop down menu on the top banner of our home page (Desktop version).

***

Once again, Kiev is leading a new escalation of violence in the Russian border. In the past few days, the autonomous republics of Donbass have been suffering from violations of the ceasefire agreement by Ukrainian forces, which has raised tensions and worried experts about the possibility of a return to the status of the war before the Minsk conferences. To make matters worse, Washington is acting provocatively, asserting full support for Kiev and solidarity with the aggressors in the conflict.

Joe Biden and the Ukrainian president, Vladimir Zelensky, held last Friday, April 2, their first telephone conversation since the American leader took office. On the occasion, the leaders discussed several topics, including the tensions on the border with Russia. Biden and Zelensky agreed that what is happening in eastern Ukraine is a “Russian aggression” and that it must be contained by the mutual efforts of their two countries. In a statement after the conversation, a White House spokesperson said: “President Biden affirmed the United States’ unwavering support for Ukraine’s sovereignty and territorial integrity in the face of Russia’s ongoing aggression in the Donbass and Crimea”.

The conversation between the American and Ukrainian presidents takes place at a particularly difficult time, coinciding with a new escalation of violence in the Donbass region. In fact, Ukraine has never strictly complied with the terms of the Minsk agreements, which imposed a ceasefire on the war, but it has consistently acted in a aggressive and destructive way, with attacks, illegal arrests and murders. Still, after the rise of Biden – knowing the more interventionist position of the new American president – Kiev began to invest even more in military pressure in regions bordering Russia, not only in the Donbass, but also in the Crimea region and other areas close to Russia. Kiev gradually shows interest in making its entire border with Russia a NATO occupation zone.

In February, Ukrainian Minister of Infrastructure Vladislav Krikliy asked the Western military alliance to monitor airspace across the border with Russia. In early April, Russian government spokesman Dmitry Peskov denounced the exponential increase of US military personnel on the Russian-Ukrainian border, warning of the dangers of NATO actions in the region, which was responded by Lloyd Austin, Pentagon’s leader, with a declaration of American support for Kiev in the face of “Russian aggressions” – jargon extremely repeated by Americans and Ukrainians, but completely unfounded. On the occasion, Peskov warned that Moscow will take all necessary measures to defend Russian borders, which was seen later with a large move of Russian troops to the conflict zones in Donbass and Crimea. According to American intelligence data, about 4,000 Russian soldiers have been deployed in these regions, which has generated negative reactions on the part of NATO. Moscow declared that these military actions are normal and should not be a cause for concern.

It is curious to note how Ukraine has promoted an increase in violence but is unable to deal with the consequences of its own actions. This Saturday, a Ukrainian soldier was killed, and others were injured in the explosion of a landmine in Donbass. Kiev uses cases like this to endorse the rhetoric of Russian aggression and call for support for NATO, but in fact, Russia is not yet directly involved in Donbass, only providing logistical support to popular militias in the region. The recent troops’ moves have had no effective military results – they have only put Russian soldiers on standby in the face of threats.

Indeed, Kiev does not have the capacity to deal with the conflict, not even facing only popular militias, but in its anti-Russian ideological extremism, the government prefers to risk the lives of its own soldiers by investing in an escalation of violence in order to justify a NATO intervention on the basis of an alleged “Russian aggression” – when the aggressor is precisely Kiev. It is important to emphasize the Ukrainian government’s belief that, in fact, NATO will intervene in favor of Kiev’s forces, as local disputes in eastern Ukraine were so important that Washington risked a direct confrontation with Russian interests in the region. This is something that seems unrealistic even for an ideologically committed president like Joe Biden – he certainly can intervene in the region in some way to help Ukraine, but it will not happen in the way Kiev apparently hopes.

The entire Russian border region is fraught with tensions and conflicts and this will not stop anytime soon. The correct path to be followed is the collective abdication of violence and resolution through diplomatic means.

*

Note to readers: please click the share buttons above or below. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.

This article was originally published on InfoBrics.

Lucas Leiroz is a research fellow in international law at the Federal University of Rio de Janeiro.

