A censorship mania going far beyond the necessary social media banning of Trump’s fascist coup incitement is appearing in U.S. Democratic party leadership circles leading to the necessity to warn of the possibility that socialist and progressive social media presence and websites may be heavily censored or banned, and to urge that as a precaution multiple versions of progressive websites or at least of their databases should be located in multiple countries.

Congressional Representatives Anna Eshoo and Tom Malinowski have now written letters demanding that the CEO’s of Facebook, Twitter, and Youtube (which is owned by Google) censor content which reinforces “existing political biases, especially those rooted in anger, anxiety, and fear.” They have also refereed to uncensored social media as allowing the ‘pollution of Americans minds’.

Note that ‘existing political biases’ and “those rooted in anger, anxiety, and fear” and the notion that we must not permit the ‘polluting of Americans minds’ is a ‘blankcheck’ formula allowing any political website to be targeted and censored.”

Even more sinister is the fact that the right-wing website Parler was targeted for removal and denied online space by Amazon cloud and shut-down.

I believe it would be a serious political mistake not to to prepare for the possibility of censorship or shutdown of independent and progressive online systems. The Democratic party shares one thing with Trump: a fear of socialism. The U.S. political elites who feel no compunction in ordering wars of aggression that slaughter hundreds of thousands in other countries are quite capable of trampling over the right of free speech and press.

The Secretive Plan to Shut Down the Internet

The U.S. state has, in fact, already a secretive plan in place to shut down the internet and mobile phone systems, or portions thereof. This plan, known as SOP 303, enables the shutdown and restoration process for use by commercial and private wireless networks during a self-defined ‘national crisis’.

In 2016 the U.S. Supreme court declined to hear a petition from the Electronic Privacy information center which would have required release of the SOP 303 details

What is known is that the plan gives officials of the U.S. Department of Homeland Security the power to shut down the internet with no consultation or input from either the U.S. Congress or the public. Determining what constitutes an ’emergency’ is left solely up to the Homeland officials. China, Tunisia, Libya, and Syria are just some of the countries where all or a local or regional portion of the internet have been previously shut down due to a supposed, emergency’, which was usually mass protests against government policies or social conditions.

Serious resistance by American workers to the ever-growing wars of aggression and deterioration of their living and working conditions has long been an inevitable.development. Amid the current depression-level economic conditions and other dislocations of life in the U.S., SOP 303 may well be implemented to shut down vital communication by workers – the vast majority of American people – as legitimate resistance grows ever stronger.

Implementation of the SOP 303 plan would not be technically difficult. It’s true that no individual organization or government agency directly controls the entire internet. But the major social media platforms – including Facebook, Youtube, and Google – as well as mobile phone networks such as Verizon, are already closely integrated with the U.S. state.

They have collaborated in the NSA (U.S. National Security Agency) program of mass surveillance of online emails, social media, and phone calls by the American people and internationally They are also part of the new U.S. government program to have the online media giants censor the internet by downgrading or blocking access to socialist, ant-war, and progressive websites and systems – such as Counterpunch or World Socialist Website on the spurious grounds of blocking ‘fake news.

Google, to cite just one instance,, recently established a censorship algorithm and censorship staff group. Google censorship now effectively blocks access to at least 20 progressive websites. It does so by ensuring that users searching for information will not find those progressive sites because their links are placed very far down the search result on a second, third, or even fifth search page. Progressive sites have thereby lost 30, 40, even75% of their previous important traffic flow from Google.

It would therefore not take much for Homeland Security officials to end most online or phone communication. A few phone calls ordering the giant social media platforms and Google to shut down; a few more calls to the giant phone companies; and an order, enforced if necessary by police, for all or selected ISP’s (internet service providers) to shut down the websites they host, is all it would take to end most online or phone communication.

It should also be emphasized that the major social media systems, and mobile phone apps such as What’s app and Line, serve a large part of the world’s population. Facebook, for example, has two billion registered users from across the planet. It recently setup a censorship group of five hundred Facebook employees in Germany to monitor its content for information not to the liking of the German government.

To defend the basic democratic right of free communication, American and international workers -including IT workers – must organize to end all government surveillance, censorship, and use of the internet by governments to control the people of America and the world.

*

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

Eric Sommer is an international journalist living in China.

Featured image is from InfoRos

In February last year, Trump was tried and acquitted by the Senate on the following two phony charges:

“Article I: Abuse of power, falsely claiming Trump sought foreign interference from Ukraine in the US 2020 presidential election.

Article II: Obstruction of Congress, falsely claiming he “directed the unprecedented, categorical, and indiscriminate defiance of subpoenas issued by the House of Representatives pursuant to its sole Power of Impeachment,”

adding:

“(W)ithout lawful cause or excuse, President Trump directed Executive Branch agencies, offices, and officials not to comply with those subpoenas. President Trump thus interposed the powers of the Presidency against the lawful subpoenas of the House…”

Trump’s unwillingness to participate in the sham process did not rise to the level of obstructing Congress.

Nor did urging current and former regime members not to cooperate with Dems because proceedings lacked legitimacy.

Charges against him were politicized, justifiable wrongdoing to hold him accountable were ignored because most congressional members and bureaucrats share guilt.

On January 13, Trump was impeached again.

The second time around was on the phony charge of “engag(ing) on high crimes and misdemeanors by inciting violence against the government of the United States (sic),” adding:

He “gravely endangered the security of the United States and its institutions of government (sic).”

“He threatened the integrity of the democratic system (sic), interfered with the peaceful transition of power (sic), and imperiled a coequal branch of government (sic).”

“He thereby betrayed his trust as president, to the manifest injury of the people of the United States (sic).”

Cold, hard facts refute all of the above politicized rubbish.

January 6 events on Capitol Hill had clear earmarks of an orchestrated anti-Trump false flag — staged by elements wanting him blamed for what he had nothing to do with.

He urged supporters to protest against certification of rigged Election 2020 results nonviolently, not the other way around.

Public assembly and free expression are constitutionally guaranteed.

Perhaps not much longer based on recent events and if undemocratic Dems controlling Congress and the White House enact the Domestic Terrorism Prevention Act Dem Senator Richard Durbin said he’ll introduce.

If it becomes the law of the land, it may equate dissent with domestic terrorism, along with hardening totalitarian rule.

In US history, three presidents faced trials by Senate members on politicized charges — Andrew Johnson, Bill Clinton, and Donald Trump.

Beginning on February 9 — unless changed to an alternate date — Trump will be tried again on the phony charge of inciting insurrection he had nothing to do with — this time as a former president.

While exoneration is likely because of a required two-thirds Senate super-majority needed to convict, orchestrated events of January 6  could result in proceedings against him concluding the other way around.

For the first time in US history, a current or former president could be convicted by Senate trial — in private citizen Trump’s case, by a phony charge against him.

If a sitting or former US president can be wrongfully charged and convicted, what chance for justice in America for anyone will ever exist henceforth.

What remains of the practically nonexistent rule of law in America will be in dock when Senate proceedings against Trump begin.

Wrongful conviction by a Senate super-majority for what he had nothing to do with will be a de facto obituary for rule of law in America that no longer exists.

One sham article of impeachment will be presented to the Senate on Monday.

They’ll be nothing fair about a trial on a phony charge — presided over by Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts.

If convicted, Trump could be barred from holding public office again by a separate vote.

He could be denied benefits afforded former US presidents under the 1958 Former Presidents Act.

He could lose them by removal pursuant to Article II, Section 4 of the Constitution — including his pension and Secret Service protection.

However, the law states that presidents “whose service in such office shall have terminated other than by” removal from office office are entitled to benefits.

As a former president, Trump cannot be removed from an office he no longer holds.

Mostly likely, he’ll retain pension and Secret Service protection no matter the results of trial.

According to the Constitution’s Article ll, Section 2:

“The president…shall have power to grant reprieves and pardons for offenses against the United States, except in cases of impeachment.”

Trump cannot be pardoned after conclusion of politicized proceedings against him.

He or counsel representing him may or may not participate in what’s forthcoming.

No one should be above the law and that includes sitting and former presidents.

Of equal importance, no one should be falsely charged and held accountable when innocent.

Trump is guilty of high crimes of war and against humanity by hot and other means.

He’s guilty of enormous harm to most Americans so privileged ones could benefit at their expense.

He wasn’t impeached twice for these offenses. Nor did he earlier and will in February face Senate trial for them that would be justified and warrant conviction.

Instead, he faced two phony articles of impeachment earlier and a third one that’s the politicized basis for his upcoming sham Senate trial.

While unsympathetic toward him for high crimes I believe demand accountability, a nation of laws — not the whim of its ruling authorities to do what they please extrajudicially — is far more important.

It’s the difference between the rule of international, constitutional and statute laws v. rule of the jungle.

The latter standard defines how US governance operates.

Framing Trump on bogus charges while ignoring legitimate offenses against him and countless other current and former US ruling class members is one of many examples of a nation off the rails.

Governing by its own rules is what tyranny is all about.

That’s the disturbing state of things in the US on a path toward making it full-blown ahead if not challenged nonviolently in the streets to stop what no one yearning to breathe free should tolerate.

Edmund Burke long ago explained that “(t)he only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men (and women) to do nothing.”

*

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

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

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

My two Wall Street books are timely reading:

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

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

“Banker Occupation: Waging Financial War on Humanity”

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

Featured image is by Gage Skidmore via Flickr

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Sham Trump “Second Time” Senate Impeachment Trial to Begin February 9
  • Tags:

Anthony Fauci, the director of the United States government’s National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, told reporters Thursday that he was “knocked out” for about 24 hours after, on Tuesday, taking the second dose of experimental coronavirus vaccine. Fauci has thus joined the large and growing list of people who have suffered serious harm from the injections that he and other government officials have been encouraging Americans to take.

Back on December 22, Fauci said just before publicly having his first shot of the two-shot regimen that he was being injected with the experimental vaccine “as a symbol to the rest of the country that I feel extreme confidence in the safety and the efficacy of this vaccine and I want to encourage everyone who has the opportunity to get vaccinated.”

It turns out Fauci also ended up a symbol of harm that can arise from taking the experimental vaccine.

In a Friday Daily Mail article, Natalie Rahhal provides more information about Fauci’s post-vaccination trouble, as well as the resistance by medical workers and other Americans against pressure to be injected with the experimental vaccine. You can read that article here.

*

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

Featured image is from Children’s Health Defense

One crackling theme streaking through the US elections of 2020 was the issue of mask wearing.  Critics initially felt that face masks were of the too important category in combating the novel coronavirus: purchasing and using them was tantamount to prizing valuable protective equipment from doctors and frontline workers.  But COVID-19 continued to rage, and various public health bodies including the World Health Organization revised their initially cautious approach.  Masks, manufactured in abundance, could be an affordable non-pharmacological method of halting the spread of the pandemic.

The facemask became the symbol of the now departed Donald Trump’s view of the world: to don such a covering was an admission of weakness, an effete alternative to the rugged, at times idiotic notion of pioneer individualism.  Had he stuck to a debate on scientific literature (causation not being correlation and vice-a-versa), he might have been on firmer ground.  Instead, he preferred to dismiss mask wearing as an act of political correctness.

Joe Biden, in contrast, promised to scotch any such reservations on coming to office.  On August 20, 2020, he declared in accepting the Democratic nomination that his COVID-19 plan would involve a “national mandate to wear a mask.”  He called it “a patriotic duty” rather than an onerous burden.

