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).

***

New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo’s top advisers successfully intervened in pushing state health officials scrub a public report showing that by July 2020, nearly 10,000 New York nursing home residents had died in the pandemic, according to a late-Thursday report in the Wall Street Journal.

At the urging of Cuomo advisers, the report excluded nursing home residents who later died in hospitals after becoming sick in long-term facilities, resulting in a “significant undercount of the death toll attributed to the state’s most vulnerable population,” according to the report.

“The Health Department resisted calls by state and federal lawmakers, media outlets and others to release the [full] data for another eight months,” according to the Journal.

State officials now say more than 15,000 residents of nursing homes and other long-term-care facilities were confirmed or presumed to have died from Covid-19 since March of last year—counting both those who died in long-term-care facilities and those who died later in hospitals. That figure is about 50% higher than earlier official death tolls. -WSJ

The published version of the data said just 6,432 nursing home residents had died, when in fact over 15,000 residents of nursing homes were either confirmed or presumed to have died of COVID-19 since last March. Notably, Cuomo’s administration issued a March 25 directive that no nursing home could refuse to readmit residents or admit new residents who had COVID-19.

In February, federal prosecutors in Brooklyn asked the Cuomo administration to produce information on nursing-home deaths from the July report, said people familiar with the matter.

When asked for comment, Cuomo’s office said on Thursday that they had concerns over the accuracy of out-of-facility deaths, which is why they advocated to exclude that data.

“The out-of-facility data was omitted after DOH could not confirm it had been adequately verified,” said Beth Garvey, special counsel and senior adviser to Cuomo – while “one official familiar with the back-and-forth between the Health Department and Mr. Cuomo’s advisers said state Health Commissioner Howard Zucker agreed the out-of-facility data shouldn’t be included in the report.”

“[The Department of Health] was comfortable with the final report and believes fully in its conclusion that the primary driver that introduced Covid into the nursing homes was brought in by staff,” said Health Department spokesman, Gary Holmes.

The Health Department updated the report on Feb. 11 to include out-of-facility deaths of nursing-home residents, saying its conclusions remained unchanged by the new data.

State lawmakers from both parties have said the out-of-facility death data was critical for them to evaluate nursing-home policies that could prevent future fatalities. They said the Cuomo administration’s decision to delay its release constitutes a coverup of data the governor knew would be damaging to his political stature. -WSJ

Cuomo’s top aide, Melissa DeRosa, infuriated state lawmakers during a Feb. 10 virtual meeting, when she admitted to sidelining a legislative request for the data due to fears that the Trump DOJ would use it to investigate. Of note, the DOJ’s Civil Rights Division began requesting data on nursing home deaths from New York and other Democratic-leaning states in August.

According to the July report, nursing homes were already full of COVID patients when the March 25 policy was enacted, and was attributed to staff who brought it with them to work.

Cuomo, who is also embroiled in two sexual harassment allegations, has refused to step down following repeated calls from both sides of the aisle.

*

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 27 languages by activating the “Translate Website” drop down menu on the top banner of our home page (Desktop version).

***

Venezuelan non-president, Juan Guaido, is back in headlines after the new US Secretary of State Antony Blinken called him to discuss America’s favorite talking points: “a return to democracy” via “free and fair elections.”

I’m sure the irony will not be lost on those who question the legitimacy of the US election that saw Biden take power.

Anyway, you would have to have been offline or in a coma for the past couple of years to not be aware of some key facts about ‘interim president’ Guaido and US “concern” for Venezuelans.

Venezuelans didn’t vote for Guaido to be president, he hasn’t even stood for president. Venezuelans voted for Maduro. America can huff and puff and whine, but that won’t change the reality.

Guaido named himself ‘interim president’, to the support of only roughly 50 countries – leaving a glaring nearly 150 countries not recognizing this Western-groomed stooge as Venezuela’s leader.

Further, Guaido not only isn’t president of the country, he is no longer president of the National Assembly. As a result, recently, even the EU dropped its recognition of Guaido as interim president. He is a Western-groomed thug who fully backs America’s aggression and sanctions against his own country.

Venezuela’s election process has been recognized as transparent and effective, with former US President Jimmy Carter in 2012 calling itthe best in the world.” On the other hand, Venezuelan opposition, as well as Western nations, have interfered with and attempted to sabotage elections.

As for America’s grave “concern” for Venezuelans, the US in February 2019 staged a “humanitarian aid” delivery via Colombia (“aid” which contained nails and wire, likely meant for opposition barricades), blaming Maduro for “burning food & medicine,” when in fact the trucks were burned by “opposition” supporters. That same month, President Trump threatened military intervention against Venezuela.

The US allegedly sabotaged Venezuela’s power grid in March 2019 (and then blamed the Maduro government for the power failure).

And two former US Special Forces soldiers were in May 2020 arrested in a failed invasion (with the goal of capturing Maduro) which allegedly the Trump administration and Guaido himself were involved in.

President Maduro blamed the August 2018 drone assassination attempt on Colombia and elements in the US. The US was also linked to the kidnapping and coup against former Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez.

But aside from those and many other provocations against Venezuela, it is the brutal sanctions against the country that is a clear indicator of just how little America cares for the people.

As many have already surmised, the Biden administration is a continuation of the previous admin’s policies, and Blinken is the new Pompeo. They even sound the same.

  • Blinken to Ukraine’s foreign minister: “unwavering support for Ukraine’s sovereignty and territorial integrity,” “Russian aggression...”
  • Pompeo to the same: “support for #Ukraine’s sovereignty and territorial integrity is ironclad,” “Russia and its proxies’ intransigence, aggressive actions...”
  • Blinken on Crimea: “Russia’s invasion and seizure,” “we call on Russia to end its occupation,” “#CrimeaisUkraine” (newsflash: it’s not, and there was no invasion).
  • Pompeo on the same: “#Crimea is #Ukraine,” “We call on Russia to end its occupation of Crimea.

And of course, their American speak on Guaido is also the same, with both Blinken and Pompeo feigning concern for the lives of the Venezuelan people.

Flogging a dead horse named Guaido

The guy just isn’t popular in Venezuela, not now, not back in early 2019 when America & allies tried to foist him onto Venezuelans.

When I traveled to Venezuela in March 2019, aside from documenting the lack of chaos that Western pundits and media insisted was ongoing at the time, I also tried to find evidence of the massive support the same pundits and media claimed Guaido had.

I had seen on various occasions massive demonstrations of solidarity with President Maduro, the man who average Venezuelans support, particularly impoverished indigenous and Afro-Venezuelans who are conveniently ignored by Western media.

On March 30, I spent a good chunk of the day riding around on motorcycle taxi trying to find pro-Guaido protests which had been advertised, instead at designated sites and times finding none, a trickle, or pro-Maduro protesters instead.

Later the same day, I saw another massive pro-Maduro demonstration.

In encounters with Venezuelans during my few weeks in Caracas, I met people who made clear they didn’t support Guaido and what they were fighting for.

In a hilltop community, one such man told me:

We are poor people, but we are proud, we have dignity. We are fighting against Imperialism, against rich people that want our country, that want us as slaves, that want our oil, our water. But we will win.

The governments of the United States and other nations want to tell everybody that we are starving, we are dying in the streets, we are being oppressed by our government. But we’ve never been more free than now, in spite of all the problems we do have.”

He and others spoke of the extreme racism and discrimination Afro-Venezuelans and indigenous Venezuelans faced before Chavez came to power.

Before, we were treated like nothing, we were treated only as workers, that was it. Say to your governments, this isn’t a fight against Maduro, this is a fight against the people that are trying to be free.”

I won’t even repeat some of the unbelievable racist slurs they were subject to.

Some months later, back in Ontario, I met Ronald Abache, an Afro-Venezuelan who attended a lecture I gave. During the question period, he was so articulate about racism in Venezuela, “very alive, but hidden under class status,” that I asked to record his words.

In 1999, for the first time ever in any country in South America, a law was passed to not discriminate against people of color. People that never had a voice now have one and will never give it up again. You can go to the remotest area in my country and everybody can read. Everybody knows their rights and knows that their voice counts.”

He also challenged the opposition to answer one question:

What would they do different? What is their plan? If they’re planning to go back to those great old days (sarcasm), the people are not having it. Two million militias, old people, young people, everybody knows what the United States is doing. My mother is 70, she’s about to join the militia!

These are just some of the people marginalized by Western media and politicians. The ones who claim concern for Venezuela.

As Mr. Abache noted, Venezuelans themselves aren’t going to accept US hegemony, not only the leadership. I got a powerful sense of that in the demonstrations I observed and from the people I spoke with.

The new Biden administration may want to pressure Venezuela into compliance, but the people won’t accept that.

*

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.

Eva Bartlett is a Canadian independent journalist and activist. She has spent years on the ground covering conflict zones in the Middle East, especially in Syria and Palestine (where she lived for nearly four years). Follow her on Twitter @EvaKBartlett

Featured image is from Club Orlov

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).

***

An earlier version of the measure was adopted by the House.

The revised bill heads back to the body for an early in the week vote, passage highly likely. 

It’ll then be sent to the White House for Biden to enact it into law in the next few days.

The Senate adopted the plan by a narrow 50 – 49 margin, GOP Senator Dan Sullivan away at a family funeral not voting.

The $15 minimum wage and other provisions benefitting ordinary Americans were stripped from the measure.

It’s heavy on benefitting special interests, what federal legislation nearly always prioritizes.

Most Americans will get a one-time $1,400 stimulus check.

Individuals earning $80,000 or more and couples with incomes of $160,000 or more are excluded — based on pre-economic collapse 2019 income.

Unemployed individuals or others adversely affected by made-in-the-USA Depression conditions whose income was at or greater than the above thresholds in 2019 — no longer thereafter — are excluded from receiving a stimulus check when most needed.

It’s at a time when economist John Williams explained that “(s)evere systemic structural damage from (last year’s) shutdown will forestall meaningful rebound into 2022 and beyond.”

“Unemployment remains in deep non-recovery territory (at) 25.8%” — based on how calculated pre-1990.

Over the past year, CPI inflation is 9.1%. Reported numbers of the above data conceal reality.

Williams added that “systemic turmoil is just beginning, with both the Fed and US government still driving uncontrolled US dollar creation.

The $1.9 trillion stimulus plan will likely spike inflation higher.

Weekly unemployment insurance (UI) for unemployed US workers was reduced from $400 to $300 through September 6 in the Senate passed measure.

Most provisions are similar to a version passed earlier by majority House members.

Pandemic Unemployment Assistance (PUA) for self-employed individuals and contractors was renewed.

So was Pandemic Emergency Unemployment Compensation (PEUC) that adds additional weeks of state benefits.

The child tax benefit was increased to $3,000 per child up to age-17, $3,600 for children under age-six through yearend.

Affordable Care Act premium subsidies for low and middle-income households, making up to 400% of the poverty level, were extended for two years.

The measure provides $170 billion for public schools, $46 billion for monitoring, diagnosing, and tracing seasonal flu outbreaks now called covid, $75 billion for testing and mass-jabbing with experimental, high-risk drugs — causing widespread numbers of adverse events and deaths when taken as directed.

States, local communities and US territories are to get $350 billion.

HHS gets $4.5 billion to help low-income households pay energy and water bills.

Much of what’s in the measure goes to special interests, much too little for the nation’s unemployed and low-income workers.

In the latest BLS reporting period, another 1.2 million jobless workers applied for unemployment insurance (UI) benefits.

It was the 50th straight week of about a million or more claims — reflecting the most dire ever Main Street economic conditions in US history while privileged interests never had things better.

The divergence between super-rich and struggling daily to survive households was never before as extreme as now.

On Friday, a deceptive BLS report showed 379,000 jobs created in February.

Well over 90% were in the hospitality sector, mostly waiters, bartenders, cooks and related jobs.

Education, construction and mining jobs declined. Black unemployment increased.

With Main Street Depression-level conditions little changed, there’s no just cause for optimism.

One of many examples of how privileged interests are benefitting while ordinary Americans are struggling to get by was reported by Wall Street on Parade (WSOP) on March 3, saying:

The Wall Street owned and controlled Fed handed a dozen or more of the largest US banks “a cumulative $9 trillion or more in repo loans” from mid-September 2019 “though at least September 30, 2020.”

So-called emergency repo loans (Wall Street handouts) “began began months before” covid outbreaks were first reported early last year.

According to WSOP, it’s highly likely that “a handful of the largest derivative-laden banks got the lion’s share of the bailouts.”

At the same time, ordinary Americans consistently get sold out, notably since last year with no end of draconian horrors in sight — the worst highly likely ahead.

*

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.

Stephen Lendman is a Research Associate of the Centre for Research on Globalization (CRG).

VISIT MY WEBSITE: stephenlendman.org (Home – Stephen Lendman). Contact at [email protected].

My two Wall Street books are timely reading:

“How Wall Street Fleeces America: Privatized Banking, Government Collusion, and Class War”

https://www.claritypress.com/product/how-wall-street-fleeces-america/

“Banker Occupation: Waging Financial War on Humanity”

https://www.claritypress.com/product/banker-occupation-waging-financial-war-on-humanity/

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Despite US Senate $1.9 Trillion “Stimulus Bill”, Main Street Depression Prevails, Guess Who Will the “Lion’s Share”.
  • Tags:

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).

***

According to some reports China has developed a ‘blocking statute’ to subvert US sanctions imposed on Iran. This follows President Joe Biden’s stance, which amounts to enforcing the policies of the previous US President, Donald Trump, against Iran.

In 2015, following intense negotiations between China, France, Russia, United Kingdom, the US, Germany, the European Union and Iran, a milestone agreement was concluded – the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) – commonly known as the ‘Iran Nuclear Deal’.

The deal was completed during the Obama administration and endorsed by UN Security Council Resolution 2231.

The deal restricts Iran’s nuclear activities. It allows Iran to be subject to rigorous and continuous monitoring by the UN watchdog, the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) – allowing its inspectors to enter Iran to confirm full compliance with the nuclear-related provisions and requirements set in the deal. According to many reports the IAEA has devised the most intrusive international monitoring system specifically for Iran – and no other nation in history has ever been subject to such robust scrutiny.

In exchange for compliance, the other signatory nations to the ‘Iran Nuclear Deal’ are committed to lifting sanctions against Iran.

Despite Iran’s full compliance with the deal, as repeatedly confirmed by the IAEA, President Trump unilaterally withdrew the US from the deal on May 8, 2018, and subsequently re-imposed the US primary and secondary sanctions on Iran. Other signatories made strong declarations they would remain committed to the agreement, which raised harsh criticism from the Trump administration. US allies, including Israel, Saudi Arabia and Bahrain, welcomed the steps taken by the US to sabotage the deal.

In a National Security Presidential Memorandum, President Trump directed the Secretary of State and the Secretary of the Treasury to immediately take steps to reinstate US sanctions lifted or waived in connection with the ‘Iran Nuclear Deal’. The Trump administration would later implement further sanctions against Iran beyond the reinstated sanctions.

According to recent reports China has developed a potentially effective instrument, a ‘blocking statute’, which would allow China to do some trade with Iran and circumvent the US sanctions.

On January 9, 2021, China’s Ministry of Commerce – MOFCOM – issued its first order of the year, the ‘Rules on Counteracting Unjustified Extra-Territorial Application of Foreign Legislation and Other Measures’. These ‘rules’ are designed to counteract the impact of US secondary sanctions – and are similar to the EU’s Blocking Statute.

The EU’s Blocking Statute was first introduced in 1996 to counteract the US’s sanctions against Cuba, Iran and Libya at that time.

On 6 June 2018, the EU adopted a delegated act amending Regulation (EC) No 2271/96 of 22 November 1996 protecting against the effects of the extra-territorial application of legislation adopted by a third country, and actions based thereon or resulting therefrom (the Blocking Statute) in order to counteract the extra-territorial application of certain US sanctions in the EU.

However, the EU Blocking Statute has been considered a ‘toothless tool’, with limitations on the practical enforcement of it.

China has a different set of priorities with Iran, than the EU does with Iran.

The Chinese leadership has made clear Iran is a strategic partner as outlined in the 18-page document titled, ‘Iran-China Comprehensive Strategic Partnership’.

This concludes a long-term trade and military negotiations between China and Iran – and would see China invest $400 billion over the next 25 years in Iran. It would “vastly expand Chinese presence in banking, telecommunications, ports, railways and dozens of other projects” and allow China to receive Iranian oil at a reduced price in order to meet its growing energy needs. All of this will motivate China to ensure its own ‘blocking statute’ will be robust and achievable.

China needs Iran to advance its global ambitions – and ensuring the success of its ‘blocking statute’ will be a priority.

*

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.

Shahbazz Afzal is an independent writer and political activist.

Featured image is from InfoBrics

First published by Global Research on February 25, 2019

A cursory re-examination of the early years of what became known as the women’s suffrage movement and abolitionism represented the embryonic phases of self-organization and mass struggle politics within United States society.

As we pointed out in an earlier essay, the campaigns aimed at winning the right of women to exercise the franchise emerged directly from the demands for the outlawing of African enslavement.

William Lloyd Garrison as leader of the American Anti-slavery Society (AASS) provided an opportunity for both free African men and women to enhance their avenues of expression in work related to the achievement of ending involuntary servitude. The Philadelphia Female Anti-slavery Society (PFASS) and its national component of the Anti-slavery Convention of American Women during the 1830s attracted people of both African and European descent creating the conditions for the early calls for full equality eventually leading to the demands for universal suffrage.

None of these efforts would have been possible absent of the flight and rebellion taking place among the enslaved African people. By the early 19th century concerns about the untenable nature of the Atlantic Slave Trade and its containment of the impacted populations created the material basis for the stiffening of repressive measures aimed at controlling the African people residing in the U.S.

Although there was a gradual reversal of the legalization of slavery and the limited enfranchisement of African people in the Northeastern states after the War of Independence from Britain, the rapid expansion of slave labor production occurred during the opening decades of the 19th century after the invention of the cotton gin in 1793, prompting the large-scale European settlement of South. Rebellions and rumors of unrest in Richmond (VA) in 1800, Charleston (SC) 1822 and the South Hampton County (VA) uprising led by Nat Turner in 1831, fueled the notions of the potential for a collapse of the slave system through violent upheaval.

The Haitian Revolution from 1791 to 1804 and the founding of the Black Republic born in the military defeat of French empire on Hispaniola Island actually worsened the conditions for enslaved Africans on the plantations of the South during subsequent decades. By the 1830s and 1840s the demand for cotton continued to rise in order to supply the textile industries of the North and in England.

Seneca Falls, Women’s Suffrage and the Intervention of Frederick Douglass

Organizers of the Seneca Falls, New York July 19-20, 1848 convention through writings and speeches have placed this event as the genesis of women’s suffrage claims. However, these demands had been raised before in other fora including the Liberty Party platforms earlier in the same year (June 14-15) by presidential candidate Gerrit Smith and within the work of previously organized female societies opposed to slavery. Ernestine Rose delivered addresses as early as 1846 in support of abolition and universal suffrage. (See this and this)

Many of the concerns which were initially addressed at Seneca Falls were related to the right of property ownership, inheritance and marital status. Even leading women activists were unsure about the timeliness of demands for universal suffrage.

In fact it was Frederick Douglass (image on the right), the publisher of the North Star, a leading abolitionist, who spoke to the delegates on the second day of the Convention urging the gathering to pass a resolution calling for the right of women to vote. Douglass, said to have been the only Black person and one of very few men in attendance, rose militantly to pronounce:

“If there is any argument to be made, it must be made by opponents, not by the friends of woman suffrage. Let those who want argument examine the ground upon which they base their claim to the right to vote. They will find that there is not one reason, not one consideration, which they can urge in support of man’s claim to vote, which does not equally support the right of woman to vote.” (See this)

Yet Maria Stewart of Boston had written and spoken publically as early as 1831 on the need to end African enslavement as well as advocating equality for women. Stewart published in the Liberator newspaper initiated by Garrison, and beginning in 1832, delivered at least four lectures on the horrors of slavery along with the need for women’s emancipation. It is important to acknowledge that Stewart is often referred to as the first woman to speak in public settings where audiences were composed of diverse genders.

Speculation is that Stewart spoke within the same mode as other 19th century African women preachers such as Jarena Lee (image on the left) and Julia Foote. Lee preached after much struggle and opposition in the African Methodist Episcopal Church (AME) founded by Richard and Sara Allen in 1794 in Philadelphia. Foote was ordained as the first woman deacon in the African Methodist Zion Church (AMEZ) and would later become a well-known evangelist associated with the spiritualist tradition which reached fruition in the early 20th century.

The Women History Blog notes that:

“Maria Stewart’s essays and speeches presented original ideas that were to become central to the struggles for African American freedom, human rights and women’s rights. In this she was a clear forerunner to Frederick Douglass, Sojourner Truth and generations of the most influential African American activists and political thinkers. Many of her ideas were so far ahead of their time that they remain relevant more than 180 years later.” (See this)

Another notable personality of the era was born into slavery in the early 1820s in Dorchester County, Maryland. Harriet Tubman ran away from her master to become a leader in the Underground Railroad. She liberated many Africans from bondage and would later serve as a member of the Union Army in the Civil War where she provided intelligence on the locations of plantations.

Divisions Intensify After the Civil War

Tubman later worked with Elizabeth Cady Stanton and Susan B. Anthony after the Civil War in efforts aimed at acquiring women’s suffrage. These efforts linking African emancipation and women’s rights would be strained over events surrounding the enactment of 14th and 15th Amendments to the Constitution.

A leading section of the women’s movement led by Stanton and Anthony opposed the passage and ratification of the 15th Amendment which was purportedly drafted to guarantee the right to the franchise for African American males formerly enslaved in the Confederate states. This disagreement prompted the split within the American Equal Rights Association (AERA) founded in 1866 with the stated purpose of winning civil rights for African Americans and women of all races. The AERA would collapse by 1870 resulting in the advent of two rival women’s suffrage organizations.

Even Douglass’ alliance with Stanton and Anthony would be strained during this period as one historical source describes how:

“After only three years, the AERA dissolved over heated fights about whether to support the 15th Amendment, with which Black men won the right to vote (in the South, this victory would be short-lived). At a pivotal convention in May 1869, Douglass argued that the AERA should support the amendment while continuing to fight for women’s suffrage. Stanton not only disagreed, she gave an address filled with racist stereotypes about the male immigrants and male former slaves whom the amendment would enfranchise.” (See this)

This fragile victory gained through the passage of the 15th Amendment would be liquidated through the withdrawal of federal troops from the former Confederate states, the passage of Jim Crow legislation by southern state governments instituting peonage for African American farmers and the widespread usage of racial terror by white supremacist groups such as the Ku Klux Klan.  Lynch law became the order of the closing decades of the 19th century.

Ida B. Wells-Barnett, an educator, journalist and political organizer was driven out of Memphis after her militant opposition to the 1892 triple lynching of three African American men by leading white officials and businessmen in the city. Launching an international campaign against racist mob violence and state approved repression, Wells-Barnett would also become a leading force in the African American women’s club movement of 1890s and early 1900s.

After relocating in Chicago, Wells-Barnett was a key figure in the struggle for full political rights through the founding of the Alpha Suffrage Club in 1913. Despite here valiant efforts, members of the renewed white-dominated women’s movement sought to segregate her along with dozens of other African Americans at a demonstration for voting rights in Washington, D.C.

An account of this episode says:

“In March 1913, Wells-Barnett traveled to the first suffrage parade in Washington D.C., an event organized by the National American Woman Suffrage Association. On the day of the parade, Wells-Barnett and sixty other Black women arrived to march with the Illinois delegation, but were immediately advised, as women of color, to march in the back, so as to not to upset the Southern delegates. Wells-Barnett refused, arguing: ‘Either I go with you or not at all. I am not taking this stand because I personally wish for recognition. I am doing it for the future benefit of my whole race.’ She initially left the scene, therefore convincing the crowd that she was complying with the request. However, she quickly returned and marched alongside her own Illinois delegation, supported by her white co-suffragists Belle Squires and Virginia Brooks. This event received massive newspaper coverage and shed light on the reality for African-American participation in politics.” (See this)

Lessons for the 21stCentury Struggles Related to Gender Equality and Anti-Racism

Over a century later these unresolved contradictions remain a serious impediment to inter-racial political unity aimed at the realization of full equality and self-determination for women and the oppressed nations in the U.S. Gaining the right to the franchise through the 15th (1870) and 19th Amendments (1920) was the result of decades of tireless work and sacrifice.

During the mid-20th century, the passage of the 1964 Civil Rights Act prohibiting discrimination based on race, religion, gender and national origins was the direct outgrowth of mass initiatives and legal challenges. The following year, the 1965 Voting Rights Act empowered the federal government once again to exercise its authority to guarantee universal suffrage. Moreover, the international pressures from the world socialist movement and the national liberation struggles were an important element in the transformation of the superstructure of U.S. political culture.

Nevertheless, the existence of these civil rights cannot be guaranteed under a capitalist system which is committed to the reversal of every gain won by popular movements. This historical reality requires the building of independent revolutionary organizations based within the working class and the masses of oppressed peoples.

The acquisition of sustainable guarantees for democratic rights and self-determination cannot be secured by the two existing ruling class oriented political parties. A party of the working class and nationally oppressed must come into existence which can speak in the name of those who have been the victims of the centuries-long class domination and economic exploitation.

*

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

Abayomi Azikiwe is the editor of Pan-African News Wire. He is a frequent contributor to Global Research.

All images in this article are from the author

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).

***

Some politicians can’t stop coming up with new ways of bossing people around and preventing the return of normal life, all in the name of countering coronavirus. A prime example of such coronavirus tyrants is New York Governor Andrew Cuomo.

This week, Cuomo, who has been imposing on people in New York for a year some of the harshest coronavirus-related restrictions in America, announced he is rolling out yet another rights abuse. Cuomo is requiring in a new “pilot program” that people obtain and present vaccination passports to gain entrance to certain places and take part in various activities that have been curtailed by government over the last year.

Cuomo calls the vaccination passports Excelsior Passes. No matter the name the state’s vaccination passports are marketed under, they are a mechanism for government tracking people’s movements, pressuring people into taking experimental coronavirus vaccines that carry risk of serious injury and death, and implementing a vaccinations-based caste system.

Elizabeth Elizalde writes at the New York Post that in the New York state pilot program people are being required to present their vaccination passports “in order to enter sports arenas, theaters and other businesses.” To receive a vaccination passport, Elizalde writes, a person must prove he has received one of the experimental coronavirus vaccines or that he has recently tested negative for coronavirus.

With time — after the experimental coronavirus vaccines have become more widely available — expect Cuomo to adjust the program so proof of injection with one of the not-really vaccines will be the only means to receive an Excelsior Pass and, thereby, the ability to take part legally in many activities.

*

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 The Ron Paul Institute for Peace and Prosperity

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).

***

In this interview, which was initially banned by YouTube before it was even published (but now reversed), Spiro is joined by Attorney Ana Garner of New Mexico. Garner represents her client Isaac Legaretta, an officer at the Doña Ana County Detention Center and a military veteran, who is suing the county over its new policy for first responders to receive the COVID-19 vaccinations or face termination.

Attorney Garner explains the significance of this case and what is at stake, as it is the first of its kind and may set a new standard for legal precedent regarding mandatory vaccination. Garner says she is prepared to take this case to the Supreme Court if necessary.

Spiro and Ana Garner also discuss another case of hers that is ongoing currently. A case that challenges not only the Governor of New Mexico, but the emergency itself.

You can see this important interview on the free speech platform BitChute … or watch it on YouTube if you must.

Click image to watch the BitChute video

*

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 OffGuardian

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).

***

Korea’s new virus cases continued to stay around the 400-range on Friday, with the health authorities expressing concerns about possible resurgence amid the eased restrictions in the spring season.

The Korea Disease Control and Prevention Agency (KCDA) confirmed 398 new patients, including 381 local infections, down slightly from Thursday. The cumulative caseload rose to 91,638 as of midnight Thursday. Imported cases also decreased to 17 from 23.

The death toll stayed at a single-digit figure as the KCDA reported eight more fatalities, pushing the death toll to 1,627 with a fatality rate of 1.78 percent. An additional 398 patients fully recovered and returned to their everyday lives, increasing the total to 82,560. The country has tested 6,789,011 people since Jan. 3 last year.

With recent daily cases hovering around the 400-range, the nation is speeding up its vaccine rollout.

The health authorities have inoculated 225,853 people as of Friday – 221,944 with the AstraZeneca vaccine and 2,742 with Pfizer’s vaccine. Officials also confirmed a steep uptick in side effects after injection by confirming 849 new cases on Friday. The total adverse reaction cases tied to the vaccination have risen to 1,558.

While most of them showed mild symptoms, such as fever and muscle pain, authorities have confirmed 13 suspected anaphylaxis cases, one seizure, and six deaths. All of the severe adverse reactions were related to AstraZeneca’s vaccine.

Officials are investigating if the vaccine had any relations with severe side effects or deaths.

While the increase in side effects has increased concerns about the AstraZeneca vaccine among Koreans, especially older adults, more European countries have recently approved the AstraZeneca vaccine for senior citizens.

The German government approved AstraZeneca’s vaccination for people over 65 on Thursday, and the Swedish and Austrian health authorities have also expanded vaccination to people over 65. Hungary and Belgium also have decided to use AstraZeneca’s vaccine for citizens over 60 and 55, respectively.

The upward adjustment of inoculation age for AstraZeneca’s vaccine comes after Public Health England published a research result on Monday, which showed that the vaccine has a great preventive effect after three or four weeks of injection among the age group over 80 who received the first dose of the vaccine.

Various Korean medical associations also stressed that even people with underlying diseases, such as diabetes and respiratory diseases, need to receive the Covid-19 vaccine.

The Korean Diabetes Association has asked diabetes patients not to avoid vaccination opportunities and actively receive the jabs. “The way to prevent Covid-19 is to trust and participate in vaccinations administered under government approval,” it said.

The Korean Academy of Tuberculosis and Respiratory Diseases also stressed patients with underlying diseases should receive the vaccine. Various scientific clinical trials have proven the effectiveness of the Covid-19 vaccine, while its side effects are rare and mostly mild.

Cheong Wa Dae also announced that President Moon Jae-in plans to receive AstraZeneca’s vaccine this month to ease the public’s resistance to vaccination. A Cheong Wa Dae spokesperson said that they would determine the exact vaccination timing for President Moon after taking into account his schedule of the G7 Summit scheduled for June 11.

On Friday, the government unveiled its plan to introduce AstraZeneca’s vaccine for 1.05 million people from March to May.

“The government will introduce AstraZeneca’s vaccine for about 350,000 people this month and about 700,000 people from April to May,” Prime Minister Chung Sye-kyun said. “The KCDA should reschedule the vaccine schedule so that they can inoculate as many people as possible during the first half of the year.”

Meanwhile, the government unveiled a draft plan of its new four-tier social distancing scheme on Friday. The country has been using a five-tier social distancing system since November.

Excluding some entertainment facilities, such as clubs, the government will allow businesses, such as coffee shops, restaurants, and movie theaters, to operate their shops even during Level 4, the new distancing plan’s highest level.

The government has also changed the index for adjusting the distance stage from the weekly average daily confirmed cases to the weekly average daily number of patients per 100,000 people.

If the number is below 0.7, authorities will impose Level 1 distancing rules while setting Level 4 if the number is above three.

Therefore, if the government starts implementing the new measure, the country would be under a Level 2 scheme.

Regarding banning private gatherings, there is no restriction during Level 1.

However, the government will start banning private gatherings of more than eight people during the Level 2 scheme and require people to keep eight square meters apart.

During Level 3, the government will ban the private gathering of more than four people while advising citizens to stay home. Some businesses, such as karaoke, will have to close after 9 p.m.
In Level 4, health authorities will still allow private gatherings of less than four people. However, they will ban private gatherings of more than two people after 6 p.m.

Most businesses will also have to close down after 9 p.m, with some entertainment facilities, such as clubs, having to close down entirely.

While various authorities, such as the local and provincial government, and Central Disaster and Safety Countermeasures Headquarters, share the decision to implement Level 1 to 3 distancing scheme, only the headquarters can raise the distancing regime to Level 4.

The government plans to finalize the final draft within this month after coordinating opinions with related associations, ministries, and local governments for an additional one to two weeks.

However, they will implement the new distance system only when the Covid-19 epidemic stabilizes considerably throughout the country.

“The transition to the new system will ease quarantine measures, and there may be side effects if we start implementing the new scheme during a time when we do not know whether the Covid-19 epidemic will grow or slow down,” Ministry of Health and Welfare Spokesperson Son Young-rae said. “The government will start the new measures only if the nation reaches a Level 1 figure under the revised plan.”

Read this supplementary article by the author.

*

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 cetusnews.com

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Vaccination Hesitancy Grows Amid Little Abatement in Virus Cases

Originally published on March 6, 2012

During the late-Nineteenth-Century struggles against America’s Robber Barons and the Ku Klux Klan, Lucy Gonzales Parsons was a brave fighter for human rights.

On March 7, 1942, fire engulfed the simple home of 89-year-old Lucy Gonzales Parsons on Chicago’s North Troy Street, and ended a life dedicated to liberating working women and men of the world from capitalism and racial oppression.

A dynamic, militant, self-educated public speaker and writer, she became the first American woman of color to carry her crusade for socialism across the country and overseas. In 1905, she was credited with the idea of striking workers sitting down at their work place rather than going outside, a concept that has resonated through time with the lunch counter sit-ins for civil rights and today’s Occupy movement.

Lucy Gonzales Parsons, a battler for labor and human rights.

Lucy Gonzales started life in Texas. She was of Mexican-American, African-American, and Native-American descent and born into slavery. The path she chose after emancipation led to conflict with the Ku Klux Klan, hard work, painful personal losses, and many nights in jail.

In Albert Parsons, a white man who’s Waco Spectator fought the Klan and demanded social and political equality for African-Americans, she found a handsome, committed soul mate. The white supremacy forces in Texas considered the couple dangerous and their marriage illegal, and soon drove them from the state.

Lucy and Albert reached Chicago, where they began a family and threw themselves into two new militant movements, one to build strong industrial unions and the other to agitate for socialism. Lucy concentrated on organizing working women and Albert became a famous radical organizer and speaker, one of the few important union leaders in Chicago who was not an immigrant.

In 1886, the couple and their two children stepped onto Michigan Avenue to lead 80,000 working people in the world’s first May Day parade and a demand for the eight-hour day. A new international holiday was born as more than 100,000 also marched in other U.S. cities.

By then, Chicago’s wealthy industrial and banking elite had targeted Albert and other radical figures for elimination — to decapitate the growing union movement. A protest rally called by Albert a few days after May Day became known as the Haymarket Riot when seven Chicago policemen died in a bomb blast. No evidence has ever been found pointing to those who made or detonated the bomb, but Parsons and seven immigrant union leaders were arrested.

As the corporate media whipped up patriotic and law-and-order fervor, a rigged legal system rushed the eight to convictions and death sentences. When Lucy led the campaign to win a new trial, one Chicago official called her “more dangerous than a thousand rioters.” When Albert and three other comrades were executed, and four others were sentenced to prison, the movement for industrial unions and the eight-hour day was beheaded.

Lucy, far from discouraged, accelerated her actions. Though she had lost Albert — and two years later lost her young daughter to illness — Lucy continued her crusade against capitalism and war, and to exonerate “the Haymarket Martyrs.” She led poor women into rich neighborhoods “to confront the rich on their doorsteps,” challenged politicians at public meetings, marched on picket lines, and continued to address and write political tracts for workers’ groups far beyond Chicago.

Though Lucy had justified direct action against those who used violence against workers, in 1905 she suggested a very different strategy. She was one of only two women delegates (the other was Mother Jones) among the 200 men at the founding convention of the militant Industrial Workers of the World (IWW) and the only woman to speak.

First she advocated a measure close to her heart when she called women “the slaves of slaves” and urged IWW delegates to fight for equality and assess underpaid women lower union fees. In a longer speech, she called for the use of nonviolence that would have broad meaning for the world’s protest movements.

She told delegates that workers shouldn’t “strike and go out and starve, but to strike and remain in and take possession of the necessary property of production.”

A year later Mahatma Gandhi, speaking to fellow Indians at the Johannesburg Empire Theater, advocated nonviolence to fight colonialism, but he was still 25 years away from leading fellow Indians in nonviolent marches against India’s British rulers.

Eventually Lucy Parsons’s principle traveled to the U.S. sit-down strikers of the 1930s, Dr. King and the Civil Rights Movement of the 1950s and 1960s, the antiwar movements that followed, and finally to today’s Arab Spring and the Occupy movements.

Lucy was an unrelenting agitator, leading picket lines and speaking to workers’ audiences in the United States, and then before trade union meetings in England. In February 1941, poor and living on a pension for the blind, the Farm Equipment Workers Union asked Lucy Parsons to give an inspirational speech to its workers, and a few months later she rode as the guest of honor on its May Day parade float.

After the fire that took her life, federal and local lawmen arrived at the gutted Parsons home to make sure her legacy died with her. They poked through the wreckage, confiscated her vast library and personal writings, and never returned them.

Lucy Parsons’s determined effort to elevate and inspire the oppressed to take command remained alive among those who knew, heard, and loved her. But few today are aware of her insights, courage and tenacity. Despite her fertile mind, writing and oratorical skills, and striking beauty, Lucy Parsons has not found a place in school texts, social studies curricula, or Hollywood movies.

Yet she has earned a prominent place in the long fight for a better life for working people, for women, for people of color, for her country, and for her world.

 William Loren Katz adapted this essay from his updated and expanded edition of Black Indians: A Hidden Heritage [Atheneum, 2012]. Website: williamlkatz.com. This essay also appears at the Zinn Education Project:  http://zinnedproject.org/posts/16855

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on International Women’s Day: Lucy Parsons’ Fight Against America’s Robber Barons and the Ku Klux Klan

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).

***

South Korea finished its first week of rolling out long-awaited Covid-19 inoculations in the country with thousands of suspected adverse reactions to AstraZeneca’s vaccine, seven of which resulted in deaths.

The number who died after the jab rose by four in the past two days, according to a report on Saturday by South Korea’s Disease Control and Prevention Agency (KDCA), which is investigating the incidents. Vaccines were administered to more than 296,000 people, or about 0.6 percent of the country’s population, during the first week of the rollout.

South Korea has reported more than 2,800 adverse reactions from Covid-19 vaccines, but only 24 of those cases were deemed severe, including the seven that resulted in death. All 24 severe cases involved people who received the AstraZeneca jab, which was the first vaccine approved for use in South Korea.

The vast majority of the doses that have been administered thus far are the AstraZeneca vaccine. Seoul also has a contract to receive millions of doses of the Pfizer-BioNTech Covid-19 vaccine, but large-scale shipments aren’t scheduled to begin until next month. About 5,000 Pfizer-BioNTech jabs have been given in South Korea thus far, with none reported to have caused a severe adverse reaction.

South Korea generally has some of the highest vaccination rates in the world, and it boasts some of the most effective Covid-mitigation efforts. But the country has been slow to start administering vaccines, reportedly because officials believed their Covid-19 successes gave them the luxury of focusing on safety over speed.

South Korea has reported more than 92,000 Covid-19 cases among its 52 million population, and only 1,632 deaths as of Saturday. By comparison, the UK, which has a population of about 67 million, has had more than 4.2 million cases and 124,000 deaths.

But South Korea suffered a vaccine scare last fall, when at least 83 people died shortly after taking seasonal flu shots. The KDCA said it found no evidence that any of those deaths were caused by the shots. Unlike the serious allergic reactions allegedly linked to the Covid-19 vaccine, there were no reports of anaphylactic shock resulting from the flu jabs.

Most of the people who died after taking the seasonal flu shots were elderly and had underlying medical conditions. At least the first few deaths following the Covid-19 vaccine involved people who were elderly, had underlying medical conditions or both.

“We’re really talking about people who are heavily affected by very severe underlying diseases . . .,” Dr. David Kwak of Soonchunhyang University Hospital said on Thursday in an Arirang News interview. “We have to take into consideration the severity of the underlying conditions they had before receiving the vaccination.”

*

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 Zero Hedge

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).

***

The vaccine rollout is in full flow now, the daily tickers have had “people vaccinated” added to their red counters, and the improbably large number grows more improbably large every day.

The sale of the century is very much on. The powers that be want every single person to be vaccinated, and they’re pulling out all the stops to make sure it happens.

Here are the five main ways the establishment is trying to manufacture your consent.

1. Bribery

It’s being reported that everyone getting vaccinated is the only way to get “back to normal”.

Don’t you want to go to the pub again? Or the gym? Or see granny? Or hug people?

Well, just take the shot. Take the shot and all this lockdown and social distancing economic collapse and mounting poverty, it will all just go away.

It’s a common refrain, one which rather clashes with “new normal” we’ve been hearing about for a over year.