Featured image is from InfoBrics

Will South Korea Become a QUAD+ Member?

April 5th, 2021 by Dr. Konstantin Asmolov

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Will South Korea Become a QUAD+ Member?
  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on How the Cleanup of the Fukushima Nuclear Accident Got So Expensive

All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the “Translate Website” drop down menu on the top banner of our home page (Desktop version).

***

Numerous statements by Ukrainian and Russian officials reported this Easter Sunday bode ill for hopes of diminishing tensions in Eastern Ukraine. Growing indications of impending intervention by the Pentagon and NATO make the situation yet more grim. U.S. European Command has raised its Ukraine watch level from possible crisis to potential imminent crisis, the highest level, according to Stars and Stripes.

The past few days have witnessed a phone conversation between President Joe Biden and his Ukrainian counterpart Volodymyr Zelensky and a similar exchange between Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin and his, Defense Minister Andrii Taran. In both instances the American officials assured their Ukrainian allies of American support not only in their steadily mounting conflict with the Donetsk and Lugansk republics in the Donbass in what was formerly Eastern Ukraine, but with its war of words, and veiled words of war, with Russia which borders the two republics.

Ukraine reports a government soldier being killed in an explosion and Donetsk states a child was killed and a woman wounded in an attack in its territory by a Ukrainian drone strike.

The deputy speaker of Russia’s upper house of parliament, Konstantin Kosachev, evoked the death of the child to warn the NATO and European Union nations in Europe that their silence on the Ukrainian government’s resumption of shelling in the Donbass is providing the Kiev government carte blanche to continue and to escalate the current conflict into a prelude to all-our war. A war, moreover, on the Russian border, one that it’s difficult to imagine Moscow being able to stand aloof from for long. His words included, “Yesterday, for the first time since July 2020 a Ukrainian shelling of the DPR [Donetsk People’s Republic] was conducted and a six-year-old child died,” and he bemoaned the fact that “there is no word about this” from Ukraine’s and Russia’s partners in the Normandy Contact Group, France and Germany. (The Normandy Format was established in 2014 when fighting in the Donbass erupted in order to deescalate the conflict and reach a peaceful settlement between its participants.)

Instead the French-German statement emphasized “support for the sovereignty and territorial integrity of Ukraine within its internationally recognised borders,” a reference to Donetsk, Lugansk and Crimea, and added: “We are closely monitoring the situation and in particular Russian troop movements, and call on all sides to show restraint and to work towards the immediate de-escalation of tensions.” A more partisan appraisal is hard to imagine, and is yet more disturbing as it casts Russia in the role of potential aggressor against Ukraine as well as siding with Kiev in its armed conflict with the Donbass republics.

The Ukrainian government is proving increasingly successful in its endeavors to recruit the U.S. and NATO into the conflict on its side and to direct their attention toward Russia as an adversary.

The government press agency TASS paraphrased the above-Russian senator reflecting that the catastrophe in Eastern Ukraine could have been prevented at its inception in 2014 “if Europe had refused to accept the coup d’état in Ukraine or had demanded the new authorities ‘fully observe common European values in regard to its citizens.’”

The same source cited the speaker of the lower house of the Russian parliament – the Russian State Duma – Vyacheslav Volodin, who in the same tone of urgency and condemnation his colleague in the upper house adopted toward France and Germany, wrote this about Ukrainian authorities’ current behavior:

“The Ukrainian leaders’ rhetoric has gone too far, adding to the tensions and aggravating the conflict. It is fraught with the most serious consequences. What are Ukrainian officials saying? Do they call for the settlement of the situation? No. Their actions are geared to intimidate people, to fan tensions in the region.”

The two Russian parliamentarians doubtlessly reflect the position of the government as a whole; one which reveals the highest degree of alarm over prospects of the war near Russia’s border affecting its national security as well.

