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).

***

“All that was required of them was a primitive patriotism which could be appealed to whenever it was necessary to make them accept longer working hours or shorter rations. And even when they became discontented, as they sometimes did, their discontent led nowhere, because, being without general ideas, they could only focus it on petty specific grievances. The larger evils invariably escaped their notice.”—George Orwell, 1984

Let’s be clear about one thing: the impeachment of Donald Trump is a waste of time and money.

Impeaching Trump will accomplish very little, and it will not in any way improve the plight of the average American. It will only reinforce the spectacle and farce that have come to be synonymous with politics today

While the nation allows itself to be distracted by yet more bread-and-circus politics, the American kakistocracy (a government run by unprincipled career politicians and corporate thieves that panders to the worst vices in our nature and has little regard for the rights of the people) continues to suck the American people into a parallel universe in which the Constitution is meaningless, the government is all-powerful, and the citizenry are powerless to defend themselves against government agents who steal, spy, lie, plunder, kill, abuse and generally inflict mayhem and sow madness on everyone and everything in their sphere.

So here’s what I propose: let’s impeach the Deep State and its cabal of government operatives from every point along the political spectrum (right, left and center) for conspiring to expand the federal government’s powers at the expense of the citizenry.

We’ve been losing our freedoms so incrementally for so long—sold to us in the name of national security and global peace, maintained by way of martial law disguised as law and order, and enforced by a standing army of militarized police and a political elite determined to maintain their powers at all costs—that it’s hard to pinpoint exactly when it all started going downhill, but we’re certainly on that downward trajectory now, and things are moving fast.

Even now, we are being pushed and prodded towards a civil war, not because the American people are so divided but because that’s how corrupt governments control a populace (i.e., divide and conquer).

These are dangerous times.

These are indeed dangerous times but not because of violent crime, which remains at an all-time low, or because of terrorism, which is statistically rare, or because the borders are being invaded by foreign armies, which data reports from the Department of Homeland Security refute, or because a pandemic is spreading like a contagion, or even because raging mobs of so-called domestic terrorists are trying to overthrow elections.

No, the real danger that we face comes from none other than the U.S. government and the powers it has granted to its standing armies to rob, steal, cheat, harass, detain, brutalize, terrorize, torture and kill American citizens with immunity.

The danger “we the people” face comes from masked invaders on the government payroll who crash through our doors in the dark of night, shoot our dogs, and terrorize our families.

This danger comes from militarized henchmen on the government payroll who demand absolute obedience, instill abject fear, and shoot first and ask questions later.

This danger comes from greedy, power-hungry bureaucrats on the government payroll who have little to no understanding of their constitutional limits.

This danger comes from greedy politicians and corporations for whom profit trumps principle.

This danger comes from a surveillance state that grows more and more ominous.

Consider, if you will, all of the dastardly, devious, diabolical, dangerous, debilitating, deceitful, dehumanizing, demonic, depraved, dishonorable, disillusioning, discriminatory, dictatorial schemes inflicted on “we the people” by a bureaucratic, totalitarian regime that has long since ceased to be “a government of the people, by the people and for the people.”

Americans have no protection against police abuse. It is no longer unusual to hear about incidents in which police shoot unarmed individuals first and ask questions later. What remains all-too-usual, however, is the news that the officers involved in these incidents get off with little more than a slap on the hands.

Americans are little more than pocketbooks to fund the police state. If there is any absolute maxim by which the federal government seems to operate, it is that the American taxpayer always gets ripped off. This is true, whether you’re talking about taxpayers being forced to fund high-priced weaponry that will be used against us, endless wars that do little for our safety or our freedoms, bloated government agencies such as the National Security Agency with its secret budgets, covert agendas and clandestine activities.

Americans are no longer innocent until proven guilty. We once operated under the assumption that you were innocent until proven guilty. Due in large part to rapid advances in technology and a heightened surveillance culture, the burden of proof has been shifted so that the right to be considered innocent until proven guilty has been usurped by a new norm in which all citizens are suspects. This is exemplified by police practices of stopping and frisking people who are merely walking down the street and where there is no evidence of wrongdoing. Likewise, by subjecting Americans to full-body scans and license-plate readers without their knowledge or compliance and then storing the scans for later use, the government—in cahoots with the corporate state—has erected the ultimate suspect society. In such an environment, we are all potentially guilty of some wrongdoing or other.

Americans no longer have a right to self-defense. In the wake of various shootings in recent years, “gun control” has become a resounding theme. Those advocating gun reform see the Second Amendment’s right to bear arms as applying only to government officials. As a result, even Americans who legally own firearms are being treated with suspicion and, in some cases, undue violence. In one case, a Texas man had his home subjected to a no-knock raid and was shot in his bed after police, attempting to deliver a routine search warrant, learned that he was in legal possession of a firearm. In another incident, a Florida man who was licensed to carry a concealed firearm found himself detained for two hours during a routine traffic stop in Maryland while the arresting officer searched his vehicle in vain for the man’s gun, which he had left at home.

Americans no longer have a right to private property. If government agents can invade your home, break down your doors, kill your dog, damage your furnishings and terrorize your family, your property is no longer private and secure—it belongs to the government. Likewise, if government officials can fine and arrest you for growing vegetables in your front yard, praying with friends in your living room, installing solar panels on your roof, and raising chickens in your backyard, you’re no longer the owner of your property.

Americans are powerless in the face of militarized police. In early America, citizens were considered equals with law enforcement officials. Authorities were rarely permitted to enter one’s home without permission or in a deceitful manner. And it was not uncommon for police officers to be held personally liable for trespass when they wrongfully invaded a citizen’s home. Unlike today, early Americans could resist arrest when a police officer tried to restrain them without proper justification or a warrant—which the police had to allow citizens to read before arresting them. (Daring to dispute a warrant with a police official today who is armed with high-tech military weapons and tasers would be nothing short of suicidal.) As police forces across the country continue to be transformed into outposts of the military, with police agencies acquiring military-grade hardware in droves, Americans are finding their once-peaceful communities transformed into military outposts, complete with tanks, weaponry, and other equipment designed for the battlefield.

Americans no longer have a right to bodily integrity. Court rulings undermining the Fourth Amendment and justifying invasive strip searches have left us powerless against police empowered to forcefully draw our blood, strip search us, and probe us intimately. It’s no longer unusual to hear accounts of men and women being subjected to what is essentially government-sanctioned rape by police in the course of “routine” traffic stops. What remains to be seen is how the emerging hypervigilance over COVID-19 vaccines will impact that right to bodily integrity.

Americans no longer have a right to the expectation of privacy. Despite the staggering number of revelations about government spying on Americans’ phone calls, Facebook posts, Twitter tweets, Google searches, emails, bookstore and grocery purchases, bank statements, commuter toll records, etc., little to nothing has been done to counteract these abuses. Instead, we are daily being accustomed to life in this electronic concentration camp.

Americans can no longer rely on the courts to mete out justice. The U.S. Supreme Court was intended to be an institution established to intervene and protect the people against the government and its agents when they overstep their bounds. Yet through their deference to police power, preference for security over freedom, and evisceration of our most basic rights for the sake of order and expediency, the justices of the Supreme Court have become the architects of the American police state in which we now live, while the lower courts have appointed themselves courts of order, concerned primarily with advancing the government’s agenda, no matter how unjust or illegal.

Americans no longer have a representative government. We have moved beyond the era of representative government and entered a new age, let’s call it the age of authoritarianism. In fact, a study conducted by Princeton and Northwestern University concluded that the U.S. government does not represent the majority of American citizens. Instead, the study found that the government is ruled by the rich and powerful, or the so-called “economic elite.” Moreover, the researchers concluded that policies enacted by this governmental elite nearly always favor special interests and lobbying groups.

It is not overstating matters to say that Congress, which has done its best to keep their unhappy constituents at a distance, may well be the most self-serving, semi-corrupt institution in America.

In other words, we are being ruled by an oligarchy disguised as a democracy, and arguably on our way towards fascism: a form of government where private corporate interests rule, money calls the shots, and the people are seen as mere subjects to be controlled.

Rest assured that when and if fascism finally takes hold in America, the basic forms of government will remain: Fascism will appear to be friendly. The legislators will be in session. There will be elections, and the news media will continue to cover the entertainment and political trivia. Consent of the governed, however, will no longer apply. Actual control will have finally passed to the oligarchic elite controlling the government behind the scenes.

Sound familiar?

Clearly, we are now ruled by an oligarchic elite of governmental and corporate interests. We have moved into “corporatism” (favored by Benito Mussolini), which is a halfway point on the road to full-blown fascism. Corporatism is where the few moneyed interests—not elected by the citizenry—rule over the many.

History may show that from this point forward, we will have left behind any semblance of constitutional government and entered into a totalitarian state where all citizens are suspects and security trumps freedom.

Even with its constantly shifting terrain, this topsy-turvy travesty of law and government has become America’s new normal.

From Clinton to Bush, Obama to Trump, and now Biden, it’s as if we’ve been caught in a time loop, forced to re-live the same thing over and over again: the same assaults on our freedoms, the same disregard for the rule of law, the same subservience to the Deep State, and the same corrupt, self-serving government that exists only to amass power, enrich its shareholders and ensure its continued domination.

As I make clear in my book Battlefield America: The War on the American People, the powers-that-be want us to remain distracted, divided, alienated from each other based on our politics, our bank accounts, our religion, our race and our value systems.

Yet as George Orwell observed, “The real division is not between conservatives and revolutionaries but between authoritarians and libertarians.”

*

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 Rutherford Institute.

Constitutional attorney and author John W. Whitehead is founder and president of The Rutherford Institute. His new book Battlefield America: The War on the American People  is available at www.amazon.com. Whitehead can be contacted at [email protected].

Featured image is from Information Clearinghouse

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 powers of financial capitalism had another far reaching aim, nothing less than to create a world system of financial control in private hands able to dominate the political system of each country and the economy of the world as a whole.” Carroll  Quigley (1910-1977), American historian, 1966.

“There are no nations. There are no peoples… There is no America. There is no democracy. There is only IBM, and ITT, and AT&T, and DuPont, Dow Union Carbide, and Exxon. Those are the nations of the world today… We no longer live in a world of nations and ideologies… The world is a college of corporations, inexorably determined by the immutable bylaws of business. The world is a business.” Network, 1976, (a corporation executive talking in the American satirical drama film ‘Network’.)

“By a continuing process of inflation, government can confiscate, secretly and unobserved, an important part of the wealth of their citizens… By this method they not only conficscate, but they confiscate arbitrarily; and, while the process impoverishes many, it actually enriches some.” John Maynard Keynes (1883-1946), British economist, 1936.

Has a forty-year trend reached an apex? Indeed, official measures of economic disparities are at an all-time high.

For example, in 2017, the three richest Americans (Bill Gates, Jeff Bezos, and Warren Buffett) owned more wealth than all the people in the bottom 50 percent of the U.S. population. And although income disparity has increased in most advanced economies, the United States is leading the way with levels of income disparities not seen since 1928, just before the Great Depression (1929-1939). All this is happening while the U.S. federal minimum wage has remained fixed at $7.25 an hour since 2009!

A question that begs to be answered is: to what extent can such a record inequality be traced back, at least partly, to the public policies that have been followed over the last forty years?

Since the early 1980s, indeed, governments and central banks in Europe, the United States and in other industrialized economies have adopted an unusual mix of fiscal policy and monetary policy. Governments became the de facto bankers of the corporate world through large tax subsidies. For their part, central banks have been busy creating bubbles in the stock and bond markets. Sooner or later, that house of cards is bound to crash.

For one, governments have relied less and less on progressive income and wealth taxes and more on regressive taxes to finance public spending programs.

Secondly, central banks have  initiated round after round of money creation through a wholesale purchase of government bonds and other securities, such as mortgage-backed securities (MBS). This was labeled a process of ‘quantitative easing‘ (QE), through which central bankers pushed nominal interest rates to the floor and real interest rates (adjusted for inflation) into negative territory.

In some European countries (Switzerland, Germany, the Netherlands and France) even nominal interest rates have turned negative for ten-year safe investments. Paradoxically, this means that some savers pay borrowers to accept their money. It’s the world upside down.

Such a super-aggressive monetary policy has created unintended consequences for some classes of consumers—for retirees, students, etc.—whose incomes and spending fell. In many cases, they were forced to go deeply into debt, in order to sustain a livable level of consumption.

Consequences of economic and financial globalization

Under the guise of financial and corporate globalization, governments became more and more responsive to the demands of international corporations, mega banks and rich individuals, to lower their taxes and to reduce regulations. Their argument was that this was a requirement to remain competitive and retain industrial investment at home. Moreover most governments abandoned domestic industrial policies and let corporate and banking world decisions structure their economies.

The process of de-industrialization in advanced economies and the shift of the tax burden

Many large corporations found it profitable to abandon their domestic production base and began searching the world for the lowest wages they could find, while collecting the most advantageous financial inducements from local governments to locate new industrial investments. International free trade of goods and services, which is in general beneficial to all counties, was extended to encompass the more controversial concept of a free international movement of financial capital and of industrial capital.

In such an international context, national governments were forced to enter into a zero-sum game competition to lower taxes and regulation for industrial investors and to extend subsidies to encourage new investment and employment at home.

Over time, this resulted in two important structural changes.

First, some advanced industrial economies began a gradual process of de-industrialization, when large companies began moving their high-productivity manufacturing activities abroad. This was accompanied by a relative structural shift in domestic employment from the high-productivity manufacturing sector to the generally less productive service sector. Among the latter, some high-knowledge service industries have been paying above average wages, but some labor-intensive service industries are paying relatively low wages. As a consequence, over the last forty years, real wages in advanced economies have remained relatively stagnant.

All the while, some high-income earners and the super rich strata of the population benefited from huge tax deductions. The most recent example is the ten-year $1.5 trillion tax cuts passed into law, in December 2017, by the Trump administration. That measure slashed the corporate tax rate in the U.S. from 35 percent to 21 percent, but with few new benefits for the economy. Contrary to what was expected, many corporations used the tax returns to buy back their own stock shares, rather than to invest in new plants or machinery.

Moreover, since labor is generally immobile internationally, the overall domestic tax burden on income, consumption and profits began to shift more heavily onto workers, consumers and middle class taxpayers, and away from large corporations and mega banks, and from rich investors. To alleviate such a taxation shift, governments were saddled with larger operating deficits and their national debtrose, even during prosperous times.

This has raised a tax fairness issue with the growing gap of income and wealth inequalities among different categories of taxpayers.

A worldwide glut of savings, a decline in real investment spending and a shifting of profits and incomes to low-tax jurisdictions

The impact of economic and financial globalization and the constant rise in income and wealth inequalities since the 1980s—the latter having been exacerbated by the Great recession of 2008, and by the current pandemic crisis—has produced a glut of global savings (supply of funds) as compared to investment spending (demand for funds).

When too much saving is withdrawn from the operating economy and is not properly recycled into productive uses, this can lead to a drop in the circulation of money, even when the supply of money increases. If the velocity of money declines during a period of expansionary monetary policy, this can offset the increase in money supply and could paradoxically lead to deflationary pressures, at least for a while, and sluggish economic growth rather than to inflation and faster economic growth.

The glut of global savings is related to the growing concentration of income and wealth in favor of owners of financial capital and of super rich individuals. The fact that many trillions of dollars of such extra savings have ended up in offshore tax havens, sometimes under the veil of secrecy of cryptocurrencies, has undoubtedly played a role. It has also been a source of demand for bonds and other securities, resulting in higher bond prices and lower interest rates.

The building up of a glut of global savings among mega corporations and super rich individuals, who own most of the stock wealth, was occurring just as another phenomenon took place. Indeed, the ‘baby boomers‘—the generation born between 1946 and 1964 in the United States, and between 1947 and 1966 in Canada—felt obliged to increase their savings rate, in order to better prepare for their imminent retirement, and also, in part, because of the economic impact of the current pandemic on their spending and the low rates of return on their financial investments.

Consequences of the half-century long rise in income and wealth inequalities

As income and wealth became more and more concentrated, the financial sector tended to grow faster than the real economy. Such a structural change, past a certain threshold, can slow down economic growth and be a factor in creating financial crises. This was demonstrated when new esoteric financial productscatering to the very rich led to the Great recession of 2008.

Some economists fear that the advanced economies of the Western world have entered into a prolonged period of “Secular Stagnation“. Indeed, in many advanced economies, the expansion of the financial sector has been such that it has become oversized relative to the real sector. A too-high rate of financial sector growth relative to GDP may be a harbinger of future financial contractions.

Conclusion

There is a link between the great disparities in income and wealth that we see today, in several industrialized countries, and the extraordinarily low interest rates that have become the curse of savers. And, as we have seen, the causal relationship goes both ways, one reinforcing the other. They both enriched an aristocracy of the super rich. How should governments go about breaking this economically and socially damaging relationship?

First, it would seem that there is a need to reorient fiscal policy toward equilibrating the tax burden and income inequality between high and low-income taxpayers, as well as re-evaluating consumption taxes. Maybe an international conference could be held to assist governments in coordinating their efforts in that direction, especially considering the growing reliance on tax havens.

Secondly, central bankers could find it appropriate to review the current policies of monetizing the public debt and the debts of other financial entities on a high scale. Besides evaluating their sustainability, they may also wish to take into consideration the high risk of creating dangerous bubbles and speculative maniasin the stock and bond markets. indeed, history shows that when such financial bubbles burst, as they inevitably do, the real economy suffers badly in production and employment losses.

As for citizens, they should be careful not to vote for clueless and corrupt politicians who are bought and sold by special interests. They should demand that big money and dark money stop dominating politics and government policies. Theirs and their children’s economic welfare depend upon 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.

This article was originally published on the author’s blog site.

International economist Dr. Rodrigue Tremblay is the author of the book “The code for Global Ethics, Ten Humanist Principles” of the book “The New American Empire“, and the recent book , in French, “La régression tranquille du Québec, 1980-2018“. He holds a Ph.D. in international finance from Stanford University. He is a Research Associate of the Centre for Research on Globalization (CRG)

Please visit Dr Tremblay’s site or email to a friend here.

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).

***

Ben Nimmo, a former NATO press officer and current senior fellow at the Atlantic Council, has announced Facebook has hired him to “lead global threat intelligence strategy against influence operations” and “emerging threats.” Nimmo specifically named Russia, Iran and China as potential dangers to the platform.

His announcement was greeted with joy by several NATO officials but was not met with such enthusiasm by others. “More censorship on the way as the former NATO press officer turned Pentagon-funded ‘researcher’ who labeled real people as Russian bots and peddled disinformation to link Jeremy Corbyn to Russian active measures moves to big tech,” responded investigative journalist Max Blumenthal.

More censorship on the way as the former NATO press officer turned Pentagon-funded “researcher” who labeled real people as Russian bots and peddled disinformation to link Jeremy Corbyn to Russian active measures moves to Big Tech https://t.co/XcfGbdPJtv

— Max Blumenthal (@MaxBlumenthal) February 7, 2021

Nimmo’s questionable past certainly raises questions over whether such an official having a substantial say in what 2.8 billion Facebook users worldwide see in their feeds is such a positive step for the free and open exchange of information.

“Disinformation agents”

For example, in 2019, U.K. Labour Party leader Jeremy Corbyn revealed secret Conservative Party documents showing negotiations the Tory government had with the U.S. over the privatization of the National Health Service (NHS). With just days to go before the U.K. general election, the scandal could have toppled the government and brought into power the most radical antiwar, anti-establishment government in the country’s history. Corporate media went into overdrive to spin the news, and Nimmo was a key part of this, immediately announcing, without evidence, that the documents “closely resemble…a known Russian operation.” His supposedly expert conjecture allowed the story to become “Corbyn’s links to Russia” rather than “Tories privatizing the NHS in secret.” Nimmo’s work helped the Conservatives to an election victory and consigned Corbyn to the scrapheap.

This was much to the relief of Nimmo’s Atlantic Council, who had branded Corbyn the “Kremlin’s Trojan Horse” — someone pushing Moscow’s agenda abroad. A British Army general was of a similar opinion, claiming that if Corbyn were to win the election, the military would respond. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo also said that the U.S. government was “doing its best” to prevent a radical leftist from winning power in the U.K.

Nimmo has been extremely liberal with whom he labels Russian disinformation agents. In 2018, his research identified one Twitter user, @Ian56789, as a “Kremlin troll.” In reality, the user, Ian Shilling, was a British pensioner, as Sky News was easily able to confirm, interviewing him on air and asking him the patently absurd question if he was actually a Russian bot or not. Despite clearly being a flesh and blood human, Shilling’s account was later deleted anyway.

In the past, Nimmo has also insisted that Ruslana Boshirova was an influential Russian bot. In reality, she is an internationally known concert pianist, as one Google search would have shown. This sort of behavior does not augur well for those critical of Western foreign policy, who have faced constant harassment, suspension, or outright bans from social media.

NATO's Atlantic Council "analyst" @benimmo has called me an influential Russian bot.
Influential? You bet.
With 170 000 000 YouTube views
and 400 000 subscribers.
Russian? Oh well, Ukrainian-American🙄, but take it as a compliment. 😉
Bot? Yeah. Humans can't play like this. pic.twitter.com/pReCwBBaZ5

— Ruslana Boshirova Альянс пианистов (@ValLisitsa) March 27, 2018

Pro-war putsch

The Atlantic Council began as an offshoot of NATO itself and maintains extremely close connections to the military alliance. It continues to receive major funding from Western governments and weapons contractors, and its board of directors is filled to the brim with senior American statespersons, such as Colin Powell, Condoleezza Rice, and Henry Kissinger. Also appearing on the board are no fewer than seven former CIA directors and a number of top military generals, such as Jim “Mad Dog” Mattis, Wesley Clark, and David Petraeus.

In recent years, the council’s employees have penetrated deep into big tech and social media organizations. In 2018, it announced it had partnered with Facebook to aid in the curation of Facebook news feeds of users worldwide, giving it considerable power over what sort of views to highlight and which to demote. One year previously, Jessica Ashooh left the position of the council’s Deputy Director of Middle Eastern Strategy to take the position of Director of Policy at Reddit, the eighth-most visited website in the United States. However, as with many intelligence agencies, it is unclear whether one truly “leaves” the Atlantic Council.

It is not just Russia that is in NATO’s crosshairs. Last week, the Atlantic Council published an anonymous, 26,000-word report stating that their goal for China was regime change and advising President Biden to draw a number of “red lines” around it, beyond which the U.S. would respond militarily. Meanwhile, the head of STRATCOM, Admiral Charles A. Richard, wrote that the U.S. must prepare for a potential nuclear war with Beijing.

Greater control

The military escalation has been mirrored by an intensifying online propaganda war, where the U.S. has attempted to isolate China economically and stop advancing Chinese technologies such as Huawei’s 5G network, mobile phone, and semiconductor manufacturer Xiaomi, and video sharing app TikTok. Nimmo has played his part in ramping up suspicions of nefarious Chinese activity online, claiming the existence of a wide-ranging pro-Beijing bot network encouraging Americans to believe that China has handled the COVID-19 pandemic far better than the United States. That Americans might have come to that conclusion on their own appears not to have been considered.

There is an enormous government effort to convince its population of the existence of (foreign) government efforts to manipulate their opinions online. In a massive case of projection, Western governmental organizations point the finger at their enemies, all the while securing greater access and control over the means of communication themselves, to the point where it is now difficult to distinguish where the deep state ends and the fourth estate begins. Nimmo’s move from NATO to NATO-aligned think tank to Facebook is just another example of this phenomenon. Perhaps the reason Nimmo is not looking for any Western influence operations online is that he is part of one.

*

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.

Alan MacLeod is Senior Staff Writer for MintPress News. After completing his PhD in 2017 he published two books: Bad News From Venezuela: Twenty Years of Fake News and Misreporting and Propaganda in the Information Age: Still Manufacturing Consent, as well as a number of academic articles. He has also contributed to FAIR.org, The Guardian, Salon, The Grayzone, Jacobin Magazine, and Common Dreams.

Featured image: George Washington University School of Media & Public Affairs | Additions and editing by MintPress 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 UK government is considering a plan to despatch council staff to knock on the doors of those who have refused to take a coronavirus vaccine, in an effort to coerce refusniks into taking the shot, according to a report.

The London Metro reports that Vaccines Minister Nadhim Zahawi told MPs he wanted to identify ‘at an individual level’ those who have been offered the vaccine but turned it down.

The report states that the plan is being hatched amid fears that a sizeable amount of the population are ‘sceptical’ of the vaccine.

Zahawi said that the role of the council staffers would be to determine why people are refusing the vaccine and then “see what might convince them” to change their minds.

Zahawi refused to confirm how the Government will know who has not taken the vaccine, but did admit during a radio appearance on the BBC that everyone who has taken the shot has been registered in a national immunisation vaccination system.

“We absolutely will look at how we are addressing the issue of refusal rates,” Zahawi said.

While Zahawi touted a high uptake of vaccines among British people, it emerged that around 20% of social care workers have refused to take the vaccine.

In December, a poll found that around a third of people in the UK do not want to take the vaccine.

The notion of government staff knocking at the doors of refusniks has prompted fears that the British government is keeping a database of vaccine skeptics.

A similar scheme has been implemented in Spain.

With so called ‘vaccination passports’ looming, a non-vaccinated database could enable the government to cross check who they are issuing the ‘freedom passes’ to, and ensure that only the vaccinated are allowed to integrate back into society.

*

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 Wikimedia Commons

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 new research published in Microbiology & Infectious Diseases, immunologist J. Bart Classen warns the mRNA technology used in the Pfizer and Moderna COVID vaccines could create “new potential mechanisms” of adverse events that may take years to come to light.

Back in 1999, leading U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) official Dr. Peter Patriarca contended that modern advances in vaccine technology were rapidly “outpacing researchers’ ability to predict potential vaccine-related adverse events.” Patriarca mused that this could lead to “a situation of unforeseen and unpredictable vaccine outcomes.”

In a new research article published in Microbiology & Infectious Diseases, veteran immunologist J. Bart Classen expresses similar concerns and writes that “RNA-based COVID vaccines have the potential to cause more disease than the epidemic of COVID-19.”

For decades, Classen has published papers exploring how vaccination can give rise to chronic conditions such as Type 1 and Type 2 diabetes — not right away, but three or four years down the road.

In this latest paper, Classen warns that the RNA-based vaccine technology could create “new potential mechanisms” of vaccine adverse events that may take years to come to light.

Classen’s study establishes the potential for the messenger RNA (mRNA) vaccines developed by Pfizer and Moderna to activate human proteins to take on “pathologic configurations” — configurations associated with chronic degenerative neurological diseases. Although his specific interest is in prion diseases (conditions associated with misfolded versions of normal proteins), Classen also outlines a handful of other mechanisms whereby RNA-based vaccines could give rise to “multiple other potential fatal adverse events.”

Ensuring that patients clearly understand risks — including known risks as well as potential unknown risks — is an important component of the informed consent process. This is all the more true when the intervention is experimental and lacks long-term safety data, as is the case with the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines against COVID-19. The FDA authorized the two vaccines for widespread emergency use based on just two months of clinical trial data.

Unfortunately, it is not unusual for researchers’ communication of risks to be perfunctory. In October, researchers at New York University and Tulane reported that the information communicated to participants in the coronavirus clinical trials about a worrisome problem known as pathogenic priming was “sufficiently obscured” as to make “adequate patient comprehension” of risks “unlikely.”

It would be interesting to know what those researchers would say about Classen’s blunt conclusion that “Approving a vaccine, utilizing novel RNA technology without extensive testing is extremely dangerous.”

Those contemplating COVID injections may be ignoring potential risks at their own peril.

*

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 CHD

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).

***

U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO) acknowledged that U.S. sanctions on Venezuela have killed tens of thousands of people and harmed the country’s economy, especially by depressing its oil production.

In a new report, GAO also recalled that the sanctions imposed on the country under former Barack Obama’s and Donald Trump’s administrations are also hindering U.S.-backed humanitarian aid to Venezuela.

The report “offers more evidence that the unilateral and illegal U.S. sanctions are a punishment against the Venezuelan people and they should be ended immediately,” Center for Economic and Policy Research (CEPR) Co-Director Mark Weisbrot said.

GAO noted that the financial sanctions imposed on Venezuela since 2015 led to a drop in oil production of 797 tons per day, which at current oil prices would represent US$16.9 billion per year in foregone oil revenues.

#Venezuela | The U.S. blockade has frozen almost all Venezuelan accounts abroad as cut relationships with banking institutions.https://t.co/4DSkb0v6kZ

— teleSUR English (@telesurenglish) February 3, 2021

“This drop means fewer imports, including of food, medicines, medical equipment, and other health-related necessities,” Weisbrot added.

President Joe Biden ordered a review of U.S. economic sanctions on countries such as Venezuela, Iran, and Cuba to determine their humanitarian impact.

“This is positive. However, there is not much to assess. There is no reason to allow this crime from the Trump administration to continue,” the expert recalled.

#Venezuela | The anti-governmental coalition assumed a role against democracy back in 2015. pic.twitter.com/N38XUoPVqF

— teleSUR English (@telesurenglish) January 6, 2021

*

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: A group of children on their home’s rooftop in Petare, Venezuela, Dec. 20, 2021. | Photo: EFE

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).

***

Elliot Abrams has gone missing in the last few days. He seems to have lost some of his proactivity.

Maybe the now former White House special envoy for Venezuela tired himself out in his last weeks on the job, drafting sinister decrees willy-nilly, such as blocking Venezuela’s diesel purchases and sanctioning opposition politicians and businessmen. As he wrote them, horned men attacked Washington’s sacrosanct Capitol, just a few blocks away from his office, which failed to draw comment from the diplomatic expert.

Abrams isn’t the only one who has gone AWOL. Former Vice President Mike Pence was forced to deal with other “dictators” closer to him in the final days of his term and stopped touring the globe to discuss the “serious humanitarian crisis in Venezuela.” [Florida Senator] Marco Rubio has also seemed to forget about the Latin American “tyrants,” while US Southern Command no longer has sudden “concerns” about drug trafficking in the Caribbean.

The Magazolans, as Venezuelan Trump supporters are called, especially in Florida, no longer dare to call the new president a “communist” or accuse him of “selling out to the Russians and Chinese” as they did weeks ago. The election campaign is over and they now have a new president. Many, though, are waiting for Trump to call on them to start another adventure.

Undoubtedly something is going to happen in Washington. What it is will have repercussions in Latin America, especially in Venezuela, because the US government has been telematically overseeing what has been happening in the Caribbean country for the past four years, especially among the opposition.

First, the US designed a system of economic sanctions not seen in decades, going after any company that did oil-based or other trading with Venezuela. Equally, in the military area, Abrams notoriously orchestrated the violent military coup attempt of April 30, 2019. During the attempted coup, opposition leader Leopoldo Lopez, now exiled in Spain, broke his house arrest and dozens of military personnel tried to take the La Carlota airbase before marching through some Caracas avenues. As the coup attempt failed, Abrams himself admitted that the officials contacted to lead the coup had “turned off their phones.”

This was the most notorious failure of the Republican government’s Venezuela policy, but it wasn’t the only one. Others included implementing a parallel presidency and attempting a military landing called Operation Gedeon, which was orchestrated by a US military company, in which two U.S. citizens were imprisoned.

It all happened during the Trump years, in which he “green lighted” any adventure in Venezuela because “all options [were] on the table.”

Things are hardly rosy with new President Joe Biden, but the point is that Trumpism is in decline. This decline has been solidified due to the way that Trump challenged and ridiculed the transition period in a style akin to that of the Venezuelan right: throwing the toys out of the pram and failing to concede.

This shift allows a respite for the Venezuelan opposition which hasn’t fled the country and was desecrated, persecuted and even sanctioned by the US Treasury Department for betting on the electoral strategy. In fact, many of the Office of Foreign Asset Control’s recent sanctions were against opposition politicians and entrepreneurs. The opposition that remains in Venezuela can breathe a bit easier without Trump.

A sanctioned opposition

Without Trump, Guaido has found it increasingly difficult to legitimise his “interim administration” amongst the parties of the former National Assembly. As such, he has been forced to concede to their demand to eliminate the “government center coordinator” position, which he created to house his political mentor Leopoldo Lopez.

The monster created through the interim administration has gone on to devour its maker. The hangover after Trump’s intoxication reached the heart of the imaginary government that Washington itself built.

A chain of micro-events has equally been set off in sectors of the Venezuelan opposition which has disobeyed this radical, foreign-bred strategy that had its main support in Republican officials.

Within a few days of the US transition, opposition leader and former presidential candidate Henrique Capriles left the Republican script by calling for a change of strategy and talks with Chavismo.

The following day, Democratic Action Henry Ramos Allup, his natural contender, reported that his party is “cold-headedly” discussing its participation in the regional and local elections to be conducted this year. Democratic Action leaders, as well as Ramos Allup’s relatives, have previously been sanctioned by the US.

Both are the most important opposition leaders remaining in Venezuela and belong to the opposition’s most voted parties.

Post-Trumpism has resulted in a kind of thawing of positions that were forced to freeze when US government officials decided on an aggressive strategy against Venezuela in 2016. What is normal in any country — for opposition leaders to prepare to go to elections — is in Venezuela a real sacrilege against Washington’s current interests.

Meanwhile, the unravelling of Guaido’s international recognition continues at full speed.

Allied support for Washington starts to break down

The first international player to change its position was the European Union.

As of its 6 January communiqué, the EU no longer grants Guaido any protagonism but rather the same status as any other political actor. It includes him, but without any recognition of office.

France24 interpreted this as such:

“The words ‘interim president’ no longer describe Juan Guaido in the EU’s latest statement on Venezuela’s political situation. While recognising him as a leading opposition voice, the twenty-seven countries removed this title from Guaido after control of the National Assembly returned to President Nicolas Maduro’s government.”

The German government was also explicit. Since January 17, it ceased to recognise Guaido as “interim president” following the “recommendations of the EU State Council,” according to Christofer Burger, a spokesman for the ministry of foreign affairs.

In Latin America, winds of change are also beginning to be felt: Dominican Republic backtracked on Guaido’s recognition at the end of January, stating that if they didn’t, they would be setting a “terrible precedent.”

No policy changes have yet been seen from Biden’s government. At the moment, lowering the tone on Venezuela already seems like a major change because it gives national and international actors room to finally emerge from the Trump period that dominated the region over the past four years.

Amidst all this, it is not known whether Abrams (or any new Abrams) will be making calls to the region’s governments, as he once recognised vociferously that he did, or whether he is calling them as we speak but they are behaving as the Venezuelan officers who did not answer their phones during the 2019 coup attempt.

We’ll know soon enough, and we’ll be analysing it all in Crisis & Critique.

*

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: Trump’s lingering legacy prevails in Venezuela, especially in the opposition’s ranks. (Venezuelanalysis)

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 Monday, February 8, Cuban newspaper Granma published a review of US government financing for subversive programs against the Cuban government.

In the last two decades, the United States has allotted about $250 million to subversive programs targeting Cuba, reported Granma.

Those millions, distributed through agencies, companies, and organizations such as the United States Agency for International Development (USAID) and the National Endowment for Democracy (NED), finance activities whose purpose is to overthrow the Cuban Revolution.

US organizations that have financed subversive programs against the Cuban government (Photo: Granma)

The report by journalist Tracey Eaton, entitled “The business of democracy in Cuba is booming,” and published in Cuba Money Project, details that in 2020 alone agencies such as USAID dedicated around $2.5 million to subversive activities, among them those of the San Isidro Movement, with the aim of generating internal conflict.

The actions of various media outlets have also been financed with gringo money, as revealed by Cuban media. These include the media show of ADN Cuba blogger Nelson Julio Álvarez in front of Cuba’s Ministry of Culture on January 27, for which he received between $150 and $200, according to a video posted by Álvarez himself on the Telescopio Cubano Facebook group. The Cuba Money Project reported that the ADN website, administered from the United States, received over $400 thousand last year through the United States Agency for International Development (USAID).

Eaton notes that since Donald Trump took office in 2017, at least 54 groups operated programs with funding from USAID or the NED in Cuba.

The data was gathered from information that North American organizations have made public on their websites. As such, it is considered a partial figure, as there are many secret programs funding unknown recipients.

The combination of these actions and the economic pressures generated by the intensification of the economic, commercial and financial blockade of Cuba, and the establishment of other unilateral coercive measures against Cuba, reflected the Trump administration’s commitment to destroying the social fabric and political stability of the Caribbean island.

*

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: USAID and NED dollars are behind the San Isidro Movement, among other anti-Cuban programs (Photo: José Luis, Cuban cartoonist).

A Revolução Russa em 1917 colocou em pânico a alta burguesia da Europa, já muito desacreditada e enfraquecida pela gigantesca tragédia da  Primeira Guerra Mundial, resultado de sua própria irresponsabilidade, ganância e incompetência. A crise de 1929, que levou  quase à ruína a maioria dos países industrializados capitalistas, mas que praticamente não afetou a jovem União Soviética,  fortaleceu ainda mais a alternativa colocada pela Revolução Russa. Esta burguesia tinha então que enfrentar duas dificuldades: reconstruir a ordem capitalista internacional e responder ao desafio colocado pela crítica Marxista e pela Revolução Russa. Um grupo de intelectuais hostis ao comunismo, à esquerda em geral, e mesmo ao capitalismo  do New Deal nos EUA, procurou desenvolver e impôr uma reconstrução mais autoritária e profundamente anti-democrática do capitalismo: o neoliberalismo. Como mencionado em meu texto anterior , (https://www.globalresearch.ca/o-perigoso-caminho-da-suica-para-a-extrema-direita/5736109) a Suíça foi o primeiro país a acolher e financiar estes intelectuais, exercendo um papel fundamental na construção da ordem neoliberal.

Quinn Slobodian, autor da obra Globalists, criou um termo para designar a contribuição da Suíça para o neoliberalismo : a Escola de Genebra. 

Segundo Slobodian, a Escola de Genebra inclui pensadores que ocuparam posições acadêmicas em Genebra, Suíça, entre eles Wilhelm Röpke, Ludwig von Mises, e Michael Heilperin;

“aqueles que aí prosseguiram ou apresentaram investigações chave, incluindo Hayek, Lionel Robbins, e Gottfried Haberler; e aqueles que trabalharam no Acordo Geral sobre Tarifas e Comércio (GATT), tais como Jan Tumlir, Frieder Roessler (…) os neoliberais da Escola de Genebra transpuseram a ideia ordoliberal da ‘constituição econômica’ – ou a totalidade das regras que regem a vida econômica – para a escala além da nação.”

Ainda segundo este autor, Genebra – eventualmente a sede da OMC – tornou-se a capital espiritual do grupo de pensadores que procuraram resolver o enigma da ordem pós-imperial.Esta ordem pós-imperial refere-se ao período subsequente ao fim do Império Austro-Húngaro e grande parte do ‘enigma’ mencionado se refere ao desafio colocado pela Revolução Russa. O que os neoliberais da Escola de Genebra  procuram não é uma proteção parcial, mas sim completa dos direitos do capital privado, e a capacidade dos órgãos judiciais supranacionais como o Tribunal de Justiça Europeu e a OMC de se sobreporem à legislação nacional que possa interferir com os direitos globais do capital , ou seja, uma constituição econômica para o mundo.

Para a Escola de Genebra, ainda Slobodian, os compromissos de soberania e autonomia nacional eram perigosos se levados a sério.(Os proponentes da Escola de Genebra) eram críticos firmes da soberania nacional, acreditando que, após o império, as nações devem permanecer inseridas numa ordem institucional internacional que salvaguardasse o capital e protegesse o seu direito de circular pelo mundo. O pecado capital do século XX foi a crença na independência nacional sem restrições, e a ordem mundial neoliberal exigia uma isonomia executável – ou ‘mesmas leis’, como Hayek lhe chamaria mais tarde – contra a ilusão de autonomia, ou ‘leis próprias’,

Para os neoliberais da Escola de Genebra, as leis promovendo a defesa dos ‘direitos’ do capital, devem ser sobrepor às leis nacionais referentes aos direitos dos trabalhadores ou à proteção ambiental, por exemplo.

Muitos dos participantes da Escola de Genebra  estavam entre os fundadores da Sociedade  Mont Pélerin também na Suíça, uma entidade que teve um papel fundamental na construção intelectual do neoliberalismo e na difusão internacional de suas  propostas. A Sociedade Mont Pélerin serviu de inspiração e modelo para outras organizações importantes da rede da direita internacional como a Atlas Network e o Atlantic Council.

Frente ao desafio colocado pela Revolução Russa, a burguesia Suíça colocou-se desde muito cedo ao lado do capital, abraçando mesmo os extremos mais autoritários do capitalismo como representado pelo neoliberalismo, tudo para deter a ‘ameaça’ da esquerda, sempre mais perigosa, do ponto de vista do capital, que qualquer ameaça totalitária da direita. Um testemunho importante da cruzada da burguesia da Suíça contra o comunismo e a esquerda em geral nos é dado pelos escritos de Harry Gmür, escritor e comunista suíço. Nascido em Berna em 1908, Gmür testemunhou a ascenção do fascismo na Europa e a reação neoliberal na Suíça. Ao contrário de muitos de seus contemporâneos, Gmür abraçou a esquerda e seus valores humanitários. Em um texto publicado em 1965 com o título A Guerra de Hitler e a Suíça , Gmür escreveu:

Após o início da guerra, o  governo em Berna, sob pressão alemã, mas certamente aproveitando a oportunidade com demasiada facilidade, apressou-se a proibir e a policiar todos os partidos, associações, jornais, distribuidores de livros, etc. consistentemente antifascistas.

E num outro artigo, publicado 10 anos depois, em 1975, com o título de Naquele tempo, na Suíça, Gmür voltou a este tema escrevendo:

A esquerda suíça foi sujeita a uma pressão particular durante a guerra (…). Após o início da guerra, o Conselho Federal, não menos por anti-comunismo do que por servilismo ao Terceiro Reich, tinha suprimido o “Freiheit”, órgão do Partido Comunista, e os dois jornais diários dos socialistas de esquerda de Vaud e Genebra, que se tinham separado da social-democracia. Após a catástrofe francesa, o Partido Comunista, os partidos socialistas de esquerda da Suíça Ocidental, a Oposição do Partido Socialista Alemão-Suiço (uma facção que trabalhava contra o rumo de direita da liderança do partido) e a Sociedade Suíço-Soviética  foram banidos por completo. Os seus bens – impressoras, livrarias, até inventário de escritório – foram confiscados e nunca foram restituídos.