In fact, it looks like “back to normal” may come with a qualifying asterisk. For example embattled New York governor Andrew Cuomo has said vaccines will help the state “get back to normal*”…

…where “normal” involves an “Excelsior Pass”.

You don’t need me to explain the complexities of this technique. It’s simple coercion. “Do as we say, and you’ll get a treat.”

Important to remember: “Getting back to normal” is a lie. As much as people repeat the mantra in soundbites and social media posts, the “experts” are clearer – many have said we will NEVER be going back to normal, and others have said we need to maintain anti-Covid measures until at least 2022. The “vaccine” itself does not even claim to limit transmission, even those vaccinated are still being ordered to follow the restrictions.

2. Celebrity Endorsement

One of the oldest and most widely used marketing gimmicks. Partly because it works, but mostly because it’s cheap and easy: Simply find a bunch of tools and put them to work.

The NHS was not shy about this approach, claiming they were planning to enlist “sensible celebrities” who are “known and loved” to combat anti-vax sentiment.

For example, Patrick Stewart:

Or Elton John and Michael Caine:

Or even Her Majesty:

Important to remember: Celebrities – especially actors and TV personalities – are simply paid to repeat lines. Even if their intentions are correct, there’s no reason to assume any of them have any understanding of what they’re talking about. And none of these people has anything to lose should you or a loved one suffer any harm from taking an untested vaccine.

3. Forced “Scarcity”

For weeks now we’ve been seeing headlines about “dwindling stock” of vaccines. How people in Europe are desperate for doses or some states are being prioritised over others. It goes on and on and on.

Everyone who has ever been inside a store knows this trick. “While stocks last”, “limited time offer”, or a thousand other variants designed to create the idea that if you don’t acquire product X right now, you will miss your chance.

A corollary of this is fake exclusivity, the way credit card companies tell absolutely everyone they call that they “qualified for our exclusive introductory rate”.

By creating the idea that the vaccine is hard to come by, they also create the idea that anyone who gets their hands on a dose is fortunate, or somehow a de facto member of some special club.

Important to remember: It’s all total nonsense. They are not in any danger of “running out” of vaccines. And even if they are, scarcity is a marketing ploy, not an argument.

4. Fake “Popularity”

You can’t underestimate the idea of peer pressure when it comes to marketing, one of the oldest tricks in the book is culturing popularity through the idea that popularity already exists. It’s why people buy likes and views on youtube and concerts have seat fillers.

And it’s why Matt Hancock was reported to have said this:

Is this true? No source is cited, so it’s hard to say. It could be entirely made up, a lot of statistics are. Even if the figure is technically real, it’s likely just from some opinion poll. And, as Yes Minister has taught us, polls are totally meaningless.

To quote (ironically enough) Peter Hitchens:

Opinion polls are a device for influencing public opinion, not a device for measuring it.”

The UK is reporting that 1/3rd of the population has already had at least one dose of vaccine, a number which seems very high (it equates to roughly 250,000 vaccinations per day since the first shot was given on December 8th), this follows early reports that vaccine uptake was “better than expected”.

Even if that’s the case – and the past year has proven there’s never any reason to trust government figures – Hancock’s “94%” seems very unlikely to have any bearing on reality, given the number of reports of low uptake – especially in poorer regions, amongst ethnic minorities, and NHS workers.

Important to remember: An opinion poll is no measure of reality, popularity is no measure of quality, and it is in the establishment’s interest to make all dissenters feel they are in a tiny minority.

5. “Resistance Is Useless”

This is an interesting one. There’s been a lot of talk about Vaccine Passports recently, and perhaps they will become a thing, but the vast majority of the public discourse is spreading the idea they are “inevitable”.

Now, the idea of inevitability is a powerful tool. You can encourage it as a way of preparing the ground for a policy role out, sure, but you can also use it to engender feelings of defeat in your opposition and thus gain their consent without force.

You can see this defeatist language taking hold in some hitherto staunch Covid sceptics.

Peter Hitchens recently announced he was being vaccinated, claiming he was defeated and vaccine passports were inevitable:

I get the strong sense that any sort of travel, and plenty of other things, will be impossible if I don’t have the necessary vaccine certificate.

Just today, Lord Sumption essentially caved on the same exact issue in the very similar language:

Desmond Swayne MP, another longtime Lockdown sceptic, also capitulated today:

“Get vaccinated now, because you’ll probably have to eventually” is the message, and it’s not hard to see the utility of it.

From a purely logistical point of view, making people think there are going to be vaccine passports is much, much easier (and cheaper) than actually introducing them.

As a follower said to us on twitter:

Will they eventually issue Vaccine Passports? Maybe.

Maybe all these tricks will fail and they’ll be forced to use less carrot and more stick. But it seems equally possible that – for now at least – they’re being dangled over people to encourage defeatism in those of us who are resisting, and thereby increase vaccine up take.

Important to remember: vaccine passports will only ever become “inevitable” once the vast majority of people have had the vaccine. If enough people refuse to take part, the program will never work.

So, there’s the breakdown of all the broad marketing categories being used to sell this vaccine. But what’s the final takeaway?

Honestly, not an un-positive one I would say. Because what all these strategies have in common is the increasingly hysterical air of desperation.

If vaccine take-up was really at 94%, there’d be no need to sell the vaccine so much. If they were really running out of vaccines, the papers wouldn’t be advertising it, they’d be telling people not to panic.

They’ve publicly turned several notable anti-lockdown voices for this campaign, these are key cards they have played all at once. That’s a desperate move.

In short, there’s good reason to think the resistance to the “new normal” is a lot more widespread than the establishment ever expected it to be.

You don’t put the Queen on a zoom call when you’re winning the argument.

*

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 Sergiy Maidukov

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on 5 Ways They’re Trying to Trick You into Taking the COVID “Vaccine”
  • Tags:

Sounds of Silence: Extinction Is Erasing the Earth’s Music

March 8th, 2021 by Kathleen Dean Moore

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).

***

What does a biodiversity crisis sound like? You may need to strain your ears to hear it.

In the past 50 years, America’s bird populations have fallen by a third, and worldwide the average mammal population has dropped 60%, writes acclaimed environmental philosopher and nature writer Kathleen Dean Moore in her new collection of essays, Earth’s Wild Music: Celebrating and Defending the Songs of the Natural World

And with all that loss comes an unsettling silence.

“Unless the world acts to stop extinctions, I will write my last nature essay on a planet that is less than half as song-graced and life-drenched as the one where I began to write,” she explains in the book’s preface. “My grandchildren will tear out half the pages in their field guides. They won’t need them.”

Her book uses sound as a reference point to better understand what we stand to lose as extinction rates climb higher. But the essays are also a celebration of the natural world’s chorus and the joy of learning to hear what’s still there.

The essays are also being set to music in a series for Oregon State’s Spring Creek Project that will feature 20 4-minute-long concerts combining live musical performance with excerpts from Earth’s Wild Music.

“I’ve never been so excited about a project in my life,” Moore tells us. “It combines everything I care about with the cause that I believe in more than anything else.”

The Revelator spoke to Moore about the moral stakes of our environmental crisis, what it’s like to find a truly quiet place to listen, and what we lose as wild songs disappear.

You’ve been writing about nature for 50 years. During that time our environmental problems have become graver. Has this changed how you approach your work?

At first I was a celebrant. I believed Mary Oliver when she said, “My work is loving the world … which is mostly standing still and learning to be astonished.” And that went along fine for years and years, but then it became clear that what I was writing celebrations of were disappearing.

I was right in the midst of an essay on frog song, and bulldozers came and took away the marsh and put in a condominium. I was writing about a bald eagle nest, and the nest — and the tree it was in — burned to the ground in a forest fire. So it was starting to become clear to me that I was going to have to do more than celebrate. I was going to have to demonstrate. I was going to have to protect. I was going to have to defend the natural world.

Why did you decide to focus this collection on sound?

I started thinking about how I could open people’s hearts without breaking them. How I could point to the onrushing extinctions and not force people to turn away in absolute grief. I decided that I was going to have to write in a way that was like a wave — I would lift people and smash them at the same time.

What is it that reaches people without breaking them? What is it that goes straight into people’s hearts? What do they love about the world and will call them to action?

I decided that of all the things I loved about the world, what I loved the most was the music. What I loved the most was the sound. I’ve been writing about this for quite some time, so I had a couple of essays already under my belt, and I couldn’t think of a more wonderful writing assignment for myself then to go outside and listen.

Nature may be getting quieter. But people are getting louder. How is our noise affecting wildlife?

We are deafening. Noise that we create is causing extraordinary harm to the creatures. Think about the pain caused to the whales from the exploratory thudding of those machines that go through the ocean and stamp to try to find oil.

Think about the meadowlarks that lived in the fracking fields and had to endure endless noise of drilling and trucks. And as a result, the songs of the meadowlarks are fractured and abbreviated. They haven’t been able to hear their parents well enough to imitate them.

Many of us may be out of practice at listening. In fact, a lot of folks walk around with earphones on so we can’t hear what’s around us. How do we get better at both listening to and understanding the sounds of nature?

Listening is an art that we should practice because it does two things. It makes us shut up and it makes us open up. We stop listening just to the songs of “me, me, me”. When we set aside our own stories, it opens us up so we can listen to the stories of other beings. It’s a skill of empathy, isn’t it? Listening to other people’s stories and other creatures’ sounds is a way of understanding the world from their point of view. It’s a moral training.

When it comes to understanding what we hear, Rachel Carson, who wrote Silent Spring, and cared so much about bird song, took pains to tell us that it doesn’t matter if we know the names of what we see. That comes later. But the first thing that has to happen is love.

So I’m not so concerned about knowing which bird is calling. I’m surrounded by people who could do that in a majestic way. My husband can identify birds by their call. My neighbor can. I think it’s a beautiful skill that I don’t have.

But I do have the ability to catch a song. To hear it, which isn’t nothing. It can catch my attention and I can seek it out and I can listen to it. Knowing its name — maybe that’s not so important as knowing its tune.

How are people affected by this loss of nature’s song, and what’s the importance of preserving silent places where we can still experience what’s left?

We lose joy. Let’s face it — the sounds of the natural world are beautiful and they make us happy. I think we also lose a connection to the world around us.

In the book, I write about going with acoustic ecologist Gordon Hempton to One Square Inch of Silence, a small spot in Olympic National Park [possibly the quietest place in the United States]. It was a wonderful experience. At the time, we were in pouring rain. Nature itself was cacophonous, but we didn’t hear a human sound for 20 minutes, which is the definition in Gordon’s mind of a quiet place.

Gordon now is recording in a jungle somewhere that can only be reached by canoeing down a wild river, because it’s one of the last places on Earth he can find that’s silent.

He’s famous for these recordings called the Dawn Chorus that captured the outpouring of bird song that’s triggered by morning light. But he couldn’t do that anymore, because that music box is broken. We’re in the process of wrecking what we should be treasuring.

It’s hard to find a balance between grief and celebration. But you know, people often ask me, “What can one person do?” And I say, “Stop being one person.”

You don’t have to do it all. Other people are working all around the world on the same causes you believe in. Find them, join up with them. You’ll find your place in the choir.  [Author and teacher] Joanna Macy says to choose what you love and devote yourself to it. That, she says, is enough.

*

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.

Tara Lohan is deputy editor of The Revelator and has worked for more than a decade as a digital editor and environmental journalist focused on the intersections of energy, water and climate. Her work has been published by The Nation, American Prospect, High Country News, Grist, Pacific Standard and others. She is the editor of two books on the global water crisis.

Featured image: A Marsh wren defending its territory in mid-song at Las Gallinas Wildlife Ponds, Marin County, CA. Photo: Doug Greenberg, (CC BY-NC 2.0)

ICC Competent to Trial Crimes in Palestine: A Decisive Step?

March 8th, 2021 by Prof. Francois Dubuisson

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 confirming its jurisdiction on 5 February 2021, the ICC announced on 3 March the opening of a formal investigation into crimes committed in the Palestinian territories. This is a victory for international law, even if we are still a long way from a trial.

It all began in 2009, following the Israeli operation in Gaza dubbed “cast lead” (2008–2009). Palestine mounted a diplomatic offensive based on its claim to statehood and sent a declaration to the ICC accepting the court’s jurisdiction in order that it should investigate the crimes committed by the Israeli army.1 What was at stake here was to determine whether or not Palestine is a State, since only States are entitled to become a party to the Rome Statute.2

2009-2014: Recognition of the Palestinian State

Seized of this matter, the ICC Prosecutor’s Office the issued a public call for contributions to help resolve this thorny problem of international law. Several dozen memoranda emanating from NGOs, universities or legal experts were submitted and published on the ICC’s website. In the meantime, Palestine had become a member of UNESCO(October 2011) and taken steps at the UN to become a Member State and then, faced with the US veto, to become an “observer State,” a request which was granted in November 2012 when Resolution 67/19 was passed by the General Assembly.

The Prosecutor’s Office did not issue a response until April 2012, three years after the Palestinian request had been submitted. Considering that the issue of Palestine’s status was uncertain, the prosecutor felt that it was not up to him to decide the matter and that only a clear-cut position taken by the Assembly of the States parties to the ICC or by the UNGeneral Assembly could provide a solution. It is surprising, to say the least, that such a disproportionate length of time should have been necessary to provide an answer to such a rudimentary question. The document is less than two pages long and is open to criticism on many counts, in particular the fact that Palestine’s admission to UNESCO is not even mentioned, whereas this in itself provided irrefutable proof that a majority of Member States recognized Palestinian statehood.

Season 2: after operation “Protective Edge” launched in Gaza by Israel forces during the summer of 2014, the Palestinian Minister of Justice tried to “reactivate” the 2009 declaration, basing the attempt on Palestine’s UN status as an Observer State, granted following the prosecutor’s decision in April 2012. This effort was also to remain fruitless. In a statement published on 2 September 2014, the new prosecutor Fatou Bensouda indicated that “the Office has examined the legal implications of this development (the upgrading of Palestine’s status at the UN, from observer entity to observer State) for its purposes and concluded that while this change did not retroactively validate the previously invalid 2009 declaration lodged without the necessary standing, Palestine could now join the Rome Statute”.

This position raised many legal problems. The prosecutor’s April 2012 decision did not “invalidate” the declaration; it seems merely to have “suspended’ it until such time as the status of Palestine should be clarified. Since the General Assembly’s vote had subsequently brought about this clarification, it cleared the way for a future accession of Palestine to the ICC since all the uncertainties concerning its status seem to have been dispelled.

2015–2019: The “Palestine Situation”

At this point, a third phase began, with Palestine’s formal accession to the Rome Statute in January 20153, together with a declaration recognizing the ICC’s jurisdiction for crimes presumed to have been committed “on the Palestinian occupied territory, including East-Jerusalem, as of 14 June 2014.”4 Soon afterwards, the prosecutor opened a “preliminary examination” of the “situation in Palestine”5 to determine whether the conditions of jurisdiction for the Court are met and ascertain whether war crimes, crimes against humanity or acts of genocide have been committed there.

This preliminary phase of the proceedings, before any actual investigation was opened, lasted no less than five years, a delay which once again raised doubts as to the ICC’s genuine determination to proceed with the Palestinian case, in a context where many States allied with Israel, including some in Europe, have made no bones about their disapproval of the Palestinian efforts.

Finally, in December 2019, the Prosecutor’s Office announced that the preliminary examination had been completed and that it was prepared to open an investigation. It considered that Palestine had legitimately joined the ICC Statute and that the Court is competent to try crimes committed on its territory, including Gaza, the West Bank and East Jerusalem. The prosecutor identified four broad categories of war crimes he intended to investigate:

  • crimes committed by Hamas and other Palestinian groups in the context of the 2014 war in Gaza, consisting mainly of rocket fire aimed at Israeli civilian populations:
  • crimes committed in the same context by the Israeli army, mainly consisting of the targeting and killing of Palestinian civilians and the destruction of civilian buildings.
  • crimes committed by the Israeli army during the 2018 “March for Gaza” when Israeli soldiers opened fire, killing some 200 Palestinian civilians and wounding many others;
  • finally, the crimes committed in the context of the colonisation policies, especially the implanting of an Israeli civilian population.

Reaffirming the 1967 Borders

However, a new turn of events occurred when the prosecutor insisted that a “pre-trial chamber” should define the extent of the Court’s territorial jurisdiction, considering the doubts that might persist on this issue, with an eye to strengthening any future investigation. This caused another delay of over a year before the Chamber’s verdict was handed down in February. However, this delay was useful, since the Pre-trial Chamber has confirmed the position taken by the prosecutor’s office: the Court is indeed competent to investigate all crimes committed on occupied Palestinian territory, including East Jerusalem, since June 2014, thus clearing the way for a formal investigation.

The Chamber begins by establishing that Palestine must be seen as a “State Party to the ICC Rome Statute” following its recognition in 2012 as a “non-member observer State in the UN.” It can therefore trigger the jurisdiction of the ICC, in particular its territorial jurisdiction, and submit a complaint to the prosecutor’s office, which it did in 2018.

The second crucial point consists in determining the exact extent of the territories over which the court may exercise its criminal jurisdiction. In order to establish that the jurisdiction comprises all the occupied territories, the Chamber bases its findings mainly on the Palestinian people’s right of self-determination as set forth in the many resolutions of the UNGeneral Assembly. Especially resolution 67/19, which granted Palestine the status of Observer State, and which “reaffirms the right of the Palestinian people to self-determination and to independence in their State of Palestine on the Palestinian territory occupied since 1967.”

And finally, the Chamber considers that the Oslo accords which exempt Israeli citizens from the criminal jurisdiction of the Palestinian Authority have no effect on the determination of the Court’s territorial jurisdiction.

In spite of its assertion to the contrary, the points dealt with by the Chamber go beyond the strict framework of the procedure before the ICC and involve a larger legal and symbolic dimension. The judges based their decision on texts of absolutely general significance which may be regarded as establishing under international law the statute of the Palestinian State and the borders to which it is entitled. From this point of view, the difficulties associated with the practical observance of these findings have less to do with the law proper than with the lack of political willingness to comply with it, as is seen from the persistent refusal of most European countries to recognize the State of Palestine.

Investigating Under Pressure

Unsurprisingly, Israel has accused the ICC of “pure anti-Semitism,” and the USA has rejected the Chamber’s conclusion. They have been joined by other Western countries like Canada, Australia, Hungary and even Germany, which declared on Twitter that “the Court is not competent because of the non-existence of the Palestinian State according to the criteria of international law.”6

These reactions and the embarrassed silence of other Western diplomatic corps show that the future of these proceedings will probably not be exempt from outside pressures and that the task ahead for newly appointed prosecutor Karim Khan, who takes office in June, will be challenging.

Indeed, the formal investigation which was opened by the Office of the Prosecutor on 3 March will be long and fraught with difficulties, and it is far from easy to predict how it will end. Normally, it should make it possible to determine precisely what crimes were committed and who were the culprits, all of which would be predicated on a detailed factual review and the presentation of concrete evidence. This task will no doubt be easier with regard to Palestinian suspects since Palestine, as a state party to the Statute, has an obligation to cooperate. On the other hand, Israel has no such obligation and will do all it can to obstruct the work of the investigators. The prosecutor will also have to determine whether other crimes or characterisations need to be taken into consideration. The document submitted to the Pre-trial Chamber refers only to war crimes, whereas the occupation and colonisation policies, as a whole, systemic and discriminatory as they are, could also be qualified as crimes against humanity, most especially as the crime of apartheid, a term employed in two recent reports by Israeli NGOs (Yesh Din, B’tselem).

International Law on the Move

Another tricky issue will be the ICC’s interpretation of the principle of “complementarity” which holds that it must refrain from looking into a case which is already under investigation or the object of prosecution in the country concerned. Israel is in the habit of opening investigations of “incidents” involving its armed forces, generally dismissing the case a few weeks later. Thus, a considerable amount of work awaits the Prosecutor’s Office, verifying the “credibility” of such proceedings carried out in Israel.

But the most serious accusations brought against Israeli decision-makers concern specific combat techniques or colonisation policies which constitute the implementation of unabashedly proclaimed official doctrines and as such are never subject to investigation of any kind. For these crimes, it should be a simple matter to demonstrate the absence of any internal criminal procedures and the principle of complementarity easy to dismiss. Proof of this type of crime should be easy to provide as well, since it will be based on documents and public decisions in the framework of well-established state policies and duly authenticated chains of responsibility.

There is still a long way to go before the opening of individual cases based on precise accusations with the possible issuance of arrest warrants, let alone the organisation of trial proceedings knowing that these can only be held in the presence of the accused. Nonetheless, the decision handed down by the Pre-Trial Chamber already constitutes a huge legal victory, both as a step towards establishing accountability for crimes committed under Israeli occupation and more generally for taking international law into account in resolving the Israel-Palestine conflict. Shedding light on the international crimes committed systematically by Israeli authorities might also help to increase the pressure on Western States in view of a reconsideration of their special relations with Israel, along the lines of the evolution which finally materialised with regards to South Africa in the nineteen-eighties.

*

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.

Francois Dubuisson is a Professor of international law at the Université libre de Bruxelles (ULB).

Featured image is from IMEMC

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on ICC Competent to Trial Crimes in Palestine: A Decisive Step?
  • Tags: , ,

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).

***

Adm. Philip Davidson, the head of US Indo-Pacific Command (INDOPACOM), is defending a $27 billion wishlist his command submitted to Congress to confront China in the region.

Speaking at the American Enterprise Institute on Thursday, Davidson recognized that the plan, known as the Pacific Deterrence Initiative (PDI), is “not without controversy” but argued it was worth the massive price tag. He compared it to the European Defense Initiative (EDI) that the PDI was based on.

“It’s been fascinating to me, the relative ease at which the conversation happens year to year when it comes to the EDI when compared to PDI,” Davidson said. He is requesting about $27 billion in spending between 2022 and 2027, with $4.6 billion of that for the 2022 fiscal year alone.

One of the top priorities of the plan is a $1.6 billion missile defense system for the US military base in Guam. The Guam defense system requires a $200 million radar system in Pulau and $2.3 billion of space-based radars.

Perhaps the most provocative proposal of the PDI is a $3.3 billion request to place a long-range missile system throughout the First Island Chain, which stretches from south of Japan, through Taiwan, the Philippines, and down to Malaysia.

According to a copy of the PDI review by Nikkei Asia, the plan calls for “the fielding of an Integrated Joint Force with precision-strike networks west of the International Date Line along the First Island Chain, integrated air missile defense in the second island chain, and a distributed force posture that provides the ability to preserve stability, and if needed, dispense and sustain combat operations for extended periods.”

With the Biden administration making China a top foreign policy priority and Congress keen to confront Beijing, Davidson has a good chance of getting his funds. A group of House Republicans sent a letter to President Biden on Thursday urging him to increase military spending to combat China.

The Republicans called on Biden to increase military spending by 3 percent to five percent over inflation to compete with the Chinese military. The letter was signed by top House Armed Services Committee members. The effort was led by Rep. Mike Rogers (R-AL).

Biden’s Pentagon is currently conducting a review of its China policy which is being led by Ely Ratner, a China hawk who was appointed to advise Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin on Asian matters.

*

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.

Dave DeCamp is the assistant news editor of Antiwar.com, follow him on Twitter @decampdave.

Featured image is from Jared Rodriguez / Truthout

India’s Farmers Resistance Movement. Repeal the Three Farm Laws

March 8th, 2021 by National Alliance of People’s Movements

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on India’s Farmers Resistance Movement. Repeal the Three Farm Laws
  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on India’s Abnormal “Farmers” Movement Celebrates 100th Day

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).

***

The conversation held by U.S. Secretary of State Antony Blinken with opponent Juan Guaidó is evidence that Joe Biden’s government will continue to use the former Venezuelan parliament member to appropriate all the resources Venezuela holds abroad, according to international analyst Laila Tajeldine, Sputnik reported.

Blinken held a telephone conversation with Guaidó on March 2 and reiterated that the U.S. government continues to support all kinds of pressure on President Nicolás Maduro, with allies such as the European Union, the Lima Group, the Organization of American States (OAS), and the International Contact Group.

“The United States is completely following Citgo (a subsidiary of Petroleos de Venezuela), which is still in a legal process, and the figure of Guaidó allows it to retain Venezuelan assets abroad; until that is not done, the United States is going to continue using the figure of Guaidó to steal all the resources, and once the objectives are fulfilled it will discard it,” Tajeldine said.

According to the lawyer, Venezuela is not surprised by this stance of the new U.S. administration since Blinken had vowed publicly before assuming his current position a continuation of the Trump policies (2017-2021).

Early in the year, President Maduro had indicated hope in a change in relations with the United States “on the basis of mutual respect, dialogue, communication and understanding” after Biden’s arrival to power.

However, the analyst emphasizes the existence of a right-wing sector in the U.S. opposed to any change in the current status of confrontation because it bets on the destabilization of Venezuela to get hold of its resources.

“The U.S. economic lobby opts rather for the destabilization or destruction of the institutions and the State in Venezuela, and that lobby is the one that is saying that it is more convenient a destroyed Venezuela, a failed State in which they can arrive through intervention and steal all the resources,” he argued.

In his dialogue with Guaidó, Blinken also highlighted the “importance of a return to democracy in Venezuela through free and fair elections.”

In that sense, the international analyst pointed out that the call for elections is the United States’ strategy to justify its actions against Venezuela.

“Calling for free and fair elections is part of a repetitive discourse, worn out, and that evidently exposes that the only thing they want is to have more time to finish stealing Venezuela’s assets,” she commented.

The Venezuelan government has reiterated that the United States stole more than 30 billion dollars with the imposition of coercive measures, which prevents it from any type of financing.

The executive has requested the lifting of the economic sanctions to face the COVID-19 pandemic and to be able to purchase vaccines, supplies, and medicines freely.

*

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 Sky News

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).

***

The Jerusalem International Airport, the oldest airport in Palestine, formerly known as Qalandia Airport, lies on a road connecting the cities of Ramallah and Jerusalem, near the town of Qalandia in the northern West Bank. It was built in 1920 during the British mandate on a land of 650 dunams (160 acres) initially. More than 50 years later, this very airport has turned into an abandoned site devoid of any luggage, planes or flight attendants. The cracks inside the concrete floor of the airport are now covered with dry and green grass.

Israel seized the airport after it occupied the West Bank and East Jerusalem in 1967, and it annexed it in 1981 based on the so-called Jerusalem Law. Israeli airlines used it for commercial and domestic flights to and from Jerusalem until they closed it in 2000. Its name was changed to the Atarot Airport, of which only the runway, the control tower and the arrival and departure hall remain.

Khalil Tufakji, head of the map department at Jerusalem’s Arab Studies Society, told Al-Monitor,

“The largest Israeli settlement project that has been underway for several years now in Jerusalem seeks to seize and confiscate 1,300 dunams [321 acres] of the Jerusalem International Airport and the lands surrounding it. It aims at implementing Israel’s Greater Jerusalem project to expand the existing Israeli settlements and expel Palestinians to increase the number of Jews and settlers in the city of Jerusalem.”

He said,

“Since 1994, the Israeli authorities have set up the Greater Jerusalem project, which includes, according to Israeli plans, the settlements of Ma’ale Adumim, Givat Ze’ev and Gush Etzion. They have also controlled all roads leading thereto in order to cut off Palestinian neighborhoods from the Jerusalem municipality, such as Shuafat, Kafr Aqab and Anata, among others.”

Tufakji noted,

“The Israeli seizure of the Jerusalem International Airport primarily aims at killing the Palestinians’ dream of their capital — Jerusalem — given that the airport is located on lands belonging to the Palestinian capital. It also aims at tilting the demographic balance [in Jerusalem] toward the Israelis at the expense of the Palestinians. The Israeli control of the airport also aims at connecting the Israeli settlements that lie outside the boundaries of the Jerusalem municipality to the ones within it.”

He added,

“East Jerusalem includes 14 Israeli settlements that are home to 220,000 Israeli settlers. Those settlements account for ​​87% of the area of Jerusalem, leaving only 9,300 dunams [2,298 acres] for the Palestinians, estimated at only 13% of the area of ​​Jerusalem. Through the so-called Jerusalem 5800 project for the year 2050, the [Israeli] occupation is looking to link the Israeli settlements in East Jerusalem with the settlements in the west by a network of railways and bridges and establish an international airport in Wadi Musa.”

Of note, the separation barrier in the West Bank is 712 kilometers (442 miles) long, which is double the length of the so-called Green Line that extends over 320 kilometers (199 miles). Meanwhile, in the vicinity of Jerusalem, the barrier extends over about 202 kilometers (125 miles), according to data from Israeli human rights organization B’Tselem.

Ziad al-Hammouri, director of the Jerusalem Center for Social and Economic Rights, told Al-Monitor,

“The Israeli authorities took control of the Jerusalem International Airport after occupying the West Bank in 1967, and they subsequently used it to operate domestic flights from and to Jerusalem, Eilat and Tel Aviv. Israel closed it completely with the outbreak of the Palestinian uprising in 2000.”

He said,

“The airport was the lung through which the Palestinians would catch a breath and travel to the Arab world. Several planes took off from this airport to land in Lebanon, Jordan and some Gulf countries. But with the Israeli control over it, it turned it into a new settlement outpost that serves Israeli goals and plans aimed at controlling the West Bank as a whole, and not just Jerusalem.”

Hammouri noted,

“The new settlement project will witness the construction of 15,000 to 25,000 settlement units on the land of the airport, and these will be connected to the settlements of Maskiyot and Atrout through a tunnel to be built starting April. The tunnel dives deep below the Qalandia checkpoint, as it helps settlers avoid traffic jams when they move either from Ramallah, the Jordan Valley or the northern West Bank areas to Israel without the need to go through the checkpoint.”

He added,

“The Israeli authorities are working to encourage the immigration of Israelis to settlements near Jerusalem by establishing many infrastructure projects and huge commercial centers that would lure thousands of Israelis into living there. Consequently, the Zionist plans show that the Palestinian Authority’s bet on the Oslo Acoord was a failure, let alone the postponing of negotiations on several core issues, such as the Jerusalem issue, during the negotiations between the Palestinians and the Israelis.”

Nasser al-Hadmi, head of the Jerusalem Committee for Resisting Displacement, told Al-Monitor that the settlement projects the Israeli authorities are carrying out in the city of Jerusalem in particular and the West Bank in general go beyond the goal of garnering the support of a large segment of the Israeli community for the extreme right, which has been ruling Israel for several years.

He said that the majority of Israeli society has become extremist and does not believe in the principle of peace or in a two-state solution between the Israeli and Palestinian sides.

Hadmi noted,

“In 2021 the Israeli occupation intensified its attacks on the city of Jerusalem, as it demolished houses it claimed were illegal and prevented Jerusalemites from obtaining building permits.”

He said that the Israeli authorities grant only 4% of the population in Jerusalem permits for construction. Also, Israeli approvals usually require five to 10 years and cost $50,000 to $100,000 for one housing unit.

“Over the years, the Israeli authorities have issued several laws aimed at controlling and seizing the property of Jerusalemites, including the Custodian of Absentee Property Law, which aims at facilitating the Israeli control over the property of Jerusalemites who left Jerusalem in 1967 and never returned. This [law] allows the Israel Land Administration to control and transfer such properties to settlement associations that establish settlements and outposts thereon and hand them over to settlers,” Hadmi concluded.

*

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 27 languages by activating the “Translate Website” drop down menu on the top banner of our home page (Desktop version).

***

‘For whether or not the age of revolutions is over, the age of state-formation has only just begun.’ — T. J. Clark, Farwell to an Idea, 1999

We are approaching the first anniversary of the coronavirus crisis in the UK, and more and more people — on the Twitter account of the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care, in the Facebook pages set up to share censored interviews with scientists, in the online platforms not yet shut down for discussing the evidence against lockdown, in the illegal meetings of friends in the homes of the people that host them, in the thousands of discussions and exchanges that happen at every act of resistance, every demonstration, every march — know that this crisis has been manufactured. We know now that Government strategies for responding to a viral epidemic that had been in place for years were abandoned in favour of the historically unprecedented policy of national lockdown.

We know that Government contracts for the campaign of propaganda worth £119 million were signed with PR firms 3 weeks before the first lockdown. We know that, in April 2020, the Cabinet Office approved over £216 million for advertising on what it called the ‘COVID-19 Campaign 20/21’.

We know that the criteria for attributing deaths to COVID-19 were changed back in March to exaggerate the official number of fatalities.

We know that 95 per cent of the deaths attributed to the disease are of people with pre-existing health conditions like cancer, dementia, heart disease or diabetes.

We know that 84 per cent are over 70 years of age, and that the average age of those whose deaths are attributed to COVID-19 is the average age of death in the UK.

We know that, a year into this so-called ‘pandemic’, just over 600 patients under the age of 60 without a pre-existing health condition have had their deaths in English hospitals attributed to COVID-19. We know that, in April last year, the World Health Organisation issued instructions to medical practitioners that, if COVID-19 is merely the ‘suspected’ or ‘probable’ or ‘assumed’ cause of death, it must always be recorded as the ‘underlying cause’ on death certificates, whether this is ‘considered medically correct or not.’

We know that the WHO’s recommendations on the use of face masks by the public changed in June following political lobbying by the governments of, among other countries, the UK, and that even then it was primarily to encourage compliance with other restrictions on our rights and freedoms.

We know that the first and only randomised control trial of the effectiveness of face masks in stopping coronavirus transmission, which was rejected by several leading medical journals, when finally published reported that the benefits were ‘not statistically significant’. We know that, for a long time, the UK Government deliberately exaggerated the number of so-called ‘COVID-19 deaths’ by including anyone who has tested positive for SARS-CoV-2, no matter how long afterwards they died and of what illness.

We know that, even now, anyone who tests positive within 28 days of their death is still recorded as a ‘COVID death’. We know that, according to the WHO, 30 per cent of infections, even in high GDP countries like the UK, are contracted in intensive care units, meaning anyone dying in a UK hospital has an equivalent chance of being designated a ‘COVID death’. We know that, even with the withdrawal of medical care for nearly 68 million people for the best part of a year, the age-adjusted mortality rate in 2020 was the highest in only 12 years, and that the population fatality rate from the coronavirus ‘epidemic’ is equivalent to a bad season of influenza.

We know that, as even these inaccurately identified deaths have fallen, the Government has turned to the promotion of RT-PCR tests for the virus that, according to its own advisors at SAGE, have a false-positive rate higher than the percentage of the UK population testing positive for SARS-CoV-2 with these tests.

We know that between 20 and 80 per cent of infections with SARS-CoV-2 are asymptomatic, and therefore calling them ‘cases’ is medically inaccurate. We know from a study of nearly 10 million residents in Wuhan, the epicentre of the infection in China, that asymptomatic transmission of SARS-CoV-2 is statistically non-existent. We have known for the past 55 years that at least four coronaviruses circulate freely in UK on a seasonal basis, providing prior immunity to SARS-CoV-2 in around 30 per cent of the population before it reached these shores. We know that any RT-PCR test reliant on encoding the spike protein unique to coronaviruses can incorrectly detect as SARS-CoV-2anyone having a common cold from other coronaviruses at the time of sampling or carrying traces of dead and therefore non-infectious virus. We know that, despite this, the governments of England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland are using these meaningless statistics to impose tiered lockdownsacross the UK, in further violation of our human rights and civil liberties. We know that this is being done under legislation that only authorises such actionswhen justified by medical evidence that has not been produced for Parliament but merely alluded to in press conferences.

We know that the predictions of escalating infections and increased numbers of deaths by senior medical figuresemployed by the Government have been shown time and again to be wildly inaccurate fabrications based on predictive models challenged by the most eminent scientists around the world. We know that, as of publication, 351 coronavirus-justified Statutory Instruments have been made into law without a draft being presented to Parliament in advance for debate, without medical or other proof being provided of their justification or proportionality, and without an assessment being made of their impact, and that every one of these pieces of legislation requiring it has been rubber stamped in retrospect by virtual sittings of that Parliament.

We know that £22 billion of public monies has been awarded in coronavirus-justified contracts without prior competitive tender to privately-owned companies with financial links to members of Parliament, the Government and their business colleagues. We know that more and more of the functions of the state are being outsourced to private companies unaccountable to the public that provides the money with which they are paid. We know that the coronavirus-justified restrictions imposed on the UK population since March 2020 have cost the country £280 billion, the equivalent of £4,112 for every man, woman and child in the UK.

We know that, in contrast, the wealth of the world’s 2,200-plus billionaires increased by 20 per cent and US$1.9 trillion in 2020, more than in any previous year in history. We know that, by the end of 2020, the number of people in low to middle-income countries facing acute food insecurity will double to 265 million as a result of coronavirus-justified restrictions. We know that, under the cloak of this crisis, the Government and its financial partners have massively expanded the surveillance, monitoring and control of UK citizens through regulations, programmes and technologies that are implementing the UK biosecurity state.

We know that, at the peak of deaths attributed to COVID-19 in April, more than 40 per cent of acute care bedsin NHS hospitals were unoccupied. We know there is strong evidence that, at a conservative estimate, at least half the 80,000 deaths attributed to COVID-19 in 2020 were caused by lockdown restrictions that denied UK citizens emergency, elective, social and community care in order to free up hospital beds for an epidemic that was never in danger of arriving. We know that the renewal of lockdown over the winter of 2020-2021 is killing thousands more. We know that this lockdown was decided back in July, before the manufactured rise in so-called ‘cases’ consequent upon a huge rise in RT-PCR tests producing an even greater rise in false positives. We know that over the next five years, hundreds of thousands more people in the UK will fall into poverty, unemployment, bankruptcy and despair that will shorten their lives by many tens of thousands of years because of restrictions justified by these manufactured figures.

We know that, although the GDP of the UK is rising slowly back to pre-crisis levels, the restrictions that continue to be imposed on the population are redistributing wealth from the public purse into the pockets of the rich and the powerful on a scale never before seen even in the UK.

We know that the mental health of millions of UK citizens is being deliberately and systematically attacked through Government-funded campaigns of terrorism, fearmongering and lies designed to reduce the population to compliance, obedience, resignation and despair. We know that self-harming and thoughts of suicide, particularly among British children, are increasing.

We know that the fines for the newly-created crimes of not wearing a mask, meeting friends or leaving our home without permission have been raised and will continue to be raised to levels sufficient to financially ruin anyone who disobeys Government regulations. We know that non-compliance with certain coronavirus-justified Regulations can now be punished with up to 10 years in prison.

We know that the Government has looked at the legal barriers to making vaccination compulsory for a disease with a fatality rate of 0.23 per cent across the population and 0.05 per cent for those under 70, and has not ruled out making taking such a vaccine a condition of access to public life. We know that UK police forces are being given more power with reduced accountability to enforce these regulations with increased brutality and greater impunity from prosecution.

We know that the legal profession, the media, the press, academia, the medical profession, the pharmaceutical industry, the financial and banking sector, the passenger transport industry, the civil service, the security services, the armed forces and every other public institution are collaborating in affecting the revolution of the UK into a biosecurity state.

We know that this state is being implemented through the private sector as much as through the public sector, with the information technology industry, the healthcare industry, the education industry, the tourism industry, the hospitality industry and the retail industry all being compelled by coronavirus-justified regulations to enforce compliance with the technologies and programmes of the biosecurity state as a condition of using their services.

We know that these technologies will not stop there, but under the guise of monitoring and protecting our biosecurity, not only from SARS-CoV-2 but from any other virus designated a threat to public health in the future, are penetrating and influencing every aspect of our private life, biological existence and social behaviour.

We know all this and more.

But the question more and more people are now asking is: why?

Why is this being done, and to what end?

Of what benefit, and to whose benefit, is the impoverishment of the population of the UK and of most other Western liberal democracies around the world?

Why would the governments of capitalist economies deliberately set out to bankrupt millions of small businesses and drive tens of millions of workers into unemployment and destitution?

And what, if anything, can we do to resist it? This article is my attempt to respond to these questions, although not necessarily by answering them.

The above text is part of a longer article on the corona crisis

 

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on The Corona Crisis: What We Know. People are Asking Why is this Being Done?
  • Tags: ,

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).

***

Government data show that, compared with the Pfizer vaccine, there have been 43% more reports of injuries related to the Oxford-AstraZeneca vaccine in the UK, including 77% more adverse events and 25% more deaths — but no red flags from UK regulators.

Between Dec. 9, 2020 (when the first COVID vaccine was administered in the UK) and Feb. 14, 2021, 402 deaths following COVID vaccines have been reported to YellowCard, the UK government’s system for reporting side effects to COVID-related medicines, vaccines, devices, and defective or falsified products.

Britain’s regulator, the Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency (MHRA), runs YellowCard, which is the nearest British equivalent to the Vaccine Adverse Events Reporting System or VAERS in the U.S.