The logistics for any such national policies would always be challenging and potentially imperilling.  Trump, scoffing at the validity of such measures, suggested in a press briefing last year that Biden was incapable of identifying “what authority the president has to issue such a mandate or how federal law enforcement could possibly enforce it or why we would be stepping on governors throughout our country, many of whom have done a very good job and know what is needed.”

A prevailing conventional view is that the province of public health and safety remains the purview and power of state governments.  In 1905, the Supreme Court in Jacobson v Massachusetts held by 7-2 that states have the power to enact compulsory regulations in regulating public health.  The justices were particular interested in mandatory vaccination laws, and found that, states had “the police power … to enact a compulsory vaccination law, and it is for the legislature, and not for the courts, to determine in the first instance whether vaccination is or is not the best mode for the prevention of smallpox and the protection of public health.”

In July 2020, James Phillips of Chapman University and John Yoo of UC Berkeley expressed the view that the constitutional republic would find vast federally imposed measures, even those protecting the health of the populace, problematic and undesirable. “Our founders established a national government of limited, enumerated powers, and reserved the authority over everything else to the states.”

There was no shortness of irony in this, given Yoo’s advice to the George W. Bush administration when serving in the office of Legal Counsel advocating vast executive powers justifying, among other things, the use of torture and warrantless surveillance.  During times of national emergency, the executive power expands.  Not, it seems, during a public health crisis.

For all that, the authors do make valid points.  Biden would have to rely on Congressional measures that he himself could enforce.  One source of authorising power can be found in the Commerce Clause, empowering Congress to “regulate Commerce … among the several States.”  Mask wearing protocols might be tagged to interstate travel, though it would be problematic compelling non-travelling citizens to wear them.

According to the authors, wearing a mask might not be commercial in nature, but mandating mask wearing would increase commerce.  But Supreme Court jurisprudence on the subject, notably in the Obamacare case, has held that “Congress cannot create commerce in order to then regulate it.”

David Carillo of the California Constitutional Centre at UC Berkeley’s School of Law notes that Biden is on safe ground when it comes to mandating the use of masks in federal buildings and on federal property via executive order.  Such a power would not extend to mandatory mask wearing “on interstate buses and trains because only the US Congress can regulate interstate commerce by law, not the president by directive.”

Legal challenges are inevitable, and Quinnipiac University School of Law’s William Dunlap sees litigants pressing courts to “look and see what Congress has done and compare the president’s rules with existing congressional rules to see whether they contradict each other or support each other.”

On January 20, 2021, the new president signed an Executive Order on Protecting the Federal Workforce and Requiring Mask-Wearing, enacting regulations very much in line with Carillo’s advice.  “Put simply, masks and other public health measures reduce the spread of the disease, particularly when communities make widespread use of such measures, and thus save lives.”

The order also encourages a “masking across America,” with the Secretary of Health and Human Services and the Director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention tasked with engaging “as appropriate, with State, local, Tribal, and territorial officials, as well as business, union, academic, and other community leaders, regarding mask-wearing and other public health measures”.  The aim of such engagement is to maximise “public compliance with, and addressing any obstacles to, mask-wearing and other public health practices identified by CDC.”

A second Executive Order requires mask wearing on certain domestic modes of transportation covering airports, commercial aircraft, trains, public maritime vessels, intercity bus services and “all forms of public transportation as defined in section 5302 of title 49, United States Code.”  But Biden also acknowledges that consultation shall take place between the heads of agencies and “State, local, Tribal and territorial officials” along with “industry and union representatives from the transport sector; and consumer representatives.”  The fangs of the regulation seem, if not missing, then distinctly blunt.

Both orders, in other words, amount to a national mask framework of sorts but point to a grand suggestion rather than an imperative for mask wearing.  The orders do little to clarify the machinery of enforcement, and how strictly the task will be pursued.  Agencies will be given the lead, but this entire effort risks crumbling before the twin forces of confused bureaucracy and dedicated tribalism.  Republicans are already promising derailing lawsuits.  Representative Chip Roy (R-Texas) preferred the more vulgar alternative.  “On day one,” he tweeted in December in response to Biden’s promise, “I will tell you to kiss my ass.”

*

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]

Featured image is from The White House Facebook

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Masking Up under Biden: The Perils of Tribalism, Bureaucracy and Lawsuits
  • Tags:

“My motto was always to keep swinging. Whether I was in a slump or feeling badly or having trouble off the field, the only thing to do was keep swinging.”—Hank Aaron

My father, a rabid St. Louis Cardinals fan, listened to virtually all their ball games on the radio from our home in Peoria, Illinois. Occasionally, we would drive the three hours to St. Louis to see the Cardinals play in person.

On one of those trips, the Milwaukee Braves were playing the Cardinals. That day, I arrived at the park a Cardinals fan, like my Dad. By the time I left the park, however, I had been converted into a Hank Aaron and Eddie Mathews fan.

It wasn’t so much the game itself that dazzled me, though. It was the Braves’ pre-game batting practice: one pitch after another, I watched as Aaron and his teammate Mathews smashed their balls over the fences. I had never seen ballplayers hit the ball so hard, and I haven’t since. Together, Aaron and Mathews hit the most home runs as teammates, for a combined total 863. Long after Mathews started to slow down, Hank kept smashing baseball records.

Yet no feat would match Aaron’s historic assault on Babe Ruth’s career record of 714 homeruns.

It was a watershed moment for sports history and the making of a civil rights icon.

Neither success story happened overnight.

Henry Louis Aaron, who died at the age of 86, was born on Feb. 5, 1934, in Mobile, Alabama. He came of age in a nation struggling with segregation, racism and the distant, yet-unrealized dream of a world in which “black men as well as white men, would be guaranteed the ‘unalienable Rights’ of ‘Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.’”

From his early years spent swinging at bottle caps with a broomstick, Hank went on to play semiprofessional baseball. In 1952, he quit high school to join the Indianapolis Clowns of the Negro American League. His talent was apparent to the baseball scouts. In fact, after a brief stay as the Clowns’ shortstop, Hank was sold to the Braves for $10,000. After excelling in the Braves’ farm system for several years, Aaron joined the Braves in Milwaukee.

The year was 1954, and it didn’t look like the 20-year-old Aaron would make the team. But then one of the starting outfielders broke an ankle, and Hank was tapped to replace him. From there, Aaron never looked back.

In 1955, Hank batted .314 with 27 home runs and 106 runs batted in. The next season, Hank won his first of two National League batting titles.

In 1957, Aaron hit a National League-leading 44 home runs, while driving in 132 runs batted in and batting .322. To cap off the season, he hit an 11th inning homer late in the season to clinch the pennant for the Braves. Aaron won the MVP that year, and the Braves went on to win the World Series.

Year after year, Aaron proved his hitting and fielding prowess. And although he was 6 feet tall, he was never a heavy man and only reached 190 pounds. The key to Aaron’s hitting was his supple, powerful wrists that allowed him to crack his bat like a buggy whip. Aaron credits hauling ice as a 16-year-old for developing his wrists, working from 6 a.m. to 1 p.m. for $2.25 a day.

Maybe it was Hank’s laid-back style that allowed him to creep up on Babe Ruth’s homerun record before anyone realized it. One observer remarked that Hank seemed to be looking for a place to sit down when he approached the batter’s box. The Hall of Fame pitcher Robin Roberts once remarked that Aaron was the only batter he knew who “could fall asleep between pitches and still wake up in time to hit the next one.”

Nevertheless, the chase to beat Babe Ruth’s home run record heated up in the summer of 1973. Unfortunately, so did the hate that simmered beneath society’s surface. Much of it came by way of the mailman, with Aaron receiving an estimated 3,000 letters a day, more than any American outside of politics.

Much of it was hate mail, more hateful and threatening than Aaron had ever imagined. “If you come close to Babe Ruth’s 714 homers,” one letter said, “I have a contract out on you. Over 700, and you can consider yourself punctured with a .22 shell.” Another read, “Dear Nigger Henry, You are (not) going to break the record established by the great Babe Ruth if I can help it. Whites are far more superior than jungle bunnies. My gun is watching your every black move.

“The Ruth chase should have been the greatest period of my life, and it was the worst,” Mr. Aaron wrote in his autobiography, I Had a Hammer. “I couldn’t believe there was so much hatred in people. It’s something I’m still trying to get over, and maybe I never will.”

The summer of 1973 ended with Hank at 713 home runs, one run shy of tying the Babe’s record. Aaron was 39 years old.

In his first at bat in 1974, Aaron scored a home run, tying Ruth. Then on April 8, 1974, the largest crowd in Atlanta Braves history came out to witness the historic moment. Hank didn’t disappoint them.

With a mean whip of the bat, his first swing of the evening, Aaron sent the ball into the Braves bullpen in left center field, approximately 400 feet from home plate. The large message board blared “715.”

Just like that, Hank Aaron had eclipsed the Great Bambino to become the Homerun King.

When Aaron rounded third, he broke into a wide grin at the sight of his teammates waiting for him at the plate. With tears in his eyes, Aaron was met at home plate by his mother. Fireworks went off, as the crowd roared for ten minutes.

“I just thank God it’s all over,” said Aaron. He had endured months in the fishbowl of media coverage, death threats and hate mail.

Hank Aaron played several more years, amassing a career total of 755 home runs. He was awarded the Presidential Citizens Medal in 2001. The following year, he received the Presidential Medal of Freedom.

For all of his achievements, nothing equaled that night in April 1974 when Hammerin’ Hank stepped past Babe Ruth and racial hatred into history.

As MLB Commissioner Rob Manfred stated,

“Hank symbolized the very best of our game, and his all-around excellence provided Americans and fans across the world with an example to which to aspire. His career demonstrates that a person who goes to work with humility every day can hammer his way into history—and find a way to shine like no other.”

*

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].

He is a frequent contributor to Global Research.

Featured image is from the public domain

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Keep Swinging for Justice and Freedom: The Legacy of Hammerin’ Hank Aaron
  • Tags:

Iraq: Biggest Corruption Scandal in History

January 24th, 2021 by Dirk Adriaensens

In her article “Iraq’s century of humiliation in the globalised age”, Aneela Shahzad writes:

“In May 2020, the Special Representative of Secretary General for the UN Assistance Mission for Iraq announced that the poverty rate in Iraq would double to 40% from around 20%, where it currently stands, ‘the Iraqi economy is expected to contract by 9.7% in 2020… (and) there will be a decrease in economic opportunities.’ How is there a 350% increase in oil production and only ‘decrease’ in economic opportunities for the Iraqi people? The people, whose cities have been bombed to ruins from Fallujah to Mosul; of whom over three million were killed and over two million displaced during the war; and who have been suffering disease and death due to shortage of food and medicine for the last four decades.”

Is it the oil-resource curse that has brought the Iraqi people to this deplorable condition? Or, have the US-installed political system and after them the Iranian influence over Iraqi politics, been the main reasons behind mischiefs such as the case of “an estimated $239.7 billion has left the country illegally since 2003”, currently being inquired by the Iraqi parliament. Most of this money was indeed oil money, meaning that both oil and revenue have been conveniently syphoned away from Iraq, leaving its people in harrowing dearth.” [1]

A Transparency International report, published March 16, 2005, states that: “The reconstruction of post-war Iraq is in danger of becoming ‘the biggest corruption scandal in history.”[2]

The analysis underneath tries to give an overview – although incomplete – of the rampant corruption imported by the US invaders and optimized by its installed Quisling government. It is only one aspect of the total destruction of the Iraqi state. This is the story of a country that was targeted to become a failed state, by design of the imperialist and neoliberal US/UK elites, or should we call them “the organized-crime world syndicate”. The sectarian political and neoliberal economic system they installed is totally broken, beyond repair. The Iraqis call the period after the withdrawal of US combat troops “the second face of the occupation”, leaving in place all the neoliberal sectarian laws the occupiers enacted.