As queixas justificadas da imprensa soviética sobre o tratamento dos prisioneiros de guerra soviéticos que tinham fugido para a Suíça foram rejeitadas pelo chefe da justiça e da polícia.

Estes dois artigos foram publicados no Weltbühne, uma publicação da ex- República Democrática da Alemanha, sob o pseudônimo de Stefan Miller, certamente para evitar a repressão da direita na Suíça.

Entretanto, o documento mais contundente sobre a burguesia  da Suíça, sua guerra incessante contra a  esquerda e sua defesa intransigente do capital acima de tudo é o Relatório Bergier.

Uma comissão independente  foi criada pelo Conselho Federal da Suíça  em dezembro de 1996 sob a direção do historiador Jean-François Bergier, com o mandato , segundo o próprio Bergier, de responder ‘ a uma série de perguntas precisas sobre os bens ‘não reclamados’, ou seja, os bens depositados antes da (segunda) guerra em bancos suíços por futuras vítimas (do nazismo ) e nunca posteriormente recuperados por elas ou pelos seus herdeiros; sobre o tratamento dos refugiados; sobre todas as relações econômicas e financeiras entre a Suíça e a Alemanha nazi – comércio, produção industrial, crédito e movimentos de capitais, seguros, tráfico de armas, mercado de obras de arte e bens saqueados ou vendidos à força, transito ferroviário, electricidade, trabalho forçado nas filiais alemãs de empresas suíças.’ 

Em sua totalidade, o Relatório Bergier se compõe de 11.000 páginas distribuídas por 28 volumes. Um trabalho imenso e de um valor inestimável.

Segundo Pietro Boschetti, autor de um livro de ampla divulgação do Relatório Bergier com o título Les Suisses et les Nazis – de onde vêm a citação anterior de Bergier –  o relatório, em geral, confirmou o que os historiadores já sabiam: sim, a política de asilo foi extremamente dura durante a guerra; sim, o Banco Nacional comprou muito ouro suspeito da Alemanha nazi, prestando assim um serviço muito apreciado.

Em seu livro, Boschetti menciona alguns poucos exemplos da cooperação do grande capital da Suíça com a Alemanha nazistas conforme revelados pelo Relatório Bergier. Dos exemplos dados por Boschetti, menciono abaixo alguns, apenas para dar uma idéia da amplitude e seriedade do Relatório Bergier:

Sobre os negócios entre a Suíça e a Alemanha nazista, Boschetti escreveu:

‘As relações entre homens de negócios eram obviamente muito próximas e duradouras. Assim, após a guerra, o presidente do (banco) SBS (Rudolf Speich) e o director do (banco) UBS (Alfred Schaefer) apoiaram o único banqueiro nazi (Karl Rasche, membro das SS, Dresdner Bank) perante o Tribunal Internacional em Nurembergue.’

Sobre a ‘arianização’ :

 ‘Os “certificados de Arianeidade” para provar a pureza racial parecem ter sido uma prática bastante comum. Para obter o direito de aterrisar em Munique, a Swissair aceita, por exemplo, que as suas tripulações provem a sua arianeidade. A Nestlé faz o mesmo, tal como as companhias de seguros.’

E ainda sobre a Nestlé:

‘De Vevey, a Nestlé permaneceu em contacto durante toda a guerra com o suíço Hans Riggenbach, que era o responsável pelas operações da multinacional alemã em Berlim. (…)

A Nestlé vende o seu Nescafé à Wehrmacht durante a campanha russa, apesar da difícil importação de grãos de café .’

Sobre os trabalhos forçados realizados por prisoneiros de guerra:

‘Atingidas, como as suas concorrentes, pela falta de trabalhadores, as empresas suíças recorrem ao trabalho forçado. (….) nas fábricas de Lonza em Waldshut, onde 150 franceses desembarcaram entre Julho de 1940 e Abril de 1942. Desde essa data até ao final do conflito, mais de 400 prisioneiros de guerra russos trabalharam no local. Georg Fischer, BBC, Maggi, Nestlé e muitos outros não hesitaram em recorrer a esta reserva de mão-de-obra.

Os maus tratos são comuns, mesmo nas filiais suíças (…).

Até Agosto de 1944, a Suíça enviou trabalhadores forçados em fuga, especialmente russos e poloneses, de volta para a Alemanha.’

Para Bergier, as autoridades e os responsávies por empresas suíças na época não deixaram de justificar cada uma das medidas que tomaram, ou a sua recusa em tomá-las, a sua hesitação. Mas as suas explicações raramente resistem ao escrutínio, como ele escreeveu na introdução ao livro de Boschetti.

No entanto, o debate com a sociedade que deveria ter acontecido após a publicação do Relatório –  o objetivo final de todo o esforço empregado – foi impedido. Nas palavras de Pietro Boschetti:

Que país curioso! Embora tenha acabado de completar um louvável trabalho de introspecção histórica reconhecido por quase todos como exemplar, enquanto investiu recursos significativos para permitir aos historiadores trabalharem com seriedade e independência, enquanto passou por uma ‘crise de identidade’ causada pelo escândalo dos fundos não reclamados que deu origem a todo o tipo de exageros e excessos, este país, justamente quando dispõe de todo o material histórico necessário para ter um debate sereno … recusa-se a realizá-lo. Que pena!

A supressão deste debate foi uma vitória importante  da burguesia e do big business da Suíça, que assim protegeram sua  imagem e puderam manter, dentro da Suíça, o espaço e a credibilidade necessárias para continuar a expansão da agenda neoliberal. Não fosse por isso, instituições tão distintas como o World Economic Forum e o World Wide Fund for Nature – WWF –  ambos sediados na Suíça e ambos herdeiros e proponentes da visão neoliberal do mundo, ou seja, do mercado como principal instrumento de organização da sociedade e mesmo ‘salvador’ do planeta, talvez não tivessem tido tanto sucesso.

Em 2022 celebram-se  os 20 anos da publicação do Relatório Bergier. É a ocasião  de realizar o debate  suprimido mas ainda necessário, não apenas para uma compreensão mais profunda do papel da burguesia e do big business da Suíça e de sua ideologia na época da Segunda Guerra, mas sobretudo compreender seus desdobramentos atuais. Afinal, a visão de mundo neoliberal e seus representantes ainda mantém um enorme  poder político neste país, a hostilidade contra a esquerda continua tão agressiva como nos tempos da Guerra Fria e a Suíça segue sendo um parceiro importante na construção e disseminação das narrativas fake dos EUA que dão suporte às  campanhas antidemocráticas contra Cuba e Venezuela, para citar apenas estes dois exemplos. As forças políticas e os interesses econômicos que facilitaram a colaboração das autoridades e de grandes empresas da Suíça com a Alemanha nazista, são os mesmos por trás das  propostas de reorganização do Estado em função dos interesses do capital como defendidas pela Sociedade Mont Pélerin e pelo World Economic Forum; são ainda os mesmos que impediram o debate público sobre o Relatório Bergier.

O capitalismo neoliberal continua a ser defendido na Suíça como a única solução possível para os diversos problemas que a humanidade enfrenta atualmente, da crise ecológica à crise sanitária representada pela pandemia. O papel do capitalismo neoliberal como causa desses mesmos problemas não é sequer mencionado. Quando o movimento dos jovens pelo clima ousou questionar o neoliberalismo na Suíça, a reação foi uma legislação brutal e repressora.No entanto, apesar  da Sociedade Mont Pélerin e da Escola de Genebra, do World Economic Forum e do WWF, existe uma outra tradição na Suíça, uma tradição que se encarnou em Harry Gmür, no trabalho da comissão Bergier e reaparece, hoje, no movimento dos jovens pelo clima. À esta tradição cabe, agora, reabrir o debate necessário e desafiar o neoliberalismo num de seus mais importantes e influentes centros, a Suíça.

Franklin Frederick

A Psychological Perspective on the Role of Power and Money

By Rod Driver, February 09 2021

This post summarises more key psychological issues which have serious negative consequences for modern societies, and then discusses the implications for how we deal with these issues in future. In particular, it emphasises the need to question everything.

We’ve Turned Teens into Lockdown “Lab Rats”

By Timandra Harkness, February 09 2021

While the disease dominating the world is vanishingly unlikely to kill anyone under 25, there is a parallel epidemic of anxiety and depression crushing its way through young minds. The Royal College of Psychiatrists is warning that the psychological damage caused by the last 12 months could last for years.

Mass Manipulation – How It Works

By Peter Koenig, February 09 2021

“Influence”, the classic book on persuasion, explains the psychology of why people say “yes” – and how to apply these understandings. Dr. Robert Cialdini is the seminal expert in the rapidly expanding field of influence and persuasion.

South Africa Halts Rollout of AstraZeneca’s COVID-19 Vaccine

By Matthew Herper, February 09 2021

South Africa is halting its rollout of the AstraZeneca-University of Oxford Covid-19 vaccine, the country’s minister of health said Sunday, following a new analysis that suggests the shot “provides minimal protection” against mild disease caused by the new coronavirus variant circulating in South Africa.

Urgent Warning on COVID-19 Vaccine-related Deaths in the Elderly and Care Homes

By UK Medical Freedom Alliance, February 09 2021

In our Open Letter of 23 November 2020, addressed to the MHRA, JCVI and Matt Hancock[i], we outlined our concerns of potential public health risks from a mass roll-out of the Covid-19 vaccines because of only limited short-term safety data and no long-term safety data. In this letter we draw to your attention the mounting evidence that the public health risks we identified may be materialising.

US Supported “Nazism” in Ukraine. Censorship in the US, West, and Ukraine

By Stephen Lendman, February 09 2021

Colonized and controlled Ukraine is a de facto US-installed Neo-nazi dictatorship in Europe’s heartland — bordering Russia and six other countries. Obama/Biden bear full responsibility for replacing democracy in 2014 with iron-fisted governance over the rule of law.

Canada Backs Revival of Duvalierism in Haiti

By Yves Engler, February 09 2021

The ghosts of dictators “Papa Doc” and “Baby Doc” Duvalier still haunt Haiti. Canada seems willing to support a return of their methods in the Caribbean nation.

The Biden Administration: The Return of Neoliberal Madness?

By Black Alliance for Peace, February 09 2021

The picture started to be formed in Biden’s first 48 hours but now it is crystal clear: The Biden Administration intends to pick up exactly where the Obama/Biden Administration left off in 2016 with an aggressive assertion of U.S. military power to offset its declining global economic, political, and moral position.

Open Letter from 40+ Economists Regarding Ecuador and the Dollar

By Prof. James K Galbraith, Jayati Ghosh, and Mark Weisbrot, February 09 2021

As economists, we share a general concern when economic issues are widely misunderstood in political debates that can determine policy, sometimes with lasting consequences. This appears to be a problem in Ecuador at the moment, in the heat of an election campaign.

Review: 10 Years After NATO’s War on Libya and Africa: Slouching Towards Sirte

By Robin Philpot, February 09 2021

The war on Libya and Africa began 10 years ago on Feb. 15, 2011. Nine months later, the most prosperous country in Africa was devastated, masses of Libyans were killed, the Libyan leader Muammar Gadafi was brutally assassinated while US Secretary of State chortled “We came, we saw, he died.“

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).

***

Acknowledgment:

This paper is partly based on Prof. Dr. Ola Tunander’s “Securitization, Dual State and US-European Geopolitical Divide or The Use of Terrorism to Construct World Order,” a paper presented at the Fifth Pan-European International Relations Conference, The Netherlands Congress Center, The Hague, 9-11 September 2004. Its revised version now available online is entitled “Democratic State vs. Deep State (PRIO, 2008) [1]

“In any state, certain areas are ‘securitized’ and by definition removed from the democratic political process. In an emergency situation – in short of war or terrorist attacks – the security sphere ‘invades’ the sphere of democratic politics. An autocratic security force or ‘security state’ appears to act in parallel to the regular democratic state, and this duality or ‘dual state’ was described by Hans Morgenthau already in 1955. After September 11, terrorism has become an instrument to ‘securitize’ what used to be public and tilt the ‘dual state’-balance in favour of the ‘security state’. The US ‘security state’ with its intelligence hegemony enters the scene as global protector that defines the world order in terms of a Pax Americana.

Terrorism is used to construct a new world order. This development has been followed by mutual transatlantic accusations between European critiques and US neo-conservatives. According to the critiques, the Strategy of Tension, as we know it from Cold War Europe, has received a global dimension. During the Cold War, the US ‘dual security structure’ – with its specifically tasked units masquerading as ‘enemy forces’ – was developed by the US ‘security state’ in order to keep the political strength and the readiness and capability of the Western defences. Now, this structure has seemingly been made into a self-propelled mechanism that is able to transform the world order into a Pax Americana.”  — Prof. Dr. Ola Tunander [2], Abstract of “Securitization, Dual State and US-European Geopolitical Divide or The Use of Terrorism to Construct World Order” [3]

Introduction

The “deep state” is a concept that necessarily connects with the power structure of the United States of America (USA). It stands in parallel with the legitimate government of the US and whose main function is to “securitize” the democratic foundation of the government as well as the institutions that represent and strengthen that government. It is, therefore, the fundamental responsibility of the “deep state” to protect the US government from both internal and external attacks aimed to undermine and destroy its “democratic” underpinning. It is precisely the reason why the “deep state” is more technically known as the “security state”.

The world, in general, has been conditioned to believe that the legitimate US government is the leading paragon of democracy. Hence it is principally construed that any attack against the US government is tantamount to an assault on democracy. This mental programming has created a condition that weaves the fiber of democracy with that of the US government. In literary critical analysis, we call it “telescoping”. In telescoping events, the characteristics and properties unique to each event are blurred and rendered insignificant to the point of unifying such events and hence making them identical. Expressing such a situation in the formal logical propositional pattern, “There is an x such that if x then y,” yields the following substantial statement:

“If the US government is democracy, then an attack against the US government is an attack against democracy.”

And to prevent such an attack against the US government or to defend the US government from such an attack, as the case may be, the “security state” which, under normal circumstances stands at par with the “legitimate democratic state,” takes control of the present abnormal situation using its autocratic power. In other words, when circumstances are normal, power is tilted on the side of the legitimate democratic state while in an emergency situation, it is on the side of the autocratic security state.

This condition is theoretically deemed as a matter of exigency and therefore temporary. By and large, the essential dynamic that constitutes this state of affairs is drawn from the non-negotiable importance of “securitization” to defend and protect the “genuine” bearer of the ideals of democracy which is the United States of America.

Nevertheless, what we simply see at the moment is the epidermal surface that projects the finest and the best of what this “prime model” of “democracy” exudes. Yet, there is more than meets the eye. Under the superficial configuration is a more complex network of hidden infrastructure reckoned to be more crucial and paramount than any of those located overboard and visible to the naked eye. Like in the case of an iceberg, what we see is just the diminutive tip but the bulk of its solid form is deep underneath. And this is precisely comparable to how the security state operates to which we give the alternative epithet, “deep state.”

What the deep state/security state is concerned about is more than the democratic state of the US government. It is more concerned about the massive business industries comprising the multiplex cogs of US economic enterprises that dominate the globe. These are the machines that are in full control of the US government.

In other words, the latter doesn’t possess the power inherent in itself but draws its strength from these colossal industrial establishments of global magnitude. In this connection, what we see is a government beholden to big business industrial conglomerates and whose decisions and actions are incontrovertibly at the behest of such business industrial giants. These are the “omnipotent” gods that the deep state/security state defends and protects.

The whole gamut of this arrangement leads us to a confirmation of the reality that the socio-political fabric of the United States of America is just a semblance of democracy – a counterfeit democracy. Its government, contrary to the Lincoln formulation presented in the Gettysburg Address, is not “of the people, by the people, for the people.”

The US government is of the big business industries, by the big business industries, and for the big business industries. What its citizens get are just the bread crumbs that fall from the dining tables of their “all-powerful” gods – the industry tycoons who own the machines that run the US economy. These are the mighty economic dictators who walk the corridors of power and are actively defended and closely protected by the deep state/security state.

The deep state/security state’s clout goes beyond the geographical location of its protected and defended “land of the free and home of the brave.”

Its power is felt in every country where the US foreign policy reigns supreme.

It dominates the western European region through its proxy known as the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO).

In Southeast Asia, it lords over the member states of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN). Its aggressive posture has been tremendously exerted in the Middle East as it creates all forms of destabilization campaigns mostly by way of wars in Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Syria, and Yemen with the able assistance of its destructive allies, Wahabbist Saudi Arabia and Zionist Israel.

To promote and protect its economic interest in the Eastern European region, it has made all possible aggressive efforts to hold Russia at bay with veneer threats of violent confrontation if Russia reacts with an air of hostility.

In South America, it has been fueling destabilization in Venezuela to topple the democratically elected government of Nicolas Maduro and take full control of the country’s petroleum industry. In the most recent developments, it has been challenging Iran into a nuclear war which, on the basis of certain honest-to-goodness assessments made by experts in the field of geopolitics, is nothing but a hot-air provocation, i.e., an empty bluff.

Focusing on what’s been happening in the Middle East, the main goal of the deep state/security state is to take full control of the entire region to effect the final success of the Greater Israel Project wherein Zionist Israel is considered to be the sole political power extension of the US dominating over all the Arab nations around its illegitimate territory stolen from the Palestinians.

This project which puts Zionist Israel at the central hegemonic position of power consistently sustains the theory that the deep state/security state is not only a league of powerful American big business industrial tycoons but also a Zionist-influenced cabal whose dual allegiance is to Zionism and the US global supremacy.

*

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

Prof. Ruel F. Pepa is a Filipino philosopher based in Madrid, Spain. A retired academic (Associate Professor IV), he taught Philosophy and Social Sciences at Trinity University of Asia, an Anglican university in the Philippines. He is a frequent contributor to Global Research and Asia Pacific Research.

Notes

[1] https://es.scribd.com/document/209132312/Ola-Tunander-Democratic-State-v-Deep-State-PRIO-2008

[2] https://www.prio.org/People/Person/?x=5044

[3] https://www.prio.org/Publications/Publication/?x=3214

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).

***

.

Introduction

From this retired US Army Master Sergeant’s perspective, the success or failure of Mr Biden’s foreign policy will hinge entirely upon one basic but ultimate standard that was set by his predecessor.    

Whatever Trump did or did not do, or un-did, in the realm of foreign policy and international relations, he at least did not start any New Wars, nor did he  significantly expand or escalate any already proceeding Old Wars.  

Unfortunately, there is another Trumpian standard of performance that Mr Biden is already looking forward to being able to surpass:  the size of annual federal budget Deficits that add to an ever-growing at a record pace national, sovereign debt.

And to do this, he will need and get all kinds of help from the other end of Pennsylvania Avenue and the folks at the Federal Reserve; which he already has.  That is the one thing that regime change in Swampland never changes.

20+ Questions.  

President Biden’s foreign policy address at the US Department of State on February 4 presents what folks in the close artillery, tactical air, and naval gunfire support business call a “target-rich environment.”  Inspectors General often use that term, as well.

That is, there are all kinds of opportunities to challenge assertions, raise questions, and demand answers.  Among them are:

1. If “America is Back” (Biden’s foreign policy stance] is to be the replacement meme for “MAGA,” to exactly What is America back? To the way things were under Obama or Clinton?How about Bush II or I?
2. If “Diplomacy is back at the center of our foreign policy,” when has it Ever been at the center of American foreign policy? Or does “diplomacy” include our history of regime changes, including assassinations, interfering in elections, and overthrowing democratically elected governments and replacing them with compliant, lackey dictatorships?  Does it include sanctions, embargoes, and other forms of economic and financial warfare that kill, cripple, and maim just as effectively as smart bombs and drones?
3. Is the Defense Department’s “global posture review of our military footprint” the official declaration that Cold War II is all but upon us because…. . Well, because  Russia and China seem to have had the temerity to dare to even think about challenging America’s unipolar global military, economic, financial, and political hegemony that has prevailed since the end of Cold War I in 1991?

3a.  How much must the $1++ trillion global empire, national defense, intelligence, surveillance, Fatherland security budget have to be increased in order for America to successfully defend itself against and confront, combat, and ultimately defeat this new bipolar threat to that hegemony?

4. Wasn’t bringing “democracy” and all the promised joys of a Pax Americana to the Middle East our primary motivation for invading, “liberating,” and occupying Iraq [besides, of course, preventing a mushroom cloud over Peoria from one of Saddam’s WMDs], in the first place? With the ultimate result of turning that land and nation into a true and total “shit hole”? And then turning the whole Fertile Crescent into a Killing Field as an encore, in the second?
5. How does Biden’s claim that our goals are “[d]efending freedom, championing opportunity, upholding universal rights, respecting the rule of law and treating every person with dignity,” correlate to and jibe with our history of installing, maintaining, and sustaining some of the most brutal dictatorships on the planet?
6. If Russian dissident Alexei Navalny has “been targeted for exposing corruption [and] should be released immediately and without condition,” what did Assange, Snowden, and Manning do but expose corruption and a whole lot more?And why shouldn’t they be immediately released, pardoned, compensated, and awarded Presidential Medals of Freedom?
7. When Biden, in his words, “made it clear to President Putin in a manner very different from my predecessor, that the days of the United States rolling over in the face of Russia’s’ aggressive actions, interfering with our elections, cyber attacks, poisoning its citizens are over,” what did Putin have to say in response?One can pretty well imagine what he was probably thinking, eh?  Wouldn’t you just Love to see an SNL skit on that?
8. Why do we still have troops in Germany 75 years after defeating the Nazis in World War II and 30 years after the Soviet Union disappeared? Or in Japan after doing the same thing in the Pacific just as long ago?And in Korea 67 years after the conclusion of that first of America’s many subsequent Wars-by-Presidential Fiat, as opposed to by Congressional Declaration?  And while we’re at it, why do we have 800 military bases scattered across 80 nations and 160,000 troops on them?  Or is that part of how Swampland ~ pre- or post-Trump ~ defines “Great”?
9. If “we’re ending all American support for offensive operations in the war in Yemen, including relevant arm sales,” how do we plan to ensure that those weapons and technology we sell or give them ~ to “support and help Saudi Arabia defend its sovereignty, and it’s territorial integrity and its people” ~ won’t be used in Yemen?After all, that’s where the primary “threat” to its sovereignty, territory, and people is coming from, isn’t it; at least in the Saudi mind?  Or is it Iran?  Or is it Israel?

9a.  And wasn’t “defending Saudi Arabia” from a marauding Saddam what got us into this whole goat rope in the first place?  When, after “liberating” Kuwait, we stayed put and kept a full-time, combat-ready military presence in and on Islam’s holiest Land?

10. For all the talk about Myanmar and Yemen, why was there was no mention whatsoever of Afghanistan, Iraq, or Syria [or Guantanamo], and our so-called “Global” so-called “War On” so-called “Terrorism”?And what are the Biden plans for those complete and total failures of American foreign policy?   Of which he was an active participant.

See Item 16 below.

11. How many of those “80 million displaced people suffering all around the world” are displaced directly ~ or indirectly but ultimately ~ because of America’s “Forever War”?  And if “the United States’ moral leadership on refugee issues was a point of bipartisan consensus for so many decades,” hasn’t there also been an even stronger  bipartisan consensus on perpetrating and then perpetuating that War, as well?  That War created and continues to create all those refugees for these past two decades?

11a.  In other words, Who and What have caused the vast majority of those refugees to flee their homelands?  In Southwest Asia, the Middle East, and North Africa, is it not that Forever War, which is no closer to being over, let alone “won” [whatever that means or ever meant] than it was on 9/12?

11b.  And is not the primary reason that people are seeking to escape Central America following the chaos and collapse left over from Ollie’s (Oliver North) Crusade there in the 80s, that built on 80+ years of US military, economic, and political invasion .[See Smedley Butler’s War Is A Racket for an overview.]

11c.  Or do they seek to escape the avenues through which major portions of America’s insatiable demand for drugs must pass on their way to market?  One can only wonder how preemptively ending America’s failed War On Drugs by legalizing everything would cut down on the number of people trying to flee where the drugs come from, and through which they pass on the way up to Gringoland, eh?

11d.  Instead of “restoring our refugee admissions program” and bringing 125,000 of these folks to America, why not stop creating refugees in the first place? 

12. What business is it of the United States as to how any other sovereign, independent nation treats its LGBTQs, or anybody else?  Is it the business of any other nation to tell the US how its Cops should treat its African Americans?  They can tell us all they want but, are we going to listen to them?  Should we?  Then why should they bother to listen to us?
13. What is “a foreign policy for the middle class”?Is that different from a foreign policy for the poor?  Or one for the rich?

13a.   How much is the “American Rescue Plan” and so forth ~ all to be paid for with borrowed money ~ going to cost future taxpayers when the bills come due, and the collection agent shows up and demands payment because our credit is no longer good?

13b.  How are the “Buy American policies” ramped up last week any different from Trumpite neo-mercantilisms?   And isn’t the idea that American business can “compete and win on the global stage, if the rules of international trade aren’t stacked against us” kind of, sort of, almost exactly what Trump proclaimed on numerous occasions?

14. Can government action end the “systemic racism and the scourge of white supremacy in our own country”? Particularly when white supremacy and racism were built directly into the American system of government and governance from the very beginning with the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution, and precidential executive and legislative actions and judicial decisions?
15. How successful have our investments in developing countries over the past 20 years been in “creat[ing] new markets for our products and reduc[ing] the likelihood of instability, violence and mass migrations”?  Has foreign aid worked?  Did “nation building” work?  And if so, where, how, and, most importantly, for whom?  And what has been America’s return on that investment?

15a.  While it may or may not be true that “when we strengthen health systems in far regions of the world, we reduce the risk of future pandemics that could threaten our people and our economy,” how about if we focus on fixing our own totally and completely broken health care system first, and thenworry about fixing everybody else’s?

16. In opening his address with lavish praise for the new Secretary of State, Tony Blinken, with whom Mr Biden has “worked together for over 20 years,” one is immediately led to ask:And what good, positive things did You two accomplish over the course of these last 20 years working together that the American people or anybody else on the planet have benefited from?  Anything?  According to Wiki, Blinken “advocated for the 2003 invasion of Iraq,” and “[d]uring his tenure in the Obama administration, he helped craft U.S. policy on Afghanistan, Pakistan, and the nuclear program of Iran.”  All major, booming successes, almost everybody in Washington would agree, yes?
17. In response to Mr Biden’s declaration that “We want a rigorous debate that brings all perspectives and makes room for dissent. That’s how we’ll get the best possible policy outcomes,” one must ask: But what’s on the table? Overseas base closures and bringing the troops home?  Ending our economic warfare against Iran, Venezuela, and anybody else who crosses us?  Reducing ~ or at least not increasing ~ the nation’s $1++ trillion global empire, national defense, intelligence, surveillance, Fatherland security budget?  And like blasphemies?  How much dissent from the established, dominant paradigm perspective is actually welcome, and would be seriously considered?
18. In response to “the passions of Eleanor Roosevelt that declared the audacious idea of universal rights that belong to all,” this raises the two most important questions confronting America and the entire Planet today:

• What is the difference between Human Needs and Human Wants, on the one hand, and Human Rights and Human Responsibilities, on the other?
• What is the proper function of government as regards the meeting of those Needs and the satisfying of those Wants, on the one hand, and the protection of those Rights and the fulfillment of those Responsibilities, on the other?
• Which then leads to the following questions:  Is Health Care a Human Need and Want, or a Human Right and Responsibility?  What about Nutrition and Sanitation?  Education?  Or Housing, Employment, Physical and Financial Security, and Leisure?  Water? Truth?

19. How does Mr Biden’s vision for a new American foreign policy that takes America “Back” to the World Economic Forum’s “Great Reset”?
20. According to Mr Biden, “There’s no longer a bright line between foreign and domestic policy.” Is that a reference to our failed War Against International Terrorism and its newly hatched  War Against Domestic Terrorism?   One can already imagine that a Congressional Authorization to Use Military Force Against Domestic Terrorists or AUMF-DT, and a domesticated version of the USA PATRIOT Act are already in Final Draft, waiting for the Deals to be cut, made, and done.  Mr Biden got a lot of experience with that sort of thing in a parallel situation and environment, having been in DC in 2001.

Concluding Remarks as outlined in the Introduction

From this retired US Army Master Sergeant’s perspective, the success or failure of Mr Biden’s foreign policy will hinge entirely upon one basic but ultimate standard that was set by his predecessor.

Whatever Trump did or did not do, or un-did, in the realm of foreign policy and international relations, he at least did not start any New Wars, nor did he measurably significantly expand or escalate any already proceeding Old Wars.

But the proposed, planned, and programmed “War Against Domestic Terrorism” will change Everything.

[Author’s Note:  All quotes are Biden’s and are from “Joe Biden Speech on Foreign Policy Transcript February 4: ‘America is Back’”; accessed 020421]

*

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.

Jeffrey G. Moebus is a 74-year-old retired US Army Master Sergeant who spent two years in Viet Nam in the 60s, and two years in the pre-Operation Desert Storm Middle East in the 80s.  He lives in Sitka, Alaska on the sailboat he brought up from San Francisco Bay nine years ago this summer, and is the Chronicler for Veterans Against War [Sitka Platoon].

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).

***

Last year an experiment was carried out on a group of adolescents to see how they would respond to being denied contact with others of the same age. The results were stark — starved of interaction with their own generation, the adolescents subsequently grew up to be more angry and fearful, drank more alcohol and found it harder to interact with others.

The adolescents in questions were “rats” (part of animal model experiment reported in The Lancet, but many of their human equivalents might wonder if a similar experiment was being carried out on them, too.

Certainly it’s not a good time to be a kid. Teenagers in previous national crises risked being bombed out of their houses, killed by polio or Spanish Flu, or being sent to fight in the trenches. What Covid is wreaking is relatively invisible, and while the disease dominating the world is vanishingly unlikely to kill anyone under 25, there is a parallel epidemic of anxiety and depression crushing its way through young minds. The Royal College of Psychiatrists is warning that the psychological damage caused by the last 12 months could last for years.

Rates of referral to child and adolescent mental health services were already alarmingly high before the pandemic; in the last year, they’ve gone up by 20%, to nearly 1 in 20 as teenagers are forced to stay home with their stressed families and live their entire lives through a screen: education, entertainment, their grandparents’ funerals and their own school-leaving prom. And, most important for teenagers, their social life.

Adolescents need their social life the way babies need food, sleep and warmth. Everything from neuroscience to centuries of human experience tells us that the process of becoming an adult happens through spending less time with parents and more time with peers. By hanging out with friends and classmates, developing our first sexual and romantic attachments, competing and admiring, going too far and having to repair social bonds, we learn to be autonomous and independent — just as our rat cousins do.

And yet, as the researchers on the animal model experiment noted, findings in rodents don’t map simply onto human teenagers. For a start, none of the rats driven to drink by their solitary confinement had access to social media.

Ever since teenagers first discovered that the smartphone in their pocket could connect them, not only to a boundless world of human knowledge and feline video action, but to their friends, rivals and potential love interest, adults have worried the damage it is doing. A January 2021 report on young people’s wellbeing and mental health is the latest to associate “heavy social media use” with worse wellbeing, especially for girls.

This association could mean that more time spent looking at digitally-enhanced depictions of impossibly beautiful people having impossibly glamorous and popular lives makes teenage girls feel worse about themselves. But it could also mean that lonely, unhappy teenagers go online more to seek support. Existing research in the pre-lockdown world shows evidence that both these things are true. Talking about “social media” in teenagers’ lives makes as little sense as debating the benefits and risks of “reading”. Scrolling passively through TikTok until a video catches your eye is very different from contacting your friends to set up a WhatsApp group, or posting your own original music on a public platform.

We have all been catapulted by Covid into a world where most of our interactions happen through technology, but that’s largely an acceleration of trends that were already happening. It’s the same with shops. Several high street retailers were dealt the fatal blow by lockdowns that forced us to shop online instead, but that shift was already happening. At the start of the pandemic, only one in ten UK adults had never shopped online. Yet nobody is now lining up to buy bankrupt chains of bricks-and-mortar shops, because nobody foresees a full bounce back to the bustling high street of 20 years ago.

For teenagers, interacting through digital channels was already taking the place of much face-to-face socialising. Almost half of American teens said they were online “almost constantly” in 2018. Online gaming was an important social activity, with 97% of boys playing, and four in five girls. Texting overtook “in-person” as teenagers’ favourite way to communicate, even before coronavirus forced their fast-typing thumbs.

Alongside this fast-forward phase in the tech takeover of our lives has come a heightening of existing debates. Campaigners who were already worried about what teenagers get up to on their phones are swift to blame the increase in mental distress among the young on cyber-bullying, doom-scrolling, and the endless pressure to present a perfect self image. Technology companies whose mission is “to connect the world” are are keen to show how their products can fill the void in everyone’s social existence.

This polarisation of pre-existing positions, says Professor Andrew Przybylski of the Oxford Internet Institute, helps nobody. The debate about whether technology “is good or bad, is so empty,” he says. The issue that he thinks we should be talking about is how our ability to structure our own social lives has been ceded, almost by accident, to software engineers, and to the profit motives of a handful of companies.

“The PTA, the Parent Teachers Association, has ceded authority to Google Classroom. Your trip to the pub has ceded structuring authority to some UX engineer at Zoom,” says Przybylski.

“And that’s not bad for your mental health. But that might be bad for your ability to make rational decisions about how you’re going to structure your life, or how you’re going to structure your child’s education.”

When our social interactions happen in real life, we have some control over how they work. A school PTA meeting, a college seminar, a pub quiz or a family get together, can be organised the way we think best, to foster the kind of human relationships we want. There is room to be spontaneous, to adapt or subvert the arrangements, just as people have done for millennia. Our social structures have evolved over time, a mix of conscious planning and organic change.

Online, these social structures are prefabricated. It’s as if you can only have parties by choosing between venues where not only the seating plans are rigidly fixed, but also how many people can talk at once, and for how long, and (in some cases) even what subjects are acceptable in conversation.

What does this mean for teenagers?

In some ways, they are already more at home in this mixed-dimensional world, where your friends can be constantly present even if you haven’t seen them in the flesh for months. Teenagers’ capacity to have intimate conversations online, to share experiences and occasions through screens, and to run parallel relationships simultaneously through many channels, should help them deal with lockdown better than many adults. Today’s young adults were already less likely to drink and take drugs than the previous generation, so they may not be missing pub life as much as their parents are.

But this is not to downplay the combined effects of pandemic and lockdown on young people. Alongside the threat of illness and death to their grandparents and sometimes parents, the interruption of their education, and the prospect of entering employment in a post-pandemic recession, they are losing out on experiences vital to their mental and emotional development.

Teenagers need to get together in person, and not just because their hormones are turning them into adults with sexual desires; though learning how, and with whom, to express those urges (and when to restrain them) is important. Human interaction can’t be codified. The subtleties of body language, the ambiguities of fleeting eye contact, the scary prospect of making a social faux pas in a situation from which you can’t just log off, don’t translate well into digital platforms.

The relative controllability, and predictability, of technologically-mediated interactions are part of their appeal for adolescents. The risk of misreading a situation, or being misread, is mitigated when you can re-read a text message before replying, or edit a selfie before posting. One of the very real dangers of a year spent growing up online is that it will be the “new normal” because it’s safer than the in-person alternative.

But we must be honest with ourselves. An existence mediated by technology we didn’t design, in which each of us interacts, individually, with a world bounded by a screen, was already the future into which most of us were sliding. We were already being seduced by the ease of pre-made platforms, of a social world packaged like content, of a perpetually-scrolling menu of experiences to consume. It’s less risky than unscripted encounters with flesh-and-blood human beings.

Teenagers need each other. They need to see and hear each other, so it’s no wonder their use of technology has expanded to meet that need, as well as their needs to learn, to shop, to laugh, and to escape reality for a little while. They also need to touch each other and (sorry, parents) sometimes the other senses too, and technology can’t really help with that, despite its best efforts. It’s vital for teenage sanity, in its broadest sense, that they regain the freedom to be together as soon as possible.

Meanwhile, it’s up to the adults to reflect on the world that we are making for them, and for ourselves. A world which made it possible to confine much of the population to home, each separately connected through social structures in software form. Structures designed, not by us, but by people we’ll never meet, who never asked us what we want, and merely measured our behaviour in the maze they built for us.

*

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.

Timandra Harkness presents the BBC Radio 4 series, FutureProofing and How To Disagree. Her book, Big Data: Does Size Matter? is published by Bloomsbury Sigma.

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 is the second of two posts about psychology, and should ideally be read after the first, which is entitled ’20) Psychology: Pretending There is Nothing Wrong’. This post summarises more key psychological issues which have serious negative consequences for modern societies, and then discusses the implications for how we deal with these issues in future. In particular, it emphasises the need to question everything.

“It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends on his not understanding it.”(1)

Power

Recent research into the effects of power is showing how much it corrupts people. In particular, when confronted by risky situations, powerful people are more likely to expect positive outcomes. They are optimistic because they believe they have the power to overcome adversity.

Successful or powerful people tend to delude themselves into believing that they are more capable than they really are.

In other research, subjects who are primed to feel powerful are more likely to lie in order to get a reward.(2) At the same time, they actually become more hypocritical, in that they are more disapproving of other cheats. Power seems to make people more assertive whilst decreasing their ability to see something from someone else’s point of view.(3) It also seems to make people less inclined to challenge received wisdom. Many of these issues appear to have little to do with a lack of education or intelligence. If anything, the opposite is true. Intelligent people tend to be more confident that they know what they are doing. Power not only corrupts, but does so in extremely complex ways.(4)

Power is mostly ignored by the mainstream media, but it is so important in human societies that it will be discussed in a later post in much more detail.

Money

There is a growing body of evidence that money may have significant social side-effects. It appears to motivate our interest in ourselves, but at the same time makes us selfish,(5) suggesting that there may be a trade-off between financial and social motivations. If we choose to value something in a financial way, we no longer value it in a social way(6).

This was originally noted in relation to blood donations. Researchers found that paying donors makes them less willing to donate blood, and increased the chances of blood being contaminated. Rather than money simply providing an additional motivation for people to do something, it seems that money might destroy other motivations. Other research has confirmed this. People are less likely to accept contaminated waste if they are paid,(7) and parents collecting children from childcare are late more often, not less, when financial penalties are introduced.

The existing social arrangement, where people feel an obligation to do the right thing, is replaced by a financial arrangement, where people feel no social obligation. We live in societies in which mutual support and co-operation are essential, but money seems to erode these unwritten agreements. We decide that we do not need or care about others, or society in general. The unintended social consequences of money and financial incentives may be much more significant than we realise, indicating that we need to think very carefully about financial incentives. It has been argued that money is the final disincentive (after obeying orders, conforming, and other issues discussed in the previous post) for not doing the right thing and looking away. Over the years, many commentators have noted this principle:

“All that evil needs to flourish is for good people to see nothing, and get paid for it”.(8)

In particular, journalists have a financial incentive to ‘misunderstand’ the crimes of their government. As we saw in earlier posts, newspaper owners do not want their journalists to be too critical of the existing system.

Distance and Complexity

“we don’t see things that are too far away, that are too distant from our own experience, too separate from our own concerns, too complicated… or too far away in time”.(9)

One factor that made a big difference in the earlier obedience experiments (discussed in the previous post) was proximity between subjects and the people receiving electric shocks. In some experiments, if subjects were in the same room as the person receiving the shocks, the number of subjects giving strong shocks was low, whereas if the person receiving the shocks was in another room, all participants were obedient and gave the maximum shock. One subject commented “it’s funny how you begin to forget that there’s a guy out there”.(10)

As many companies and governments have realised, it is easier for the senior management or policymakers to be blind to the consequences of their actions when they do not see the results. Senior managers effectively operate in a ‘bubble of power’ that seals off bad news and hostile opinions. Many top decision-makers never have to deal with detailed day-to-day decision-making. They look only at the big picture. The combination of power and distance from actual events seems to make powerful people more certain that they are correct. They are lulled into a sense of mastery by their isolation from challenge, and from the actual evidence that would contradict their decisions.

In the UK we have what is known as the Westminster bubble, where a group of mostly wealthy politicians, advisers, bureaucrats, and journalists, surround themselves with people who are equally wealthy. They don’t work at food banks or in homeless shelters, so they have no real understanding of the challenges faced by the poorest people, and no incentive to take any interest.

Modern societies and, in particular, businesses, are becoming ever more complex. Investigations into the financial crisis of 2008 clearly showed that no one in the financial system had a complete picture of the overall risks. All risk calculations were confined to slices of financial activity.(11) This was true in both Britain and the US. The evidence suggests that this level of complexity is unmanageable. Humans do not seem able to cope with it.

There are many other psychological issues that have been noted by researchers which may be relevant to corporate settings. For example, diffusion of responsibility is where no-one takes responsibility for something because everyone else assumes that someone else is responsible. The more complex an organisation is, the easier it is to pass the buck and blame others when problems arise.

Can we do anything about these psychological issues? 

Current corporate and political arrangements ignore all of the psychological issues that have been discussed in these two posts. Groups of key decision-makers are surrounded by like-minded thinkers and therefore develop extreme views. They are over-confident, too distant from the consequences of their decisions, and oblivious to ethical issues. Employees try so hard to be obedient and to conform that they too turn a blind eye to ethical issues, and assume that if something is seriously wrong then someone else must be dealing with it.

The science of psychology, and its application to the real world, is still in its infancy. There is some discussion in business or management magazine(12) but it tends to be superficial. However, awareness of psychological issues could be used to help re-structure organisations in the future, in way that might make them work much better for people and society.