In equally blunt language the lawmaker added, “one should bear in mind that not everything that is advantageous for the United States is in Europe’s interests.” President Joe Biden’s relation to Ukraine before but particularly since the coup and resulting war of 2014 was sufficient indication of what to expect from Washington once he entered the White House. Such apprehensions have not proven unwarranted. The Russian speaker extended his indictment of U.S. responsibility for the current crisis by accusing the U.S. of doing nothing in the seven years since the American-backed coup there to assist the nation’s economy. “The country has lost its sovereignty in practically all areas,” he added, emphasizing that not even a single batch of the coronavirus vaccine has been sent to Ukraine: “If the United States charges even its NATO partners for protection, it will demand trice as much from Ukraine.”

Shifting his attention to Kiev, he said:

“Before it is too late, Ukrainian leaders must spare no effort to implement the Minsk accords. Stop escalating the situation in Donbass if you don’t want to finish your political careers in the Hague.”

While the Russian legislator lambasted Washington, a major Ukrainian official appealed to it to enter the fray. The country’s deputy prime minister and the head of the ominous-sounding Ministry of Reintegration of Temporarily Occupied Territories of Ukraine – that means of course not only Donetsk and Lugansk but Crimea, now part of Russia, as well – Oleksiy Reznikov, recently advocated that the U.S. join the Normandy Format and the Trilateral Contact Group on Ukraine, the latter currently consisting of Ukraine, Russia and the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe, also created seven years ago. He said: “A discussion – at the level of Ukraine – [with the] participation of the United States [regarding the Donbass] is absolutely possible and acceptable at different levels….[The] United States…can begin to work both in the Normandy format and at the level of ambassadors and coordinators of the Trilateral Contact Group.”

The U.S. joining the Normandy Contact Group would stack it four to one against Russia, with three members of the NATO Quad allied with Kiev against it.

On the occasion of the 72nd anniversary of NATO on April 4, while the Russian foreign ministry accused NATO’s increased arms spending of fueling a global arms race, Ukrainian President Zelensky called on the military bloc to grant his country a Membership Action Plan, the final stage to full NATO membership, one used by the sixteen countries that have joined the alliance since 1999. To highlight Ukraine’s value to Washington and NATO, Zelensky boasted of the fact that Ukraine this year will engage in fifteen multinational military exercises abroad and host nine at home. The latter will include this year’s iteration of Rapid Trident, Sea Breeze, Cossack Mace, Warrior Watcher, Riverine, Three Swords and Silver Sabre.

The Sea Breeze multinational naval drills will be the twenty-first iteration of the exercise, one which includes the participation of U.S. anti-missile Arleigh Burke-class guided-missile destroyers and is employed to integrate U.S. and NATO military forces in the Black Sea for operations in the region. Until 2014 they were based in Crimea. In 2006 the theme of the war games was to “simulate the defence of a peninsula caught between a totalitarian state and a democratic one.” It was cancelled by the Ukrainian government of pro-Western President Viktor Yushchenko because of local anti-NATO protests.

The Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces of Ukraine, Colonel-General Ruslan Khomchak, made this offer to NATO:

“We effectively utilize NATO partnership tools and mechanisms to support…engagement with the Alliance, that has progressed even further with Ukraine’s recognition as an Enhanced Opportunities Partner. Ukraine is now one of six Enhanced Opportunities Partners, alongside Australia, Finland, Georgia, Jordan and Sweden. And we work on particular practical measures to add practical value to such cooperation format.”

He reminded NATO that Ukraine has supplied the military bloc with troops for Kosovo and Afghanistan (he didn’t mention to the U.S. in Iraq as well) and pledged to contribute to the NATO Mission in Iraq and NATO Operation Sea Guardian in the Mediterranean Sea, such efforts contributing to “reaching military criteria of a full-fledged NATO membership.” The quid pro quo will be NATO getting more involved in Ukraine.

Roman Mashovets, Deputy Head of the Office of the President of Ukraine on National Security and Defense and the Defense Industry, recently met with the head of the NATO Representation to Ukraine, Alexander Vinnikov, and advocated that NATO hold joint air patrols in Ukrainian air space. The Ukrainian press reported that “Ukraine has offered NATO to hold joint military exercises in response to Russia’s moves to amass troops near the Ukrainian border.” That is as direct a call for NATO air and ground forces to be deployed against Russia as can be made.