So far, only the Pfizer-BioNTech and Oxford-AstraZeneca vaccines have been administered in the UK. The Pfizer vaccine was deployed during the second week of December 2020, and Oxford-AstraZeneca at the beginning of January. (Moderna’s COVID vaccine is approved for emergency use in the UK, but the country has not as of yet obtained any vaccines from the company).

The MHRA has expressed no concern about the number of reports of adverse events connected with these new products, even failing to note how much worse the Oxford product has performed in comparison to the Pfizer vaccine.

Similarly, the accumulation of hundreds of deaths has failed to register a flicker of concern from them.

In January, the deaths of 23 frail elderly in Norway made international news — and raised questions about whether we should even be vaccinating people who are already near death. While it’s true that thousands of frail elderly people inevitably die every week, the lack of evidence of an active attempt to find out what is going on in individual cases is troubling.

The MHRA responded to the Norwegian report by saying “it did not currently anticipate any specific concerns,” a highly prejudicial statement. At the time The British Medical Journal (BMJ) published a short on-line response from the author under the title “Is the MHRA up to it?”:

“But the MHRA also did not detect concerns with narcolepsy and the Pandemrix vaccine in 2009 and was unapologetic nine years on in these columns (while Clifford Miller going through the available data found as many as 178 potentially related reports in the first 67 days) … More recently they did not anticipate problems with PEG and anaphylaxis before the rollout of the Pfizer BioNTech vaccine, though these were already identified by others…”

However, it is even more worrying that even after 400 reported deaths the BMJ (British Medical Journal) would not publish my letter critiquing the MHRA data.

A major difficulty is that the MHRA system breaks down the data so that it is impossible to connect these deaths with preceding adverse events, although most reports are said to include multiple reactions.

Yet it is reasonable to assume that the preponderance of these reported deaths were preceded by a sequence of events — otherwise no one would have thought to make a report. However, the YellowCard format masks this information.

As with any passive reporting database we are met with the paradox that no single vaccine death is confirmed (and any doctor who confirmed one would likely say good-bye to their career in the UK). We also know vaccine-related injuries are generally  under-reported by many times.

Nevertheless, the very distinct event profiles of two products filtered through the same same system after 15 million vaccine administrations would suggest that there is something to be investigated and explained.

The BMJ has declined to publish my successive letters on the subject of investigating COVID vaccine injuries and deaths, but here’s my latest (unpublished) letter to the BMJ:

Dear Editor:

Paul Thacker raises important concerns over transparency and the Oxford-AstraZeneca vaccine, but I believe there are also questions about safety.

In January, eyebrows were raised because of 23 deaths in frail elderly Norwegian patients following the Pfizer vaccine. Since then we seem to have come a dangerous distance.

MHRA data so far lists a combined 402 fatal reactions to the Pfizer BioNTech (197) and Oxford AstraZeneca (205) products. According to the MHRA publication, the data was updated Feb. 14 when approximately 8.3 million Pfizer and 6.9 million Oxford AstraZeneca products had been administered.

It is also remarkable how unfavorably the Oxford-AstraZeneca data compare with the Pfizer data. MHRA data show 26,823 reports related to Pfizer vaccines, including 77,207 reactions, and 31,427 reports related to Oxford-AstraZeneca, including 114,625 reactions.

Thus the Pfizer reports run at ~3.2 per 1,000 while the Oxford-AstraZeneca reports run at ~4.6 per 1,000: which translates to 43% more reports associated with the Oxford-AstraZeneca vaccine compared with Pfizer.

However, the Pfizer reports have an average of 2.9 reactions per report compared with 3.6 for the Oxford-AstraZeneca (again Oxford 24% higher) — so the rate of reactions reported is actually 77% higher overall for the Oxford-AstraZeneca vaccine.

When it comes to fatalities, the Oxford-AstraZeneca product records a rate of 3 in 100,000 while Pfizer has 2.4 in 100,000 which is again 25% higher for Oxford-AstraZeneca.

Tabulated, as of 14 Feb:

Pfizer BioNTech: 26,823 reports, 77, 207 reactions and 197 deaths (per 8.3 million doses).

Oxford Astra Zeneca: 31,427 reports, 114,625 reactions and 205 deaths (per 6.9 million doses)

Pfizer BioNTech:

Reports 1 in 309.5 doses

Reactions 2.9 per report

Fatal reactions 1 in 42,131

Oxford AstraZeneca:

Reports  1 in 219.5 doses

Reactions 3.6 per report

Fatal reactions 1 in 33,659

It is important to recognize that these data are by no means random: The reports are filtered through the same system (even though it is passive and likely to represent only a fraction of cases) and these products have quite distinct profiles.

The Oxford-AstraZeneca safety profile should also be borne in mind considering that the company is planning to conduct trials with children.

Whether it is ethical to administer vaccines with such open safety issues is one thing, but it is another when the data from one product seems to be so markedly inferior to the other.

Note that the linked MHRA documents (here, here and here) have a rolling update and this data will only be correct for the week Feb. 26 – March 4, 2021.

Finally, I would be grateful to have any errors of transcription or mathematics pointed out to me.

*

John Stone is the UK Editor of the Age of Autism

An Earlier version of this article was published by Children’s Defense and Age of Autism

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

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).

***

France has recently sent one of its nuclear attack submarines over 10,000 kilometers to the South China Sea for a “patrol.” It is the latest indicator of how strained the underlying credibility is of US foreign policy regarding the South China Sea and its growing conflict with Beijing.

While Washington frames its involvement in the region as “championing” for claimants in the South China Sea, it is recruiting allies further and further flung from its actual waters and appears to merely be using the confrontation to undermine Beijing, not support other nations in the region.

France24 in an article titled, “France wades into the South China Sea with a nuclear attack submarine,” would claim:

The week in France kicked off with a Twitter thread by Defence Minister Florence Parly revealing that French nuclear attack submarine SNA Emeraude was among two navy ships that recently conducted a patrol through the South China Sea.

“This extraordinary patrol has just completed a passage in the South China Sea. A striking proof of our French Navy’s capacity to deploy far away and for a long time together with our Australian, American and Japanese strategic partners,” she tweeted along with a picture of the two vessels at sea.

The mention of Australia, America and Japan is clearly a reference to American efforts to create a united front against China in the Indo-Pacific region.

Red line denoting the Pentagon’s “first island chain” (Wikimedia Commons)

The omission of India, one of the supposed “Quad Alliance” members, should not go unnoticed. Even though it is mentioned elsewhere in the article, it is done as an afterthought.

France is the second European nation to sign up for Washington’s Indo-Pacific strategy, following the UK which has pledged to send a carrier strike group to the region later this year.

The UK Defence Journal in an article titled, “British Carrier Strike Group heading to Pacific this year,” would note that the UK’s latest aircraft carrier, HMS Queen Elizabeth, would also become involved in the South China Sea dispute along with what the journal reported as:

NATO’s most sophisticated destroyers — the Royal Navy’s Type 45s HMS Diamond and HMS Defender and US Navy Arleigh Burke-class USS The Sullivans as well as frigates HMS Northumberland and HMS Kent from the UK.

It wouldn’t take much imagination to predict the reactions in the West if China, Russia and Iran created a “strike group” and sailed it thousands of miles around the globe to menace the shores of Western nations, yet the provocative and revealing nature of Washington’s policies and the participation of nations in its Indo-Pacific strategy being drawn from further and further away from the actual region is treated as entirely normal, even necessary by the Western media.

The inclusion of the French and British in Washington’s Indo-Pacific strategy is necessary because the actual nations in the region, specifically in Southeast Asia, have little interest in provoking China or turning relatively common maritime disputes into a regional or international crisis.

The US, by attempting to do just that, is actually endangering peace, prosperity and stability in the region, despite posing as the underwriter of all three and on behalf of the very nations refusing to join its provocative naval exercises. Nations in the actual region refuse to join US military activities there specifically because they are seen as counterproductive and a needless, even dangerous escalation.

Creating Conflict, Not Resolving It 

The US, Australia, France and the UK have contributed to the most destructive conflicts of the 21st century including the 2001 invasion and occupation of Afghanistan, the 2003 invasion and occupation of Iraq, the 2011-onward wars in Libya, Syria and Yemen, and numerous regime change campaigns around the globe.

France in particular also has its military deployed across the continent of Africa, including in several of its former colonies.

The notion that France, alongside its other partners in carrying out military aggression worldwide, is becoming involved in the Indo-Pacific to confront aggression and expansionism rather than to participate in it itself, is dubious at best.

The France24 article would also note that:

In this increasingly tense maritime geopolitical context, France wants to restate that it has its own interests to look out for in the region. In 2019, the French defence ministry released a policy report, “France and Security in the Indo-Pacific” recalling that around 1.5 million French nationals live between Djibouti in the Horn of Africa and the overseas territory of French Polynesia. This means that Paris views its Indo-Pacific zone as stretching from the Gulf of Aden to beyond Australia.

In other words, Paris’ mission to the Indo-Pacific is a continuation of its colonial injustices in the region in past centuries, pursuing everything and openly for itself and its own sense of hegemony, that it, London and Washington are accusing Beijing of.

The West’s failing fortunes across Africa, the Middle East and Central Asia will not benefit from their collective economies and armed forces being stretched further still to confront an Asian nation in Asia, and one that is poised to surpass them all economically and militarily in short order.

For Beijing’s part, it has successfully reached this point through careful and patient planning, strategy and diplomacy. It will be very unlikely that Beijing will find itself drawn into a conflict with the West and will instead continue building ties within the region, particularly with Southeast Asia, creating its own regional order, and one built on economic cooperation rather than military confrontation, a process already well under way and why Washington feels the need to recruit Western European nations for its “Indo-Pacific” strategy in the first place.

*

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.

Joseph Thomas is chief editor of Thailand-based geopolitical journal, The New Atlas and contributor to the online magazine “New Eastern Outlook” where this article was originally published. 

Featured image is from New Eastern Outlook.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on France Joins America’s South China Sea Adventurism. “Provoking China”
  • Tags: ,

The Pope in Iraq Between the Minaret and the Bells

March 7th, 2021 by Steven Sahiounie

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).

***

Pope Francis arrived yesterday at the Baghdad International Airport to begin a three-day visit, the first of its kind, and the first visit for the Pope abroad since the COVID-19 pandemic began one year ago.  Critics have wondered what difference the compassionate tourist could make, but the Pope has aimed to stand in solidarity with Iraqis, and their Christian fellow citizens.

While most of Iraq has yet to be vaccinated, the Pope and his entourage have been.

Prime Minister Mustafa al-Kadhimi welcomed the pontiff, although Kadhimi oversees a government that is riddled with corruption and struggles to provide basic services.

The pope’s vehicle was escorted by police motorcycles as he passed miles of concrete blast walls that were put up during Iraq’s sectarian violence after 2003, the road was one of the most dangerous in Baghdad, with frequent roadside bombs and suicide car bombs.

The official slogan for the trip is, “we are all brothers”, while the trip’s agenda begins in Baghdad, goes to Najaf, Irbil in the north, as well as Mosul.

Outside the airport, hundreds lined the roads, holding flags and waving as the pope passed by the site of a Trump-ordered drone strike that killed Maj. Gen. Qassim Suleimani and a senior Iraqi security official a year ago.

The wreckage of one of the vehicles has been preserved by Iraq’s government as a memorial to the dead and in sharp criticism of the attack.

On Wednesday, 10 rockets were fired at a military base in western Iraq that houses US forces. The Iraqi parliament has voted last year to order the US troops to leave the country, but the US under Trump, and now Biden, have refused.  The US is illegally occupying both Iraq and Syria.

Iraq’s church leaders have said they are threatened with “extinction” in the Muslim-majority country.

“Over the past several decades, Iraq has suffered the disastrous effects of wars, the scourge of terrorism and sectarian conflicts often grounded in a fundamentalism incapable of accepting the peaceful coexistence of different ethnic and religious groups,” the Pope said.

“I come as a penitent,” the Pope said, “asking forgiveness of heaven and my brothers and sisters for so much destruction and cruelty.”

The Christians of Iraq are one of the oldest continuous Christian communities in the world. Most Iraqi Christians are indigenous Eastern Aramaic-speaking ethnic Assyrians of the Syriac Christian tradition. Non-Syriac Iraqi Christians are largely Arab Christians and Armenians, and Christians have been present in areas now known as Iraq since around the 1st century AD.

In 1916, the Turkish Ottoman Empire committed a genocide that left at least two million Armenians, Assyrians, and Greeks dead. Nearly all were Christian.

The US state department seized upon a weak spot on the underbelly of Iraq, knowing there were ideological differences between Sunnis and Shiites, which are sects of Islam.  By instigating attacks and propaganda campaigns creating hatred between the two neighbors who have lived side by side in the Middle East for centuries, the west was able to leverage the sectarian strife to their advantage.  This allowed not only harvesting the Iraqi energy resources but maintaining an occupation presence in the region to this day.

The US, along with its allies, invaded Iraq in 2003 and killed hundreds of thousands of Iraqis, and maimed and displaced even more. There were no weapons of mass destruction, and the UN’s Hans Blix confirmed that before the invasion while he was in Iraq. There was not a big Al Qaeda presence in Iraq, but the invasion caused them to arrive on the scene to repel the invaders.  The invasion of Iraq is the cause of the suffering of Iraqis and especially their Christian communities.

”Americans and the West were telling us they came to bring democracy, freedom, and prosperity,” said Louis Sako, the Chaldean Catholic Patriarch of Babylon. He added, ‘‘What we are living is anarchy, war, death and the plight of three million refugees.’’

In Palestine, Syria, and Iraq the Christians are under attack.  Ethnic cleansing of Christian communities was perpetrated by the Israeli Army, the US-sponsored Free Syrian Army, Al Qaeda, and ISIS.

Iraq was once a rich tapestry of faiths, but during the period from 2013–2017 Christians fled as ISIS rapidly swept through western Iraq executing, maiming, and kidnapping.

Mosul was decimated by the US attacks on ISIS.  The Pope will visit the Syriac Catholic Church ruins in Mosul.

Saddam Hussain led the Ba’ath Party, with a secular socialist platform.  He was an authoritarian leader who ruled with an iron fist, and many citizens suffered during his tenure as president of Iraq, but the Christians were secure under secularism.

Because of the fall of Saddam Hussein, Christians began to leave Iraq, and the population shrank to less than 500,000 today from as many as 1.5 million in 2003.

The Arab Spring, a US-NATO project, only made things worse. As dictators like Mubarak in Egypt and Qaddafi in Libya were toppled, their longstanding protection of minorities also ended. The US supported sectarian terrorists like the Free Syrian Army, sometimes called the “John McCain Army”, who from the outset of conflict unfurled sectarian banners against Christians and non-Sunni sects.  While the US ‘regime change’ projected failed in Syria, the US remains illegally occupying the northeast and supporting the Kurds as they drive Christians from their ancestral homes and lands.

Andrew White is known as the vicar of St George’s Church, Baghdad, the only Anglican church in Iraq, until his departure in November 2014.

Andrew White supported the US-UK invasion of Iraq.  He knew the Christians would be slaughtered and decimated.  He corralled the Christians in his church in Baghdad while being guarded by US Army snipers and tanks.  He treated the Iraqi Christians like circus animals: soon to be extinct, and valuable assets for charity donations. He moved them to Jordan and perpetuates the notion that they are only safe in a country that has an Israeli peace agreement. He was found culpable of charity fraud in his former organization, and he has formed a new charity that has faced similar fraud accusations.

Middle Eastern Christians are in solidarity with their Palestinian brothers and sisters. The blind, and unconditional support of the Jewish State of ‘Israel’ is the central core belief of the American Evangelical political ideology. Instead of defending the human rights of Christians throughout the Middle East, the birthplace of Jesus, most American Christians feel no empathy for their counterparts in Palestine, Iraq, and Syria.

In 2015, Senator Ted Cruz admonished an audience of Middle Eastern Christians at an ‘In Defense of Christians’ event in Washington, telling them that Christians ‘‘have no better ally than the Jewish state.’’ The audience booed Cruz.

Iraqi Christians cannot safely return home to Iraq.  The government and society have become sectarian. The US insisted on an Iraqi constitution which kept the country firmly divided between the Sunni and Shiite sects. The US prides itself on being secular but demands that Lebanon, Syria, and Iraq be cut-up in sectarian strife.  Only Syria has determinedly resisted the US demands for a “New Middle East”.

The Sunnis and Shiites have been pitted against each other, and the Christians are a minority without a safety net.  Perhaps, if a new secular government was formed, and school children were educated in tolerance and respect for all religions, we might see a future for Iraqi Christian returning and reestablishing their rights to live in their ancestral homes.

Bashar Matti Warda, the Chaldean archbishop of Irbil, said of the Pope’s visit,

“It’s not going to help the Christians materially or directly,” Warda conceded, “because we are really in a very corrupt political and economic system. No doubt about that. He [Pope Francis] will hear nice words … But when it comes to day-to-day issues, no, I think that’s a different story.”

“Our fortune is not in oil,” said Saad Salloum, a political scientist, “It is in diversity.”

‘‘We’ve been here as an ethnicity for 6,000 years and as Christians for 1,700 years,’’ says Dr. Srood Maqdasy. ”We have our own culture, language, and tradition. If we live within other communities, all of this will be dissolved within two generations.”

*

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.

Featured image is from Middle East Eye

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).

***

Ten U.S. presidents,[1] 20 CIA directors,[2] and 56 years of covert action[3] screwed over Brazil’s poor and paved the way for the election of Jair Bolsonaro

Covid-19, murder, evangelical Christianity, crime, environmental destruction, drugs, shantytowns, inequality, corruption, doesn’t matter what you pick, Brazil is a world leader in them all—and more.

With the Worker’s Party now waning, a tiny minority dominates the country’s economy. About 1% of the population, i.e., 1.5 million people control 47% of all real estate.[4] Brazil’s poverty rate stands at around 20 percent—which Brazil’s President, Jair Bolsonaro, has no problem with.

The perils of large-scale privatization initiatives under Bolsonaro were evident when the Amazon city of Manaus ran out of oxygen to help COVID-19 patients.

Even when a private contractor informed the government that it could not adequately supply the city, the government did nothing, stating—against all scientific evidence—that early treatment for COVID-19 did not work.

Gun ownership meanwhile has risen considerably since Bolsonaro took office in 2019, exploding in 2020.[5]

It’s the law of the jungle, a jungle which Bolsonaro is busy burning down. It’s tropical neoliberalism. Nothing is sacred, least of all the lives of common people.

Bolsonaro has put the economy in the hands of a team of “Chicago boys,” disciples of so-called “free-market” theorist Milton Friedman.[6]

The leader of this team, Economy Minister Paulo Guedes—a former investment banker—was a graduate of the University of Chicago where he studied under Friedman. He has appointed other Chicago grads to top posts, including Joaquim Levy to run a major state bank, Rubem Novaes another, and Roberto Castello Branco to manage oil giant Petrorbras.[7]

Guedes himself lived in Augusto Pinochet’s Chile and liked what he saw. His plan for Brazil is to cut taxes, cut pensions and cut government. In other words, he wants the wealthy at the top to own even more of Brazil.

It wasn’t meant to be like this

Brazil began to modernize itself in 1930. The centralization of the Brazilian state followed a “lieutenants rebellion.”

Building and strengthening the nation became the rule. This included the mobilization of the masses. It meant industrialization and development. All under the guiding eye of the Brazilian government.

The leader of this brave new Brazil was Getúlio Vargas (1882-1954). This predominantly benevolent dictator unleashed the power of the state.

Breaking with the semi-feudalism of Brazil’s First Republic (1889-1930), Vargas politicized Brazil’s working class. And therefore subverted the traditional power of a tiny minority who owned everything.

And by developing Brazil’s natural resources for the good of Brazil (Vargas created Petrobras—the government owned oil company—in 1953), he subverted the “foreign markets and foreign investors,” which had dominated Brazil since the 16th century.

How do we know that he subverted the local aristocracy and the global imperialists? Because Vargas said as much in his 1954 suicide note:

Once more the forces and interests which work against the people have organized themselves anew and break out against me…The underground campaign of international groups joined that of national groups which were working against the policy of full employment. The excess profits law was held up in Congress. Hatreds were unleashed against the just revision of minimum wages. I wished to bring national freedom in the use of our resources by means of Petrobras; this had hardly begun to operate when the wave of agitation swelled…[8]

How can we trust his words? Because the dynamic or dialectic he describes explains perfectly the decades which followed his suicide. Time proved him right.

The presidents who succeeded Vargas, Juscelino Kubitschek (1956-61) and João Goulart (1961-64), continued the project which Vargas started: the construction of a popular state-led Brazilian economy. However, an underground campaign of international groups and national groups brought this project to a dramatic end in the infamous 1964 coup.

The national dimension of this coup that ended the vision of Vargas—known as “the father of the poor”—involved the overt actions of the Brazilian military. And the international dimension involved the covert activities of the U.S. government, which was the main instigator of the coup.

Washington, D.C. had a code name for the removal of João Goulart—”Operation Brother Sam”—and was prepared to invade if the coup did not go according to plan.

U.S. warships (for example, the aircraft carrier USS Forrestal) were sent to Brazil to assist if necessary. The Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) was the architect of the operation.

It funded and linked the domestic opposition to Goulart’s popular nationalism. One million dollars was provided to the AFL-CIO’s USAID funded American Institute for Free Labor Development (AIFLD), which instructed trade union leaders on how to organize strikes and demonstrations against Goulart.[9]

Afterwards, the CIA, under the cover of USAID’s Office of Public Safety (OPS), ramped up training of the Brazilian police, who set up Operation Bandeirantes, a forerunner of the Phoenix program whose focus was to round up and torture leftist dissidents.[10]

New York Times (August 5, 1978) [Source: nytimes.com. See also pando.com]

Foreign automakers collaborated with the new military junta by helping to identify “subversives” on their payrolls who were arrested or detained as part of Bandeirantes.

Lincoln Gordon, the U.S. ambassador to Brazil from 1961-1966, claimed that the 1964 coup was “the single most decisive victory for freedom in the mid-twentieth century.”[11]

Freedom for U.S. elite interests, that is—and that of U.S. corporations and a minority of Brazilians who monopolized most of the wealth.

In the middle of the Cold War, Washington did not want another Cuba or another China. It viewed the popular agenda of Vargas and his successors as a threat to its global elitism as well as continued access to Brazil’s oil, minerals, and other natural resources. By acting the way it did in Brazil, the U.S., in effect, was directly conserving the semi-feudal social relations which Vargas sought to modernize.

It was the signal foreign investors and foreign creditors were waiting for. Foreign money flowed into Brazil after 1964—while Brazil’s workers and peasants were once again trapped in their own country and forced to accept the lowest wages and worst working conditions. In the eyes of the U.S.-backed elite minority inside (and outside of) Brazil: It was an “economic miracle.”

Never mind the fact that, according to the National Truth Commission, which released a report in 2014, 8,000 indigenous people and at least 434 political dissidents were killed during the period of military rule.

Today, when Jair Bolsonaro celebrates the coup of 1964, he is celebrating a U.S. plutocratic version of Brazil. He is rejecting Brazilian sovereignty and reviving a National Security Doctrine which the U.S. exported to Brazil during the Cold War—a doctrine that highlights an “internal enemy” (working class politics or environmental politics or landless politics or Indio politics).

In short, he is celebrating a doctrine that criminalizes modern social relations and institutionalizes semi-feudal social relations.

After World War Two, this doctrine was transmitted from the U.S. to Brazil via military colleges and the U.S. School of the Americas, now called the Western Hemisphere Institute for Security Cooperation. And its purpose was anything but Brazil’s “national security.” On the contrary, it was designed to secure the economic and geopolitical interests of the U.S. and its constituency in Brazil—the tiny minority which owned everything.[12]

Washington, D.C.’s top Cold War planner, George F. Kennan, succinctly summed up the idea behind the doctrine (and therefore outlined the future of Brazil) in 1950—when writing about Latin America:

The final answer might be an unpleasant one, [a military dictatorship, extreme inequality, but] we should not hesitate before police repression by the local government. This is not shameful, since the communists [popular and nationalistic politicians] are essentially traitors […] It is better to have a strong regime in power than a liberal government if it is indulgent and relaxed and penetrated by communists [socially progressive nationalists].[13]

Considering the 1964 coup a “triumphant strike against communism,” Bolsonaro directly served the military government in Brazil in the late 1970s as an army captain.

His superior officers stated that he “had aggressive ambition”including for “financial and economic gain,” a reference to Bolsonaro’s attempt to mine gold in Bahia state.

The Obama administration helped facilitate Bolsonaro’s rise by failing to condemn the illegal impeachment in August 2016 of Dilma Rousseff of the Brazilian Workers Party, who in her youth had been tortured by the Brazilian army.[14]

Rousseff was accused of illegally manipulating government accounts, but the charges were heavily politicized.

Her successor, Michel Temer, was later arrested on more substantiated charges that included accepting a $1 million bribe in exchange for awarding three companies a construction contract for a nuclear power plant.[15]

The day after Rousseff’s impeachment, the leader of Brazil’s Senate Foreign Relations Committee, Aloysio Nunes, came to the U.S. and met with Thomas Shannon, the Under-Secretary of State for Political Affairs, which signaled backing for the de facto coup that brought an end to what the World Bank called Brazil’s “golden decade” under Workers Party rule, during which millions were lifted out of poverty.[16]

Aloysio Nunes and Brazilian Ambassador Sergei Amaral present the Grand Cross of the Rio Branco order to U.S. Ambassador Thomas Shannon in 2018. [Source: twitter.com]

Bolsonaro has continued Brazil’s great reversal, never hiding his allegiance to the U.S.

Nor is he hiding his contempt for the Brazil which Vargas and his successors tried to build. In March 2019, after becoming Brazilian President in January—in an act of homage and an act of obedience—he visited the U.S. headquarters of the CIA—the architects of the 1964 coup.

In August 2019, Bolsonaro declared that it is his intention, by 2022, to completely privatize Vargas’s greatest legacy—Petrobras—the state-owned oil company.

There is one more U.S. doctrine which encapsulates post-1964 Brazil and particularly the Brazil of Bolsonaro: the Low-Intensity Conflict doctrine. This is “characterized by the military taking on police roles and the police acting more like the military.”[17]

When a minority owns a disproportionate share of the wealth, the tendency is to criminalize the majority poor. The class war begins to feel like a low-intensity war.

Since the U.S.-made coup of 1964, Brazil has been caught up in a low-intensity conflict in which—to paraphrase President Bolsonaro—people die like cockroaches. Since the beginning of the 21st century—more than 1,000,000 people have been murdered in Brazil.[18] It is safe to say that almost all were poor people—“the children of Vargas.”

*

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.

Aidan O’Brien is a hospital worker in Dublin, Ireland. On break last year, he visited Brazil and conducted in-country research. Aidan can be reached at: [email protected].

Notes

[1] Johnson, Nixon, Ford, Carter, Reagan, Bush1 Clinton, Bush2, Obama, Trump.

[2] Dulles, McCone, Raborn, Helms, Schlesinger, Colby, Bush, Turner, Casey, Webster, Gates, Woolsey, Deutch, Tenet, Goss, Hayden, Panetta, Petraeus, Brennan, Pompeo.

[3] 1964-2018.

[4] Lulu Garcia-Navarro, “For Brazil’s 1 Percenters The Land Stays In The Family Forever,” August 25, 2015, https://landportal.org/news/2015/08/brazils-1-percenters-land-stays-family-forever

[5] Alicia Prager and Laís Martins, “Firearms exports to Brazil surge as gun ownership increases under Bolsonaro,” July 31, 2020, https://www.theguardian.com

[6] David Biller and Raymond Colitt, “Milton Friedman’s Brazil Moment: Band of Disciplines Take Charge,” Bloomberg News, December 12, 2018.

[7] Biller and Colitt, “Milton Friedman’s Brazil Moment.”

[8] Getúlio Vargas “suicide note,” August 24, 1954, quoted in Thayer Watkins, “Getulio Vargas and the Estado Nôvo,” San José State University Department of Economics, https://www.sjsu.edu 

[9] Stephen G. Rabe, The Most Dangerous Area in the World: John F. Kennedy Confronts Communist Revolution in Latin America (Chapel Hill: The University of North Carolina Press, 1999), 69.

[10] Jeremy Kuzmarov, Modernizing Repression: Police Training and Nation Building in the American Century (Amherst, MA: University of Massachusetts Press, 2012), 225; Martha K. Huggins, Political Policing: The United States and Latin America (Durham, NC: Duke University Press, 1998).

[11] David Binder, “U.S. Assembled a Force in 1964 For Possible Use in Brazil Coup,” December 30, 1976, https://www.nytimes.com; The Dominion news from the grassroots, “US Role in 1964 Brazilian Military Coup Revealed: National Security Archive,” April 6, 2004, https://www.dominionpaper.ca; James G. Hershberg and Peter Kornbluh, “Brazil Marks 50th Anniversary of Military Coup,” April 2, 2014, The National Security Archive, https://www.nsarchive2.gwu.edu;  Wright, Thomas C., Latin America in the Era of the Cuban Revolution (Westport, Conn: Praeger, 2001).

[12] Eduardo Munhoz Svartman, “Brazil-United States Military Relations during the Cold War: Political Dynamic and Arms Transfers,” January 2011, brazilianpoliticssciencereview, https://www.oaji.net 

[13] George F. Kennan, 1950, quoted in Anthony W. Pereira, “The US Role in the 1964 Coup in Brazil: A Reassessment,” Bulletin of Latin American Research, 2016, https://doi.org/10.1111/blar.12518

[14] Jeremy Kuzmarov, Obama’s Unending Wars: Fronting the Foreign Policy of the Permanent Warfare State (Atlanta: Clarity Press, 2019), 303.

[15] Anna Jean Kaier, “Brazil’s Former President Michel Temer Arrested in Corruption Investigation,” The Guardian, March 21, 2019, https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/mar/21/brazils-former-president-michel-temer-arrested-in-corruption-investigation

[16] Kuzmarov, Obama’s Unending Wars, 303, 304.

[17] Joseph Nevins and Timothy Dunn, “Conflict of a Different Sort,” October 31, 2008, NACLA Report, https://www.nacla.org 

[18] Robert Muggah, “Brazil’s Murder Rate Finally Fell – and by a Lot,” April 22, 2019, https://www.foreignpolicy.com 

Featured image is from Antonio Scorza / Shutterstock

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Why Is Brazil Such a Basket Case?—The Role of U.S. Covert Action
  • Tags:

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).

***

A book that has a very narrowly defined title often fails to look at the larger context, either regional or global.  In “Decolonizing Palestine – Hamas Between the Anticolonial and the Postcolonial”  Somdeep Sen succeeds surprisingly well in placing the struggles of Hama/Gaza/Palestine well beyond the regional into a thought provoking global perspective.

What is missing from the title is one of his fundamental themes, that of liberation.   Not only is Hamas caught between the anticolonial and the postcolonial, but the idea of liberation, of freeing Palestine from the Israeli colonial-settler context is also caught between the two ideas.  In short, liberation is not a point in time, not a date in a history book, but an ongoing process that precedes that noted timeline and succedes the same.

Liberation then becomes not only just Palestine, but Palestine as a liberating idea within the global network of postcolonial acts of liberation.

Hamas

The focus is on Hamas, but does not cover its full history as a grassroots organization that in its early formation provided much needed social services to the refugees and victims from the 1948 nakba.  Sen concentrates on Hamas’ current predicament of being both a resistance force to settler-colonialism and a governing force in an area nominally ‘liberated’ from Israeli settlements, while still carrying the burden of both forwards.

One of the more striking ideas was the concept that even as Hamas is criticized for its sometimes coercive and violent control of Gaza, those very acts create and sustain the idea of ‘Palestine’. The inhabitants of Gaza recognize Hamas not just as Hamas but as the government, as the nation – as Palestinian.   Even earlier than Hamas’ takeover of Gaza’s government, Sen discusses the idea that the the postcolonial moment began with the Oslo Accords, and in spite of all its flaws and the poverty of its intentions, it put into writing the concept of ‘Palestine’ – undefined and subject to many onerous conditions, but still – Palestine.

Liberation in this context starts well before Oslo.  Palestine has been seeking liberation since the end of World War I:  first from the British empire and its League of Nations imposed mandate; and subsequently from Jewish settler-colonialism during the mandate and on into the establishment of Israel.

What is occurring in Gaza today is the ongoing struggle for liberation within both an anticolonial and a postcolonial set of ideas and actions:

“Hamas’ persistence with the simultaneous roles of resistance and assumption of governmental authority confirmed that the anticolonial and postcolonial can indeed exist in the era of colonial rule in service of the liberation struggle….[it] is also a microcosm of the entirety of the Palestinian long moment of liberation….it is the Palestinian coastal enclave that exemplifies the long moment before the withdrawal of the colonizer in its entirety, consolidated under a single leadership….”

“Despite the their faults and inadequacies, both resistance and governance somehow evoked the colonized’s retort, “We are here, we exist, we are organized”…And even though actual liberation is far from being realized [it] has already begun under the auspices of Hamas’ rule over Gaza.”

Global perspective and liberation

When Sen extends his arguments to global comparisons his ideas take on a more powerful significance.  His arguments are well founded as he incorporates examples from around the world.

Sen’s correlations with other liberation struggles cover much of the rest of the world.  South Africa, Zimbabwe, Tanzania, Cuba, India, Ecuador, Algeria, and North America are mentioned in his discussions.  Early in the work he writes “…characterizing the socioeconomic crisis as extreme overlooks the reality that the treatment meted out to Gaza is the norm under settler colonial rule.”

If I take my home country Canada as an extended example of North American settler-colonialism, all Sen’s arguments are applicable. Canada (and the U.S.) were attributed as being “empty land”, a “land without people.”  The indigenous people were removed from the land by various devices – wars, starvation, forced removal – and the remnant populations were placed on “reservations”, the North American system of apartheid.  Those that were not removed from settler society were subject to racist and discriminatory legislative and judicial action.

Physical genocide/ethnic cleansing was accompanied by cultural ‘cleansing’.  The indigenous celebrations were forbidden (here on the West Coast, the tradition of the Potlatch was outlawed) and children were forcibly removed from their families in order to “civilize” the “savages”, without granting them even then the right of equality.

Under the concept of liberation, the indigenous people of Canada are still resisting colonization and all its depredations and are undergoing a “long liberation”, claiming their rights, protecting their land against militarized police forces, and still seeking equality before the law even as their inequality is written into the constitution.

Sen’s description becomes universal as in the end he suggests “that the nature of the (settler) colonial endeavor, and its ability to alienate their sense [of] self, is such that the struggle for liberation from the legacies of colonial rule may persist perpetually.”   Society itself is changed, and the liberation process includes the adaptation to those changes, “the colonized are undone from their sense of self in a way that they do not have any memory of an identity sans the legacies of the colonization.”   Society is changed, there is no reset button, liberation involves finding a national identity, part of that being “the national anticolonial struggle itself.”

Sen’s work, “Decolonizing Palestine – Hamas Between the Anticolonial and the Postcolonial” is a powerful and well argued presentation on Hamas’ actions in Gaza.  At the same time he very thoughtfully extends his arguments as being part of the global system of settler-colonialism.

These arguments my sound rather esoteric in light of the brutality and racist attitudes of the colonial projects around the world, but ultimately they find the truth:   no person is free, no person is liberated until all are liberated, until all the constructs of colonial settler activities, all the racism, the economic dominance, the cultural denials are deconstructed and remade into a society that provides equality in all areas to all the people of the world.  We are, in that sense, all Palestinians.

*

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.

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).

***

Between November 11 and 16, 2020, between the passing of Hurricane Eta and the arrival of Hurricane Iota, the Tortilla con Sal media collective visited Nicaragua’s Autonomous Region of the Northern Caribbean Coast. There we interviewed representatives of different indigenous and afro-descendant territorial governments in Siuna, Bilwi, Waspam and community members of the Miskito communities of Wisconsin and Santa Clara. We also spoke with cattle farmers, residents and officials from the municipalities of Siuna and Prinzapolka about various aspects of the area’s social and economic development. The interviews confirm the success of Nicaragua’s indigenous and afro-descendant peoples in their historic struggle to reclaim their ancestral rights.

The conversations also confirm that the indigenous peoples of Nicaragua’s Caribbean Coast have achieved progressive restitution of their rights in large part due to the commitment to the reincorporation of the Caribbean Coast by the FSLN (Frente Sandinista de Liberación Nacional) ever since their historic program of 1969. While in government in 1987, the FSLN passed Law 28 “Statute of Autonomy of the Regions of the Atlantic Coast of Nicaragua”. Later, while in opposition, the FSLN in 2005 managed to secure the passage of Law 445 “Law of Communal Property Regime of the Indigenous Peoples and Ethnic Communities of the Autonomous Regions of the Atlantic Coast of Nicaragua and of the Bocay, Coco, Indio and Maíz Rivers”.

To date on Nicaragua’s Caribbean Coast, 23 original peoples’ territories have been titled and delimited, covering 314 communities with a territorial extension of 37,859.32 km² in which lives a population of more than 200,000 people in more than 35,000 families. The area is equivalent to 31% of the national territory and more than 55% of the territory of Nicaragua’s Caribbean Coast. A significant body of laws, administrative norms and declarations attest to the reality of an innovative and ambitious process vindicating the rights of Nicaragua’s indigenous and afro-descendant peoples.

The interviews collected here also explain how these legislative and administrative advances were achieved in various extremely adverse contexts. For example, in 1987 Nicaragua was in the seventh year of a war imposed by the U.S. government in which much of Nicaragua’s Caribbean Coast was the scene of constant military conflict.

Then, after 1990, during the period of the Liberal party governments, the process of defending and promoting the rights of Nicaragua’s native peoples was in effect deliberately undermined. So, when Daniel Ortega and the FSLN took office in January 2007, they inherited a process seriously sabotaged and damaged by the neoliberal policies of the previous sixteen years.

The interviews collected here demonstrate, too, the great scope of the process of restitution of the rights of Nicaragua’s original peoples since 2007, in all its social, political, economic and cultural complexity. For example, they clarify that the leaders of the Indigenous and Afro-descendant Territories are people elected by their communities not on the basis of political allegiances but on the basis of community criteria.

Their Territorial Governments and their Community Governments are two of the five levels of government working together in the Autonomous Regions of the Caribbean Coast of Nicaragua. The two levels of government of the indigenous peoples collaborate intimately with the relevant instances of the National Government, with the Regional Governments and with the respective municipal authorities.

This system of government has enabled important changes on Nicaragua’s Caribbean Coast, for example, in terms of electrification and the development of health and water infrastructure and land communications with the Pacific Coast and also in terms of judicial practice, education and health care.

On the Northern Caribbean Coast, the new road to Bilwi, which includes the construction of a 240-meter long bridge over the Wawa River, will shorten the overland travel time to Managua from 24 to 12 hours. In 2021, the entire northern Caribbean coast will be connected to the national electric power system.

A new regional hospital and a new drinking water system are being built in Bilwi. Economic democratization promoted by the central government has promoted new commercial possibilities for the region’s agricultural, fishing and other producers.

In this context of infrastructure modernization and important social and economic advances, the political opposition desperately uses downright falsehoods exploiting the issue of property conflicts in order to attack the Sandinista government led by President Comandante Daniel Ortega.

The big lie promoted by the political opposition in relation to the phenomenon of property conflicts in the territories and communities of the native peoples is that the Sandinista government promotes the invasion by mestizo families of indigenous and afro-descendant lands.

These interviews with indigenous and afro-descendant leaders completely disprove this gross lie. Instead, they explain the historical context in which indigenous leaders associated with the Miskito Yatama political party, have sold lands that were allocated to them under the government of Violeta Chamorro.

Subsequently, during the period in which Yatama and the ruling government Liberal party controlled the regional government and most of the region’s municipal authorities, various corrupt indigenous leaders continued with the illegal sale of indigenous lands to mestizo families. The natural consequence of this process has been that the mestizo families who bought those lands, in turn sold them on to other mestizo families, thus making the problem progressively more complicated and difficult to solve.

The problem of property conflicts only became international news from 2012 onward because in that year the FSLN displaced Yatama in the municipal elections as the region’s main political force and then in 2014 managed to gain control of the regional government.

The following table indicates the development of the change of political control in the Northern Caribbean of Nicaragua at the municipal level through the results of municipal elections from 2008 to 2017.

In 2009 Yatama and the Constitutional Liberal Party controlled seven of the eight municipalities in the Northern Caribbean Region. In the 2012 municipal elections Yatama and the Independent Liberal Party won four municipalities between them and the FSLN also four. Then in 2014 Yatama lost the regional elections to the FSLN and in the 2017 municipal elections the FSLN won seven municipalities, leaving only the municipality of Mulukukú in the hands of the PLC. Yatama and the PLC still won a good number of municipal councilors, but without overall control of any municipality.