If we accept that power and/or money seriously corrupts decision-making, then we have to remove financial incentives from decisions, and ensure that no individual or organisation has too much power. If complexity is making life unmanageable, we can simplify many things, including the structure of companies. If distance affects our judgement, then we have to ensure that decision-makers are closer to outcomes, which might require us to break up the biggest companies.

Unfortunately, at the moment, lawyers and financial advisors for big companies actively do the opposite, trying to make them bigger, more complex, less transparent and less accountable, and therefore more risky, more unmanageable, and with ever more power in fewer hands.

Minimising Obedience, Conformity and Groupthink 

Overcoming the issues discussed in the previous post, such as obedience, conformity, groupthink, denial or confirmation bias is probably more difficult, as they are psychological traits that have evolved over many generations to enable us to make life more bearable. However, it might be possible to weaken their effects by changing the way that children are taught, and changing the way that workplaces operate.

During some of the experiments discussed in the previous post, researchers found that small changes in experimental set-ups often led to very different outcomes. With the groupthink research, it only took one dissenting opinion to give other people the confidence to express their doubts about a particular course of action. Similarly, in the obedience experiments, if participants witnessed other people giving shocks, obedience was much higher. However, obedience declined considerably if there was a single other person who refused to give shocks. If we encourage independent thinking, alternative opinions and dissenting voices from a young age, and throughout people’s lives, then it might make a difference to how organisations operate.

Bypass Information From The Powerful – Stop Reading Mainstream Newspapers 

These psychological issues have their worst effects when powerful people are trying to manipulate us in the first place, using propaganda to justify wars, corporate crimes, or economic policies that enrich the rich. People with power don’t want these things to change. They like obedience and conformity. They like having a population that is in denial about war crimes, and the criminal nature of the corporate system. To bring about serious change will requireminimising the ability of those with power to manipulate us in the first place.

For this reason, most people will have to completely change the way they obtain and interpret information, to bypass sources that are biased towards the powerful. As we saw in earlier posts, most of the information in mainstream newspapers is government and corporate press releases, so you will never understand the world if that is all you read.

People need to learn to be more questioning of all information, whatever the source, and of their bosses, of their places of employment, and of ideas more generally. Above all we need to encourage people to keep asking questions, and to help people work out the right questions. This will require teaching people these skills when they are young, so that the default response is to question everything, rather than to believe propaganda.

It is also important to encourage people to have values, to think about what they believe in, and to encourage people to stand up for their beliefs. When we see crimes or unethical behaviour all around us, we have to be prepared to speak out.

In many of these posts I do not discuss solutions, because they are so obvious – we simply need to stop doing things like war crimes. But it will be easier to make the necessary changes if we take human psychology into account. If we fail to do so, we will be stuck with a population that does not question the most obvious lies, allowing war crimes and corporate crimes. Conformism, groupthink and obedience will continue. There will be few whistleblowers, and poor policies. We will know that we are making progress when our societies celebrate conscientious objectors more than soldiers, and when we celebrate whistleblowers instead of punishing 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 first posted at medium.com/elephantsintheroom

Rod Driver is a part-time academic who is particularly interested in de-bunking modern-day US and British propaganda. This is the twentieth in a series entitled Elephants In The Room, which attempts to provide a beginners guide to understanding what’s really going on in relation to war, terrorism, economics and poverty, without the nonsense in the mainstream media.

Notes

1) Upton Sinclair, 1934, discussed at https://quoteinvestigator.com/2017/11/30/salary/

2) Joris Lammers et al, ‘Power increases Hypocrisy: Moralizing in Reasoning, Immorality in Behaviour’, Psychological Science, 16 April 2010, at https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0956797610368810

3) Deborah H. Gruenfeld, ‘Status, Ideology and Integrative Complexity on the Supreme Court: Rethinking the Politics of Political Decision-Making’, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1995, 68(1) pp.5 – 20

4) S. Goodwin, et al, ’Power can bias impression processes: Stereotyping Subordinates by Default and by Design’,Group Processes and Intergroup Relations, 2000, 3(3), 227 – 256

5) K.D.Vohs et al, ‘The Psychological Consequences of Money’, Science, 2006, 314(5802), pp.1154 – 1156

6) Michael J. Sandel, What Money Can’t Buy: The Moral Limits of Markets

Richard Titmuss, The Gift Relationship

7) B.S. Frey and F. Oberholzer-Ghee, ‘The Cost of Price Incentives: An Empirical Analysis of Motivation Crowding-Out’, American Economic Review, 1997, 87(4) pp. 756 – 755

U. Gneezy and A. Rustichini, ‘A Fine is a Price, Journal of Legal Studies, 2000, 29(1) pp.1 – 17

8) Margaret Heffernan, Wilful Blindness: Why we ignore the obvious at our peril, 2011, p.257, paraphrasing the philosopher Edmund Burke

9) Margaret Heffernan, Wilful Blindness: Why we ignore the obvious at our peril, 2011, p.238

10) S. Milgram, Obedience to Authority, 1974

11) John Snow, Testimony before congress, in ‘The financial crisis and the Role of federal Regulators’, Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, 23 Oct 2008, at https://ia802904.us.archive.org/30/items/gov.gpo.fdsys.CHRG-110hhrg55764/CHRG-110hhrg55764.pdf

12) Ryan Smerek, ‘How to overcome conformity by “getting at the truth”’, Psychology Today, 6 July 2020 https://www.psychologytoday.com/gb/blog/learning-work/202007/how-overcome-conformity-getting-the-truth 

Peter Bregman, ‘The high cost of conformity and how to avoid it’, Harvard Business Review, 21 Oct 2015, at https://hbr.org/2015/10/the-high-cost-of-conformity-and-how-to-avoid-it

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).

***

‘Know Thyself’

On a tombstone in an English churchyard is the following inscription “Here lies John Bailey. The fact that he died does not guarantee that he lived”. 

And that is surely the point. ‘To Live’ is the dynamic expression of existence; not being stuck in some soulless routine permanently in fear of stepping out of line with a sterile status quo.

The art of living involves the assertion of freedom, creativity and empathy with and for fellow humans and all living beings. It is our deepest self expression of an organic sense of purpose. The will to live is expressed through the flow of that warm inner feeling called ‘love of life’.

When, within the human experience, attempts are made to block this flow by forces opposed to Life, our ‘love of life’ causes us to adopt an unwavering commitment to fight for the preservation of all that is good, real and humane. In other words, to defend the basic tenets of a civilised society.

Many actively engaged individuals find themselves in this position today.

But why such a high proportion of humanity fails to respond to this ‘Life-call’, preferring instead a ‘no risk’ three dimensional sub-existence – is an unsolved conundrum – in spite of thousands of divergent explanations being put forward.

However, one thing we do know is that when some form of material wealth or power is experienced by those who have sidelined their innate spirituality, it becomes an addiction around which a fixated dependency immediately forms. From there on, such individuals only experience existence as a sterile ambition-chasing game.

In these circumstances, Life becomes reduced to a competition to build and protect material wealth and status; and all those who reject such extremity – but nevertheless remain essentially passive – serve as fuel for the ambitions of these vampires.

The present pyramid of top-down economic and political oppression is built upon this catastrophic deviation from the organic, spirit led, path of Life.

The net result of this deviation from truth is the manifestation of a compensatory expression of the suppressed life-force. The original expression, blocked from following its organic path, turns in on itself and starts to devour that which would otherwise have guided the individual to the light.

Whereas, to openly give free voice to that Divine source of which we are all descendants, is the supreme individual expression of the life force with which we have all been blessed.

We are living through a time of open manifestation of the domineering anti-life materialistic obsession, stripped of all spiritual energy. What we are seeing on a daily basis today, emanating from the top end of the ‘competition pyramid’, is a ‘pandemic’. But it has nothing to do with a virus and everything to do with a feverish grasping for ultimate power and control over others – which includes all life forms down to the very DNA of life itself.

Taken at its face value, this is an abject expression of clinical insanity. If such an extremity was expressed within a family unit, the perpetrator would be recognised as deeply disturbed and in need of serious help and quite possibly of being isolated for fear of causing serious harm to others.

But when the same symptoms are displayed by politicians, bankers, media editors, corporate directors, the police and so forth – it is not recognised as insanity or even megalomania – but as an  ‘acceptable’ type of eccentric behaviour, which is grudgingly seen as ‘par for the course’.

This should lead us all to reflect on how such a stark departure from a human path of life could ever have been engineered into existence.

How a set of values applied to leadership within a family and to political/corporate ‘leadership’ – could be so starkly different. And how such a schizophrenic state of affairs could be allowed to continue to prevail in every corner of the world?

My conclusion is that such a gross imbalance exists due to the engineered separation of primary values within the greater social community, so as to create a divide and conquer controlling agent within society. Once this is in place, schizophrenic actions are not seen for what they are, they are taken as the norm.

In reality, there is no such division between values and responsibilities we see as important within families and those we see as important within political and business affairs. They are indivisible. That which expresses truth – and guidance based upon this truth – has Divine origins. The Divine is whole.

But by the time formal education and parental ambition (for siblings) has weighed-in, a separation of the material and the spiritual/social is all too often made manifest. It is as though these two realms were innately antagonistic.

This state of affairs is the signature of a bankrupt society. An engineered split that looks distinctly like the work of “demons”; as there is no natural explanation for why antagonism should exist between material and spiritual realms.

All animate and inanimate life is built of spirit and matter – ‘spirit-matter’ – which cannot be separated into opposing elements. But that separation is exactly what the proponents of an increasingly robotic human race have set their sights on.

To reinstate the wholeness which is our natural birthright, and to ensure its continuity throughout the life cycles that proceed from childhood through adolescence and into adulthood, is the essential task all caring, humanitarian and feeling individuals cannot turn away from.

‘Living’ means bringing a better world into being. Encouraging the spark of Life to rise up out of the ashes of a dystopian wilderness. To let Life educate us rather than those who police the status quo.

The verb ‘to educate’ comes from the Latin ‘e-ducare’ meaning ‘to draw out from’. This is a direct reference to encouraging the manifestation of our innate creativity.  Not the ‘fact absorbing’ mission that has been forced on young people during decades of ‘schooling’. The real meaning of such words has been deliberately obfuscated.

The imperative for getting this new dynamic moving cannot be overstated. Much of humanity is on the brink of psychological, psychotic and schizophrenic imprisonment. A state which cannot help but deeply imbalance the very fabric of our living planet.

Faced by this dramatic challenge to create unity out of disunity, we have to draw strongly upon the well of our deeper selves. For the ‘real me’ and the ‘real you’ are the only forces that can rise-up and radiate enough light to penetrate and dissolve the false clouds hanging over this world. 

But how can one exert light, freedom and justice when all around fellow humans are covering their faces with a mask of anxiety and fear?

When every news item inflates a lie?

When the whole world seems turned up-side-down by diabolical double speak?

Yes, that is the predominant question on millions of minds right at this moment.

The answer lies in the expression “know thyself”. “Thyself” as an eternal spirit/being of cosmic origins which has – temporarily – taken on a human form and is currently resident on Planet Earth.

‘A cosmic being having an earthly experience’.

Once you and I can detach ourselves from living the lie and primarily identify ourselves with a state of ‘non-attachment’ to the material and ego-led realm, we are free.

We cannot be destroyed. We have become eternal. At one with our Creator.

This is a place completely out of reach of our oppressors – whatever form they may take. From here we can go into battle for planet Earth and planet people with not a trace of fear; knowing that when we give all for the cause of truth, Truth returns all to us – with a bonus!

This is how we are to defeat the diabolical entities which we have allowed to occupy and rule this planet. They are but mirrors of our failure to follow the call of truth. To BE our true selves. To listen and respond to the inner voice of deeper guidance.

We have the will to quite simply dump our old false existence and transform from pseudo-humans into real humans, indivisible from the divine wellspring of Life. For each one of us, that is our uniquely individual challenge. When expressed collectively, it forms the foundation of a new society.

Of such beings, when they finally pass, it will be stated “The fact that this brave soul had a human experience is here recorded. May that soul continue its great exploration of the divine infinite from whence it came.”

*

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.

Julian Rose is an early pioneer of UK organic farming, writer, international activist, entrepreneur and holistic teacher. His latest book ‘Overcoming the Robotic Mind – Why Humanity Must Come Through’ is particularly recommended reading for this time: see www.julianrose.info 

He is a frequent contributor to Global Research.

Featured image is from Wikimedia Commons

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 war on Libya and Africa began 10 years ago on Feb. 15, 2011. Nine months later, the most prosperous country in Africa was devastated, masses of Libyans were killed, the Libyan leader Muammar Gadafi was brutally assassinated while US Secretary of State chortled “We came, we saw, he died.“

With a new administration but the same old faces in power in Washington, it is important to understand how that terrible crime was accomplished and what it meant for Libya and Africa but also for the countries that took part in that war, particularl, the United States, Canada, France and the UK.

The answers can be found in Maxmilian Forte’s seminal SLOUCHING TOWARDS SIRTE, NATO’s War on Libya and Africa.

*

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).

***

South Africa is halting its rollout of the AstraZeneca-University of Oxford Covid-19 vaccine, the country’s minister of health said Sunday, following a new analysis that suggests the shot “provides minimal protection” against mild disease caused by the new coronavirus variant circulating in South Africa.

Two top virologists advising the government said during a press conference that the pause was necessary. They said South Africa would institute a new process in which vaccines are initially studied in a research phase to try and determine that each vaccine reduces Covid hospitalizations in South Africa despite the widespread new variant there.

“The AstraZeneca vaccine rollout needs to be put on a temporary halt while we get the clinical efficacy information in,” said Salim Abdool Karim, an epidemiologist at Columbia University and part of a commission advising the South African government. “And the way that we can do that is with the new approach to rollout.”

Barry Schoub, chair of South Africa’s Ministerial Advisory Committee on vaccines, struck a similar note.

“I think we just need to maybe suspend use of AstraZeneca, but investigate it more and more fully to see, can we utilize it more effectively,” he said.

The news heightens concerns about B.1.351, the variant first seen in South Africa, and will also likely lead to discussions about the effectiveness of the AstraZeneca-Oxford vaccine, which is among the least expensive and most widely available of the Covid-19 vaccines that have so far been developed. In addition to AstraZeneca, the vaccine is also being made for much of the world by Serum Institute, a large Indian vaccine maker.

However, the data, which were presented in detail during the livestreamed press conference, do not give clear answers. The results involve only small numbers of patients and may not be enough to draw any conclusions. The data were also submitted as a preprint and have not yet been peer-reviewed.

Shabir Madhi, professor of vaccinology at the University of the Witwatersrand and chief investigator on the new study, said that before B.1.351 became common in South Africa, the vaccine was trending toward reducing mild cases of disease by 75%. But once B.1.351 became prevalent, that number dropped precipitously, and cases were reduced only 22% based on 42 cases of symptomatic Covid.

Those data appear unreliable, however. They were given with confidence intervals, which propose a range of plausible outcomes. For the 22% number, those ranged from -50% to 60%, meaning that more data would be needed to be collected to trust the figure.

Researchers and AstraZeneca emphasized in separate statements that the study was a small one, including only 1,765 volunteers with a median age of 31. AstraZeneca said it believes the vaccine will still protect against severe disease caused by B.1.351. The current study gives no information on whether the vaccine prevents severe disease, hospitalization, or death.

AstraZeneca also said that it and Oxford have started adapting their vaccine to B.1.351, and will advance the new vaccine through development so that it is ready for delivery in the fourth quarter of the year if it is needed.

This is the third vaccine, and the first approved vaccine, to show what appears to be reduced efficacy against B.1.351. Johnson & Johnson said that its vaccine, which was 66% effective overall against moderate-to-severe disease, was 57% effective against moderate-to-severe disease due to the variant. Novavax, another vaccine developer, said that its vaccine was 89% effective against mild-to-moderate disease, but in a separate trial in South Africa was 50% effective.

Karim pointed out that only the Johnson & Johnson vaccine has been shown to reduce severe disease due to B.1.351. He said that when vaccines are rolled out, South Africa will now look at hospitalization rates in the first 100,000 to receive the vaccine in the hopes that this will provide information on whether the vaccine is proving effective.

Madhi warned that it could be “reckless” to simply let doses of the AstraZeneca vaccine expire without giving them, given the possibility that the vaccine could reduce severe disease.

*

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.

Matthew covers medical innovation — both its promise and its perils.

Featured image is from Viacheslav Lopatin | Credit: scaliger – stock.adobe.com

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).

***

North Macedonia’s EU accession talks are being halted because of Bulgaria’s insistence that the neighboring country stops appropriating history and acknowledges it speaks a Bulgarian dialect. However, the issue escalated recently when Bulgarian Defense Minister Krasimir Karakachanov said North Macedonia can only become an EU member if it became a part of Bulgaria or an Albanian province. Effectively, Karakachanov gave decisionmakers in the North Macedonian capital of Skopje a choice – Greater Albania or Greater Bulgaria.

In a separate incident, Karakachanov said in October last year to Skopje: “If you suddenly decided to create a new nationality, do us the favor of not stealing Bulgarian history and, moreover, by falsifying the history of Bulgaria by cultivating a sense of hatred towards Bulgaria, Bulgarians and anything Bulgarian.”

This is in reference to the complicated identity issue in North Macedonia, whose people once overwhelmingly identified as Bulgarian, with a smaller population identifying as Serbian. They were however propagated by the old Tito regime of Yugoslavia to adopt a Macedonian identity.

This served three purposes:

It was a part of a “strong Yugoslavia, weak Serbia” policy. The Serbian Orthodox Church wielded great influence in the Socialist Republic of Macedonia. Attachment to Serbia was weakened through the invention of a canonically unrecognized Macedonian Orthodox Church that declared autocephaly from the Serbian Orthodox Church in 1967.

To weaken pro-Bulgarian sentiment in the region as the people prior to the existence of Socialist Yugoslavia wanted to reunite with Bulgaria.

To lay claim to the major Greek port city of Thessaloniki that is confusingly situated in the Greek region of Macedonia, in which 90% of Ancient Macedonia is located (only 10% in North Macedonia).

As part of building a new Macedonian identity, Yugoslav scholars in 1945 began to make changes to the Bulgarian language and called it Macedonian. They also constructed a new historical timeline that claimed the people of the Socialist Republic of Macedonia had common history with ancient Greek figures like Alexander the Great and medieval Bulgarian figures like Tsar Samuel, whose moniker was ironically “the Bulgar.”

Since today’s North Macedonia achieved independence from Yugoslavia in 1991, it prioritized consolidating a Macedonian identity. This soured relations with neighboring Greece for decades. Although Athens and Skopje came to terms with the signing of the 2018 Prespa Agreement, in which Greece accepted the country’s name as North Macedonia in exchange for their renouncement of territorial aspirations against northern Greece and acknowledged the Ancient Macedonians were Greek, the issue with Bulgaria was left unresolved.

The first Foreign Affairs Minister of the now North Macedonia, Denko Maleski, said last year “We are past the time when Macedonian history was protected by the powerful Yugoslav federation and could, without pressure, selectively choose the building blocks of the Macedonian nation, and could cross out the mentions of ‘Bulgarian’ and write ‘Macedonian’ instead.” Maleski is not alone in North Macedonia to reclaim Bulgarian identity, with several academics and politicians also shedding Yugoslav-era historical revisionism and propaganda. In fact, even an influential YouTuber went to his channel to say “We’ve been fed communist lies. We are not the Macedonians. We are the Bulgarians.”

Skopje’s obsession with maintaining Yugoslav-era propaganda contributes to the country’s internal collapse. The 2001 conflict saw Albanians from Kosovo storm areas of North Macedonia to continue their project for a Greater Albania, although it ultimately failed. The Greeks had always warned Skopje that prioritizing historical revisionism was distracting them from the real threat – the disintegration of their country from Albanian separatists concentrated in the northwestern part of the country. Albanians, accounting for over 25% of the population, now control the Ministry of Finance. In addition, the last 100 days of the Prime Ministers mandate will be given to an Albanian. According to a 2010 Gallup Balkan Monitor report, 53% of Albanians in North Macedonia support a Greater Albania, up from 44% in 2008 and 52% in 2009. 11 years on from the report, although there is no official data, it can be expected this number is even higher.

It is for this reason that Karakachanov has warned North Macedonia that it will become a part of Greater Albania or Greater Bulgaria, or perhaps even both. As Skopje insists on claiming their language is not a Bulgarian dialect and that historical heroes like Tsar Samuel the Bulgar were in fact Macedonian and not Bulgarian, the Albanians are increasing their political power and have shown numerous times that they are willing to use violence to achieve a Greater Albania.

Bulgarian military leaders likely acknowledge that at some point in the future a conflict will breakout in the neighboring country if the Albanians cannot achieve separation through political means. Such a conflict could justify a Bulgarian military intervention.

This is not be implausible as three years ago the North Macedonians had territorial ambitions against Greece, but now has the Greek Air Force policing its airspace under a NATO mandate. If civil war broke out in North Macedonia, it would not be impossible to imagine that Bulgaria would intervene, despite its difficult relations with Skopje like Greece once had, and thus have de facto control over the country, just as Greece now has control over its airspace.

Choosing between a Greater Albania and a Greater Bulgaria could become a difficult choice that Skopje may need to make if they persist in maintaining Yugoslav-era propaganda and historical revisionism against Bulgaria instead of facing the true threat to their territorial sovereignty – Albanian separatism.

*

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

This article was originally published on InfoBrics.

Paul Antonopoulos is an independent geopolitical analyst.

Featured image is from InfoBrics

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).

***

Colonized and controlled Ukraine is a de facto US-installed Neo-nazi dictatorship in Europe’s heartland — bordering Russia and six other countries.

Obama/Biden bear full responsibility for replacing democracy in 2014 with iron-fisted governance over the rule of law.

Nazi Ukraine Azov National Guard

Then-assistant secretary of state for European and Eurasian affairs neocon Victoria Nuland was Obama/Biden point person for the late 2013-14 made-in-the-USA coup.

To the Left of of Nuland, leader of Svoboda Oleh Tyahnybok, the far right wing Neo-Nazi Party

She’s back as Biden/Harris undersecretary of state for political affairs, one of many hawks infesting the Biden administration.

They support president Vladimir Zelensky’s war on free expression and the rule of law.

On February 2, his regime ordered eight news outlets shut down, including 112 Ukraine, NewsOne and Zik.

Representing opposition views, they were banned by presidential diktat.

More on this below.

*

The scourge of censorship is the new abnormal in the US and West.

Will views conflicting with the falsified official narrative no longer be tolerated ahead?

Is what’s happening prelude to restricting or banning free expression altogether?

Was silencing Trump and others on social media a shot across the bow for much greater censorship ahead?

Will truth-tellers expressing views that conflict with the official narrative be silenced on social media and in other social discourse?

Will they be declared domestic terrorists by congressional legislation signed into law by selected, unelected, Biden?

Is police state-enforced totalitarian rule in the US and other Western countries headed for full-blown tyranny to eliminate their free and open societies — as part of planned Great Reset dystopia, a diabolical scheme to establish ruler/serf societies worldwide?

Gateway Pundit’s Jim Hoft is the latest controlling the message victim.

He’s permanently banned by Twitter for truth-telling about brazen US Election 2020 fraud that unlawfully elevated Biden to the nation’s highest office.

According to Twitter doublespeak, it’s for violating its “community guidelines” and “civic integrity policy” — euphemisms for censoring what diverges from the official narrative.

Who’s next to be silenced? Will truth-tellers on sensitive issues risk arrest and imprisonment ahead?

Is Big Brother mass surveillance and silencing dissent the new abnormal in the US-dominated West?

Jefferson reportedly said that “(a)ll  tyranny needs to gain a foothold is for people of good conscience to remain silent.”

At a time of what Orwell reportedly called “universal deceit,” silence is self-destructive.

If the US constitutional right of free expression is banned or pushed to wither on the vine, a free and open society no longer will exist — replaced by the worst of what Orwell and Huxley imagined.

There’s nothing remotely democratic about US-installed and controlled tyrannical rule in Ukraine.

Banning independent news outlets was ordered by the ruling regime’s National Security and Defense Council, thought policing one of its duties.

A statement said the action taken was “(o)n the application of personal special economic and other restrictive measures (sanctions)” against Deputy Taras Kozak (Opposition Platform – For Life party).

He owns three of eight targeted news outlets. Now shut down, their licenses to operate were cancelled.

Speech, media and academic freedoms in Ukraine no longer exist.

Official narrative reporting alone is permitted.

Russian media, including online, its print materials, even children’s books in Russian were designated propaganda and banned earlier.

Silenced Ukrainian TV channels have large audiences.

They’re now denied news, information and analysis that diverged from the official narrative they featured.

In September 2019, Zelensky expressed support for channels now banned, adding:

“I’ve never closed a single channel in my life.”

“I don’t have the right to do so. I don’t have the powers.”

“I personally value freedom of speech.”

That was then. His above totalitarian action is now.

Like his predecessor Petro Poroshenko, Zelensky expelled foreign journalists from Ukraine, notably Russian ones.

He ordered arrests and detention of journalists who diverged from the falsified official narrative.

Head of Russia’s RIA Novosti-Ukraine Kirill Vyshinsky was arrested and detained for over a year on fabricated treason charges.

Likely state-sponsored murders of Russian journalists Andrey Stenin, Anton Voloshin, Igor Kornelyuk and Anatoly Klyan were never investigated.

Tyranny is the law of the land in Ukraine, the nation used by US dark forces as a dagger pointing at Russia’s heartland.

New media restrictions are headed toward being enacted into law.

On the phony pretext of combatting disinformation, full-blown state-sponsored censorship will be enforced.

A provision of the draft law requires anti-Russia propaganda against what it calls an “aggressor state.”

Events since the Obama/Biden regime’s late 2013-2014 coup have been systematically banning free expression, along with other repressive actions.

“Ukrainian democracy” is a euphemism for full-blown/US-supported tyranny.

In response to Zelenzky’s war on speech and media freedoms, the US embassy in Ukraine said the following:

“The United States supports Ukraine’s efforts…to counter Russia’s malign influence (sic), in line with Ukrainian law (sic), in defense of its sovereignty and territorial integrity (sic).”

“We must all work together to prevent disinformation from being deployed as a weapon in an information war against sovereign states (sic).”

Is the worst of what’s happening in Ukraine taking root in the US and other Western societies?

Are freedoms in all forms on the chopping block for elimination?

Is a diabolical plot in the West underway to replace them with dystopian rule?

Is what’s going on unjustifiably justified by protecting national security for our own good?

Are the worst of times in the US and other Western societies on the way?

A Final Comment

The US and Ukraine are the only world community nations that annually vote against the UN General Assembly resolution on “Combating the glorification of Nazism, neo-Nazism and other practices that contribute to fueling contemporary forms of racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance.”

*

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).

***

Not only has leading presidential candidate Andrés Arauz emphasized that he is committed to maintaining the dollar as the national currency, he and his party have a long track record of taking strong measures to make sure that dollarization did not come under threat.

As economists, we share a general concern when economic issues are widely misunderstood in political debates that can determine policy, sometimes with lasting consequences. This appears to be a problem in Ecuador at the moment, in the heat of an election campaign.

Media reports have repeated, without any evidence, false allegations about the economic program of one of the presidential candidates. Andrés Arauz, a former minister and Director General of the Central Bank who is currently leading in most polls, has been accused of seeking to abandon the country’s current use of the dollar as its national currency. There is no evidence that he or his political party would do anything at all in this direction.

A transition from the dollar back to a national currency would be costly and involve risks that would be exacerbated by the current dire and precarious economic situation. This false allegation is clearly an attempt to scare voters, and indeed those promoting it have warned of a resulting economic collapse if the dollar is abandoned.

In fact, not only has Arauz emphasized that he is committed to maintaining the dollar as the national currency, he and his party have a long track record of taking strong measures to make sure that dollarization did not come under threat. These included reforms which kept billions of dollars within Ecuador, such as taxing capital leaving the country, financial regulation—including regulations on foreign banks within the country—increased accountability of the Central Bank; and other reforms and policies that kept the economy stable and avoided crises for the 10 years of the Rafael Correa presidency (2007 to 2017).

These policies and reforms prevented even the slightest threat to Ecuador’s commitment to the dollar, even when Ecuador was hit hard by the world recession of 2009, as well as other severe external shocks including a collapse of oil prices in 2014, and steep falls in remittances.

As a result of this prudent economic management, the economy did very well during the Correa years, and the gains were widely distributed. Income per person rose by 20 percent and poverty fell by more than 38 percent from 2006 to 2017. The Gini coefficient for net household income (which measures inequality) fell by almost 15 percent between 2006 and 2017. During these years, social spending more than doubled as a percent of GDP. Much of this went to healthcare and education, with enrollment rates in secondary education increasing 26 percent; the number of people treated in public hospitals rose by 56 percent.

Ironically, it is some of Arauz’s opponents who are proposing measures that could put Ecuador’s dollarization at risk, by doing away with the necessary financial regulation. Guillermo Lasso—Arauz’s main competitor—has called for the elimination of capital controls, which would make the country vulnerable to balance of payments crises that could threaten the dollar’s place as Ecuador’s currency.

In contrast to the previous presidency, the economy under the current government has run into serious trouble. GDP is estimated by the IMF to be over 10 percent lower in 2020 than it was in 2017. Of course, much of this was a result of the Covid-19 pandemic, but a large part of these losses were a result of bad decisions. GDP per capita fell 1.5 percent from 2017to 2019, even before the Covid-19 crisis hit. And in 2019, the government signed an IMF agreement committing to a fiscal tightening of 5 percent of GDP over the next three years.

Some of the required spending cuts provoked widespread protests, which were met with serious repression. This repression, which left at least 9 dead and over 1500 injured, was investigated by the United Nations Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights, which called for further investigations into numerous reports of “unnecessary and disproportionate use of force” by security forces. Indigenous groups were especially affected, with Ecuador’s largest indigenous organization filing a lawsuit against the Ecuadorian government for alleged “crimes against humanity.”

Another false economic claim has been promoted in the current election cycle: that the Correa government ran up an unsustainable debt which the current government had to reduce. In fact, the Correa government left office with a debt of 45 percent of GDP. Under the current government, Ecuador’s debt increased to 69 percent of GDP.

Voters need to have accurate information about the most important issues, including economic issues, that are facing the country when they choose a government. In the United States, we have seen the dangers of misinformation multiplied to dangerous levels during the past four years. We hope that Ecuador can avoid these kinds of problems in its upcoming election.

Original signers (in alphabetical order)

(name, affiliation for identification purposes)

James K. Galbraith, Lloyd M. Bentsen Jr. Chair in Government/Business Relations and Professor of Government, LBJ School of Public Affairs, University of Texas at Austin

Jayati Ghosh, Professor of Economics, University of Massachusetts Amherst

Mark Weisbrot, Co-Director, Center for Economic and Policy Research

Signers (in alphabetical order)

(name, affiliation for identification purposes)

Eileen Appelbaum, Co-Director, Center for Economic and Policy Research

Alan Aja, Professor & Chair, Dep. of Puerto Rican & Latino Studies, Brooklyn College (CUNY)

Michael Ash, Professor of Economics & Public Policy, UMass Amherst

Amiya Bagchi, Emeritus Professor, Institute of Development Studies Kolkata, Adjunct Professor, Monash University

Ron Baiman, Associate Professor of Economics

Dean Baker, Senior Economist, Center for Economic and Policy Research

Peter Bohmer, Faculty emeritus in Economics and Political Economy, The Evergreen State College

Korkut Boratav, Turkish Social Science Association

Manuel Branco, Professor, University of Évora, Portugal

Jim Campen, Professor of Economics, Emeritus, University of Massachusetts Boston

Anis Chowdhury, Adjunct Professor, Western Sydney University, Australia

Alan Cibils, Chair, Political Economy Departmente, Universidad Nacional de General Sarmiento, Argentina

Nathaniel Cline, Associate Professor, University of Redlands

Andrew Cornford, Geneva Finance Observatory

Dante Dallavalle, Adjunct Lecturer of Economics, John Jay College

Peter Dorman, Professor of Economics Emeritus, Evergreen State College

Jeff Faux, Distinguished Fellow, Economic Policy Institute

Sujatha Fernandes, Professor, Department of Sociology and Social Policy, The University of Sydney

Kevin Gallagher, Director, Global Development Policy Center, Boston University

Daphne T. Greenwood, Professor of Economics, University of Colorado-Colorado Springs

Fadhel Kaboub, Denison University

Mary C. King, Professor of Economics Emerita, Portland State University

Gabriele Köhler, Independent Development Consultant

Michael A. Lebowitz, Professor Emeritus, Economics Department, Simon Fraser University

Stephan Lefebvre, Assistant Professor, Bucknell University

Arthur MacEwan, Professor of Emeritus of Economics, University of Massachusetts Boston

Ann Markusen, Professor Emerita, Humphrey School, University of Minnesota

Michael Meeropol, Professor Emeritus of Economics, Western New England University

Lara Merling, Policy Advisor, ITUC

Mritiunjoy Mohanty, Professor, Indian Institute of Managment Calcutta, Kolkata, India

Isabel Ortiz, Director, Global Social Justice Program, IPD, Columbia University

Mustafa Özer, Professor, Anadolu University

Christian Parenti, Associate Professor of Economics, John Jay College, CUNY

Mark Paul, Assistant Professor of Economics, New College of Florida

Alicia Puyans, Economics Ptoffeso Facultad Latinoamericana de Ciencias Socialed

Philippe Quirion, Senior scientist/Directeur de recherche, CNRS (France)

Miriam Rehm, Professor, University of Duisburg-Essen

Joseph Ricciardi, Associate Professor of Economics, Babson College

C. Saratchand, Assistant Professor, Department of Economics, Satyawati College, University of Delhi

Saskia Sassen, The Robert S. Lynd Professor of Sociology, Columbia University

Max B. Sawicky, Senior Research Fellow, Center for Economic and Policy Research

Stephanie Seguino, Professor of Economics, University of Vermont

Tazdaït Tarik, Senior Researcher, CNRS (France)

Rolph van der Hoeven, Professor, Erasmus University, The Netherlands

Irene van Staveren, Professor of Pluralist Development Economics, International Institute of Social Studies of Erasmus University Rotterdam

Matías Vernengo, Professor, Bucknell University

Scott Weir, Economics (retired), Wake Technical Community College

John Willoughby, Professor, Department of Economics, American University

John Womack Jr., Robert Woods Bliss Professor of Latin American History and Economics, emeritus, Harvard University

From Common Dreams: Our work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 License. Feel free to republish and share widely.

*

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.

Economist James K. Galbraith is currently a professor at the Lyndon B. Johnson School of Public Affairs and at the Department of Government, University of Texas at Austin. He is the author of “The Predator State: How Conservatives Abandoned the Free Market and Why Liberals Should Too” and “Inequality: What Everyone Needs to Know.”

Jayati Ghosh is Professor of Economics and currently also Chairperson at the Center for Economic Studies and Planning, School of Social Sciences, at the Jawaharlal Nehru University, in New Delhi, India. With C.P. Chandrasekhar, she co-authored “Crisis as Conquest: Learning from East Asia.” Jayati is also a contributor to Foreign Policy In Focus. E-mail: [email protected]

Mark Weisbrot is Co-Director of the Center for Economic and Policy Research (CEPR), in Washington, DC. He is also president of Just Foreign Policy. His latest book is “Failed: What the “Experts” Got Wrong about the Global Economy” (2015). He is author of co-author, with Dean Baker, of “Social Security: The Phony Crisis” (2001). E-mail Mark: [email protected]

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).

***

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 ghosts of dictators “Papa Doc” and “Baby Doc” Duvalier still haunt Haiti. Canada seems willing to support a return of their methods in the Caribbean nation.

Sunday will be bittersweet for many Haitians. February 7 is usually a day to commemorate the defeat of the Duvalier dictatorship, but this year the date portends the revival of Duvalierism.

After a multi month popular revolt the three decade-long Duvalier dictatorship fell on February 7, 1986. “President for life” Jean-Claude ‘Baby Doc’ Duvalier, who took over from his father at 19, was chased out of the country after 15 years.

Thirty-five years to the day Baby Doc fell a Duvalierist president who should be leaving office is extending his term against the wishes of most Haitians and constitutional experts. In his time in office Jovenel Moïse has restored many aspects of the brutal regime. He suppressed popular protests and instigated a gang alliance to instill fear in the slums. He has ruled by decree and criminalized protests as “terrorism”. Shortly after parliament was disbanded because Moïse failed to hold elections, the president selected individuals to rewrite the constitution in flagrant violation of the law. In November Moïse unilaterally decreed the creation of a new National Intelligence Agency with anonymous, legally untouchable, officers who, notes Kim Ives, “have the power not just to spy and infiltrate but to arrest anybody engaged in ‘subversive’ acts (Article 29) or threatening ‘state security’ i.e. the power of President Jovenel Moïse.” The agency may become analogous to Duvalier’s feared Volontaires de la Sécurité Nationale (Ton Ton Macoutes).

Moïse is the hand-picked successor of Michel Martelly. A supporter of the 1991 and 2004 coups against elected president Jean-Bertrand Aristide, Martelly was a member of the Ton Ton Macoutes. As president, Martelly surrounded himself with former Duvalierists and death squad leaders who’d been arrested for rape, murder, kidnapping and drug trafficking. When Jean-Claude Duvalier returned to Haiti after 25 years, Martelly told the New York Times no one wanted him prosecuted except for “certain institutions and governments” abroad.

In fact Martelly was put in put in place by Washington and Ottawa not long after the deadly 2010 earthquake. In the 2010 election Ottawa intervened to bring far-right president Martelly to power (with about 16 per cent of the votes, since the election was largely boycotted). Canada put up $6 million for elections that excluded Fanmi Lavalas from participating. After the first round, Canadian representatives on an Organization of American States mission helped force the candidate the electoral council had in second place, Jude Celestin, out of the runoff.

Ottawa backed Martelly diplomatically and financially throughout his presidency, including when he sought to ensure arelatively obscure businessman replaced him. Since then, Canada has provided almost unquestioned support for Moïse. Canada has ploughed tens of millions of dollars into the Haitian police and prison system in recent years. They promoted a police force that violently repressed anti-Moïse protests.

It may be hard to imagine that Ottawa would promote the revival of such a notorious dictatorship. But it shouldn’t. Ottawa enabled a young Jean-Claude to take over after François Duvalier died. Canada was among the leading financial contributors to Haiti throughout Baby Doc’s 15-year rule. The aid supported the dictatorship. In “Canadian Development Assistance to Haiti: An Independent Study”, a 1984 report by the semi-official North South Institute, Edward Philip English writes: “It would be naive to pretend that this aid does not contribute to the support of the existing regime, at least in the short-run. It helps to legitimize the regime in the eyes of Haitians by demonstrating international approval and it generates projects and jobs, which the regime is careful to associate with itself as much as possible.”

English adds, “CIDA has placed Canadian advisors as ‘experts’ in several Haitian ministries.” In Spy Wars David Stafford and Jack Granatstein describe one of the individuals leading the CIDA program: “[Hugh] Hambleton lived in true grandeur in the capital, Port-au-Prince, working closely with officials of the notoriously corrupt and brutal government of its dictator, ‘Baby Doc’ Jean-Claude Duvalier.” Canadian officials even influenced who Baby Doc appointed finance minister. Three days before Baby Doc fled, Québec Premier Robert Bourassa refused to comment on whether Prime Minister Brian Mulroney should seek the dictator for life’s exclusion from an upcoming summit of the Francophonie.

Ottawa was even more openly supportive of maintaining ‘Duvalierism without Duvalier’ after the young dictator fell. In the four years after Duvalier fled Canada provided significant assistance to a series of military lead regimes. In November 1986 External Minister Monique Landry visited Haiti to meet government head General Henri Namphy. Canada announced $80 million in assistance over five years and Landry also invited Namphy to the Summit of la Francophonie in Quebec City the next year. As the violent, anti-democratic, nature of the military regime became undeniable Ottawa resisted shifting gears. In the face of significant criticism from the Haitian community and Québec left, Ottawa largely maintained its various forms of support to the military regimes.

Thirty-five years later not much has changed. After forcing Jean-Claude out Haitians struggling for a more just and democratic society face a similar predicament. They not only have to contend with the power of their own ruling elite but are also up against Canada and the US.

Canadians of conscience should support those mobilizing in Haiti today against creeping Duvalierism. It is the least we can do to make up for the shameful role this country has played in that impoverished nation.

*

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 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).

***

Have you ever wondered how a herd of sheep is driven to their “slaughterhouse”?

Manipulation of minds is a well-studied science, has been applied already for centuries, but is getting ever more sophisticated. For example, the many poignant assertions, Joseph Goebbels, Hitler’s Minister of Propaganda (1933 to 1945), included,

“if you repeat a lie often enough it becomes the truth”; or

“if you make people believe in the threat of an enemy, they’ll do your bidding”- and

“divide and polarize them, destroy their solidarity, and they follow your command”.

Today we have become more sophisticated. While fear is still the weapon of choice – imagine an invisible enemy that everybody is scared of – we have digitally observant media, algorithms and robots that focus on your thinking, how you react and deal with social media, or what websites you consult, and where and what you shop.

This is just to mention a few points of information. Today there are on average about 200 such data to be electronically computed, so as  to sway your opinion and to make you believe the most flagrant lies.

You may recognize what the covid crisis is doing to you and at what state of manipulation we are – how close to the slaughterhouse are we?

The seven stages below synthesize the book ‘Influence, The Power of Persuasion’, by Robert Cialdini: 

“Influence”, the classic book on persuasion, explains the psychology of why people say “yes” – and how to apply these understandings. Dr. Robert Cialdini is the seminal expert in the rapidly expanding field of influence and persuasion. His thirty-five years of rigorous, evidence-based research along with a three-year program of study on what moves people to change behavior has resulted in this highly acclaimed book. You’ll learn the six universal principles, how to use them to become a skilled persuader – and how to defend yourself against them. Perfect for people in all walks of life, the principles of “Influence” will move you toward profound personal change and act as a driving force for your success.:”

Hypnotherapists have been noticing blatant hypnosis and Neuro-linguistic programming (NLP) techniques being used by the government and state-controlled media. NPL is a psychological approach that involves analyzing strategies used by successful individuals and applying them to reach a personal goal. It relates thoughts, language, and patterns of behavior learned through experience to specific outcomes.