The criminal activities of the occupiers are well documented, many times reported and analysed, but the US still refuses to accept responsibility and accountability for its gross violations of International Humanitarian Law. It’s very important that the true story of Iraq is repeatedly told, until it becomes part of humanity’s collective memory, because Iraq serves as a template for the nefarious consequences of what “humanitarian” imperial interventions really mean, as is the case for other “humanitarian” war zones, from Afghanistan to Libya. “Bringing democracy” is always the official narrative, the harsh reality however is destruction, plunder, submission, exploitation and oppression. The truths about corruption have to be documented, explained and repeated over and over again. Hence this article.

This is well formulated in the message that novelist, painter and poet John Berger (+ 02.01.2017) wrote on 18 June 2003 in support of the World Tribunal on Iraq initiative, the greatest achievement of the global peace movement ever:

“The records have to be kept and, by definition, the perpetrators, far from keeping records, try to destroy them. They are killers of the innocent and of memory. The records are required to inspire still further the mounting opposition to the new global tyranny. The new tyrants, incomparably over-armed, can win every war – both military and economic. Yet they are losing the war (this is how they call it) of communication. They are not winning the support of world public opinion. More and more people are saying NO. Finally this will be the tyranny’s undoing. But after how many more tragedies, invasions and collateral disasters? After how much more of the new poverty the tyranny engenders? Hence the urgency of keeping records, of remembering, of assembling the evidence, so that the accusations become unforgettable, and proverbial on every continent. More and more people are going to say NO, for this is the precondition today for saying YES to all we are determined to save and everything we love.”[3]

It was not Saddam Hussein who introduced a culture of endemic corruption

Saddam Hussein’s government had progressive plans to modernize Iraq and turn the country into a model society. In a region where government corruption is the norm, Saddam had decided he would ban corruption from his own country. According to him, corruption was not only morally wrong, it was treason. For example, in January 1979, four officials were executed for accepting bribes. This policy changed dramatically after the 2003 invasion.

Patrick Cockburn: “Why is the corruption in Iraq so bad? The simple answer that Iraqis give is that “UN sanctions destroyed Iraqi society in the 1990s and the Americans destroyed the Iraqi state after 2003”. Patronage based on party, family or community determines who gets a job. There are many winners as well as losers and all depends on Iraqi oil exports going up and prices staying high. “I only once saw panic in the cabinet,” says an ex-minister, “and that was when there was a sharp drop in the price of oil.”[4]

Of course there was corruption during Saddam’s reign, as is the case in all countries around the world, but many Iraqis recall that, after the devastating US air strikes during operation Desert Storm in 1991, power stations and other facilities were patched up quickly using only Iraqi resources, while, despite the $ 53 billion “aid” for the “reconstruction” spent since the 2003 invasion, 70 percent of Iraqis have no decent access to drinking water or electricity. The available funds went into the pockets of foreign contractors and corrupt officials.

Spot the difference.

From the first days after the invasion, the US and its coalition partners created a wasteful, opaque and corrupt system in Iraq. Massive theft, fraud, bribery and crimes of all kinds have failed reconstruction, infecting the government and wider society. There are hundreds of fraudulent, incomplete, failed or useless projects that have cost Iraq tens of billions of dollars. Judging from the final results, the projects have delivered surprisingly little lasting benefit to the Iraqis. These corrupt acts are a clear violation of the occupier’s responsibilities under the Geneva Conventions, the UN Convention against Corruption (2003) and Security Council resolutions.

Transparency International ratings for Iraq

in the 2006 Corruption Perceptions Index of Transparency International, Iraq was ranked 160th of 162 countries; in 2007: 178th of 180 countries; in 2008: 178th; in 2009: 176th ; in 2010: 175th out of 178 countries; In 2011: 175th out of 182 countries; in 2012: 19th out of 174 countries; in 2013: 171th of 177 countries; 2014: 170th of 175 countries; in 2015: 161th of 167 countries; 2016: 166th out of 176 countries; in 2017:167th of 180 countries; in 2018: 168th; in 2019: 175th in 182 countries.

Iraq is the most corrupt country in the Arab world, according to Transparency International reports. Deep-rooted corruption in Iraq is one of the factors hampering reconstruction efforts for more than a decade. The exact magnitude of the corruption and waste of Iraqi public funds is difficult to ascertain. But several officials have provided figures ranging between $229 billion and $1 trillion.

Former Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki lost $ 500 billion during his tenure (2006-2014), according to the Iraqi Integrity Commission (CPI). “Nearly half of the government’s revenues during the eight-year period were ‘stolen’ ”, said Adil Nouri, the CPl spokesperson. He called this “the greatest political corruption scandal in history”. Iraq’s oil revenues were $ 800 billion between 2006 and 2014, and the Maliki government also received $ 250 billion in aid from various countries, including the US, during that time.[5]

Iraqi MP Khalid al-Alwani revealed on July 13, 2011, that the extent of financial and administrative corruption in Iraq could amount to $ 229 billion[6]. He said the scale of corruption in Iraq is “enormous” and attributed rampant corruption in Iraq to “the high volume of sales … the lack of accountability and lack of judicial oversight”.

Rahim al-Darraji, a former member of the Finance Committee in Parliament, estimated in 2020 the looted funds in Iraq at around $ 450 billion.[7]

“Since 2003, corrupt officials and politicians in Iraq have squandered about a thousand billion dollars in public money, without developing any service sector in the country”, The Arab Weekly wrote on 19/09/2020[8].

An Iraqi parliamentary committee estimated that about $ 239.7 billion has been smuggled out of Iraq since 2003. “The amount was smuggled in the form of false receipts and many commissions were paid to civil servants,” Taha al-Difai, a member of the Integrity Commission, told the official Iraqi News Agency on January 4, 2021. He cited political pressure on an anti-corruption committee formed by the government to investigate allegations of corruption in the country. “About $ 685 billion has been disbursed since 2003,” he said, adding that this amount was “wasted on contracts and rampant corruption.”[9]

After reading these staggering figures, take a moment to reflect on the acute humanitarian needs of the Iraqi population. 2.4 million people are in acute need in 2020-2021 compared to 1.8 million people in 2019-2020, with the proportion of out-of-camp IDPs in acute need increasing from 36 percent in 2020 to 45 percent in 2021.[10] Overall, 5.6 million people, including 2.6 million children, continue to need humanitarian assistance. This includes 1.8 million people (814,000 children and 15 per cent people with disabilities) facing acute humanitarian needs.[11]

As the World Bank has noted, oil has enabled Iraq to appear on paper as a middle-income country, a classification based on the simple math of taking its oil-inflated GDP and dividing it by population. But by almost every other measure, Iraq is a barely managing Third World economy.[12]

Does anyone still believe Iraq’s corrupt political process can be rectified? March 19, 2021 will commemorate the 18th anniversary of the criminal invasion of Iraq and since 2003 the situation for the Iraqi people has only deteriorated, while a small political and collaborationist elite and their foreign masters have shamefully enriched themselves.

Again, spot the difference with the Iraqi governments before 2003.

The Looting of Iraq

Soon after the conquest of Baghdad, American commanders and political leaders announced a massive program to rebuild Iraq and bring prosperity. President Bush even compared those efforts to the Marshall Plan in Europe after World War II[13]. Washington spent billions of dollars of Iraqi oil revenues and billions of US grants to fund thousands of projects. But because of fraud, corruption, and theft, these programs failed and money was increasingly diverted to shadowy “security” operations. Gangsterism started in the earliest days of the occupation under the US-administered provisional government, the Coalition Provisional Authority (CPA). It went even further after that, under the (approving) eyes of US officials and advisers. Corruption, imported by the occupier, was rampant thanks to the very weak government system they created.

Huge funds have been stolen or lost by the occupying authorities and their local accomplices. The US government had decided to acquire all Iraqi assets and funds around the world, totalling $ 13 billion. Subsequently, Iraqi funds in the US ($ 3 billion) were confiscated. And finally there was a forced transfer of funds from the Iraqi account at the Swiss bank UBS to the Anglo-Americans.

The occupation authorities also obtained the accumulated funds from the oil-for-food program (approximately $ 21 billion up to March 2003). In the first week of the occupation, US forces in government buildings in Baghdad collected about $ 6 billion from the Iraqi Central Bank and $ 4 billion from other Iraqi banks. Also, $ 2 billion of Iraqi funds in Arab and other foreign banks (national emergency reserves) was stolen.

Where have all those funds gone? Instead of depositing these funds – as well as the income from oil exports – in an account in the Iraqi central bank, the occupation authorities parked all these assets in an account Development Fund for Iraq (DFI) at the US central bank, New York- branch, where all financial transactions are done in utmost secrecy.

The invasion allowed the US to steal money from Iraq’s oil revenues. Christian Aid found that of the $ 5 billion of invested assets from Iraqi oil revenues after 2003, only about $ 1 billion could be recovered. The missing 4 billion was found in the Federal Reserve, after the investigation by Christian Aid[14]. This was in direct violation of the UN resolution requiring the International Advisory and Monitoring Board (IAMB) to monitor these funds.

Paul Bremer Created a Garden of Eden for War Profiteers in Iraq

The clearest statement of intent for the future of the Iraqi economy was Bremer Order 39, which permitted full foreign ownership of Iraqi state-owned assets and decreed that over 200 state-owned enterprises, including electricity, telecommunications and the pharmaceuticals industry, could be dismantled. Order 39 also permitted 100 per cent foreign ownership of Iraqi banks, mines and factories; and allowed these firms to move their profits out of Iraq. It has been argued already in the British courts that Order 39 constitutes an act of illegal occupation under the terms of the Hague and Geneva Conventions. Article 55 of the Hague regulations asserts that occupying powers are only permitted to administer public assets. The effect of Article 55 is to outlaw privatization of a country’s assets whilst it is under occupation by a hostile military power.[15]

Transnational corporations, mostly belonging to Western states have succeeded to negotiate very favourable contracts. Private or listed companies received at least $ 138 billion in government contracts from the US taxpayer for services such as providing security, infrastructure works and catering for the troops.

Ten companies received 52 percent of the funds, according to an analysis by the Financial Times in March 2013. Since the invasion, Halliburton (military/oil), Veritas (military/finance), the Washington Group (military/oil), Aegis (military), International American Products (electricity), Fluor (water/sewage), Perini (environmental cleanup), Parsons (military/construction), First Kuwaiti General (construction), HSBC Bank (finance), Cummins (electricity) and Nour USA (oil), to name just a few, have made huge profits at the expense of the Iraqi treasury and US taxpayers. US and UK companies received 85 per cent of the value of CPA contracts whilst Iraqi firms received just 2 per cent of the value of those. Most went to US firms[16]. No less than 60% went to the American Halliburton, on the basis of outrageous no-bid contracts. Financial reporting was shoddy or non-existent.

To illustrate the extent of the looting, waste and corruption, here are a few examples.