In response to this decline in the power and influence of Yatama and the Liberal parties in the region, an intense smear campaign has been mounted against the Sandinista government. The campaign is promoted by Yatama and its allies in Nicaragua’s non-governmental organizations associated with the national political opposition, such as the Movimiento Renovador Sandinista, financed from the United States and countries of the European Union.

Similarly, Yatama lost influence at the territorial government level partly because of the deep internal differences within the party and partly because many community members stopped giving the same level of support they had previously given to Yatama’s historic leader Brooklyn Rivera and the indigenous leaders associated with him.

This reality of the unfolding political scene in the Caribbean Coast region of Nicaragua has been systematically suppressed, both by national opposition aligned media and intellectuals and, internationally, by foreign academics and intellectuals allied with Yatama and the MRS. However, the testimony of the indigenous leaders in these interviews convincingly demonstrates the reality, completely disproving the lies that have been spread internationally.

In relation to the issue of bad faith on the part of non-governmental human rights organizations, it may well be worth noting the personal testimony from our visit to interview community members of the Miskito communities of Wisconsin and Santa Clara in the Tasba Raya area, southwest of Waspam. Since 2013, this area has been the scene of some of the most violent incidents of conflict between the indigenous peoples and mestizo settlers.

We arrived in Wisconsin around four o’clock in the afternoon on Saturday, November 14th, 2020. Despite the heavy rains from Hurricane Eta, the road had not deteriorated so badly as to prevent our journey. We went to Wisconsin and Santa Clara because we wanted to talk to people there about their version of local history and events in their community since 2012.

However, the people we were seeking in Wisconsin told us they did not want to be interviewed because they were being watched by community members collaborating with the Center for Justice and Human Rights of the Atlantic Coast of Nicaragua (CEJUDHCAN) led by Lottie Cunningham Wren. One of the people we wanted to talk to told us, in the presence of three witnesses, they were especially afraid to be interviewed because shortly before our visit, at a community assembly with CEJUDHCAN, Lottie Cunningham Wren had incited hatred against this person, saying that they deserved “to have their throat cut”.

Wisconsin is an impoverished community. However, the people observing our visit had the latest smart phones with which they filmed us. When we asked how it was possible for these very poor people to have such expensive cell phones, we were told that the phones were given out by Lottie Cunningham Wren and her colleagues to CEJUDHCAN collaborators in the community. In any case, we agreed with the community members at that time to record some brief interviews on the subject of local property conflicts and their possible resolution, which we did in a superficially friendly but somewhat tense atmosphere.

Indeed, without the presence of the territorial authorities who accompanied us, we believe it would not have been possible to record interviews in this community. Subsequently, after recording the interviews in Wisconsin, we went to the community of Santa Clara.

There, the community members spoke freely, without fear. They explained what had happened to them in previous years. They spoke of their anxieties and fears regarding the Mestizos and explained their hopes of being able to resolve the problem of property conflicts according to the law.

In both communities, Wisconsin and Santa Clara, the community members insisted that they wanted to avoid the kind of violent incidents of the past and called on the regional and central government authorities to provide the necessary support to expedite the last phase of the titling of their lands, which is called remediation. This term is interpreted in different ways, but the Wisconsin and Santa Clara community members believe that this phase requires clearing a direct lane between the already established trig points in order to clearly define the limits of each territory on the ground.

Taken together, this series of interviews provides an extensive overview of the reality of the Northern Caribbean Coast region based on the concrete experiences of five of the region’s territorial leaders as well as local community members. An undeniable part of that experience has been the incitement to violence by political forces and allied organizations in opposition to the government.

The interviews make clear the mercenary role of foreign funded neocolonial clients like Lottie Cunningham Wren and CEJUDHCAN in that regard. But they also make clear how Liberal party activists and municipal officials have historically promoted the illegal invasion of indigenous lands.

They also highlight the political aspect of organized crime activities in the region, for example the massacre of three police officers in June 2018 near Mulukukú. That massacre occurred in the context of a long-running campaign of systematic harassment in the Mining Triangle of Siuna, Rosita and Bonanza in which dozens of Sandinista militants have been killed in recent years.

It has been a campaign of violence promoted by people associated with the region’s Liberal parties very similar to what has happened in the South Caribbean Coast of Nicaragua. There, the activities of the so-called Anti-Canal Movement have been used to cover up organized crime activities aimed at displacing Sandinista families from the area on the municipal border between Nueva Guinea and Bluefields.

The interview series “Nicaragua 2018 – Uncensoring the Truth” extensively details the criminal activities promoted at the time by Anti Canal Movement leaders Francisca Ramirez and Medardo Mairena. Similarly, the interviews compiled here on the reality of Nicaragua’s Northern Caribbean Coast region reveal how opportunist local NGOs such as CEJUDHCAN distort the truth under the guise of promoting the rights of indigenous peoples.

These interviews demonstrate once again that international human rights organizations by no means rigorously and seriously corroborate the denunciations they receive. On the contrary, they act in a morally obtuse, methodologically incompetent and politically biased way, in effect promoting the sinister anti-democratic and anti-humanitarian political agenda of the U.S. government and its allies.

In doing so, they harm and betray the human rights of the very populations they falsely claim they want to defend. Their bad faith has been demonstrated on multiple occasions in the case of Nicaragua, Cuba and Venezuela as well as other countries defending their autonomy and sovereignty against the North American and European imperialist powers.

When former UN Human Rights Rapporteur Alfredo de Zayas said in relation to Venezuela “I realized that the media narrative does not correspond to reality” he could just as well have been talking about Nicaragua. Taken together, the interviews compiled here offer yet more confirmation of the moral bankruptcy of the Western human rights industry and the international media that disseminate their reports with no serious effort to corroborate them, while suppressing other information, such as interviews like these, which contradict 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 Tortilla con Sal.

Featured image is from Tortilla con Sal

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).

***

Is Wi-Fi sickness a disability? The California Court of Appeal just said it is in Brown v. Los Angeles Unified School District (2d Dist., Div. Eight), Case No. B294240. In a case that tests the limits of California’s liberal pleading standard, the appellate court green-lighted a claim of a woman who asserted a disability of “electromagnetic hypersensitivity,” or, as the concurring justice put it, “Wi-Fi sickness.”

The trial court had sustained a demurrer, granting judgment for the employer, a school district. The appellate court revived the plaintiff’s claim for failure to provide a reasonable accommodation.

The court acknowledged that it is likely the first to recognize Wi-Fi sickness as a disability under laws against discrimination. In fact, the court discussed contrary federal court authority, distinguishing those cases by concluding that the definition of “disability” in California’s Fair Employment and Housing Act is broader than in the Americans with Disabilities Act.

Apart from the holding that Wi-Fi sickness is a disability under FEHA, California employers should take note of the facts alleged about the failure to provide a reasonable accommodation.

After the school district installed a new Wi-Fi system, the plaintiff teacher complained of headaches and other symptoms caused by exposure to the electromagnetic waves. The school district initially tried to accommodate the teacher by turning off the Wi-Fi in her classroom and an adjacent one. The teacher said that her symptoms persisted and asked for additional accommodations. By that point, the school district’s consultant had reported that the Wi-Fi and radio frequencies at the school “evidenced a safe and non-hazardous working environment.” Based on that report, the school district did not grant any further accommodation, and the teacher sued.

In his concurring opinion, Justice Wiley expressed reluctance “about giving any sort of green light to this unprecedented and unorthodox disability claim.” But that’s exactly what the court did.

The decision serves as a reminder of just how easy it is to survive a pleading challenge in California.

*

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 27 languages by activating the “Translate Website” drop down menu on the top banner of our home page (Desktop version).

***

The commander of U.S. military forces in the Pacific region submitted a request to Congress March 1 for $27.3 billion in new anti-China spending. Admiral Philip Davidson, who can fairly be termed an anti-China fanatic, leads the Indo-Pacific Command made up of 380,000 military and civilian personnel and a vast array of air, land and sea weaponry. It is the largest of the 11 commands that span the globe and outer space — the enforcers of the most far-flung empire in history.

The funding increase that Davidson is seeking for his command — not the total allocation — is greater than the entire budget of the whole armed forces of Brazil.

In an October 2020 public forum, Davidson stated: “I believe China is the strategic threat of the century to the U.S., but really certainly to the entire free world.” Extreme hostility toward China has been expressed by other top officials in the new administration, including by President Biden himself.

In reality, it is the United States which has engaged in endless war for many decades that is the real “strategic threat” to its allies as well as it enemies.

Red line denoting the Pentagon’s “first island chain” (Wikimedia Commons)

The Indo-Pacific Command covers 34 countries encompassing 60% of the world’s population. As a part of the “pivot to Asia” announced under the Obama administration — and continued under Trump and now Biden — a major shift is underway. The aim is to base over 70% of U.S. overseas military forces in the Asia/Pacific region, clearly aimed at the People’s Republic of China.

The additional request comes on top of the $738 billion Pentagon budget for this year which passed — as do all military budgets — with overwhelming bipartisan support in Congress. The Pentagon budget is larger than the military budgets of the next 13 countries combined, and four times the size of China’s.

The Pentagon and virtually the entire political establishment falsely promote Cold War-style propaganda depicting China as an aggressor. But it is not China that is encircling the United States with military power — it is the other way around. Davidson’s request for additional funding is explicitly meant to accelerate the encirclement.

The ‘First Island Chain’ — A sacrifice zone in Pentagon planning

In his demand for extra funds, Davidson wrote that the United States “requires highly survivable, precision-strike networks along the first island chain, featuring increased quantities of ground-based weapons. … These networks must be operationally decentralized and geographically distributed along the western Pacific archipelagos.”

The “first island chain” in Pentagon-ese are those island states and provinces ringing China’s east coast, including Japan, Okinawa, Taiwan, northern Philippines, Borneo and smaller islands. As a glance at a map of the region shows, Taiwan — a province of China still ruled by the side of the civil war that was defeated in 1949 — is the key link of the chain and would be of immense strategic importance in case of a war. This motivates the vast U.S. military sales to Taiwan.

The words “requires highly survivable, precision-strike networks along the first island chain” means that the Pentagon anticipates those countries would suffer major losses in case of a U.S. war on China. John Foster Dulles, the former U.S. secretary of state who devised the island chain strategy in the 1950s, referred to these countries as “unsinkable aircraft carriers.”

Such an outcome means nothing to the war planners. Nor do they regard participation as optional. “These networks must be … geographically distributed along the western Pacific archipelagos” (writer’s emphasis).

Contrary to the media propaganda here, China is not seeking either a new war or global domination. Nor do any of the peoples of the region, who have suffered greatly at the hands of imperialism, want a new war.

As the latest demand for ever-greater military spending makes clear, the grave danger of new wars comes from the Pentagon, the military-industrial corporations, and the capitalist politicians in Washington. They are fanning the flames of racism and chauvinism to prepare public opinion for aggression to come.

A new U.S. war with China would threaten the world with unthinkable destruction. The danger of such a war cannot be ignored, it must be resisted.

*

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 Public Domain

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).

***

The European Union has been keeping up appearances in encouraging the equitable distribution of vaccines to combat SARS-CoV-2 and its disease, COVID-19.  Numerous statements speak to the need to back the COVAX scheme, to ensure equity and that no one state misses out.  And EU member states could be assured of a smooth vaccine rollout, led by the EU apparatus, humming with needle jabbing efficiency.  Negotiating as a bloc, lower prices could be assured, along with an appropriate supply of vaccines across the 27 member states. 

These initial hopes have been shredded.  While the vaccination programs in Israel, the United Kingdom and even the United States have gathered form and speed, it has stuttered and stumbled in the EU.  The companies behind the vaccines have been patchy in their production lines.  Authorities have put halts on jabs and in some cases, introduced rationing.      

In January, the manufacturers of the Oxford-AstraZeneca vaccine informed the European Commission that it would ship fewer doses to the bloc than originally understood.  “While there is no scheduled delay to the start of shipments of our vaccine should we receive approval in Europe,” a spokesperson for AstraZeneca explained, “initial volumes will be lower than originally anticipated due to reduced yields at a manufacturing site within our European supply chain.”  The initial cut in supply was dramatic: from the initially promised number of 90 million does, the number would be 40 million. 

Stella Kyriakides, European commissioner for health and food safety, was indignant. Discussions with the company, she recorded on Twitter, “resulted in dissatisfaction with the lack of clarity and insufficient explanations.”  Members of the EU were “united: vaccine developers have societal and contractual responsibilities they need to uphold.” 

The company then promised in early February to make up the missing doses.  In this, the EU was found wanting in its contractual negotiations with AstraZeneca.  The EU-AstraZeneca deal, written in Belgian law, stresses the “best reasonable effort” of both parties to deliver the goods in question and acting in good faith.  The UK-AstraZeneca agreement, written in English law, also contains the best reasonable effort clause, but features a toothier provision.  Should AstraZeneca or its subcontractors be persuaded to do anything that might hold up the supply of vaccine doses, the UK government reserves the right to terminate the contract and invoke penalties.

The EU was left with essentially meek retaliations: withholding payments till the company coughed up promised supply, or till it assisted finding other producers who might make the vaccine.  Tellingly, the EU had also waived its right to sue AstraZeneca in the event of delays. 

The UK negotiators were also sharp enough to clarify the chain of supply (places of manufacture, for instance), putting the onus on the company to cover any unpredicted fall promised doses.  The EU, in an act fit for commercial dunces, had tied itself in knots. 

The AstraZeneca drama was but one in what can only be seen as a failure in manufacture, supply and distribution.  Pfizer-BioNTech, having made a deal for the supply of 300 million doses with the EU, also saw reductions in their deliveries to enable its Belgium processing plant to increase capacity.  In January, Italy was informed about successive reductions of the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine: 20% and 29% in respective quarters of the month.  The more granular picture was even more severe, with various Italian regions seeing a fall of 60% of doses.

This picture of struggle was repeated that same month in Poland, Romania, the Czech Republic, Germany’s North Rhine-Westphalia and the Spanish capital, Madrid. Rationing of distribution was introduced by the Spanish government.  Polish officials were sufficiently angered by Pfizer-BioNTech to threaten legal action. 

Hungary, preferring a different, more unilateral way of coping with the shambles, approved the use of other vaccines otherwise held up in the queue of the European Medicines Agency.  The vaccines from China’s Sinopharm and Russia’s Sputnik V have passed regulator muster, with Prime Minister Viktor Orbán himself receiving the former at the end of last month.  “Without the Chinese and Russian vaccines,” the pugnacious populist reasoned, “we would have big problems.” 

Last month, EU Commission President Ursula von der Leyen was rather confessional in a speech on the failings of the EU vaccination policy.  “We were late in granting authorisation. We were too optimistic about mass production.  And maybe we also took for granted that the doses ordered would actually arrive on time.”

The European scene was ready for a more global brawl over vaccines and their shipments.  On February 26, Italian authorities urged the European Commission to block 250,700 doses of the AstraZeneca vaccine destined for Australia.  The reason was put down to AstraZeneca’s failure to live up to expectations in supply and Australia not being a “vulnerable country”.  The request was also based on the EU export control mechanism on COVID-19 vaccines, introduced in January with the intention to block exports of vaccines outside the union.  “The objective of this measure,” came the European Commission’s justification, “is to ensure timely access to COVID-19 vaccines for all EU citizens and to tackle the current lack of transparency of vaccine exports outside the EU.”

Since its inception, the European Commission has proved slow on the draw; 174 authorisations for millions of shots to 30 countries have been granted.  Set to expire on March 31, the European Commission is proposing the extension of this measure into June.  Many member states approve.  France even went so far as to publicly back Italy’s request.  The country’s Health Minister Olivier Véran summed up the mood in an interview with BFMTV channel: “Believe me, the more doses I have, the happier I am as health minister.” 

Germany also added its voice of approval.  “In general,” stated German government spokesman Steffen Seibert, “vaccine exports aren’t stopped as long as the contracts with the EU are abided by.”  Cattily, Seibert excused the EU’s regulatory restrictions by claiming that many “vaccines go from the EU to third countries, while nothing or almost is exported from the United States and Great Britain.”  German Health Minister Jens Spahn was more reserved, warning that such moves could cause “problems in the medium term by disrupting the supply chains for vaccines”. 

Australia’s protests were more of minor irritation than anger.  Canberra had, according to Health Minister Greg Hunt, “raised the issue with the European Commission through multiple channels, and in particular we have asked the European Commission to review this decision.”  Prime Minister Scott Morrison was even understanding to a point, acknowledging that Italy was seeing a death rate of 300 a day.  Europe faced “an unbridled situation.  That is not the situation in Australia.”

Vaccine patriotism was always going to surface to dampen any optimism on the part of public health utopians.  Countries and self-interest come before the noble aspirations of humanity.  The Director General of the World Trade Organization, Ngozi Okonjo-Iweala laments that WTO members, to the extent they had “export restrictions or even prohibitions of these goods [vaccines]” were holding “back recovery.” 

A great danger to the EU in this ugly affair will be whether certain nation states within the family will take its efforts in combating COVID-19 seriously.  As shown by Hungary’s example, the bunglers in Brussels risk being ignored altogether. 

As for the blocking of vaccine exports to third countries, Bernd Lange, the German MEP who chairs the European Parliament’s trade committee, is gloomy and regretful.  The European export mechanism risked constituting a de facto ban.  “Pandora’s box opened,” he wrote on Twitter in response to the Italian decision.  “Mistake.”  Imitators would follow, as could “fatal consequences on supply chains.”  A global conflict over the distribution of COVID-19 vaccines is in the offing. 

*

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. Binoy Kampmark was a Commonwealth Scholar at Selwyn College, Cambridge.  He lectures at RMIT University, Melbourne. He is a frequent contributor to Global Research and Asia-Pacific Research. Email: [email protected]

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Brawling over Vaccines: Export Bans and the EU’s Bungled Rollout

The Problem with Conspiracy Theories

March 7th, 2021 by Kevin Ryan

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).

***

This article was first published on Global Research in February 2018.

People today spend a lot of time talking about conspiracy theories.

These theories often do harm because they divert attention away from the facts and thereby allow real crimes and other harmful effects to continue.

Such conspiracy theories can be spotted based on three basic characteristics.

  1. They lack evidence.
  2. They spread widely before the facts are examined.
  3. Much simpler alternatives are not considered.

For example, take the most popular conspiracy theory of recent times—the official account for the crimes of 9/11.

  1. This theory was produced by mythologist Philip Zelikow, who, before the investigation began, created an outline that was kept secret from his own Commission staff. Zelikow’s outline determined the outcome of the investigation before any facts were examined. Moreover, the 9/11 Commission claimed sixty-three times in its report that it could find “no evidence” related to important aspects of the crimes. Evidence that the Commission did rely on, as a basis for its report, was later found to be false. Similarly, the evidence collected and held secret by World Trade Center investigating agency NIST was later found to contradict the agency’s conclusions. Much of that evidence is still being held secret including the computer model data that NIST was forced to substitute for physical testing that contradicted its conclusions.
  2. The conspiracy theory reports provided by the 9/11 Commission and NIST spread quickly before anyone could examine them. Getting government representatives to commit to any explanation for what had happened on 9/11 took years but, once ready, news media sources were prepped in advance to allow rapid parroting of the official line. The timing of NIST’s reports coincided with political events, like each anniversary of the 9/11 crimes, so that media could quickly present the official story while public interest was high but critical review was not possible. With the report on WTC 7, the public was given just three weeks to comment on a report that was nearly seven years in the making. The report was later found to be unscientific and false.
  3. The official conspiracy theory for 9/11 calls for belief in unbelievable things. That is, to believe the official account you must accept that otherwise honest military leaders will lie repeatedly for years to make themselves look bad. Buildings will collapse in unprecedented ways, through the path of most resistance, with no scientific evidence to explain it. The Secret Service will fail to do its job, insider trading can occur with no insiders, and “the enemy”—a vaguely defined group of dark-skinned people who just happen to live on strategically critical resources—can remain omnipotent and elusive. All the while, much simpler explanations are evident but cannot be considered.

The official conspiracy theory for 9/11 has led to tremendously harmful effects. Many Americans have forgotten completely what it means to be an American. An ongoing terrorism lottery, that could select any of us as a victim at any time, continues with no end in sight. And the 9/11 Wars that were based on the official account are bankrupting the nation both financially and morally.

Yes, conspiracy theories are a problem when not examined closely. Let’s all take a closer look at this one.

*

This article was originally published by Dig Within.

Featured image is from the author.


waronterrorism.jpgby Michel Chossudovsky
ISBN Number: 9780973714715
List Price: $24.95
click here to order

Special Price: $18.00

In this new and expanded edition of Michel Chossudovsky’s 2002 best seller, the author blows away the smokescreen put up by the mainstream media, that 9/11 was an attack on America by “Islamic terrorists”.  Through meticulous research, the author uncovers a military-intelligence ploy behind the September 11 attacks, and the cover-up and complicity of key members of the Bush Administration.

The expanded edition, which includes twelve new chapters focuses on the use of 9/11 as a pretext for the invasion and illegal occupation of Iraq, the militarisation of justice and law enforcement and the repeal of democracy.

According to Chossudovsky, the  “war on terrorism” is a complete fabrication based on the illusion that one man, Osama bin Laden, outwitted the $40 billion-a-year American intelligence apparatus. The “war on terrorism” is a war of conquest. Globalisation is the final march to the “New World Order”, dominated by Wall Street and the U.S. military-industrial complex.

September 11, 2001 provides a justification for waging a war without borders. Washington’s agenda consists in extending the frontiers of the American Empire to facilitate complete U.S. corporate control, while installing within America the institutions of the Homeland Security State.

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).

***

‘They have discovered smart weapons. We have discovered something more important: people think and feel.’ – Fidel Castro

The COVID-19 pandemic has revealed the failure of most Western capitalist countries in their public health policies.

Decades of neoliberal austerity, of cuts in health and education programs induced by restructuring programs by the IMF and the World Bank, are now showing their results in alarming numbers of contagion and deaths spreading throughout Latin America, Europe and the U.S.

In the West, Cuba has set an example of efficiency and shown that another way is possible in the fight against the pandemic. The numbers speak for themselves; we only need to compare Cuba with other countries or even big cities with similar populations to get a very clear picture of the difference in results.

With a population of about 11,350,000 people, Cuba has had – as of February 21 – 45,361 cumulative cases of COVID-19 with 300 deaths.

The Greater New York City area, with a population of about 18,800,00, has a cumulative total of 700,815 cases with 28,888 deaths. Switzerland, with a smaller population than Cuba, about 8,600,000 people, has 550,224 cumulative cases of COVID-19 with 9,226 deaths. How to explain that a country that has far fewer resources than a city like New York or a country like Switzerland can be so much more efficient in its fight against the pandemic?

The answer is simple: the Cuban Revolution of 1959 focused the few resources available in the country on building a health care system that would serve the needs of the people first, and not the interests of the various sectors of privatized medicine, such as medical insurance plans, big pharmaceutical companies and the expensive ‘high-tech’ medicine of which the developed countries are so proud.

Public Health History 

After the Revolution, almost half of the Cuban doctors left the country, greatly limiting the new government’s ability to meet the health needs of its population. The revolutionary government decision was to invest in the training of new health professionals – in people – and to expand access to medical care to the rural population and especially to black Cubans, who had hitherto been left out. In this way, Cuba was able to increase the number of nurses from 2,500 in 1958 to 4,300 a decade later. Through its massive vaccination campaigns, Cuba eliminated polio in 1962, malaria in 1967, neonatal tetanus in 1972, diphtheria in 1979, congenital rubella syndrome in 1989, post-cause meningitis in 1993, rubella in 1995, and tuberculous meningitis in 1997.

Today, Cuba’s infant mortality rate is lower than that of the United States and less than half that of the black population in the United States. By 1983, just over two decades after the Revolution, life expectancy in Cuba had increased to 73.8 years, when in the previous period it had been only 58.8 years.

While many public health experts often attribute the chronic shortage of health care in Latin America to lack of resources, the Cuban Revolution has shown that when limited resources are distributed equitably and with an emphasis on people and prevention, public health outcomes previously unimaginable can be achieved. Neoliberalism, imposed by force in many Southern countries, and chosen by Northern economic elites as the preferred policy in their own countries, led to a path opposite to the Cuban one. And the COVID-19 pandemic is showing very clearly which path was the right one.

In the rich countries of the North, neoliberal austerity has for decades caused successive reductions in health budgets, with cuts especially in the number of qualified personnel available. Cuba, by contrast, has invested in the training of an ever-increasing number of health professionals. When the pandemic arrived, it was clear that Cuba already had the necessary personnel and resource allocation capacity to face such a situation. In the wealthy countries of the North, by contrast, the lack of personnel and public infrastructure was compounded by an inability to take the right measures when these conflicted with established private interests.

Consequently, for the first time, Cuba was asked to bring its aid to some rich and developed Northern countries, such as Italy. Cuban doctors and other health professionals also took their aid to Andorra and to France’s ultra-marine Caribbean departments of Martinique and Guadeloupe. One cannot imagine a greater demonstration of the bankruptcy of the neoliberal model.

The Cuban Revolution, from its very beginning and despite all the material difficulties faced by the new government, did everything possible to help other countries. In 1963, only four years after the Revolution, still struggling with enormous internal problems, Cuba sent its first medical aid mission to Algeria, a nation devastated after decades of a bloody war of independence against France. In 1966, with the help of 200,000 doses of polio vaccine donated by the Soviet Union, Cuba and its medical personnel, in collaboration with the government of Congo, coordinated the vaccination of more than 61,000 children in what was the first mass vaccination campaign in Africa. To date, Cuba has sent some 124,000 health professionals to provide medical care in more than 154 countries.

Besides this impressive aid brought by its own medical personnel to various parts of the world, another important contribution of Cuba is the training of health professionals, mainly from poor countries, at its Escuela Latino Americana de Medicina (ELAM – Latin American School of Medicine). Founded in 1999, ELAM trains students according to the Cuban model of Medicina General Integral (MGI – General Integral Medicine), focusing mainly on public health and primary care, with a holistic approach to understanding health, including disciplines such as biology, sociology, and politics. ELAM’s foreign students have all expenses paid by the Cuban state, except for airfare. By 2020, ELAM had graduated 30,000 new doctors from over 100 countries, mainly from Africa but including from the poorest areas of the United States. Many of these students would have no chance of studying medicine in their home countries, and upon their return provide an invaluable and sometimes previously unavailable service to their fellow citizens, including, now, care related to the pandemic. According to ELAM, there are about 52,000 health professionals from Cuba working in 92 countries, which means that Cuba has more doctors working abroad than all the health professional contributions of the G-8 countries combined.

Owing to their commitment to the health of people, especially the poorest and most disadvantaged, and not to a privatized health system in which profit determines where and how to allocate resources, Cuban doctors are frequent targets of attacks from the far right in the countries where they work. In Brazil, following the coup d’état against elected president Dilma Rousseff and the illegal ascension to power of Jair Bolsonaro, Cuban doctors had to leave the country. The same occurred in Bolivia after the coup against President Evo Morales and in Honduras after the coup against President Zelaya. In all these cases, it was the poor who suffered the most, for Cuban medical professionals were the only ones providing care previously unavailable to them. In 1979 Cuba sent a medical mission to Grenada, and by 1982 this country saw a 25% reduction in its infant mortality rate, thanks mainly to the work done by Cuban professionals. But the United States invaded Grenada in 1983, and the Cuban health workers were expelled.

Regarding the pandemic of COVID-19, however, the example that perhaps best reveals the disastrous consequences that the combined effect of sending away the Cuban doctors and imposed structural readjustments can cause in a country is the case of Ecuador. Following the election of President Lenin Moreno in 2017, the Cuban health professionals working in this country with the support of the previous President Rafael Correa had to leave, and the International Monetary Fund recommended a 36% cut in the health budget, a measure adopted by President Moreno. These two actions left the country with virtually no health care system, hence no defense in the face of the COVID-19 pandemic. As a result, the city of Guayaquil alone, Ecuador’s largest, with about 2,700 million inhabitants, had an estimated 7,600 deaths due to the pandemic, a number more than 25 times higher than that of all of Cuba.

The medical brigades and ELAM have so far been Cuba’s two greatest contributions in the fight against the COVID-19 pandemic. But another extremely important one is on the way: the Sovereign II vaccine, produced by the Finlay Vaccine Institute in Havana. Cuba hopes to immunize its entire population with its own vaccine later this year. Once again, Cuba’s socialist approach to vaccine production differs radically from that adopted by the world’s capitalist nations. The result of Cuba’s international experience, accumulated through its many missions conducted in various parts of the world, the Cuban vaccine is a hope for the poor nations since, again, Cuba’s international solidarity can be counted on. According to an article by W. T. Whitney, Jr:

“100 million doses of Sovereign II are being prepared, enough to immunize all 11 million Cubans, beginning in March or April. The 70 million remaining doses will go to Vietnam, Iran, Pakistan, India, Venezuela, Bolivia, and Nicaragua. Sovereign II ‘will be the vaccine of ALBA’ explained Venezuelan Vice President Delcy Rodríguez, referring to the solidarity alliance established in 2004 by Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez and Cuba’s Fidel Castro.”

The article’s author added:

“‘Cuba’s strategy in commercializing the vaccine represents a combination of what’s good for humankind and the impact on world health. We are not a multinational where a financial objective comes first,’ says Vicente Vérez Bencomo, director of Cuba’s Finlay Vaccine Institute. Income generated by vaccine sales abroad will pay for health care, education, and pensions in Cuba, just as is the case with exports of medical services and medicines.”

In contrast to the Cuban approach, the author further wrote:

“According to forbes.com in November 2020, ‘If Moderna’s [vaccine] can get FDA approval and can make enough doses, its top line could be nearly $35 billion higher … than … in the last 12 months.” Another report suggests that, ‘The companies (Pfizer and Moderna) stand to earn billions of dollars in profits from their COVID vaccines this year [and] there will be more profits in later years.’ The companies ‘claim the rights to vast amounts of intellectual property’.

“With corporations in charge, distribution of Covid-19 vaccines is skewed. As of January 27, ‘some 66.83 million doses have been sent out, of which 93 percent were supplied to only 15 countries.’ In Latin America, only Brazil, Argentina, Mexico, and Chile have secured purchase contracts adequate for immunizing entire populations. The companies’ contracts with African nations allow for immunization of only 30 percent of Africans in 2021. Meaningful immunization has yet to begin there.

“The wealth divide determines distribution. Epidemiologists at Duke University report that, ‘While high-income countries represent only 16% of the world’s population, they currently hold 60% of the vaccines for COVID-19 that have been purchased so far.’ Cuban journalist Randy Alonso reports that only ‘27 percent of the total population of low and middle-income countries can be vaccinated this year’.”

Since its revolution, Cuba has been under uninterrupted attack by the Empire and its accomplices.

Economic sanctions and blockades make its population suffer and harm considerably Cuba’s capacity to keep doing the international work. Even so, this small nation, always so stubborn and generous continues to be a source of hope for the world. Above all, Cuba points the way forward, with great firmness, detachment, courage, and an inexhaustible joy.

*

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 The Council of Canadians

Video: The Antibody Deception

March 6th, 2021 by Rosemary Frei

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).

***

The world has been fixated for months on novel-coronavirus PCR testing, contact tracing and vaccination.

Meanwhile, another major part of the Covid biomedical complex has received far less attention: the use of antibodies for detecting, diagnosing and treating infection with the novel coronavirus.

Hundreds of antibodies have been approved for these purposes since January 2020. And hundreds more are poised to start being marketed soon.

This is part of the biomedical gold rush: by last summer already, antibodies were on track to become the most lucrative medical product, with global revenue projected to reach nearly half a trillion dollars by 2024. Profit margins in the range of 67% aren’t uncommon.

Pharma giants such as AstraZeneca, Novartis, GlaxoSmithKline and Eli Lilly are among the companies grabbing the largest chunks of the novel-coronavirus-antibody market. And some of the most muscular government agencies, including Anthony Fauci’s US National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases and the US’s Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency, are part of the action (see, for example, the second-last section of this article, on antibodies used to treat Covid).

Virtually every study and piece of marketing material related to Covid is premised on scientists having positively and correctly identified the presence of the novel coronavirus (also known as SARS-CoV-2) in the material they’re working with.

The job of that identification is usually given to antibodies that are said to bind to the novel coronavirus. The assumption is these antibodies are able to pick out the virus and only the virus from among every other organism and substance surrounding it.

Unfortunately it turns out that the antibodies rarely (if ever) do that. This is because of, among other things, inadequate verification of the antibodies’ accuracy in targeting the virus by the companies that manufacture and sell them. And there’s even less verification by government regulators.

Let’s take a 30,000-foot tour of a couple of the main features of the antibody-industry landscape, which is awash in complexity and cash.

Can Antibodies be Created That Only Bind to One Type of Virus or Another?

Antibodies are tiny, finely-tuned, parts of our immune system. One of their main functions is to seek out viruses and bacteria that may have the potential to cause disease. Antibodies bind to and neutralize these microbes so they can’t multiply and spread.

Humans and our ancestors have been making antibodies in our bodies to fend off infections for millions of years. Then a few decades ago companies got involved in the discovery and manipulation of antibodies, partnering with university labs.

There are two main categories of antibodies. One is ‘polyclonal’ antibodies. These are garden-variety antibodies that bind to a variety of different substances and/or organisms.

The other is monoclonal antibodies. As the name implies, cloning is involved in their creation. First an antibody that is specific to a particular amino-acid sequence (amino acids are the building blocks of proteins) of interest – for example, one from a protein on the surface of a virus or bacterium — is identified. Then the immune-system cell which produced that antibody is ‘cloned’ in the lab. As a result, each set of monoclonal antibodies binds to that particular amino-acid sequence.

I emailed one of the English-speaking world’s leading authorities on monoclonal antibodies, Harvard Medical School professor Clifford Saper, to get clarity on this. I asked him if it’s true that, as most in the antibody-commercializing arena claim, a monoclonal antibody can be created that’s specific for (that is, binds to) just one type of virus or just one other type of organism.

Saper replied [bolding and italics added by me for emphasis]:

No, there is no such thing as a monoclonal antibody that, because it is monoclonal, recognizes only one protein or only one virus. It will bind to any protein having the same (or a very similar) sequence.”

The implication of Saper’s statement is that any attempt to use a monoclonal antibody to verify the presence of the novel coronavirus will yield a large rate of false-positive results. That is, they will indicate that the novel coronavirus is detected when in fact it hasn’t been. That’s because there’s a high probability that the monoclonal antibody is binding to something else besides the virus (this is known as ‘cross-reacting’).

(I recommend this review paper by Saper, and this one and this one co-authored by Yale pathology professor David Rimm, to anyone wishing to learn about antibody validation.)

And in fact, the vast majority of antibodies and monoclonal antibodies marketed as being specific for the novel coronavirus were developed years ago for detecting SARS-CoV-1. They were then simply repurposed for identifying SARS-CoV-2 — with very few if any checks for whether they also cross-react to other organisms or substances.

I sought confirmation of this repurposing from Zhen Lu. She’s the North American marketing manager for Sino Biological, a Beijing-headquartered company that develops and sells, among other things, hundreds of antibodies. Lu replied to me via email, “Yes, antibodies are repuposed [sic].”

I also checked and received confirmation from Pratiek Matkar, a senior staffer from BenchSci, an antibody-database company. And to see for myself, I logged into the BenchSci database (Matkar granted me a guest account), selected all antibodies for the novel coronavirus, and looked to see which organisms had been used in cross-reactivity tests for them. SARS-CoV-1 was the only one that came up in this check.

This all explains something I observed last week: Sino Biological had just changed the content of its home page for the section of their website on antibodies against SARS-CoV-2. The page now announces that they’ve introduced new “matched antibody pairs” that work better at finding the virus. The pair consists of a “capture antibody” and a “detection antibody.”

And they claim these pairs are more accurate at finding the novel coronavirus: that they “have high specificity without cross-reactivity with MERS-CoV, [or with the common human coronaviruses] 229E, NL63, HKU1, [and] OC43.”

The only way I can interpret that is they know the antibodies they’ve been marketing for months as being specific for the novel coronavirus bind to other things, such as common human coronaviruses. 

How Are Antibodies Harnessed in Tests for the Novel Coronavirus?

One of the main types of tests for the virus contains antibodies that are ostensibly specific for the novel coronavirus. The way they’re designed to work is that if the virus is present in a blood sample the antibodies bind to it and, as a result, the test gives a positive signal.

The other type of test contains sequences of protein from the novel coronavirus; if antibodies to the virus are present in a blood sample, they bind to the protein sequences and produce a positive result.

The manufacturers are supposed to conduct accuracy checks of their test kits before they put them on the market. These checks largely consist of estimation of the rates of false positives and false negatives (the latter is a negative result when the antibody or protein of interest is contained in the sample being tested by the kit).

However, companies do this cursory accuracy check with only very few samples of a small number of viruses — and rarely on bacteria or any other of the millions of biological substances that can be present in the blood.

Despite this very inadequate validation and the strong incentive for the companies to make their products look good, as documented last May by David Crowe, the manufacturers often record a significant rate of false positives. The false positives are to everything from West Nile virus to various types of human coronaviruses.

Usually the companies and governments wave that off as insignificant. Occasionally though, the test kits are so bad that they’re taken off the market.

For example, an antibody-testing kit sold by a company called Chembio Diagnostics was launched on March 31, 2020. It was almost immediately granted Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA). An EUA allows companies to rush products onto the market with very minimal oversight. Brazil and the European Union also gave the nod for the Chembio test to be sold in their jurisdictions in April and May 2020, respectively.

Then in June 2020 the FDA pulled it off the market. The agency said ”this test generates a higher than expected rate of false results.” (Note that the top table on page 13 of the product insert for that “revoked” Chembio test indicates it cross-reacts to the human coronavirus 229E.)

But in November 2020 the Chembio antibody test again was approved for use in Brazil. And on January 14, 2021, the test got the nod in the European Union, the UK and Ireland.

Is it identical to the rest that was so inaccurate it was pulled off the market last June? It’s hard to tell. There is no product insert for it that I could find. In fact there’s very little information about it on the webpage for the test; you have to request the information. I submitted a request on Jan. 23 and haven’t received it yet.

Two of the heads of the FDA branch that approves testing devices penned a February 18, 2021, New England Journal of Medicine article. In it, the pair admitted that the FDA’s EUAs allowed too-loose approvals for serology tests.

They indicated the FDA has tightened its criteria for approval of these tests. They also point to efforts by other government agencies to evaluate serology tests. But the pair don’t say a word about the need to move toward objective, thorough test validation. They also are mute on the fact that EUAs are still being issued.

(Also note that the FDA and Health Canada listings of the 65 serology tests approved to date in the US and 19 approved to date in Canada continue to give the sensitivity [correct identification of positive samples] of the tests by ‘positive percent agreement’ and specificity [correct identification of negative samples] by ‘negative percent agreement.’ These are relative measures of accuracy – that is, compared to other tests – rather than objective/absolute accuracy, and therefore are poor facsimiles of accuracy.)

One of the many major figures in the Covid-biomedical complex who are priming the pump of the antibody pipeline is Ian Lipkin. He’s director of the Center for Infection and Immunity at Columbia University in New York. Lipkin is involved at high levels in many global organizations including the World Health Organization and the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, as well in pharmaceutical companies. (And he is quoted in a ‘fact-check’ of a July 2020 article I co-authored with Patrick Corbett titled, “No one has died from the coronavirus.” Lipkin states, among other things, in the fact-check piece that “Conspiracy theorists are not persuaded by data.”)

Lipkin co-authored a Feb. 12, 2021, paper in which he and his team claimed to have identified, using a new ‘peptide-microarray’ technology they invented, 29 amino-acid sequences unique to the novel coronavirus. They assert that antibodies specific to the sequences could be created – and that these in turn could be harnessed “to facilitate diagnostics, epidemiology, and vaccinology” for Covid. (The only conflict Lipkin and some of his co-authors disclose in the ‘competing interests’ paragraph at the end of article is that they invented the peptide-microarray technology described in the article.)

Do Antibodies Used to Treat Covid Fare Any Better?

Antibodies are also being marketed to treat Covid. Some are sold singly (known as ‘monotherapy’) and others in pairs. They are deemed to confer ‘passive immunity.’

Among the most-reported-on set of antibodies for treating Covid is the Regeneron monoclonal antibodies casirivimab and imdevimab. This pair reportedly was used in October 2020 to treat then-U.S. President Donald Trump. The combo subsequently was granted an EUA by the FDA on November 21, 2020. It also is being considered for approval by Health Canada.

I’d like to focus on a somewhat lesser-known monoclonal antibody called bamlanivumab. It’s being used both singly and as one half of a pair for treatment of symptomatic Covid patients early in the course of their infection. The antibody was discovered, and clinical study of it started, by the US National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (which is headed by Anthony Fauci) and a Vancouver, British Columbia-based company called AbCellera Diagnostics. The antibody is being manufactured and sold by Eli Lilly. It costs more than $1,200 a vial.