Listen to this:

Fractionation:

You get them to do something not once, but again and again, increasing the level of intensity each time. Usually, you do it 3 times. (At the first lockdown I said – watch out, there’ll be a 2nd and a 3rd) This increases compliance – you’re much more likely to get them to do whatever you want.

A ‘Yes’ set:

Get them to say ‘Yes’ to something small at first (just two weeks to “flatten the curve”) then gradually increase (months of lockdown, Christmas cancelled, socially/economically coerced into vaccines). In this way they’re much more likely to keep saying yes. (There would’ve been riots if they’d said in March lockdowns will carry on through Christmas.)

Confusion:

Keep them in a constant state of uncertainty. The conscious mind responds to this by ‘going offline’ as it searches for the appropriate response for something it has no precedent for. Then it’s much easier for the manipulator to gain access to the unconscious mind and change belief systems. For example, lockdown rules are changing on practically a day-to-day basis; we’re living in a world we’ve never lived in before, everyone’s stumbling about with no idea how to behave. We’ve no energy left to fight our oppressors.

Repetition:

Repeat the same information over and over (see any newspaper / TV news for evidence of this!)

Illusion of Choice

Make them believe they’re in control by giving them 2 choices, both of which lead to the same result. For example, ‘Do you want the Pfizer or the Oxford?’ or ‘You can choose to be good or bad. Bad = more lockdown. Good = more lockdown.’

“Social Proof”

“Look, all these great celebrities are backing it!”

“Scarcity”

“You’ll have to wait your turn for the vaccine… we might be running out”

And so many more… All classic psychological control techniques. Once you see it, you can’t un-see it.

*

Check out the book ‘Influence’, The Power of Persuasion’ by Robert Cialdini – all the methods he talks about are being used daily in the news and other media.

*

If we realize in time that this is what is happening to us, that this theory applied is behind covid, and that using covid for a much more freedom encroaching ulterior goal – total control of humanity, of people’s behavior, of food, of resources – over whether people live or die – and of the world’s riches – then we might have a chance to break out from the herd that storms towards the abyss – or the slaughterhouse.

Waking up – protesting – disobeying – and reconnecting with each other. NOW.

*

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

Peter Koenig is a geopolitical analyst and a former Senior Economist at the World Bank and the World Health Organization (WHO), where he has worked for over 30 years on water and environment around the world. He lectures at universities in the US, Europe and South America. He writes regularly for online journals and is the author of Implosion – An Economic Thriller about War, Environmental Destruction and Corporate Greed; and  co-author of Cynthia McKinney’s book “When China Sneezes: From the Coronavirus Lockdown to the Global Politico-Economic Crisis” (Clarity Press – November 1, 2020).

He is a Research Associate of the Centre for Research on Globalization.

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).

***

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).

***

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).

***

Ben Norton traveled to Ecuador to report on the historic February 7 election, which pits a wealthy US-backed right-wing banker against a left-wing economist who pledges to continue the socialist Citizens’ Revolution launched by former President Rafael Correa.

In this dispatch, working-class Ecuadorians explain why they support leftist candidate Andrés Arauz and oppose the repressive Washington-allied government of Lenín Moreno.

The South American nation of Ecuador is currently suffering through its worst economic crisis in decades. Poverty is skyrocketing, corruption is rampant, and the US-backed government has shown itself to be deeply undemocratic.

On February 7, Ecuador will hold a historic election that could fundamentally change its direction, moving the nation away from its current neoliberal policies and reliance on Washington, and restoring the socialist-oriented program of former President Rafael Correa, who launched a progressive movement called the Citizens’ Revolution.

Today, Ecuador’s sitting President Lenín Moreno has a mere 8 percent approval rating, with staggering 91 percent disapproval, making him the most unpopular leader in the country’s modern history.

Under Moreno’s rule, the government has imprisoned and exiled many left-wing political leaders, banned pro-Correa electoral candidates, gutted social programs, destabilized Latin American regional institutions, and heavily indebted Ecuador with billions of dollars in loans.

And in a historic act of betrayal, Moreno renounced the asylum that Correa had given to WikiLeaks publisher Julian Assange, allowing British authorities to enter Ecuador’s sovereign embassy in London and arrest the Australian journalist.

Under Moreno’s reign, unemployment, inequality, and hardship have reached peak levels, with more than 58 percent of Ecuadorians living in poverty and nearly 39 percent in extreme poverty, according to a United Nations University study.

Meanwhile Ecuadorians have endured a catastrophic response to the Covid-19 pandemic, with one of the highest per capita death rates in the entire world.

In 2020, Ecuador’s GDP shrunk by an estimated 11 percent. Everywhere you walk in the capital city Quito, you see “for sale” and “for rent” signs.

US-backed banker vs. grassroots socialist economist

Ecuador’s February 7 election has boiled down to two main choices, and the difference could not be any starker: On one side is the right-wing candidate Guillermo Lasso, a banker who served as economic minister when Ecuador suffered through a financial meltdown in 1999 that bankrupted millions of citizens and destroyed their life savings.

Lasso, who has long been credibly accused of corruption and the use of off-shore tax shelters, has the staunch support of Ecuador’s wealthy economic elites and the United States.

On the other side is left-wing candidate Andres Arauz, a young economist who follows in the footsteps of former President Correa and his movement, known as Correismo, and wants to bring back his socialist policies.

Arauz has built a huge grassroots following in a presidential campaign based on his promises to tax the rich, to give $1000 checks to a million poor and working-class families, and to abandon suffocating and extremely unpopular economic agreements that Ecuador’s current Moreno government signed with the International Monetary Fund, or IMF.

Arauz also plans to revive regional institutions to integrate Ecuador’s economy with other Latin American countries, and he wants to return to closer business ties with China, just as his mentor Correa had done.

Virtually all polls show Arauz leading and likely to win the presidential election, if the vote is free and fair.

The fact that the leading presidential candidate wants to reject the IMF and seek deeper economic relations with Beijing has angered Washington, which has meddled in Ecuador’s internal affairs and thrown its weight behind the banker Lasso.

Lenín Moreno’s war on Ecuador’s left

Under the US-backed Lenín Moreno administration, Ecuador has attacked regional institutions, withdrawing from the Bolivarian Alliance, or ALBA, a trade bloc of left-wing Latin American countries, and taking Ecuador out of the Union of South American Nations, or UNASUR, kicking out the international body’s Quito-based headquarters.

While overseeing widespread corruption and looting of public money, the Moreno government also ensnared Ecuador with billions of dollars in loans from the IMF.

As part of an austerity package demanded by the IMF, Moreno announced in 2019 a series of aggressive neoliberal reforms, which included cutting 23,000 state sector jobs and ending longtime fuel subsidies, which nearly doubled the price of gasoline.

The proposed austerity package kicked off a massive uprising in October 2019. Labor unions organized strikes, while Indigenous groups and students held massive protests that brought the country to a halt.

The Moreno government responded with brutal violence. Police shot protesters, killing several, injuring more than 1,000, and detaining another thousand.

The Correista movement decided to close its electoral campaign this February 4 at a park in the heart of the capital Quito, known as the parque del arbolito. This location was deeply symbolic, because it was here that the uprising against Moreno’s neoliberal reforms started in October 2019.

Correismo and the Citizens’ Revolution

Rafael Correa remains the most popular politician in Ecuador. In his 10 years as president, from 2007 to 2017, Ecuador’s poverty rate plummeted, the minimum wage increased rapidly, and the government invested billions of dollars in universal healthcare, education, and advanced infrastructure.

While Ecuador is still a developing, formerly colonized nation, it has significant natural resources that could make the country rich. These include substantial oil and mineral reserves, such as gold, silver, and copper.

For decades, these resources were monopolized by a small handful of Ecuadorian oligarchs. Correa was the first leader to use the country’s plentiful natural resources to instead fund popular social programs.

Correa also pursued an independent foreign policy, strengthening relations with China and Russia, collaborating closely with other socialist governments in Latin America, and committing Ecuador to political and economic integration with its neighbors.

Correa spoke with The Grayzone editor-in-chief Max Blumenthal in December about the stakes of the election:

In Ecuador the rule of law has been permanently broken. They seized the state with a completely fraudulent, manipulated consultation in the absence of constitutional control. Using the same methods, they took control of the council that appoints all the supervisory authorities…

The government of Ecuador is totally submitted to the interests of the government in the United States, above all to try to persecute progressive leaders and try to threaten the stability of Venezuela. That is evident…

So they are really desperate. They are capable of anything, because for them the worst thing that can happen is that we win. Because they know that they will have to face justice.We are not vengeful people, but justice must be done. Without hatred, but with memory…

I ask the world to be very attentive to what is happening in Ecuador in these elections.

Under Correa’s leadership, Ecuador launched the progressive Citizens’ Revolution, which fundamentally transformed the country and is still a powerful force today. At the rallies in the country’s two biggest cities, Quito and Guayaquil, working-class Ecuadorians showed their undying support for this revolution.

From Correa’s vice president to his anti-democratic persecutor

Lenín Moreno once served as Rafael Correa’s vice president. He won the 2017 presidential election precisely by claiming to follow in the footsteps of Correa and feigning fidelity to the Citizens’ Revolution, but quickly did a political 180, betraying Correismo and turning hard to the right.

With backing from the United States, Moreno formed alliances with corrupt oligarchs and bankers in Ecuador, implementing aggressive neoliberal economic policies, privatizing large parts of the economy, and gutting social programs.

The publication of leaked documents known as the INA papers offered insight into the Moreno government’s extreme corruption, showing how the leader has used off-shore bank accounts in Panama to siphon millions of dollars out of public coffers.

While overseeing this looting of the state, the Moreno administration ironically accused Correa of corruption, slapping the leftist leader with dozens of politically motivated, unsubstantiated charges.

Moreno even imprisoned Correa’s other former vice president, Jorge Glas, on spurious accusations. Glas has remained incarcerated in Ecuador’s notorious Latacunga prison, even after a 52-day hunger strike that landed him in the hospital, nearly killing him.

Throughout the 2021 electoral process, the Moreno government has placed obstacle after obstacle to try to prevent the leftist Correistas from returning to power.

The Moreno administration blocked Correa from running a vice presidential candidate. It also banned Andrés Arauz’s political party from participating, forcing the Correista movement to instead register with a little-known party.

The National Electoral Council (CNE), which was politicized by the Moreno government and is controlled by the country’s right-wing, even declared that left-wing candidates were not allowed to use images of Correa in their ads and political campaign materials.

At the same time, Ecuadorians living abroad, who are overwhelmingly supporters of Correismo, have faced obstacles in the election as well. The CNE has made it difficult for expats to vote.

Mere days before the vote, the CNE similarly sought to revoke the electoral observer credentials for a Spanish member of European Parliament and a Spanish political scientist, because of their left-wing political ties.

Right-wing media outlets in Latin America have also played a key role in the anti-democratic crackdown. Colombian and Argentine newspapers owned by wealthy conservative oligarchs kicked off a disinformation campaign, spreading fake news accusing Arauz of taking money from Colombia’s socialist guerrilla group the ELN.

These unsubstantiated stories were near carbon copies of a propaganda drive from several years before that was weaponized against Correa, falsely accusing him of taking money from Colombia’s socialist guerrilla group FARC.

While his government was busy clamping down on the left in Ecuador, Lenín Moreno himself was in the United States. Just two weeks before the election, he visited DC for several days.

El Primer Mandatario, @Lenin Moreno, junto a la delegación oficial, mantuvieron un encuentro con el Secretario General @Almagro_OEA2015 y demás autoridades de la @OEA_oficial, para revisar temas de interés nacional y regional. #EcuadorEnEEUU🇪🇨🇺🇸#SembramosFuturo🌱 pic.twitter.com/LsNoxdaPx2

— Presidencia ECU (@Presidencia_Ec) January 27, 2021

Moreno had a series of meetings with powerful figures, including the following:

• the director for the Western Hemisphere of the US National Security Council, Juan Sebastian Gonzalez, a special assistant to President Joe Biden;
• the secretary general of the Organization of American States (OAS), Luis Almagro, who helped oversee a coup against Bolivia’s democratically elected socialist government in 2019;
• the director of the IMF, Kristalina Georgieva;
• hawkish US Senators Bob Menendez and Ben Cardin;
• and the president of the Inter-American Development Bank, Mauricio Claver-Carone.

El Primer Mandatario, @Lenin Moreno, y su comitiva se reunieron con el senador del Comité de Relaciones Exteriores del Senado, @SenatorMenendez y con el presidente del Subcomité para el Hemisferio Occidental del Senado, @SenatorCardin.#EcuadorEnEEUU🇪🇨🇺🇸#SembramosFuturo🌱 pic.twitter.com/tQFEEu18x1

— Presidencia ECU (@Presidencia_Ec) January 28, 2021

During his junket, the Ecuadorian presidential office produced several slick videos lavishing praise on the United States and showing Moreno smiling with his political and economic sponsors in Washington.

Observers have warned that Moreno’s meetings may have been aimed at rigging the election, or at least making more anti-democratic obstacles to prevent a Correista victory.

🇺🇸 CONFIDENCIAL 🇺🇸

Fuentes amigas en Washington me hacen llegar información sobre una reunión secreta el 27 de enero en la Embajada de Ecuador entre @Lenin y funcionarios estadounidenses.

Objetivo: impedir la llegada de @ecuarauz y el correísmo al gobierno 🇪🇨

Abro hilo 🧵 pic.twitter.com/8s4CWoaW79

— Katu Arkonada (@KatuArkonada) February 4, 2021

Nearly all polls show leftist candidate Andrés Arauz easily winning Ecuador’s February 7 election. Yet the Ecuadorian media’s reliance on a corrupt firm funded by right-wing candidate Guillermo Lasso to produce exit polls after the vote is one of many signs of potential irregularities.

The Ecuadorian people however seem ready to fight. The massive turnouts for the Correista movement’s demonstrations in the major cities, with tens of thousands of working-class flooding the streets and parks, reflects a popular outrage in the country, and a widespread yearning to return to the Citizens’ Revolution.

*

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.

Ben Norton is a journalist, writer, and filmmaker. He is the assistant editor of The Grayzone, and the producer of the Moderate Rebels podcast, which he co-hosts with editor Max Blumenthal. His website is BenNorton.com and he tweets at @BenjaminNorton.

Featured image: The Grayzone’s Ben Norton reports from the base of Ecuador’s Citizens’ Revolution on the February 7, 2021 election

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).

***

Oh, what a tangled web we weave / When first we practice to deceive – Sir Walter Scott

Once again, Haiti is bracing for social unrest as a constitutional crisis unfolds; and this time, the dispute is over the end of the current president’s term in office. Jovenel Moise, who was sworn in on February 7, 2017, vows to stay in office until February 7, 2022, the day he argues his term legally ends. Opposition leaders and several political activists, on the other hand, demand that he steps down on February 7, 2021 and will refuse to recognize him as president past that date. The issue seems to be divisive even among power players in Washington, D.C.

In a February 5^th press conference, the U.S. State Department’s spokesperson reiterated the need for a democratic transfer of power in Haiti and voiced that “a new president should succeed President Moise when his term ends in 2022.” A few hours later, in a departure from the Biden administration’s position, U.S. senator, Patrick Leahy, and seven congressional representatives called for a “Haitian-led democratic transition” and rejected “any attempt by President Moise to retain power” past February 7, 2021.

Indeed, the issue is not as black and white as often portrayed. For some, it comes down to a simple arithmetic exercise; for others — including many legal scholars — there are strong arguments supporting the end of the president’s term a few months earlier than he anticipated. This predicament did not arise out of thin air; it is the result of past failures to reinforce democratic institutions, repeated violations of the constitution, and adoption of band-aid agreements culminating into a domino structure of complications. This article attempts to summarize the series of events that led to this crisis and calls for a sincere dialogue among all political actors as the only way out of this tangled web of digressions.

It all started in February 2004, after a bloody rebellion forced democratically elected president, Jean-Bertrand Aristide, to flee into exile three years into his 5-year term, set to expire on February 7, 2006.

Following Aristide’s departure, the chief justice of the Supreme Court, Boniface Alexandre, was sworn in as interim president with a clear constitutional mandate: the organization of new elections within 120 days for a newly elected president to finish the previous president’s term. The Alexandre administration did not organize elections as mandated by the constitution but instead served the rest of President Aristide’s term; an unconstitutional arrangement made with the international community’s blessing. General elections were scheduled for October 2005, but due to technical delays, Haitians did not go to the polls until February 7, 2006, the day that a new president was supposed to be sworn in. The results were announced a few weeks later, and President Rene Préval took office on May 14, 2006, under the general expectation that he would serve until February 7, 2011.

During his presidency, President Préval, along with some legislators, introduced constitutional amendments that would eventually be adopted by parliament at the end of his term. Drawing from the abnormalities of the 2005-2006 election cycle, one of these amendments modified article 134-2 re-establishing the official swear-in date and introducing a special clause to account for unplanned delays in presidential elections. This special clause would preserve constitutional order and synchronize presidential terms. The modified article 134-2 stipulates:

The president-elect assumes his functions on the 7^th of February following the date of his election. In the event that the election cannot take place before the 7^th of February, the president-elect assumes his functions immediately after the ballot validation and his term is considered to have commenced on the 7^th of February of the year of the election.

In October 2010, a few months after the devastating earthquake that killed more than 300,000 people, President Préval was due to organize elections for his successor. These elections were to be concluded in the fall of 2010 so that a new president could take office on February 7, 2011. Unfortunately, fraud allegations and widespread unrest following the first round triggered an OAS [1] recount, and a second round was scheduled after February 7, 2011. Michel Martelly, who won the second round, was sworn in as the new president of Haiti on May 14, 2011. He promised to leave office on Feb 7, 2016, pursuant to the new amended article 134-2.

Four years later, in 2015, it was President Martelly’s turn to organize elections. As in 2010, the first round of presidential elections failed to yield a winner as no one received more than 50% of the vote. Thus, a run-off was scheduled for January 2016. The opposition claimed massive voter fraud and successfully prevented a second round between Jovenel Moise, Martelly’s hand-picked candidate, and Jude Celestin, the opposition’s most popular candidate. President Martelly left office on February 7, 2016 without an elected successor, but an unconventional deal was struck before his departure. The deal called for an interim president to be selected by the senate. His mission was to organize the second round and transfer power on May 14, 2016 to a new president whose term would end on February 7, 2021. The interim president, Jocelerme Privert, established a new electoral council that called for the cancellation of the 2015 presidential elections after an independent council found serious cases of voter fraud and massive irregularities; a fresh first round was scheduled for October 2016 with the same candidates[2]. In the do-over, Jovenel Moise was declared winner with 55% of the vote and was sworn in on February 7, 2017.

Today, President Moise argues that since he was sworn in on February 7 in the year following the new elections, the second clause of article 134-2 does not apply to him, so he should serve until February 7, 2022, marking a five-year term. The opposition argues that since the elections took place after February 2016, his term should be considered as having commenced in February 2016, “the February of the year of the election”, and should therefore leave office on February 7, 2021, according to the 2^nd clause of article 134-2. The opposition has also accused President Moise of hypocrisy and operating on a double-standard. There exists a constitutional amendment like the amended article 134-2 for elected officials of the legislative branch. In 2020, ten senators only served 4 years out of their six-year terms pursuant to this amendment. These senators were supposed to join the senate in 2014 but did not do so until 2016 since President Martelly failed to organize mid-term parliamentary elections in 2013. Likewise, President Moise failed to organize mid-term parliamentary elections in 2019. Consequently, the senate was reduced to only 10 senators from 30 and was rendered inoperative. In a tweet dated January 13, 2020, President Moise announced that he noted that parliament was officially prorogued.  Since then, he has been ruling by decree.

Given the absence of a constitutional court to settle these disputes, this crisis is expected to prolong with serious consequences for the country’s economic development, thus creating additional challenges for an already vulnerable population. A slew of poor choices that prioritized short-term solutions over long-term structural changes have left the country trapped in a web of complications. To return to constitutional normalcy, the first step will be a sincere dialogue among all actors which would require everyone to make necessary sacrifices for the country’s benefit.

*

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

Notes

[1] Organization of American States

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).

***

Denunciations of human rights violations against Cuba have become routine in the West. For decades, governments, NGOs and activists have denounced the Cuban government for various attitudes of abuse of universal rights, but the sources of such reports and evidence of crimes remain weak and vague. Once again, the NGO Human Rights Watch issued a report warning of an alleged “abusive” situation with regard to human rights on the island – and again the evidence is weak and reveals an ideologized action.

Every year, Human Rights Watch releases its global reports, covering all regions of the planet and warning against alleged human rights violations worldwide. In its 2021 edition, published on January 13, in the topic dedicated to Cuba, several crimes were reported, including alleged arbitrary arrests on the island, lack of freedom of expression, presence of political prisoners in Cuban penitentiaries, travel restrictions and several others acts that are presented to international society as frequent and structural in Cuba.

There are explanations for Human Rights Watch’s frontal opposition to Cuba, which are little publicized in the international media. In the past, the Cuban government has accused the National Endowment for Democracy (NED) of funding more than 20 organizations to promote complaints and defamations against the Latin country, including HRW. NED’s ties to the CIA prompted the Cuban government to veto agents from organizations linked to the NED into the country. In fact, regardless of whether or not there is a plot against the island organized by the NED and the CIA, it is clear that HRW’s annual reports are focused on denouncing and criticizing emerging countries, especially non-aligned nations, anticipating coercive measures taken by the US and other Western powers. This led Havana to endorse the narrative that HRW creates justifications for subsequent coercive measures with its allegations of human rights violations.

The central problem for the credibility of HRW reports is the authenticity of the organization’s sources. The reports are based on data provided by anti-government activists who are ideologically committed to the end of communism and the triumph of American interests on the island. To this end, such activists, who work inside and outside Cuba, adulterate, exaggerate or even create data that does not correspond to the reality of the country, as has been reported several times by Havana. The speech of anonymous activists follows a model predefined by American agencies interested in the fall of the Cuban government. This speech is disseminated by human rights NGOs and finally justifies coercive measures by the American government. For this reason, Havana sees HRW as a threat to its national security and this will not change, even if Washington strengthens its sanctions even further, as there is a central ideological incompatibility between these countries that cannot be overcome with mere coercive maneuvers.

Exaggeration is certainly the greatest weapon of these agents. Surely, there are human rights violations in Cuba – just as there are in any nation. There is no country that has been successful in completely abolishing acts contrary to human rights. Many nations may have officially abolished such practices, but they certainly still exist unofficially and, equally, deserve investigation and criticisms. However, this persecution against “human rights violators” is generally applied when the charged state is an emerging nation geopolitically opposed to Washington, like Cuba. In this way, NGOs like HRW observe cases of violation and exaggerate them, claiming that there is a state policy to confront universal rights, when, in fact, they are only marginal practices that exist in any country.

Just as mistakes are exaggerated, merits are ignored. Cuba has some of the best social indicators on the American continent, being a global reference in education and with some of the most qualified medical professionals in the world. Havana is responsible for several humanitarian missions sending doctors and equipment to nations in need of medical care, including not only poor countries, but developed states in emergencies, such as Italy during the pandemic. Furthermore, Cuba seems to be advanced in many agendas exalted in the West. For example, women occupy 51% of the deputies in the National Assembly and are 62% of the country’s scientists – which are remarkably high numbers by Western standards. These indices show that, with or without structural disrespect, there is undeniable progress in terms of human rights, and this cannot be ignored.

However, Havana is right to think that HRW’s reports are not by chance. What we should expect for the future is the resurgence of a focus of tensions between Washington and Havana. Trump, in his last days in government, reversed a process of rapprochement between the countries when he considered Cuba again as a terrorist financing nation – a totally unreasonable accusation and without any material evidence, which Trump certainly did not believe, but made this decision as a strategic maneuver to harm Biden and transfer power to his successor with more international tensions. Biden promised to review Trump’s policy against Cuba but gave no details of exactly what points he will reform. However, a peaceful policy for Havana was never expected from the new American president. Biden’s reforms are likely to occur, more likely, to facilitate the flow of migration and to include “humanitarian” issues in relations, shifting the focus of tensions from a security and defense perspective to one of respect for human rights and democracy.

In practice, this means that Biden must try to harm Cubans even more by imposing international sanctions in order to force Havana to comply with humanitarian standards that are already respected but whose compliance will never be recognized by NGOs committed to the American government.

*

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

This article was originally published on InfoBrics.

Lucas Leiroz is a research fellow in international law at the Federal University of Rio de Janeiro.

Featured image is from InfoBrics

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).

***

While many states are mandating vaccines for children and laws are being introduced to mandate vaccines for adults too, a new Zogby Strategies nationwide online poll of 1,000 U.S. adults reveals that a plurality of Americans, 32%, believe “no government should ever mandate medical procedures/vaccines” and 27% believe COVID vaccines are unsafe.

Conversely, 61% percent of U.S. adults believe the vaccine is safe, and 31% agree “the federal government should pass legislation making it mandatory.”

This comes after the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), Pfizer and Moderna spent $250 million on a “vaccine confidence” campaign.

“If HHS, Pfizer and Moderna want to persuade people to take vaccines, they should spend $250 million on a transparent vaccine injury surveillance system that actually works, where people can assess the risks and benefits of each vaccine,” said Children’s Health Defense Board Chairman Robert F. Kennedy, Jr.

“The dysfunctional Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System [VAERS] is a catastrophically insufficient program that, according to HHS, only captures 1% of vaccine injuries.” Still, as of Jan. 29, the VAERS program has reported 11,249 adverse events and 501 deaths.

Signed by the U.S. in 1947, the Nuremberg Code states that explicit voluntary consent from patients is required for human experimentation and that no one should be forced to undergo an unwanted medical procedure. The possibility of a future mandate of this experimental vaccine, including more than 70 million U.S. children under the age of 18, (who have almost zero risk of sickness, hospitalization or death from COVID- 19), exposes millions of vulnerable people to potential vaccine injuries.

On a question regarding vaccine mandates, those people who chose that “each state should be left to decide what is best for its residents” or “no government should ever mandate medical procedures/vaccines” (a total of 55%) were asked which groups should be exempt from a vaccine mandate:

• 51% said “people who say no” should be granted exemption.
• 44% said “individuals with a history of allergic reactions”
• 40% said “pregnant women”
• 35% said “individuals who seek medical/philosophical/religious exemptions”

Another critical question raised among those who have not yet taken the vaccine (83% of the sample) was whether or not they will take it when available. They respnoded:

• 39% agreed they “will take it as soon as it is available to them.”
• 33% said they’d “prefer to wait and see if it negatively affects others.”
• 18% reported, “I don’t want to get the mRNA COVID-19 vaccine.”
• Among those who don’t want to get the experimental vaccine, 43% said, “I am afraid of vaccine side effects” and 25% said “they never take a vaccine.”

The overall margin of sampling error is +/- 3.2 percentage points. Subsets of the data have a larger margin of error than the whole.

*

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 CHD

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 Senate trial for now twice-impeached former President Donald Trump is set to begin this week, with little doubt over the outcome. A procedural vote in the Senate on the constitutionality of “removing from office” someone who is not in office revealed that nowhere near enough Republicans were willing to join their Democrat counterparts in voting to convict.

Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts, who is required by the Constitution to preside, has by refusing to participate made it clear that he does not consider the upcoming action in the Senate to be a legitimate impeachment trial.

So if it is not a legitimate trial, what is it, then? Judging from the House impeachment resolution, it looks more like a banana republic “show trial” than a careful case detailing Trump’s “high crimes and misdemeanors.”

Trump was impeached by the Democrat-controlled US House for “incitement of insurrection” over the January 6th melee at the US Capitol. Telling his supporters they must fight or they’re “not going to have a country any more” was cited in the impeachment resolution as evidence that Trump “gravely endangered the security of the United States and its institutions of Government” and has “demonstrated that he will remain a threat to national security, democracy, and the Constitution if allowed to remain in office.”

Trump also told them to march to the Capitol “peacefully and patriotically” to encourage Congress to consider his claims of election fraud, but Democrats in the House say that he didn’t really mean it.

Why the snap impeachment? Why not, as Constitutional law professor Jonathan Turley has written, hold hearings and call witnesses to explore whether the former president actually had insurrection on his mind? Did he call off or delay the National Guard troops from protecting the Capitol, for example?

Or was he simply using heated political rhetoric that his accusers in Congress have also used plenty of times?

Weeks of hearings in the House with dozens of witnesses could have helped make the case for the Senate that Trump was guilty of inciting insurrection. Such hearings could have turned the tide against Trump in the Senate, where he is certainly not universally supported within his own party.

But the House had no interest in such hearings. They wanted a snap impeachment. They wanted no witnesses. They wanted to benefit from the universal mainstream media narrative that the mob who entered the Capitol building was not just unruly Americans angry over what they believed was a rigged election, but was actually trying to overthrow the government to keep Trump in power.

The House Democrats knew that the “insurrection” narrative would not stand the test of time – anyone familiar with “color revolutions” or coups overseas would easily recognize that this was not one. So they rushed through the impeachment not because they wanted to remove him from an office he no longer occupied, but because they wanted to bar him from ever running for office again.

It does raise the question: what are they afraid of? They called their impeachment a victory for democracy, but isn’t preventing Trump from running again a subversion of democracy?

Trump would do well to ignore the Senate proceedings. There is no reason to participate in a show trial. The media has reported that he intends to focus on the “stolen” election in his defense before the Senate. That would be counterproductive. The right question to ask is, “what if they held a show trial and nobody came”?

*

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 picture started to be formed in Biden’s first 48 hours but now it is crystal clear: The Biden Administration intends to pick up exactly where the Obama/Biden Administration left off in 2016 with an aggressive assertion of U.S. military power to offset its declining global economic, political, and moral position.

All signals appear to be heading in that direction. The Atlantic Council, a right-wing structure that is a mouthpiece for NATO and Western alliance, issued a 26,000 word screech against China, which makes the argument for eventual war if regime change and other “containment” polices fail to coax the Chinese into surrendering to the U.S. This is utter madness.

But it continues. In another highly publicized comment, Admiral Charles A. Richard warned that “There is a real possibility that a regional crisis with Russia or China could escalate quickly to a conflict involving nuclear weapons.”

The Administration announced a few days ago that it would essentially undermine the peace process in Afghanistan by extending the presence of U.S. troops in that country, which essentially violates the terms of the agreement U.S. has signed. It is clear that Trump is not the only one who can reverse negotiated international agreements.

On Sunday February 7, the Biden administration announced that it will not lift sanctions imposed on Iran after the U.S. pulled out of  the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) unless Iran comes back into compliance. Since it was the U.S. that first violated the agreement by pulling out and then imposed sanctions, Iran is demanding that the U.S. come into compliance first, which means new escalating tensions and possible conflict with Iran.

Is this what the over 80 million people who voted for Biden in the election wanted? Or does this imperialist war agenda of the ruling class demonstrate why with the democrat party primaries and the debates between Trump and Biden foreign policy received less than an hour of debate?

Public opinion for more than a decade has indicated that a majority of the public, and particularly veterans and their families, supported pulling U.S. troops out of Iraq and Afghanistan. But that information never makes it to the public via the “fact-based” liberal corporate press. Instead, the public is bombarded with the opinions of retired generals, foreign policy hacks and pro-war former intelligence officials explaining why peace is impossible.

The Biden administration even concedes that war on Black and Brown communities must continue, and thus he is only willing to make minor cosmetic changes to the Department of Defense’s 1033 program responsible for transferring tanks, armored personnel carriers machine guns and all kinds of weapons of war from the federal government to police departments across the nation.

The Black Alliance for Peace will not be silent while the public is being prepared for war domestically or abroad. That is why we are building resistance to Biden’s plan to continue the 1033 program and to undermine the Afghanistan peace process. We are promoting actions like our two petitions demanding an end to the 1033 program and for U.S. troops to be withdrawn from Afghanistan and a peace deal concluded.

Join us in demanding peace in our communities and abroad. Oppose the neoliberal madness.

*

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: U.S. Army Sgt. Christian Cisineros takes a moment to speak with his interpreter March 17, 2009, while on a dismount patrol mission near Forward Operating Base Baylough in the Zabul Province of Afghanistan. Cisineros is assigned to  Company B, 1st Battalion, 4th Infantry Regiment, U.S. Army Europe. (U.S. Army photo by Staff Sgt. Adam Mancini/Released)

Tem suscitado críticas o facto de Matteo Renzi, recebido em Riade por Sua Alteza Real, o Príncipe Mohammed bin Salman, ter elogiado a Arábia Saudita. Sem críticas, mas com um consenso substancial, quando o mesmo Renzi, como Primeiro Ministro e Secretário do Partido Democrata, se deslocou a Riade, em Novembro de 2015, para consolidar as relações entre os dois países. Contudo, nessa altura, a Arábia Saudita era essencialmente a mesma e já tinha começado a guerra contra o Iémen. A visita inseria-se na política tradicional da Itália de relações amigáveis com a Arábia Saudita e com as outras monarquias do Golfo. Basta recordar Emma Bonino que, na qualidade de Ministra dos Negócios Estrangeiros no Governo Letta, declarou em 2013 que “a Itália e a Arábia Saudita têm realmente muito em comum e há razões profundas para reforçar os nossos laços”.

Na mesma linha insere-se a visita que o Ministro dos Negócios Estrangeiros, Luigi Di Maio, fez à Arábia Saudita a 10 de Janeiro (mais de duas semanas antes de Renzi). Não só se encontrou com o Príncipe Mohammed bin Salman, exaltando “o constante fortalecimento das relações de amizade e cooperação”, mas também realizou um acto oficial muito mais importante: assinou com o Ministro dos Negócios Estrangeiros saudita, Príncipe Faisal bin Farhan, um memorando de entendimento sobre “diálogo estratégico” entre a Itália e a Arábia Saudita. Este acto, muito mais grave do que a declaração de Renzi sobre o “novo Renascimento” da Arábia Saudita, não suscitou críticas em Itália e passou praticamente despercebido.

O novo acordo liga ainda mais estreitamente a Itália a uma monarquia absoluta, na qual o soberano detém o poder político e económico, legislativo, executivo e judicial. Está actualmente nas mãos do Príncipe Mohammed bin Salman, que tomou o poder através de um acto de força no seio da família dominante. Na Arábia Saudita não há parlamento, apenas um conselho consultivo nomeado pelo governante. Os partidos políticos e os sindicatos são ilegais. O sistema judicial é baseado na lei corânica, administrada por tribunais religiosos. São frequentes as sentenças de decapitação ou corte de mãos, efectuadas em público. Os opositores e críticos são presos, torturados e assassinados. O jornalista Jamal Khashoggi foi morto no consulado saudita em Istambul e o seu corpo desmembrado para o fazer desaparecer. Os cerca de 10 milhões de imigrantes, metade da mão-de-obra da Arábia Saudita, vivem em condições de super-exploração e escravatura: por alegadas violações das leis de imigração, mais de 4 milhões foram presos em 3 anos.

O acordo sobre “diálogo estratégico” reforça os laços do complexo militar-industrial italiano com a Arábia Saudita, um dos maiores compradores de armas. Enquanto o governo italiano revoga a venda de bombas à Arábia Saudita como medida contra a guerra que faz massacres no Iémen, a Leonardo, a maior indústria bélica italiana, está a ajudar a Arábia Saudita a utilizar aviões de combate Eurofighter Typhoon para bombardear o Iémen. A Riad adquiriu 72 deles ao consórcio na qual a Leonardo tem uma participação industrial de 36 por cento. O Eurofighter Typhoon, certifica a mesma indústria, é de “combat proven” tendo já sido “testado em operações na Líbia, Iraque e Síria”, aos quais se junta o Iémen. A própria Leonardo documenta que “há mais de 40 anos que fornecemos os sistemas de aviónica e de comunicação do Typhoon e Tornado operados pela Real Força Aérea Saudita” e “oferecemos à Real Força Aérea Saudita aviões não tripulados e soluções de target acquisition” (ou seja, drones para identificar alvos para bombardeamentos). A mesma Leonardo especifica também, que “temos pessoal nas bases militares do Reino”. Ao mesmo tempo, a empresa pública italiana Fincantieri está a construir nos Estados Unidos, quatro navios de guerra do tipo mais avançado (Multi-Mission Surface Combatants) destinados à Arábia Saudita, com base numa “encomenda multibilionária”. Existem portanto bases sólidas para o desenvolvimento do “diálogo estratégico” entre a Itália e a Arábia Saudita.

 Manlio Dinucci

Artigo original em italiano :

«Dialogo strategico» tra Italia e Arabia Saudita

il manifesto, 09 de Fevereiro de 2021

Tradutora: Maria Luísa de Vasconcellos

Ha suscitato critiche il fatto che Matteo Renzi, ricevuto a Riad da Sua Altezza Reale Principe Mohammed bin Salman, abbia lodato l’Arabia Saudita. Nessuna critica invece, ma sostanziale consenso, quando lo stesso Renzi, in veste di presidente del consiglio nonché segretario del Pd, andò nel novembre 2015 in visita ufficiale a Riad per consolidare i rapporti tra i due paesi. Eppure allora l’Arabia Saudita era sostanzialmente la stessa e aveva già iniziato la guerra contro lo Yemen. La visita si inseriva nella tradizionale politica italiana di amichevoli rapporti con l’Arabia Saudita e le altre monarchie del Golfo. Basti ricordare Emma Bonino che, in veste di ministro degli Esteri del Governo Letta, dichiarava nel 2013 che «Italia e Arabia Saudita hanno veramente molto in comune e vi sono profonde ragioni per il rafforzamento dei nostri legami».

Nella stessa linea si inserisce la visita che il ministro degli Esteri Luigi Di Maio ha effettuato, il 10 gennaio (oltre due settimane prima di Renzi) in Arabia Saudita. Qui non solo ha incontrato il Principe Mohammed bin Salman, esaltando «il costante rafforzamento delle relazioni di amicizia e cooperazione», ma ha compiuto un atto ufficiale molto più importante: ha firmato col ministro degli Esteri saudita, principe Faisal bin Farhan, un memorandum d’intesa sul «dialogo strategico» tra Italia e Arabia Saudita. Questo atto, ben più grave della dichiarazione di Renzi sul «nuovo Rinascimento» dell’Arabia Saudita, non ha suscitato critiche in Italia ed è praticamente passato sotto silenzio.

La visita di Di Maio in Arabia Saudita, foto Ministero degli Esteri

Il nuovo accordo lega ancor più l’Italia a una monarchia assoluta, in cui il sovrano detiene il potere politico ed economico, legislativo, esecutivo e giudiziario. Attualmente è nelle mani del principe Mohammed bin Salman, impadronitosi del potere con un atto di forza all’interno della famiglia dominante. In Arabia Saudita non esiste un parlamento, ma solo un consiglio consultivo nominato dal sovrano. Partiti politici e organizzazioni sindacali sono illegali. Il sistema giudiziario si basa sulla legge coranica, amministrata da tribunali religiosi. Frequenti sono le condanne alla decapitazione o al taglio delle mani, effettuati in pubblico. Oppositori e critici vengono incarcerati, torturati e assassinati. Il giornalista Jamal Khashoggi è stato ucciso nel consolato saudita a Istanbul e il suo corpo è stato smembrato per farlo sparire. I circa 10 milioni di immigrati, la metà della forza lavoro in Arabia Saudita, vivono in condizioni di supersfruttamento e schiavitù: per presunte violazioni delle leggi sull’immigrazione, ne sono stati arrestati in 3 anni oltre 4 milioni.

La visita di Di Maio in Arabia Saudita, foto Ministero degli Esteri

L’accordo sul «dialogo strategico» rinsalda i legami del complesso militare-industriale italiano con l’Arabia Saudita, uno dei maggiori acquirenti di armi. Mentre il governo italiano revoca la vendita di bombe all’Arabia Saudita quale misura contro la sua guerra che fa strage nello Yemen, la Leonardo, la maggiore industria bellica italiana, assiste l’Arabia Saudita a usare i caccia Eurofighter Typhoon che bombardano lo Yemen. Riad ne ha acquistati 72 dal consorzio in cui la Leonardo ha il 36% della quota industriale. L’Eurofighter Typhoon, certifica la stessa industria, è «combat proven» essendo già stato «provato in operazioni in Libia, Iraq e Siria», cui va aggiunto lo Yemen. La stessa Leonardo documenta che «per oltre 40 anni abbiamo fornito l’avionica e i sistemi di comunicazione del Typhoon e Tornado operati dall’Aviazione Reale dell’Arabia Saudita» e che «offriamo alla Reale Aeronautica dell’Arabia Saudita velivoli senza pilota e soluzioni di target acquisition» (ossia droni per individuare gli obiettivi da bombardare). La stessa Leonardo precisa, inoltre, che «abbiamo personale nelle basi militari del Regno». Contemporaneamente l’azienda pubblica italiana Fincantieri costruisce negli Stati uniti 4 navi da guerra del tipo più avanzato (Multi-Mission Surface Combatants) destinate all’Arabia Saudita in base a un «ordine plurimiliardario». Ci sono dunque solide basi per lo sviluppo del «dialogo strategico» tra Italia e Arabia Saudita.

 Manlio Dinucci

il manifesto, 09 febbraio 2021

Our Children Have a Right to a Decent Future

By Dr. Rudolf Hänsel, February 08 2021

What the rebellious generation of 68 reproached their fathers for, that they had willingly submitted to a dictator and a tyranny, is happening again three generations later. And again, only a small group of courageous and awakened citizens is resisting – and the vast majority is asleep and silent.

The “Great Zero Carbon” Conspiracy

By F. William Engdahl, February 08 2021

The globalist Davos World Economic Forum is proclaiming the necessity of reaching a worldwide goal of “net zero carbon” by 2050. This for most sounds far in the future and hence largely ignored. Yet transformations underway from Germany to the USA, to countless other economies, are setting the stage for creation of what in the 1970’s was called the New International Economic Order.