The NATO envoy was in accord. Vinnikov, again according to a Ukrainian news source, “expressed condolences over Ukraine’s losses in recent weeks in the fight against Russian aggression in Donbas,” and stressed that Ukrainian government assessments of the fighting in the east of the country “will be passed to the Alliance’s headquarters in Brussels.”

Efforts of the sort detailed above indicate a clear intent to involve the U.S. and NATO in Ukraine’s worsening confrontation with not only the Donbass but Russia as well. They may herald as direct a clash between the first two and the last as the world has yet seen.

*

Note to readers: please click the share buttons above or below. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Peace Prospects Dim as Ukraine Tries to Drag U.S., NATO into Its Confrontation with Russia
  • Tags: ,

Covid Tests Are Invalid. Politicians Are Lying.

April 5th, 2021 by Mark Taliano

All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the “Translate Website” drop down menu on the top banner of our home page (Desktop version).

***

People casually refer to the current lockdowns as being “because of COVID” or “the pandemic”. That is a lie. Our governments are imposing restrictive, counter-productive measures on us, not COVID.

The notion that there is a pandemic caused by a ‘killer virus” is illusory. The data underpinning the lie is invalid.

COVID-19, a term that covers a broad range of symptoms, has always had high survival rates.

According to Dr. John Ioannidis,

“of every seroprevalence study conducted to date of publication with a supporting scientific paper (74 estimates from 61 studies and 51 different localities around the world) the median infection survival rate from COVID-19 infection is 99.7 percent.  For COVID-19 patients under 70, the meta-analysis finds an infection survival rate of 99.95%.” (1)

Clearly, COVID is not a “plague to be feared”, or a “killer virus”, as it is presented to us by Mainstream Everything in as many as 190 countries. In fact, the World Health Organization (WHO) conveniently “redefined” the word “pandemic” to exclude mortality rates in 2009. (2)

Foundational to the Big Lie is data. Mainstream Everything would have us believe that SARS-COV-2 tests are not only reliable, but that they are also key to resolving the (fabricated) crisis (sic). The data, however, is invalid. The WHO has admitted as much.

Prof. Michel Chossudovsky explains that,

”the World Health Organization (WHO) tacitly admits one year later that ALL PCR tests conducted at a 35 cycle amplification threshold (Ct) or higher are INVALID. But that is what they recommended in January 2020, in consultation with the virology team at Charité Hospital in Berlin. If the test is conducted at a 35 Ct threshold or above (which was recommended by the WHO), segments of the SARS-CoV-2 virus cannot be detected, which means that ALL the so-called confirmed “positive cases” tabulated in the course of the last 14 months are invalid.” (3)

Clearly, unelected “controllers” have been selling us a Lie to impose lockdown measures, to destroy economies, and to inject us with experimental vaccines.

There is nothing democratic about any of this. Compliant politicians are lying to us.

The boot of totalitarianism is currently on our faces, and it will continue to extinguish our rights, our freedoms, our livelihoods, and our lives, for as long as we collectively allow it.

*

Note to readers: please click the share buttons above or below. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.

Mark Taliano is a Research Associate of the Centre for Research on Globalization (CRG) and the author of Voices from Syria, Global Research Publishers, 2017. Visit the author’s website at https://www.marktaliano.net where this article was originally published.

Notes

(1) Oliver May, “Risk of Asymptomatic Spread Minimal. Variants Over-Hyped. Masks Pointless. An Interview With Professor Jay Bhattacharya.” Lockdown Skeptics, 25 March, 2021. (Risk of Asymptomatic Spread Minimal. Variants Over-Hyped. Masks Pointless. An Interview With Professor Jay Bhattacharya – Lockdown Sceptics) Accessed 02 April, 2021.

(2) Mark Taliano, “False Perception Fabrication Inc.” www.marktaliano.net, 24 March, 2021 (False Perception Fabrication Inc. – Mark Taliano) Accessed 02 April, 2021.