AbCellera is developing a significant pipeline of other antibodies. Its capabilities for this were developed over the past two-plus years as part of the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) Pandemic Prevention Platform program.

(AbCellera also has received hundreds of millions of dollars from the Canadian government, including for building an antibody-manufacturing plant. And Peter Thiel, who co-founded both PayPal and Palantir, is a board member. So is John Montalbano, who’s also on the board of the Canada Pension Plan Investment Board and until 2015 was CEO of RBC [Royal Bank of Canada] Global Asset Management. This and significant positive media coverage helped propel the company to the biggest Canadian-biotech-company Initial Public Offering to date, on Dec. 11, 2020.)

Bamlanivumab was given an EUA by the FDA on November 9, 2020, for treatment of mild to moderate Covid. And Health Canada gave the monotherapy an interim authorization on November 17. It’s not getting much traction in clinical practice so far in Canada, though, perhaps because of the less-than-stellar results from clinical trials (see below).

But this hasn’t deterred the Canadian and US federal governments, which combined have purchased close to half a million of these tests. For example, most recently, on February 26, the US government bought 100,000 vials.

The only study on bamlanivimab made public prior to the November 9 FDA approval was one posted October 1, 2020, on the website of the online-only journal bioRχiv. [My Feb. 3, 2021, and Feb. 11, 2021, articles — on the new variants and the associated modelling papers, respectively – noted that the journal and its sister publication medRχiv contain only non-peer-reviewed articles and were created by an organization headed by Mark Zuckerberg and his wife.]

The study used rhesus monkeys and provided very extensive details about how the antibody was discovered and checked for specificity to the novel coronavirus. The researchers concluded that the antibody – at that time known as LY-CovV555 — has “potent neutralizing activity” against SARS-CoV-2.

On January 14 I emailed the lead author of that paper, Bryan Jones. He’s a researcher in Lilly’s Biotechnology Research Program. I asked Jones where in their paper is the proof the antibody is specific to SARS-CoV-2 (and therefore isn’t binding to something else instead of, or in addition to, the novel coronavirus).

He responded promptly, as follows [bolding added by me for emphasis]: “While we did determine that LY-CoV555 is specific to SARS-CoV-2 (and doesn’t bind to the spike protein of SARS-CoV), that is not specified or detailed in any of the figures or tables [in the paper].”

Jones pointed me to several parts of the paper and supplemental material published with it that he said show, via indirect extrapolation, that the antibody is specific for the novel coronavirus.

That’s not exactly convincing.

Then on December 22 a study in the New England Journal of Medicine gave a thumbs-down to the usefulness of bamlanivimab in people hospitalized after receiving a Covid diagnosis. The paper noted that in late October the study was stopped because the antibody didn’t help the patients any more than did placebo.

But this didn’t deter Lilly.

On January 21, 2021, the company issued a news release about a study of bamlanivumab in residents and staff of nursing homes. They claimed their research showed that the antibody “significantly reduced the risk of contracting symptomatic COVID-19.”

However, they didn’t back this up with much information. The study hasn’t been published in a journal or presented at a scientific/medical meeting. And there’s no word on when it will be.

Despite that, on the same morning the release was sent out by Lilly, glowing articles appeared in major media outlets stating that the study showed bamlanivumab appears to significantly reduce Covid symptoms in the frail elderly.

For example a Bloomberg article was posted at 8 a.m. on Jan. 21 with the headline, “Eli Lilly Antibody Cuts Covid-19 Risk Up to 80% in Nursing Home Study.” The article was carried in many other media outlets such as the Globe & Mail.

The article quoted Lilly’s Chief Scientific Officer Daniel Skovronsky as saying, “This is an urgent situation. Where there’s an outbreak in nursing homes and people haven’t yet received the vaccine, this could be a potential way to protect them before they get it.”

And January 21 New York Times piece by senior science journalist Gina Kolata quotes a vaccine expert at Boston Children’s Hospital, Ofer Levy, who wasn’t one of the scientists involved in the study, as saying, “I see only positives here. This is a win.”

Kolata also reported that Lilly plans to ask the FDA for an EUA for bamlanivimab for prevention of Covid in the frail elderly, focusing on those in nursing homes and long-term-care homes.

In parallel, Lilly is pivoting to using bamlanivumab in combination with another monoclonal antibody called etesevimab. A study on this combination in people with mild or moderate Covid was published on January 21, 2021. The results indicate it doesn’t reduce symptoms, but only lowers the viral load of people.

This didn’t deter Lilly either; it’s spinning this in the media as a very positive result. And so is the FDA: on February 9 the agency issued an EUA for the combination of the two antibodies for treating mild or moderate COVID.

Then the next twist in the plot happened, on February 16: a paper published that day in bioRχiv indicated that bamlanivumab doesn’t neutralize the South African and Brazilian variants of the novel coronavirus.

I’ll Leave the Last Words to Scott Adams

Dilbert-cartoon creator Scott Adams makes this observation on page 13 of his book Loserthink:

“One thing I can say with complete certainty is that it is a bad idea to trust the majority of experts in any domain in which both complexity and large amounts of money are involved.”

This perfectly describes the situation with antibodies for the novel coronavirus.

Buyer beware, follow the money, and stay tuned.

*

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.

After obtaining an MSc in molecular biology from the Faculty of Medicine at the University of Calgary, Rosemary Frei became a freelance writer. For the next 22 years she was a medical writer and journalist. She pivoted again in early 2016 to full-time, independent activism and investigative journalism. Her website is RosemaryFrei.ca.

Featured image is from OffGuardian

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).

***

The new leadership of the United States is attempting to position itself as the strongman in the Middle East. Or at least make it appear so.

Following the Biden Administration’s first strike on pro-Iranian groups on or near the Syrian-Iraq border, it showed that it can bite. What was left is to show that nothing can hurt it. In recent months, its bases have been under rocket fire. Its convoys have been targeted by IED attacks numerous times. None of these, however, resulted in any significant injuries or deaths.

As such, Washington needs to look further back and one thing stands out – it happened more than a year ago.

The time has come to correct the blemish that is the Iranian ballistic missile strike on the Ain al-Asad base in Iraq in 2020, which happened in response to the US assassination of Iranian Brigadier General Qassem Soleimani.

The strike took place on January 8th, and initially official reports said that it had caused close to no damage. Then it turned out that helicopters had been almost entirely destroyed, and that buildings had been razed. Finally, in the following weeks and months, dozens of soldiers turned out to have had “traumatic brain injuries”.

What really happened? US TV channel CBS made a special documentary on the strikes and released it on March 1st, 2021. The recollection is based on the Pentagon’s version of events and the timeline that the US Defense officials have provided.

On January 8th, hours before the strike all the soldiers knew it was coming and hid to safety. The flights of the Iranian missiles were all tracked by US Central Command. More than 50 aviation units and 1,000 people were evacuated. 16 missiles were launched from 3 different locations, five of which missed. A video was released, taken by an UAV, showing that the base “didn’t receive any significant damage”. All the grainy footage showed was finding an excuse and attempting to change the facts one year later.

The United States is attempting to present it in a way that shows its one strike along the Syrian-Iraqi border as a significant one, while downplaying the most notable strike on its own positions in the last year.

The Biden administration wants to present itself as the strong man, and promises to send more troops to the region. Trump’s troop withdrawal and limited military involvement approaches have been abandoned.

In reality, its convoys are under constant fire in Iraq and its positions are regularly targeted. And they are targeted in such a precise manner, that no human life is taken, except a few exceptions.

Who, exactly is Biden trying to impress?

*

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


150115 Long War Cover hi-res finalv2 copy3.jpg

The Globalization of War: America’s “Long War” against Humanity

Michel Chossudovsky

The “globalization of war” is a hegemonic project. Major military and covert intelligence operations are being undertaken simultaneously in the Middle East, Eastern Europe, sub-Saharan Africa, Central Asia and the Far East. The U.S. military agenda combines both major theater operations as well as covert actions geared towards destabilizing sovereign states.

ISBN Number: 978-0-9737147-6-0
Year: 2015
Pages: 240 Pages

List Price: $22.95

Special Price: $15.00

Click here to order.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Video: Biden’s Quest to Middle East Domination? “Promises to Send More Troops to the Region”

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).

***

The office of Republican Senator Tom Cotton published a comprehensive containment strategy against China last month that cunningly proposes a series of complementary coalitions aimed towards this end, including in the technological and institutional spheres, which essentially amounts to the creation of a modern-day Iron Curtain if successfully implemented.

Biden’s “Deep State” Balancing Act

President Biden’s strategy towards China increasingly appears to be predicated on expanding his predecessor’s containment policy, albeit in a more multilateral fashion than former President Trump’s mostly unilateral one. This is evidenced by his keynote speech at the State Department last month which led to my conclusion that “Alliances, Democracy, And Values Will Disguise American Aggression”. This was entirely foreseeable too since I earlier predicted that “An ‘Alliance Of Democracies’ Might Be America’s Next Grand Strategic Move”. The behind-the-scenes decision-making basis for this is that Biden must “balance” between competing “deep state” factions in his country’s permanent military, intelligence, and diplomatic bureaucracies that are split between those who embrace Trump’s “America First” international outlook and the liberal-globalists who are more closely connected to former President Obama. I elaborated on the dynamic between them and their possible compromise with respect to more cleverly “containing” China in exchange for cautiously re-engaging with Iran in my related analysis late last year about “Deep State Wars: Trump vs. Biden on China & Iran”.

“Targeted Decoupling And The Long Economic War”

Republican Senator Tom Cotton, a notorious anti-China hawk, published a comprehensive containment strategy against China last month that was written by members of his office. It cunningly proposes a series of complementary coalitions aimed towards this end, including in the technological and institutional spheres, which essentially amounts to the creation of a modern-day Iron Curtain if successfully implemented. This might possibly happen considering that it largely aligns with the Biden Administration’s multilateral plans in this respect. The 84-page document is titled “Beat China: Targeted Decoupling And The Long Economic War”, and a summary of it can be read at Breitbart here. To be sure, it’s not all bad, since many of his proposals about diversifying the US’ economic partners and reshoring its businesses are sound in principle, as are his suggestions for stockpiling rare earth minerals, semiconductor chips, and other materials of national security importance. So too are his ideas about modernizing regulations and the tax code, investing more in research and development, and improving the federal government’s efficiency. They all make logical sense.

Cotton’s Anti-Chinese Containment Coalition

The problem, however, is that he also basically wants to wage a global Hybrid War on China. His rationale is that this is the only possible recourse for America after its prior policy of attempting to influence domestic political changes there through decades of economic engagement failed to achieve any tangible dividends. In his own words, “this generational effort at engagement was an experiment to see whether greater economic integration would generate political change in China”, which he rightly argues has been unsuccessful. Instead of abandoning that consistently failed policy of meddling in China’s internal affairs, he wants to double down on it but in a craftier way through the establishment of semiconductor, 5G, and data-sharing blocs as crucial pillars of the larger “American-led, China-excluded trading order with trusted nations in the Indo-Pacific” that he proposes. In parallel with that, he advises that “The United States should launch a similar effort with respect to the United Kingdom and the European Union, America’s top export market.” The grand strategic outcome is therefore the creation of a massive anti-Chinese containment coalition along the Eurasian Rimland.

Color Revolution Catalysts

This isn’t just for prestige’s sake, but is predicated on his expectation that “Chinese citizens willing to accept an increasingly heavy-handed authoritarian state in exchange for a higher standard of living may think twice if growth slows or stagnates. As a result, the CCP fears that declines in exports, growth, and employment could pose political liabilities.” In other words, the interconnected semiconductor, 5G, and data-sharing blocs that he wants to create within his envisioned anti-Chinese Eurasian Rimland containment coalition are supposed to eventually harm China’s economic growth when paired with a more aggression sanctions and tariff policy, which he hopes will in turn create fertile ground for a series of Color Revolutions there that could ultimately make the infamous Tiananmen Square Color Revolution attempt look like child’s play in hindsight. The proposed containment coalition would also prospectively expand worldwide all across the Global South according to his vision of the US “leveraging development finance and foreign aid”. Ironically, this is exactly what the US accuses China of doing against its own interests, so it’s curious that Cotton is embracing this same strategy.

Economic Warfare

According to him, “Mobilizing these powerful institutions can support a U.S. strategy for targeted decoupling by incentivizing foreign countries to resist Chinese entreaties, such as participation in the Belt and Road Initiative, and supporting American companies in strategic sectors.” These efforts will be made all the more effective if US spy agencies follow his advice to expand operations against the People’s Republic. His report importantly suggests that “the U.S. Intelligence Community (IC) should expand its collection efforts relating to China’s economy, including IP theft, the corporate and capital structures of Chinese firms, the shareholders of China’s strategic companies, and technological developments within Chinese companies.” Although he claims that this proposal is being made defensively in order to identify possible targets to sanction in response to alleged intellectual property theft, the insight obtained through these operations could very easily be abused for offensive purposes to undercut China’s economic competitiveness and meddle in its many Belt & Road Initiative (BRI) partnerships.

Institutional Intrigue

The aggressive activities of this global anti-Chinese containment coalition are intended to be upheld by the international institutions that Cotton says that the US should either reclaim or replace if the former isn’t possible. According to his proposal, “America must fight to reverse China’s gains in these institutions and build new, separate organizations of willing and like-minded partners when these organizations cannot be reclaimed. With these organizations out of Beijing’s hands, the United States can ensure that international rules and standards are written to support emerging technologies where America is naturally suited to prevail.” Once again, this is the exact same form of Hybrid Warfare that the US accuses China of waging, making one wonder whether it was ever really guilty as charged or if the US invented those accusations in order to justify itself doing the same thing later. Altogether, Cotton’s grand strategy is one where the US leads a Eurasian Rimland coalition that brings together several China-excluding technology blocs, expands through the strategic leveraging of development finance and foreign aid, and is “legitimized” through reclaimed or replaced international institutions.

Concluding Thoughts

Skeptics might immediately dismiss Cotton’s global anti-Chinese containment proposal as politically unrealistic to implement under Biden’s Democrat presidency, but such a stance ignores the fact that the incumbent president convincingly intends to build upon his predecessor’s policy in this respect, albeit in a much more multilateral manner.

This insight very strongly suggests that Cotton’s proposal might actually be well received by the Biden Administration since its multilateral vision of a series of complementary coalitions closely aligns with the ruling party’s stated policy of relying more on international alliances to advance American interests abroad. For this reason, it would be a major mistake for observers to dismiss Cotton’s suggestions out of hand since there’s a real chance that at least some of them might be implemented by the US across the next four years. Everything is already moving in that direction without any credible evidence that this trajectory will seriously change in the future. With this in mind, China would do well to consider the most effective strategies for responding to this scenario, ideally in a multilateral manner after closely consulting with its partners.

*

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 27 languages by activating the “Translate Website” drop down menu on the top banner of our home page (Desktop version).

***

Covid related restrictions put in place since early 2020 caused infinitely more harm than any combination of major diseases.

What never should have been instituted by US, Western and other governments should end straightaway.

Lockdowns, quarantines, scam PCR tests, face masks that don’t protect and risk harm, socially destructive social distancing, and mass-jabbing with unapproved, experimental, hazardous drugs were ordered based on Big Lies and mass deception.

Texas and Mississippi took steps in the right direction — short of restoring normal life entirely.

On Tuesday, Texas Governor Gregg said the following:

“It is now time to open Texas 100%.”

Restrictions never should have been imposed in the first place.

Abbott: “(P)eople and businesses don’t need the state telling them how to operate” any longer.

Nor did they since seasonal flu was renamed covid as part of a state-sponsored mass deception campaign to get millions of Americans and others abroad to self-inflict harm on themselves.

Abbott said he’s rescinding “most of (his) earlier (covid related) executive orders.”

Starting March 10, “all businesses of any type are allowed to open 100%.”

His spokesperson confirmed that his action applies to all public activities, including sporting events, other forms of entertainment, dining, work places, and retail store shopping.

Mask-wearing in public is no longer required.

Abbott stopped short of exposing and ordering an end to hazardous to health mass-jabbing that doesn’t protect and risks irreversible harm or death when used as directed.

His order left it optional for businesses to stick with the mask-wearing mandate for employees and/or customers.

It lets them decide whether to operate at full or limited capacity.

After his announcement, the H-E-B grocery chain said customers no longer are required to wear face masks in its stores.

Under Abbott’s order, if hospitalizations from seasonal flu — now called covid — rise above 15% of capacity of facilities in any of the state’s 22 hospital regions for seven straight days, covid “mitigation strategies” may be judicially ordered in affected counties.

At the same time, his order prohibits jail time or other penalties for violators.

State universities are reviewing the new order before deciding whether to end restrictions.

North Texas University said in-person commencement this year will require masks and social distancing.

Rice University indicated no plan to end mask-wearing on campus.

Texas public schools may continue virtual learning over classroom instruction.

The latter is second class eduction that prevents students from interacting with each other and teachers — an important part of what education and learning are all about.

Abbott’s order calls for schools to follow “guidance issued by the Texas Education Agency.”

On Tuesday, the TEA said it’ll update its guidance this week.

Critics of Abbott’s order unjustifiably called it “extraordinarily dangerous…a death warrant for Texans…killing the people of Texas,” and other unacceptable fear-mongering claims.

Separately on Tuesday, Mississippi Governor Tate Reeves announced the following:

Lifting the state’s mask wearing mandate in public, he said he’s  getting out of the business of telling people what they can and cannot do.

“The reason the government is no longer telling you that is because of the actions we’ve taken over the last 12 months has gotten us to a point where our total hospitalizations today the second day of March 2021 is about where we were in late May” last year, he said, adding:

“This new order removes all of our county mask mandates and allows businesses to operate at full capacity without state-imposed rules or restrictions.”

“If businesses or individuals decide to take additional precautions, they are absolutely within their rights.”

According to State Health Officer Dr. Thomas Dobbs:

“Do stuff outdoors. Don’t group together indoors with a lot of folks.”

“There’s no way in heck I would go sit in a crowded bar right now indoors or out really. Please exercise caution right now.”

The order was effective on March 2 through at least end of month.

K-12 school still requires masks where social distancing isn’t possible.

K-12 extracurricular activities outdoors is limited to 50% of capacity and 25% of seating indoors.

Capacity for indoor bowl and arena seating was increased to 50%.

The above orders in Texas and Mississippi are steps in the right direction.

Other states loosening restrictions this week include Arkansas, Massachusetts, North Carolina and Virginia.

It’s good news but short of entirely normalizing activities as existed before seasonal flu was renamed covid last year.

Nor did new orders halt harmful to health mass-jabbing with experimental, hazardous drugs.

As expected, CDC director Rochelle Walensky said the following at a mass deception White House briefing:

“I am really worried about reports that more states are rolling back the exact public health measures we have recommended to protect people from” covid (sic).”

“At this level of cases with variants spreading, we stand to completely lose the hard earned ground we have gained (sic).”

The pro-Pharma, pro-mass-jabbing NYT and other establishment media expressed concern about loosened restrictions.

Washington Post editors said the following:

Texas Governor Abbott “is gambling with the health of his state and beyond (sic).”

His “decision is premature and reckless (sic).”

“(T)he result of opening too soon will be viral spread, and more suffering (sic).”

The above and similar fear-mongering is responsible for getting most Americans to falsely feel endangered by a killer virus.

The same one shows up annually in similar and/or new strains during flu season that lasts from around October to May.

Until 2020, it’s been unaccompanied by everything instituted over the past year, along with mass deception to manipulate people to feel endangered when there’s nothing to fear but fear itself.

According to Pharma-connected Anthony Fauci, it’s OK for small groups to gather as long as people together were inoculated for covid — instead of warning against the hazards of using unapproved, experimental drugs.

Since unacceptable federal, state, and local policies were instituted last year, unprecedented harm affected public health and welfare of most people.

As long as mass-jabbing for covid and other unacceptable policies remain in place, enormous harm will continue increasing exponentially.

*

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.

Stephen Lendman is a Research Associate of the Centre for Research on Globalization (CRG).

VISIT MY WEBSITE: stephenlendman.org (Home – Stephen Lendman). Contact at [email protected].

My two Wall Street books are timely reading:

“How Wall Street Fleeces America: Privatized Banking, Government Collusion, and Class War”

https://www.claritypress.com/product/how-wall-street-fleeces-america/

“Banker Occupation: Waging Financial War on Humanity”

https://www.claritypress.com/product/banker-occupation-waging-financial-war-on-humanity/

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).

***

Just over two months into the new year, 2021 has already seen a flurry of public banking activity. Sixteen new bills to form publicly-owned banks or facilitate their formation were introduced in eight U.S. states in January and February. Two bills for a state-owned bank were introduced in New Mexico, two in Massachusetts, two in New York, one each in Oregon and Hawaii, and Washington State’s Public Bank Bill was re-introduced as a “Substitution.” Bills for city-owned banks were introduced in Philadelphia and San Francisco, and bills facilitating the formation of public banks or for a feasibility study were introduced in New York, Oregon (three bills), and Hawaii. 

In addition, California is expected to introduce a bill for a state-owned bank later this year, and New Jersey is moving forward with a strong commitment from its governor to implement one. At the federal level, three bills for public banking were also introduced last year: the National Infrastructure Bank Bill (HR 6422), a new Postal Banking Act (S 4614), and the Public Banking Act (HR 8721). (For details on all these bills, see the Public Banking Institute website here.)

As Oscar Abello wrote on NextCity.org in February, “2021 could be public banking’s watershed moment.… Legislators are starting to see public banks as a powerful potential tool to ensure a recovery that is more equitable than the last time.”

Why the Surge in Interest?

The devastation caused by nationwide Covid-19 lockdowns in 2020 has highlighted the inadequacies of the current financial system in serving the public, local businesses, and local governments. Nearly 10 million jobs were lost to the lockdowns, over 100,000 businesses closed permanently, and a quarter of the population remains unbanked or underbanked. Over 18 million people are receiving unemployment benefits, and moratoria on rent and home foreclosures are due to expire this spring.

Where was the Federal Reserve in all this? It poured out trillions of dollars in relief, but the funds did not trickle down to the real economy. They flooded up, dramatically increasing the wealth gap. By October 2020, the top 1% of the U.S. population held 30.4% of all household wealth, 15 times that of the bottom 50%, which held just 1.9% of all wealth.

State and local governments are also in dire straits due to the crisis. Their costs have shot up and their tax bases have shrunk. But the Fed’s “special purpose vehicles” were no help. The Municipal Liquidity Facility, ostensibly intended to relieve municipal debt burdens, lent at market interest rates plus a penalty, making borrowing at the facility so expensive that it went nearly unused; and it was discontinued in December.

The Fed’s emergency lending facilities were also of little help to local businesses. In a January 2021 Wall Street Journal article titled “Corporate Debt ‘Relief’ Is an Economic Dud,” Sheila Bair, former chair of the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, and Lawrence Goodman, president of the Center for Financial Stability, observed:

The creation of the corporate facilities last March marked the first time in history that the Fed would buy corporate debt… The purpose of the corporate facilities was to help companies access debt markets during the pandemic, making it possible to sustain operations and keep employees on payroll. Instead, the facilities resulted in a huge and unnecessary bailout of corporate debt issuers, underwriters and bondholders….This created a further unfair opportunity for large corporations to get even bigger by purchasing competitors with government-subsidized credit.

….This presents a double whammy for the young companies that have been hit hardest by the pandemic. They are the primary source of job creation and innovation, and squeezing them deprives our economy of the dynamism and creativity it needs to thrive.

In a September 2020 study for ACRE called “Cancel Wall Street,” Saqib Bhatti and Brittany Alston showed that U.S. state and local governments collectively pay $160 billion annually just in interest in the bond market, which is controlled by big private banks. For comparative purposes, $160 billion would be enough to help 13 million families avoid eviction by covering their annual rent; and $134 billion could make up the revenue shortfall suffered by every city and town in the U.S. due to the pandemic.

Half the cost of infrastructure generally consists of financing, doubling its cost to municipal governments. Local governments are extremely good credit risks; yet private, bank-affiliated rating agencies give them a lower credit score (raising their rates) than private corporations, which are 63 times more likely to default. States are not allowed to go bankrupt, and that is also true for cities in about half the states. State and local governments have a tax base to pay their debts and are not going anywhere, unlike bankrupt corporations, which simply disappear and leave their creditors holding the bag.

How Publicly-owned Banks Can Help 

Banks do not have the funding problems of local governments. In March 2020, the Federal Reserve reduced the interest rate at its discount window, encouraging all banks in good standing to borrow there at 0.25%. No stigma or strings were attached to this virtually free liquidity – no need to retain employees or to cut dividends, bonuses, or the interest rates charged to borrowers. Wall Street banks can borrow at a mere one-quarter of one percent while continuing to charge customers 15% or more on their credit cards.

Local governments extend credit to their communities through loan funds, but these “revolving funds” can lend only the capital they have. Depository banks, on the other hand, can leverage their capital, generating up to ten times their capital base in loans. For a local government with its own depository bank, that would mean up to ten times the credit to inject into the local economy, and ten times the profit to be funneled back into community needs. A public depository bank could also borrow at 0.25% from the Fed’s discount window.

North Dakota Leads the Way

What a state can achieve by forming its own bank has been demonstrated in North Dakota. There  the nation’s only state-owned bank was formed in 1919 when North Dakota farmers were losing their farms to big out-of-state banks. Unlike the Wall Street megabanks mandated to make as much money as possible for their shareholders, the Bank of North Dakota (BND) is mandated to serve the public interest. Yet it has had a stellar return on investment, outperforming even J.P. Morgan Chase and Goldman Sachs. In its 2019 Annual Report, the BND reported its sixteenth consecutive year of record profits, with $169 million in income, just over $7 billion in assets, and a hefty return on investment of 18.6%.

The BND maximizes its profits and its ability to serve the community by eliminating profiteering middlemen. It has no private shareholders bent on short-term profits, no high-paid executives, no need to advertise for depositors or borrowers, and no need for multiple branches. It has a massive built-in deposit base, since the state’s revenues must be deposited in the BND by law. It does not compete with North Dakota’s local banks in the retail market but instead partners with them. The local bank services and retains the customer, while the BND helps as needed with capital and liquidity. Largely due to this amicable relationship, North Dakota has nearly six times as many local financial institutions per person as the country overall.

The BND has performed particularly well in economic crises. It helped pay the state’s teachers during the Great Depression, and sold foreclosed farmland back to farmers in the 1940s. It has also helped the state recover from a litany of natural disasters.

Its emergency capabilities were demonstrated in 1997, when record flooding and fires devastated Grand Forks, North Dakota. The town and its sister city, East Grand Forks on the Minnesota side of the Red River, lay in ruins. The response of the BND was immediate and comprehensive, demonstrating a financial flexibility and public generosity that no privately-owned bank could match. The BND quickly established nearly $70 million in credit lines and launched a disaster relief loan program; worked closely with federal agencies to gain forbearance on federally-backed home loans and student loans; and reduced interest rates on existing family farm and farm operating programs. The BND obtained funds at reduced rates from the Federal Home Loan Bank and passed the savings on to flood-affected borrowers. Grand Forks was quickly rebuilt and restored, losing only 3% of its population by 2000, compared to 17% in East Grand Forks on the other side of the river.

In the 2020 crisis, North Dakota shone again, leading the nation in getting funds into the hands of workers and small businesses. Unemployment benefits were distributed in North Dakota faster than in any other state, and small businesses secured more Payroll Protection Program funds per worker than in any other state. Jeff Stein, writing in May 2020 in The Washington Post, asked:

What’s their secret? Much credit goes to the century-old Bank of North Dakota, which — even before the PPP officially rolled out — coordinated and educated local bankers in weekly conference calls and flurries of calls and emails.

According Eric Hardmeyer, BND’s president and chief executive, BND connected the state’s small bankers with politicians and U.S. Small Business Administration officials and even bought some of their PPP loans to help spread out the cost and risk….

BND has already rolled out two local successor programs to the PPP, intended to help businesses restart and rebuild. It has also offered deferments on its $1.1 billion portfolio of student loans.

Public Banks Excel Globally in Crises

Publicly-owned banks around the world have responded quickly and efficiently to crises. As of mid-2020, public banks worldwide held nearly $49 trillion in combined assets; and including other public financial institutions, the figure reached nearly $82 trillion. In a 2020 compendium of cases studies titled Public Banks and Covid 19: Combatting the Pandemic with Public Finance, the editors write:

Five overarching and promising lessons stand out: public banks have the potential to respond rapidly; to fulfill their public purpose mandates; to act boldly; to mobilize their existing institutional capacity; and to build on ‘public-public’ solidarity. In short, public banks are helping us navigate the tidal wave of Covid-19 at the same time as private lenders are turning away….

Public banks have crafted unprecedented responses to allow micro-, small- and medium-sized enterprises (MSMEs), large businesses, public entities, governing authorities and households time to breathe, time to adjust and time to overcome the worst of the crisis. Typically, this meant offering liquidity with generously reduced rates of interest, preferential repayment terms and eased conditions of repayment. For the most vulnerable in society, public banks offered non-repayable grants.

The editors conclude that public banks offer a path toward democratization (giving society a meaningful say in how financial resources are used) and definancialization (moving away from speculative predatory investment practices toward financing that grows the real economy). For local governments, public banks offer a path to escape monopoly control by giant private financial institutions over public policies.

*

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 first posted on ScheerPost

Ellen Brown is an attorney, chair of the Public Banking Institute, and author of thirteen books including Web of DebtThe Public Bank Solution, and Banking on the People: Democratizing Money in the Digital Age.  She also co-hosts a radio program on PRN.FM called “It’s Our Money.” Her 300+ blog articles are posted at EllenBrown.com

She is a frequent contributor to Global Research.

Featured image is CC BY 3.0

Read ‘Hamlet’ in Nepali; Enjoy Nepali Poetry in English

March 6th, 2021 by Barbara Nimri Aziz

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).

***

Before trekking through open Himalayan valleys, tourists might stroll along Thamel, Kathmandu’s congested quarter of hiker hostels, bakeries and cafes. They’d pass a landscape studded with bookstores, and perhaps pause to flip through glossy picture books and Tibet-wisdom manuals, lingering to inspect storybooks or development reports stacked on higher shelves. On exiting, they’ll pass a rack of 3 or 4 English language dailies.

Only visitors really curious about the how the nation’s citizens think and feel might search out a volume of poetry or a novel by a local writer. If so, they’ll find a surprising number of Nepalis choosing to pen their experiences, their struggles and their dreams in English. 

Nepali prose and poetry in English is of course far less than exists in Nepali language which on its part has grown enormously in recent years. But there’s a correlation between literature in the two languages going back to Nepal’s most widely read and revered poet, Laxmi Prasad Devkota (1909-1959). Although Devkota did not live beyond 50, he penned no fewer than 24 volumes of essays and poetry, including epic poems. His work is recited and discussed by Nepalis young and old today.

Devkota was highly proficient in English as well as learned in Sanskrit and Nepali. Kumari Lama, Assistant Professor of English, Tribhuvan University and a literary critic, speaks fondly of her country’s supreme literary figure: “He was my introduction to English literature; I decided to pursue this field of study as a result of that exposure.”Besides translating other Nepali authors and rendering Shakespeare’s ‘Hamlet’ into Nepali, Devkota composed in English, e.g., ‘Bapu and other sonnets’ in tribute to Mahatma Gandhi.

Devkota was writing and translating seventy-five years ago. Nepal was barely connected to the English-speaking world then, and English was exclusive to privately tutored children of royalty and high officials.

Lecturer, translator and poet Mahesh Paudyal also attributes to Devkota his introduction to English literature. “I read his English essays and poems in my first university course in non-Nepali literature.”

Today we find a new generation of Nepali writers among the ranks of international authors of modern English literature. Kumari Lama highlights Manjushree Thapa and Samrat Upadhyay for pushing the boundaries of Nepali creativity into English. With stories set within Nepal and in the diaspora, these authors attract an enthusiastic Nepali following while also winning a solid western readership. They are joined by Peter Karthak, Shushma Joshi, Sangeeta Rajamajhi, Abhi Subedi, Niranjan Kumar, and Narayan Wangle whose Palpasa Café is translated into no less than 12 languages. Now established in the international literary community their writings offer a compassionate, personalized experience of Nepal which is simply absent in ethnographies, touristic journals and development studies of the country.

Perhaps from Devkota’s inspiration, we find Nepali-language literature and English literature by Nepalis still interconnected. Thapa, Nepal’s most widely published author in English, is also engaged in translations from Nepali to English, e.g. This Country is Yours, a collection of 49 authors.

Online literary platforms feature Nepalis composing in English alongside translations of stories, poems and essays penned in Nepali. Publiknama is one; another is TheGorkhaTimes, recently launched by Paudyal and colleagues. Executive editor Himanshu Kunwar notes that readers access TGT from more than 100 nations.

La.lit literary magazine is a handsome production by Nepalis in the U.K. which features creative writing (including translations) by Nepalis across the world.

Nepal itself hosts venues like Himalayan Readers Corner in Pokhara and Martin Chautari in Kathmandu. The Open Institute directed by writer Muna Gurung and Aahwaan with a focus on women also sponsor literary discussions and workshops in both languages.

Considering the strong Indian presence in Nepal through film and other media, one might have expected India’s celebrated English-language authors to have impacted Nepal in this field. While this may have been so earlier, Ms. Lama and Mr. Paudyal minimize Indian influence today.

Kumari Lama points to domestic political factors behind the groundswell in literature within Nepal. “First, when democracy took hold in 2008, we had an expanded opportunity for free and open dialogue. Second, Nepal’s many indigenous minorities eagerly began writing about their aspirations and history which were earlier suppressed or altogether banned.” Paudyal agrees the nationalist movement that ushered in free speech was a great impetus to creative writing.

Global factors and the internet are impacting Nepal too. “We communicate with sister Asian cultures through English; it’s our common medium with Bangladesh, China, Korea, Japan, and Malaysia. That includes literature,” explains Lama.

As a professor of literature, Lama sees fewer students enrolled in university English Literature programs, whereas more Nepalis seek to master English for economic reasons. Whether they work inside Nepal or have ambitions to study overseas, being able to converse in English is essential.

And if the millions of jobless in search of work in the Arab states or Malaysia know no English when they set out, many return to Nepal with a conversational knowledge of the language.

To appreciate just how embedded and promising English literature in Nepal is today, we can consult Manjushree Thapa’s A Translation Manual: To Bring English Literature to Nepali Readers published in 2002 and Paudyal’s 2017 survey Nepali Literature in English. Finally, Kumari Lama’s 2017 review What they are writing in English offers an excellent comparative critique of authors (and others) discussed above.

Or on your next Himalayan trip, add a Nepali novel to your souvenirs.

*

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.

BN Aziz whose anthropological research has focused on the peoples of the Himalayas is the author of the newly published “Yogmaya and Durga Devi: Rebel Women of Nepal”, available on Amazon

All images in this article are from the author

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Read ‘Hamlet’ in Nepali; Enjoy Nepali Poetry in English

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).

***

March 2, 2021 was the five year anniversary of the murder of Berta Cáceres, who opposed the Agua Zarca dam in Honduras.  That date was less than one month after the deaths of dozens of people from Tehri Dam disaster in Uttarakhand, India.  The two stories together tell us far more about consequences of the insatiable greed of capitalism for more energy than either narrative does by itself.

In addition to being sacred to the indigenous Lenca people of Honduras, the Gualcarque River is a primary source of water for them to grow their food and harvest medicinal plants.  Dams can flood fertile plains and deprive communities of water for livestock and crops.  The Lenca knew what could happen if the company Desarrollos Energéticos SA (DESA) were to build the Agua Zarca hydroelectric dam on the Gualcarque.  As Nina Lakhani describes in Who Killed Berta Cáceres?, the La Aurora Dam, which started generating electricity in 2012 “left four miles of the El Zapotal River bone dry and the surrounding forest bare.”

In 2015, Cáceres won the Goldman Environmental Prize for organizing opposition to the Agua Zarca.  She had been a co-founder of the Council of Popular and Indigenous Organizations of Honduras (COPINH).  The following year, thousands of Lenca marched to the capital Tegucigalpa demanding schools, clinics, roads and protection of ancestral lands.  Indigenous groups uniting with them included Maya, Chorti, Misquitu, Tolupan, Tawahka and Pech.  Lakhani describes that “From the north coast came the colorfully dressed, drumming Garifunas: Afro-Hondurans who descend from West and Central African, Caribbean, European and Arawak people exiled to Central America by the British after a slave revolt in the late eighteenth century.”

A Garifuna leader, Miriam Miranda remembered that Berta stopped to sketch anti-imperialist murals on the US airbase in Palmerola.  As Berta and Miranda became close during the more than two decades of joint work Berta began to identify with the Garifuna.  She loved going with Miranda to the town of Vallecito to join Garifuna rituals with drums, smoke and dancing while enjoying herb-infused liquor.

She knew that the Garifuna suffered landgrabs parallel to rivergrabs the Lencas experienced.  Lakhani relates how the government ignored the ancestral land claims of the Garifuna as it gave land to “settlers” who sold them to palm oil magnates.  In less than a decade lands held by Garifuna communities plummeted from 200,000 to 400 hectares.

Similarly, in the Bajo Aguán region the government allowed construction of a resort on ancient Garifuna burial sites and ancestral lands. The community was not consulted prior to the landgrab and 150 people died resisting it.

Manufacturing impressions

The dam-building elite had a thorn in its side that threatened the megaprojects.  Due in no small part to 1995 efforts of Berta’s mother Doña Austra, Honduras had signed onto the Indigenous and Tribal Peoples Convention of the International Labor Organization (known as ILO 169).  It guarantees the right of indigenous communities to have “free, prior and informed consultations” for any development affecting their land, culture or way of life.

The first tactic of the elite for getting around this obstacle was to promise enormous benefits such as building roads and schools.  Or else, they claimed that the project would bring electricity for homes, a health clinic, an ambulance, and a flood of jobs.  By the time the project was completed, few or no benefits had materialized.  Who Killed Berta Cáceres? documents what happened in communities that did not fall for empty promises.  For the Honduran Los Encimos dam, the power brokers bused in hundreds of people from neighboring El Salvador to sign a decree favoring the project.  Following an October 2011 town hall meeting when residents voted 401 to 7 against the Agua Zarca dam, the mayor curried favor of the elite by issuing a permit for it two months later.

Representatives of the company owning the future dam, DESA, repeated the absurd claim that they only bought land from willing sellers.  Dam proponents then denounced Berta’s COPINH organization as causing the division.  In other words, the developers were skilled at shouting that project opponents were doing what they, the dam pushers, were in fact doing.  Outside observers would then have difficulty distinguishing fact from fiction.  If these impression management tricks failed to overcome Earth defenders, the method of threats and violence remained.

Threats and hit lists

Berta was rare as she “could understand and analyze local struggles in a global context and had the capacity to unite different movements, urban and rural, teachers and campesinos, indigenous groups and mestizos.”  More than any other reason, this meant that Berta would be targeted by the cabal of business owners, government heads, military brass and foreign investors.

Berta had told Lakhani that “Seventy million people were killed across the continent for our natural resources.”  When a researcher for the Goldman prize committee visited Berta in Tegucigalpa, she asked him what would happen if she died before receiving the prize money, a question no recipient had asked before.  She had been warned not to stay in the same hotel two nights in a row.

Nina Lakhani documents how widespread and intensely grisley the murders in Honduras were.  “Olvin Gustavo García Mejía was widely feared by COPINH.”  He boasted of having a personal hit list with Berta’s name on it.  In March 2015, Olvin used his machete to chop off the fingers of a dam opponent.

Even more revealing were eyewitness reports to Lakhani from First Sergeant Rodrigo Cruz who saw a military hit list which included Berta.  Cruz had survived a specialist training so grueling that only 8 of 200 completed it. The graduation ceremony included killing a dog, eating the raw meat, and getting a hug from the commander.

On one mission Cruz reported being “ordered to shovel decomposing human remains into sacks which they took to an isolated forest reserve, doused them in diesel, petrol and rubbish and burned.”  At Corocito he saw “torture instruments, chains, hammers and nails, no people, but fresh clots of blood.”  During his Trujillo mission “naval colleagues handed over plastic bags containing human remains.  Later that night they tossed them into a river heaving with crocodiles.”  After seeing Berta’s name on a hit list belonging to his lieutenant, Cruz was sent on an extensive leave.  When he heard that Berta was dead, he fled from Honduras fearing that he himself would be murdered.

The Honduran elite discovered another weapon for its arsenal against environmental defenders: criminalization.  During a 2020 interview with InSight Crime, Lakhani reported a pattern suggestively similar to that practiced in the US and many other countries: “People are still being killed but really the main weapon being used currently is criminalization.  There’s so much fear involved, and it can really break up and silence a movement. All of your energy and resources go to trying to stay out of prison.”