The Foreign Roots of Haiti’s “Constitutional Crisis”

By Prof. Mark Schuller, February 08 2021

Haiti’s president’s term has come to an end, but he refuses to step down. Solidarity is urgent. As per usual, news on Haiti in the United States remains limited, except for during periods of “crisis.” As if on cue, U.S. media began reporting on Haiti’s “constitutional crisis” this week.

In Game Changer, International Criminal Court Will Take Up Israeli War Crimes and Apartheid in Palestine

By Prof. Juan Cole, February 08 2021

On Friday, the International Criminal Court found that it had jurisdiction to consider war crimes and crimes against humanity and the crime of Apartheid in the Palestinian territories.

ICC Ruling on Palestine: “A Victory for Rights, Justice, Freedom and Moral Values in the World”: Palestinian Minister

By Steven Sahiounie, February 08 2021

The mandate of the ICC is to prosecute people, not countries, including those from states that are not signatories, as long as one party has signed the international treaty, which Palestine did in 2015, while Israel has not signed. Palestine used its UN observer state status, gained in 2012, to join the ICC.

Shrinking Ireland: Global Warning in Local Communities

By Caoimhghin Ó Croidheáin, February 08 2021

A recent walk at a local beach revealed to me how fast coastal erosion is affecting local communities. This area where I live is essentially a peninsula with two large popular beaches, Donabate beach and Portrane beach which are joined by cliffs, on the coast of north County Dublin, Ireland.

Farmers’ Protest in India: Price of Failure Will be Immense. “The Plan to Radically Restructure Agrifood”

By Colin Todhunter, February 07 2021

Globally, there is an ongoing trend of a handful of big companies determining what food is grown, how it is grown, what is in it and who sells it. This model involves highly processed food adulterated with chemical inputs ending up in large near-monopoly supermarket chains or fast-food outlets that rely on industrial-scale farming.

The Impeachment Trial: In Defense of Donald Trump

By Emanuel Pastreich, February 08 2021

It is not popular in the fickle fairyland of Washington D.C. to defend Donald Trump, let alone to praise him. But at this sad hour in our nation’s history, that is precisely what must be done.

Did The Virus Trigger the 2020 Worldwide Economic Crisis?

By Prof Michel Chossudovsky and Michael Welch, February 08 2021

You lose your job. Small and medium sized enterprises go bankrupt. Even the whole tourist industry is paralyzed. There’s no air transport. There’s no public transport, in some cases. And then they make us believe that this is required to solve a public health crisis!

Towards a Police State in Switzerland? The Covid Face Mask

By Peter Koenig, February 08 2021

In the morning of 5 February 2021, a distinguished gentleman, professional, in his early 70s, impeccably dressed in suit and tie (no name shall be mentioned) – was running to catch an 8 AM train at the Geneva principal railway station, Cornavin.

The Invincible Green Stick of Happiness

By Edward Curtin, February 08 2021

Six major media firms control the lion’s share of the news people see, listen to and read every day! That’s an extra-ordinary level of influence they can exert on the popular mindset and on the political decisions made in the interests of ‘the billionaires club!’

The billionaire giants are redoubling their efforts to control the narrative.

Now thanks to social media organs like twitter, youtube, and facebook, they are slowly stomping out views that counter the interests of the wealthy men in the driver’s seat.

Major papers, television stations and radio stations are quick to uphold the realities of the world around us. And any attempts to correct the record will rather quickly be labelled ‘Conspiracy Theories.’

So now, more than ever, community radio is pivotal as a source of probing and thoughtful insights while the freedom of the internet is disintegrating.

Global Research, and our podcast the Global Research News Hour is of course defying that monolith of global propaganda!

We thank CKUW, the campus-based radio station which hosts the GRNH. CKUW broadcasts at 95.9 MHz on the FM band and is based at the University of Winnipeg in Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada.

Over the next two weeks, until February 19, GRNH is holding its annual fund-raising drive. GRNH does not run paid advertising, nor does it rely on donations by the University of Winnipeg or the state. It is up to listeners like you to help us meet our budgetary requirements and prosper.

Listeners are encouraged to make this drive a success!

Click on the Donate button below, and be sure to send a note with your donation mentioning GRNH or GLOBAL RESEARCH NEWS HOUR!

Thank you all for doing your role in keeping the levers of censorship at bay!

CLICK TO DONATE:

PLEASE BE SURE TO INCLUDE A NOTE MENTIONING “GLOBAL RESEARCH NEWS HOUR” OR “GRNH” WITH YOUR TRANSACTION

And thank you, both to Global Research readers and to CKUW listeners, for your ongoing support!

Michael Welch, host and producer, Global Research News Hour

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 . Listen to the latest episode with guest Michel Chossudovsky by clicking below:

Did The Virus Trigger the 2020 Worldwide Economic Crisis?

By Prof Michel Chossudovsky and Michael Welch, February 08 2021

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).

***

Global Research Editor’s Note

We are not supporters of Trump by a long shot and neither is Dr. Emanuel Pastreich, author of this incisive and timely article.

In the course of the Trump presidency we have published diverse opinions, most of which constitute a critique of the failures, abuses and illegal acts committed by the Trump administration.

We are based in Canada. We are not involved in bipartisan politics in the US. Neither the Republicans nor the Democrats serve the interest of the American people.

We publish various opinions on US domestic politics and US foreign policy. In some cases we may disagree with the authors we  publish. We do not, however, impose an editorial line to our authors.

Michel Chossudovsky, Global Research, January 9, 2021

The lawyers employed by Donald Trump have amassed an impressive pile of arguments to defend him against charges that he incited a mob of his supporters to stage an armed insurrection in an effort to stop the selection of his democratically elected opponent. It is not popular in the fickle fairyland of Washington D.C. to defend Donald Trump, let alone to praise him. But at this sad hour in our nation’s history, that is precisely what must be done.

Sadly, the impeachment trial scheduled for February 9^th is unlikely to touch on either the true violations of the Constitution by the Trump administration, nor on Donald Trump’s significant accomplishments in office.

Like the last impeachment trial which focused on ambiguous and amorphous Russian collusion, and left untouched the criminality of the entire executive branch (over which Trump had little control).

This trial has one purpose: to serve as a warning all American politicians that the system is ready to tar and feather them, attack them for things that they did not do, and then take them down with the entire world as a captive audience.

In other words, the president of the United States in the years ahead will resemble the emperors of the late Roman empire whose reigns rarely lasted for more than a few years: men who were batted around by the generals in the manner that a cat plays with a mouse.

The sprawling executive branch has as its tentacles consulting firms, military and law enforcement contractors, and a host of lobbying syndicates that assume corruption is a day’s work well done. None of those players are going to be on trial for Valentine’s Day. To blame their sins on Donald Trump, and then present to the world “pay to play” Joe Biden as a progressive breath of fresh air, is true alchemy.

For all his sins, from poor taste in clothing, to the garish interiors at his hotels, to his associations with organized crime and his pandering to audiences who craved the sensational, Trump was a man who simply tried to outsmart the system from within for personal benefit, but also for certain honorable principles. Sadly, he became a prisoner of the system in the process. He is accused of trumped up, or exaggerated, sins, his true mistakes are overlooked and his real accomplishments are ignored.

The case against Donald Trump

Donald Trump, a man who had never served in public office before he became president, a man who knew little about fiscal and social policy, or international relations, a man who was obliged to turn to a handful of political players, and to the cunning multi-billionaires behind the curtains, for advice in his “Battle with the Deep State” –a show perfect for The Sahara—was bathetic and tragic at the same time.

I dispute, however, the assumption that Trump was inherently less qualified for office than Hillary Clinton, Barak Obama, or Joe Biden, three individuals deeply linked to global finance, weapons manufacturers and to a host of other parasitic organizations hell bent on tearing the United States apart for profit. The fact that such global players interacted with these supposedly noble men through Harvard University’s Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs did nothing to dilute their criminality. None of these politicians should have ever been considered as candidates for that office.

The recent orgy of media coverage about Trump has nothing to do with his real mistakes, but is rather a cynical ploy to make the Biden administration’s progressive-tinted “Trojan Horse” COVID-19 police state seem legitimate and also to create a new enemy for the public imagination: the MAGA-hat wearing ignorant racist Trump supporter.

That last creation is the first step towards tarring anyone who questions the criminal conspiracies that are in full swing today with the term “domestic terrorist” and locking them up if the newly appointed “Reality Czar” sees fit.

Trump’s rise to political power was a result of his success in real estate development, his management of casinos, his speculation in various murky business deals and his effective use of sensationalist television to gain a loyal audience. It is not necessary to explain that one cannot be involved in construction and casinos at that level without being linked to racketeering and money laundering, to prostitution and organized crime.

But the Democrats and Republicans who raked in money from global investment banks that make a killing in the promotion of war (in the name of peace), who push through dangerous free trade agreements, and who participated in the rape of the Federal Reserve, are even more diabolical.

The in-your- face obnoxiousness of Trump is more honest than the cultivated, culturally sensitive, ethnically diverse Ivy League graduates who used their empathic image to hide from us the brutal war these global financial institutions wage against ordinary people.

Donald Trump was guilty of violations of the Constitution and of Federal law during the course of his administration that deserve impeachment. Period.

At the same time, however, George H. W. Bush, Bill Clinton, George W. Bush and Barak Obama were all guilty of numerous acts in violation of the Constitution and Federal law worthy of impeachment. If anything, the real question is why American intellectuals have decided to let the bloated, sprawling and putrid executive branch get away with all this institutionalized criminality.

The Democratic and Republican congressmen who will gather like jackals for the impeachment trial, men and women who looked the other way as global financial powers robbed the Federal Reserve of 10 trillion or more and then had the nerve to say the economic crisis was a result of COVID19, should be on trial too.

Trump’s tragic mistakes

Trump’s decision to run for president can be traced back to the White House Correspondents Dinner on April 30, 2011. He was subject to pointed mockery by Barak Obama who intended to humiliate him in public and destroy his political career.

Trump’s anger was written all over his face because he is not a politician.

Why was Trump so mad?

Personally, I am not convinced that Trump’s “Birther Movement,” that tried to prove that Obama was not an American citizen and that he was a secret Muslim, was either appropriate or accurate. Ultimately, I do not know.

I fear, however, that many Americans do not understand the underlying motivations for that campaign. The strategy was sensationalist, like the pro wrestler at heart that Trump is, but the means of political attack that Trump employed was not entirely his choice.

Most of the corrupt deals made by the Obama administration with global finance are protected from public scrutiny because the transactions were rendered classified, or because non-disclosure agreements make it impossible to make those crimes public. In many cases, secret law passed by Congress makes the discussion of these corrupt actions illegal. The post-Bush age in America is defined by a politics of the unspeakable.

Trump went after Obama over the birther issue, and after Biden over election fraud, not because it was necessarily his strongest card, but because it was the only card he was permitted to play, the only thing that the media would report.

It was the attitude of Obama on that evening that riled Trump. Obama, a man parachuted into the 2008 presidential campaign out of nowhere to serve the interests of the super-rich, showed obvious contempt for Trump and his supporters.

Trump wanted to nail the slick Obama for his blatant corruption, but he could not.

When Trump condemned foreign wars openly, he was labeled a budding Nazi by the liberal press. Obama, by contrast, hedged his words about foreign interventions so as to avoid offending General Dynamics and had been awarded the 2009 Nobel Peace Prize for embracing American militarism and renouncing his lukewarm critique of the Iraq war.

Running for president as an outsider was the best way to get even, Trump thought to himself, that to become the president who replaced that well-groomed toy of financial elites would be tasty, as the French say “La vengeance est un plat qui se mange froid” (revenge is a dish best served cold).

Trump knew that if he wanted to win the presidency as an outsider, he would have to tap into the anger boiling up over the corruption in Washington D.C., and the elitist politics of Obama. Part of that response had racist overtones, but much of it did not.

Although Trump had some money, he was a small fish in the increasingly decadent Washington milieu. After he drove back to Trump Hotel after that brutal Obama “roast” he thought about which power players he could get on his side who would be able to match the backing of the investment banks that Democrats (and Republicans) relied on to get them over the top in the money game.

He came up with a list of hungry outsiders who were willing to take a risk on his populist rhetoric because they too did not have the political influence that they felt their money deserved. Although there were more, let us identify four important groups of supporters that pushed hard to get Trump on the map, and who did not care about his opposition to free trade or his appeals to the working man.

The four groups, however, did not care about Donald Trump personally, and when he was set up at the end of his presidency to be diagnosed with the bogus “COVID19” and then accused of starting the clown-directed false flag “Capitol Insurrection,” those forces had no interest in helping out.

I suspect that Trump thought that he, like a master surfer, could somehow ride the converging waves that would be unleashed by these powers and drive this “band of rivals” forward so as to achieve something of value while enhancing his own brand.

The following four groups latched onto Trump as a chance to shake up Washington and get their piece of the pie.

David and Charles Koch

The Koch brothers poured their coal and petroleum billions into funding “libertarian” ideology as a means of hiding the end of the regulation of business under the sheep’s skin of personal “freedom.” The result was a massive increase in pollution and the end of environmental policy in the United States.

The Koch brothers were remarkably creative. They set up a devious think tank, the Charles Koch Institute, that seduced various “anti-war” intellectuals with its big funding and media exposure, and thereby gave legitimacy to their corporate agenda.

The Koch brothers supported Trump, and introduced him to their representative Mike Pompeo (who had close ties to the Christian right) in return for a promise from Trump to get the government out of the regulation business and to pursue ludicrous policies regarding climate change. The Koch brothers wanted to get the sort of respect in Washington DC that global players like Exxon and BP were receiving and to muscle in on energy policy previously determined by mainstream corporations.

Betsy (Prince) DeVos and Erik Prince

Although the start of Trump’s relationship with the Prince family remains opaque, Betsy (Prince) DeVos, wife of the heir of the Amway fortune, and her brother Erik Prince, CEO of the private mercenary corporation Academi, lashed on to Trump early on and gave him a big push.

Betsy (Prince) DeVos demanded that she be made Secretary of Education and she used that position to destroy public education as part of a larger plan to both make all education into a for-profit industry and to render much of the population so poorly educated that they were incapable of opposing the corporate takeover of America. The problems in education, however, were a bipartisan effort of the last 30 years and not the creation of Betsy DeVos.

Trump let her do what she wanted with almost no interference.

Erik Prince demanded a chance to push for the radical privatization of the military that would allow his mercenary groups to get contracts for work previously limited to the military itself, or to the big-time military contractors. Early support for Trump gave Erik carte blanche for extending his mercenary operations around the world, getting into some serious fights with military officers along the way.

The Princes also linked Trump up with another big player, Robert Mercer, the CEO of Renaissance Technologies. The “silent billionaire” Mercer was backed Steve Bannon’s innovative strategies for stirring up political support through racist and anti-immigrant reporting at his Breitbart News (mixed with a good dose of truth) and he laid the groundwork for Trump’s sudden media takeoff.

 Casino mogul Sheldon Adelson

But Trump’s old pal Sheldon Adelson was a man with the deep pockets, the strong connections in Israel, and the strategic mind necessary to put Trump over the top. Adelson is one of the top dogs in casinos globally and was probably one of the people Trump called up early on. He gave his enthusiastic backing and his phone calls made Trump’s bid viable.

Adelson quickly connected Trump with core figures among Christian Zionists like John Hagee who supported the most radical policies of Israel unconditionally and he set up Mike Pompeo (also linked to the Koch brothers) to be a central policy player. Adelson probably also played a role in introducing to Trump another rising Christian Zionist, Vice President Mike Pence.

Christian Zionist churches across the United States play a critical role in delivering votes and raising money for conservative causes. Trump’s willingness to embrace the extreme demands of these churches allowed the ministers of these churches to back him in spite of his multiple marriages and his lax and indulgent values.

Adelson did not spend those hours at his rolodex for nothing. He got an administration (if not a Trump) that blindly embraced Israel, and granted full support in any Israeli military conflict with Iran.

The “War with China” Lobby

The promotion of military conflicts and the sales of overpriced weapons systems is an exquisitely bipartisan show and even the peacemakers cannot function in Congress without a thumbs up from the big boys. For a total outsider with an unimpressive reputation, and no political experience, there was not much room at the trough for Trump.

A bit of sniffing around, however, revealed that there was one group in the military industrial complex that was extremely unhappy in spite of the bloated defense budget and who were looking for someone to champion their unpopular cause during the Obama years.

That group consisted of the weapons manufactures who supply the big heavy equipment like aircraft carrier groups, fighter planes, nuclear weapons and missile defense systems.

Donald’s Rumsfeld’s “War on Terror” had introduced the dangerous concept of a “revolution in warfare” and much of their bulky hardware was viewed as outdated by a new generation of security experts.

The new focus on intelligence fattened up their rivals and cost them some big military contracts as the Pentagon increasingly mimicked the CIA.

In addition, a push by new upstarts like Boston Robotics to lock them out permanently and make satellites, drones, robots and AI the focus for military spending had them seeing red.

Although these contractors liked Russia as an adversary, only a massive Pacific War with China scenario could justify the piles of hardware that they wanted to produce. No surprise that these groups were pushed over the edge when Obama proposed military-military cooperation with China, including inviting China to participate in the RIMPAC naval exercises in Hawaii.

The “war with China” faction is not a specific corporation. They are large sections of Northrop Grumman, Lockeed Martin, General Dynamics, Raytheon and other contractors who stood to benefit from a push for big ships and high-tech fighter planes, for the tools for massive amphibious landings. At the same time, companies also had units who are not interested in that market.

Trump offered to dump the one-China policy of Nixon in the dustbin of history and to adopt aggressive actions in East Asia that would kick of a “new Cold War.” This group fell in line behind Trump and gave him the security credentials that he lacked.

Trump’s Achievements

Looking back on the four years of Trump, much of the damage attributed to him was rather the product of institutional decay that was sped up by the mind-numbing spiritual gangrene which infected America after the 9.11 incident. Trump must take responsibility for allowing criminal figures to run the show, to strip the government of expertise and to push for war with China and Iran, but Trump was most certainly not the mastermind.

He felt as he was under house arrest himself at the White House when the big boys got into fights—and he was keenly aware that the powers that be were more than happy to throw him under the bus—as the ultimately did—to achieve their goals.

And yet, as foolhardy as Trump’s bid to use these outcasts from the DC banquet of spoils as a means to take control of the Republican Party, and then topple the corrupt system from within may have been, the following efforts suggest that at some level Trump maintained a commitment to setting things right, and that he tried to address issues that other politicians were afraid to touch.

The following actions will not be mentioned at the impeachment trial, but they should be.

1. Commitment to 9.11 truth

In his interview with Fox 5 News on September 11, 2001, Donald Trump made comments that opened up serious doubts concerning the 9/11 conspiracy theory that Arab terrorists holding papercutters took down three skyscrapers with two planes. Trump continued address this issue in private and he was not afraid to maintain close ties with 9/11 truth activists.

His willingness, as sitting president, to tolerate, and even to encourage, the discussion of the scientific problems with the official story was risky for his health and it alienated him from mainstream politicians, Democrat and Republican. His willingness to take on this impossible task represented a sincere loyalty to his supporters—a solidarity that that he never gave up even as he hobnobbed with the rich and powerful.

2. Demand for the release of classified documents on the Kennedy Assassination

Donald Trump used executive orders in October of 2017 in an attempt to force the CIA and the FBI to release all remaining classified documents concerning the Kennedy assassination of 1963. The criminal conspiracy in global finance, industry and government to kill Kennedy is obvious to anyone who has looked into the case even superficially. Yet the Federal Government still refuses to release the remaining documents that will make clear for the world what happened, and exactly who was responsible for what.

Trump’s push to get the papers released was not a favor for historians and conspiracy buffs.

The manner in which global finance was able to murder a president in cold blood when he tried to restore accountability to intelligence and to the military produced a slow-growing cancer in the executive branch that has festered ever since. Many institutional problems, such as the inability of any president to subject the Pentagon or the CIA to a meaningful audit, can be traced back to that sad day in November, 1963.

In effect, every American president knows that he can killed with impunity like Kennedy, or publicly humiliated, if he or she dares to hold to the Constitution or to challenge the shadow government of finace.

Trump’s actions were brave, and even inspiring. You can be sure that neither Bernie Sanders nor Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, darlings of the “left,” will never dare to make such a demand.

3. Attacking the use of immigration to destroy the lives of American workers   

The vicious attacks (in government and in the streets) on immigrants that were encouraged by the rhetoric pouring forth from the mouth of Donald Trump were cruel and irrational.  Such actions should be condemned.

But we can walk and chew gum at the same time as citizens. As offensive and divisive as Trump’s rhetoric was, we must recognize two critical facts: 1) a series of classified directives and secret laws prevented Trump from talking directly about how the immigration crisis was linked to actions of corporations and investment banks; 2) his Democratic opponents were intimately involved in implementation of immigration as a weapon for class warfare but they were never called on this point by so-called “progressive” public intellectuals.

The immigration rush from Central and South America to the United States was a result of the plot of multinational to destroy the local economies of those countries and to devastate agriculture and crafts through a ruthless free trade, free investment scheme combined with cash payments to politicians to play stupid.

The working people of Latin America did not have any choice but to try to go to the United States.

At the same time, multinational banks and corporations used immigration policy as part of a strategy to destroy the economic foundations of life for the American worker, rendering him a helpless pawn in their push for a new form of slavery. The Democrats were silent about this greater conspiracy and Trump was right to denounce this deliberate policy to destroy America through immigration.

Secret law and classified directives made it impossible to discuss these brutal policies in the American media. When Trump took the unusual step of actually addressing class warfare via immigration he was forced by circumstances to describe it using caricatures that appealed to racist ideology.

He deserves credit for drawing attention to the issue.

4. Opposition to the free trade ideology  

Trump was the only candidate in the 2016 presidential campaign to address directly the manner in which the promotion of “free trade” regimes have been employed by the rich to destroy the economic foundations of life for Americans.

He was roundly condemned for undermining America’s commitment to global trade agreements and to financial treaties. Conservatives, progressives—and everyone in between—were happy to take a stab. But as inflammatory as his rhetoric may have been, Trump identified a criminal conspiracy of the rich around the world to create economic misery through trade.

The progressive Democratic politicians who claimed to be concerned about working people rarely hesitated to vote for free trade agreements. They pretended that these agreements would help ordinary people when they knew full-well that they were for the benefit of multinational corporations. Trump    stood virtually alone in condemning the trade scam and he deserves credit for his efforts.

5. Open opposition to the mask mandate, to the economic lockdown and to the vaccine regime in the name of COVID19

Donald Trump made numerous attempts to question from the office of the president the promotion of the bogus COVID19 pandemic as a national disaster, the insistence on the mandatory wearing of masks without any scientific basis and the nonsensical demands for an economic lockdown on the economy and the shutting down of public buildings and of schools. He was one of the few politicians willing to take such a position and as a result he gained support in the presidential election from African Americans and other groups who would normally never have supported a Republican.

When Trump questioned the need for the dangerous COVID19 “vaccines” promoted by multinational pharmaceutical corporations like Pfizer that contain destructive mRNA, and a variety of tracers and sensors embedded in DARPA hydrogel, his stand was heroic.

Although Trump took an anti-science stance when he questioned climate change in response to the demands of the Koch brothers, he was 100% supported by the science, and by numerous scientists, in the case of COVID19.

The result? Trump was subject to attacks from every side in the corrupt media for his commonsense statements. The darlings of the Democratic “left” rushed to embrace the corporate puppet Anthony Fauci when he attacked Trump for not shutting down the economy and he promoted these dangerous “vaccines.”

Moreover, when Trump was forced to endorse vaccines, he gave speeches in which he spoke of a “warp drive” project to develop them in months that would normally have taken years or decades.

Trump praised vaccines in a deliberately exaggerated manner as a means of telegraphing the truth to the people about the true nature of vaccines over the barriers to the dissemination of information erected in Washington D.C. Such a move was ingenious and brave—but mocked in the media.

6. Support for an open discussion about criminal conspiracies in the United States

The transformation of progressive sources of journalism into puppet shows where corporate power dresses up its fictions in the used clothing of the American leftist tradition is a tragedy of epic proportions. We witness a pathetic discourse on politics in which the “left” acts as a trained lapdog unable to speak about any of the real conspiracies.

It is to Donald Trump’s credit that he had the bravery to actively engage in an open discussion with those demanding an investigation into the criminal conspiracies taking place in America, and that he encouraged a fundamental questioning of the role of government and of corporations.

Specifically, Trump was attacked from all corners for his connections to believers in the “cult” of QAnon.

QAnon is an insider who leaks information about criminal actions at the highest levels of government. If you do a search for QAnon, you will find articles that condemn him as a fraudulent conspiracy peddler, that denounce his racist and isolationist positions, but you will not see QAnon’s texts quoted so that the reader can judge for himself.

None of the newspapers even gives the website address of QAnon: qanon.pub. Wikipedia dismisses QAnon, saying,

“QAnon is a disproven and discredited far-right conspiracy theory alleging that a secret cabal of Satan-worshipping, cannibalistic pedophiles is running a global child sex-trafficking ring and plotting against former U.S. president Donald Trump, who has been fighting the cabal. According to U.S. prosecutors, QAnon is commonly called a cult.”

The assumption that mainstream Democrats (and Republicans) cannot be linked to prostitution and pedophilia is easily proven false. For that matter, no mainstream politician has tried to discredit QAnon by launching international scientific investigations into the claims he makes about the 9/11 incident or the COVID19 campaign.

Significant inaccuracies in QAnon are a problem which can only be addressed through an open effort to identify which parts are accurate. The greater problem is the failure of most intellectuals to condemn the blatant fictions peddled by the New York Times and Washington Post.

In any case, Trump’s willingness as president to take on massive conspiracies is a necessary first step, and much to his credit.

7. Questioning of the legitimacy of the election

We are told over and over again that Biden won the election in a fair and transparent manner and that Trump’s efforts to contest the election are selfish and corrupt. This narrative is a massive fraud.

It is unclear who won that election, or whether it was an election at all. In any case, we should be delighted that Trump is the first candidate who was willing to stand up against the massive manipulation of the vote by corporate powers. We can only wish that Al Gore or John Kerry, or Bernie Sanders, or many others, had had the guts to stand up and refuse to accept the bogus elections that are forced on us.

The 2020 election was fixed from the start. The financial powers that run the United States put out a series of classified directives, and had the Congress pass secret laws that determined who the candidates would be and what topics could, or could not, be discussed.

It is no secret that the Biden camp used every dirty trick in their toolbox to secure the Democratic nomination, including manipulating the vote in the primaries to beat Bernie Sanders.

Why would anyone assume then that the Biden team would not manipulate the vote in a similar manner in the general election—especially in light of the support he received from neoconservatives close to the Bush clan?

In egregious cases like the sudden swing to Biden in Pennsylvania, progressives concerned with the democratic process should have demanded an international investigation that would have documented in a transparent manner the details of the vote. No Democrats have called for even reinstatement of exit polls.

It was to his credit, and not a sign of his selfishness, that Trump refused to concede to the election.

The real crime is that the progressives refused to demand a scientific investigation into the results of the election, rather than throw themselves at the feet of Biden as if he were the reincarnation of Robert Kennedy.

8. Condemnation of endless foreign wars

You know you are in the “Twilight Zone” when progressives who fall all over themselves to condemn Trump for racism and war mongering then fall silent when he, as a sitting president of the United States, condemned the criminal “forever wars” of the last twenty years and attacked the for-profit procurement system for weapons.

Trump comments on September 7, 2020 condemning foreign wars, and denouncing war profiteers, went beyond anything you will find coming out of the mouths of Democrats—and they were not the only such public statement by him. He stated:

“With Biden, shipped away our jobs, threw open our borders and sent our youth to fight in these crazy endless wars. And it’s one of the reasons the military—I’m not saying the military is in love with me, the soldiers are. The top people in the Pentagon probably aren’t because they want to do nothing but fight wars so that all of those wonderful companies that make the bombs, that make the planes, that make everything else stay happy. But we are getting out of the endless wars.”

He ended his comments,

“Let’s bring our soldiers back home. Some people don’t like to come home. Some people like to continue to spend money. One cold-hearted globalist betrayal after another. That’s what it was.”

The entirety of the speech was theatre, and it was not entirely accurate, but Trump managed to slip past the censors a critique of the broken system that no other politician was able to do.

In fact, Trump’s comments are the first attack by a sitting president on that systematic corruption since President Eisenhauer’s condemnation of the “military industrial complex” in his farewell address of January 17, 1961 (almost exactly 60 years ago).

Obama, or Harris, for all their multiculturalism, are incapable of making such a statement because they rose to political power on the backs of private equity and venture capital, organizations that derive much of their cash from weapons sales, the promotion of corporation-centered “free trade” agreements and the tearing down all barriers to global capital’s rampage around the world.

Furthermore, Trump’s own farewell address was pointedly aimed at ordinary soldiers and critical of the political generals who use the military as a means to amass wealth.

His attempt to bond with ordinary soldiers, and to oppose the military profiteers, appears to be a sincere sentiment, and not a political posture.

9. Call to nationalize the Federal Reserve

Donald Trump made a serious effort to bring the Federal Reserve Bank of the United States under the control of the Treasury Department and to reign in the use of American debt by global finance for its own purposes.

How successful that effort to control the creation of money was is difficult to evaluate because the media is controlled by the same financial institutions that dominate the Federal Reserve system. The reports (both pro and anti Trump) are murky and obscure.

Moreover, because financial policy in the Federal Reserve, and in the Treasury Department, is increasingly rendered as classified, it is impossible to have a serious public discussion on fiscal policy.

Trump’s decision to bring in Larry Fink, the CEO of the multi-trillion dollar investment firm BlackRock, to play a central role in the Federal Reserve Bank was at best a Pyrrhic victory.

Trump supporters claim that at least the Rothschilds no longer control the Federal Reserve. I honestly do not know which reports to believe about the status of the Federal Reserve today.

What is clear, however, is that the theft of trillions from the Federal Reserve last year was a reality, and that Trump did try, perhaps unsuccessfully, to do something.

The upcoming show trial of Donald Trump   

Trump paid a price for talking about war profiteering and other criminal conspiracies during the election. He was suddenly diagnosed as positive for COVID19 on October 11 and his campaign was shut down at precisely the moment that was starting to make a discussion of criminal conspiracies central to the campaign.

Source: Emanuel Pastreich

But that was just the beginning of the attack. He was painted in the corporate media as a terrorist leader, like Osama Bin Laden, who incited his racist followers to commit an “armed insurrection.” But the occupation of the Capitol was more of a Laurel and Hardy show than a serious attack or insurrection and multiple reports have raised serious doubts as to what actually transpired. Needless to say, no progressives are asking for an international investigation.

Trump’s lawyers will not be able to address any of the unfair attacks on him by the media during the impeachment trial, nor will they be able to present evidence concerning his contributions to restoring the rule of law in the United States.

Nor will those lawyers be able to demonstrate that the criminal actions that took place during Trump’s administration were for the most part the fault of an executive branch that can no longer be controlled by the president. They cannot describe how Trump was set up for this show trial as a means to draw attention away from greater crimes.

All their efforts must go into defending Trump from the accusation that he masterminded the violent armed insurrection at the Capitol intended to stop the election of Joe Biden as president.

In other words, the door has been opened by this trial to using the full force of the Federal government to treat anyone who questions the vaccine regime, or demand inquiries into conspiracies like 9/11, as a domestic terrorist.

We have an obligation, not just for the sake of Donald Trump, but for the future of our children, to openly condemn this blatantly criminal effort to cook up an “insurrection” and then to blame it on the president.

Source: Emanuel Pastreich and Kim Ki-do

Trump is part professional wrestler, part gameshow host, part mobster. I would not buy a used car from him, but one senses a certain loyalty and decency in him at the same time that he plays a ruthless political game.

He has the humanity and the personal attachments of the gangster. Perhaps Trump was not meant to be president, but he is more transparent than the Democrats who pray in secret at the altar of global finance.

No matter what you may think of his garish taste, his multiple marriages, his sensationalist statements, or of his supporters, Trump took numerous steps to pursue the truth that put him at risk and that deserve our grudging respect.

*

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.

Emanuel Pastreich served as the president of the Asia Institute, a think tank with offices in Washington DC, Seoul, Tokyo and Hanoi. Pastreich also serves as director general of the Institute for Future Urban Environments. Pastreich declared his candidacy for president of the United States as an independent in February, 2020

Featured image is by Gage Skidmore via Flickr

“You lose your job. Small and medium sized enterprises go bankrupt. Even the whole tourist industry is paralyzed. There’s no air transport. There’s no public transport, in some cases. And then they make us believe that this is required to solve a public health crisis!”

– Professor Michel Chossudovsky, from this week’s interview.

.

.

LISTEN TO THE SHOW

Click to download the audio (MP3 format)

Last Sunday (January 30th) marked the first anniversary of the announcement of the World Health Organization (WHO) of a global health emergency stemming from 83 cases of a specific disease outside of China. [1]

Three weeks later, on February 20, the WHO Director General, Dr Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus, announced he was “concerned that the chance to contain the coronavirus outbreak was “closing.” He also mentioned his belief that “the window of opportunity is still there, but that the window is narrowing.” A statement based on 1073 carrying the virus, far too low to justify an emergency. Yet, the stock markets plummeted, apparently linked to the horror of the Director General’s statement. [2]

And three weeks after that, the dreaded ‘pandemic’ was formally announced and instructions to implement the lockdown of all 193 member states were initiated.[3]

Now, following the debut of a second wave in the fall, more citizens willingly tolerate continued shut-downs leading to businesses, schools, universities and other institutions shutting down, people distanced from one another, and facial masks as mandatory in all interior spaces outside the home.[4]

The stage for the ongoing corona virus is a campaign of FEAR gripping the population, in spite of the fact, according to a paper by John Q A Ionnidis, the rate of death of infected individuals is between 0.15-0.20% (0.03‐0.04% in those <70 years). This is about even with the Asian Flu pandemic of 1957-58, yet that pandemic did not compel the population into drastic lock-down measures that have crippled us all around the world. [5]

And what about the repercussions?

According to the International Labour Organization, 8.8 per cent of global working hours, the equivalent of 255 million full time jobs were lost during the last quarter of 2020. This is four times the equivalent of working hour losses during the global financial crisis of 2009. [6]

As for famines, The UN’s Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) and World Food Programme (WFP) identifies 27 countries that are seeing deepening food insecurity from COVID-19-driven food crises, with 20 countries facing spikes in high acute food insecurity. [7]

Who is instigating this panic?

Well, one man who says he has studied the crisis every day over the past year, claims that it is the financial elites, and not the bloody virus, that is responsible for the ravaging of the world’s economies. Regarding the stock market collapse and the majority of nations closing down their economies, these wealthy, wealthy people were the big winners having secured trillions of dollars over the course of the play-out. That man’s name is Michel Chossudovsky, and he will be our special guest on the Global Research News Hour.

Over the course of a conversation spanning most of the hour, Chossudovsky discusses the unusual moves by the WHO Director General, he talks about the lockdowns doing more harm than good, he breaks down the Reverse Transcription Polmerase Chain Reaction (RT-PCR) as a  flawed measure of the disease, talks about the hospital cases also being misleading, and much more.

Michel Chossudovsky is an award-winning author, Professor of Economics (emeritus) at the University of Ottawa, Founder and Director of the Centre for Research on Globalization (CRG), Montreal, Editor of Global Research. He has undertaken field research in Latin America, China, India, Southeast Asia, the Middle East, sub-Saharan Africa, the Pacific and has written extensively on the economies of developing countries with a focus on poverty and social inequality.  His recent research focusses on economic and social policy, health economics, geopolitics, globalization. He recently authored the ebook: The 2020 Worldwide Corona Crisis: Destroying Civil Society, Engineered Economic Depression, Global Coup d’État and the “Great Reset”

(Global Research News Hour Episode 305)

LISTEN TO THE SHOW

Click to download the audio (MP3 format)

Transcript: Interview with Professor Michel Chossudovsky, Feb. 3, 2021.

Part One

Professor Michel Chossudovsky has been investigating the Corona virus pandemic virtually on a daily basis since January of 2020. As founder and director of the Centre for research on Globalization, and a professor emeritus of economics with a particular focus on economic and social policy, health economics, geopolitics, and globalization, he has unique insights into the financial forces surrounding the crisis. He recently wrote an ebook entitled:

The 2020 Worldwide Corona Crisis: Destroying Civil Society, Engineered Economic Depression, Global Coup d’État and the “Great Reset.”

He elaborates on his findings over the course of a full length feature interview transcribed below.

The Global Research asked him if his research around the H1N1 swine flu in the preceding decade informed his insights into the present situation.)

Michel Chossudovsky: Well, it certainly sets the stage because the WHO was involved in the fraud, and this was actually corroborated, and it even went to the European Parliament. There was a Commission of Inquiry. And they falsified the data on the H1H1. They falsified the impacts. And then they had this big contract with the pharmaceutical industry for the delivery of millions of doses of a vaccine.

And as we recall in Canada, most of those vaccines were dumped because in the process the virus had mutated, they were no longer functional and then the vaccine doses were sent off to developing countries.
Now what developing countries did with those vaccines we don’t know but they were dysfunctional, and we’re talking about millions of doses. And it was discovered of course that this vaccine simply was not functional and could not even be used.

There was no investigation or inquiry in Canada because the government actually spent several hundred million dollars to acquire these vaccines, and then after that, we simply didn’t use them.

So, there is a record of WHO corruption at the highest levels, and that’s on record, and there is also complicity of Big Pharma and of the governments in pushing the vaccine forward.

Now the situation today is somewhat of a different nature, because the pandemic or alleged pandemic is being used to justify drastic economic and social measures which were launched in several stages but more specifically on March 11. 2020.

The governments of 193 countries, members of the United Nations, were ordered to close down their economy as part of the lock-down. In other words, you confine people [in their homes] on the one hand, and then people don’t go to work, so inevitably the economy of the country is partially closed. It’s an engineered recession. It’s the most serious economic crisis in World History. There’s no doubt about that.

Global Research: Actually there were about four separate events that led up – it was in four parts. I think the original part was in January. Could you maybe elaborate on those four steps to economic collapse?

MC: Well, I think the history is very important. And the history reveals the lies. And it reveals a diabolical project. I’ve been following that from the beginning of January 2020.

Now, the first major decision-making process was at Davos, at the World Economic Forum  between the 21st and 24th of January 2020 where they actually discussed a vaccine. And they had been working on the vaccine for several months. We have evidence [statements] to that effect. And the vaccine had already been envisaged on 21-24 of January, at a time when there had been absolutely no announcement of a pandemic.

The only thing that happened was that in early January, the Chinese authorities said that they had identified the virus, and that virus then, of course, became “officially” acknowledged, and that was on the 7th of January.

So two weeks later, the World Economic Forum comes out and says, “ we’ve got a vaccine.” And they had been working on it for several months prior. In fact it went back to the beginning of 2019!

Now, bear in mind that outside China, on the 21st of January, there were virtually no cases of COVID-19, at that time.

GR: And this group just happened to have a vaccine!

MC: [The vaccine was the object of discussion, [the CEO of Moderna presented the mRNA vaccine project]

Then of course on the 30th of January there was a major decision by the World Health Organization by the Director General Tedros who declared a public health emergency of international concern (PHEIC), it was on the 30th of January, it was coupled with something of the order of 83-86 positive cases worldwide outside of China.

Now, anybody who looks at those figures would say, well that does not justify a public health emergency of international concern [PHEIC] with 86 cases out of China!  there were 5  cases in the US, 3 in Canada, 4 in France, 4 in Germany.

Do these numbers justify the declaration of a Worldwide public health emergency?

The fear campaign was sustained by political statements and media disinformation.

Now, the following day, the (former) president of the United States, Donald Trump – makes a statement saying he is suspending air travel with China, and this in a sense was ultimately a trigger mechanism which then led to a crisis in commodity trade and in air travel, and it’s ongoing.

So it started on the 31st of January, and the justification was 5 cases in the U.S.! Okay?

GR: Ha ha.

MC: Five cases in the U.S.! And then you have another stage which is absolutely crucial, that people will remember throughout the world. It’s the financial crash of 2020, which started on February 20th, 2020.

According to analysts, this is the most serious economic collapse in World History. It is far more devastating than the Great Depression of 1929.

GR: And it happened at the same time that the doctor made the announcement of this pandemic in February, correct?

MC: Well, what happened is that on the 20th of February, Tedros, Director General of WHO, makes a statement, he holds a press conference and then he says very explicitly, “the windows are closing”, [he intimates that] the situation is very serious, and we can resolve it but we have to be very proactive.

In other words, he was saying that the situation was tremendously serious and that was a lie! It wasn’t tremendously serious!

There were one thousand and seventy three cases outside of China for a population of 6.4 billion people. Okay?

15 in the US, 8 in Canada, 16 in Germany (see table right)

GR: Yeah.

MC: Now anybody who has an understanding of health indicators or statistics will say that these numbers are ridiculously low.

And I should mention that out of that 1073 cases, approximately sixty per cent came from the Diamond Princess Cruise which was stationed [in Japanese territorial waters] outside the Port of Yokohama.

The people on the ship were confined [to their rooms] and they all got sick, and a lot of them were elderly people. But they took those statistics to push the number of confirmed positive cases up to 1073.

Otherwise it would have be something of the order of 450 cases outside China, out of population of 6.4 billion. billion.

Now, I would say that is a grotesque lie to – if you’re going to say it’s a really serious situation, i.e. we’re going to have a pandemic – well you have to give the figures. They’re about to say – a hundred thousand people there. A hundred thousand there. That did not happen.

No. One thousand and seventy three cases. He acknowledged the figures. Those are WHO figures. They’re undeniable. And what happened? The following day the stock markets collapse.

GR: So you’re saying this is essentially a sense of – a process of basically engineering the collapse. It wasn’t something “Oh! A Stock market crash!” There were some other forces that would push for that to collapse.

MC: Well, you know, the economic analyst will say it’s V the virus that triggered the collapse of the stock markets. Okay? It’s not V the virus! Because there were only a thousand and seventy three cases worldwide outside of China. It wasn’t.