Billions of dollars in Iraq ‘s vital oil production have been stolen and smuggled out of the country since March 2003, with astonishingly little action by Coalition authorities or the Iraqi government[17]. Smugglers have also re-exported or sold stolen refined products like gasoline and diesel fuel. The government imported these products to make up for refinery shortages and sold them at highly-subsidized rates. Most oil loss was apparently due to corrupt officials who control the oil system. US officials were certainly involved alongside the Iraqis. Usually, oil operations are extensively metered, from well head to refineries to export terminals. But Iraq had no working meters, making it virtually impossible to monitor the flow of crude or refined products or to trace the location of smuggling operations and corrupt practices. “It’s like a supermarket without a cashier,” said Mike Morris, an oil industry expert who used to work for the State Department in Baghdad. “There is no metering [at the export terminal]. And there’s no metering at the well heads either. There is no metering at any of the major pipeline junctions.” Morris estimated that “between 200,000 and 500,000 barrels a day” are unaccounted for.[18]

The CPA could have installed metering immediately, but strangely did not. Bremer and his team were advised of the metering problem, but they repeatedly postponed action[19]. When the IAMB pointed to the lapse, neither the Iraqi State Oil Marketing Organization nor US authorities could give a satisfactory explanation[20]. IAMB accountants noted that there were not even working meters on the export loading platforms, making it impossible to know the volume or value of Iraq ‘s crude exports. Officials have apparently been getting kickbacks from loading of tankers with hundreds of thousands of barrels of oil not included in the bill of lading.

Platt’s Oilgram, an industry newsletter, estimated the loss at $3 billion per year[21]. The Iraq Study Group suggested that until 2006 the rate of theft might have run as high as 180 million barrels, but a more recent report by the US Government Accountability Office suggested a figure of 110 million barrels annually, with a financial loss that can be calculated at about $5.5 billion. An audit of Iraq’s oil revenue management and accounting system found the plan to fully install and calibrate a full crude oil and products metering system by 2012 was only 39% complete, according to a report from Platts.[22]

James Glanz in The New York Times of May 28, 2004[23]: “As the United States spends billions of dollars to rebuild Iraq’s civil and military infrastructure, there is increasing evidence that parts of sensitive military equipment, seemingly brand-new components for oil rigs and water plants and whole complexes of older buildings are leaving the country on the backs of flatbed trucks.

By some estimates, at least 100 semitrailers loaded with what is billed as Iraqi scrap metal are streaming each day into Jordan, just one of six countries that share a border with Iraq.

American officials say sensitive equipment is, in fact, closely monitored and much of the rest that is leaving is legitimate removal and sale from a shattered country. But many experts say that much of what is going on amounts to a vast looting operation.

In the past several months, the International Atomic Energy Agency, based in Vienna, has been closely monitoring satellite photographs of hundreds of military-industrial sites in Iraq. Initial results from that analysis are jarring, said Jacques Baute, director of the agency’s Iraq nuclear verification office: entire buildings and complexes of as many as a dozen buildings have been vanishing from the photographs. “We see sites that have totally been cleaned out,” Mr. Baute said.

The agency started the program in December, after a steel vessel contaminated with uranium, probably an artifact of Saddam Hussein’s pre-1991 nuclear program, turned up in a Rotterdam scrapyard. The shipment was traced to a Jordanian company that was apparently unaware that the scrap contained radioactive material.”

(…) ”There is a gigantic salvage operation, stripping anything of perceived value out of the country,” said John Hamre, president and chief executive of the Center for Strategic and International Studies, a nonpartisan Washington research institute, which sent a team to Iraq and issued a report on reconstruction efforts at the request of the Pentagon last July. ”This is systematically plundering the country,” Dr. Hamre said. ”You’re going to have to replace all of this stuff.”

The great diversion

To cover up their own corruption, at a time when the search for imaginary weapons of mass destruction did not go well and the Abu Ghraib torture scandal came to widespread public attention in April 2004, the US decided to attack the Oil-For-Food program head-on. They urgently needed a distraction to make the world forget the US government’s lies to justify the invasion and the failed occupation that was marred with death, destruction, corruption… The UN was to be made a scapegoat. Was this an act of revenge because the UN Security Council refused to give green light for the invasion?

On February 4, 2005, Inter Press Service (IPS) reported in an article, “Iraq’s oil-for-food audit finds no widespread abuse”[24]: “After spending months combing through thousands of documents and questioning scores of officials, the investigators of alleged irregularities in the U.N.-led Oil-for-Food program in Iraq acknowledge that they have so far failed to find a smoking gun. However, in an interim report released Thursday, they accused the world body of failing to abide by the rules to assure fairness, transparency and accountability.”

The mainstream media made a big fuss about the alleged abuses in the Oil-for-Food program, including the Wall Street Journal. Obvious biases, exaggerations and unstated context about the United Nations oil-for-food program: this so-called “scandal” is perhaps one of the most poignant misinformation in recent times. And that is no coincidence. The story confirms the neoconservative worldview that the UN is populated by corrupt, incompetent and hostile anti-American bureaucrats whose sole purpose is – they believe – to restrict the United States from using its unparalleled – but ‘entirely benevolent’ – power. “Newspaper editors who play up the story are complicit in this ongoing virulent campaign against the U.N. by U.S. right-wing neo-conservatives,” said Jim Paul, executive director of the U.S.-based Global Policy Forum. In addition, the Baath Party and the Iraqi president had to be vilified and accused of unbridled corruption at all costs so that the truths about the corrupt and brutal occupation would not provoke too much protest. The US allegedly saw a mote in the UN’s eye without noticing the beam in its own eye.

Former Iraqi Humanitarian Coordinator Denis Halliday said in his testimony before the World Tribunal on Iraq in Istanbul on June 2005: “To divert attention from the disastrous occupation in terms of cost and casualty rate, Washington has attacked the Oil-For-Food program, where apparently some irregularities have been observed: wrong management, lost funds for which no explanation can be found … and this for a total of perhaps $ 150,000. However, this unique and successful $ 65 billion project fed and met the basic needs for 24 million Iraqis from 1997 to 2004. The real scandal is not the wrong management of the UN. It is the sale of oil outside of this program, with US approval, allocating 30% of oil revenues to Kuwait, while Iraqi children died from holding back necessary contracts, leaving insufficient financial investment in electricity and water supply. The real scandal is the genocide of the Iraqi population that the UN caused by a 12-year strangulation of the country under the severe sanctions regime.”

Disappearing defence funds and weaponry

According to a confidential report and interviews with US and Iraqi officials published by Knight Ridder newspaper on August 11, 2005[25], US and Iraqi investigators had uncovered widespread fraud and waste in more than $ 1 billion in arms deals arranged by middlemen who received huge bribes for contracts to arm Iraq’s fledgling army.

Knight Ridder reported that $ 300 million in defence funds had been lost. But the report indicated that the audit committee had uncovered a much bigger scandal, with losses amounting to more than $ 500 million.

Those revelations provided a look at corruption reportedly thriving for eight months or more, even with about 20 US civilian advisers working with Iraqi defence chiefs. “There is no reconstruction, no weapons, nothing,” said Iraqi Lieutenant General Abdul Aziz al-Yaseri, who worked at the height of the alleged corruption at the Ministry of Defence. ‘There are not even real contracts. They just signed papers and took the money.[26]’

General Petraeus, who oversaw the training of Iraqi forces, held weekly briefings with the Minister of Defence. Other Iraqi defence officials were rarely spotted without US civilian advisers around. The close relationship raises questions about how $ 500 million or more could disappear without US intervention to stop the suspicious contracts that ran for at least eight months.

A $ 75 million contract to Parsons to build a new Baghdad Police College should have become “the most essential civil security project in the country”, according to SIGIR, but after new recruits arrived in May 2006, cadets protested against the unbearable circumstances. Inspectors found that toilets overflowed into living areas, foundations sank and floors rose. Engineers eventually decided that the work was so seriously flawed that several of the newly constructed buildings had to be demolished and completely rebuilt. Dozens of other ‘security’ projects, such as police stations, prisons and army barracks, have also failed spectacularly.[27]

When funds for ‘security’ programs were increased, Iraqi politicians and government ministers demanded DFI funds for their own projects. A consortium affiliated with Pentagon favourite Ahmed Chalabi was initially awarded a $ 327 million contract in January 2004 for the supply of weapons, trucks, uniforms and other equipment, but the items apparently never arrived. General Hazem Shaalan, Secretary of Defence in the interim government, was awarded $ 1.3 billion for new tanks, helicopters, and armoured vehicles, as well as rifles, body armour and helmets. Subsequent investigations showed extensive corruption. Cash was transferred through intermediaries and secret accounts. Little records were kept.

British company Zeroline won a $ 8.48 million contract for 51 armoured vehicles for the Iraqi government in late 2003. Two other companies, APTx and Alchemy Technology, were also involved. The vehicles were contracted out to be built in Russia. Although the main contract was paid in full at the end of 2004, using DFI funds, the vehicles were never delivered.

On May 16, 2005, Iraqi warrants were issued for the arrest of former Defence Secretary Shaalan, the head of procurement, Ziad Cattan, and several others at the Ministry of Defence, based on findings of the Iraqi Supreme Audit Board. But Shaalan had already fled to London and Amman by then. A number of other accused ministers had also left the country. Judge Radhi al-Radhi, the official who investigated the corruption, told a journalist: “We have US experts in the Department of Defence. Why didn’t they act when they saw such violations?”[28]

The Special Inspector General for Iraqi Reconstruction

The US government has spent large sums of money on “reconstruction” in Iraq. In 2003, Congress voted approximately $ 21 billion to create the Iraq Reconstruction and Rehabilitation Fund (IRRF). The US also established the Iraq Security Forces Fund (ISFF), funded by the Department of Defence, for a total of $ 11 billion. Programs such as the Commander’s Emergency Response Program (CERP) added another $ 6 billion, bringing the total to $ 38 billion. From the outset, US authorities have blurred the distinction between spending on rebuilding Iraq’s infrastructure and spending on military programs. Most of the money originally approved was spent on the security sector.

Stuart Bowen, the Special Inspector General for Iraqi Reconstruction (SIGIR), had controlled the IRRF since October 2004. Bowen had mandatory access to financial data and was mandated to eradicate corruption. He was a protégé of President Bush, but Bowen became more critical of the White House as time went by. With a staff of 55 auditors, inspectors and investigators in 2006, he disclosed contract scandals, made incriminating statements in Congress on several occasions and referred cases to the courts for criminal prosecution. The Bush administration attempted (unsuccessfully) to close Bowen’s office in the fall of 2006. It seems tempting to view the inspector general as an undaunted advocate of a fair government. In fact, Bowen had to work within a carefully limited mandate and under heavy political pressure. Despite many achievements, he has not called the greatest war profiteers to account. Nor has he investigated the role of senior officials in the Bush administration or discovered scandals in the shadowy “security sector” spending.

The stolen and squandered “reconstruction” funds

About $ 40 billion from a post-Gulf War fund that Iraq maintained to protect the country from foreign claims have been “missing,” the Iraqi parliament speaker said on February 24, 2011. In a letter to the UN in May 2011, the Iraqi parliamentary committee of Integrity (COI) wrote: “There is evidence that US occupation authorities have stolen reconstruction funds from the people of Iraq or misappropriated through corruption, totalling $ 17 billion.” The Iraqi parliament described this loss of funds as ‘financial crime’.[29]

An Iraqi government watchdog agency, the Board of Supreme Audit, noted in 2012 that $ 800 million in profits from illicit activities was being transferred out of Iraq each week, effectively stripping $ 40 billion annually from the economy, according to Special Inspector General for Iraq Reconstruction (SIGIR) Stuart Bowen’s final report on the U.S. occupation.[30]

An estimate in the report of the Commission for Wartime Contracting on February 24, 2011 stated that fraud losses could amount to $ 12 billion in both war zones alone (Iraq and Afghanistan).