2009 coup as a game changer

On January 27, 2006 Manuel Zelaya was inaugurated as president of Honduras as an advocate of modest reforms such as such as reforestation, small business assistance, reduction of fossil fuels and an end to open pit mining.  But even these baby steps were too much for the country’s increasingly corrupt elites, who had the military march him out of his home in pajamas and into exile on June 28, 2009.  As bad as the situation was before 2009, the coup intensified the violence.

Though Barack Obama acknowledged that the coup was a coup, his underling Hillary Clinton quickly altered the official rhetoric, claiming that it was not a coup.  She explained “in her 2014 memoir, Hard Choices, the US ensured that elections could take place before the ousted president, Manuel Zelaya, was restored to office.”  This helped the coup ensure that Zelaya and his tiny improvements would not show their face again.

The economic consequences of the coup were an avalanche of projects attacking the country’s land, water, air and indigenous cultures.  The congress rushed to approve them without studies or oversight required by Honduran law.  During the next eight years, almost 200 mining projects received a nod.  Lakhani records how, during one late night session in September 2010 congressional president Juan Orlando Hernández “sanctioned 40 hydroelectric dams without debate, consultation or adequate environmental impact studies.”  John Perry wrote in CounterPunch that “Cáceres received a leaked list of rivers, including the Gualcarque, that were to be secretly ‘sold off’ to produce hydroelectricity. The Honduran congress went on to approve dozens of such projects without any consultation with affected communities. Berta’s campaign to defend the rivers began on July 26, 2011 when she led the Lenca-based COPINH in a march on the presidential palace.”

Dubious partners of green energy

So-called “green” energy companies profited at least as much as other corporations from the great sell-off of Honduran treasures.  Lakhani’s research reveals that on June 2, 2010, the National Electric Company approved contracts for eight renewable energy corporations, including DESA, the owners of the Agua Zarca dam project.  Though it had no track record of constructing anything, it received permits, a sales contract, and congressional approval.  A 50-year license for the dam sailed through without any free, prior or informed consent from the Lenca people.  Lakhani also documents that January 16, 2014 was a particularly good day

“… for solar and wind entrepreneurs as congress approved 30 energy contracts for 21 companies in one quick sitting.  There was no bidding process… After the rivers were all sold, they started on wind and solar contracts…  Honduras boasts more than 200 tax exemption laws, which cost state coffers around $1.5 bn each year.  Renewable energy entrepreneurs have benefited enormously, saving a whopping $1.4 bn between 2012 and 2016.”

Even the World Bank had its finger in the pie, despite its requirement to give socially responsible loans.  It sought to cover up its role in Agua Zarca by channeling funds through intermediaries.

Lakhani also relates stories of (a) how six members of congress embezzled $879,000 using a fake environmental group, Planeta Verde (Green Planet); (b) connections between a criminal family and the solar company Proderssa; and, (c) the link between the solar plant in Choluteca and Douglas Bustillo, who was sentenced to 30 years for his role in the murder of Berta.

Jorge Cuéllar writes that, “DESA’s Agua Zarca hydroelectric project, like similar megaprojects, effectively reconfigures communities into sacrifice zones for insatiable energy needs.”  “Alternative” energy (Alt E) is just one more category of energy which is added to the mix with fossil fuels.  Increases in Alt E are not replacing fossil fuels, but are mainly being used to create feelings of do-goody.  In cases where there is a preference for Alt E, it is due to short term profit.  As Lakhani explains, “African palms were the most profitable crops because the oil was sold to North America and Europe for biofuel and could be traded in the carbon credit market.”

A farcical trial

On March 2, 2016 Berta Cáceres was brutally murdered in her hometown of La Esperanza in western Honduras.  The trial that followed was a transparent cover up.  As Vijay Prashad notes, none of the executives of DESA, the dam company responsible for the murder, were charged with the crime.  Lakhani reported in the InSight Crime interview that “The crime was never framed as political murder, as gender-based violence or a hate crime against indigenous people despite the vitriolic and racist language that was used in phone chats about the Lenca people. There was a decision to make sure that anybody political, and the military and police as institutions, would be completely left out.”

Adam Isacson hit the nail on the head in his blog when describing those found guilty as “… just trigger-pullers, mid-level planners, or scapegoats… They are employed by Honduras’s elite, but they aren’t of the elite. They’re on the make, and have found a rare path to social mobility in Honduras, beyond gang membership and drug trafficking.”

Lakhani’s own account reflects how bizarre and contrived the trial was.  She recalls that “My request to read the admitted documents was denied. ‘Yes, it’s a public trial, yes, the documents are public, no, you can’t read them,’ said the court archivist.”  She heard international observers being told “Don’t worry, people will be convicted” as if it was common knowledge that the outcome had been prescripted.   It was yet another exercise in impression management.

US role

Though there is no evidence that the US directly planned and executed the 2009 coup, its role has been to ensure that the coup remains intact.  As Isacson asks, “Why did 1 in every 37 citizens of Honduras end up detained at the US-Mexico border in 2019, after fleeing all the way across Mexico? Why did 30,000 more Hondurans petition for asylum in Mexico that same year?”  People are fleeing Honduras in such numbers in large part because the coup gang has shown that if it can get away with murdering someone as well known as Berta, it can murder anyone.

In the New York Journal of Books, Dan Beeton observes that “authors of the assassination have yet to be brought to justice. The US government could insist that this happen; it could pressure Honduran authorities to find and arrest them, but it has not…” In fact, Lakhani points out that the US is doing the opposite by persecuting those trying to escape from the violence: “… in 2010 US border patrol detained 13,580 Honduran nationals.  The numbers jumped to over 91,000 in 2014 under Deporter-in-Chief Barack Obama.”

Though the US insists that it does not train the executioners in the Honduran militarized police, it does not deny that it trains the trainers – many of torturers in Central America attended the notorious School of the Americas.  Even if the US were to withdraw its support from individual criminals in Honduras, they would be replaced by clones who would preserve the post-coup structure and power.  Control was successfully passed from a mildly reformist Zelaya government to a criminal extractionist network which permeates state and corporate institutions.  With aide and comfort from the US, the Honduran energy mob has reinvented itself.

Coming to Uttarakhand

The story of dams in India may seem highly different from events on the other side of the globe.  But lurking deep beneath surface appearances an eerie consistency links the two.  One similarity between the widely separated areas is that, as in Honduras, the Indian government has aggressively pursued a development strategy of mines, logging and hydro-power.  This often results in tribal people suffering the disruption of their farming systems and relocation.

On February 7, 2021 a deluge washed away two power plants of the Tehri Dam on the Bhagirathi River in the Garhwal region of Uttarakhand, India.  At least 32 people were found dead and more than 150 were missing.  The event barely made it to US media but has been extensively covered by the progressive Indian online publication Countercurrents.  With 34 people trapped, “Rescue workers armed with heavy construction equipment, drones and even sniffer dogs were struggling to penetrate the one-and-a-half-mile long tunnel that filled with ice-cold water, mud, rocks and debris.”

Tehri dam india.jpg

A pic of the Tehri dam taken from a moving bus… the Tehri dam on the Bhagirathi river is a man made wonder, and is the largest rock and earth fill dam in Asia. The reservoir of the dam drowned the District headquarters of Tehri, which have now been shifted to New Tehri (CC BY-SA 2.0)

Years before construction of the Tehri Dam began, there was controversy regarding if it should even be built.  Bharat Dogra, a regular contributor to Countercurrents, wrote that “the Environmental Appraisal Committee (River Valley Projects) of the Ministry of Environment and Forests, Government of India … has come to the unanimous conclusion that the Tehri Dam Project, as proposed, should not be taken up as it does not merit environmental clearance.”

The region has a history of dam disasters:

“At least 29 workers were killed in a serious accident at the Tehri dam site (in Uttarakhand) on August 2 2004… On 14 February 2010 six workers died and 16 were seriously injured in Kinnaur district (Himachal Pradesh) when stones and boulders destabilized by the blasting work carried out for dam construction… Over 154 workers were killed in a span of 12 years, as over one worker was killed every month during the construction of the Nagarjunasagar dam.”

Actually existing dangers in the Himalayas 

Several factors compound dangers of dams which are built in hazard-prone region of the Himalayas.  First is the observation by seismologist Prof. James N. Brune that “No large rock-fill dam of the Tehri type has ever been tested by the shaking that an earthquake in this area could produce… Given the number of persons who live downstream, the risk factor is also extreme.”  Second, the reservoirs created by the dams can themselves increase the likelihood of quakes, a phenomenon called reservoir induced seismicity.  Third is the huge tectonic plate below India called the “Indian Plate.”

As economist Bharat Jhunjhunwala explains, “The rotation of the earth is causing this plate to continually move northward just like any matter moves to the top in a centrifugal machine. The Indian Plate crashes into the Tibetan Plate as it moves to the north. The pressure between these two plates is leading to the continual rise of the Himalayas and also earthquakes in Uttarakhand in particular.”   The result is an earthquake in the region roughly every 10 years.

Which of these was the primary cause of the February 2021 dam disaster?  None of them.  According to public health specialist Dr. Anamika Roy, the most likely cause was “retreating glaciers which result in the formation of proglacial lakes, which are often bounded by their sediments and stones, and therefore any breach in the boundaries may lead to a large stream of water rushing down the streams and lakes resulting in a flood down streams.”  Dr. Roy thinks that climate change is a leading factor in the formation of proglacial lakes.

Professor of glaciology and hydrology Dr. Farooq Azam suggests that a hanging glacier falling from 5600 meters could have caused a rock and ice avalanche, leading to the dam accident.  Taken together, these factors indicate that the Himalayan region is a very bad place to build a dam.  We might even say that the reason for the Tehri dam disaster was that the dam was built.

Social problems of dam disasters 

Bharat Dogra details a host of problems for those constructing dams in very remote areas such as the Himalayas:

  • First, a large portion of those constructing dams are migrant workers who are less familiar with floods and other risks than are local residents;
  • Second, even if migrant workers begin to understand on-site risks, they have little or no ability to find other employment if companies order them to continue at their jobs;
  • Third, migrant workers typically live in temporary housing that offers little protection;
  • Fourth, not being near to family or friends, they have little ability to go to others with health problems, special needs, distress, or risk; and,
  • Fifth, it is easier for contractors to suppress information concerning accidents so that workers or surviving families may not receive compensatory payments.

Common to all of these issues is the fact that laboring in remote parts of the world leaves workers out of the pubic eye, meaning that they can easily be ignored or quickly forgotten after a tragedy.

A different type of tragedy results from the release of water from the dam reservoir.  The two types are (a) routine releases, which are typically scheduled to occur during peak demand for hydropower generation, and (b) emergency releases, which occur during heavy rain or other high water events.  Release disasters are typically due to emergency releases.  But, on April 11, 2005 thousands of pilgrims attending a religious fair at Dharaji in the Indian state of Madhya Pradesh were in the water when 150 were swept away by a huge water surge, causing the death of 65.  This was caused by a routine water release from the Indira Sagar dam on the Narmada River.  Bad judgment during routine operation of a dam can be as deadly as bad judgment regarding where to build a dam.

Dams in the time of exponential growth

It is an obscenity to call hydro-power “clean” when it is so closely tied to destruction of aquatic life, threats to land-dwelling flora and fauna, displacement of indigenous people and destruction of their culture, murder of Earth defenders, and exploitation of workers.  It is a double obscenity to claim that hydro-power is an “alternative” to fossil fuels when dams can produce more greenhouse gases than does coal.  Not only do their reservoirs produce methane by rotting organic matter, dams interfere with the ability of downstream ecosystems to remove carbon and they require massive amounts of fossil fuel for the manufacture of concrete and steel for their construction and removal of their debris when they reach the end of their life cycle.

Nor are dams “renewable.” They do not last nearly as long as the rivers they disrupt.  Concrete and steel eventually rot, which leads to construction of yet another dam.

A core problem of dams is their exponential growth during the 21st century as it becomes increasingly obvious that they can more rapidly replace fossil fuel energy than can solar and wind power.  The climate crisis is fundamentally due to the uncontrollable growth of capitalism, which requires exponential expansion of energy production.

Exponential expansion means that every year requires not just more energy but a larger quantity of new energy than the year before.  Eternal economic growth was the root cause behind the murder of Berta Cáceres and the hundreds or thousands of other Earth defenders in Honduras and across the globe.  The unquenchable thirst for energy is why India foreshadows a world building an increasing number of dams where dams should not be built.

To satisfy their need for energy, corporations first grab the low hanging fruit.  Energy fruit can be “low hanging” because it is in an extremely good location, and/or current land owners are eager for the development, and/or those living on the land can be easily swayed.  The nature of first picking that which is lowest hanging means that, once it is gone, the energy corporations will go to the next lowest hanging fruit.  As time goes by, capital will get closer and closer to the most difficult-to-pick fruit until the last drop of energy is sucked from the planet.  Obviously, having less corrupt politicians and an educated and organized people is much better.  But this will not stop them from being victimized – it will only place them later in line.

Is “free, prior and informed consent” real or an illusion?  As time passes, the commitment to infinite energy growth intensifies pressure to falsify consent.  What is presented to poor people throughout the world who do not have enough to feed and clothe their families is the question “Do you voluntarily choose to improve your life by giving consent to this project which will destroy the lives of your grandchildren or great-grandchildren after you are gone or do you chose to watch your children go without schools and medical care right now?  Thank you so much for your free and prior consent to this dam/wind farm/solar array.”

There are essential lessons to learn from the murder of environmentalists and dam collapses.  Capital must bring more violence to communities when using less violence for building dams is not as effective.  Capital must build in increasingly unsafe locations after the safest locations are used up.  If dams which threaten the fewest number of aquatic species are built first, then corporate expansion dictates that dams which threaten more riparian extinctions are next in line.  Capital must move into increasingly biodiverse environments after less biodiverse environments are no longer available.

This is true for the construction of dams just as it is true for fossil fuels.  It is also true for the location of solar arrays and the location of wind farms.  It is likewise the case for mining the massive number of minerals that go into the production of various type of energy.  This is why “alternative” energy cannot be “clean” or “renewable.”  Perhaps it is time to realize that there is only one form of “clean” energy – less energy.

A webinar at 7 pm CT on March 10, 2021 will honor the life of Berta Cáceres with a panel featuring Nina Lakhani, author of Who Killed Berta Cáceres?: Dams, Death Squads, and an Indigenous Defender’s Battle for the Planet.  Email the address of the author below for details.

*

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.

Don Fitz ([email protected]) is on the Editorial Board of Green Social Thought where a version of this article was first published.  He was the 2016 candidate of the Missouri Green Party for Governor.  His book on Cuban Health Care: The Ongoing Revolution has been available since June 2020.

Featured image is CC BY 3.0

Biden Continues US War on Venezuelan Social Democracy

March 6th, 2021 by Stephen Lendman

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).

***

Let’s not mince words.

Biden and hardliners around him are like their predecessors.

They’re hostile toward virtually everything just societies hold dear — notably democracy the way it should be.

The US and West have fantasy versions, the real thing virtually banned.

Established by Hugo Chavez in 1999, continued by Nicolas Maduro, Venezuelans have governance of, by, and for everyone equitably — social democracy.

US policymakers consider it a threat of a good example — why they’ve gone all out to replace it with fascist tyranny short of hot war that remains an ominous possibility.

Since establishment of Venezuelan social democracy, US regimes from the Clinton co-presidency to Obama/Biden, then Trump, and now Biden/Harris aim to return the country to client state status.

They seek control over its vast oil resources, the world’s largest.

In 2013, Obama/Biden killed Chavez. Poisoned or infected with cancer causing substances, four major surgeries in 18 months couldn’t save him.

At the time, William Blum explained that the CIA worked diligently to develop substances that could kill without leaving a trace.”

“I Personally believe that Hugo Chavez was murdered by the United States,” he said.

Coup plots against him and Maduro failed. Other dirty tricks worked no better, including intermittent, US orchestrated, street violence.

Virtually everything US regimes threw at Venezuela to eliminate its model social democracy failed.

Further attempts are virtually certain. The US is hellbent to transform all sovereign independent nations into subservient client states.

It’s likely just a matter of time before another attempted regime change plot surfaces.

At the same time, endless US war by other means continues.

In 2015, Obama/Biden declared Bolivarian social democracy an “unusual and extraordinary threat to the national security and foreign policy of the United States (sic).”

On Wednesday, Biden/Harris reaffirmed the above, saying the following:

“(C)ircumstances described in Executive Order 13692 (2015), and subsequent executive orders issued with respect to Venezuela, have not improved (sic), and they continue to pose an unusual and extraordinary threat to the national security and foreign policy of the United States (sic).”

“Therefore in accordance with section 202(d) of the National Emergencies Act (50 USC 1622(d), I am continuing for 1 year the national emergency declared in Executive Order 13692 (sic).”

Bolivarian Venezuela prioritizes peace, stability, and cooperative relations with other countries — threatening no one, surely not the USA, armed and dangerous with nuclear and other super-weapons.

Biden’s new executive order maintains a US state of war by other means on the Bolivarian Republic.

No US national emergency exists with Venezuela or any other countries. No US enemies exist.

So time and again they’re invented by US policymakers to justify what’s unjustifiable under international and US constitutional law.

On March 2, Tony Blinken’s spokesman Ned Price said the following:

His boss spoke with widely despised, usurper-in-waiting, self-declared Venezuelan president with no legitimacy Guaido.

“Blinken stressed the importance of a return to democracy in Venezuela through free and fair elections (sic).”

After Maduro’s PSUV party won an overwhelming legislative majority last December with over two-thirds public support — a landslide triumph — the EU withdrew support for Guaido as (self-declared) interim president (with no legitimacy).

Jimmy Carter called Venezuela’s electoral process “the best in the world” for good reason. Elections when held are scrupulously open, free and fair.

When Maduro was reelected in May 2018, over 150 members of the International Electoral Accompaniment Mission said the following:

“The technical and professional trustworthiness and independence of the National Electoral Council of Venezuela are uncontestable.”

The Council of Electoral Experts of Latin America, one of the observer groups, said “results communicated by the National Electoral Council reflect the will of the voters who decided to participate in the electoral process.”

Similar assessments follow all Bolivarian elections.

They shame US fantasy democracy — a totalitarian police state, masquerading as democratic.

According to Price, Blinken is “increas(ing) multilateral pressure… for a peaceful, democratic transition (sic).”

Longstanding US policy calls for eliminating Bolivarian social democracy, wanting Venezuela transformed into a vassal state under US-installed puppet rule.

The above is how the scourge of US imperialism operates worldwide.

All nations free from its control are targeted for regime change — wars by hot and/or other means its favored strategies.

Illegal sanctions are weapons of war by other means.

Blinken said they’ll remain in place to continue US maximum pressure on the country.

Venezuelan social democracy conflicts with US imperial aims to dominate planet earth, control its resources, and exploit its people everywhere.

As long as Bolivarianism exists, both right wings of the US war party won’t likely cease trying to eliminate 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.

Stephen Lendman is a Research Associate of the Centre for Research on Globalization (CRG).

VISIT MY WEBSITE: stephenlendman.org (Home – Stephen Lendman). Contact at [email protected].

My two Wall Street books are timely reading:

“How Wall Street Fleeces America: Privatized Banking, Government Collusion, and Class War”

https://www.claritypress.com/product/how-wall-street-fleeces-america/

“Banker Occupation: Waging Financial War on Humanity”

https://www.claritypress.com/product/banker-occupation-waging-financial-war-on-humanity/

Featured image: Protest against U.S. intervention on Venezuela, in front of the White House, Washington DC. (Credit)

If they’re going to take the next step on their plan to re-engineer both the financial system and global governance with it, you needed all sorts of actions in the economy that would be very difficult to justify politically through another financial crisis. So, rather than have a financial crisis they decided to have a health care crisis!”

– Catherine Austin Fitts from this week’s interview

LISTEN TO THE SHOW

Click to download the audio (MP3 format)

The Real Agenda

Throughout the world, we have seen nearly a year of devastating hardships facing broad sectors of the global population, people confined to their homes (if they have one), people compelled by law to going to any indoor location outside the home wearing a diaper over their faces, social distancing, businesses in large masses going under, and now facing denial of certain privileges if you don’t get the experimental vaccine shot.

Politicians, chief public health officers, and media have all normalized these practices as being what ‘science’ demands of our citizens. The alternative is utter devastation of people across the planet. And the people by and large have gone along with it.

Some scientists have observed that SARS-CoV-2 is not the massive killer everyone accuses it of being. The RT-PCR test was exposed eventually even the the World Health Organization of elevating numbers of false positives among case loads. ‘Experts’ have, suspiciously, equated dying with the SARS-COV-2 as equivalent to dying because of the SARS-COV-2 to the point where even if a person infected died in an automobile accident, he is placed on the COVID-19 list. Meanwhile, the tragic consequences to life and limb affected by the lockdowns are taking an even more dynamic toll on people everywhere. [1]

These facts and arguments are amply documented on past episodes of this program over the course of the last few months, and throughout Global Research, including the e-book by Professor Michel Chossudovsky.

So the rationality of the chief personnel instructing the public to abandon their rights in the name of protecting public health is ….well….missing!

Further, it is absolutely untrue that the mass of humanity is equally abandoning certain privileges to fight the virus as a single species. According to the BBC, the ‘Billionaire Club’ have seen their collective wealth soar by as much as 27% on average. And according to the BBC, the big pharmaceutical corporations have truly been cashing in on the new fascination with ever before tested experimental vaccine against an ailment that is not as harmful as they claim.

The question we are going to explore in this part of our investigation, is into the subject of why this immense spectacle was orchestrated. For this discussion we are very honored to have two individuals with us.

In our first half hour, we are joined by the Catherine Austin Fitts. She has a background as an investment banker, investment adviser and government official. For the duration of her interview, she explains that COVID is a cover for a major move by the G7 Central Banks to re-organize their financial systems under a plan called ‘Going Direct Reset.’ This would result in a major flush of economic wealth upwards, and bring in new technologies that would resemble a return to control of the mass population. This all masked by an effort to ‘protect public health.’

In our second half hour, we are introduced to a remarkable theory by psychologist and psychopathologist Dr. Mila Alečković-Bataille. She examines the history of psychological manipulation and the relevance to the current crisis.

Catherine Austin Fitts is the president of Solari, Inc., publisher of the Solari Report, and managing member of Solari Investment Advisory Services, LLC. She served as managing director and member of the board of directors of the Wall Street investment bank Dillon, Read & Co. Inc., as Assistant Secretary of Housing and Federal Housing Commissioner at the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development in the first Bush Administration. She blogs at solari.com

Dr. Mila Alečković-Bataille is a professor of psychopathology and psychology. She holds a doctorate from The Sorbonne, University in Paris. She has written over 100 scientific papers in several languages, as well as several books. And she is a member of the World Society of Psychopathology of Expression and Art Therapy. And In 2015 she was the President of the International Congress of Psychopathology.

(Global Research News Hour Episode 307)

LISTEN TO THE SHOW

Click to download the audio (MP3 format)

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

Other stations airing the show:

 CJSF 90.1 FM from the Burnaby mountain campus of Simon Fraser University at 90.1 FM to most of Greater Vancouver, from Langley to Point Grey and from the North Shore to the US Border, through MP3 streaming and through a speaker located just outside the station. The show airs Thursdays at 9am local time.

CIXX 106.9 FM, broadcasting from Fanshawe College in London, Ontario. It airs Sundays at 6am.

WZBC 90.3 FM in Newton Massachusetts is Boston College Radio and broadcasts to the greater Boston area. The Global Research News Hour airs during Truth and Justice Radio which starts Sunday at 6am.

Campus and community radio CFMH 107.3fm in  Saint John, N.B. airs the Global Research News Hour Fridays at 7pm.

CJMP 90.1 FM, Powell River Community Radio, airs the Global Research News Hour every Saturday at 8am. 

Caper Radio CJBU 107.3FM in Sydney, Cape Breton, Nova Scotia airs the Global Research News Hour starting Wednesday afternoon from 3-4pm.

Cowichan Valley Community Radio CICV 98.7 FM serving the Cowichan Lake area of Vancouver Island, BC airs the program Thursdays at 9am pacific time. 

Notes:

  1. www.globalresearch.ca/the-second-wave-destroying-peoples-lives-global-coup-detat/5728207
  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Unmasking COVID: What Purpose does it serve? And for Whom?

Global Research doesn’t shy away from exposing corporate exploitation and media manipulation; we confront it head on through in-depth and independent coverage of global events. 

To maintain our complete independence, we do not accept government or corporate funding. Therefore, we ask you, our readers, to come together and show your support by making a donation and/or starting a membership (which includes a free book offer) and ensuring that the message reaches as many people as possible:

 

 

 

Click to view our membership plans

Click to make a one-time or a recurring donation


Thank you very much for supporting independent media!

  • Posted in NO READ MORE LINK
  • Comments Off on Global Research: Exposing Corporate Exploitation and Media Manipulation

Why the Biden Administration Is Dead Wrong to Oppose International Criminal Court War Crimes Inquiry in Occupied Palestine: A Betrayal of the Rule of Law

By Prof. Juan Cole, March 05 2021

Since Palestine as a permanent UN observer state is a member of the ICC and invited the court into its territory, the International Criminal Court has every right to investigate violations of the Rome Statute that took place in those territories.

Palestine: Blinken Blinks on Human Rights

By M. K. Bhadrakumar, March 05 2021

The statement exposes that the Joe Biden Administration has blinked for a second time on the human rights situation in West Asia by refusing to even acknowledge that the ICC investigation into the “Palestinian situation” is about human rights first and foremost.

US ‘Virtual Ambassador’ to Venezuela Hosts Insurrectionist Summit Ahead of Biden’s Guaidó Recognition

By Anya Parampil and Max Blumenthal, March 05 2021

A closed-door Bogotá summit of fugitive Venezuelan insurrectionists highlighted James Story’s role as Washington’s manager of the radical right-wing opposition. So who is the US “virtual ambassador” to Venezuela?

Ex-PMs Call on Japan to ‘Eradicate’ Nuclear Power

By Bradley K. Martin, March 05 2021

A bipartisan duo of former prime ministers is beating the drums for Japan to totally “eradicate” nuclear energy in the country and rely instead on renewables.

A Global Demand to 35 Governments: Get Your Troops Out of Afghanistan

By World Beyond War, March 05 2021

These troops range in number from Slovenia’s 6 to the United States’ 2,500. Most countries have fewer that 100. Apart from the United States, only Germany has over 1,000. Only five other countries have more than 300.

Bipartisan Senators Seek to Strip Biden of War Powers

By Mish, March 05 2021

Sens. Tim Kaine and Todd Young on Wednesday introduced bipartisan legislation that would repeal decades-old authorizations for the use of military force in the Middle East, amid escalating tensions between the U.S. and Iran in the region.

“Complete Loss of Trust”: Half of French Home Health Workers Say They’ll Resist Taking Vaccine

By Zero Hedge, March 05 2021

Astounding new figures out of France suggest what is no doubt a broader global trend of hesitancy and skepticism when it comes to the current big push to ‘vaccinate all’.

The Impact of COVID-19 on Pediatric Mental Health

By FAIR Health, March 05 2021

The COVID-19 pandemic has had a profound impact on mental health, particularly on that of young people. Defining the pediatric population as individuals aged 0-22 years, and focusing on the age groups 13-18 years and 19-22 years, FAIR Health studied the effects of the pandemic on US pediatric mental health.

460 Dead 243,612 Reported Injuries from COVID-19 Vaccines Reported in the U.K.

By Brian Shilhavy, March 05 2021

The UK Government’s reporting system for COVID vaccine adverse reactions from the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency released their latest report today, March 4, 2021.

  • Posted in NO READ MORE LINK
  • Comments Off on Selected Articles: Why the Biden Administration Is Dead Wrong to Oppose ICC Inquiry in Occupied Palestine

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).

***

The governments of Albania, Armenia, Australia, Austria, Azerbaijan, Belgium, Bosnia-Herzegovina, Bulgaria, Czechia, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, Georgia, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Italy, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Mongolia, Netherlands, North Macedonia, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden, Turkey, Ukraine, UK, and US all still have troops in Afghanistan and need to remove them. These troops range in number from Slovenia’s 6 to the United States’ 2,500. Most countries have fewer that 100. Apart from the United States, only Germany has over 1,000. Only five other countries have more than 300.

Governments that used to have troops in this war but have removed them include New Zealand, France, Jordan, Croatia, Ireland, and Canada.

We plan to deliver a big THANK-YOU to every government that removes all of its troops from Afghanistan, along with the names and comments of every signer of this petition.

We plan to deliver a demand to remove all troops to every government that has not done so, along with the names and comments of every signer of this petition.

Click here to add your name!

The U.S. government is the ring-leader, and the bulk of its killing is done from the air, but — given the deficiency in democracy in the U.S. government, which is now on its third president who promised to end the war but hasn’t — it is critical that other governments withdraw their troops. Those troops, present in token numbers, are there to legitimize behavior that could otherwise be recognized as lawless and outrageous. A government lacking the courage to reject U.S. pressure has no business sending any number of its residents to kill or risk dying in a U.S./NATO war.

This petition will be signed by people in each nation involved in the war, including the nation of Afghanistan.

Please sign the petition, add comments if you have anything to add, and share with others.

After signing, please use the links on the next page to share on social media, email to friends, and embed on your own websites!

If you want to be part of delivering the petition to a particular government, contact World BEYOND War.

Thanks for all you do for peace!

*

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 A Global Demand to 35 Governments: Get Your Troops Out of Afghanistan
  • Tags:

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).

***

This article was originally published on GR in March 2020.

Seventy-five years ago, on 6 March 1945, the Third Reich launched what was to be its final great offensive of World War II, called Operation Spring Awakening (Unternehmen Frühlingserwachen). This attack, not well known today, was directed eastwards through the heart of Europe against the Red Army.

It was envisaged by Nazi Germany’s dictator Adolf Hitler, as he expounded on his plans in the Berlin Führerbunker, that the assault would prove to be a turning point in the war – akin to Russia’s victories at Stalingrad and in the Caucasus, which had proven critical in the Soviets’ recovery. (1)

As the year 1945 continued beyond its first weeks, among those whom the Nazi hierarchy could place their trust in were figures like Joachim Peiper, a panzer commander and SS Lieutenant-Colonel (Obersturmbannführer), someone whose legacy in the following decades has been romanticised by sections of the US Army and the Pentagon. Peiper, aged 30 in 1945 and with distinctive Nordic features, was someone with a highly aggressive reputation in combat.

Peiper was designated a considerable role in Operation Spring Awakening. He had long established himself as a war criminal, whose forces committed a number of atrocities on eastern and western fronts. It is often the case that ruthless men with few scruples make such formidable and dangerous soldiers.

From 1939 until 1941, Peiper served as SS Reichsführer Heinrich Himmler’s main adjutant. Peiper was standing adjacent to Himmler when, on 20 September 1939, they witnessed the murder of 20 Polish intellectuals by ethnic German paramilitaries working for the Nazis. On 13 December 1939, Peiper was present again with Himmler to see the gassing of residents at a psychiatric facility, near the city of Poznan in Poland. (2)

He was furthermore familiar with the apparatus of Nazi concentrations camps from early on; during the winter of 1940-1941, Peiper had accompanied Himmler on a visit to at least one concentration camp (3). In February 1941, Himmler confided in Peiper of the impending designs to invade the USSR; and, during the first half of June 1941, he was in attendance when Himmler outlined plans for the murder of 30 million people of Slavic birth in the East.

Peiper was acquainted with Reinhard Heydrich, perhaps the most sinister Nazi of all, and who was considered a possible successor to Hitler. The wives of Heydrich and Peiper were also friends.

In the post-1945 years, Peiper became something of a folk hero in some right-wing German circles, and also in the top echelons of power in America. As recently as mid-December 2019 Peiper, in Waffen-SS uniform, was being publicly glorified by the US military and its government branches in “commemorating the 75th anniversary of one of the most critical battles in history [Battle of the Bulge]”. (4)

The American XVIII Airborne Corps wrote of Peiper that, “The fate of his beloved nation rested on his ability to lead his men”. Peiper’s photograph was then relayed on official Facebook pages of the US Department of Defense and the US Army’s 10th Mountain Division. Unsurprisingly, the Pentagon subsequently came under heavy criticism, and the images of Peiper were deleted.

Peiper had received some of the highest decorations in Nazi Germany, and he was known personally to Hitler since at least the autumn of 1939. Peiper was in attendance when Hitler met the Spanish dictator Francisco Franco at Hendaye, south-western France, on 23 October 1940.

Also familiar to the Nazi top brass was Peiper’s adjutant, Werner Wolff, who would likewise participate heavily in Operation Spring Awakening. In 1945, Wolff was 22-years-old and an SS First Lieutenant (Obersturmführer), who like Peiper became the embodiment of Nazi racial stereotype, with his blonde hair, square jaw and athletic features.

Both Wolff and Peiper had participated in a number of major conflicts together, including the Third Battle of Kharkov in the spring of 1943, when the outnumbered Germans drove Soviet armies from what was the USSR’s third largest city. Wolff was one of the Nazis’ most acclaimed young soldiers. He distinguished himself repeatedly in their eyes against both the Soviets and western Allies; Wolff, for example, destroyed a number of Soviet tanks single-handed in fierce fighting during the Battle of Kursk, in the summer of 1943. (5)

At the beginning of the Ardennes Offensive, on 17 December 1944 Peiper and his unit wiped out American battalions in their path, before advancing a remarkable 16 miles in just 12 hours of fighting, moving comfortably into eastern Belgium (6). They had now reached the outskirts of the town of Stavelot, in Liege province.

It is no exaggeration to note that much of the success of the entire Ardennes Offensive rested on Peiper and his adjutant, Wolff, operating at his side (7). Otto Skorzeny, a top SS commando and one of the very few to have access to Hitler, had himself placed high hopes on Peiper’s role in this attack.

Peiper was unable, however, to advance much further beyond Stavelot – as, while waiting for German forces to catch up from behind, he realised that their fuel supplies were running dangerously low. A shortage of oil was a growing issue for the Germans as the war dragged on, with their access to raw materials in the East limited due to Soviet advances into Reich-occupied territory. Peiper was dependent upon the Tiger II heavy tank, which consumed petrol at half a mile a gallon.

By Christmas Day 1944 the Ardennes Offensive was in serious trouble, as the skies and atmosphere cleared of cloud and fog, with pale winter sunshine breaking through. Now the much larger number of Allied aircraft, with a clear view of the ground below, could wreak havoc on the German war machine by destroying hundreds of panzers and other Wehrmacht armoured vehicles.

Hitler responded on New Year’s Eve 1944 by launching what would be the final major German offensive of World War II on the Western front. It was dubbed Operation Nordwind, with the advance commencing through north-eastern France and around the famous Alsace-Lorraine region.

On 28 December 1944 Hitler, speaking to his divisional commanders in preparation for Operation Nordwind, issued an “exterminating” order to be directed against Allied troops; but specifically with the Americans in mind, who Hitler wished to exact retribution on for their indiscriminate air raids over German cities.

At the Adlerhorst mountain headquarters in western Germany, Hitler outlined of his plans that,

“It is a matter of destroying and exterminating the enemy forces wherever we find them… I hope that we will succeed especially to push the right wing ahead fast, to open the roads to Saverne. Then push at once into the Rhine plains to liquidate the American divisions. The goal must be the annihilation of these American divisions… I don’t have to explain to you a second time what depends on it”. (8)

In spite of initial gains, as with the Ardennes Offensive this next German assault ran out of steam, due to a combination of fuel shortages along with the greater numbers of Allied aircraft and tanks.

Regardless, it had taken the Allied troops more than six months to advance from the beaches of Normandy to the forests of the Ardennes, a little over 300 miles in total. During the Battle of France in mid-1940, the Germans covered a similar distance in three weeks. As they marched into French territory from 10 May 1940, Heinz Guderian’s 2nd Panzer Division advanced 200 miles in just 10 days, brushing aside French and British divisions, before reaching the English Channel at Abbeville on 19 May 1940. (9)

Almost five years later, Hitler now put his hopes on another large-scale offensive to the east, Operation Spring Awakening, which he started planning by himself from mid-January 1945. All of the generals were opposed to it, apart from Hitler’s old loyalist Sepp Dietrich, who would lead the attack with his 6th SS Panzer Army.

Spring Awakening’s execution was made possible after a little known German victory against Soviet forces in northern Hungary, called Operation Southwind (Unternehmen Südwind), which concluded on 24 February 1945 and was “a brilliant success” (10). Over 400 square kilometres of ground had been recaptured from the Soviets in Operation Southwind. With the Red Army bridgehead over the River Garam destroyed, this laid the basis for Spring Awakening to begin less than two weeks later.

In the Führerbunker conference room Hitler said of Spring Awakening that, “All we have to do is show the enemy once more, by a smashing success, that he cannot win the war. Without Stalin’s fanatical determination, Russia would have collapsed in the autumn of 1941. Frederick the Great, too, in a hopeless situation fought on with indomitable energy.

He deserved the name ‘the Great’ not because he won in the end, but because he remained intrepid in misfortune”. (11)
For Spring Awakening, the Germans managed to amass 400,000 men who were to be directed at first into oil rich western Hungary, so as to reach the great Danube river, before pushing on to retake the Hungarian capital Budapest.

Spring Awakening comprised of 10 panzer divisions, five infantry divisions, two SS Cavalry divisions, with 900 Luftwaffe aircraft in support overhead (12). German forces were equipped with 900 panzers and Sturmgeschütz (Stugs), the latter consisting of armoured fighting vehicles which were in effect miniature panzers.

The attack began at dawn on 6 March 1945, with the weather at that point favourable with low cloud cover, thick fog, and snow actually falling. It was similar to conditions at the commencement of the Ardennes Offensive almost three months before.

On the opening day of Spring Awakening, the Germans advanced only a few kilometres, before success arrived in the immediate time following, as the 6th SS Panzer Army advanced 20 miles. By the 9th of March, a degree of panic was setting in among the Soviet leadership, as notable German advances continued up to the 11th of March.

It was on that day, 11 March 1945, that Hitler visited the Eastern front for what would be the last time. He travelled by motor car from the Führerbunker in Berlin north-eastwards to the city of Stettin, near the Baltic Sea, and today in Poland. Since early 1940, Stettin was a base of operations for the German 2nd Motorised Infantry Division, and later the 12th Panzer Division.

Heinz Linge, Hitler’s servant and chief valet, was present in the vehicle as they drove through idyllic, unspoilt countryside, with the sound of Wehrmacht and Soviet artillery fire heard on occasion rumbling in the background.

In his memoirs originally published in 1980, Linge highlights the direct role of Hitler in the Holocaust, and he dismisses claims from Nazi apologists that the dictator was not privy to crimes against humanity committed in the concentration camps.

“That is pure nonsense” Linge wrote, when reflecting on assertions that Hitler was in practical ignorance of the extermination of Jewish populations. Linge continued, “I was often on hand when, with sparkling eyes and trembling voice, he [Hitler] would say that he would rid himself ruthlessly of anybody who opposed him”. (13)

Since his appointment on 24 January 1935 to that of the Führer’s valet, Linge spent almost every waking hour in his master’s presence, attending to his requirements. In later years as the fighting wore on, Linge’s position became prominent and Hitler relied even more heavily on him, notwithstanding that he was also an SS officer. Hitler sometimes asked Linge to back him up in key arguments during military conferences – whenever German generals, or officers, had the gall to intimate that the Nazi leader was contradicting himself, or that his comments were inconsistent.

On such instances, which became more commonplace after 1942, Linge was invariably standing at the back of the conference room and Hitler would demand, “Linge, what did I say then and what did the general suggest?” With all eyes turned towards Linge, he then swiftly analysed the dictates of stenographers, with the valet confirming that Hitler indeed made the exact point in question, and had not since changed his argument; while now it was the military men who were contradicting themselves, seemingly undermining their positions.

In the meantime, Linge recalled of their final journey to the Eastern front in March 1945,

“Our car drove over ploughed fields, pasture and meadows to Stettin, which was still held by German forces. It needed all his [Hitler’s] physical energy to endure, but he would not give in. Crossing ploughed land one morning to reach a Luftwaffe command post, suddenly the farmers were around us with their wives. They seemed to have forgotten the close thunder of the Russian artillery. They had apparently not expected to see him, Hitler, right at the front, and one felt at once the effect that Hitler had on them even though he was now old, grey, bent and degenerating. He did not speak to them, but gave a jovial wave”. (14)

Four days later, by the 15th of March 1945, Operation Spring Awakening literally ground to a halt in the mud, with the temperature having risen and rain fallen. In the following hours, the Soviets counter-attacked with overwhelming force, and after a few days they had forced the Germans back to their original positions at the start of Spring Awakening. The final nail in the Nazi coffin was being hammered 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.