(3) Prof. Michel Chossudovsky, “The WHO Confirms that the Covid-19 PCR Test is Flawed: Estimates of “Positive Cases” are Meaningless. The Lockdown Has No Scientific Basis.” Global Research, 19 March, 2021. (The WHO Confirms that the Covid-19 PCR Test is Flawed: Estimates of “Positive Cases” are Meaningless. The Lockdown Has No Scientific Basis – Global ResearchGlobal Research – Centre for Research on Globalization) Accessed 02 April, 2021.

Featured image is from Mark Taliano


Order Mark Taliano’s Book “Voices from Syria” directly from Global Research.

Mark Taliano combines years of research with on-the-ground observations to present an informed and well-documented analysis that refutes  the mainstream media narratives on Syria. 

Voices from Syria 

ISBN: 978-0-9879389-1-6

Author: Mark Taliano

Year: 2017

Pages: 128 (Expanded edition: 1 new chapter)

List Price: $17.95

Special Price: $9.95 

Click to order

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Covid Tests Are Invalid. Politicians Are Lying.
  • Tags:

How Eurasia Will be Interconnected

April 5th, 2021 by Pepe Escobar

All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the “Translate Website” drop down menu on the top banner of our home page (Desktop version).

***

The extraordinary confluence between the signing of the Iran-China strategic partnership deal and the Ever Given saga in the Suez Canal is bound to spawn a renewed drive to the Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) and all interconnected corridors of Eurasia integration.  

This is the most important geoeconomic development in Southwest Asia in ages – even more crucial than the geopolitical and military support to Damascus by Russia since 2015.

Multiple overland railway corridors across Eurasia featuring cargo trains crammed with freight – the most iconic of which is arguably Chongqin-Duisburg – are a key plank of BRI. In a few years, this will all be conducted on high-speed rail.

The key overland corridor is Xinjiang-Kazakhstan – and then onwards to Russia and beyond; the other one traverses Central Asia and Iran, all the way to Turkey, the Balkans and Eastern Europe. It may take time – in terms of volume – to compete with maritime routes, but the substantial reduction in shipping time is already propelling a massive cargo surge.

The Iran-China strategic connection is bound to accelerate all interconnected corridors leading to and crisscrossing Southwest Asia.

Crucially, multiple BRI trade connectivity corridors are directly linked to establishing alternative routes to oil and gas transit, controlled or “supervised” by the Hegemon since 1945: Suez, Malacca, Hormuz, Bab al Mandeb.

Informal conversations with Persian Gulf traders have revealed huge skepticism about the foremost reason for the Ever Given saga. Merchant marine pilots agree that winds in a desert storm were not enough to harass a state of the art mega-container ship equipped with very complex navigation systems. The pilot error scenario – induced or not – is being seriously considered.

Then there’s the predominant shoptalk: stalled Ever Given was Japanese owned, leased from Taiwan, UK-insured, with an all-Indian crew, transporting Chinese merchandise to Europe. No wonder cynics, addressing the whole episode, are asking, Cui Bono?

Persian Gulf traders, in hush hush mode, also drop hints about the project for Haifa to eventually become the main port in the region, in close cooperation with the Emirates via a railway to be built between Jabal Ali in Dubai to Haifa, bypassing Suez.

Back to facts on the ground, the most interesting short-term development is how Iran’s oil and gas may be shipped to Xinjiang via the Caspian Sea and Kazakhstan – using a to-be-built Trans-Caspian pipeline.

That falls right into classic BRI territory. Actually more than that, because Kazakhstan is a partner not only of BRI but also the Russia-led Eurasia Economic Union (EAEU).

From Beijing’s point of view, Iran is also absolutely essential for the development of a land corridor from the Persian Gulf to the Black Sea and further to Europe via the Danube.

It’s obviously no accident that the Hegemon is on high alert in all points of this trade corridor. “Maximum pressure” sanctions and hybrid war against Iran; an attempt to manipulate the Armenia-Azerbaijan war; the post-color revolution environment in both Georgia and Ukraine – which border the Black Sea; NATO’s overarching shadow over the Balkans; it’s all part of the plot.