It was the FEAR campaign on the one hand, and it was shear media disinformation and it was conflict of interest – I won’t elaborate on that – between Tedros and powerful financial interests. That financial collapse was engineered.

People had foreknowledge of what Tedros was going to say on the 20th of January, and they had already placed their bets on the stock market, in the hedge funds and, you know, foreknowledge and inside information is the key to money-making on financial markets. Everybody knows that. At least the financial analysts know that. [and it is illegal]

And what happened also is that in the course of that financial crash, there was a process of enrichment which is also unprecedented.

Unprecedented enrichment of the financial establishment. And we know that, of course, the stock market goes down, you speculate. They’re ‘put’ options, okay?  ‘Put’ options, but there are other speculative instruments.

But what I am saying, is that there’s conflict of interest and there is fraud at the highest levels of the financial establishment, and possibly conflict of interest at the level of the World Health Organization.

We can consult the WHO, they have criteria on conflict of interest. But when a scientific statement is made, or when a health emergency is suggested, inevitably this then becomes the bread and butter of the financial establishment. They make money through deception.

GR: Another critical date, of course, as you mentioned earlier is March 11, that was the period during which the lock-downs took place and that again, the wealthy class profited from it.

So, are you saying that we have this collapse that’s fundamentally benefiting the upper class – the billionaire class at the expense of the less wealthy?

MC: Well absolutely what happened on March 11, there was something like forty four thousand cases worldwide outside of China, which is not a large number:

But what was important is that on March 11, which was the official declaration of the pandemic was coupled with a lock-down.

And at the same time the lock-down was to be implemented by freezing or closing down national economies, not totally obviously.

The instructions were transmitted to 193 member states of the United Nations. But there’s a decision making process. Obviously it doesn’t emanate from the World Health Organization. This decision came from higher up, it came from the powers of global capitalism. I won’t get into that at this stage, but I can say first of all as an economist, you don’t resolve a public health crisis by closing down your economy.

First of all, there was no basis for declaring a pandemic with the figures of confirmed cases in early March. Absolutely not! At a time when the situation in China was marked by recovery.

There was no basis for declaring a pandemic on March 11.

But then, if you are to declare a pandemic on March 11, the last thing you do is to close down your economy, because ultimately. you need your economy to sustain, people’s ability to deal with the pandemic!

And what happened on March 11 is that millions and millions of people worldwide were driven into unemployment. Millions of small and medium sized enterprises were driven into bankruptcy. The informal urban sector in developing countries, the self-employed, this is the biggest devastation broadly affecting people worldwide. And somehow, public opinion doesn’t understand that!

You lose your job.

Small and medium sized enterprises go bankrupt.

The whole tourist industry is paralyzed. There’s no air transport. There’s no public transport, in some cases.

And then they make us believe that this is required to solve a public health crisis! Which is not necessarily corroborated by the figures that I’ve just mentioned.

We had what was called the ‘first wave’ which started in March, and I can say having examined the figures, this has led to mass unemployment, it has led to extreme poverty, and it has led to despair beyond poverty bearing in mind that a large part of the world population is already impoverished. [i.e. in Third World countries.]

When they lose their means of survival, it’s famine.  And the FAO has in fact confirmed that there’s famine in some twenty five countries.

I think it’s much more. All the figures that we get are in a sense conservative, and they don’t address the underlying causality. They don’t tell us that it is the decision on March 11, 2020 which spearheaded global poverty.

I should mention also, because I’ve worked on these issues, that when purchasing power collapses, the first thing that happens in developing countries is under-nourishment at the household level [eventually leading to malnutrition].

People don’t have enough money to buy food. They don’t have enough money to buy essential commodities.

They are in a situation of despair, and if they’re poor and they don’t have savings, they will not be able to pay their rent. If they are middle class, they won’t be able to pay their mortgage or their credit card. In other words, this is a process of social devastation which is unprecedented in World History. And it is hitting every single country on the planet. More than seven billion people.

Now, I can say that because I’ve been studying mechanisms of bankruptcy throughout my career, and I’ve seen ad-hoc mechanisms where creditors come in – IMF, the World Bank come in – and this leads to poverty. But here we have a mechanism which is not even negotiated by a national government with the IMF. It’s a procedure which spreads across the planet and it literally destroys people’s lives

Transcript of Part Two of this Interview with Michel Chossudovsky (Forthcoming)

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 .

Notes:

1. www.globalresearch.ca/the-corona-pandemic-timeline-what-happened-in-january-march-2020/5736250
2. ibid
3. ibid
4. www.globalresearch.ca/the-2020-worldwide-corona-crisis-destroying-civil-society-engineered-economic-depression-global-coup-detat-and-the-great-reset/5730652
5. “Pandemic Influenza Risk Management: WHO Interim Guidance” (PDF). World Health Organization. 2013. p. 19. ; www.who.int/influenza/preparedness/pandemic/GIP_PandemicInfluenzaRiskManagementInterimGuidance_Jun2013.pdf?ua=1
6. www.ilo.org/wcmsp5/groups/public/—dgreports/—dcomm/documents/briefingnote/wcms_767028.pdf
7. FAO-WFP early warning analysis of acute food insecurity hotspots October 2020;  www.fao.org/3/cb1907en/cb1907en.pdf

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 Friday, the International Criminal Court found that it had jurisdiction to consider war crimes and crimes against humanity and the crime of Apartheid in the Palestinian territories.

Israeli politician Abba Eban once quipped that Palestinians never lost the opportunity to lose an opportunity. But Palestinians have carefully, methodically created this opportunity to be heard in an international tribunal. It is the ruling Israeli right wing about which one can now quip about missing opportunities.

Israel has egregiously violated the 1949 Geneva Convention on the treatment of people in Occupied territories by flooding its own citizens into the Palestinian Territories, by stealing Palestinian land from its owners and building squatter settlements on it, and by using disproportional force against Palestinian demonstrators at the Gaza border.

The court will also look into war crimes by Hamas, which was elected in 2006 and retains control of the Gaza Strip.

It has been impossible for anyone to stop Israel’s repeated and serious crimes against the Palestinians because the United States backs them to the hilt and is deeply implicated itself in keeping Palestinians stateless. (The “two-state solution” long since became geographically impossible, and invoking it and an alleged “peace process,” as the Biden administration does, is just a way of keeping the Palestinians from enjoying any human rights).

Israeli prime minister Binyamin Netanyahu cynically called the ruling “anti-Semitic,” in the ultimate debasement of a term that has otherwise been central to human rights struggles.

Filistin al-Yawm (Palestine Today) quotes Rami Abdu, head of the Euro-Mediterranean Human Rights Monitor as saying that the International Criminal Court announcement that it has jurisdiction over the Palestinian Territories represents a victory, won by many sacrifices, for justice, freedom and ethical values in the world. It is, he said, the fruit of a Palestinian struggle that has lasted decades to win recognition of the right of the Palestinian people to self-determination.

As a result, he said, Palestinian victims of Israeli war crimes from various generations will gain the right to seek justice after decades of occupation and to see the perpetrators tried in the Hague. He cautioned, however, that “The decision does not mean the end of the road, and the task will not be easy. The hope is that the Biden administration will adopt a different course from its predecessor, and will refrain from putting any pressure on the court.”

In spring of 2020, Trump declared a national emergency as a pretext for being able to target justices and staff of the International Criminal Court with sanctions because they were looking into alleged crimes by US military personnel in Afghanistan. These outrageous and ineffectual sanctions have been lifted by the Biden administration.

The International Criminal Court was established by the Rome Statute circulated to UN member states in the late 1990s and finalized in 2002. The United States and Israel refused to sign or to recognize the court’s jurisdiction. Some 123 countries have, however, ratified the treaty and so incorporated it into their national law.

The court can take up cases of war crimes, crimes against humanity, genocide and Apartheid committed by officials in the signatory states. It can apply sanctions to individuals in those governments after trying them. It does not sanction states but individuals. So far its cases have been entirely from Africa.

But the court’s hands are usually tied with regard to non-signatory governments. It cannot move against their officials unless the United Nations Security Council forwards a case to them. Thus, when the murderous regime of Muammar Gaddafi attacked civilians in winter-spring of 2011 during the Arab Spring youth revolt, the Security Council referred the case to the ICC. Its justices considered evidence against Muammar Gaddafi and his son Saif Gaddafi, as well as interior minister Abdullah Sanusi. Arrest warrants were issued by the court for these individuals on June 27, 2011.

The State of Palestine led by Mahmoud Abbas had little hope of the US Security Council asking the ICC to look into Israeli war crimes in the West Bank and Gaza, since the United States almost always uses its veto to protect Israeli officials from sanctions for their illegal occupation policies in the Palestinian Territories that they grabbed beginning in 1967.

The Palestinian David very carefully and with foresight therefore moved to join the International Criminal Court. The first obstacle they faced is that court members have to be members of the United Nations. Since the assassination of Yitzhak Rabin and the eclipse of Labor in favor of the far, far right Likud and its offshoots, Israel’s policy against the Palestinian people has been predicated on preventing Palestinians from ever having a state. They are to be kept stateless and deprived of the basic human rights that come with citizenship in a state.

So, Palestine sought the same status at the U.N. as is enjoyed by the Vatican, of permanent observer state. The General Assembly can grant this status, and did so for Palestine in 2012. Permanent observer states cannot vote, but they are not voiceless and can attend sessions. Palestine’s prerogatives were expanded in 2019 when the Group of 77 at the UN elected it their chairman that year.

In 2015, the state of Palestine (as the UN calls it) acceded to the International Criminal Court and recognized its jurisdiction in the Palestinian Territories, including East Jerusalem.

This is like three dimensional chess on the part of the Palestinians. Because they now have what is called in the law “standing.” They are a permanent observer state at the UN and they are signatories to the Rome Statute.

Now just one step was left, which was to take to the ICC those Israeli officials operating in the Palestinian Territories in such a way as to violate the Rome Statute. Palestine did not hurry to do so, hoping that the government of Binyamin Netanyahu would see the legal peril and become more reasonable. But Netanyahu kept stealing their land and urging Trump to cut their funding (which he did), and by 2019 the Palestinians concluded that they had nothing left to lose by filing a claim.

The ICC prosecutor, Fatou Bensouda, declared a delay while she sought reassurances that the court had jurisdiction over Gaza, the West Bank and East Jerusalem.

A little over a year later, she has been assured that it does, given the recognition of the Palestine Authority as the government of those region in the Oslo Accords.

As Mr. Abdu said, this step is more the beginning of something rather than its end. Netanyahu will attempt to obstruct the workings of the court. But this is a great day for the international rule of law, and all believers in human rights should rejoice.

*

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 Informed Comment

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).

***

International tribunals tend to be praised, in principle, by those they avoid investigating.  Once interest shifts to those parties, such bodies become the subject of accusations: bias, politicisation, crude arbitrariness.  The United States, whose legal and political personnel have expended vast resources on the machinery of international courts and jurisprudence, remains cold to the International Criminal Court.  The sceptics have tended to win out in Washington, restraining any consent to its jurisdiction. 

The Trump administration made a point of imposing sanctions on court staff, specifically targeting chief prosecutor Fatou Bensouda, whose entry visa to the US was revoked.  The moves were instigated in response to investigative efforts by the prosecutor into the alleged commission of war crimes by US, Taliban and Afghan forces in Afghanistan. 

Israel has also kept a witheringly hostile eye towards the activities of the ICC.  The acceptance by Palestinian authorities in 2015 of the court’s jurisdiction heralded the next troubling step in scrutinising Israeli actions in the occupied territories.  

In December 2019, Bensouda intimated that there was “a reasonable basis to believe that war crimes have been or are being committed in the West Bank, including East Jerusalem and the Gaza Strip”.  Of interest was the 2014 Israel-Hamas conflict, Israel’s policy of settlements in occupied territory and aggressive responses to protests on the Gaza-Israeli border starting in March 2018. 

Often forgotten by various critics of the court is that Bensouda did not exclusively target the activities of the Israeli Defence Forces; she also included armed Palestinian groups as potential perpetrators of such crimes.  Her concerns were duly formalised in an application to the court as to whether such matters fell within the court’s jurisdiction.  Once resolved, an investigation could commence.

To the ICC pretrial chamber, she submitted “that the Court’s territorial jurisdiction extends to Palestinian territory occupied by Israel during the Six-Day war in June 1967, namely the West Bank, including East Jerusalem, and Gaza.”  She admitted that the Occupied Palestinian Territory had a “unique history” with the issue of Palestinian statehood having never been definitively resolved.  But the accession of the Palestinians to the Rome Statute was an important factor in her considerations.

In a 2-1 decision, the court found that “Palestine qualifies as ‘the State on the territory of which the conduct in question occurred’ for the purposes” of the Rome Statute.  This was so because Palestine had been accorded the status of a non-Member observer State in the United Nations, and in doing so, “would be able to become party to any treaties that are open to ‘any State’ or ‘all States’ deposited with the [UN] Secretary General”.  Palestine duly had “the right to exercise its prerogatives under the Statute and be treated as any other State Party would.”  It also followed that the territorial jurisdiction of the court “in the Situation in Palestine extends to the territories occupied by Israel since 1967”. 

The majority, made up of Marc Perrin de Brichambaut of France and Reine Adélaïde Sophie Alapini-Gansou of Benin, were also not convinced that “rulings on territorial jurisdiction necessarily impair a suspect/accused’s right to challenge jurisdiction under Article 19(2)(a) of the Statute.”  (Article 19 covers, in its entirety, challenges to the jurisdiction of the ICC or the admissible nature of a case.)

The response from Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu was one aged in the barrels of Israeli foreign policy for years: criticism of its military actions could only mean one thing.  “When the ICC investigates Israel for fake war crimes, this is pure anti-Semitism,” he raged in a video statement.  “The court established to prevent atrocities like the Nazi Holocaust against the Jewish people is now targeting the one state of the Jewish people.”  The court was investigating Israel for actions undertaken in pure defence “against terrorists” whilst ignoring the vicious activities of Iran and Syria.  “We will fight this perversion of justice with all our might.”

Israel’s Ambassador to the UN Gilad Erdan similarly rebuked the ICC for its “distorted and anti-Semitic decision.”  It was “an attack on Israel and all democracies, undermining our ability to defend civilians against terrorism.”  Drawing in the country’s closest ally, Erdan claimed that it was “no accident that both Israel and the United States have refrained from becoming members of this biased and political institution.”

Despite such conflating bluster, much needs to still take place.  Bensouda’s term ends in June and her replacement may see things differently.  The nature of responsibility being investigated also poses difficulties.  ICC defence attorney Nick Kaufman raises a few points.  The use of any disproportionate use of military force is one thing; investigating “the alleged criminality of the settlement enterprise, which has been considered part of Israeli government policy for generations” raises another set of hurdles.  The biggest problem is obtaining probative evidence “that connects the decision makers with the crimes that were allegedly committed.”

US President Joe Biden and the State Department under Antony Blinken are unlikely to be as vicious as the Trump administration towards the ICC, but remain clear about keeping Israel out of the international court’s judicial orbit.  Last month, a State Department spokesman promised that the administration would be revisiting the sanctions regime.  “Much as we disagree with the ICC’s actions relating to the Afghanistan and the Israeli/Palestinian situations, the sanctions will be thoroughly reviewed as we determine our next steps.”  The Biden administration promises “to help the court better achieve its core mission of punishing and deterring atrocity crimes” with the prospect of even assisting in “exceptional cases”.    

The ICC decision was not one of those cases.  “The United States objects to today’s International Criminal Court decision regarding the Palestinian situation,” came the solemn words of State Department spokesman Ned Price.  “Israel is not a State Party to the Rome Statute.”  Price promised that the US would “continue to uphold President Biden’s strong commitment to Israel and its security, including opposing actions that seek to target Israel unfairly.”

A formal statement from the State Department took issue with what it considered an overreach of the ICC in attempting to exercise jurisdiction over Israeli personnel.  “The United States has always taken the position that the court’s jurisdiction should be reserved for countries that consent to it, or that are referred by the UN Security Council.”

Such statements signal a possible frustration of future investigative efforts, prompting the American Civil Liberties Union’s Jamil Dakwar to issue a reminder.  “It’s important to remember that the ICC investigation would also target Palestinian perpetrators of war crimes in the context of hostilities between Israel and Palestinian armed groups, especially in the Gaza Strip.”

Palestinian sources have been all praise for the decision.  The Palestinian Foreign Ministry called it a “historical day for the principle of accountability.”  Palestinian Authority Prime Minister Mohammed Shtayyeh considered the ruling “a victory for justice and humanity, for the values of truth, fairness and freedom, and for the blood of the victims and their families.” 

Hamas official Sami Abu Zuhri was also pleased, though decided to take from the ruling a very convenient reading.  “We urge the international court to launch an investigation into Israeli war crimes against the Palestinian people.”  His tune, and that of Hamas, may well change once the investigation gets going. 

*

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]

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 following is the full text of a letter published and co-signed by over five dozen British academics, rejecting the UK government’s adoption of the IHRA’s ‘working definition of antisemitism’.

The British Society for Middle Eastern Studies (BRISMES), Britain’s leading academic organisation for the study of the Middle East and North Africa, also expressed concern about the pressure applied on universities by the UK government to adopt the IHRA definition. According to BRISMES, the government’s reliance on “what many in the academic community consider a faulty definition of antisemitism – will have a chilling effect on academic freedom and the university sector in Middle East Studies and beyond”. Read the full statement by BRIMES here.

*

​We, British Academics who are also Israeli citizens, strongly oppose the governmental imposition of the IHRA ‘working definition of antisemitism’ on Universities in England. We call on all academic senates to reject the IHRA document or, where adopted already, act to revoke it.

​We represent a diverse cross-disciplinary, cross-ethnic, and cross-generational group. We all share an extended history of struggles against racism. Accordingly, we have been critical of Israel’s prolonged policies of occupation, dispossession, segregation, and discrimination directed at the Palestinian population. Our historical and political perspective is deeply informed by the multiple genocides of modern times, and in particular, the Holocaust, in which quite a few of us lost members of our extended families. The lesson we are determined to draw from history is that of a committed struggle against all forms of racism.

​It is precisely because of these personal, scholarly, and political perspectives that we are perturbed by the letter sent to our Vice Chancellors by Gavin Williamson, Secretary of State for Education, on 9 October 2020. Explicitly threatening to withhold funds, the letter pressures universities to adopt the controversial ‘working definition of antisemitism’ originally proposed by the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA). Fighting antisemitism in all its forms is an absolute must. Yet, the IHRA document is inherently flawed in ways that undermine this fight. In addition, it threatens free speech and academic freedom, and constitutes an attack both on the Palestinian right to self-determination and the struggle to democratise Israel.

​The IHRA document has been extensively criticised on numerous occasions. Here, we touch on some of its aspects that are particularly distressing in the higher education context. The document consists of two parts. The first, quoted in Williamson’s letter, is a ‘definition’ of antisemitism, which reads as follows:

Antisemitism is a certain perception of Jews, which may be expressed as hatred toward Jews. Rhetorical and physical manifestations of antisemitism are directed toward Jewish or non-Jewish individuals and/or their property, toward Jewish community institutions and religious facilities.

​This formulation is both vague in language and lacking in content, to the point of being unusable. On the one hand, it relies on unclear terms such as ‘certain perception’ and ‘may be expressed as hatred.’ On the other hand, it fails to mention key issues such as ‘prejudice’ or ‘discrimination.’ Crucially, this ‘definition’ is considerably weaker and less effective than anti-racist regulations and laws already in force, or in development, in the university sector.​

Moreover, the government’s pressure on higher education institutions to adopt a definition for only one sort of racism singles out people of Jewish descent as deserving greater protection than others who regularly endure equal or more grievous manifestations of racism and discrimination. ​

The second part of the IHRA document presents what it describes as eleven examples of contemporary antisemitism, seven of which refer to the State of Israel. Some of these ‘examples’ mischaracterise antisemitism. They likewise have a chilling effect on University staff and students legitimately wishing to criticise Israel’s oppression of Palestinians or to study the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Finally, they interfere with our right as Israeli citizens to participate freely in the Israeli political process.​

To illustrate, one example of antisemitism is ‘[to claim] that the existence of a State of Israel is a racist endeavour.’ Another antisemitic act, according to the document, is ‘requiring of [Israel] … a behaviour not expected or demanded of any other democratic nation.’ Surely, it should be legitimate, not least in a university setting, to debate whether Israel, as a self-proclaimed Jewish State, is ‘a racist endeavour,’ or a ‘democratic nation.’​

Currently, the population under Israel’s control comprises 14 million people. Nearly 5 million of those are devoid of basic rights. Of the remaining 9 million, 21 percent (circa 1.8 million) have been systematically discriminated against since the establishment of the state. This discrimination manifests itself in dozens of laws and policies concerning property rights, education, and access to land and resources. All 6.8 million people thus prevented from full democratic access are non-Jews. An emblematic illustration is the Law of Return, which entitles all Jews – and only Jews – living anywhere in the world to migrate to Israel and acquire Israeli citizenship, a right extendable to descendants and spouses. At the same time, millions of Palestinians and their descendants, who have been displaced or exiled, are denied the right to return to their homeland.​

Such discriminatory legislation and state practices in other contemporary or historical political systems – ranging from China to the USA or Australia – are legitimately and regularly scrutinised by scholars and the general public. They are variously criticised as forms of institutional racism, and compared to certain fascist regimes, including that of pre-1939 Germany. Indeed, historical analogies are a standard tool in academic research. However, according to the Education Secretary, only those concerning the State of Israel are now forbidden to scholars and students in England. No state should be shielded from such legitimate scholarly discussion.

Furthermore, while the IHRA document considers any comparisons of contemporary Israeli policy to that of the Nazis a form of antisemitism, many in the Israeli political centre and left have often drawn such comparisons. One recent example is a statement made by Yair Golan, Member of Knesset (Israeli parliament) and former Deputy Chief of the General Staff of the Israeli military, in 2016. Another is the comparison between Israel and ‘Nazism in its early stages’ made in 2018 by the Israel Prize Laureate Professor Zeev Sternhell, a renowned Israeli historian and political scientist who was, until his recent death, a world leading theorist of fascism. Such comparisons are also made regularly by the editorials of the leading Israeli newspaper Haaretz.

​The use of such analogies is hardly new. To illustrate, in late 1948, a prominent group of Jewish intellectuals and Rabbis, including Albert Einstein and Hannah Arendt, published a long analysis in the NYT accusing Menachem Begin (Israel’s future prime minister) of leading ‘a political party closely akin in its organization, methods, political philosophy and social appeal to the Nazi and Fascist parties.’

​With its eleven ‘illustrations,’ the IHRA document has already been used to repress freedom of speech and academic freedom (see here, here, and here). Alarmingly, it has served to frame the struggle against Israel’s occupation and dispossession as antisemitic. As recently stated in a letter to the Guardian by 122 Palestinian and Arab intellectuals:

We believe that no right to self-determination should include the right to uproot another people and prevent them from returning to their land, or any other means of securing a demographic majority within the state. The demand by Palestinians for their right of return to the land from which they themselves, their parents and their grandparents were expelled cannot be construed as antisemitic… It is a right recognized by international law as represented in UN general assembly resolution 194 of 1948… To level a charge of antisemitism against anyone who regards the existing state of Israel as racist, notwithstanding the actual institutional and constitutional discrimination upon which it is based, amounts to granting Israel absolute impunity.

​In her recent letter endorsing the imposition of the IHRA document on universities in England, Kate Green, MP and Shadow Secretary of State for Education, states that ‘We can only [fight antisemitism] by listening to and engaging with the Jewish community.’ However, as Israeli citizens settled in the UK, many of Jewish descent, and alongside many in the UK’s Jewish community, we demand that our voice, too, be heard, and we believe that the IHRA document is a step in the wrong direction. It singles out the persecution of Jews; it inhibits free speech and academic freedom; it deprives Palestinians of their own legitimate voice within the UK public space; and, finally, it inhibits us, as Israeli nationals, from exercising our democratic right to challenge our own government.

​For these and other reasons, even the lead drafter of the IHRA, Kenneth Stern, publicly warned:

Right-wing Jewish groups took the “working definition”, which had some examples about Israel …, and decided to weaponize it. … [This document] was never intended to be a campus hate speech code … but [at the hands of the Right it has been used as] an attack on academic freedom and free speech, and will harm not only pro-Palestinian advocates, but also Jewish students and faculty, and the academy itself. … I’m a Zionist. But on … campus, where the purpose is to explore ideas, anti-Zionists have a right to free expression. … Further, there’s a debate inside the Jewish community whether being Jewish requires one to be a Zionist. I don’t know if this question can be resolved, but it should frighten all Jews that the government is essentially defining the answer for us. (The Guardian, 13 Dec. 2019).

​These concerns are shared by many others, amongst whom are hundreds of UK students, scholars of antisemitism and racism, and numerous Palestinian, Jewish, and social justice groups and organisations in the UK and around the world, such as the Institute of Race Relations, civil rights organisation Liberty, former Court of Appeal Judge Sir Stephen Sedley, and Rabbi Laura Janner-Klausner.

​We join in the demand that UK universities remain firm in their commitment to academic freedom and freedom of speech. We urge UK universities to continue their fight against all forms of racism, including antisemitism. The flawed IHRA document does a disservice to these goals. We therefore call on all academic senates in England to reject the governmental decree to adopt it, or, where adopted already, act to revoke it.

Signatories

1. ​Prof. Hagit Borer FBA, Queen Mary University of London
2. Dr. Moshe Behar, University of Manchester
3. Dr. Yonatan Shemmer, University of Sheffield
4. Dr. Hedi Viterbo, Queen Mary University of London
5. Dr. Yael Friedman, University of Portsmouth
6. Dr. Ophira Gamliel, University of Glasgow
7. Dr. Moriel Ram, Newcastle University
8. Prof. Neve Gordon, Queen Mary University of London
9. Prof. Emeritus Moshé Machover, King’s College London
10. Dr. Catherine Rottenberg, University of Nottingham
11. PhD Candidate Daphna Baram, Lancaster University
12. Dr. Yuval Evri, King’s College London
13. Dr. Yohai Hakak, Brunel University London
14. Dr. Judit Druks, University College London
15. PhD Candidate Edith Pick, Queen Mary University of London
16. Prof. Emeritus Avi Shlaim FBA, Oxford University
17. Dr. Merav Amir, Queen’s University Belfast
18. Dr. Hagar Kotef, SOAS, University of London
19. Prof. Emerita, Nira Yuval-Davis, University of East London
    2018 International Sociological Association Distinguished Award for Excellence in Research and Practice.
20. Dr. Assaf Givati, King’s College London
21. Prof. Yossef Rapoport, Queen Mary University of London
22. Prof. Haim Yacobi, University College London
23. Prof. Gilat Levy, London School of Economics
24. Dr. Noam Leshem, Durham University
25. Haim Bresheeth, SOAS, University of London
26. Dr. Chana Morgenstern, University of Cambridge
27. Prof. Amir Paz-Fuchs, University of Sussex
28. PhD Candidate Maayan Niezna, University of Kent
29. Prof. Emeritus, Ephraim Nimnie, Queen’s University Belfast
30. Dr. Eytan Zweig, University of York
31. Dr. Anat Pick, Queen Mary, University of London
32. Prof. Joseph Raz FBA, KCL
    Winner of Tang Prize for the Rule of Law 2018
33. Dr. Itamar Kastner, University of Edinburgh
34. Prof. Dori Kimel, University of Oxford
35. Prof. Eyal Weizman MBE FBA, Goldsmiths, University of London
36. Dr. Daniel Mann, King’s College London
37. Dr. Shaul Bar-Haim, University of Essex
38. Dr. Idit Nathan, University of the Arts London
39. Dr. Ariel Caine, Goldsmiths University of London
40. Prof. Ilan Pappe, University of Exeter
41. Prof. Oreet Ashery, University of Oxford
    Turner Bursary 2020
42. Dr. Jon Simons, Retired
43. Dr. Noam Maggor, Queen Mary University of London
44. Dr. Pil Kollectiv, University of Reading, Fellow of the HEA
45. Dr. Galia Kollectiv, University of Reading, Fellow of the HEA
46. Dr. Maayan Geva, University of Roehampton
47. Dr. Adi Kuntsman, Manchester Metropolitan University
48. Dr. Shaul Mitelpunkt, University of York
49. Dr. Daniel Rubinstein, Central Saint Martins, University of the Arts, London
50. Dr. Tamar Keren-Portnoy, University of York
51. Dr. Yael Padan, University College London
52. Dr. Roman Vater, University of Cambridge
53. Dr. Shai Kassirer, University Of Brighton
54. PhD Candidate Shira Wachsmann, Royal College of Art
55. Prof. Oren Yiftachel, University College London
56. Prof. Erez Levon, Queen Mary University of London
57. Prof. Amos Paran, University College London
58. Dr. Raz Weiner, Queen Mary University of London
59. Dr. Deborah Talmi, University of Cambridge
60. Dr. Emerita Susie Malka Kaneti Barry, Brunel University
61. PhD Candidate Ronit Matar, University of Essex
62. PhD Candidate Michal Rotem, Queen Mary University of London

*

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 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).

***

The African Union (AU) has held a two-day summit to elect new team, and to discuss a wide range of issues including a rise in coronavirus infections, border disputes and displacement due to fighting.

At the virtual 34th Ordinary Session of the Assembly, Felix-Antoine Tshisekedi, the President of the Democratic Republic of the Congo, took over the rotating AU Chairmanship from his South African counterpart, Cyril Ramaphosa.

The pan-African body’s assembly elected high-level officials to lead the African Union Commission. Moussa Faki was re-elected for the second term as AUC Chairperson following the end of his first term tenure (2017-2020). The Chairperson of the AU Commission is elected by the Assembly for a four-year term, renewable once.

The Chairperson of the AU Commission is the Chief Executive Officer, legal representative of the AU and the Commission’s Chief Accounting Officer.

Moussa Faki is now deputized by Dr. Monique Nsanzabaganwa from Rwanda. Dr. Nsanzabaganwa secured the majority of votes in a highly contested position, which saw two other female candidates contested for the post. Dr. Nsanzabaganwa becomes the first female to occupy the position of the Deputy Chairperson.

Election of the AU Commission Chairperson and Deputy Chairperson by the Assembly is conducted by secret ballot and a two-thirds majority of Member States eligible to vote. The 2021- 2024 elections of senior leadership for the AU Commission also saw the elections of Commissioners which was undertaken by the Executive Council.

The Executive Council elects the Commissioners, who are then appointed by the Assembly. Commissioners are elected for four years, renewable once.

In line with the Institutional Reforms of the African Union and the goal to improve the efficacy of program implementation, the portfolios of Commissioners were reduced from eight to six

The Executive Council on 6th February 2021 elected the following Commissioners

Amb. Bankole Adeoye (Nigeria) elected to head Political Affairs, Peace and Security docket.

Ms. Josefa Sacko (Angola), re-elected to head Agriculture, Rural Development, Blue Economy and Sustainable Environment.

Amb. Albert Muchanga (Zambia) re-elected to head Economic Development, Trade, Industry and Mining.

Dr. Amani Abou-Zeid (Egypt) re-elected to head Infrastructure and Energy docket.

Elections for the posts of Commissioner Health, Humanitarian Affairs and Social Development and Commissioner Education, Science, Technology and Innovation were postponed to the next meeting of the Executive Council.

The incumbent Commissioners Ms. Amira Elfadil Mohammed (Sudan) and Prof. Sarah Agbor (Cameroon) respectively, will continue to serve in their current positions until the elections are conducted.

In his handing over speech, President Ramaphosa wished the new AU Chairperson, a successful Chairmanship and thanked the Heads of States of AU Member States as well as the AU outgoing bureau, for their support during the tenure of his mandate which he said, was marked by the prevailing sanitary crisis caused by the COVID19 pandemic.

President Ramaphosa highlighted some of the achievements under his chairmanship of the Union notably, the efforts to reduce conflict in the continent under the theme of silencing the guns; the economic empowerment of the women and youths, the enhancement of democracy and good governance, among other development programs under Agenda 2063.

In his acceptance speech, President Tshisekedi said it is a unique privilege for the Democratic Republic of the Congo be given this opportunity as Chair of the African Union at a symbolic and highly significant moment when “we are celebrating the sixty years of the disappearance of a worthy son of the Congo and Africa, Patrice Émery Lumumba, who strongly believed in the great destiny of Africa.

He did not hesitate to organize, in August 1960 in Kinshasa, then Leopoldville, the last Congress in the history of the great movement of Pan-Africanism. On June 30, 1960, shortly before his tragic death, he declared: “Africa will write its own history and it will be in the north and south of the Sahara, a history of glory and dignity”.

The incoming Chair of the Union commended President Cyril Ramaphosa, who, in difficult conditions due to the Covid-19 pandemic, was able to mobilize the efforts of all the countries of the continent and partners to face this challenging moment.

Highlighting the theme of the year 2021, the new AU Chairperson Tshisekedi said, Arts, Culture and Heritage constitute the foundation of the African renaissance and offers the opportunity for Africans to return to our roots. Culture is indeed, as Léopold Sédar Senghor said, at the beginning and at the end of everything, because it embraces all areas of life.

The African Union spearheads Africa’s development and integration in close collaboration with African Union Member States, the Regional Economic Communities and African citizens. The AU vision is to accelerate progress towards an integrated, prosperous and inclusive Africa, at peace with itself, playing a dynamic role in the continental and global arena, effectively driven by an accountable, efficient and responsive Commission.

*

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.

Kester Kenn Klomegah, who previously worked with Inter Press Service (IPS), is now a frequent and passionate contributor to Global Research.

Featured image is 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).

***

The International Criminal Court (ICC) on Friday declared the court has jurisdiction over war crimes committed in the Palestinian territories.  “The Court’s territorial jurisdiction in the Situation in Palestine … extends to the territories occupied by Israel since 1967, namely Gaza and the West Bank, including East Jerusalem,” the ICC Judges said.

“Today, Pre-Trial Chamber I of ICC decided, by the majority, that the Court’s territorial jurisdiction in the Situation in Palestine, a State party to the ICC Rome Statute, extends to the territories occupied by Israel since 1967,” ICC said in a statement.

The ICC announcement clears its chief prosecutor to investigate alleged atrocities despite fierce Israeli objections.

The mandate of the ICC is to prosecute people, not countries, including those from states that are not signatories, as long as one party has signed the international treaty, which Palestine did in 2015, while Israel has not signed. Palestine used its UN observer state status, gained in 2012, to join the ICC.

Palestine’s status as an occupied territory rather than a sovereign country had prompted Fatou Bensouda, the ICC chief prosecutor, to wait for confirmation from the judges of the court, headquartered in The Hague, if the ICC had the authority. Bensouda now intends to open a formal inquiry into alleged war crimes in the occupied West Bank, East Jerusalem, and the Gaza Strip.

The case could include the alleged killings by Israeli soldiers of more than 200 Palestinians, including more than 40 children, at demonstrations along the Gaza frontier in 2018.

War crimes, and ethnic cleansing, may have occurred when Israeli authorities moved Israeli civilians into the West Bank to live in settlements, which were against international law. The majority of those Israeli settlers are American born US citizens. The Geneva Convention prohibits the transfer of civilians into occupied land.

Bensouda, a Gambian lawyer, has said she would investigate both the Israeli military as well as the Palestinian armed groups.

In late 2019, Benouda announced that her office “has concluded with the determination that all the statutory criteria under the Rome statute for the opening of an investigation have been met”, and added, “In brief, I am satisfied that war crimes have been or are being committed in the West Bank, including East Jerusalem, and the Gaza Strip.”

Palestine, recognized officially as the State of Palestine by the UN and other entities, is a de jure sovereign state in Western Asia claiming the West Bank and Gaza Strip with Jerusalem as the designated capital, although its administrative center is currently located in Ramallah. The population as of 2019 was about 4.685 million.

Human rights response

“It’s high time that Israeli and Palestinian perpetrators of the gravest abuses – whether war crimes committed during hostilities or the expansion of unlawful settlements – face justice,” said Balkees Jarrah, associate international justice director of Human Rights Watch.

The Israeli response

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu denounced the decision, saying in a video statement: “When the ICC investigates Israel for fake war crimes, this is pure antisemitism.” The Israeli government often hides behind the “anti-Semitic” claim in a strategy to absolve claims of war crimes.

“We will fight this perversion of justice with all our might,” Netanyahu said in a video, shaking a fist. He condemned the ICC while labeling all Palestinians as terrorists.

Netanyahu said the country would “protect our citizens and soldiers in every way from legal persecution”. The Israeli government has argued that as Palestine is not a fully-fledged state, it should not be allowed to petition the court. However, the UN declared Palestine observer state status in 2012.

Netanyahu could block ICC officials from entering the Palestinian Territories, which could hamper its work because Israel controls access to the West Bank and Jerusalem, an incontrovertible display of being the military occupier of Palestine.

In late 2019, Israel’s attorney general, Avichai Mandelblit, argued that the ICC had no jurisdiction in the West Bank or Gaza.

Netanyahu, who described the decision as a “black day for truth and justice” and a “baseless and scandalous decision”.

The US response

Former US President Donald Trump’s administration used sanctions against the ICC to block an ICC investigation into the conduct of US troops in Afghanistan.

US state department spokesman Ned Price said Washington had “serious concerns” over Friday’s ICC ruling, and wrote on Twitter: “The United States objects to today’s @IntlCrimCourt decision regarding the Palestinian situation.”

“We will continue to uphold President Biden’s strong commitment to Israel and its security, including opposing actions that seek to target Israel unfairly,”

Price added. Some analysts had thought US President Joe Biden might be fair and balanced in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, but it would appear he is set to continue Trump’s blind support for Israel.  President Biden is setting the tone of his administration, advocating old alliances, even in the face of war crime allegations, and un-ending military occupation. After all, the US military under Biden’s command is occupying both Iraq and Syria. Recently, Biden explained his foreign policy would depend on diplomacy and democracy. However, standing against the investigation of war crimes is not democratic.

Palestinian response

Prime Minister Mohammad Shtayyeh said the decision carried the message that crimes committed would not be dropped and that perpetrators would not go unpunished.

Hussein al-Sheikh, the Palestinian Authority’s civil affairs minister, said on Twitter that the ruling was “a victory for rights, justice, freedom and moral values in the world”.

The Palestinian Authority (PA) welcomes the ruling that could see prosecution of Israeli officials and military as well as Hamas figures.

UN position

The UN General Assembly in Resolution 67/19 “[reaffirmed] the right of the Palestinian people to self-determination and independence in their State of Palestine on the Palestinian territory occupied since 1967,” it said.

Based on the relevant UN resolution, the ICC found that the Court has territorial jurisdiction in Gaza City and the West Bank, including East Jerusalem.

Palestinian territories, including the West Bank and East Jerusalem, have been under Israeli occupation since 1967. The occupation is considered illegal under international law.

Covid-19 vaccine 

Israel became the world leader in vaccinating its population against Covid-19, but almost all Palestinian residents of the occupied West Bank are still waiting for their vaccine.

Israel, with a population of about 9.2 million has already inoculated more than 3.3 million people with a first dose. They include a substantial percentage of the roughly 450,000 settlers, who live in occupied Palestine, against international law.

The Fourth Geneva Convention, states occupying powers hold a duty to ensure the public health of people living under occupation to “the fullest extent” possible, especially concerning combating epidemics and diseases.

Israeli officials have said that it has no legal responsibility to provide vaccines to Palestinians.

Occupied Palestine

The occupation of Palestine has lasted indefinitely, with no end in sight, after five decades. Full control over the lives of Palestinians lays in the hands of the Israeli military and is reinforced by the threat of use of force.

In contravention of international law, Israel continues to build parts of the wall/fence in the Occupied Palestinian Territories, expand settlements and restrict the movement of Palestinians with some 600 roadblocks and checkpoints. Amnesty International is also concerned about discriminatory policies affecting access to water for Palestinians.

Israel controls The Gaza Strip, controlling all but one of the crossings into Gaza, the airspace, territorial waters, telecommunications, and the population registry which determines who is allowed to leave or enter Gaza. Israel is the occupying power and is responsible for the welfare of the inhabitants in the strip under international humanitarian law. The Gaza Strip has been under increasing restrictions since 2005 when Israel unilaterally pulled troops and settlers out of the strip.  In June 2007, restrictions tightened to an almost air-tight blockade, deepening the hardship there and virtually imprisoning the entire population of some 2 million.

*

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.

Featured image is from Mideast Discourse

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 recent walk at a local beach revealed to me how fast coastal erosion is affecting local communities. This area where I live is essentially a peninsula with two large popular beaches, Donabate beach and Portrane beach which are joined by cliffs, on the coast of north County Dublin, Ireland.

I have already written about erosion at Donabate beach and erosion at the cliffs over the years but, in a far worse condition, is Portrane beach.

As can be seen from photos I took in 2013 compared with the ones I took a few days ago, coastal erosion is happening at a significant rate.

Portrane Beach (looking south), 2013 (Photo: Caoimhghin Ó Croidheáin)

Portrane Beach (looking south), 2021 (Photo: Caoimhghin Ó Croidheáin)

According to one local resident, David Shevlin,

““We live in the midsection of the beach and our property has lost upwards of about 20 metres of established garden since 2018. […] At the current rate of erosion, our garden was 30 metres and it’s gone to 20 metres in two years so it doesn’t take much to calculate that we don’t have very long.”

Portrane Beach (looking north), 2013 (Photo: Caoimhghin Ó Croidheáin)

Portrane Beach (looking north), 2021 (Photo: Caoimhghin Ó Croidheáin)

The local council has tried to stem the rate of erosion with concrete Seabees before more permanent groynes are constructed. A groyne is a structure built perpendicular to the shore, that interrupts water flow and limits the movement of sediment and can be made out of wood, concrete, or stone. According to a local spokesman the Seabees will be “an interim solution pending the installation of specially designed Y-shaped groynes structures which will be complemented by a beach renourishment scheme in order to achieve a suitable beach level. This will reduce incident wave energy along the coastline by limiting the prevailing water depth and thus mitigating the threat of erosion.”

The seriousness of the problem can be seen as the Seabees are almost completely submerged at high tides.