Shane Quinn obtained an honors journalism degree. He is interested in writing primarily on foreign affairs, having been inspired by authors like Noam Chomsky. He is a frequent contributor to Global Research.

Notes

1 Albert Speer, Spandau: The Secret Diaries (Fontana, London, 1977), p. 29

2 David G. Williams, Jochen Peiper Justice Denied (lulu.com, 16 Mar. 2015)

3 Jeff Rutherford, “Rutherford on Westemeier, ‘Joachim Peiper: A biography of Himmler’s SS Commander'”, H-German, November 2007, https://networks.h-net.org/node/35008/reviews/45264/rutherford-westemeier-joachim-peiper-biography-himmlers-ss-commander

4 Katie Shepherd, “‘Vile and disturbing’: US Army unit marks Battle of the Bulge with picture of Nazi war criminal who massacred Americans”, Washington Post, 17 December 2019, https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2019/12/17/joachim-peiper-nazi-war-criminal-photo-shared-us-army-units-battle-bulge/

5 Lloyd Clark, Kursk: The Greatest Battle, (Headline Review, 24 May 2012)

6 Stuart Smith, Otto Skorzeny: The Devil’s Disciple (Osprey Publishing, 20 Sep. 2018), p. 182

7 Smith, Otto Skorzeny: The Devil’s Disciple, p. 181

8 US Lieutenant-Colonel J.C. Lambert, Armored Cavalry Journal, Roster of Armored Cavalry Officers on Active Duty, Armored Rescue, p. 37

9 Martin H. Folly, The Palgrave Concise Historical Atlas of World War II, (Palgrave Macmillan; 2004 edition, October 6, 2004) p. xxiii

10 Major General Michael Reynolds, “Hitler’s Last Offensive: Operation Spring Awakening”, Warfare History Network, 31 October 2016, https://warfarehistorynetwork.com/2016/10/31/hitlers-last-offensive-operation-spring-awakening/

11 Speer, Spandau: The Secret Diaries, p. 29

12 Peter McCarthy and Mike Syron, Panzerkrieg: The Rise and Fall of Hitler’s Tank Divisions, (Robinson; New Ed edition, 2003-09-12)

13 Heinz Linge, With Hitler to the End (Frontline Books, 1 July 2009), p. 92

14 Linge, With Hitler to the End, p. 175

Palestine: Blinken Blinks on Human Rights

March 5th, 2021 by M. K. Bhadrakumar

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).

***

On March 3, the US State Department has put on its website a hilarious statement titled The United States Opposes the ICC Investigation into the Palestinian Investigation. 

In a nutshell, the statement exposes that the Joe Biden Administration has blinked for a second time on the human rights situation in West Asia by refusing to even acknowledge that the ICC investigation into the “Palestinian situation” is about human rights first and foremost. 

The State Department’s argument essentially narrows down to a bureaucratic point questioning the ICC’s jurisdiction to investigate the human rights violations issues that involve the state of Israel and, secondly, that “Palestinians do not qualify as a sovereign state and therefore, are not qualified to obtain membership as a state in, participate as a state in, or delegate jurisdiction to the ICC.” 

Human rights issue ought to be felt in the blood and felt along the heart. They are not the stuff of cold reasoning from legal angle or of political expediency. The State Department statement on the hapless Palestinian brings to mind what Pablo Picasso once said, “Learn the rules like a pro, so you can break them like an artist.” 

Such sophistry to quibble over the tragic plight of the Palestinians will reduce the American diplomats to con artists on the global stage. The fact of the matter is that The State of Palestine is recognised by 138 UN members, and since 2012 it has a status of a non-member observer state in the United Nations. Palestine is a member of the Arab League, the Organisation of Islamic Cooperation, the G77, the International Olympic Committee, and other international bodies.

The US is punishing the messenger — ICC’s prosecutor — for showing the audacity to rake up the Palestinian issue when she is due to retire in June! 

The State Department claims that it “remains deeply committed to ensuring justice and accountability for international atrocity crimes” but ICC happens to be “a Court of limited jurisdiction. Moreover, the United States believes a peaceful, secure and more prosperous future for the people of the Middle East depends on building bridges and creating new avenues for dialogue and exchange, not unilateral judicial actions that exacerbate tensions and undercut efforts to advance a negotiated two-state solution. We will continue to uphold our strong commitment to Israel and its security, including by opposing actions that seek to target Israel unfairly.” 

It is a laughable contention riddled with contradictions and paradoxes. What does it all amount to? Succinctly put, the state department says, “Show me the Face and I will show you the Rule.”  But what is it that unnerves the Biden Administration when it comes to the ICC investigation on Israel? From an Israeli perspective, read the report by Axios titled International Criminal Court opens Israel-Palestine war crimes probe.

Fundamentally, it is the very same cynical mindset that made the Biden Administration duck for cover when in all propriety it should have sanctioned the Saudi Crown Prince for ordering the murder — and indeed executing it with such ghoulish relish — of Jamal Khashoggi who, incidentally, also happened to be a resident of the US apart from being a “strategic asset” of the US security establishment.

The Biden Administration is lost for words to explain its cowardice. On top of it, it changed its mind sheepishly and decided on second thoughts to delete three Saudi names that were originally listed in the CIA report on Khashoggi’s murder rebased by the White House last Friday. Apparently, that is because those 3 top henchmen in the Saudi security apparatus also happen to be interlocutors with whom the US security agencies continue to do business. How could the US possibly sanction its own Saudi collaborators, isn’t it? 

Both in the case of Israel and the Saudi Crown prince, if the US is in such an acute predicament caught between a rock and the hard place, it is solely because Washington has been complicit in the human rights violations by Israel and Saudi Arabia all along. The US has so much blood on its hands that all the perfumes of Arabia cannot wipe them clean. 

Surely, Israel wouldn’t have got away with murder all this while with such impunity without the certainty that it could hide behind the US if an hour of reckoning ever came its way. As for Saudi Arabia, it committed horrific crimes from a human rights perspective only because it has been the US’ preferred geopolitical tool for the past several decades. 

Pray, why did the CIA confer on the former Saudi Crown Prince Muhammad bin Nayef the George Tenet medal in 2015? Mike Pompeo as CIA chief travelled to Riyadh to personally confer the medal on Prince Nayef! Simply put, top US officials in successive administrations swam the same river of blood that Prince Nayef took in the unspeakable “war on terror.” 

Today, the Biden Administration dare not annoy the 35-year old Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman who is highly likely to succeed his father when the crunch time comes as the next monarch and may go on to rule the kingdom for decades — although the noted expert on Saudi Arabia and ex-CIA hand Bruce Riedel at Brookings Institution may know better when he maintains that MBS is in actuality less secure than the administration thinks. 

On March 3, in his “first major speech as Secretary” titled A Foreign Policy for the American People, delivered from the Ben Franklin Room, a venue full of history in the State Department, Blinken shied away from claiming to be a crusader for human rights. The cold shower of realism after the Khashoggi fiasco probably explains it. 

Blinken had previously claimed that human rights topic will figure as the centre of the US foreign policy. But in a chastened mood, he listed yesterday the “eight top foreign policy priorities of the Biden administration” as follows: Covid-19 pandemic and global health security; economic recovery; “shoring up” democracy from authoritarianism and nationalism; “a humane and effective immigration system”; “revitalising” the ties with allies and partners; climate crisis and green energy revolution; America’s “leadership in technology”; and, relationship with China. 

Blinken decided that a human rights crusade won’t fly when it stands exposed as doublespeak and hypocrisy. Despite such robust canvassing by the White House, the ASEAN has refused to back the Anglo-American regime change agenda in Myanmar. 

Even the US’ closest ASEAN partner Singapore has counselled “national reconciliation and stability” and a “negotiated compromise to the current situation” in Myanmar, and, above all, stressed the need to “engage, rather than isolate” that country. 

*

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: Blinken meets with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu in Jerusalem on June 16, 2016 (Public Domain)

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).

***

The UK Government’s reporting system for COVID vaccine adverse reactions from the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency released their latest report today, March 4, 2021.

The report covers data collected from December 9, 2020, through February 21, 2021, for the two experimental COVID vaccines currently in use in the U.K. from Pfizer and AstraZeneca.

They report a total of 460 deaths and 243,612 injuries.

For the COVID-19 mRNA Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine analysis they report:

  • 2033 Blood disorders including 1 death
  • 1032 Cardiac disorders including 25 deaths
  • 3 Congenital disorder
  • 713 Ear disorders
  • 10 Endocrine disorders
  • 1242 Eye disorders
  • 9360 Gastrointestinal disorders including 11 deaths
  • 26,394 General disorders including 111 deaths
  • 17 Hepatic disorders
  • 466 Immune system disorders
  • 1863 Infections including 33 deaths
  • 393 Injuries including 1 death
  • 965 Investigations
  • 525 Metabolic disorders including 1 death
  • 11,565 Muscle & tissue disorders
  • 20 Neoplasms
  • 16,107 Nervous system disorders including 14 deaths
  • 29 Pregnancy conditions including 1 death
  • 1235 Psychiatric disorders
  • 187 Renal & urinary disorders
  • 338 Reproductive & breast disorders
  • 3575 Respiratory disorders including 12 deaths
  • 6042 Skin disorders including 1 death
  • 16 Social circumstances
  • 45 Surgical & medical procedures
  • 992 Vascular disorders including 1 death

Total reactions for the COVID-19 mRNA Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine: 212 deaths and 85,179 injuries

For the COVID-19 vaccine Oxford University/AstraZeneca analysis they report:

  • 799 Blood disorders
  • 1516 Cardiac disorders including 30 deaths
  • 13 Congenital disorders
  • 891 Ear disorders
  • 24 Endocrine disorders
  • 1613 Eye disorders
  • 17,597 Gastrointestinal disorders including 5 deaths
  • 56,377 General disorders including 146 deaths
  • 22 Hepatic disorders
  • 410 Immune system disorders
  • 3016 Infections including 32 deaths
  • 668 Injuries including 1 death
  • 1878 Investigations
  • 2057 Metabolic disorders including 2 deaths
  • 19,241 Muscle & tissue disorders
  • 13 Neoplasms including 1 death
  • 34,656 Nervous system disorders including 14 deaths
  • 19 Pregnancy conditions
  • 2773 Psychiatric disorders
  • 453 Renal & urinary disorders including 1 death
  • 229 Reproductive & breast disorders
  • 4059 Respiratory disorders including 10 deaths
  • 7872 Skin disorders including 1 death
  • 39 Social circumstances
  • 117 Surgical & medical procedures including 1 death
  • 1274 Vascular disorders including 1 death

Total reactions for the COVID-19 vaccine Oxford University/AstraZenec vaccine: 244 deaths and 157,637 injuries

For the COVID-19 vaccine brand unspecified analysis they report:

  • 4 Blood disorders
  • 2 Cardiac disorder including 1 death
  • 9 Ear disorders
  • 11 Eye disorders
  • 79 Gastrointestinal disorders
  • 289 General disorders including 1 death
  • 1 Hepatic disorders
  • 1 Immune system disorders
  • 10 Infections including 1 death
  • 5 Injuries including 1 death
  • 11 Investigations
  • 26 Metabolic disorders
  • 77 Muscle & tissue disorders
  • 177 Nervous system disorders
  • 22 Psychiatric disorders
  • 7 Renal & urinary
  • 1 Reproductive & breast disorders
  • 18 Respiratory disorders including 1 death
  • 38 Skin disorders
  • 1 Social circumstances
  • 7 Vascular disorders

Total reactions for the COVID-19 vaccine brand unspecified vaccines: 4 deaths and 796 injuries

The UK Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency concludes:

The overall safety experience with both vaccines is so far as expected from the clinical trials.

Based on current experience, the expected benefits of both COVID-19 vaccines in preventing COVID-19 and its serious complications far outweigh any known side effects.

Full details found on the UK Government website.

*

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 Health Impact News

The Dangerous US/NATO Strategy in Europe

March 5th, 2021 by Manlio Dinucci

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).

***

The NATO Dynamic Manta anti-submarine warfare exercise took place in the Ionian Sea from February 22 to March 5. Ships, submarines, and planes from the United States, Italy, France, Germany, Greece, Spain, Belgium, and Turkey participated in it. The two main units involved in this exercise were a US Los Angeles class nuclear attack submarine and the French nuclear-powered aircraft carrier Charles de Gaulle together with its battle group, and a nuclear attack submarine was also included.

Soon after the exercise, the Charles de Gaulle carrier went to the Persian Gulf. Italy, which participated in the Dynamic Manta with ships and submarines, was the entire exercise “host nation”: Italy made the port of Catania (Sicily) and the Navy helicopter station (also in Catania) available to the participating forces, the Sigonella air station (the largest US / NATO base in the Mediterranean) and Augusta (both in Sicily) the logistics base for supplies. The purpose of the exercise was the hunt for Russian submarines in the Mediterranean that, according to NATO, would threaten Europe.

At the same time, the Eisenhower aircraft carrier and its battle group are carrying out operations in the Atlantic to “demonstrate continued US military support for allies and a commitment to keep the seas free and open.” These operations – conducted by the Sixth Fleet, whose command is in Naples and base is in Gaeta – fall within the strategy set out in particular by Admiral Foggo, formerly head of the NATO Command in Naples: accusing Russia of wanting to sink with its submarines the ships connecting the two sides of the Atlantic, so as to isolate Europe from the USA. He argued that NATO must prepare for the “Fourth Battle of the Atlantic,” after those of the two World Wars and the cold war. While naval exercises are underway, strategic B-1 bombers, transferred from Texas to Norway, are carrying out “missions” close to Russian territory, together with Norwegian F-35 fighters, to “demonstrate the readiness and capability of the United States in supporting the allies.

Military operations in Europe and adjacent seas take place under the command of US Air Force General Tod Wolters, who heads the US European Command and at the same time NATO, with the position of Supreme Allied Commander in Europe, this position is always covered by a US General.

All these military operations are officially motivated as “Europe defense from Russian aggression,” overturning the reality: NATO expanded into Europe with its forces and even nuclear bases close to Russia. At the European Council on February 26, NATO Secretary-General Stoltenberg declared that “the threats we faced before the pandemic are still there,” placing first “Russia’s aggressive actions” and, in the background, a threatening “rise of China.” He then stressed the need to strengthen the transatlantic link between the United States and Europe, as the new Biden administration strongly wants, taking cooperation between the EU and NATO to a higher level. Over 90% of the European Union’s inhabitants, he recalled, now live in NATO countries (including 21 of the 27 EU countries). The European Council reaffirmed “the commitment to cooperate closely with NATO and the new Biden administration for security and defense, “making the EU militarily stronger. As Prime Minister Mario Draghi pointed out in his speech, this strengthening must take place within a complementarity framework with NATO and in coordination with the USA.

Therefore, the military strengthening of the EU must be complementary to that of NATO, in turn, complementary to the US strategy. This strategy actually consists in provoking growing tensions with Russia in Europe, so as to increase US influence in the European Union itself. An increasingly dangerous and expensive game, because it pushes Russia to militarily strengthen itself. This is confirmed by the fact that in 2020, in full crisis, Italian military spending stepped from 13th to the 12th worldwide place, overtaking the place of Australia.

*

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 in Italian on Il Manifesto.

Manlio Dinucci is a Research Associate of the Centre for Research on Globalization.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on The Dangerous US/NATO Strategy in Europe
  • Tags: ,

Ex-PMs Call on Japan to ‘Eradicate’ Nuclear Power

March 5th, 2021 by Bradley K. Martin

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Ex-PMs Call on Japan to ‘Eradicate’ Nuclear Power

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).

***

A closed-door Bogotá summit of fugitive Venezuelan insurrectionists highlighted James Story’s role as Washington’s manager of the radical right-wing opposition. So who is the US “virtual ambassador” to Venezuela?

US “virtual ambassador” to Venezuela James “Jimmy” Story promised to answer a series of questions sent to him by The Grayzone this February 24. But after a Whatsapp exchange with this reporter during which Story offered to explain why he regularly alternated between Gargamel and the Smurfs as his avatar on the messaging app, the promised exchange never took place.

On March 2, Story’s assistant, David Fogelson, informed The Grayzone that the virtual ambassador “won’t be able to do the interview.” He offered no further details on Story’s turnabout.

That same day, during a Zoom event with the Venezuelan American Association of the US, Story boasted that his willingness to accept a few critical questions from his online audience “shows a transparency that the regime [in Caracas] does not show.”

The Grayzone’s unanswered questions to Story related to a closed-door summit the ambassador hosted between February 19 and 26 at the Bogotá Marriott hotel.

In a meeting at his home listed on the summit’s agenda, the ambassador served up barbecued meats and fine libations to a group of fugitive Venezuelan insurrectionists and far-right opposition leaders as they planned the next phase of the US-backed regime-change operation against the elected leftist government in Caracas.

The details of the meeting came to light after a Colombian official leaked news of the meeting to Venezuela’s government.

“Here is the agenda from the meeting that someone from the Duque government, angered that this is taking place on their soil, sent us,” tweeted the president of Venezuela’s National Assembly, Jorge Rodríguez, on February 22.

The tweet was accompanied by a screenshot of a document which outlined the itinerary of the conference, which was called “Visit of the Venezuelan Presidential Commission.”

According to Rodríguez, the summit’s attendees included right-wing opposition leader Leopoldo López, attorney and former lawmaker Julio Borges, and former Exxon lawyer Carlos Vecchio, who now serves as “ambassador” for Guaidó in Washington.

All three men are currently evading either criminal charges or prison sentences in Venezuela for crimes ranging from incitement of violence to participation in attempts to assassinate Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro.

Following the delegates’ arrival to Bogotá, the first event listed on their agenda was a welcome barbecue which took place on Sunday, February 21. Story confirmed the cookout on his weekly “Alo Embajador” YouTube livestream, noting that he roasted a pig. Joined by Juan Guaidó as his guest, Story insisted that he did not serve 18-year-old whiskey, as the Colombian source claimed to Rodríguez.

According to the agenda tweeted by Rodríguez, the Venezuelan coup-plotters spent Monday, February 22, gathered at Story’s residence. Topics for discussion included how to encourage “a transition from a position of strength” in Venezuela as well as the potential for unity among opposition parties.

The week-long summit also allotted time for conversations exploring the possibility of invoking the interventionist “Responsibility to Protect” doctrine in order to justify the invasion of Venezuela under the guise of humanitarian protection, as well as at least six “meetings with Washington.” Insistent that a broad panoply of the opposition was on board with Washington’s agenda, Story claimed to The Grayzone that 25 parties participated in the conference.

Several US agencies were listed in agenda documents as participants in the meetings. They included the State Department’s Bureau of Western Hemisphere Affairs; the State Department Office of Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor; the United States Agency for International Development (USAID); and the White House National Security team. Think tanks were also listed as participants, but were left unnamed.

The event highlighted Story as the Biden administration’s de facto manager of the radical wing of Venezuela’s opposition that seeks regime change at all costs. The apparent outcome of the meeting suggested he has played a pivotal role in ensuring continuity between the Trump and Biden administrations on Venezuela.

On March 2, a week after the summit in Bogotá, US Secretary of State Antony Blinken formally recognized Juan Guaidó as “Interim President,” endorsing the maximalist Trump policy that rejected negotiations or any accommodation with Venezuela’s elected, UN-recognized President Nicolás Maduro.

Despite his central role in the Venezuelan regime-change scheme, Story has escaped the international scrutiny that other US officials like former State Department liaison to Venezuela Elliott Abrams have received. Story’s backstory may be less intriguing than that of Abrams, and certainly less sordid. However, he has been at the forefront of the US infiltration of South America, and helped set the stage for the assault on Venezuelan sovereignty through his participation in the Plan Colombia counter-insurgency campaign that consolidated Bogotá as a right-wing base of US influence.

Portraits of a putschist

James Story’s official title is US ambassador to Venezuela, though he has not worked inside the country since March of 2019. He is currently based in neighboring Colombia, where he coordinates Washington’s efforts to overthrow the Maduro government from within the US embassy in Bogotá.

In his official biography, he is described as a “career Senior Foreign Service Officer” with experience working in Afghanistan, Mozambique, Mexico, and Brazil.

Following a three-year stint as the US Consulate General in Rio, Story moved to Caracas in July of 2018 to serve as deputy chargé d’ affaires. The Venezuelan government had expelled chargé d’affaires Todd Robinson in May of that year, making Story the highest ranking US official in Venezuela.

Within six months of Story’s arrival in Venezuela, in January of 2019, the US announced its recognition of Juan Guaidó, a previously unknown opposition lawmaker, as president. As he worked to propel the coup, Story got close and personal with the self-proclaimed “interim president” and other opposition leaders.

On March 3, 2019, Story posted a photo to his Facebook profile showing himself on a friendly hike with former presidential candidate and rightist opposition figure Henrique Capriles Radonski during his time in Caracas.

“Climbed the Avila today with former Mayor, Governor, and Presidential candidate Henrique Capriles,” Story declared.

“The Venezuelan people love him,” Story enthused.

The following afternoon, Story posted a photo he took of Guaidó standing on top of a car surrounded by supporters with the caption, “Venezuela’s Interim President Juan Guaidó is back.”

Guaidó was returning from a regional tour during which he participated in a failed attempt to violate Venezuela’s sovereignty by ramming a convoy of USAID trucks across the country’s border. Story’s photo shows him in close proximity to the self-proclaimed “president,” and suggests he played a role in shepherding Guaidó from place to place.

Two weeks after publishing the photo, on March 11, Venezuelan Foreign Minister Jorge Arreaza informed Story that US diplomatic staff were no longer welcome in the country.

Story’s attraction to toppling leftist leaders was not limited to Venezuela. When a far-right military coup drove Bolivia’s elected president, Evo Morales, out of the country, destroyed his house, burned his sister’s home, poisoned his dogs, and orchestrated a national campaign of terror against his supporters, Story took to Facebook to celebrate the anti-democratic putsch.

In March 2020, Story promoted the multimillion-dollar bounty the Trump administration placed on the heads of Venezuelan President Maduro and several political allies on the dubious grounds that they were leaders of a previously unknown and likely non-existent drug cartel allegedly called “Cartel of the Suns.”

The photos remain on Story’s Facebook page as mementos of his proud role as de facto manager of the radical figures vaulted by the US to the helm of Venezuela’s opposition, and of his own dedication to regime change by any means.

When appearing in the US media, however, Story assumes a dramatically different image as a Southern gentleman with a careful, diplomatic touch.

AP’s February 1, 2019 puff piece of James Story

Behind the puff pieces, Story’s real role comes to light

In a glowing profile of James Story, whom it billed as a “steely huntsman at helm of embattled US Embassy in Caracas,” the Associated Press proclaimed that the diplomat’s “down-home Southern charm has opened doors.”

“In a rare feat for U.S. diplomats in Venezuela, who are usually ensconced in the hilltop U.S. Embassy compound liaising with opposition politicians,” gushed the AP, “Story has managed to establish a rapport with a number of powerful Venezuelan government officials, all the while gingerly sidestepping the political minefield running through anti-Maduro Miami that has made engagement a risky endeavor for any U.S. official. He also won the respect of his staff by joining the embassy’s softball team within days of arrival.”

Since his expulsion from Venezuela in March 2019, Story has worked out of the US embassy in Bogotá under a variety of titles, with former US President Donald Trump most recently appointing him to serve as “ambassador” to Venezuela in May of 2020.

Due to the US’ continued recognition of Guaidó – despite his failure to secure control of Venezuela’s government or even unite the country’s fractured opposition – no official diplomatic ties currently exist between Caracas and Washington. Until news of the recent summit of Venezuelan fugitives in Bogotá came to light, Story’s duties as “virtual ambassador to Venezuela based in Colombia” remained shrouded in mystery.

In its fawning portrait of Story, the AP quoted his former boss, US diplomat John Feeley, as saying “he can deftly sip cocktails with the diplomats but his heart is still somewhere duck-hunting in an early morning blind.”

Story brought his interest in foreign intrigue together with his passion for southern hospitality by serving up platters of grilled pork to a crew of fire-breathing coup leaders gathered at his home in Bogotá. But Story’s talents extended beyond charming the representatives of Latin American oligarchy, and into the murky world of drug wars and paramilitary repression.

A drug warrior defends bombing peasants with chemical weapons

Perhaps the most disturbing yet little known detail in James Story’s biography relates to his time working out of the US embassy in Colombia.

For roughly 25 years, the US oversaw an aerial fumigation program in Colombia, spraying approximately 4.4 million acres of its land with the cancer-causing herbicide known as glyphosate. (In the US, this substance is known as RoundUp. Its manufacturer, Monsanto, has paid out $10 billion to settle a class action lawsuit filed by cancer victims.)

The aerial crop eradication policy had a devastating impact on Colombia’s rural population. Thousands of people are estimated to have been forced to flee their homes as a result of the fumigations, while people living in affected areas “report[ed] skin, respiratory and gastrointestinal issues” according to the Center for International Environmental Law (CIEL).

“In addition to impacts on human health, environmental damages are also rampant. Spraying has led to massive crop loss,” CIEL added. “Residual spray has led to chemical seepage into groundwater and aquifers. The destruction of non-targeted plants has damaged some of the most biologically diverse regions, jeopardizing their very existence.”

In 2011, CNN featured a rare report exposing the US aerial fumigation program’s role in destroying the livelihoods of Colombian farmers. The CNN segment covered a documentary about Avelardo Joya, one of the 3.5 million Colombians internally displaced under the US government’s Plan Colombia counter-insurgency campaign.

The US crop eradication policy ruined Joya’s cacao and plantain farm, making him a refugee in his own country.

“They’ve destroyed our food,” Joya lamented to the filmmakers. “That’s the only thing they destroy, because our food crops cannot resist the poison they drop.”

To balance its report, CNN managed to find one voice willing to speak positively about the fumigation program. It belonged to the current US “virtual ambassador” to Venezuela.

“The aerial eradication program run by the government of Colombia has been extraordinarily successful,” Story proclaimed from within the comfort of his air-conditioned office, where he worked at the time as director of the narcotic affairs section of the US embassy.

Story went on to claim the policy resulted in a 40 percent drop in coca cultivation, while admitting, “there is some drift that happens” with regard to neighboring farms.

The full CNN segment featuring Story’s comments is embedded below:

Watch the video here.

According to the US embassy’s website, its narcotic affairs section in Colombia “advises the Ambassador on counternarcotics policy and works in close coordination with DOJ, DHS, and U.S. military counterparts.”

The US “virtual ambassador” to Venezuela has been marketed as an affable Southern gentleman, and there’s little reason to doubt he can serve up a lip-smacking rack of ribs. But the real story about Story lies behind the media-crafted image of the “steely huntsman,” and in the bowels of the US national security architecture, where coups are hatched, puppets are groomed, and peasants are transformed into refugees by the millions.

*

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.

Anya Parampil is a journalist based in Washington, DC. She has produced and reported several documentaries, including on-the-ground reports from the Korean peninsula, Palestine, Venezuela, and Honduras.

The editor-in-chief of The Grayzone, Max Blumenthal is an award-winning journalist and the author of several books, including best-selling Republican GomorrahGoliath, The Fifty One Day War, and The Management of Savagery.

Featured image is from The Grayzone

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).

***

How Russia responds to Israel’s attacks on Iranian targets inside Syria could make all the difference as to whether the region boils over into full-scale war or continues to simmer at its current, already dangerous, level.

In an official statement last week, the special envoy of the president of Russia to Syria, Alexander Lavrentiev, indicated that Moscow was rapidly losing patience with Israel over airstrikes against alleged Iranian targets on Syria soil.

“Sooner or later, the cup of patience, including the Syrian government, may be overflowing, and a retaliatory strike will follow, which will accordingly lead to a new round of tension. These attacks must be stopped, they are counterproductive. We hope that the Israeli side will hear our concerns, including concerns about the possible escalation of violence in Syria.”

The language, though diplomatic, leaves little room for misinterpretation. By using the term “including” about the Syrian government losing patience, Lavrentiev left no doubt that the other “inclusive” party was Russia. This linkage carries over into the not-so-veiled threat of a “retaliatory strike” and “possible escalation of violence.” In short, Lavrentiev’s warning was as blunt a threat against Israel that could be made short of stating the obvious – if Israel continues to bomb Syria, Russia will have no choice but to shoot down their planes.

From the moment Russia dispatched its armed forces to Syria in September 2015 to prevent the collapse of the Syrian government of President Bashar Assad at the hands of US-backed Islamist terrorists, it has found itself at the nexus of competing geopolitical games. One of the main issues confronting Russia was avoiding conflict in its airspace between its air force and the anti-Islamic State coalition headed up by the United States. This task was complicated by the fact that the US was really using the campaign to counter Islamic State (IS, formerly ISIS) as a cover for training and equipping Islamist forces dedicated to the removal of President Assad. The US also sought to leverage its influence with Syrian Kurds to create an autonomous region in northeast Syria that operated outside the control of Damascus.

Russia faced a similar problem with Turkey, a NATO member whose Ottoman-like ambitions led to engage in a policy that, if successful, would have resulted in the absorption of the Syrian province of Aleppo into the Turkish political sphere. Like the US, Turkey had engaged in a years-long process of organizing and arming anti-Assad forces. These forces operated under the direct control of the Turkish armed forces, and when Russia supported Syrian government efforts to reclaim territory lost to these groups, its aircraft frequently became involved in direct military operations against Turkish military forces.

Iran is likewise deeply ensconced in Syria. Like Russia, Iran’s involvement came at the explicit invitation of the Syrian government. Iran’s Syrian engagement pre-dates that of Russia; indeed, it was Iran which helped convince the Russians of the necessity for intervention. As such, Russia and Iran have had common purpose when it comes to stabilizing the security situation inside Syria. However, Iran’s involvement goes beyond simply helping Syria, and instead is part and parcel of a larger regional strategy built around the concept of an “axis of resistance” which would further Iran’s regional security and ambition. As such, Iran has used the Syrian conflict as a cover for facilitating military support for Hezbollah in Lebanon, both in terms of allegedly supplying that organization with precision-guided munitions capable of reaching Israel, but also establishing a de facto second front by helping Hezbollah establish itself in the Golan region of southern Syria.

The Iranian actions have been deemed threatening by Israel, which has responded by undertaking a concerted campaign of airstrikes designed to destroy and deter what it deems to be “malign Iranian” activity. Russia, which recognizes the absolute need for Iranian involvement in Syria, has sought to pressure Iran to reduce its presence along Syria’s contentious border with Israel. But there has been little Russia can do about Iran’s efforts to arm Hezbollah, given that this activity operates in parallel with the resupply of other pro-Iranian forces operating inside Syria. As such, Russia has taken a “hands off” approach when it comes to Israeli military strikes against targets affiliated with any Iranian activity not directly tied to supporting the Syrian government. While Russia has repeatedly cautioned Israel about the destabilizing effect of its airstrikes, Russia has avoided making any direct threats against Israel. Lavrentiev’s statement changes this calculus.

Israel has been preparing for a broader conflict with Iran, with some Israeli security experts predicting that “southern Syria could turn into the arena of the first northern war between Israel and the Iranian forces” sometime in 2021. A major calculation for Israel which could govern the viability of such a conflict is how Russia would react. Currently, Russia has stood down its air defense network in Syria and has reportedly prevented Syria from employing advanced surface-to-air missile systems provided to it by Russia. Russia likewise has kept its combat aircraft from operating in areas where they could encounter Israeli aircraft. This policy of restraint seems to have emboldened Israel, which recently increased both the scope and scale of its airstrikes against Iranian positions inside Syria.

By declaring that Russia’s “cup of patience” will soon run out regarding Israel’s actions in Syria, Alexander Lavrentiev has made it clear that Israel can no longer assume Russian inaction in the face of continued attacks on Iranian targets inside Syria. The question is whether Israel believes Russia is bluffing, or whether it can defeat any Russian actions in response to continued air strikes in Syria. In this, Israel would do well to reflect on Russia’s recent history, “bluffing” is not part of the lexicon. It would likewise do well to consider the potential repercussions of what Russian “retaliation” and “escalation of violence” might entail. Russia recognizes that a solution to the problems of Syria will only come after a lengthy period of diplomacy and political change. By threatening Israel with violence, Russia is sending a signal that Israel would do well to embrace the same logic. While there may be no military solution to the Syrian puzzle, there could very well be military consequences for any Israeli miscalculation.

*

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.

Scott Ritter is a former US Marine Corps intelligence officer and author of ‘SCORPION KING: America’s Suicidal Embrace of Nuclear Weapons from FDR to Trump.’ He served in the Soviet Union as an inspector implementing the INF Treaty, in General Schwarzkopf’s staff during the Gulf War, and from 1991-1998 as a UN weapons inspector. Follow him on Twitter @RealScottRitter

Featured image is from Sputnik International

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Continued Israeli Airstrikes on Syria Are Testing Moscow’s Patience, Jerusalem Would Do Well Not to Poke the Russian Bear
  • Tags: , , ,

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).

***

The International Criminal Court (ICC) has decided to look into war crimes committed in the Israeli-Occupied Territories of Palestine. Outgoing chief prosecutor, Fatou Bensouda, said that the decision to go forward was reached after a painstaking 5-year review. The investigation will begin in 2014, suggesting that the court will consider war crimes by both Israeli officials and Hammas ones during the 2014 Gaza conflict.

Ms. Bensouda had announced on February 6 of this year that the Court had found that it had the competency to investigate war crimes committed in the Gaza Strip, the West Bank and East Jerusalem, but had not yet decided whether actually to do so.

Now it is clear that there is an appetite on the court to go forward.

The Rome Statute that acts as a charter for the ICC defines Apartheid as a war crime, such that Israel flooding its own citizens onto Palestinian land as grabby squatters may well be part of the court’s brief. Israeli actions contravene the 1949 Geneva Conventions on occupied territories.

Al-Quds al-Arabi [Arab Jerusalem], a pan-Arab London daily, quoted the foreign ministry of the Palestine Authority as welcoming the decision, saying that it demonstrated the court’s principled stand and its independence, and its dedication to the principles of the 2002 Rome Statute.

The state of Palestine brought the motion to the International Criminal Court in 2018 after having tried for three years to get the far right, expansionist government of Binyamin Netanyahu to stop colonizing Palestinian land and resources. The state of Palestine was recognized as a permanent observer state by the UN General Assembly in 2012, giving it the same status that the Vatican enjoys. That status allowed Palestine to join the International Criminal Court in 2015.

The ICC cannot investigate Israel proper, since Tel Aviv is not a signatory to the Rome Statute and the court only has jurisdiction over signatories. The only other way the court can intervene is if the UN Security Council forwards a case to it, as happened when Moammar Gaddafi began shooting down Libyans in February, 2011. Because the US generally wields its veto to protect Israel, the International Criminal Court is unlikely to get a referral regarding Israel.

Since, however, Palestine joined the ICC in 2015, and since Palestine brought a complaint in 2018, the court has decided that it now has jurisdiction over the Palestinian territories. Since those are where most of the war crimes occur, the court now has a wide range of issues to consider.

Al-Quds al-Arabi notes that Bensouda cautioned that this process would take some time. Some work will be delayed because of the pandemic. The first step will be to set priorities for investigation.

The US Secretary of State Antony Blinken denounced the court’s decision, saying “The United States firmly opposes and is deeply disappointed by this decision. The ICC has no jurisdiction over this matter. Israel is not a party to the ICC and has not consented to the Court’s jurisdiction, and we have serious concerns about the ICC’s attempts to exercise its jurisdiction over Israeli personnel.”

He added that the US ““will continue to uphold our strong commitment to Israel and its security, including by opposing actions that seek to target Israel unfairly.”

Blinken is flat out wrong on every point he makes. The ICC is not investigating crimes on Israeli soil, but in the Palestinian Occupied territories. Since Palestine as a permanent UN observer state is a member of the ICC and invited the court into its territory, the International Criminal Court has every right to investigate violations of the Rome Statute that took place in those territories. As for Israeli personnel, if they committed their crimes in Palestine, they are liable to prosecution.

The ICC is not treating Israel unfairly. It will also look at Hamas violations. Moreover, it isn’t unfair to investigate a country for committing war crimes when it has actually, like, committed war crimes. Blinken sounds like every convict in prison, who has been unfairly persecuted and never did murder that old lady to get at her purse.

Blinken already let the crown prince of Saudi Arabia off without sanctions for murdering Washington Post columnist Jamal Khashoggi. Now he is running interference for Netanyahu. He is quickly becoming the face of American hypocrisy, which only wants sanctions on Russians and Iranians who are rivals but never on officials from countries that talk nice about the US.

Although it may itself be under scrutiny, Al Jazeera says, the Hamas party-militia that rules the Palestinian Gaza Strip welcomed the announcement. Spokesman Hazim Qasim said, “Hamas welcomes the decision of the International Criminal Court to investigate the crimes of the Israeli Occupation against our people.” He added, “Our resistance is a legitimate resistance and comes within the framework of defense on our people.”

For his part, Israeli foreign minister Gabriel “Gabi” Ashkenazi rejected the decision of the ICC, calling it “morally and legally bankrupt.” He said, “The decision to open an investigation against Israel is beyond the court’s mandate, and a waste of the international community’s resources by a biased institution that has lost all legitimacy.”

Al-Quds al-Arabi further quoted Ashkenazi as saying, “Israel will take all necessary steps to protect its citizens and its troops from legal persecution.”

I think all criminals view legal prosecution as a form of persecution.

*

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: Israeli soldier aim at Palestinians protesting confiscation of their land by Jewish settlements in Kufr Qadoom vsillage near the West Bank city of Nablus, Oct. 11, 2019. (Photo by Nidal Eshtayeh/Xinhua)

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).

***

Senators Go After Endless Wars

In a long overdue effort Bipartisan Senators Introduce Bill to Strip Biden of War Powers.

Sens. Tim Kaine and Todd Young on Wednesday introduced bipartisan legislation that would repeal decades-old authorizations for the use of military force in the Middle East, amid escalating tensions between the U.S. and Iran in the region.

Kaine (D-Va.) and Young (R-Ind.) unveiled the measure as lawmakers have expressed frustration with President Joe Biden’s decision to launch airstrikes in Syria last week without first seeking congressional approval. It also comes just hours after an Iraqi military base housing U.S. troops and civilian contractors was hit by rocket attacks.

The bill would repeal the 1991 and 2002 authorizations that cleared the way for a prolonged military conflict in Iraq, culminating in calls from Democrats and Republicans alike to end the so-called “forever wars” in the region.

Senators from across the ideological spectrum signed onto the Kaine-Young bill as co-sponsors on Wednesday, including Sens. Tammy Duckworth (D-Ill.), Mike Lee (R-Utah), Chris Coons (D-Del.) and Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa).

“Last week’s airstrikes in Syria show that the executive branch, regardless of party, will continue to stretch its war powers,” Kaine said. “Congress has a responsibility to not only vote to authorize new military action, but to repeal old authorizations that are no longer necessary.”

Biden angered congressional Democrats when he launched airstrikes against Iran-backed military installations in Syria, with lawmakers lamenting that the White House did not consult with Congress ahead of time and did not properly notify them about the strikes.

Congress has largely abdicated its constitutional authority to declare war, and presidents from both parties have used outdated authorizations to legally justify U.S. military action — including, and perhaps most notably, the 2001 authorization for the use of military force against al Qaeda and the Taliban, which was approved in the aftermath of the Sept. 11 attacks. The Kaine-Young bill, though, only deals with the 1991 and 2002 measures, which are entirely focused on Iraq.

No Longer Necessary?!

Not quite. Those bills were never necessary and never should have been passed at all, in any form.

Bush, Obama, and Trump all made terrible use of those bills.

Congress and Congress alone should authorize war and be damn careful when it does.

Warmongers on both sides, notably Hillary Clinton, agreed to fight a stupid second war with Iraq on what any reasonable person should have seen as a pack of lies by Bush and Cheney.

We are still there needlessly and senselessly.

Republicans would not strip Trump but some will be happy to strip Biden. Better late than never, but still not enough.

One Step Further

Congress should go one step further and set a timeline for all troops to return from everywhere starting with the Mideast and Cuba, preferably immediately.

*

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 Sen. Tim Kaine (Public Domain)

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Bipartisan Senators Seek to Strip Biden of War Powers

This Week’s Most Popular Articles

March 5th, 2021 by Global Research News

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on This Week’s Most Popular Articles

The Impact of COVID-19 on Pediatric Mental Health

March 5th, 2021 by FAIR Health

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).