Now get me some Lapis Lazuli

Another fascinating chapter of Iran-China concerns Afghanistan. According to Tehran sources, part of the strategic agreement deals with Iran’s area of influence in Afghanistan and the evolution of still another connectivity corridor all the way to Xinjiang.

And here we go back to the always intriguing Lapis Lazuli corridor – which was conceptualized in 2012, initially for increased connectivity between Afghanistan, Turkmenistan, Azerbaijan, Georgia and Turkey.

Lapis Lazuli, wonderfully evocative, harks back to the export of an array of semiprecious stones via the Ancient Silk Roads to the Caucasus, Russia, the Balkans and North Africa.

Now the Afghan government sees the ambitious 21st century remix as departing from Herat (a key area of Persian influence), continuing to the Caspian Sea port of Turkmenbashi in Turkmenistan, via a Trans-Caspian pipeline to Baku, onwards to Tblisi and the Georgian ports of Poti and Batumi in the Black Sea, and finally connected to Kars and Istanbul.

This is really serious business; a drive that may potentially link the Eastern Mediterranean to the Indian Ocean.

Since Russia, Iran, Azerbaijan, Kazakhstan and Turkmenistan signed the Convention on the Legal Status of the Caspian Sea in 2018, in the Kazakh port of Aktau, what’s interesting is that their major issues are now discussed at the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO), where Russia and Kazakhstan are full members; Iran will soon be; Azerbaijan is a dialogue partner; and Turkmenistan is a permanent guest.

One of the key connectivity problems to be addressed is the viability of building a canal from the Caspian Sea to Iran’s shores in the Persian Gulf. That would cost at least US$7 billion. Another issue is the imperative transition towards container cargo transport in the Caspian. In SCO terms, that will increase Russian trade with India via Iran as well as offering an extra corridor for China trade with Europe.

With Azerbaijan prevailing over Armenia in the Nagorno-Karabakh flare up, while finally sealing a deal with Turkmenistan over their respective status in the Caspian Sea, impetus for the western part of Lapis Lazuli is now in the cards.

The eastern part is a much more complicated affair, involving an absolutely crucial issue now on the table not only for Beijing but for the SCO: the integration of Afghanistan to the China-Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC).

In late 2020, Afghanistan, Pakistan and Uzbekistan agreed to build what analyst Andrew Korybko delightfully described as the PAKAFUZ railway. PAKAFUZ will be a key step to expand CPEC to Central Asia, via Afghanistan. Russia is more than interested.

This can become a classic case of the evolving BRI-EAEU melting pot. Crunch time – serious decisions included – will happen this summer, when Uzbekistan plans to host a conference called “Central and South Asia: Regional Interconnectedness. Challenges and Opportunities”.

So everything will be proceeding interconnected: a Trans-Caspian link; the expansion of CPEC; Af-Pak connected to Central Asia; an extra Pakistan-Iran corridor (via Balochistan, including the finally possible conclusion of the IP gas pipeline) all the way to Azerbaijan and Turkey; China deeply involved in all these projects.

Beijing will be building roads and pipelines in Iran, including one to ship Iranian natural gas to Turkey. Iran-China, in terms of projected investment, is nearly ten times more ambitious than CPEC. Call it CIEC (China-Iran Economic Corridor).

In a nutshell: the Chinese and Persian civilization-states are on the road to emulate the very close relationship they enjoyed during the Silk Road-era Yuan dynasty in the 13th century.

INSTC or bust

An extra piece of the puzzle concerns how the International North-South Transportation Corridor (INSTC) will mix with BRI and the EAEU. Crucially, INSTC also happens to be an alternative to Suez.

Iran, Russia and India have been discussing the intricacies of this 7,200 km-long ship/rail/road trade corridor since 2002. INSTC technically starts in Mumbai and goes all the way via the Indian Ocean to Iran, the Caspian Sea, and then to Moscow. As a measure of its appeal, Azerbaijan, Armenia, Belarus, Kazakhstan, Tajikistan, Kyrgyzstan, Ukraine, Oman, and Syria are all INSTC members.