And when the US withdrew from Iraq, hundreds of abandoned or unfinished projects were left behind. SIGIR wrote in the March 2013 report that the United States Department of Defence was unable to properly account for at least $ 8.7 billion, “lost through fraud, waste and abuse”. 96 percent of $ 9 billion is missing. It is interesting to note that this money is not “aid” at all, but comes from the sale of Iraqi oil and gas, and from frozen funds and proceeds from Saddam Hussein’s fixed assets.

The Development Fund for Iraq

On May 22, 2003, just three months after the invasion, the UN Security Council established the Development Fund for Iraq (DFI) to manage Iraq’s future oil revenues, as well as the remaining funds from the Oil-for- Food bill of the UN. The fund was turned over to the US-dominated Coalition Provisional Authority (CPA). The Security Council demanded that the money be “managed in a transparent manner” to “meet the humanitarian needs of the Iraqi people”. That’s why they created the International Advisory and Monitoring Board (IAMB) to oversee the Fund.

On the same day that the CPA was created by UNSCR 1483, Bush signed Executive Order 13303, which prohibited any ‘attachment, judgement, decree, lien, execution, garnishment, or other judicial process’ with respect to the Central Bank of Iraq-Development Fund for Iraq and all Iraqi petroleum, proceeds from the sale of petroleum, or any interests in Iraqi petroleum held by the US government or any national of the United States. This executive order granted immunity from prosecution for the theft or embezzlement of oil revenue, or incidentally, from any safety or environmental violations that might be committed in the course of producing Iraqi oil. Two months later, in June 2003, Paul Bremer issued CPA Order 17. This guaranteed that members of the coalition military forces, the CPA, foreign missions and contractors—and their personnel—would remain immune from the Iraqi legal process. This carte blanche provision of immunity was extended again in June 2004.[31]

Initially, the CPA completely controlled the fund. In just 13 months, CPA officials spent $ 19.6 billion – more than 90% of all DFI resources then available.

When the CPA was finally dissolved on June 28, 2004, management of the Development Fund for Iraq passed to the Iraqi Interim Government (IGC) and its successors. DFI spending then became even less transparent. The Iraqi Ministry of Finance only established an administrative unit for the DFI in February 2005, but at the end of 2006 it was still not possible to properly monitor DFI funds. At every stage, American advisers had significant and even decisive influence within the Treasury and Iraqi ministries.

Blocking and weakening the UN Supervisory Board

The International Advisory and Monitoring Board (IAMB) appeared to be a solid instrument of accountability. But the US cowboys have done everything they could to block and weaken the authority of the Board. Board members: the World Bank, the IMF, the Arab Development Bank and the United Nations had to negotiate the terms of reference with the CPA. Washington’s demands caused diplomatic bickering and delays for months. Although the parties finally agreed on the rules of the game in October 2003, the board did not hold its first meeting until December and did not sign an audit contract until April 2004. Ten months had passed and surveillance hadn’t even started yet.

Because of the boycott operations of the US, the Administration was not given access to financial documents (albeit mandatory). It had only limited investigative powers and no accountability or prosecution powers. Furthermore, the board never had a permanent full-time staff and its budget was so inadequate that it could do little more than hire accountants. The board “monitored” the oil sales and the inflow and outflow of money from the DFI, but could not guarantee liability. “We have no authority to require actions arising from our work,” said IAMB Chairman Jean-Pierre Halbwachs at a press conference in late 2005.[32] Another member acknowledged that the Council was not established to detect fraud and that the Council has not yet seen a single case of fraud.

When the IAMB audit team finally arrived in Baghdad in the spring of 2004, it received an frosty reception. Auditors tried for weeks to go to the “Green Zone”, where all CPA documents were kept. They had the greatest difficulty accessing CPA and Ministry data. When audits and accounts were eventually turned over, they were heavily censored and virtually useless. The board of directors could not issue its first audit report until mid-July – fourteen months after the oversight process was first approved by the UN. By then the CPA had already been disbanded.

The Council has repeatedly complained that the US and Iraqi authorities did not keep sufficient records, that basic money transfers could not be accounted for and that the authorities did not cooperate. The Council has also complained about erroneous bidding procedures, dubious work permits, and in particular the sale of oil without metering. Iraq Revenue Watch, a US-based NGO, has been monitoring this process and reporting its findings to the press. But the Security Council turned a blind eye and failed to take corrective action to protect “the humanitarian needs of the Iraqi people”.

Airfreight of dollar bills

The occupiers were also lax in their management and supervision of Iraq’s oil revenues. Using a highly irregular and corruption prone method, Bremer and the CPA took a total of US $ 12 billion in the form of US notes from the DFI account in the New York Federal Reserve Bank. The money was then flown to Baghdad aboard US Air Force C-130 Hercules cargo planes, for alleged expenses on “reconstruction”, as well as “administration” and “miscellaneous services”.[33]

Cash outgoings on this scale are obviously difficult to verify and make verification nearly impossible. The CPA could have set up control systems through the right bank channels. Instead, the CPA steadily increased its payouts in currencies. In the last week the CPA was in power, officials ordered more than $ 4 billion in banknotes to be shipped from New York to Baghdad for last-minute issues. On June 24, 2004, a $ 2.4 billion airlift was the largest cash distribution in the history of the US Federal Reserve.

Over the course of thirteen months between May 2003 and June 2004, these currency shipments amounted to 363 tons in newly printed banknotes, with 281 million individual banknotes. Frank Willis, a former senior CPA official, commented that, “Iraq is drowning in cash – in dollar bills. Stacks and piles of money. We played soccer with some of the $ 100 bills for delivery. A crazy wild west. atmosphere, something none of us has ever experienced.”[34]

After the cash arrived in Baghdad, the CPA kept little track of who was being paid, much less what the money was to be used for. While the CPA’s own regulations required government accounts to “ensure that the Fund [DFI] is managed and used in a transparent manner,” an investigation later revealed that the small San Diego company hired for this purpose had no idea had never seen the CPA’s financial records or performed audits.

The CPA had to stockpile large amounts of cash, an invitation to theft, without secure safes, and without established procedures for using the money. Paul Bremer kept a coffers of nearly $ 600 million for which there was little or no administration. $ 200 million was reportedly kept in a single room in Saddam’s former Republican palace in the green zone where Bremer’s office was located.

Audits found that a “contracting officer kept about $ 2 million in cash in a safe in his bathroom” and “a stockbroker kept about $ 678,000 in cash in an unlocked locker.” An IAMB report notes that in one case $ 774,300 was stolen from a division’s safe. One contractor received a payment of $ 2 million in a plastic bag filled with shrink-wrapped bundles of dollars and one official received $ 6.75 million in cash and ordered to spend in one week. before the Iraqi interim government took control.

US authorities distributed millions of dollars in cash to local communities across the country to create “goodwill.” CPA officials handed piles of $ 100 bills to local leaders whose support they wanted and whose information they needed. $ 100,000 in cash allocated to a women’s centre in al-Hillah was turned over to a local dignitary who used it to fund his election campaign. In addition to unaccounted for direct expenditure, the CPA transferred $ 8.8 billion to Iraqi ministries during this period, an amount for which the expenditure could never be truly accounted for.

Congressman Henry Waxman’s investigation into the currency transfer ended in June 2004 with the closure of the CPA. After that, nobody investigated what happened with the money. Worse, when asked whether dollar-billed planes were still crossing the Atlantic, an IAMB spokesman claimed in early 2007 that the board “doesn’t know” if that was the case. However, there appear to have been shipments of US currency afterwards. A SIGIR audit in March 2006 found $ 7.2 million in cash – mostly in $ 100 bills – at a US military command post in Falluja.

Failed reconstruction by the major construction firms

Primary health centres should have been a key element of the health sector program, bringing medical services to Iraq’s cities and urban neighbourhoods. In March 2004, the Parsons Corporation received a $ 253 million contract to build 150 local clinics. Two years later, only five of the clinics had been completed, while $ 186 million of the budget had already been spent. The Army Corps of Engineers, responsible for oversight, was aware of the shortcomings and did nothing.

The US Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) has ceased working with Parsons because a dozen other Parsons projects had also been poorly implemented, including prisons, fire stations. . . and meters at the Basra Oil Terminal.

The Army Corps of Engineers was the wrong entity to handle oil contracts. Bunnatine Greenhouse, highest-ranking Army Corps civilian, on 27 June 2005: “When I did gain access to some of the high level planning meetings related to the implementation of the Restore Iraqi Oil (RIO) contract I sensed that the entire contracting process had gone haywire. I immediately questioned whether the Corps had the legal authority to function as the Army’s delegated contracting authority. The Corps had absolutely no competencies related to oil production. Restoration of oil production was simply outside of the scope of our congressionally mandated mission. How then, I asked, could executive agency authority for the RIO contract be delegated to the USACE? I openly raised this concern with high level officials of the Department of Defence, the Department of the Army and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. I specifically explained that the scope of the RIO contract was outside our mission competencies such that congressional authority had to be obtained before the Corps could properly be delegated contracting authority over the RIO contract. Exactly why USACE was selected remains a mystery to me. I note that no aspect of the contracting work related to restoring the oil fields following the 1991 Persian Gulf War was undertaken by the USACE, and there was no reason why USACE should take over that function for the prosecution of the Iraq War.”[35]

Halliburton won a $ 2.4 billion contract without a bid to upgrade oilfield facilities to boost exports and generate more revenue. But the company screwed up the work. At a water injection facility in Qarmat Ali, near Basra, powerful new pumps burst open the obsolete pipes and the pumps themselves failed briefly. The factory operated so badly that Iraq’s southern oil fields were seriously damaged.

The Al-Fatah pipeline was another Halliburton oil project. North of Baghdad, the pipeline crossed the Tigris River on a bridge that was badly damaged in the US bombing in 2003. Halliburton subsidiary KBR had to restore the pipeline. But instead of repairing the bridge, an estimated $ 5 million job, the company insisted on drilling a tunnel under the river, requiring a budget of $ 75 million. Business engineers ignored warnings about unstable soil and rock formations. After wasting the entire budget, the company has stopped work and left the project unfinished.

Many of the major contracts suffered from serious shortcomings. Judging from the end results, the work has delivered surprisingly little lasting benefit to the Iraqis.

When Paul Bremer and his CPA team handed out their hundreds of millions of dollars in cash, smaller companies and individuals – not Iraqis – saw their opportunities for rapid enrichment clear.