***

Summary

The COVID-19 pandemic has had a profound impact on mental health, particularly on that of young people. Defining the pediatric population as individuals aged 0-22 years, and focusing on the age groups 13-18 years and 19-22 years, FAIR Health studied the effects of the pandemic on US pediatric mental health. To do so, FAIR Health analyzed data from its database of over 32 billion private healthcare claim records, tracking month-by-month changes from January to November 2020 compared to the same months in 2019. Aspects of pediatric mental health investigated include overall mental health, intentional self-harm, overdoses and substance use disorders, top mental health diagnoses, reasons for emergency room visits and state-by-state variations. Among the key findings:

Overall Mental Health

  • In March and April 2020, mental health claim lines1 for individuals aged 13-18, as a percentage of all medical claim lines, approximately doubled over the same months in the previous year. All medical claim lines (including mental health claim lines), however, decreased by approximately half. That pattern of increased mental health claim lines and decreased medical claim lines continued through November 2020, though to a lesser extent.
  • A similar pattern was seen for individuals aged 19-22, though the changes were smaller. In general, the age group 19-22 had mental health trends similar to but less pronounced than the age group 13-18.

Intentional Self-Harm

  • Claim lines for intentional self-harm as a percentage of all medical claim lines in the 13-18 age group increased 90.71 percent in March 2020 compared to March 2019. The increase was even larger when comparing April 2020 to April 2019, nearly doubling (99.83 percent).
  • Comparing August 2019 to August 2020 in the Northeast, for the age group 13-18, there was a 333.93 percent increase in intentional self-harm claim lines as a percentage of all medical claim lines, a rate higher than that in any other region in any month studied for that age group.

Overdoses and Substance Use Disorders

  • For the age group 13-18, claim lines for overdoses increased 94.91 percent as a percentage of all medical claim lines in March 2020 and 119.31 percent in April 2020 over the same months the year before. Claim lines for substance use disorders also increased as a percentage of all medical claim lines in March (64.64 percent) and April (62.69 percent) 2020 as compared to their corresponding months in 2019.

Mental Health Diagnoses

  • For the age group 6-12, from spring to November 2020, claim lines for obsessive-compulsive disorder and tic disorders increased as a percentage of all medical claim lines from their levels in the corresponding months of 2019.
  • For the age group 13-18, in April 2020, claim lines for generalized anxiety disorder increased 93.6 percent as a percentage of all medical claim lines over April 2019, while major depressive disorder claim lines increased 83.9 percent and adjustment disorder claim lines 89.7 percent.

Background

The COVID-19 pandemic has had a profound impact on mental health. Infection-related fears, bereavement, economic instability and social isolation have triggered and exacerbated mental health issues.2 In a survey in March 2020, 45 percent of adults reported that worry and stress related to coronavirus had had a negative impact on their mental health.3 A study from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) found that the prevalence of depression reported in June 2020 was approximately four times that reported in the second quarter of 2019, and the prevalence of anxiety in June 2020 was about three times that in the second quarter of 2019.4 More than 42 percent of respondents surveyed by the US Census Bureau in December 2020 reported symptoms of anxiety or depression that month, a rise from 11 percent the previous year.5

Young people have proven especially vulnerable to mental health issues related to the COVID-19 pandemic. School closures, having to learn remotely and isolating from friends due to social distancing have been sources of stress and loneliness. A review of the international literature identified high rates of anxiety, depression and post-traumatic symptoms among children during the pandemic.6 A CDC report showed that, starting in April 2020, the proportion of mental health-related emergency room (ER) visits for children under 18 among all pediatric ER visits increased and stayed elevated through October.7 Students surveyed at seven American universities reported largely negative impacts of COVID-19 on their psychological health and lifestyle behaviors.8

In a series of studies, FAIR Health has examined several aspects of the COVID-19 pandemic. The first brief projected the costs to the nation of inpatient services for COVID-19 patients.9 The second brief analyzed the impact of COVID-19 on hospitals and health systems.10 The third brief concerned the impact of COVID-19 on healthcare professionals.11 The fourth brief profiled COVID-19 patients by illuminating some of their key characteristics.12 The fifth brief examined the impact of the pandemic on dental services.13 A white paper analyzed risk factors for COVID-19 mortality.14

This white paper concerns the impact of the pandemic on pediatric mental health in the United States. FAIR Health herein defines the pediatric population as including individuals aged 0-22, in order to encompass not only children and adolescents but young adults. The focus of most of the study is on the age groups 13-18 (people in middle school and high school) and 19-22 (the college-age population).

To study the impact of the pandemic on these age groups, FAIR Health analyzed data from its database of over 32 billion private healthcare claim records, the nation’s largest such repository, which is growing by over 2 billion claim records per year. The analysis includes month-by-month changes from January to November 2020 compared to the same months in 2019. Aspects of pediatric mental health investigated include overall mental health, intentional self-harm, overdoses and substance use disorders, top mental health diagnoses, reasons for ER visits and state-by-state variations. Among the factors considered are age group, gender, region and place of service (in particular, telehealth versus office visits).

FAIR Health is a national, independent nonprofit organization dedicated to bringing transparency to healthcare costs and health insurance information. The data in its repository of private healthcare claims are contributed by over 60 payors and third-party administrators who insure or process claims for private insurance plans. The dataset includes data on fully insured and employer self-funded plans and Medicare Advantage (Medicare Part C) enrollees, but not on uninsured individuals or those on Medicare Parts A, B and D.15 Those insured under other government programs, such as Medicaid, CHIP, and state and local government programs, are also not included.

Read full report here.

*

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 by Xavier Donat

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).

***

Astounding new figures out of France suggest what is no doubt a broader global trend of hesitancy and skepticism when it comes to the current big push to ‘vaccinate all’. 

Reuters in covering the country’s vaccine rollout finds that merely around “half of health workers in French care homes do not want to be vaccinated” — even after many of these routinely witness the ravages of COVID-19 on the elderly and infirm.

“There’s a complete loss of trust,” one home health care worker and trade union representative was cited in the report as saying, reflecting resistance to the growing pressure put on often underpaid staff in difficult working conditions who are being ordered to get vaccinated lest they risk the safety of the elderly patients. And another reflected a common answer of “I’m going to wait a bit”.

The intense skepticism and pushback stems from the fact that it’s both the government that’s reportedly underpaying them, while also demanding they get the jab.

Reuters presents a common refrain among the frontline care-givers as follows:

Marie-France Boudret, who works in a French home for the elderly, watched a patient suffocate to death in front of her because COVID-19 had infected his lungs. But when her employer offered her a vaccine against the virus, the nurse hesitated.

“I have some doubts,” said Boudret, 48. “I prefer to wait.”

The trend is also being observed across Europe, raising deep concerns among health officials that the elderly population remains at great risk to the degree that large portions of health workers refuse or at least delay the jab.

The report offers as nearby examples Germany and Switzerland, where resistance to the vaccine among home healthcare staff could be even greater than in France. “In Germany, care home operator BeneVit Group surveyed staff in November and found only 30% wanted to get vaccinated,” writes Reuters.

*

Over the past year France has struggled to contain a series deadly coronavirus outbreaks at nursing homes and elderly care facilities, akin to similar tragedies in New York and other places in the US:

And of Switzerland, the report cites the following: “Peter Burri, head of ProSenectute, Switzerland’s biggest advocacy group for seniors, said at most half of nursing staff in the medical sector were willing to get inoculated.”

France has lately been debating whether or not older people with pre-existing conditions should receive AstraZeneca’s vaccine. Previously Paris warned against it, however, on Tuesday government health officials revised the stance which had been taken out of caution over lack of data from clinical trials, and has now lifted the ban for people 65 and up.

Currently France is approaching the 4 million mark (at 3.8 million) in terms of recorded total COVID invections since the pandemic began, including over 87,000 deaths.

*

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 Viacheslav Lopatin | scaliger – stock.adobe.com

Selected Articles: The Dangers of A “Sino-American Hot War”

March 4th, 2021 by Global Research News

Trump & Biden’s Secret Bombing Wars

By Medea Benjamin and Nicolas J. S. Davies, March 04 2021

Unbeknownst to many Americans, the U.S. military and its allies are engaged in bombing and killing people in other countries on a daily basis. The U.S. and its allies have dropped more than 326,000 bombs and missiles on people in other countries since 2001, including over 152,000 in Iraq and Syria.

The Dangers of A “Sino-American Hot War”: Joe Biden’s China Policy. Can He Stop the Shooting War Against China?

By Prof. Joseph H. Chung, March 04 2021

The forty years of the Cold War have made us endure hunger, fear and hopelessness. The year old pandemic has made us desperate and vulnerable. Now, we are facing a new global threat, namely the Sino-American hot war which may mean the end the human civilization.

Biden Does Not Say Where and How ‘America Is Back’

By Michael Jansen, March 04 2021

US President Joe Biden insists, “America is back.” He says the US has returned to the world stage as a prominent actor and leader after four years of absence and wrong-headed policies adopted by the Trump administration. But, Biden does not say where and how “America is back.”

Biden, Afghanistan and Forever Wars

By Dr. Binoy Kampmark, March 04 2021

The papers are full of suggestions on what US President Joe Biden should do about his country’s seemingly perennial involvement in Afghanistan. None are particularly useful, in that they ignore the central premise that a nation state long mauled, molested and savaged should finally be left alone.

The Bamiyan Buddhas: An Afghan Tale

By Pepe Escobar, March 04 2021

The destruction process started with the legs of the Great Buddha: one of them was already cut at the knee and the other at the femur. It took them four days – using mines, explosives and even artillery. The Taliban forced local Hazara youth to drill holes in the statues: those who refused were shot dead.

Orwell in Disguise: US Congress Passes the So-Called “For the People Act”

By Stephen Lendman, March 04 2021

Congressional legislation most always serves special interests, not all Americans equitably. Deceptive Orwellian language disguises intent. It’s common practice for much congressional legislation.

Death Rates Skyrocket in Israel Following Pfizer Experimental COVID “Vaccines”

By Brian Shilhavy, March 04 2021

We have previously reported how Israel rapidly vaccinated the highest percentage of their population with experimental COVID vaccines after the Israeli government struck a bargain with Pfizer to secure millions of doses of their mRNA COVID vaccines.

Our Children Are Crying. “The Covid Stranglehold”

By Peter Koenig, March 04 2021

This world needs a generation that can lead us out of the mess of dystopian values that was created predominantly by a western civilization of greed. The covid crisis, man-made, served the destruction of the world economy, as well as the ensuing World Economic Forum (WEF) designed “Great Reset”.

Putin Blasts World Economic Forum “Honchos” at Davos “Gabfest”

By Mike Whitney, March 04 2021

Why is Vladimir Putin standing up to the richest and most powerful men in the world? Why is he bad-mouthing their “pet project” Globalization and trash-talking their “Great Reset”?

Anti-Asian Hate Crimes Rose 150% in Major U.S. Cities, Finds Study

By Countercurrents.org, March 04 2021

Hate crimes targeting Asian-Americans rose 150% in U.S.’s largest cities last year, even as overall hate crimes decreased, according to alarming new data released Tuesday.

Lawsuit Challenges Trump Administration’s Eleventh-hour Approval of Dangerous Pesticide Banned in More than 100 Countries

By Center For Biological Diversity, March 04 2021

Public-interest groups sued the Environmental Protection Agency today over its rushed decision in the final days of the Trump administration to reapprove previously cancelled uses of the dangerous pesticide aldicarb on Florida oranges and grapefruits.

  • Posted in NO READ MORE LINK
  • Comments Off on Selected Articles: The Dangers of A “Sino-American Hot War”

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).

***

Congressional legislation most always serves special interests, not all Americans equitably.

Deceptive Orwellian language disguises intent.

It’s common practice for much congressional legislation.

On Wednesday, majority House Dems passed so-called HR 1 — For the People Act of 2021.

There’s nothing remotely democratic about their hostile to peace, equity, justice, and the rule of law agenda.

They stole Election 2020 and likely have more of the same in mind ahead.

HR 1 passed almost entirely along party lines.

Majority Dem House members adopted the measure in 2019.

It died in the GOP controlled Senate, perhaps facing a repeat defeat ahead.

Pelosi’s dark hands are pushing the measure opposed by the ACLU. See below.

Any measure 791 pages in length contains provisions to oppose, not support.

Few if any congressional members read the measure and other overly lengthy ones they vote up or down on anyway.

According to Pelosi, “(e)verything is at stake (sic). We must win this race, this fight (sic).”

“At the same time as we are gathering here to honor our democracy (sic), across the country over 200 bills are being put together, provisions are being put forward to suppress the vote (sic).”

She and other undemocratic Dems know all about voter suppression and related dirty tricks.

There’s nothing remotely democratic about a notion they abhor.

HR 1 contains provisions to facilitate election theft ahead.

Former congressman Ron Paul called the measure “one of the most dangerous bills for both election integrity and free speech that I have ever seen.”

HR 1 “is an attempt by the absolute worst of the Washington, DC statists to take over your state and local elections, while they institutionalize seriously questionable practices like universal mail-in and early voting.”

“Pelosi sponsored HR 1, a bill designed to allow her party to take over elections, and she did it as soon as she retook the speaker’s gavel.”

Provisions include:

“Forcing states to allow same-day walk-up voter registration.”

“Making it illegal to clean out voter rolls of deceased or non-residents.”

“Forcing states to allow early voting.”

“Forcing states to allow vote-by-mail, which is fraught with opportunities to commit fraud.”

“Forcing taxpayers to subsidize candidates they don’t align with politically, and

“Policing online speech about elections with new broad and sweeping powers.”

“They also fear any dissenters to their agenda, because it’s so unpopular among the general public, they know they must crush any dissent at the same time.”

“HR 1…also empowers federal regulators to categorize and regulate speech.”

The ACLU said the following about HR 1.

It supports provisions that “strengthen federal protections for the right to vote.”

Other provisions are unacceptable.

They “unconstitutionally burden the speech and associational rights of many public interest organizations and American citizens.”

“These provisions will chill speech essential to our public discourse and would do little to serve the public’s legitimate interest in knowing who is providing substantial support for candidates’ elections.”

In its current form, the ACLU opposes HR 1.

It should be split into a number of measures to be considered separately.

The ACLU supports legislation that strengthens the democratic process — opposing what goes the other way.

HR 1 as now drafted falls short.

The ACLU urged congressional members “to vote ‘no’ on passage of the bill” in its current form.

House members passed what an evenly divided Senate can defeat by use of the filibuster that requires a 60% majority to end debate.

*

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.

Stephen Lendman is a Research Associate of the Centre for Research on Globalization (CRG).

VISIT MY WEBSITE: stephenlendman.org (Home – Stephen Lendman). Contact at [email protected].

My two Wall Street books are timely reading:

“How Wall Street Fleeces America: Privatized Banking, Government Collusion, and Class War”

https://www.claritypress.com/product/how-wall-street-fleeces-america/

“Banker Occupation: Waging Financial War on Humanity”

https://www.claritypress.com/product/banker-occupation-waging-financial-war-on-humanity/

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Orwell in Disguise: US Congress Passes the So-Called “For the People Act”

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).

***

Why is Vladimir Putin standing up to the richest and most powerful men in the world?

Why is he bad-mouthing their “pet project” Globalization and trash-talking their “Great Reset”?

Does he really think these corporate mandarins and “silver spoon” elites are going to listen to what he has to say or does he realize that they’re just going to hate him more than ever? Why is he doing this?

Here’s what’s going on: At the end of January, Putin was given the opportunity to address the World Economic Forum (WEF) in Davos, Switzerland (online). The WEF is a prestigious assembly of political leaders, corporatists and billionaire elites many of whom are directly involved in the massive global restructuring project that is currently underway behind the smokescreen of the Covid-19 pandemic.

Powerful members of the WEF decided that the Coronavirus presented the perfect opportunity to implement their dystopian strategy which includes a hasty transition to green energy, A.I., robotics, transhumanism, universal vaccination and a comprehensive surveillance matrix that detects the location and activities of every human being on the planet. The proponents of this universal police state breezily refer to it as “The Great Reset” which is the latest make-over of the more familiar, “New World Order”. There’s not a hairsbreadth difference between the Reset and one-world government which has preoccupied billionaire activists for more than a century. This is the group to which Putin made the following remarks:

“I would like to speak in more detail about the main challenges ..the international community is facing…. The first one is socioeconomic….. Starting from 1980, global per capita GDP has doubled in terms of real purchasing power parity. This is definitely a positive indicator. Globalisation and domestic growth have led to strong growth in developing countries and lifted over a billion people out of poverty….Still, the main question… is what was the nature of this global growth and who benefitted from it most…..

… developing countries benefitted a lot from the growing demand for their traditional and even new products. However, this integration into the global economy has resulted in more than just new jobs or greater export earnings. It also had its social costs, including a significant gap in individual incomes…. According to the World Bank, 3.6 million people subsisted on incomes of under $5.50 per day in the United States in 2000, but in 2016 this number grew to 5.6 million people....

Meanwhile, globalisation led to a significant increase in the revenue of large multinational, primarily US and European, companies…In terms of corporate profits, who got hold of the revenue? The answer is clear: one percent of the population.

And what has happened in the lives of other people? In the past 30 years, in a number of developed countries, the real incomes of over half of the citizens have been stagnating, not growing. Meanwhile, the cost of education and healthcare services has gone up. Do you know by how much? Three times…

In other words, millions of people even in wealthy countries have stopped hoping for an increase of their incomes. In the meantime, they are faced with the problem of how to keep themselves and their parents healthy and how to provide their children with a decent education….

These imbalances in global socioeconomic development are a direct result of the policy pursued in the 1980s, which was often vulgar or dogmatic. This policy rested on the so-called Washington Consensus with its unwritten rules, when the priority was given to the economic growth based on a private debt in conditions of deregulation and low taxes on the wealthy and the corporations….

As I have already mentioned, the coronavirus pandemic has only exacerbated these problems. In the last year, the global economy sustained its biggest decline since WWII. By July, the labour market had lost almost 500 million jobs…. In the first nine months of the past year alone, the losses of earnings amounted to $3.5 trillion. This figure is going up and, hence, social tension is on the rise.” (“Session of Davos Agenda 2021 Online Forum, Putin Addresses World Economic Forum, Jan 27, 2021)

Why is Putin telling his elitist audience these things?

Does he think these fatcats don’t know how the system works or how it was originally set up?

Does he think they are unaware of the glaring flaws in a system that shifts all of the profits to obscenely wealthy corporations and scheming elites while working people slip further into debt and desperation?

Putin knows how globalisation works, just as he knows who it was designed to benefit. It’s no secret. Check out this quote from the Russian president in a speech nearly 5 years ago:

“Back in the late 1980s-early 1990s, there was a chance not just to accelerate the globalization process but also to give it a different quality and make it more harmonious and sustainable in nature. But some countries that saw themselves as victors in the Cold War, not just saw themselves this way but said it openly, took the course of simply reshaping the global political and economic order to fit their own interests.

In their euphoria, they essentially abandoned substantive and equal dialogue with other actors in international life, chose not to improve or create universal institutions, and attempted instead to bring the entire world under the spread of their own organizations, norms and rules. They chose the road of globalization and security for their own beloved selves, for the select few, but not for everyone.” (President Vladimir Putin, Meeting of the Valdai International Discussion Club)

“To the victor belongs the spoils”? Isn’t that what Putin is saying, that Washington figured its Cold War triumph entitled them to create a system whereby they could pillage and loot the rest of the world with impunity?

Indeed, that is precisely what he’s saying. And he knows what he’s talking about, too.Putin has followed developments in global trade for over 20 years. He knows the system is rigged and he knows who rigged it. And now he’s telling them in no uncertain terms that they are responsible for the mess the world is in today. “The world is in crisis, because you fu**ed up.” That’s what he’s saying. It’s not a subtle message, he’s simply laying it on the line. Check out this blurb from an earlier speech by Putin where he shows that he’s not just a capable leader but also an astute critic of social trends linked to globalization:

“It seems like elites don’t see the deepening stratification in society and the erosion of the middle class…(but the situation) creates a climate of uncertainty that has a direct impact on the public mood. Sociological studies conducted around the world show that people in different countries and on different continents tend to see the future as murky and bleak. This is sad. The future does not entice them, but frightens them. At the same time, people see no real opportunities or means for changing anything, influencing events and shaping policy. As for the claim that the fringe and populists have defeated the sensible, sober and responsible minority – we are not talking about populists or anything like that but about ordinary people, ordinary citizens who are losing trust in the ruling class. That is the problem…. ” (President Vladimir Putin, Meeting of the Valdai International Discussion Club)

In this one brief comment, Putin shows that he has a better grasp of ‘what is going on’ in the west than any of the numbskulls in congress today. And notice how he ignores the hype about “racial justice”, BLM, “white supremacy” and the other “racialized” bunkum that’s propagated in the media today. He’s not hoodwinked by that nonsense. He knows it’s just another diversion promoted by the cadres of dirtbags who use race and identity politics to conceal their role in the ongoing class war. That’s what’s really going on. The men that Putin is addressing in his speech are the very same men who are doing everything in their power to eviscerate democracy, skewer the middle class and grind America’s working population into dust. It’s plain old class war dolled-up to look like racial unrest. Here’s more from Putin:

“…During the past 20 years we have created a foundation for the so-called Fourth Industrial Revolution (AKA–“The Great Reset”) based on the wide use of AI and automation and robotics. The coronavirus pandemic has greatly accelerated such projects and their implementation. However, this process is leading to new structural changes, I am thinking in particular of the labor market. This means that very many people could lose their jobs unless the state takes effective measures to prevent this. Most of these people are from the so-called middle class, which is the basis of any modern society.

…. The rise of economic problems and inequality is splitting society, triggering social, racial and ethnic intolerance. Indicatively, these tensions are bursting out even in the countries with seemingly civil and democratic institutions that are designed to alleviate and stop such phenomena and excesses.

The systemic socioeconomic problems are evoking such social discontent that they require special attention and real solutions. The dangerous illusion that they may be ignored or pushed into the corner is fraught with serious consequences.” (Putin, WEF)

Putin understands that the Covid-related lockdowns and closing of “non-essential” businesses is merely prelude for the massive societal restructuring project elites have in store for us. They’ve already put millions of people out of work and expanded their surveillance capabilities in anticipation of the social unrest they are deliberately inciting. Putin thinks this futuristic strategy is unnecessarily reckless, disruptive and fails to account for intensifying social animosities and widening political divisions that are bound to have a catastrophic impact on democratic institutions. But Putin also knows that his appeal for a more cautious approach will be brushed aside by the billionaire powerbrokers who set the policy and call the shots. Here’s more:

“Society will still be divided politically and socially. This is bound to happen because people are dissatisfied not by some abstract issues but by real problems that concern everyone regardless of the political views that people have or think they have. Meanwhile, real problems evoke discontent.”

This is a recurrent theme with Putin and one that shows that he has a deeper understanding of what is really happening in both the United States and Europe than any of his peers.

Populist candidates, like Trump, have not gained momentum due to thier abilities and charisma, but because the financial situation of millions of Americans continues to deteriorate forcing them to seek remedies outside the establishment candidates. The economic distress is real and widespread and, as Putin notes, it is expressing itself in outbursts of discontent, frustration and rage. Here’s more:

“So, the key question today is how to build a programme of actions in order to not only quickly restore the global and national economies affected by the pandemic, but to ensure that this recovery is sustainable in the long run, relies on a high-quality structure and helps overcome the burden of social imbalances. Clearly… economic growth will largely rely on fiscal incentives with state budgets and central banks playing the key role.

Actually, we can see these kinds of trends in the developed countries and also in some developing economies as well. An increasing role of the state in the socioeconomic sphere at the national level obviously implies greater responsibility and close interstate interaction when it comes to issues on the global agenda.

Calls for inclusive growth and for creating decent standards of living for everyone are regularly made at various international forums. This is how it should be, and this is an absolutely correct view of our joint efforts.

It is clear that the world cannot continue creating an economy that will only benefit a million people, or even the golden billion. This is a destructive precept. This model is unbalanced by default. The recent developments, including migration crises, have reaffirmed this once again.” (Putin, WEF)

Putin’s recommendations, of course, are going to be dismissed with a wave of the hand by the men in power. The last thing these sociopaths want is “inclusive growth.. and decent standards of living for everyone.” That’s not even on their list, and why would it be. After all, they know what they want. “They want more for themselves and less for everyone else.” (George Carlin) Which is why the system works the way it does, because it was constructed with that one solitary goal in mind.

Putin also acknowledges the need for greater state intervention in the economy to counterbalance the more destructive effects of “smash and grab” capitalism. And, while he rejects the swift and far-reaching structural changes (The Great Reset) that would precipitate massive social upheaval, he does support a larger role for the state in providing essential fiscal stimulus, employment and a more equitable distribution of the wealth. This does not imply that Putin supports state socialism. He does not. He merely supports a more regulated and benign form of Capitalism that veers from the “scorched earth” model backed by powerful members of the WEF and other elitist organizations.

With that in mind, Putin makes these specific recommendations:

“We must now proceed from stating facts to action, investing our efforts and resources into reducing social inequality in individual countries and into gradually balancing the economic development standards of different countries and regions in the world. This would put an end to migration crises.”

The focus of this policy aimed at ensuring sustainable and harmonious development are clear. They imply the creation of new opportunities for everyone, conditions under which everyone will be able to develop and realize their potential regardless of where they were born and are living

I would like to point out four key priorities, as I see them.

First, everyone must have comfortable living conditions, including housing and affordable transport, energy and public utility infrastructure. Plus, environmental welfare, something that must not be overlooked.

Second, everyone must be sure that they will have a job that can ensure sustainable growth of income and, hence, decent standards of living. Everyone must have access to an effective system of lifelong education, which is absolutely indispensable now and which will allow people to develop, make a career and receive a decent pension and social benefits upon retirement.

Third, people must be confident that they will receive high-quality and effective medical care whenever necessary, and that the national healthcare system will guarantee access to modern medical services.

Fourth, regardless of the family income, children must be able to receive a decent education and realize their potential. Every child has potential.” (Putin, Davos)

What does it mean that the current president of Russia is now throwing his weight behind a program that is nearly identical to Franklin Delano Roosevelt’s economic Bill of Rights? Doesn’t that seem a bit odd? After all, Putin is a devout Orthodox Christian, a strong proponent of the traditional family, a self-avowed social conservative, and a hardscrabble survivor of the failed Soviet state. Who would have thought that such a man would support a program that provides a decent standard living to every member of society regardless of their circumstances?

But it makes sense, doesn’t it? Putin is pushing for a return to the heavily-regulated “Heyday” of 20th Century capitalism, when workers’ wages were still on the rise, when college tuition and health care were still affordable, and when the American Dream was still within reach of the average guy. People were happier then, because they felt that if they applied themselves, worked like hell, and stashed their savings in the bank; they’d eventually reach their goal. But that’s not true anymore. People are much more pessimistic now and no longer believe that America is the land of opportunity.

Putin wants to rekindle that optimism. He wants to avoid social unrest by implementing programs that provide a more equitable distribution of the wealth. This isn’t a return to Communism. It’s sensible way to soften the harsher effects of unrestrained capitalism, which is presently ravaging the West. Here’s Putin again:

“This is the only way to guarantee the cost-effective development of the modern economy, in which people are perceived as the end, rather than the means…. A strategy, also being implemented by my country, hinges on precisely these approaches. Our priorities revolve around people, their families, and they aim to ensure demographic development, to protect the people, to improve their well-being and to protect their health. We are now working to create favourable conditions for worthy and cost-effective work and successful entrepreneurship and to ensure digital transformation as the foundation of a high-tech future for the entire country, rather than that of a narrow group of companies.

We intend to focus the efforts of the state, the business community and civil society on these tasks and to implement a budgetary policy with the relevant incentives in the years ahead….” (Putin, Davos)

Imagine a political leader who actually put the needs and well-being of his people before the special interests of his deep-pocket donors and shady corporate buddies. Imagine a leader who stood eye-to-eye with the big money guys and told them that their system “sucked” and that they were taking too much for themselves leaving nothing for anyone else. Imagine a leader who invited more criticism, hectoring, demonizing and punitive sanctions for “speaking truth to power” in order to stand on the side of ordinary working people, pensioners, cast-offs and the other victims of this globalist rip-off system.

The reason Putin spoke out at the WEF confab and put himself at risk, was because Putin is one of the “good guys” who actually believes that everyone deserves a shot at a decent life. And that’s what sets Putin apart from the other leaders in the world today. He doesn’t just “talk the talk”, he also “walks the walk.”

*

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 The Unz Review.

Mike Whitney is a frequent contributor to Global Research.

Featured image is from The Unz Review

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).

***

On Saturday Mumia Abu-Jamal was hospitalized.  When he put in a sick call slip and was seen by the SCI Mahanoy medical staff he was taken immediately to the hospital suffering chest pain and shortness of breath. Diagnosed with congestive heart failure he was given a battery of tests.  It is unclear how long Mumia was hospitalized, but by Wednesday he was in isolation in the prison’s infirmary.  This diagnosis of a weakened heart requires careful monitoring and treatment.

At the hospital his seriology blood test was positive for Covid-19. This followed three negative, or false negative COVID-19, tests  and a negative antigen test administered recently by the medical staff at SCI Mahanoy.

After initial treatment for fluid build up in his body, he was discharged from the local private hospital and put in isolation in the prison infirmary.   On Wednesday he was able to reach his supporters who were gathering in Philadelphia at 3 Penn Sq. outside the DA’s office, demanding that he receive appropriate medical attention.  He expressed his gratitude for the world wide support and attention to his and other elders with life threatening conditions in prison.

We must remember that the prison infirmary at SCI Mahanoy is the very same place that in 2014 diagnosed Mumia as having critically low blood sugar, ie a diabetic episode or reaction to a topical steroid he was taking for a raging skin condition.  The infirmary then ignored the notation in his chart to monitor his blood sugar levels for three weeks.  It was not until  he fainted and went into renal failure that he was rushed to the hospital.  His lawsuit in that case Abu-Jamal v. Wetzel is still pending.  It took a federal civil rights lawsuit, the order of a preliminary injunction, and world wide protests for Mumia to receive the fast acting anti viral cure to his belatedly diagnosed Hepatitis C.

The Pennsylvania Department of Corrections has repeatedly failed to provide adequate care for our family members.

We, the people, must toss aside our fears.  It is not the time to hesitate and we cannot give into despair. Decarceration is not a dream; it is a necessity.

We need to take action now!

*

Please consider reaching out to the following:

  • Gov Tom Wolf: 717-787-2500
  • PA DA Larry Krasner: 267-456-1000; @DA_LarryKrasner
  • Prison SCI Mahanoy: 570-773-2158
  • PA DOC Secretary John Wetzel: 717-728-2573

Script:

My name is _____ and I demand:

1. The immediate and unconditional release of Mumia Abu-Jamal, who has congestive heart failure & has been diagnosed with COVID-19 and is vulnerable.

2. The immediate release of all political prisoners.

3. The immediate release of all elders, aging prisoners over the age of 50, people who have contracted COVID, and all others who are especially vulnerable to death through COVID-19.

Write Mumia a personal note:

Smart Communications/PADOC
Mumia Abu-Jamal AM 8335
SCI Mahanoy
PO Box 33028
St Petersburg, FL 33733

*

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 Mumia Abu Jamal Has Congestive Heart Failure and Is COVID-19 Positive
  • Tags:

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).

***

Russophobic US-led Western actions continue sinking to new depths.

In short order, they hit a new low under Biden, hardliners controlling his geopolitical agenda, and their EU counterparts.

Last December, former US envoy to Russia Thomas Pickering said sanctions imposed on Russia by Washington weren’t working, adding:

“It’s a huge country, great resilience, lots of resources.”

Pickering predicted tougher sanctions by Biden, along with pushing US allies to go in the same direction.

Russia earlier warned Washington and Brussels that it reserves the right to respond in its own way at a time of its choosing to “unlawful self-defeating” sanctions by its policymakers over Navalny or for other unacceptable reasons.

On March 2, Brussels in cahoots with the Biden regime imposed unlawful sanctions on “high-profile” Russian officials.

According to the Official Journal of the European Union, they include the following individuals:

Prosecutor-General Igor Krasnov, Investigative Committee head Alexander Bastrykin, Federal Penitentiary Service head Alexander Kalashnikov, and Director of the National Guard Viktor Zolotov, among others.

Targeted individuals are barred from traveling to EU countries. Any assets held in the West will be frozen.

Shortly after the above was announced, the Biden regime followed suit with its own sanctions.

They include export controls on seven Russian officials, along with a Russian research institute.

US/EU actions were coordinated. According to a White House spokesperson, Russia was sanctioned for poisoning (sic), arresting and imprisoning Navalny, along with actions against protesters in Russian cities last month.

The spokesperson defied reality by claiming that the US “is neither seeking to reset our relations with Russia, nor are we seeking to escalate,” adding:

“We believe that the United States and our partners must be clear and impose costs when Russia’s behavior crosses boundaries that are respected by responsible nations, and we believe there should be guard rails on how these adversarial aspects of our relationship play out.”

“(A)s part of a robust inter-agency response to the poisoning (sic) and imprisonment of opposition figure Alexey Navalny, the Treasury Department is designating seven senior members of the Russian government.”

In addition, 14 Russian entities were blacklisted. Thirteen are private companies, nine located in Russia, three in Germany, one in Switzerland, plus a Russian research institute.

The spokesperson falsely accused them of involvement in chemical and biological weapons development and production — citing no evidence because none exists.

Further actions against Russia are coming, he added.

Tuesday’s coordinated US/EU actions escalated US-led hostility toward Moscow.

They further undermined mutual trust. Russian relations with the West are at a new low through no fault of its own.

In public remarks since taking office, Biden and hardliners around him expressed implacable hostility toward Moscow.

The US and EU sanctioned Russia on the phony pretext of human rights violations related to legal actions against convicted felon Navalny, cracking down on foreign orchestrated street protests on his behalf that turned violent, and expelling EU diplomats for participating in them.

Pretexts are easy to invent. If what’s explained above didn’t happen, something else would have been used as an excuse for sanctioning Russia.

Vladimir Putin earlier explained that the US sanctioned Russia 46 times during Trump’s tenure — by the White House and Congress, what Sergey Lavrov called “far-fetched pretexts.”

He also warned that Moscow is prepared to cut ties with the EU if unlawful sanctions by Brussels harm Russia’s economy.

Earlier he called what’s now unfolding in Washington and Brussels “sanctions for the sake of sanctions, for one’s own pleasure to punish.”

They “do not bring fruit and cannot divert us from our policy of protecting the nation’s interests.”

Lavrov’s spokeswoman Maria Zakharova said if more EU sanctions are imposed on Russia, an appropriate response “will follow inevitably.”

“It is absolutely unacceptable to use human rights and refer to democratic principles as a geopolitical instrument.”

“(W)e reaffirm our fundamental position that it is unlawful to impose unilateral restrictions in bypassing the UN Security Council.”

In response to US/EU sanctions announced Tuesday, Sergey Lavrov said the following:

The latest Western measures are “illegitimate and unilateral of the kind (that the US and) EU members who follow (its) example almost always resort to without any reason.”

An appropriate Russian response will likely follow ahead.

*

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.

Stephen Lendman is a Research Associate of the Centre for Research on Globalization (CRG).

VISIT MY WEBSITE: stephenlendman.org (Home – Stephen Lendman). Contact at [email protected].

My two Wall Street books are timely reading:

“How Wall Street Fleeces America: Privatized Banking, Government Collusion, and Class War”

https://www.claritypress.com/product/how-wall-street-fleeces-america/

“Banker Occupation: Waging Financial War on Humanity”

https://www.claritypress.com/product/banker-occupation-waging-financial-war-on-humanity/

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).

***

We have previously reported how Israel rapidly vaccinated the highest percentage of their population with experimental COVID vaccines after the Israeli government struck a bargain with Pfizer to secure millions of doses of their mRNA COVID vaccines.

Vera Sharav wrote:

It is astonishing that the government of Israel entrusted the health of the people to Pfizer; by entering into a secret contract that enrolled the Israeli population to become research subjects, without their knowledge or consent.

To date, Israel has vaccinated over 53% of their population, twice the percentage of the next closest nation, Britain, with 26.9%.

Source.

The “official news” published by the corporate media claiming that the vaccines have been effective in reducing rates of COVID in Israel has been scrutinized and examined by Aix-Marseille University Faculty of Medicine Emerging Infectious and Tropical Diseases Unit’s Dr. Hervé Seligmann and engineer Haim Yativ, who published their results on a discussion forum website called “Nakim.”

The information quickly went viral, and has now been translated into several languages and addressed on various news sites around the world, including Arutz Sheva 7, IsraelNationalNews.com.

Mordechai Sones writes:

A front-page article appeared in the FranceSoir newspaper about findings on the Nakim website regarding what some experts are calling “the high mortality caused by the vaccine.”

The paper interviews Aix-Marseille University Faculty of Medicine Emerging Infectious and Tropical Diseases Unit’s Dr. Hervé Seligmann and engineer Haim Yativ about their research and data analysis.

They claim that Pfizer’s shot causes “mortality hundreds of times greater in young people compared to mortality from coronavirus without the vaccine, and dozens of times more in the elderly, when the documented mortality from coronavirus is in the vicinity of the vaccine dose, thus adding greater mortality from heart attack, stroke, etc.”

Dr Hervé Seligmann works at the Emerging Infectious and Tropical Diseases Research Unit, Faculty of Medicine, Aix-Marseille University, Marseille, France. He is of Israeli-Luxembourg nationality. He has a B. Sc. In Biology from the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, and has written over 100 scientific publications.

FranceSoir writes that they follow publications, data analyzes, and feedback from various countries on vaccination, and have therefore taken an interest in the Nakim article, asking to interview them in order to understand their analysis and its limitations.

The authors of the article declare they have no conflicts or interests other than having children in Israel.

After a presentation, the authors discussed their data analysis, the validations carried out, limitations, and above all, their conclusions that they compare with data received via a Health Ministry Freedom of Information Act request.

Their findings are:

  • There is a mismatch between the data published by the authorities and the reality on the ground.
  • They have three sources of information, besides the emails and adverse event reports they receive through the Internet. These three sources are Israeli news site Ynet, the Israeli Health Ministry database, and the U.S. federal Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) database.
  • In January 2021, there were 3,000 records of vaccine adverse events, including 2,900 for mRNA vaccines.
  • Compared to other years, mortality is 40 times higher.
  • On February 11, a Ynet article presented data related to vaccination. The authors of the Nakim article claim to have debunked this analysis based on data published by Ynet itself: “We took the data by looking at mortality during the vaccination period, which spans 5 weeks. By analyzing these data, we arrived at startling figures that attribute significant mortality to the vaccine.”
  • The authors say “vaccinations have caused more deaths than the coronavirus would have caused during the same period.”
  • Haim Yativ and Dr. Seligmann declare that for them, “this is a new Holocaust,” in face of Israeli authority pressure to vaccinate citizens.

They also invite specialists to complete their analyses, and intend to pursue legal follow-up to their discovery. The Health Ministry was not available for comment on a FranceSoir query regarding the findings.

The authors also deplored “the fact of not being able to communicate on this vital information” to their fellow citizens.

Full article here.

Mordechai Sones also has his own radio broadcast in Israel, and a few weeks ago he began his broadcast by reading the names of 28 people who have died following the Pfizer experimental COVID mRNA injections.

The list begins with some elderly Rabbis, but also includes young people who reportedly had no existing health problems and died suddenly, including a 25-year-old woman.

After reading these 28 names, Mordechai states:

The list continues, but cannot be brought here in its entirety due to time constraints.

An Israeli man who posted this reading on YouTube stated:

I made this short video with an audio broadcast of Mordechai Sones; so that I could pass on the information that many people here in Israel have been dying after receiving the Pfizer Covid-19 Vaccine.

But none of this information seems to be making it into the mainline media.

I am calling on everyone to pray and seek the Lord to have this evil thing stopped immediately.

Here is the video from our Rumble Channel, and it is also on our Bitchute Channel.

I think it is safe to conclude that what is happening in Israel right now with the massive roll out of the experimental Pfizer COVID mRNA vaccine is a test of what the Globalists desire to roll out in other countries around the world, so everyone should be watching carefully what Israel is doing right now to see what is probably coming to the U.S. and other countries around the world.

From Mordechai Sones’ Facebook Page.

Israel has now started a “Green Pass” program that requires people to show proof of COVID vaccination to gain entrance to “registered” places of business. This was published yesterday, 2/28/21 in The Jerusalem Post:

The country is expected to further return to routine on Sunday and to facilitate this, the Health Ministry will roll out its “green passport” program.

A green passport will be required to enter certain places and to participate in certain activities. Only people who have been vaccinated or have recovered from coronavirus will be eligible for one.

As part of the program, registered gyms, theaters, hotels, concerts and synagogues will be able to operate starting next week.

“We are giving a huge line to vaccinators,” Health Minister Yuli Edelstein said on Thursday during an extensive briefing.

“This is the first step back to an almost normal life.”

Welcome to the new “almost normal.” Will the Israelis and other populations around the world comply with this?

*

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 Health Impact News