Much to the delight of Indian analysts, INSTC reduces transit time from West India to Western Russia from 40 to 20 days, while cutting costs by as much as 60%. It’s already operational – but not as a continuous, free flow sea and rail link.

New Delhi already spent $500 million on a crucial project: the expansion of Chabahar port in Iran, which was supposed to become its entry point for a made in India Silk Road to Afghanistan and onward to Central Asia. But then it all got derailed by New Delhi’s flirting with the losing Quad proposition.

India also invested $1.6 billion in a railway between Zahedan, the key city in southeast Iran, and the Hajigak iron/steel mining in central Afghanistan. This all falls into a possible Iran-India free trade agreement which is being negotiated since 2019 (for the moment, on  stand-by). Iran and Russia already clinched a similar agreement. And India wants the same with the EAEU as a whole.

Following the Iran-China strategic partnership, chairman of the Iranian Parliament’s National Security and Foreign Policy Committee, Mojtaba Zonnour, has already hinted that the next step should be an Iran-Russia strategic cooperation deal, privileging “rail services, roads, refineries, petrochemicals, automobiles, oil, gas, environment and knowledge-based companies”.

What Moscow is already seriously considering is to build a canal between the Caspian and the Sea of Azov, north of the Black Sea. Meanwhile, the already built Caspian port of Lagan is a certified game-changer.

Lagan directly connects with multiple BRI nodes. There’s rail connectivity to the Trans-Siberian all the way to China. Across the Caspian, connectivity includes Turkmenbashi in Turkmenistan and Baku in Azerbaijan, which is the starting point of the BTK railway through to the Black Sea and then all the way from Turkey to Europe.

On the Iranian stretch of the Caspian, Amirabad port links to the INSTC, Chabahar port and further on to India. It’s not an accident that several Iranian companies, as well China’s Poly Group and China Energy Engineering Group International want to invest in Lagan.

What we see in play here is Iran at the center of a maze progressively interconnected with Russia, China and Central Asia. When the Caspian Sea is finally linked to international waters, we will see a de facto alternative trade/transport corridor to Suez.

Post-Iran-China, it’s not far-fetched anymore to even consider the possible emergence in a not too distant future of a Himalaya Silk Road uniting BRICS members China and India (think, for instance, of the power of Himalayan ice converging into a shared Hydropower Tunnel).

As it stands, Russia is very much focused on limitless possibilities in Southwest Asia, as Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov made it clear in the 10th Middle East conference at the Valdai club. The Hegemon’s treats on multiple fronts – Ukraine, Belarus, Syria, Nord Stream 2 – pale in comparison.

The new architecture of 21st century geopolitics is already taking shape, with China providing multiple trade corridors for non-stop economic development while Russia is the reliable provider of energy and security goods, as well as the conceptualizer of a Greater Eurasia home, with “strategic partnership” Sino/Russian diplomacy playing the very long game.

Southwest Asia and Greater Eurasia have already seen which way the (desert) winds are blowing. And soon will the masters of international capital. Russia, China, Iran, India, Central Asia, Vietnam, Indonesia, the Korean Peninsula, everyone will experience a capital surge – financial vultures included. Following the Greed is Good gospel, Eurasia is about to become the ultimate Greed frontier.

*

Note to readers: please click the share buttons above or below. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.

This article was originally published on Asia Times.

Pepe Escobar, born in Brazil, is a correspondent and editor-at-large at Asia Times and columnist for Consortium News and Strategic Culture in Moscow. Since the mid-1980s he’s lived and worked as a foreign correspondent in London, Paris, Milan, Los Angeles, Singapore, Bangkok. He has extensively covered Pakistan, Afghanistan and Central Asia to China, Iran, Iraq and the wider Middle East. Pepe is the author of Globalistan – How the Globalized World is Dissolving into Liquid War; Red Zone Blues: A Snapshot of Baghdad during the Surge. He was contributing editor to The Empire and The Crescent and Tutto in Vendita in Italy. His last two books are Empire of Chaos and 2030. Pepe is also associated with the Paris-based European Academy of Geopolitics. When not on the road he lives between Paris and Bangkok.

He is a frequent contributor to Global Research.