Since December 2003, the Democratic Policy Committee (DPC) had held nineteen oversight hearings on waste, fraud, and corruption in Iraq. Over the course of these hearings, the DPC listened to numerous witnesses, including former employees of the Department of Defence, the State Department, the Coalition Provisional Authority, the Iraqi Government, Halliburton/KBR, and other American contractors in Iraq. The special report from August 13, 2009 revealed a disturbing pattern of abuse and mismanagement by the Department of Defence, the Department of State, the Department of Justice, the Coalition Provisional Authority, and the Iraqi government:

“In a report that has never been made public, the Iraqi Council of Supreme Audit (BSA) revealed that it could not properly account for more than $13 billion in American reconstruction funds. During their audit of American reconstruction contracts, BSA officials uncovered “ghost projects” that never existed, projects that the Iraqi government deemed unnecessary, and work that was either not performed at all or done in a shoddy manner by both American and Iraqi contractors.” (Salam Adhoob, former Chief Investigator, Commission on Public Integrity (Baghdad), Government of Iraq, 9/22/2008)

“I attended meetings in 2005 and 2006 between U.S. government officials, the Iraqi Minister of Justice and his Deputy, and representatives of the Parsons Corporation to discuss the Kahn Bani Sa’ad prison project. During one of the meetings, the Minister of Justice clearly stated that the government of Iraq did not want the prison to be built because, among other reasons, it was too close to the Iranian border. The U.S. government officials — in front of the American contractor — said that the prison was going to be built anyway, despite the opposition of the Iraqi government. Even now, four years and $40 million dollars later, roofs are missing, floors have collapsed, there is no plumbing or electricity, windows have not been installed, and roads in the complex remain unpaved.” (Testimony of Anonymous Witness, Former Senior Advisor to the U.S. Government in Iraq, 9/22/2008)

“Based on the cases that I have personally investigated, I believe that at least $18 billion have been lost in Iraq through corruption and waste — more than half of which was American taxpayer money. Of this $18 billion, I believe at least $4 billion have been lost due to corruption and criminal acts in the Ministry of Defense alone.” (Salam Adhoob, former Chief Investigator, Commission on Public Integrity in Baghdad, Government of Iraq, 9/22/2008)

“The abuse I observed called into question the independence of the [Army Corps of Engineers] contracting process. I can unequivocally state that the abuse related to contracts awarded to KBR represents the most blatant and improper contract abuse I have witnessed during the course of my professional career.” (Bunnatine Greenhouse)

“In the 11 months that I served in Iraq, the Office of Accountability and Transparency (OAT) was under-staffed for its mission and had NO operating budget. In fact, the proposed staffing of OAT was cut from 25 staff to 6 without knowledge or input from OAT staff, or any other known oversight. There was no transparency even within the office of transparency. Our job was to implement U.S. policy, but whenever we tried, our own officials blocked us.” (James Mattil, former Chief of Staff at the Department of State’s Office of Accountability and Transparency, 5/12/2008)[36]

The Cost of “Security”

Billions of dollars in reconstruction funds were lost by spending the money on “security.” As resistance to the occupation grew, millions of dollars were wasted protecting construction sites, bodyguards for VIPs, protecting building materials en route to the site, expensive armoured vehicles, and other ways to cope with a violent and unstable environment. Private security guards cost as much as $ 1,000 a day, and security firms charged heavy premiums for this type of work.

Beginning in the fall of 2004, Washington decided to cut spending on rebuilding. More than $ 5 billion of the total $ 21 billion has been “reprogrammed” into security. Nearly $ 2 billion for the water treatment and sewage sector was cut, halving this program, while cutting more than $ 1 billion from the failing electricity sector. Most of that money flowed to Iraq’s new military, command and police units through programs of training, weapons and other types of direct support, as well as programs for prisons, training camps and logistics.

Even more serious, the “security sector” budgets were channelled to irregular security forces and abuse in Iraqi prisons. When Washington allocated funds for the US reconstruction program to “security,” the largest sum – $ 1.4 billion – went to Interior Department projects, notorious for its dark covert operations, death squad activities, and other serious violations of human rights.

These monies paid for equipment, transportation, training, operations and “support” of unspecified troops. Reports have suggested that these funds, like the British monies, supported units involved in violent activity, such as the Special Police Commandos. The US Institute of Peace released a report that concluded that the Department of the Interior’s National Police “is a patchwork quilt of commando-style anti-riot units housing sectarian death squads.” Reconstruction Funds worth $ 73 million were also allocated to the Department of prisons, although the Department was responsible for notorious cases of prisoner abuse.

Ousted Minister of Electricity Defends Himself

If you want to play the game correctly, you will be fired ! That is the consequence of stepping into a corrupt political process.

In August 2011, the ex-Minster of Electricity of Iraq, ousted on allegations of corruption denied the charges and told the Iraqi parliament that his dismissal had nothing to do with corruption, but because he touched “taboos” by cancelling lavish investor contracts of more than $12 billion and replaced them with public sector projects that cost no more than $800 million. He said that he touched an even bigger “sacred taboo” by opening large economic relations with Iran and eastern countries like China to replace expensive similar western projects which would cost roughly two times as much.

In his struggle, ex-minister Raád Shallal Al Ani collided with and revealed an American banking system inserted in Iraq that would dictate on the Iraqi government which countries to deal economically with and which not.[37] Although he is a practicing religious Sunni, he considered only what is economically in the interest of his country and insisted on opening Iraqi economy on Iran. All of this caused serious anger from too much too powerful interests, and he was charged in a “corruption” case, proving that there was no money involved! The government, unable to prove corruption, turned into a set of other allegations of “weak accomplishment”, then “ignoring the instructions of the PM”, etc.

Here is the part of his revealing speech on his collusion with investors and the American Banking system in Iraq:

  • “When I took charge of the ministry of Electricity, there was a project for four stations for “investors”, we should give them the machines and they would build the power stations, and then sell us electricity. I made my calculations and found that it cost the state $ 500 million per year, for a period of 25 years, and found that we only need 400 million for two years to get the same result, so I rejected it! I reclaimed 12 billion from investors for the people, that is the first reason for the fuzz.
  • The second reason for the media fuzz is that when I came to the ministry, there were ongoing negotiations with Siemens for two years to install generators we had bought, to the Rumaila and Baiji plants, Sadr, Taza and Dibis. The last offer of Siemens would cost Iraq about $ 2 billion. So I stopped the negotiations with Siemens after two weeks, and succeeded in getting offers from Hyundai, Iran, and Orascom that would cost us less than a billion dollars. In this contract alone, we spared $1 billion for Iraq. So it has nothing to do with fake contracts and companies, it has to do with billions that are cut from investors and international companies, and they didn’t like it.
  • The third reason for the fuzz is that I broke through the barrier of one of the biggest taboos, and that is openness on Iran. There is no solution to the problem of electricity without opening to Iran, and Iran is ready. They provide us with electricity for less than the international market price and kerosene oil for less than the market price, and they are ready to provide us with liquid gas for less than the market price. We owe them now $ 300 million for the price of electricity that we bought from them and they wait patiently for us to pay!
  • The (TBI) (Trade Bank of Iraq) is choking the Iraqi economy. We are not allowed to transfer money to other countries but through the TBI. No letter of credit can be issued above the $ 3 million limit, without the consent of the TBI. I have objected to this officially.

The reason for this is that the corresponding bank of TBI is the US bank “JP Morgan” and it follows the American Administration laws and sanctions. This means that when a country is subject to US sanctions, we are obliged to also sanction it automatically, as happens now in the sanctions against Iranian banks, issued by the U.S. Administration, and Iraq is forced to join whether we want or not. We have now a $ 300 million debt to Iran and we cannot make the transfer!

I have written on this subject to the government and I said that we are obliged to conform to the decisions of the Security Council resolutions, not the U.S. administration, but it seems that these subjects are taboos for us!

These are the reasons why I am dismissed, because big companies and political decisions forbid to break the taboo. Iraq is not a free country.

I came today to explain to my children that their father led a clean life, and tell them to raise their heads high, and that I am committed to what I promised them not to feed them from stolen money, because the body that grows by theft, is due to go to hell.”

Corruption is at such a level that state funds are simply diverted to foreign companies, which are in the hands of Iraqi officials, while unemployment is (officially) between 25 and 40 percent. Inability to ensure an adequate electricity supply has sparked much popular protests in the post-Saddam era. Still, the Ministry of Electricity has managed to agree to pay $ 1.3 billion to a bankrupt German company and a non-existent Canadian company to rebuild the electricity. The government budget is mainly spent on the purchase of weaponry from the US and on salaries and pensions, especially for people associated with the parties in power.

No accountability

After many years of massive corruption in Iraq, surprisingly little accountability has been given for the atrocities. The IAMB, established by the UN, has not prosecuted any case of fraud, theft or corruption in relation to the Development Fund for Iraq, nor has it investigated whether the Fund, as specified by the Security Council, was meant “to meet the humanitarian needs of the Iraqi people”. Under heavy pressure from the United States and the United Kingdom, the Security Council has not addressed this serious failure, nor has it sought better means to enforce the Council’s own mandate.

The US Special Inspector General has been much more active. As of December 31, 2006, he had performed 85 detailed contract inspections, as well as many audits and investigations. He has uncovered and publicized numerous cases of corruption and, as of May 1, 2007, had referred 28 cases to the United States Department of Justice for prosecution, of which resulted in 10 arrests and 5 convictions.

The Iraqi government has established several anti-corruption agencies, including the Commission on Public Integrity, the Board of Supreme Audit, Ministerial Inspector Generals, and the Iraqi Joint Anti-Corruption Council. But they have not been able to turn the tide of increasing corruption, nor have they been able to punish corrupt practices by US or other foreign contractors.

No director of US war profiteers, such as Halliburton or Parsons, has been convicted, tried, charged, or even investigated by any supervisory body, and no serious fine has been imposed on any of the companies, even though their contract failures and misrepresentation were blatant and systematic.

No high-level US or military official has been charged with blatantly negligent surveillance and any other act that has led to mass corruption. Nor has anyone been held accountable for the failure to ensure proper oversight in Iraqi ministries – despite hundreds of US advisers serving in the ministries.

Washington has used every possible means to minimize the theft and fraud. The US and UK have severely cut the IAMB and the SIGIR mandate has not touched on many of the key issues. No wonder, then, that so few were called to account and that Iraq was second on the list of the world’s most corrupt nations during the occupation, behind Haiti.

Corruption of the Iraqi government

Iraq’s main anti-corruption law is the Accountability Act, which criminalizes active and passive bribery, attempted corruption, extortion, money laundering and abuse of office. However, the government does not implement anti-corruption laws effectively, and officials engaged in corruption with impunity.

On May 18, 2009, the BBC noted that a recent report by the Iraqi Commission Against Corruption, the culmination of its investigation of some 12,000 complaints of government corruption, indicated that among the most blatant offenders – in no particular order – the ministries of Defence, Interior, Finance, Education and Healthcare were involved.

A combination of ghost soldiers, the leaking of intelligence by corrupt Iraqi security officials, and the extortion of civilian populations has led to significant territory losses to ISIS in 2014. In 2016, Hoshyar Zebari, the former Finance Minister of Iraq, estimated that there were 30,000 ghost soldiers in the Iraqi army and that corrupt officers are pocketing their salaries[38]. A survey of people in the Mosul region, led by the Harvard Humanitarian Initiative and published in June 2020, found that they saw corruption as a chief cause of the emergence of ISIS.[39]

Electronic Iraq underlined that “hundreds of health, education and infrastructure projects have been delayed due to corruption and oil smuggling. Education and health projects are the most affected as hundreds of schools are in dire need of repair and hospitals are facing equipment shortages. and medicines.”[40]

According to a 2007 classified report on behalf of the United States Congress[41], reviewing the work (or attempted) of the Commission on Public Integrity (CPI), but also according to other anti-corruption departments within the Iraqi government, the Maliki government was “incapable of even the most rudimentary enforcement of laws against corruption”. Even worse, the report noted, was that Maliki’s cabinet has always hindered investigations into fraud and crime within the government. In addition, the report concluded that corruption “is the norm in many ministries.”

The report described the Iraqi government as steeped in corruption and crime, and corruption investigators could hardly do anything about it. Employees of the US State Dept. testified in May 2008 that the US “allowed corruption to proliferate at the highest levels of the Iraqi government,” leading to the loss of billions of US dollars in taxpayers’ money.