Seabees, Portrane Beach, 2021 (Photo: Caoimhghin Ó Croidheáin)

They further note that:

“Approximately  20%  of  Ireland’s  entire  coast  is  at  risk  of  erosion.  Sea  Level  Rise  (SLR)  combined  with  an  increase  in  severity  and  frequency  of  coastal  storms  is  expected  to  exacerbate  the  problems,  especially  along  the  Atlantic  coast.”

Portrane Beach, 2021 (Photo: Caoimhghin Ó Croidheáin)

Historically, vertical seawalls were common but now flat-sloped revetments (sloping structures placed on banks or cliffs in such a way as to absorb the energy of incoming water) using rock or unusual shaped concrete units are used to reduce impact on beaches.

It is interesting to see that

“in the US hard structures such as revetments and groynes are no longer allowed in many states because of potential negative impacts on the beach and coastal protection is provided by nourishing the beach with sand brought in from external sources. This is called beach nourishment and is now the most common method of coastal protection worldwide but is rarely used in Ireland and it needs to be repeated every three to five years to replenish lost sand. This recurring cost does not fit well with how Irish projects are funded.”

Portrane Beach, 2021 (Photo: Caoimhghin Ó Croidheáin)

*

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).

***

George Orwells berühmtes Zitat „Falls Freiheit überhaupt etwas bedeutet, dann bedeutet sie das Recht darauf, den Leuten das zu sagen, was sie nicht hören wollen“ stammt aus dem Vorwort seiner im August 1945 erschienenen dystopischen Fabel „Farm der Tiere: ein Märchen“.

Die schweigende Mehrheit der Bürger weltweit wird mit dem Autor darin übereinstimmen, dass unsere Kinder ein Anrecht auf eine menschenwürdige Zukunft haben. Jedoch wird sie nicht hören wollen, dass sie durch ihr Schweigen unserer heutigen Jugend eine lebenswerte Zukunft verwehrt. Ursache ist ihre Autoritätsgläubigkeit und -hörigkeit, die zum totalen geistigen Gehorsam, zur Verstandeslähmung und zum Nichtstun führt.

Das, was die rebellische 68er-Generation ihren Vätern vorwarf, dass sie sich einem Diktator und einer Tyrannei willenslos unterworfen hätten, das geschieht drei Generationen später wieder. Und wieder leistet nur eine kleine Gruppe mutiger und aufgewachter Bürgerinnen und Bürger Widerstand – und die große Mehrheit schläft und schweigt.

In den Wind gesprochen 

Seit Beginn der von langer Hand geplanten Angst-Pandemie Anfang 2020 weisen unabhängige und angesehene internationale Forscher und namhafte Persönlichkeiten darauf hin, dass es kein medizinisches Problem gibt, sondern ausschließlich ein politisches. Eine globale kriminelle Elite hat sich zum Ziel gesetzt, die Menschheit mithilfe gekaufter Politiker und ihrer Konzernmedien in Angst und Schrecken zu versetzen, um sie zum absoluten Gehorsam zu zwingen. Einige dieser Methoden wurden von Geheimdiensten mit „Erfolg“ erprobt.

Die Angststarre vieler Menschen ermöglicht es dieser kleinen Gruppe von Billionären und sogenannten Philanthropen, die seit langem geplanten und gegen die Zivilbevölkerung gerichteten Pläne einer „Neuen Weltordnung“ und einer „4. Industriellen Revolution“ ohne nennenswerten Widerstand durchzusetzen – mit ungeahnten negativen Konsequenzen für uns Bürger. Die „eingebetteten“ Massenmedien lassen diese ehrlichen Aufklärer mit ihren vom Mainstream abweichenden Meinungen nicht nur nicht zu Wort kommen, sondern sie verhöhnen sie auch noch als Verschwörungstheoretiker und Feinde der Demokratie.

Welche Art von Zukunft die Menschheit zu erwarten hat, wenn es nicht gelingt, diesen Wahnsinn zu stoppen, kann jeder Interessierte in den frei zugänglichen alternativen Internetplattformen nachlesen und nachhören. Zu nennen sind unter anderem die „Neue Rheinische Zeitung (NRhZ)“, „Rubikon“ und „Global Research (GR)“ aus Kanada. Es steht außer Zweifel, dass die geplante neue Welt eine Welt sein wird, in der weder wir selbst noch unsere Jugend leben wollen. Es soll ein Sklavenleben sein, das man nur ertragen kann, wenn man die zukünftige Menschheit durch Propaganda oder Gehirnwäsche oder durch pharmakologische Methoden ruhigstellt, wodurch jeder Wunsch nach Rebellion erstickt wird. Aldous Huxley hat diese Zukunft in seinem Essay „Schöne neue Welt“ eindrücklich und weit in die Zukunft schauend beschrieben.

Aufgrund der erwähnten Einstellungen und Verhaltensweisen der großen Mehrheit haben es freie Geister sehr schwer, sich bei den Mitmenschen mit ihrer abweichenden Meinung Gehör zu verschaffen. Die Mechanismen des teils unbewussten inneren Widerstands der autoritätshörigen Mitbürger sind vielfältig und fast unüberwindlich. Ihre Argumente, Ausreden, Verdächtigungen und Verhaltensweisen erinnern an Erzählungen aus der Zeit des europäischen Faschismus.

Das lange Zeit gehegte Vertrauen in altbewährte und sichere Freundschaften hat plötzlich keinen Bestand mehr; man stellt sich taub, steckt den Kopf in den Sand, weiß es besser, verharmlost, macht den anderen verächtlich, verleumdet ihn – und so weiter und so fort. Vieles ist deshalb in den Wind gesprochen. Wie kann sich bei dieser verrückten Gemengelage ein solidarischer Widerstand aufbauen?

Alleine die unzähligen Besitzer kleiner und mittelständischer Betriebe und Geschäfte sowie die vernachlässigten Pflegeheimbewohner, die vereinsamten, depressiv und suizidal gewordenen Kinder, Jugendlichen und Erwachsenen und viele unvoreingenommene Krankenschwestern und Jugendpsychiater wissen, wovon man spricht und sind für jede solidarische Stimme und Unterstützung dankbar.

Die Leidensfähigkeit der schweigenden Mehrheit ist groß

Diejenigen Mitbürger, die aus Angst oder politischem Opportunismus schweigen und sich gleichzeitig moralisch über die freien Aufklärer stellen, kommen den korrupten Politiker sehr entgegen. Meist unterstützen sie auch noch lautstark deren illegale Verordnungen wie die der Freiheitsberaubung. Um die gegenwärtige Angst-Pandemie möglichst heil zu überleben, wollen sie nicht auffallen, fügen sich den irrsinnigsten Anweisungen der Politiker und Medizinmänner und machen jeden Wahnsinn mit.

Nach Auskunft eines Whistleblowers sollen Mitglieder der globalen kriminellen Elite selbstgefällig und zufrieden geäußert haben, dass Duldsamkeit und Leidensfähigkeit – speziell der deutschen – Bevölkerung sehr groß seien. Deshalb, so ihre Schlussfolgerung, könne man die Geschwindigkeit, mit der die diabolischen Pläne umgesetzt werden, erhöhen.

Erst dann, wenn die Mitglieder der selbstgenügsam vor sich hin schlafenden schweigenden Mehrheit ganz persönlich und direkt von den politisch verordneten Zwangsmaßnahmen eingeholt werden, wird der Aufwachprozess langsam beginnen. Dann kann es aber zu spät sein. Das haben uns die vergangenen Diktaturen eigentlich deutlich vor Augen geführt. Doch wir alle sind Weltmeister im Verdrängen und Ausblenden unangenehmer weltgeschichtlicher Ereignisse der Vergangenheit und fallen leicht der geistigen Amnesie anheim.

Was sind die Ursachen dieser Leidensfähigkeit zum Nachteil unserer Jugend? 

Haben wir aus Angst, Faulheit oder Feigheit den gesunden Menschenverstand beziehungsweise den Mut verloren, uns unseres eigenen Verstandes ohne Anleitung eines anderen zu bedienen? Oder hat die religiöse und autoritäre Erziehung zu diesem Reflex des absoluten geistigen Gehorsams und der Verstandeslähmung geführt?

Ignatius von Loyola, der Gründer des Jesuitenordens, verfasste Mitte des 16. Jahrhunderts einen erhellenden Text, auf den das deutsche Wort „Kadavergehorsam“ zurückzuführen ist:

„Wir sollten uns dessen bewusst sein, dass ein jeder von denen, die im Gehorsam leben, sich von der göttlichen Vorsehung mittels des Oberen führen und leiten lassen muss, als sei er ein toter Körper, der sich wohin auch immer bringen und auf welche Weise auch immer behandeln lässt, oder wie der Stab eines alten Mannes, der dient, wo und wozu auch immer ihn der benutzen will (1).“

Doch der Mensch kann sich selbst erkennen und zum Bewusstsein kommen, was ihn daran hindert, nein zu sagen zu Tyrannei und Rechtlosigkeit. Das heißt, sich zu besinnen und zu entdecken, welche speziellen Stärken und Kräfte in ihm schlummern und wie diese für das Gemeinwohl eingesetzt werden können.

Auch über Einstellungen, die das Leben stark einschränken, könnte man nachdenken und überlegen, ob man sie mithilfe von Freunden oder psychologischen Experten nicht besser in Zweifel ziehen und durch förderliche Auffassungen ersetzen sollte. Dadurch könnte unsere Jugend eine echte Chance auf eine menschenwürdige und lebenswerte Zukunft bekommen.

*

Dr. Rudolf Hänsel ist Diplom-Psychologe und Erziehungswissenschaftler.

Quellenangabe

[1] https://de.wikipedia.org./wiki/kadavergehorsam; siehe auch Hänsel, R. (2020). Keinem die Macht übergeben! Ein psychologisches Manifest des gesunden Menschenverstands. Gornji Milanovac. ISBN 978-86-7432-119-5. Die „Neue Rheinische Zeitung NRhZ“ veröffentlichte den gesamten Text in drei Folgen. Eine Kurzfassung wurde ebenfalls in der NRhZ publiziert und zusätzlich in „Rubikon“ sowie in englischer Sprache in „Global Research“ (www.globalresearch.ca)

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 United Nations Security Council expressed concern in a February 4 statement about the state of emergency in Myanmar, as well as the arrest of political leaders. The statement called for the immediate release of all detainees and the safe and unobstructed access of humanitarian aid to those in need, whilst at the same time reaffirming Myanmar’s sovereignty, political independence, territorial integrity and unity.

The statement was agreed relatively quickly among all Security Council participants after a private discussion regarding the February 2 coup. As noted by diplomatic sources, the wording of the statement was softer than the original draft proposed by the United Kingdom. The document did not mention or condemn the military coup in Myanmar. China and Russia assert that they cannot accept the politicization of the joint statement concerning intervention in Myanmarese affairs. This is supported by a statement made by the Chinese Foreign Ministry which called on the international community to create a favorable external environment for Myanmar to properly resolve their internal differences and help achieve political and social stability.

On Thursday, in his first foreign policy speech at the State Department as U.S. President, Joe Biden said he discussed the situation in Myanmar with his partners and allies. Among the most important of these were India and Japan.

U.S. National Security Advisor Jake Sullivan also discussed the Myanmar situation with Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) ambassadors in Washington. He described the events in Myanmar as a coup and noted the importance of regional support for the immediate restoration of democracy. It is unclear if Washington specifically seeks support from ASEAN countries over their position towards Myanmar. Judging by Sullivan’s statement, Washington is considering different options to punish the country. Meanwhile, ASEAN, based on its main principles, shunned any ideas of interfering in Myanmar’s affairs and urged the opposing parties to resolve their conflict legally and peacefully.

Individual ASEAN countries have extremely restrained positions towards Myanmar partly due to the presence of hundreds of thousands of Myanmarese immigrants in their territory. As an example, 80% of all migrant workers in Thailand come from Myanmar, accounting for about 2.6 million registered migrant workers. This is in addition to the 3-4 million unregistered Myanmarese in Thailand. About 340,000 Myanmar nationals live in Malaysia, with more than 154,000 registered for asylum. There are about 200,000 Myanmarese in Singapore. Among these Myanmarese in ASEAN countries are military supporters and those who fled the country due to military rule. Hence, these countries take a cautious approach towards events in Myanmar.

With ASEAN unwilling to serve U.S. interests in Myanmar through the imposition of sanctions and other methods, Washington must look towards its other partners in the Indo-Pacific region, namely India and Japan. India is unlikely to be able to comply with U.S. sanctions against Myanmar, while Japan could do so but with care so as not to harm its companies operating in the Southeast Asian country. India and Japan are moving closer militarily, economically and politically with each other and the U.S. They are building their own infrastructure projects in the region, including in Myanmar, which the U.S. encourages as a means to keep China from expanding its influence through the Belt and Road Initiative.

However, there are many doubts that India will follow in the footsteps of the U.S. with economic sanctions. It is more likely that Japan could impose some kind of economic sanctions on Myanmar only if Washington does. Tokyo will not make this decision unilaterally due to their huge economic interests in Myanmar. Japan, unlike the U.S., will not cut ties with Myanmar because of a military regime as any deterioration in relations will ultimately lead to an increase in Chinese influence in the country.

Senior Japanese and Indian officials always meet with the heads of the civilian government along with representatives of the military elite. This is due to the close ties the Japanese and Indian militaries have with the Myanmarese.

The Japanese Defense Ministry trains Myanmarese officers in military medicine, aviation, disaster relief, and even the Japanese language. The two sides support academic exchanges and Myanmarese officers even train at the Japanese Defense Academy.

For its part, India relies on Myanmarese military support to fight separatists in the northeastern states bordering Myanmar, who often seek asylum in the country. In addition, separatist operations undermine the security and stability of several economic corridors that India is building through Myanmar to reach Thailand, Laos, Cambodia and Vietnam. This economic corridor also challenges Chinese economic dominance in these countries. It is for this reason that India can tolerate military rule and authoritarianism in Myanmar as it ensures the preservation of the state rather than seeing it disintegrate into several smaller countries which will complicate economic advances, as well as embolden separatist movements in northeast India.

Although Washington will likely want to draw on Indian and Japanese support to pressure the Myanmarese military, New Delhi and Tokyo have significant vested interests in the Southeast Asian country, which also includes attempts in limiting Chinese influence. Therefore, Washington will only receive limited support from India and Japan despite these two countries becoming key U.S. allies and partners in the Indo-Pacific region.

*

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

This article was originally published on InfoBrics.

Paul Antonopoulos is an independent geopolitical analyst.

Featured image is from InfoBrics

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).

***

George Orwell’s famous quote “If liberty means anything at all, it means the right to tell people what they do not want to hear” comes from the preface of his dystopian fable “Animal Farm: A Fairy Story” published in August 1945.

The silent majority of citizens worldwide will agree with the author that our children have a right to a decent future. However, they will not want to hear that by their silence they are denying our youth today a future worth living. The cause is their belief in and allegiance to authority, which leads to total spiritual obedience, paralysis of the mind and doing nothing.

What the rebellious generation of 68 reproached their fathers for, that they had willingly submitted to a dictator and a tyranny, is happening again three generations later. And again, only a small group of courageous and awakened citizens is resisting – and the vast majority is asleep and silent.

Speaking into the wind

Since the beginning of the long-planned fear pandemic in the early 2020s, independent and respected international researchers and renowned personalities have pointed out that there is no medical problem, but only a political one. A global criminal elite has set itself the goal of terrifying humanity with the help of bought politicians and their corporate media in order to force them into absolute obedience. Some of these methods have been tested by secret services with “success”.

The rigidity of fear of many people enables this small group of billionaires and so-called philanthropists to push through the long-planned plans of a “New World Order” and a “4th Industrial Revolution” against the civilian population without any significant resistance – with unforeseen negative consequences for us citizens. The “embedded” mass media not only do not allow these honest enlightened people with their opinions differing from the mainstream to have their say, but they also ridicule them as conspiracy theorists and enemies of democracy.

What kind of future humanity has to expect if they do not succeed in stopping this madness can be read and listened to by anyone interested in the freely accessible alternative internet platforms. Among others, the “Neue Rheinische Zeitung (NRhZ)”, “Rubikon” and “Global Research (GR)” from Canada should be mentioned.

There is no doubt that the planned new world will be one in which neither we ourselves nor our youth want to live. It is to be a slave life that can only be endured by immobilising future humanity through propaganda or brainwashing or through pharmacological methods, thereby stifling any desire for rebellion. Aldous Huxley described this future impressively and far into the future in his essay “Brave New World”.

Due to the aforementioned attitudes and behaviour of the vast majority, free spirits have a very difficult time making their dissenting opinions heard by fellow human beings. The mechanisms of the partly unconscious inner resistance of the authority-seeking fellow citizens are manifold and almost insurmountable. Their arguments, excuses, suspicions and behaviour are reminiscent of stories from the time of European fascism.

The long-held trust in long-established and secure friendships suddenly no longer holds; one turns a deaf ear, buries one’s head in the sand, knows better, belittles, makes the other person look contemptible, slanders him or her – and so on and so forth. Much is therefore said to the wind. How can solidarity-based resistance build up in this crazy mix?

The countless owners of small and medium-sized businesses and shops alone, as well as the neglected nursing home residents, the lonely, depressed and suicidal children, youths and adults, and many impartial nurses and youth psychiatrists know what is being talked about and are grateful for every solidary voice and support.

The capacity for suffering of the silent majority is great

Those fellow citizens who remain silent out of fear or political opportunism and at the same time place themselves morally above the free enlighteners are very accommodating to the corrupt politicians. Most of the time, they also vociferously support their illegal ordinances such as the deprivation of liberty. In order to survive the current fear pandemic as intact as possible, they do not want to attract attention, comply with the most insane orders of the politicians and medicine men and go along with every madness.

According to a whistleblower, members of the global criminal elite are said to have smugly and contentedly remarked that forbearance and the ability to suffer – especially of the German – population are very great. Therefore, they conclude, one can increase the speed with which the diabolical plans are implemented.

Only then, when the members of the self-sufficient silent majority are caught up personally and directly by the politically imposed coercive measures, will the awakening process slowly begin. But then it may be too late. The past dictatorships have actually made this clear to us. But we are all world champions in suppressing and fading out unpleasant world-historical events of the past and easily fall prey to mental amnesia.

What are the causes of this capacity for suffering to the detriment of our youth?

Have we, out of fear, laziness or cowardice, lost common sense or the courage to use our own minds without the guidance of another? Or has religious and authoritarian education led to this reflex of absolute spiritual obedience and paralysis of the mind?

Ignatius of Loyola, the founder of the Jesuit order, wrote an illuminating text in the mid-16th century to which the German word “Kadavergehorsam” can be traced:

“We should be aware that each one of those who live in obedience must allow himself to be led and guided by divine Providence by means of the superior, as if he were a dead body to be taken wherever and treated in whatever way, or like the staff of an old man to serve wherever and for whatever the wants to use him (1).”

But man can recognise himself and come to consciousness of what prevents him from saying no to tyranny and lawlessness. This means reflecting and discovering what special strengths and powers lie dormant in him and how these can be used for the common good.

One could also reflect on attitudes that severely limit one’s life and consider whether, with the help of friends or psychological experts, it would not be better to cast doubt on them and replace them with more conducive views. This could give our youth a real chance at a humane future worth living.

*

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

Dr. Rudolf Hänsel is a graduate psychologist and educationalist.

Notes

(1) https://de.wikipedia.org./wiki/kadavergehorsam; see also Hänsel, R. (2020). Handing over power to no one! A psychological manifesto of common sense. Gornji Milanovac. ISBN 978-86-7432-119-5. The “Neue Rheinische Zeitung NRhZ” published the entire text in three installments. An abridged version was also published in the NRhZ and additionally in “Rubikon” as well as in English in “Global Research” (www.globalresearch.ca).

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 Salish word for the modern-day National Bison Range translates to “the fenced-in place.” It consists of 18,800 acres in the heart of the Flathead Reservation that was seized by the government in 1908 for the establishment of the federal wildlife refuge. 

But now the refuge is changing hands. An attachment to Congress’s last COVID-19 relief and government spending bills on December 26 initiated the return of the land from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, which has overseen the management of the bison range for more than a century, to the Confederated Salish and Kootenai Tribes.

Herds of bison tens of thousands strong once stretched to the horizons of what would later become the state of Montana. Environmental historians estimate that there were upwards of thirty million bison in North America at the end of the eighteenth century, their range spanning from Northwestern Canada all the way to Florida like a great sash draped across the continent.

In less than a century, that number was reduced to less than 1,000, as overhunting by U.S. and Canadian settlers decimated the once-mighty herds. And then, around 1870, a member of the Pend D’Oreilles tribe named Latati was on a hunt and saw the decline of the mammals that were revered and relied upon by his people. He decided to bring a small group of orphaned calves from the hunting grounds east of the Rocky Mountains, and lead them all the way back to the Flathead Reservation.

Latati’s arduous trek over the Continental Divide with calves in tow was an astounding feat. This journey was foreshadowed by his father Atatice, who suggested bringing bison to tribal land  years earlier but retracted his proposal when tribal leaders voiced concerns about tribal members becoming sedentary without the need to travel east to the hunting grounds.

“The return of this land is a chance for us as a tribe to showcase what was here, and tell the story of how Atatice and Latati started that herd,” Rich Janssen, head of the tribes’ Department of Natural Resources, tells The Progressive. “Educating the public is a big part of our management goals.”

By the late 1800s, the herd on the Confederated Salish and Kootenai reservation had grown into one of the world’s largest free-roaming bison herd. But the property was seized from the tribes by the federal government through a devious policy of allotment that was commonplace at the time, under the Dawes Act of 1887. It allowed the federal government to divide land between tribal members and sell off the surplus to homesteaders.

After allotment, settlers began flooding into the region and with them came fences. With the grazing land fragmented, the tribes had no choice but to sell part of their herd to an American rancher near Kalispell, Montana, and another part to the Canadian government. The U.S. government expressed disinterestin purchasing the herd from the tribes, even though the very same bison would be purchased less than ten years later from the Kalispell rancher to stock the new refuge.

As concern for the bison’s plight grew throughout the country, a group called the American Bison Society formedto prevent the extinction of the iconic mammal. Appealing to President Theodore Roosevelt, the group spearheaded an effort that led Congress to establish the preserve by way of eminent domain.

While the tribes voiced opposition to the seizure of their land for the refuge, they were not recognized as U.S. citizens at the time and so their appeals went unacknowledged. Since 1908, the tribes have struggled to regain their rightful claim to the National Bison Range and what was left of its bison herd. In 1971, the U.S. Court of Federal Claims, ruling on a civil action filed by the tribes, found the bison range to be “private property taken for public use without just compensation,” as the Fifth Amendment forbids.

But it wasn’t until fifty years later that the process of returning the range was initiated, and it didn’t come easy.

“There’s always been pushback,” Janssen says. “But now it’s finally come to fruition.”

The first agreement for the land’s return was signed in 2004, but terminated in 2006 due to resistance from employees of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. After the tribes challenged that termination, another agreement was reached in 2008 but again undone in 2010. The environmental assessment process for a third agreement in 2012 was delayed and never finalized.

Finally, in 2016, the Fish and Wildlife Service got behind the restoration of the National Bison Range to tribal management—though it took four more years for the initiation of the transfer process.

Still, a small but vocal minority continues to voice strong opposition to returning the range to tribal management. Local organizations like All Citizens Equal and Citizens Equal Rights Alliance submitted commentswhen the transfer was being proposed, and members cited racist, anti-Indigenous stereotypes when suggesting the tribes’ incapability to manage the land and wildlife. The groups also claimed the transfer of the bison range would set a dangerous precedent for the delisting of public land.

In reality, the bison range will remain open to the public, under the management of the tribes. Indeed, restoring threatened or endangered species is nothing new to the tribes. Janssen’s department has aided the recovery of threatened and endangered species like trumpeter swans, northern leopard frogs, peregrine falcons, bull trout, and grizzly bears.

“This simply is not an attack on public land,” says Janssen. “It’s righting a wrong that should never have been done in the first place.”

In 2017, the Trump Administration’s Secretary of the Interior Ryan Zinke publicly stated that the Fish and Wildlife Service would continue to manage the National Bison Range, making sure to note his opposition to returning Indigenous lands. Now, with President Joe Biden’s pick of Deb Haaland, an enrolled member of the Pueblo of Laguna tribe, set to fill Zinke’s office, Janssen has hope that tribal land rights may be acknowledged and understood.

“Haaland understands the complexities of our history, and how we look at the landscape,” Janssen says. “Once you lose that cultural connection, you lose a part of your being. I’m hopeful that she will have a better understanding of what that means.”

*

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

Patrick Shea has roots in the Great Lakes States, and is now pursuing a master’s degree in natural resources journalism at the University of Montana.

Featured image is by David Stalling via The Progressive

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).

***

Haiti’s president’s term has come to an end, but he refuses to step down. Solidarity is urgent.

As per usual, news on Haiti in the United States remains limited, except for during periods of “crisis.” As if on cue, U.S. media began reporting on Haiti’s “constitutional crisis” this week.

Sunday, February 7 is the end of Haitian President Jovenel Moïse’s term, according to the constitution. He refuses to step down. This week, the opposition called for a two-day general strike, uniting around a transition with the head of Haiti’s Supreme Court stepping in.

Most reporting failed to note the international role, and particularly that of the United States, in creating this “crisis.” And nearly all focused only on one segment of the opposition: leaders of Haiti’s political parties.

Predictably, foreign media led their stories with violence. True, the security situation is deteriorating: Nou Pap Dòmi denounced 944 killings  in the first eight months of 2020. But leaving the discussion at “gang violence” whitewashes its political dimensions: on January 22, leaders of the so-called “G9” (the group of 9), a federation of gangs led by former police officer Jimmy Chérisier, alias “Barbecue,” held a march in defense of the Haitian president. National Network for the Defence of Human Rights (RNDDH) reported in August 2020 that the government federated the gangs in the first place.

This “gangsterization” occurred without parliamentary sanction. On January 13, 2020—a day after the 10th anniversary of Haiti’s devastating earthquake—parliament’s terms ended, leaving President Moïse to rule by decree. One such decree came in November as the wave of kidnapping increased: the president outlawed some forms of protest, calling it “terrorism.”

Readers in the United States should not need to be reminded of white supremacists’ violent attack on Congress and the U.S. Constitution on January 6 that killed at least six people, on the heels of coup attempts in Michigan and other vigilante attacks. In the United States, police killed 226 Black people last year. The irony of U.S. officials opining on violence, democracy, or the rule of law is apparently invisible to some readers.

In addition to parallels of state violence against Black people in the United States and Haiti, missing from most stories is context about the specific roles played by previous U.S. administrations—from both parties—in fomenting and increasing that violence.

Haiti’s ruling Tèt Kale party got its start in 2011, when bawdy carnival singer Michel Martelly was muscled into the election’s second round by Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and the United Nations Special Envoy and co-chair of the Interim Haiti Reconstruction Commission (IHRC) Bill Clinton.

This support from the Clintons, the United States, and the so-called Core Group (including France, Canada, Brazil, the European Union, and the Organization of American States), never wavered, despite the increasingly clear slide toward authoritarianism. In 2012, Martelly installed allied mayorsin all but a handful of towns. Then parliament’s terms expired in 2015, the five-year anniversary of the earthquake, with promises of holding elections never materializing. The vote that did finally lead to the election of Martelly’s hand-picked successor, Jovenel Moïse, was fraudulent. Yet the United States and the Core Group continued to play along—and offer financial support—until finally the electoral commission formally called for its annulment. Because of international pressure, the final round was held weeks after Hurricane Matthew ravaged large segments of the country. It was the lowest voter turnout in the country’s history.

Why would so-called “democratic” countries continue to support the Tèt Kale state? What was in it for Empire?

Having to thank his friends in high places, Martelly’s reconstruction effort focused on providing opportunities for foreign capitalist interests to invest in tourism, agribusiness, sweatshops, and mining. Not surprisingly, donors to the Clinton Global Initiative made out like (legal) bandits.* Ironically, $4 billion available to help fund this disaster capitalism was from Venezuela’s PetroCaribe program, which offered low-cost oil and low-interest loans. With the Haitian state safely under the Clintons’ watch, the transformative potential of this alternative to neoliberal globalization and example of South-South solidarity was squandered. Cue foreign mainstream media’s focus solely on “corruption” of this complex movement demanding #KòtKòbPetwoKaribe? Where are the PetroCaribe funds?

Demonstrators demand accountability for the administration of the PetroCaribe funds. (Medyalokal / Wikimedia)

This popular movement was an extension of the uprising against International Monetary Fund-imposed austerity. On July 6, 2018, during the World Cup, the Haitian government announced a price hike for petroleum products. Right after Brazil lost the match, the people took to the streets all across the country and shut it down. In Kreyòl, this was the first peyi lòk—a lockdown or general strike.

It was the first time in my 20 years working in Haiti that a mobilization brought together people from every socioeconomic status, at one point reaching two million people across the country (out of a population of 11 million). Faced with this popular swell of dissent, the government increasingly turned to violence, including a massacre in Lasalin, a low-income neighborhood near the port and a stronghold for the party of former president Jean-Bertrand Aristide.

Thinking back to my time in Haiti during the 2003-2004 coup against Aristide and comparing the people on the streets then and now, it seemed likely that Moïse would be forced out by November 2018. Certainly he would be gone by February 7, 2019—two years ago.

So why is he still in office?

Like his predecessor “Sweet Micky,” Martelly’s stage name, the “Banana Man” as Moïse was known during the campaign, had friends in high places. President Donald Trump met with Moïse and other right-of-center hemispheric heads of state at his Mar-a-Lago resort in March 2019. Haiti was crucial in the U.S.-led effort in the OAS to not recognize Nicolás Maduro as the legitimate president of Venezuela. Despite the billions in aid Haiti received from Venezuela through PetroCaribe, and bilateral cooperation that began in 1815 when Haitian president Alexandre Pétion provided crucial arms and support for Simón Bolívar, President Moïse sided with Trump. In 1962, Haitian president “Papa Doc” Duvalier—whom history and solidarity movements judged as a dictator—did the same thing to Cuba, and the United States generously rewarded him.

President Jovenel Moïse (left) of Haiti and first lady Martine Moïse (right) pose with Donald and Melania Trump in New York City, September 28, 2018. (U.S. Embassy, Port-au-Prince / Wikimedia)

Given the new White House occupant, and campaign promises to the key battleground state of Florida, one might think that President Joe Biden would reverse course vis-à-vis Haiti. Why, then, would Immigration and Customs Enforcement continue to deport 1,800 people, some not even born in Haiti, sending not one but two deportation flights on February 4 alone?

Making the connections, the Florida-based Family Advocacy Network Movement (FANM) sent an open letter denouncing state violence and violations of human rights.

The voices within Haiti that foreign corporate media amplify are those of political parties. The Kolektif Anakawona outlined at least two other much larger opposition segments connected to grassroots organizing. On November 29, the popular organization coalition Konbit issued a five-language call for solidarity. The workers’ movement Batay Ouvriye outlined popular demands for whomever takes office. A group of professionals, Fowòm Politik Sosyopwofesyonèl Pwogresis Ayisyen (FPSPA), denounced the United Nations for rushing elections and its support for what FPSPA qualifies as a dictatorship. David Oxygène, with the popular organization MOLEGHAF, critiqued the political party consensus as olye yon lit de klas, se yon lit de plas—rather than a class struggle, it’s a struggle for position (power). Both he and activist Nixon Boumba underscore that the opposition plan is a short-term solution, when Haitian movements are asking for long-term solutions and changing the system. Activist-journalist Jean Claudy Aristil and others point out the fundamental hypocrisy and limits of “Western democracy.” Moneyed interests, including imperial powers, who dominate the political process in Haiti are by no accident part of the same transnational capitalist class that has rigged the system in the United States—the model for other political systems in the Americas.

These Haitian activists and scholars are not asking for U.S. intervention in support of what Oxygène called 2 zèl yon menm malfini—two wings of the same vulture.

They are asking for us to dismantle imperial interference and to join them in transforming our institutions so that people-to-people solidarity and a democratic global economy can then be possible.

* Under his stage name Sweet Micky, Martelly released an album in 2008 called “Bandi Legal” (Legal Bandits). See Sabine Lamour’s essay in the forthcoming Spring 2021 issue of the NACLA Report.

*

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

Mark Schuller is Professor of anthropology and nonprofit and NGO studies at Northern Illinois University and affiliate at the Faculté d’Ethnologie, l’Université d’État d’Haïti. Schuller’s research has been published in over forty scholarly publications. Schuller is the author or co-editor of eight books—including Humanity’s Last Stand: Confronting Global Catastrophe—and co-director/co-producer of the documentary Poto Mitan: Haitian Women, Pillars of the Global Economy. Recipient of the Margaret Mead Award, Schuller is President of the Haitian Studies Association and active in several solidarity efforts.

Featured image: Jovenel Moïse speaks at his inauguration ceremony after taking the oath of office, Port-au-Prince, February 7, 2017. (UN Photo / Igor Rugwiza / Flickr)

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 a night of haunting dreams that flowed as if they were written like running water, written on air, as the Roman poet Catullus once said, in the depth of a dark winter morning, I decided that I would take a walk in the afternoon hoping that the sun would then appear, and it did so.

I went walking toward the woods through deep white new-fallen snow all around me and entered a path into the woods across from my house that led toward a deep ravine below which were deep dark caves that once sheltered runaway slaves searching for the happiness of freedom, and I thought of them as I poked under the snow on the odd chance that I might find the green stick of happiness that Leo Tolstoy’s beloved brother, ten-year-old Nikolai, had once told the five-year-old Leo was buried by a ravine on the edge of the forest,  

right image Tolstoi and Gandhi

a stick upon which were written the secret words that would bring love, peace, and happiness to everyone, and would do away with death, for their mother had died three years earlier and their father would die four years later, but I saw nothing and continued deeper into the forest to try to shed a sad feeling from a lock-down that had brought my spirits low as I tried to understand why so many people I knew were so enslaved, their minds forged in manacles, and how sad and dispirited it made me knowing that they were locked away from me in some conventional reality sold to them by liars, but perhaps you like the word depressed and you can use it if you want, but all I know is that the spirit of happiness had escaped me as I trudged deeper into the forest between the high pine trees until the trail I walked was intersected by another and a man met me there,

Image below: Albert Camus with his best friend Michel Gallimard, both of whom died from a car crash on  4 January 1960. On the right is Jeannine, Michel’s wife, who survived the crash. “Albert Camus, Michel y Jeannine Gallimard” by Antonio Marín Segovia is licensed under CC BY-NC-ND 2.0

as if he knew I was coming, a man with a long white beard and piercing eyes and we nodded and then he continued beside me and asked me what I was looking for, which startled me, and I was speechless and he said he’s been through here many times, especially by the ravine, and Leo told me he never could find the green stick of happiness his brother once told him was buried there but he was not giving up, he never would do that since he loved his brother who would never lie, he knew the stick existed and that’s why he himself was buried there, and he told me to continue seeking, because the stick was real and yes, those slaves knew it and were in that ravine for a reason, so we walked on as a man approached us who said his name was Albert, and I said Camus, and he said yes, let’s walk together guys, for these woods are dark and deep I know, but look up at the sky, the clouds have parted and the sparkling sky is speaking to us, right Leo, who said yes, I remember when Andrei in my book War and Peace lay wounded on the battlefield and looked at the sky, I wrote that he realized then that that lofty sky was infinite and that happiness was possible, that especially in the midst of battle you have to look up and realize that, that there are deeper reasons for things and petty concerns shield the spirit of truth and that even in the midst of war you can glimpse that reality, and it sounded good,

I had heard their spiels before, or had read them to be accurate, they were great writers but this was my life and I couldn’t live in their books, but I wasn’t reading, I was walking, or was I dreaming, and then we came to the end of the path leading out of the woods and the sky opened out from the vast tree cover and they were gone and I was all alone again as usual,

dispirited and heading back home on the road by the lake when I looked up at the sparkling blue sky and light that radiated off the snowy frozen lake and rose back to the sky in columns of undulating glory and felt the sun that had warmed the day and heard birds in the trees and was overwhelmed with a rush of happiness I can’t describe but it was not a dream and I walked in joy for a few minutes, knowing I had found the stick and that in the depth of winter, as Albert said, I had finally learned that there was in me an invincible summer, but that it came and went like running water, like flowing air, but it was enough for now.

*

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 author’s blog site, Behind the Curtain.

Distinguished author and sociologist Edward Curtin is a Research Associate of the Centre for Research on Globalization. He is the author of the new book: https://www.claritypress.com/product/seeking-truth-in-a-country-of-lies/

Featured image: Tolstoy’s grave on the edge of the ravine at his estate Yasnaya Polyana “Ясная поляна, могила Л.Н. Толстого 2” by Alexxx1979 is licensed under CC BY-SA 2.0

In the morning of 5 February 2021, a distinguished gentleman, professional, in his early 70s, impeccably dressed in suit and tie (no name shall be mentioned) – was running to catch an 8 AM train at the Geneva principal railway station, Cornavin.

He was in a hurry not to miss the train, and was just about to put on the obligatory mask, when two gendarmes grabbed him, one on each arm told him about mask obligation, he responded that he was just about to put it on – which was visible to the police, as he held a mask in his hand – and that he had to run to catch the train.

The policemen harassed him, despite the fact that he had a medical certificate that dispensed him from wearing a mask, for serious health reasons which he explained to them. He is 72 years old and had in the past two lung embolisms and has breathing difficulties. He also has hearing aids. The strings of the mask infringe on the effectiveness of the hearing aid.

He kept pleading with them that he had to go and needed to catch the train. No chance, they didn’t let go. He couldn’t move is arms. They held him tight, pressed him against a wall. They asked for his ID. The gentleman gave them his wallet to look for it. He got nervous and kept repeating that he would put the mask on, but could not miss the train, that they please would let him go.

Finally, they got the ID and released them, took all the details from the ID and told him that he would get a hefty fine for shouting at the police. This gentleman, whom I know, would certainly not shout at the police, maybe getting upset and speaking with a firm voice, but not shouting.

In the meantime, many similar cases have come to my attention, including one, where a medical doctor issued a mask dispensation to a patient for chronical breathing difficulties. The person was brutally arrested in a train for not wearing a mask despite the medical certificate. He was told that he will be summoned by the Court.

In another case, mass brutality on children was ordered by a municipality in Switzerland sending a letter to the parents requesting them that all school-age children, including from Kindergarten, had to be tested for covid-19 within 24 hours. In the meantime, everybody, including parents had to remain in quarantine.

The case is not unique. It is now in the hands of lawyers. What they will be able to achieve is unclear.

This – dear reader – I hope many of you in Switzerland – is no longer a question of health or reason, but only of obedience. It marks the beginning of a fascist tyranny.

As a side note, the German newspaper “Die Welt am Sonntag” just revealed today, that the German Ministry of the Interior, had “hired” scientists to prepare studies and reports for the German Government to spread fear and to justify repressive measures against people and society in the name of covid. See 8 min. video in German https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mOD-cmUrdEg . If this happens in Germany, it may be strongly suspected to also happen in Switzerland.

Police behavior of this kind is exactly compatible with the Swiss anti-terror law under which children of 12 years of age could be arrested, and police without any evidence, just “suspicion”, can enter any house and arrest “terror suspects”.

In other words, anybody who voices his/her opposition to the ever-increasing oppression under the pretext of covid-health protection, may be considered a terrorist. A people’s referendum against it has been launched and will presumably be voted on in June 2021.

The “anti-terror law” – if final approval goes through – would be the worst and most stringent law against human and civil rights in the western world, even surpassing the US Patriot Act.

And this what is happening in France.

People wake up.

Such atrocities may soon become common place.

The more we accept these inhuman police – and maybe soon military – infringements on our human and civil rights, the more such atrocities will become law, either imposed and approved by the government, or exerted as ‘common law’.

Dear fellow citizens do not accept this turn to fascism – unfortunately to various degrees already visible in many western countries. Protest! Resist!

Peter Koenig is a geopolitical analyst and a former Senior Economist at the World Bank and the World Health Organization (WHO), where he has worked for over 30 years on water and environment around the world. He lectures at universities in the US, Europe and South America. He writes regularly for online journals and is the author of Implosion – An Economic Thriller about War, Environmental Destruction and Corporate Greed; and  co-author of Cynthia McKinney’s book “When China Sneezes: From the Coronavirus Lockdown to the Global Politico-Economic Crisis” (Clarity Press – November 1, 2020)

Peter Koenig is a Research Associate of the Centre for Research on Globalization.

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 positive aspect of the recent anti-ivermectin statement by Merck is that dozens of ‘big pharma’ lobbyists, who immediately shared the statement on Twitter, are now getting exposed, among them many journalists, a US NIH representative, some industry-linked professors, and one of the most influential German government ‘covid science communicators’.

Merck,maker of Ivermectin in the US in an official statement today: No base for potential effect; Concerning side effect … I doubt that this would impact the pretentious superstitious mind set but worth putting out in Respect to Rationality! https://t.co/3nE9JVWdfx pic.twitter.com/m5S0yTJ0MM

— Eid Azar (@EidAzar) February 5, 2021

Merck hat eine Stellungnahme zu Ivermectin als Therapie bei COVID19 veröffentlicht. Hierzu gibt es in den Social Media immer wieder „Werbung“.Merck.com https://t.co/8vsdaoFyug

— Sandra Ciesek (@CiesekSandra) February 6, 2021

Keep in mind that Merck provided no evidence, whatsoever, for any of its claims, did not refute any of the existing evidence, studies and meta-studies, and falsely claimed ‘unproven safety’. The entire statement is a desperate appeal to (supposed) authority, and anyone pushing it is simply exposing themselves as a lobbyist not interested in actual evidence-based medicine.

What Merck could have done, but didn’t do, since April 2020, is running and publishing its own ivermectin trial. What Merck also could have done, but didn’t do, is disclosing in its statement that it recently signed a $356 million deal to supply the US with a much more expensive, newly developed experimental anti-covid drug. But doing this may not have been in Merck’s interest, of course.