Officials have been known to demand bribes of up to tens of thousands of dollars to issue government contracts or even just sign a public document[42]. Also to arrange a lucrative position for a friend or family member. “Political parties refuse to leave the cabinet because they will no longer be able to dig into the treasury,” a senior member of the ruling coalition told AFP on 24 November 2019.

Many cabinet appointments, directors general in ministries and embassy personnel are relatives of Moqtada Sadr and Hadi Al-Ameri, the head of the Badr organization, the military wing of the Supreme Islamic Iraqi Council, the two largest parties in the Iraqi Parliament.

Amid the anticipated cabinet reshuffle, positions are already being ‘bought’, a senior Iraqi official said. “A political party is assigned a specific ministry and then sells that ministerial position to the highest bidder,” he described a transaction worth $ 20 million. It is a well-known script: the candidate pays the party for the position and then tries to appropriate as much public money as possible, with which the debt can be paid off. The system is so deeply ingrained, observers say, that there is little any Iraqi prime minister can do to stop it.[43]

Article 136(b) of the Iraqi Criminal Procedure Code allows ministers to shield ministry officials from work-related prosecution for corrupt acts. The Commission of Integrity did not publish any names of government officials involved in corruption in its 2016 semi-annual report. However, the commission investigated 13,226 corruption cases, of which 7,088 cases were adjudicated, while 1,891 were referred to the courts. Six ministers and 99 director general-level officials were involved in six of the corruption cases referred to the courts.[44]

Corruption and impunity are considered as serious problems within Iraq’s security apparatus and investigations or prosecutions of abuses and corruption of security forces are not publicly available. Corruption within the security apparatus is cited as one of the main reasons contributing to the security challenges the country is facing today.[45]

In September 2019, the Iraqi government had to shut down the nation’s border crossing with Mandali, Iran because of corruption. All of the employees at the location were transferred to different border crossings. An armed group had commandeered the crossing, which generates about 600,000,000 dinars of revenue a month[46].

In a widely published corruption case, several Iraqi high-ranking officials including senior officials at the oil ministry, such as ex-oil minister Hussein al-Shahristani, have been accused of receiving bribes from large corporations in return for winning business. Following an investigative report published in 2016 by several large media outlets including Fairfax Media, the Huffington Post, and The Age it was revealed that the Monaco-Based company Unaoil had allegedly served as an intermediary between large oil companies such as British Rolls-Royce, US giant Halliburton, Australia’s Leighton Holdings and Korea’s Samsung and Hyundai to win USD billions of government contracts in Iraq.[47]

In September 2020 the general manager of the Agricultural Bank, Adel Khudair, and 12 of his employees were arrested. Investigations linked him to the disappearance of huge sums of money in what is known as the “agricultural initiative” which dates back to the era of Nuri al-Maliki. Maliki took advantage of the simultaneous rise in oil prices and the increase in Iraq’s production of oil during his reign to obtain huge budgets, but despite this, his government achieved nothing and left behind the largest files of corruption and waste of public money. Maliki’s name appeared in another corruption case: a giant water project in Baghdad, having cost millions of dollars but has not been completed.

In the same month Iraqi authorities have carried out several arrests against high ranking officials accused of corruption. Bahaa Abdul-Hussein, director of Key Card, a company that was contracted to facilitate the payment of retirement pensions, was arrested at Baghdad Airport before he could flee. Saadi made confessions that led to the discovery of a wide network of money laundering, used by officials, politicians and parties, and relying on collaborators in Beirut. Abdul has strong ties to former officials and current leaders. The sources indicated that Abdel-Hussein’s arrest may lead to the arrest of other personalities and the recovery of embezzled funds at home and abroad.[48]

Corruption and poor governance were also seen as limiting factors for women in finding employment. Although this takes place in all sectors, this is particularly acute in the public sector, which is women’s preferred employer because of the economic benefits, fewer hours and better protection of rights. The patronage system affects both men and women, however because men have more social capital and therefore ability to network, it has a greater effect on women.[49]

Of course, Iraq is not the only corrupt country in the region. Most oil states in the Middle East and elsewhere use oil revenues to fund large arms purchases and other megalomaniac projects, and corruption is widespread. But while bribery is ubiquitous in Iraqi Kurdistan, roads, airports, bridges, power plants and houses are still being built there, while in Baghdad no infrastructure works are taking place or houses are being built.

There are few banks and they are still openly looted by government officials. The Trade Bank of Iraq (TBI) is also choking the Iraqi economy. Money can only be transferred to other countries through the TBI. The TBI is headed by the corrupt Ahmed Chalabi, and the US bank JP Morgan manages all of the TBI’s money transfers.

More than 3,124 diplomas were forged, according to Education Minister Mohammad Iqbal in 2015. But Iraqi Newspaper Azzaman reported already on 8 October 2011 that more than 30,000 Iraqi civil servants, among them high-level officials, had obtained their jobs on fake certificates and degrees, according to the parliamentary commission on integrity and transparency.[50]

Politicians never keep their promises. Restoration and improvement projects are promised, but scrapped before the ink has dried up and the money allocated disappears into corrupt pockets. Oil, which accounts for more than 90% of government revenues, is also the main raw material in the black market. Criminal networks, including oil ministry personnel, high-ranking political and religious figures, are reportedly involved in the corruption, in partnership with mafia networks and criminal gangs that smuggle oil and generate huge profits.

As the costs of fighting IS and the fall in oil prices have put a lot of pressure on an already troubled economy, rampant corruption is causing increasingly serious problems in Iraq. On August 11, 2016, Iraq signed an agreement with the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) to help fight the endemic corruption that has paralyzed the country’s economy and institutions. The UNDP will seek to increase the Iraqi government’s capacity to detect and prosecute corruption. So far no substantial progress has been seen from this collaboration. On 9 December 2020 the UNDP and the Iraqi Prime Minister’s Office have reaffirmed their partnership by signing a new Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) designed to promote transparency, accountability and integrity in the public and private sectors.[51]

The Iraqi government has so far done little to restore the devastated cities of its largely Sunni population after the fight against ISIS. It has done little to bring about any other form of ethnic or sectarian unity, and far too much of its ‘oil wealth’ is consumed by its politicians, civil servants and a government sector that is one of the most paid and least productive in the developing world.

Whistleblowers risk retaliation, abuse, and even imprisonment for reporting fraud

“Under the False Claims Act, the Attorney General is supposed to join with whistleblowers to prosecute and punish war profiteers. The sad truth is that the Bush administration has not even tried to do this, on the contrary, it’s done all it could to prevent this”, Alan Grayson, attorney for whistleblowers, stated at the DPC Hearing 09/21/2007.

The Iraqi Council of Supreme Audit (BSA) reported dozens of deaths among its staff, while other employees were deterred from going to work over threats of violence against them or their families.

The International Crisis Group (ICG) reported in 2011 that parliamentary assistants, judges, lawyers, and other members of the judiciary involved in criminal and fraud cases, along with their family members, were targeted for murder and kidnapping. According to the Iraqi Supreme Judicial Council, 38 judges had been murdered since 2003.

In 2007, Judge Radhi Hamza al-Radhi, head of the Commission of Public Integrity (CPI) conducted up to 3,000 investigations into departmental corruption and missing funds amounting to $ 18 billion, although only 241 cases were brought to trial against junior officials. He identified the government’s contracting process as ‘the father of all corruption issues’[52]. Radhi quit his job after an attack on his home. His successor, Judge Mousa Faraj, continued his predecessor’s investigations, aided by US anti-corruption officials. In violation of the constitution, the Maliki government replaced Faraj with Judge Raheem Hasan al-Ugaili in January 2008.

In mid-2011, al-Ugaili reported that the CPI was “struggling with pressure from politicians and tribes” and that “corrupt influences … and that political parties try to corrupt CPI  investigators as a method to cripple their research, or use the staff as a tool against their political opponents.”

Ugaili resigned in protest just weeks after the publication of his report, after the CPI and BSA discovered widespread corruption and money laundering practices among political parties, officials and high-ranking bureaucrats and politicians in the Ministry of Defence and the Prime Minister’s Office.[53] A 2012 report by the Special Inspector General for Iraq Reconstruction (SIGIR) noted that 413 corruption cases were halted in the first three months of 2011 alone.

The October 2007 report of the Special Inspector General on Iraqi Reconstruction reported that “more than 30 staffers of the CPI (Iraq’s Commission on Public Integrity, the anti-corruption agency) have been murdered since 2003”. Targeted murders followed afterwards. The most recent murders of a staff member took place in Kirkuk on September 16, 2014 and October 18, 2015, when Ibrahim Jihad Hamad and Faeez Abdul Wahid were shot.

Iraq’s last Chairman of the Integrity Commission, Judge Ezzat Tawfiq, was killed in a car crash in March 2019. Although the car crash was officially categorized as an accident, some Iraqis were quick to question whether foul play was involved given the influence and power of the commission’s adversaries[54].

The following excerpts from a damning CPI report, quoted in an article in the US magazine The Nation, proved the unsustainable state of affairs in Iraq’s “thriving democracy”:

(…) Actions against corruption in the Department of Education have been particularly ineffective ….

“According to the study, several ministries are ‘so firmly in the hands of criminal gangs and militias “that it is impossible for investigators into corruption’ to work [there] given the absence of tactical [security] forces for protection of the researcher.”

(…) Maliki’s cabinet is part of the problem, the report said:” The Prime Minister has shown openly hostility to independent corruption investigations. His government has withheld operational resources from the CPI, the report said, and “there are a number of clear cases where governmental and political pressure have been used to change the results of investigations and prosecutions in favour of members of the Shia alliance” – which includes Maliki’s Dawa party.

(…) Maliki has also protected corrupt officials by reintroducing a law that prevents the prosecution of an official without the consent of the minister of the relevant agency.

(…) In another note obtained by The Nation – marked “Confidential and Secret” – in early 2007[55], Maliki’s cabinet ordered the Commission on Public Integrity not to send any case to a judge regarding the president of Iraq, the Prime Minister of Iraq, or any current or past minister without Maliki’s prior consent. According to the US embassy’s report on anti-corruption efforts, the government’s hostility to the CPI went so far as to lead visitors to a pornographic site for a time through the CPI link on the official Iraqi government website.

(…) CPI staffers were “accosted by armed militias within ministerial headquarters and denied access to officials and the administration.” They and their families are systematically threatened. Some sleep in their office in the Green Zone. In December 2006, a sniper fired three shots from the roof of an Iraqi government building in the Green Zone at CPI headquarters. Twelve CPI personnel were killed on the job.

Iraqi Militias Embrace Corruption

The first demand in the largest mass protests experienced by Iraq in October 2019 was to fight official corruption. But, anxious to protect the interests of the system of corrupt religious and sectarian parties, the government of former Prime Minister Adel Abdul Mahdi, unleashed Iraqi militias, affiliated with Iran, on the peaceful protesters and killed +700 protesters and wounded + 20,000 more.

The militia leaders have joined the ranks of Iraq’s richest men, becoming famous for buying upscale restaurants, nightclubs and opulent farms on the Tigris.

Robert F. Worth reported in the New York Times on July 29, 2020: “The militias have been aided and abetted by a new Iraqi political class whose sole ethic is self-enrichment. Over the years, this cross-sectarian cabal has mastered scams at every level: routine checkpoint shakedowns, bank fraud, embezzling from the government payroll. Adel Abdul Mahdi, who was hailed as a potential reformer when he became Iraq’s prime minister in 2018, hoped to subordinate the militias to the state. Instead, they outmanoeuvred and overpowered him. His cabinet included people with ties to some of the worst graft schemes afflicting the country.