*

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 Labour Party is calling on the Government to urgently clean up its Covid procurement as it emerges almost £2 billion in total has been spent on “crony” contracts going to Conservative friends and donors.

The amount of money spent on contracts awarded to companies that have links to the Conservative Party has almost doubled since the first wave, rising to nearly £2 billion following Labour’s original tally of £1 billion in October 2020, and despite stark warnings from the National Audit Office in November.

The total cost of contracts that have gone to Tory friends and donors could have provided free school meals to every one of the 1.4 million pupils who are eligible – for over 3 years.

Of the £23.1 billion the public sector has spent on Covid, 85% – or £19.7 billion – have been awarded by central government, highlighting the centralisation of outsourcing not attuned to local needs.

In a speech from Labour Party headquarters in Southside, Rachel Reeves, Shadow Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, will demand the Government takes urgent action to stop cronyism consuming its outsourcing and contracts by urgently restoring tendering rules with improved transparency to scrutinise contracts.

And she will urge the Government to claw back taxpayer money on contracts that haven’t delivered what they’ve promised, to counter increasing concerns from the public on waste of funds.

She will also outline key policies a Labour government would put in place to tackle the increasing lack of transparency, cronyism and taxpayer waste at the heart of the Government’s outsourcing practice.

“This Government has eroded not only our public services to the brink of collapse, but so much of what it means to be an honourable and transparent government.

“While this Tory Government has denied key workers in our public services a pay rise, they paid 900 management consultants at Deloitte £1,000 a day to work on test and trace.

“The beating heart of our country is the key workers who have kept us going through this last year. That’s why we applauded them. Children weren’t banging pots and pans for management consultants. They were clapping our key workers.

“The public is also paying a high price for this Government’s mismanagement and waste. This current Tory Party is rife with conflicts of interest. It’s all cheques and no balances.

“People expect all of us seeking government to spend their money with care and respect – and a Labour government will.

“Labour will clean up government contracting by strengthening FOI, introducing a new Independent Anti-Corruption Commissioner, and an Integrity and Ethics Commission to make us a world leader in good governance and transparency.”

*

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 About Manchester

First published on August 24, 2020

Numerous scientific studies reveal that the face mask is detrimental to a person’s health.

According to Dr. Russell Blaylock: by wearing a face mask, “the exhaled viruses will not be able to escape and will concentrate in the nasal passages, enter the olfactory nerves and travel into the brain. ….

***

In a French supermarket, an employee was violently arrested, mistreated, forcibly taken away and taken into custody by a patrol of gendarmes while he had lowered his mask (mandatory now in France in closed public places) to “take a breath” of fresh air.

The face mask has become the symbol of the terror that those who have usurped power (including our governments) are inflicting on defenseless populations.

It is no longer a question of health or reason, but only of obedience.

it should be understood that the “pandemic” of “COVID-19” is a global swindle, imposed by force by a powerful financial plutocracy, the vilest thing in mankind, with the complicity of corrupt governments and media, and that the masks worn permanently are a source of infection, they prevent us from breathing, damage our health and humiliate us.

By imposing “face masks”, “protective visors”, protective suits, “social distancing”, it is society which they want to destroy, to leave the individual totally naked, like a laboratory guinea pig, facing the destructive power, invisible “virus”.

The Video in French shows how a supermarket employee is violently arrested. What were dealing is the criminalization of the State, the evolution towards a police state.

Police control in the Carrefour Contact store in Breil-sur-Roya…

An employee on duty since 6am has a “badly placed” mask right under his nose… Result?

The soldiers go into action. Unbelievable! Look, share, comment …

The original source of this article is pocombelles
Copyright © Le Rouge et le Blanc, pocombelles, 2020

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).

***

Foreign operatives raided the headquarters of the Iranian Quds Force’s Unit 840 in the hearth of Damascus, Israeli sources claim. The Israeli news outlet Intelli Times reported on January 28 that an unidentified “Western intelligence agency” allegedly carried out the covert operation four months ago.

The headquarters is located in a residential building in the neighborhood of Kaf Susa, 3 kilometers away from the Syrian Presidential Palace. The Ministry of Interior is located in the same neighborhood, which is guarded by two detachments from the Military Intelligence Directorate.

A video of the operation shows the agents seizing documents inside the Iranian headquarters and holding down one of the Syrian guards. Syrian activists noted that the alleged “Western agents” in the video spoke fluent Arabic with a distinctive Syrian accent.

Last November, the Israeli Defense Forces accused the Unit 840 of planting three explosive devices along the Israel-Syria contact line in the occupied Golan Heights. Tel Aviv responded to the operation with a series of airstrikes on central and southern Syria.

Intelli Times said that the Unit 840 is commanded by Yazdan Mir, also known as “Sadir Baqiri.” The leader has two aides, Mukhtabi Hashimi and Mohssin Mohamad. The Israeli side insists that the unit is training personnel in Syria to launch attacks against “Western targets.”

The Israeli report is highly questionable. Nevertheless, the Israeli intelligence carried out similar daring operations in Lebanon, Syria, Iran and many other countries in the past. The report itself could be considered as a message to Syria and Iran amid the growing tensions in the region.

*

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

Joe Biden was inaugurated as the 46^th President of the United States amidst an armed fortress in the nation’s capital on January 6, 2021. Twenty-five thousand National Guard troops were deployed to ensure a peaceful transition of power for the American plutocracy.

The scene was reminiscent of the nomination of Hubert Humphrey at the Democratic National Convention in Chicago, where the candidate was shielded from anti-war demonstrators by thousands of riotous police and armed National Guard troops.  The year was 1968.

Such moments reveal the essence of the American police state.

In his inaugural address, Biden pledged to be a president who represented all Americans as he pleaded for “unity” in a society more polarized than it was during the height of the Vietnam war.

Using tired and vapid rhetoric to intone the “triumph of democracy,” Biden seemed unaware that genuine democracy reflects the will of the people. In America the peoples’ interests have been systematically repudiated by neoliberal Democrats and Republicans alike.

Biden was the victor in a hotly disputed race, resulting in violent protests, fomented by Trump,  that marred the certification of the presidential election on the very steps of the Capitol where he took the oath of office.

In a bona fide democracy, elections would be free, fair and transparent. In the United States, billions are spent on elections, third-party and insurgent candidates such as Ralph Nader, Jill Stein, and Bernie Sanders are routinely thwarted by the political establishment and the corporate media, the use of computer software to record electronic ballots in voting machines owned by private companies such asDominion or Diebold opens the door to charges of hacking and fraud, and the antiquated electoral college can negate the popular vote.

Prior to the 2020 vote, credible evidence exists to prove that Presidential elections were stolen in 1824, 1876, 1888, 1960, 2000, and 2004.

Just a short time before the restrained pomp and circumstance of the inauguration, angry pro-Trump rioters took over the Capitol building, sending its congressional inhabitants and their aids scurrying for cover like so many frightened vermin.

The congressional representatives of corporate America seem not to understand the hatred they provoke by sending a $600.00 covid ‘relief’ check to millions of citizens who are facing eviction, hunger and joblessness amidst the pandemic lockdown while funneling billions of dollars to their rich benefactors.

Nor do they understand the seething anger of a dispossessed white working class that was thrown overboard in a globalized and financialized economy by Wall Street and the Washington political establishment, creating a fertile ground for Trump to propagate his fake right-wing populist rhetoric and xenophobic malevolence.

The depth of economic depression in the United States will drive Biden and the Democrats to posture as ‘tribunes of the people’ by increasing relief in the next covid-19 bailout package after holding back on the size of the second round of stimulus aid to defeat Trump.  But they will not provide the American people with genuine relief by providing a program of ‘Medicare for All’ and ‘Universal Basic Income’ for the duration of the pandemic lockdown and beyond.

For Democrats and Republicans alike, the political game is all about power, not people.  The Republicans steal everything in sight for the rich while the Democrats throw a few more scraps to the people to mollify their discontent.

The irony that his party is the first to compel an impeachment trial of a president after he has left office is lost on Biden.  Such actions do not ensure unity, they guarantee unbreachable divisiveness.  The second impeachment trial of Trump will not end in conviction.  It will further polarize the American electorate and allow the Democrats and Republicans to continue the shell game of legislative politics in a power sharing arrangement that guarantees the people get nothing while plutocracy gets everything.

The second impeachment of Donald Trump by the Democrats represents not only an act of political retribution for his defeat of Hillary Clinton in 2016, but an attempt to neutralize their arch enemy by circumventing any possibility he may run for re-election to the nation’s highest office in 2024.

By impeaching Trump a second time, Democrats are further enraging his legions of followers who believe the election was stolen.  The venomous Democrats led by House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and the Senator from Wall Street and Israel, Chuck Schumer, are throwing kerosene on a raging political fire.  The result will further polarize and already fractured social and political landscape in a country whose people are armed to the teeth.

It should be remembered that the result of the FBI assaults on the Weaver family at Ruby Ridge, Idaho in 1992 and the Branch Davidians at Waco, Texas in 1993 was the domestic terrorist attack in Oklahoma Cityin 1995.

And the direct result of bombing a Federal office building in Oklahoma City was Clinton’s Anti-Terrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996, a stark precursor to Bush’s USA Patriot Act of 2001.  Using the pretext of fighting terrorism, these two notorious pieces of legislation effectively neutralized key elements of the Bill of Rights, consigning the 1^st,4^th, 5^th, 6^th and 8^th amendments of the U.S. constitution to dead letters.

Trump supporters will now be collectively identified as ‘domestic terrorists’, ‘white supremacists’, and ‘neo-Nazis’ to justify intensifieddomestic repression in the ‘war on terror’.  Next in line to be targeted are the ‘extremists’ on the left, such as Antifa, supporters of Black Lives Matter, and prominent critics of empire.  As the greatest threat to the American plutocracy comes from the redistributive class politics of the left, not the right, it will be the left that bears the ultimate burden of political repression.

Despite lofty rhetoric, the Democrats care very little for democracy and the rule of law.  If they respected democracy, they would not have fomented coup d’états in Honduras in 2009 or Ukraine in 2014.  They would not have destroyed Libya in 2011 or Syria in 2014.  They would not have invented Russiagate and Ukrainegate to justify the first unsuccessful impeachment of Trump in 2018.

Nor would they continue to wage economic warfare in Venezuela to engineer regime change in a beleaguered country where 40,000 lives have already been lost because of U.S. imposed asset seizure, sanction and embargo.

In his inaugural speech, Biden promised to re-establish international alliances so the United States could be a “force for good” in the world. The U. S. has not been a ‘force for good’ in the world since it won the first anti-colonial revolution against the British in 1783.  The abolition of slavery completed that revolution with the conclusion of the civil war in 1865.

These revolutions were won at the expense of indigenous peoples who were exterminated between 1622 and the massacre at Wounded Knee in 1890 and Mexican peoples who were internally colonized in the American southwest at the conclusion of the Mexican-American war in 1848.  With its victory in the Spanish American war of 1898, the U.S. became a global imperialist power and has not looked back since.

U.S. global destabilization of democratically elected governments in the 21^st century perpetrated by Presidents Bush, Obama, and Trump include coups in Venezuela in 2002, Georgia in 2003, Ukraine in 2004, Haiti in 2004, Occupied Palestine in 2007, Honduras in 2009, Egypt in 2013, Ukraine in 2014, and Venezuela in 2019.

All the foregoing U.S. sponsored coup d’états were successful except for American failure to overthrow Hamas in Gaza and the Bolivarian revolution in Venezuela.

Now the U.S. has turned its sights on Russia and is using the Navalny affair as a pretext to execute a color revolution in the Kremlin.  Biden and his lackeys should beware of provoking the Russian bear.  The Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists have moved the doomsday clock to 100 seconds before midnight, no small part because of belligerent and confrontational U.S. policies toward Russia that have provoked a new arms race involving the development and deployment of hypersonic weapons.

Presidential commitment to democracy and the rule of law is a fiction easily dismissed by a cursory reading of U.S. imperialism’s history. Amidst the fractious polarization of American politics, one reality remains constant, continuity of the imperial presidency driven by the rapacious greed of a corporate plutocracy the chief executives serve.

Donald Monaco is a political analyst who lives in Brooklyn, New York.  He received his Master’s Degree in Education from the State University of New York at Buffalo in 1979 and was radicalized by the Vietnam War.  He writes from an anti-imperialist, anti-capitalist perspective.  His recent book is titled, The Politics ofTerrorism, and is available at amazon.com

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).

***

Against the backdrop of the recent change in the White House administration, and the absence of clear harbingers of the United States’ desire to reduce the number of armed conflicts around the world, it is worth noting that in many respects the present conflicts owe their existence to how they are pumped with American weaponry.

The results of a study on global defense spending published by the information analysis center Jane’s bear testimony to the fact that in 2020 they increased by 1.9%, reaching 1.9 trillion USD and showing continuous growth for seven years.

Europe showed the largest growth in its defense budgets in 2020: the countries in the region increased their defense spending by 5.6% compared to 2019, which naturally can be chiefly explained by the active steps taken by the Donald Trump administration concerning the mandatory allocation by NATO countries of at least 2% of their GDP for defense needs. In addition, the targeted propaganda campaign by Washington and its closest allies “to search for enemies” and incite Russophobic sentiments also had the obvious goal of making other European countries increase their purchases of weapons and military equipment, and primarily from the United States. And for this, the White House did not have any aversion to using any means, up to outright blackmail accompanied by sanctions, against anyone that bought weapons that were not from the United States; one clear example of this is the escalating standoff between the United States and Turkey due to Ankara’s purchase of S-400 air defense system from Russia, and the threat of Washington impose sanctions for doing that.

Countries in the Asia-Pacific region have also substantially ramped up the size of their expenses that fall under this category. But even this, without any doubt, was something that Washington could not have helped but play a hand in; it has toughened its opposition to the growing authority China holds in the region, creating and introducing the propaganda slogan “about the growing danger from the PRC”, and forcing many states to increase their spending on military spending and procuring many new types of weapons.

However, the experts at Jane’s report a possible slowdown in the growth of global defense spending in 2021 due to the economic consequences of the crisis caused by the coronavirus pandemic: “It is likely that all regions except Europe, the Asia-Pacific, and Latin America will implement defence spending cuts in 2021, bringing global defence spending down to its lowest level since 2013. It is possible that the worst effects of the COVID-19 pandemic will also manifest themselves in 2022, when governments can begin to significantly limit funding for this kind of spending”.

However, this decline in military spending will only be temporary, according to these same experts at Jane’s, and the growth in that will continue in the near future – and could reach 2.23 trillion USD by 2030.

At the same time, it is worth reiterating the well-known truth that military spending has a significant impact on the GDP of countries, and on both the social and political situations that are fostered in them. The negative consequences are due to pulling away resources in the countries that import weapons away from other sectors in the national economy, encroaching upon social programs, and boosting the level of discontent among the population. This result is especially pronounced in the poorest countries, where a significant part of military spending is associated with importing expensive military equipment.

One vivid European example of the negative consequences of an increase in military spending is the rather ill-considered policy adopted by the Baltic states – Lithuania, Latvia and Estonia – whose leadership, by increasing purchases of foreign weapons and equipment, is investing the funding for its military budgets in foreign industries, and in the United States in particular. For example, striving to obsequiously demonstrate her phenomenal loyalty to Washington, at the beginning of January this year Lithuanian Prime Minister Ingrida Simonyte, during a remote meeting with the US Ambassador to Vilnius, Robert Gilchrist, proclaimed her commitment to channel 2% of the country’s GDP – as demanded by Donald Trump – and even more to national security and defense, as well as her plans to increase the military budget to 2.5% of GDP by 2030. The share of defense spending as part of GDP in Estonia also equals 2.25%.

It is noteworthy that, in contrast to these Baltic states, the current share of Germany’s military budget as part of its national GDP is less than 1.6%. However, the Baltic states at the same time are at a clear disadvantage compared to Germany, since they are essentially investing in a foreign economy, while Germany mostly invests in its own. The considerable amount of funding that the Baltic states take from their budgets to purchase of foreign systems ultimately feed arms manufacturers alone, and primarily in the United States, which, for its part, not only develops its own economy and the arms market, but also use new military technologies in the civilian sphere – and this, again, has a beneficial effect, including for American social welfare indicators. It is common knowledge that the massive injection of money into the US military-industrial complex after the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq (military spending increased from three to more than four percent of US GDP) became, according to many economists, the most important factor in allowing America to emerge from the crisis of the “new economy” at the turn of the century, and achieve positive economic dynamics from 2003-2006.

Therefore, it can be affirmed that for arms exporters, and in richer countries, the positive and negative impact that the growth of military spending has balance each other out to a certain extent. This is a positive effect which, even if we do not take into account the openly expansionist goals of establishing external hegemony as a weapons exporter, contributes to the growth of employment in the military-industrial complex in the country that makes the weapons, develops many ancillary sectors throughout the economy, provides fiscal revenues to the budget, and conspicuously enriches the military and-political elite in that country.

Therefore, it is not surprising that American manufacturers are just the ones that occupy dominant positions in the list of the top 100 companies in the world in terms of arms sales, and for its part this has allowed the United States to remain the world leader in the arms market in terms of sales for many years. Including due to drawing upon the military budgets of other countries in its favor.

In this regard, Donald Trump’s statement four years ago, at his inaugural speech, that America is enriching the world at its own expense is fundamentally fake piece of propaganda that serves, above all else, as a requirement put forth for other countries to increase their spending on armaments by increasing purchases of American-made military equipment and weapons.

*

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.

Vladimir Danilov, political analyst exclusively for the online magazine “New Eastern Outlook“.

Featured image is from NEO

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 with Armen Khachatryan, Deputy Chief Executive Officer and Programme Director at the Roscongress Foundation, and now a member of the newly created Public Council under the Secretariat of the Russia–Africa Partnership Forum, argues that the first Summit held in October 2019 ultimately seeks to inject a new dynamism in the existing Russia-Africa relations.

According to him, as the African continent undergoes positive transformation, platforms for dialogue between Russia and Africa are profoundly changing too. The Russia–Africa Summit demonstrated the sheer enormity of potential that exists for collaboration across various areas, and one of the outcomes of that historic event was the establishment of the Secretariat of the Russia–Africa Partnership Forum. The Secretariat further created a Public Council, the body also incorporates a Coordinating Council, Research Council and Media Council.

Speaking with Kester Kenn Klomegah early January 2021, Armen Khachatryan unreservedly stressed that building on the existing relations and all that have been achieved over the past few years, needs new platforms such as the Public Council. This Public Council aims primarily to uplift and solidly support the relations into a new stage, change perception among the public and give it an entirely new outlook into the future. Here are the interview excerpts:

Kester Kenn Klomegah: A meeting of the Public Council of the Russia–Africa Partnership Forum Secretariat took place early November 2020. What were the main outcomes of the event?

Armen Khachatryan: It was the first kick-off meeting held last year. We determined the objectives facing the Public Council of the Russia–Africa Partnership Forum Secretariat. Specifically, these were to do with implementing the decisions of the inaugural Russia–Africa Summit and organizing the second summit, which is planned to take place in 2022. We discussed the current state of Russian-African relations in the humanitarian sphere, as well as the potential to develop them further. We also set out the council’s plan of action.

KKK: In your opinion, what social initiatives were prioritized – particularly at this time when Russia is seriously looking to focus on Africa?

AK: Humanitarian cooperation has recently played an increasingly significant role in the development of Russian-African relations. The lively discussions at the Russia–Africa Economic Forum in October, 2019, in Sochi are testament to the importance of joint social initiatives, and to the shared desire to implement them. I believe this is with good reason, as collaboration in this area can help build an atmosphere of mutual trust. It is absolutely essential to forge sustainable partnerships in different spheres with Africa.

In terms of priorities, areas in which we have traditionally collaborated include education, healthcare, culture, the environment, safety and security and so forth. All of these fields possess enormous potential for Russia and Africa to work together, and our country is ready to share its experience and expertise on mutually beneficial terms. Unlike some other countries, Russia wants a strong Africa with genuine sovereignty and a competitive economy. With this in mind, I would place particular emphasis on education. From my point of view, Africa’s most valuable asset is not its natural resources, but its people.

Young people currently make up a significant percentage of the population across the African continent. And that figure is going to increase further still. The population of the continent has already passed the 1.3 billion mark, with a median age of about 20. Around 60% of the population are young people under the age of 25. And according to forecasts, by 2050 the elderly will account for just 9% of the population. Given these numbers, we not only need to increase quotas for African students looking to study in Russia, but also open branches of our universities in African countries. That would allow us to offer a Russian education to many more African students as well as establish student exchange programmes.

KKK: By all appearances, aspects to do with education and professional training – and issues of humanitarian nature – are currently being examined in keeping with the course that has been delineated. Do you think that civil society should be involved in extending the reach of public diplomacy between Russia and Africa?

AK: There is no doubt that collaboration between Russia and Africa should extend across the board, and take place at various levels. It should not be limited to ties between government officials and members of the business community. In any country, ordinary citizens make up the majority of the population, and for countries to collaborate effectively with one another, there needs to be an understanding of their perspectives and wishes. Therefore, as we look to establish direct ties and foster an environment conducive to regular dialogue with the people of various African nations, it is vital to involve civil society more closely.

It would appear sensible to provide more opportunities to people in Africa in terms of volunteering and doing internships at large Russian companies that are looking to build their presence on the African continent. The aim would be for these people to potentially be offered jobs at the companies’ African branches. Human resources need to be at the heart of our efforts, given their potential role in strengthening ties in both industry and science.

For our part, the Roscongress Foundation, as a socially oriented non-financial development institution, is open to proposals and is ready to provide assistance in promoting Russia’s image in African countries. This includes through organizing business, cultural and sporting events. As far as this is concerned, I imagine that the Foundation will receive support from Russian embassies and Rossotrudnichestvo’s offices in African countries.

KKK: Do you envisage any problems during attempts to better leverage Russia’s soft power and to strengthen public diplomacy in Africa? Do you view competition from other foreign players as a challenge?

AK: I don’t think it’s entirely appropriate to use the term “soft power” in this instance. In this regard, I am of the same opinion as Yevgeny Primakov, Head of Rossotrudnichestvo. The term I take issue with is “power”, which implies pressure of some kind. We have no intention of pressurizing anyone. We are in favour of equal relations with all of our partners, and this includes African nations. In particular, we are guided by the principle of “African solutions to African problems.”

Obviously, there is competition, but I would not call that a challenge as such. Our main objective is not to compete with someone, but to offer our own perspectives on certain issues, communicate our values, and build a positive image of Russia in the eyes of people in Africa. Let me explicitly reiterate here, we are not exerting power in any way. People in Africa will have the benefit of several alternative perspectives, and will be able to choose the approach they feel is closest to them. This, in my opinion, is the principle of equality and mutual respect.

Of course, there are things that are hampering efforts to implement a systemic Russian humanitarian policy in Africa. For example, Rossotrudnichestvo has only eight offices across Africa’s 54 nations. It would appear that Russian-African ties would benefit from Russia opening new diplomatic missions in the region. If we want Russia’s voice to be heard on the African continent, special attention needs to be given to this issue.

KKK: In terms of the media landscape, what steps need to be taken to improve the work done by various outlets? How can we better inform society about events in both parts of the world? Why, for example, news in Africa rarely reported on in Russia?

AK: In terms of working with the African continent, I believe that raising awareness on both sides is one of the most important issues we face. It is difficult to talk about joint ventures, for example, to develop the SME sector, when the African continent remains so little known in Russia, and in Africa, there is only a vague notion of what Russia is. The Russia–Africa Summit and Economic Forum played a crucial role in addressing this, as did the 2018 FIFA World Cup. That event saw many people from Africa visit Russia for the first time. They were able to see with their own eyes what our country is like, instead of being presented an image by the Western media. People were following events using various information resources.

These events played a huge role in helping to shape the media landscape. However, this exchange of information needs to be done on a more permanent basis. It’s worth pointing out that in today’s world, awareness can be raised in more ways than just via the media. Given the spread of social media, the student exchanges I mentioned earlier could, over time, play a much more important role in cultivating Russia’s image than conventional media channels. However, in order to achieve this, it is vital to work with young people in both Russia and Africa.

Going back to conventional media, I believe that first of all, Russian news agencies need to expand their network of correspondents in Africa. That would allow our journalists to work with primary sources, rather than rely on material put together by foreign news agencies. It will also be important to get Russian and African journalists working together, for example, through placement programmes, master classes, roundtables and so forth.

To answer the question on news in Africa being reported on in Russia, things are developing. Telegram channels dedicated to the African continent are appearing, for example, so it is possible to stay up-to-date with key events. One organization which is doing much to leverage Telegram channels is the Association of Economic Cooperation with African States (AECAS). Its members include the Roscongress Foundation, which has considerable experience in developing and implementing humanitarian initiatives. AECAS is also currently working to build an integrated space for people in Russia and Africa to obtain information. This appears to me to be a very promising area. Admittedly, when it comes to large news agencies, the problem is that there are not enough events to report on which would garner widespread interest. However, I am in no doubt that as Russian‑African relations develop further, things will improve in this area.

KKK: The second Russian-African Public Forum took place in November 2020. In his welcome address, Foreign Affairs Minister Sergey Lavrov said that amendments needed to be made to policy initiatives in order to respond to changing realities in Africa. What was he referring to, and what is your take on “changing realities” in Africa?

AK: First of all, I would say that the African continent has undergone an enormous transformation over the last few years. Across all areas, Africa has become much more profoundly involved in the economic processes driving globalization. Partners in Africa are implementing a programme to ease the movement of goods, capital and people, and to employ new technology in business and marketing. This has made the African economy more open and attractive to foreign investors.

The first Russia–Africa Economic Forum in Sochi served as yet another clear demonstration to the Russian and global community that the African economy is becoming more organic. It served as proof of Africa’s increasingly significant role in the global economy. Indeed, the continent has a direct bearing on global growth, and on progress in science and technology. Africa’s economic ties with the rest of the world are certainly no longer solely about supplying raw materials and being a market for finished products.

The socioeconomic growth we are witnessing, together with the global economy’s accelerated transition to a new wave of tech innovation, has meant that Africa’s role and position in the global economy has shifted significantly. The continent is also becoming an important growth pole in terms of global demand. Consumer spending on the continent has already reached US$ 680 billion. According the World Bank, this figure is set to grow to US$ 2.2 trillion by 2030.

As the continent undergoes this transformation, platforms for dialogue between Russia and Africa are profoundly changing too. The Russia–Africa Summit demonstrated the sheer enormity of potential that exists for collaboration across various areas. It was a historic milestone for Russian-African cooperation. One of the outcomes of the event was the establishment of the Secretariat of the Russia–Africa Partnership Forum.

In addition to a public council, the body also incorporates a coordinating council, research council, and media council. Never before in Russia’s modern history has there been such a serious mechanism for bringing together expertise and best practices from all sides and across all areas. It is set to act as a foundation to develop all aspects of Russian-African partnership, and to effectively position Africa’s transformation, which we briefly discussed earlier.

The high-level summit also led to the establishment of the Association of Economic Cooperation with African States, which will serve as a platform to strengthen business ties between Russia and Africa.

KKK: The situation is so diverse – politics, economy and culture – in Africa. In your opinion, what are the best pathways for promoting policy initiatives, as well as the social aspects of diplomacy with Africa?

AK: That is quite important, but I don’t think we should try to identify a single “best” or “universal” pathway. It’s important to understand that Africa is a diverse continent – every country is unique, and requires an individual approach. And that’s before we consider that methods and initiatives that are employed in one region of the world – for example, Europe – are not at all necessarily appropriate for countries in Africa. We need to meticulously analyse each initiative, and be sure to draw the greatest possible benefit from them.

Generally speaking, there needs to be a focus on working with people, and in particular, with young people in Africa. These efforts should be based upon the needs of the population. And as I mentioned earlier, the pathways to achieving our aims could look very different from one another. Africa, just like Russia, is blessed with a wealth of extremely young talented people: some make films, others dance, others draw. But that’s not the important thing. What’s important here is to do everything we can to connect the lives of people in Africa with our country – we show that Russia is ready to help develop their talents.

After all, these people could well become the thought leaders of the future, as well as ambassadors for Russian-African relations. These people could help foster a positive image of Russia in their respective countries. We are ready to engage and cooperate with intergovernmental organizations, civil society and African partners, work constructively to consolidate the results from the first summit and what both Russia and Africa further set in the joint declaration in Sochi, in October 2019.

*

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).

***

Jerusalem is considered an important religious city for Muslims, Christians and Jews, however, Washington recognizes Jerusalem as Israel’s capital.  The controversial move of the US Embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem by the Trump administration was confirmed by the majority of the senate late Thursday night. 

Both Democrats and Republicans voted yes to keep the US Embassy to Israel in Jerusalem with 97 senators voting in favor, while only 3 senators including Democrats Tom Carper of Delaware, Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts and Bernie Sanders who is an Independent from Vermont voted against the amendment.  Republican senators Jim Inhofe from Oklahoma and Bill Haggerty from Tennessee submitted the amendment within the $1.9 trillion Covid-19 budget resolution.  Inhofe had previously tweeted that the US Embassy will remain permanently in Jerusalem with this vote.  Inhofe tweeted “It’s an important message that we acknowledge Jerusalem as the capital of Israel.”  

It should not be a surprise knowing that the majority of Democrats and Republicans always vote in favor of Israel.  The American-Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) is the most powerful lobby in Washington D.C. has most of the US politicians in their pockets.   It also should be of no surprise that the Biden administration is full of Zionists who support Israel including his Secretary of State, Anthony Blinken who was asked by a pro-Israel senator Ted Cruz during a Senate confirmation hearing “Do you agree that Jerusalem is the capital of Israel and do you commit that the United States will keep our embassy in Jerusalem?” Blinken replied with “Yes and Yes.”

Where does the Biden administration stand concerning Israel’s security? Well, let’s look at Biden’s choice for the US envoy to the United Nations, Linda Thomas-Greenfield who should be concerning for the entire Middle East.  At a Senate confirmation hearing in late January, Thomas-Greenfield said that

“If I am confirmed as the US ambassador to the United Nations, I look forward to standing with Israel – standing against the unfair targeting of Israel, the relentless resolutions that are proposed against Israel unfairly”

“[and that] I hope to work closely and look forward in fact to working closely with the Israeli embassy, with the Israeli ambassador to work to bolster Israel’s security, and to expand economic opportunities for Israelis and Americans alike, and widen the circle of peace” she also said that “I think it goes without saying that Israel has no closer friend than the United States, and I will reflect that in my actions at the United Nations.”

Notice that Thomas-Greenfield did not mention the Palestinians when she said that she wants “to expand economic opportunities for Israelis and Americans alike” is an affirmation of what is to come in the months and years ahead concerning Israel and its Arab neighbors.  The Biden administration is basically continuing what all previous US administrations have done in the past, support Israel on every level, no matter what the Arab world says.

Here is the list of both Democrat and Republican Senators who voted in favor for the US Embassy to remain in Jerusalem:

• Baldwin (D-WI), Yea
• Barrasso (R-WY), Yea
• Bennet (D-CO), Yea
• Blackburn (R-TN), Yea
• Blumenthal (D-CT), Yea
• Blunt (R-MO), Yea
• Booker (D-NJ), Yea
• Boozman (R-AR), Yea
• Braun (R-IN), Yea
• Brown (D-OH), Yea
• Burr (R-NC), Yea
• Cantwell (D-WA), Yea
• Capito (R-WV), Yea
• Cardin (D-MD), Yea
• Carper (D-DE), Nay
• Casey (D-PA), Yea
• Cassidy (R-LA), Yea
• Collins (R-ME), Yea
• Coons (D-DE), Yea
• Cornyn (R-TX), Yea
• Cortez Masto (D-NV), Yea
• Cotton (R-AR), Yea
• Cramer (R-ND), Yea
• Crapo (R-ID), Yea
• Cruz (R-TX), Yea
• Daines (R-MT), Yea
• Duckworth (D-IL), Yea
• Durbin (D-IL), Yea
• Ernst (R-IA), Yea
• Feinstein (D-CA), Yea
• Fischer (R-NE), Yea
• Gillibrand (D-NY), Yea
• Graham (R-SC), Yea
• Grassley (R-IA), Yea
• Hagerty (R-TN), Yea
• Hassan (D-NH), Yea
• Hawley (R-MO), Yea
• Heinrich (D-NM), Yea
• Hickenlooper (D-CO), Yea
• Hirono (D-HI), Yea
• Hoeven (R-ND), Yea
• Hyde-Smith (R-MS), Yea
• Inhofe (R-OK), Yea
• Johnson (R-WI), Yea
• Kaine (D-VA), Yea
• Kelly (D-AZ), Yea
• Kennedy (R-LA), Yea
• King (I-ME), Yea
• Klobuchar (D-MN), Yea
• Lankford (R-OK), Yea
• Leahy (D-VT), Yea
• Lee (R-UT), Yea
• Lujan (D-NM), Yea
• Lummis (R-WY), Yea
• Manchin (D-WV), Yea
• Markey (D-MA), Yea
• Marshall (R-KS), Yea
• McConnell (R-KY), Yea
• Menendez (D-NJ), Yea
• Merkley (D-OR), Yea
• Moran (R-KS), Yea
• Murkowski (R-AK), Yea
• Murphy (D-CT), Yea
• Murray (D-WA), Yea
• Ossoff (D-GA), Yea
• Padilla (D-CA), Yea
• Paul (R-KY), Yea
• Peters (D-MI), Yea
• Portman (R-OH), Yea
• Reed (D-RI), Yea
• Risch (R-ID), Yea
• Romney (R-UT), Yea
• Rosen (D-NV), Yea
• Rounds (R-SD), Yea
• Rubio (R-FL), Yea
• Sanders (I-VT), Nay
• Sasse (R-NE), Yea
• Schatz (D-HI), Yea
• Schumer (D-NY), Yea
• Scott (R-FL), Yea
• Scott (R-SC), Yea
• Shaheen (D-NH), Yea
• Shelby (R-AL), Yea
• Sinema (D-AZ), Yea
• Smith (D-MN), Yea
• Stabenow (D-MI), Yea
• Sullivan (R-AK), Yea
• Tester (D-MT), Yea
• Thune (R-SD), Yea
• Tillis (R-NC), Yea
• Toomey (R-PA), Yea
• Tuberville (R-AL), Yea
• Van Hollen (D-MD), Yea
• Warner (D-VA), Yea
• Warnock (D-GA), Yea
• Warren (D-MA), Nay
• Whitehouse (D-RI), Yea
• Wicker (R-MS), Yea
• Wyden (D-OR), Yea
• Young (R-IN), Yea

*

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.

Timothy Alexander Guzman writes on his blog site, Silent Crow News, where this article was originally published. He is a frequent contributor to Global Research.

Featured image is from Wikimedia Commons

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).

***

While the brands lining the shelves of giant retail outlets seem vast, a handful of food companies own these brands which in turn rely on a relatively narrow range of produce for ingredients. At the same time, this illusion of choice often comes at the expense of food security in poorer countries that were compelled to restructure their agriculture to facilitate agro-exports courtesy of the World Bank, IMF, the WTO and global agribusiness interests.

In Mexico, transnational food retail and processing companies have taken over food distribution channels, replacing local foods with cheap processed items, often with the direct support of the government. Free trade and investment agreements have been critical to this process and the consequences for public health have been catastrophic.

Mexico’s National Institute for Public Health released the results of a national survey of food security and nutrition in 2012. Between 1988 and 2012, the proportion of overweight women between the ages of 20 and 49 increased from 25 to 35 per cent and the number of obese women in this age group increased from 9 to 37 per cent. Some 29 per cent of Mexican children between the ages of 5 and 11 were found to be overweight, as were 35 per cent of the youngsters between 11 and 19, while one in ten school age children experienced anaemia.

Former Special Rapporteur on the Right to Food, Olivier De Schutter, concludes that trade policies had favoured a greater reliance on heavily processed and refined foods with a long shelf life rather than on the consumption of fresh and more perishable foods, particularly fruit and vegetables. He added that the overweight and obesity emergency that Mexico faces could have been avoided.

In 2015, the non-profit organisation GRAIN reported that the North America Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) led to the direct investment in food processing and a change in Mexico’s retail structure (towards supermarkets and convenience stores) as well as the emergence of global agribusiness and transnational food companies in the country.

NAFTA eliminated rules preventing foreign investors from owning more than 49 per cent of a company. It also prohibited minimum amounts of domestic content in production and increased rights for foreign investors to retain profits and returns from initial investments. By 1999, US companies had invested 5.3 billion dollars in Mexico’s food processing industry, a 25-fold increase in just 12 years.

US food corporations began to colonise the dominant food distribution networks of small-scale vendors, known as tiendas (corner shops). This helped spread nutritionally poor food as they allowed these corporations to sell and promote their foods to poorer populations in small towns and communities. By 2012, retail chains had displaced tiendas as Mexico’s main source of food sales.

In Mexico, the loss of food sovereignty induced catastrophic changes to the nation’s diet and many small-scale farmers lost their livelihoods, which was accelerated by the dumping of surplus commodities (produced at below the cost of production due to subsidies) from the US. NAFTA rapidly drove millions of Mexican farmers, ranchers and small businesspeople into bankruptcy, leading to the flight of millions of immigrant workers.

Warning for India

What happened in Mexico should serve as a warning as Indian farmers continue their protest against three recent farm bills that are designed to fully corporatize the agrifood sector through contract farming, the massive roll-back of public sector support systems, a reliance on imports (boosted by a future US trade deal) and the acceleration of large-scale (online) retail.

If you want to know the eventual fate of India’s local markets and small retailers, look no further than what US Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin said in 2019. He stated that Amazon had “destroyed the retail industry across the United States.”

And if you want to know the eventual fate of India’s farmers, look no further than the 1990s when the IMF and World Bank advised India to shift hundreds of millions out of agriculture in return for up to more than $120 billion in loans at the time.

India was directed to dismantle its state-owned seed supply system, reduce subsidies, run down public agriculture institutions and offer incentives for the growing of cash crops for export to earn foreign exchange. Part of the strategy would also involve changing land laws so that land could be sold and amalgamated for industrial-scale farming.

The plan was for foreign corporations to capture the sector, with the aforementioned policies having effectively weakened or displaced independent cultivators.

To date, this process has been slow but the recent legislation could finally deliver a knock-out blow to tens of millions of farmers and give what the likes of Amazon, Walmart, Facebook, Cargill, Archer Daniels Midlands, Louis Dreyfus, Bunge and the global agritech, seed and agrochemical corporations have wanted all along. It will also serve the retail/agribusiness/logistics interests of India’s richest man, Mukesh Ambani, and its sixth richest, Gautam Adani.

During their ongoing protests, farmers have been teargassed, smeared and beaten. Journalist Satya Sagar notes that government advisors fear that seeming to appear weak with the agitating farmers would not sit well with foreign agrifood investors and could stop the flow of big money into the sector – and the economy as a whole.

And it is indeed ‘big’ money. Facebook invested 5.5 billion dollars last year in Mukesh Ambani’s Jio Platforms (e-commerce retail). Google has also invested 4.5 billion dollars. Currently, Amazon and Flipkart (Walmart has an 81% stake) together control over 60% of the country’s overall e-commerce market. These and other international investors have a great deal to lose if the recent farm legislation is repealed. So does the Indian government.

Since the 1990s, when India opened up to neoliberal economics, the country has become increasingly dependent on inflows of foreign capital. Policies are being governed by the drive to attract and retain foreign investment and maintain ‘market confidence’ by ceding to the demands of international capital. ‘Foreign direct investment’ has thus become the holy grail of the Modi-led administration.

Little wonder the government needs to be seen as acting ‘tough’ on protesting farmers because now, more than ever, attracting and retaining foreign reserves will be required to purchase food on the international market once India surrenders responsibility for its food policy to private players by eliminating its buffer stocks.

The plan to radically restructure agrifood in the country is being sold to the public under the guise of ‘modernising’ the sector. And this is to be carried out by self-proclaimed ‘wealth creators’ like Zuckerberg, Bezos and Ambani who are highly experienced at creating wealth – for themselves.

According to the recent Oxfam report ‘The Inequality Virus’, Mukesh Ambani doubled his wealth between March and October 2020. The coronavirus-related lockdown in India resulted in the country’s billionaires increasing their wealth by around 35 per cent, while 170,000 people lost their jobs every hour in April 2020 alone.

Prior to the lockdown, Oxfam reported that 73 per cent of the wealth generated in 2017 went to the richest 1 per cent, while 670 million Indians, the poorest half of the population, saw only a 1 per cent increase in their wealth.

Moreover, the fortunes of India’s billionaires increased by almost 10 times over a decade and their total wealth was higher than the entire Union budget of India for the fiscal year 2018-19.

It is clear who these ‘wealth creators’ create wealth for. On the People’s Review site, Tanmoy Ibrahim writes a piece on India’s billionaire class, with a strong focus on Ambani and Adani. By outlining the nature of crony capitalism in India, it is clear that Modi’s ‘wealth creators’ are given carte blanche to plunder the public purse, people and the environment, while real wealth creators – not least the farmers – are fighting for existence.

The current struggle should not be regarded as a battle between the government and farmers. If what happened in Mexico is anything to go by, the outcome will adversely affect the entire nation in terms of the further deterioration of public health and the loss of livelihoods.

Consider that rates of obesity in India have already tripled in the last two decades and the nation is fast becoming the diabetes and heart disease capital of the world. According to the National Family Health Survey (NFHS-4), between 2005 and 2015 the number of obese people doubled, even though one in five children in the 5-9 year age group were found to be stunted.

This will be just part of the cost of handing over the sector to billionaire (comprador) capitalists Mukesh Ambani and Gautum Adani and Jeff Bezos (world’s richest person), Mark Zukerberg (world’s fourth richest person), the Cargill business family (14 billionaires) and the Walmart business family (richest in the US).

These individuals are poised to siphon off the wealth of India’s agrifood sector while denying the livelihoods of many millions of small-scale farmers and local mom and pop retailers while undermining the health of the nation.

*

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

Colin Todhunter is a frequent contributor to Global Research and Asia-Pacific Research.