The United States is deeply implicated in all this, and not just because its serial invasions wrecked the country and helped ravage the economy. America provides the money that sustains it, even as U.S. officials wink at the self-dealing of Iraqi allies. The Federal Reserve of New York still supplies Iraq with at least $10 billion a year in hard currency from the country’s oil sales. Much of that is passed on to commercial banks, ostensibly for imports, in a process that was hijacked long ago by Iraq’s money-laundering cartels. At the same time, the United States inflicts punishing sanctions on two countries — Iran and Syria — with which Iraq shares notoriously permeable borders. It is the ideal breeding ground for corruption.”[56]

On September 3, 2009, the New York Times reported that a gang of robbers tied up eight guards in the Zuwiya branch of the Rafidain bank in Baghdad and shot them on the spot with muffled guns. They ran off with at least two full wagons of cash worth $ 4.3 million dollars. They didn’t have to worry about the police, because in that area they were the police themselves. Among them were several bodyguards of Adel Abdul Mahdi, who was the Prime Minister of Iraq from October 2018 until May 2020, he was Vice President of Iraq from 2005 to 2011 and served as Finance Minister in the Interim Government and Oil Minister from 2014 to 2016 .

World Bank Assessment of Iraq

In 1996, the World Bank established its Worldwide Governance Indicators (WGI), which have become the standard by which to measure government management in developing countries. The WGI consists of six indicators of governance dimensions used in more than 200 countries since 1996: voting rights and accountability, political stability and absence of violence / terrorism, government effectiveness, regulatory quality, rule of law and corruption control.

  • Voting Rights and Accountability: The extent to which the citizens of a country can participate in the selection of their government, as well as freedom of expression, freedom of association and free media. This is Iraq’s best-performing governance indicator and reflects the formal freedoms and rights constitutionally guaranteed, as well as the electoral process. Nevertheless, Iraq was in the lowest category worldwide in 2018.
  • Political Stability and Absence of Violence: The perception of the likelihood that the government will be destabilized or overthrown by unconstitutional or violent means, including domestic violence and terrorism. Here, Iraq’s performance is among the lowest in the world, ranked in the lowest percentile category in 2018.
  • Government effectiveness: the quality of public services, the quality of public service and the degree of independence from political pressure, the quality of policy formulation and implementation, and the credibility of the government’s commitment to such policies. Iraq was in the lowest category in 2018.
  • Regulatory Quality: The government’s ability to provide sound policies and regulations that enable and promote private sector development. Iraq also scored here in the lowest category in 2018.
  • Rule of law: adhere to the rules of society, including the quality of contract enforcement and property rights, the police and the courts, as well as the likelihood of crime and violence. Iraq’s performance is even worse in this case, in the lowest category of 3 percentiles in 2018.
  • Corruption control: the extent to which public power is exercised for private gain, including both minor and large-scale forms of corruption, as well as the ‘capturing’ the state by elites and private interests. Iraq scored in the lowest category in 2018.

When a Finance Minister Speaks About Corruption of His Own Government

The presentation by Professor Ali A. Allawi on 2-4 March 2020 in Berlin[57] is enlightening. Ali Abdul Ameer Allawi is an Iraqi politician who served as Minister of Commerce and Defence in the cabinet appointed by Iraq’s Interim Board of Governors from September 2003 to 2004, and then Minister of Finance in Iraq between 2005 and 2006 transitional government. Allawi was appointed as Finance Minister in Mustafa Al-Kadhimy’s cabinet in May 2020, so he can be called an unsuspected source, even if he was an integral part of previous corrupt governments and thus part of the problem. Will he be able to stop the watershed of corrupt practices? Iraqi protesters don’t think so. When you board a golden carriage and alien drivers determine the direction, you have two choices: either stay in the carriage and follow the drivers’ course or disembark. That’s why the protest movement wants to abolish the whole US-imposed political system and an end to foreign interference.

Here are some excerpts from his presentation:

“The chaos, arbitrariness and shallowness of the CPA’s “reforms” created the perfect platform to thrust Iraq into the lowest ranks of corrupt countries. These conditions were further exacerbated by the Iraqi governments that took over the mismanagement of the country since 2004.

The removal of the upper tiers of the bureaucracy for their Baathist affiliations created a leadership vacuum in the bureaucracy. This was filled by lower grade civil servants who were either incompetent, under-equipped for the task, or who had been sidelined by the previous regime for malfeasance or negligence.

Careless and chaotic packing of the government agencies by cronies and hangers-on of the new political class created a new layer of bureaucrats who had little or no training in modern administrative practices, duties, and constraints.

Job-hungry exiles returned in the tens of thousands with expectations of government posts and sinecures. A psychology of entitlement to government perks was a concomitant to their periods of exile.

Chaos, arbitrariness, incompetence, self-dealing, and plain ignorance characterized economic policy-making, further exacerbating the confused drift of the government and creating ample opportunities for unscrupulous and corrupt people to take advantage of the prevailing disorder. Rent-seeking by businessmen, government officials, ministers, and foreign adventurers became the assured path to enrichment. The main driver behind decision-making for the economy, at least in the public sector, was the frenzy for economic rents. Needless to say the distortions and costs to the economy grew in leaps and bounds. The new political class, many of whom had spent years in impecunious exile and in degrading circumstances were determined to have their period of suffering requited by feeding at the public trough- Leaders of this new order were equally determined to amass personal fortunes through their control over key ministries and government agencies. Whatever controls on corrupt practices had existed prior were severely weakened by a frightened and confused bureaucracy, a broken judicial system and the general degradation of the ethics of dealings and transactions- The old sanctions-busting criminal and business networks reasserted themselves often in partnership with the new political class, thereby creating a strong incentive to maintain the “crisis” economy of Iraq. A “perfect storm” that favoured the stratospheric rise in corruption evolved in the 2004-2019 period. In spite of the astounding levels of plunder, not a single senior official has been indicted, tried and then jailed for corrupt practices. The only one who had come near to it, a former Minister of Electricity, was incarcerated for a few days and then sprung from jail by a US-sanctioned jail break organized by the Black Water Co! The former Minister of Trade was placed under house arrest after being indicted on a minor administrative infringement.

Examples of corruption practices by the Iraqi government from 2003 to the present.

The Integrity Commission, the agency charged with monitoring and sanctioning corrupt practices, is itself prone to corruption in the form of extortion and blackmail of targeted culprits. Nevertheless, the heads of the Commission constantly complain of their inability to go after miscreants because of political protection. The Integrity Commission has literally thousands of cases of proven corrupt practices which have lingered in its files with no legal action.

  • 2004-2009: Corruption in the imports of oil products Loss of about $1-$1.5 billion through overpricing and undersupplying
  • 2014-Present: Corruption in the supply and trade of heavy fuel oil. Loss of about $ 400 million per annum
  • 2006-2010: Corruption in the Ministry of Defense purchases of military equipment from the former Warsaw Pact countries: Loss of about $300 million
  • 2009: Corruption in the Ministry of Interior in the supply of bomb-detection equipment: Loss of about $200 million through serious overcharging (useless equipment costing about $60 per piece sold for $16,000 each; Source: New York Times)
  • 2008-2014: Corruption in the Ministry of Transport: Purchase of Bombardier aircraft, opaque port terminal licenses, truck transport contracts: Loss of about $500 million
  • 2004-2019: Municipality of Baghdad: Major water works and sewerage contracts; land transfers and sales: Loss about $2,500 million
  • 2004-Present: Ghost workers in government ministries, mainly the Ministry of Defense and Interior: Loss of about $250 million per annum
  • 2004- 2010: Ministry of Sports; Alleged corruption in the building of stadiums
  • 2004- 2016: The Haj and Umra Bureau; Alleged corruption in the procurement of travel and lodging services to pilgrims
  • 2004 Present: Corruption in the supply of fertilisers and seeds by the Ministry of Agriculture
  • 2004 Present: Corruption in the medicines procurement agency of the Ministry of Health, Kimadia.: Losses reach about $200 million per annum
  • 2010 Present: Corruption in the award of hospital construction projects
  • 2006 Present: Sustaining a large gap between official exchange rates for current account transfers and parallel market rates of between 3% 8%. Approximately 10% of currency purchases “round trip” between the official and parallel rates totalling about $750 million per annum in corruptly inspired leakages.

There is alleged corruption in the procurement of loans, advances and guarantees from all the state-owned financial institutions such as Rafidain Bank, Rashid Bank, and the TBI

There is alleged corruption in the land dealings of the religious endowments (Awqaf) and the transfer and sale of state land controlled by the Ministry of Finance

The opaqueness of the production-sharing contracts awarded by the Kurdistan Regional Government (KRG) to foreign oil companies masks a very probable carried interest to the major political figures of the KRG. The figures, if substantiated, will run in the billions.

In one of the most egregious acts of self-dealing, legally covered by their inclusion in the annual budgets, are the salaries and perks that the political class (parliamentarians, the Office of the Prime Minister, the Office of the President) has awarded itself

The costs of maintaining an Iraqi PM is one of the highest in the world (about $ 500 million per annum). The budgets of the Office of the Prime Minister reaches $900 million, most of which is excluded from line accounting; for the Presidency, the figure is about $400 million. In total, the 400 odd members of Iraq’s political class have awarded themselves about $2 billion per annum. The reform measures undertaken recently in 2014 and 2015 could have reduced this figure.

There is little doubt about the costs of institutional decay and corruption to the growth and development of the Iraqi economy.

The qualitative effects of loss of self-esteem, cynicism, mistrust, and a sense of pervasive injustice are equally great if not greater

Perhaps the greatest loss is the near-terminal decline of the informal rules and codes of conduct, mostly derived from the country’s ethno- religious traditions. These had made it possible to deal and transact in those very long periods in Iraq’s history when there were inadequate safeguards from the judicial system and the political authority”

Dual citizenship fosters unlimited fraud

Each of the 275 Iraqi MPs receives a monthly salary of approximately US $ 17,000 and has 30 bodyguards. Each minister earns more than US $ 30,000 monthly, the Prime Minister $ 60,000 and the President $ 75,000, excluding other “expenses,” according to the Iraq National Audit Office (2018 figures).

Many ministers from the various Iraqi cabinets since 2004 have the British nationality, such as (ex) Prime Minister Haider al Abadi and the (ex) Iraqi president Fuad Masoum, or are of Iranian nationality, such as al-Maliki, Ali al-Adeeb, ex-Minister of Higher Education and Scientific Research and Hadi al-Amari, former Iraqi Minister of Transport and head of the Badr organization, military wing of the Supreme Islamic Iraqi Council (SIIC), also commander of the Popular Mobilization Forces.

Other senior Iraqi officials hold dual citizenship, including Prime Minister Adel Abdul Mahdi (France), former Prime Minister Haider al-Abadi and former Iraqi Foreign Minister Ibrahim al-Jaafari (UK) and Speaker of Parliament Saleem al-Jibouri (Qatar). Of the 66 Iraqi ambassadors, 32 have dual citizenship, as well as an estimated 70 to 100 MPs.

Then there are the ministers in the current Iraqi government with a Western background: Mohamed Ali Alhakim – Minister of Foreign Affairs (UK and US), Fuad Hussein – Minister of Finance and Deputy Prime Minister (Netherlands and France), Thamir Ghadhban – Minister of Oil and Deputy Prime Minister (UK)

Many officials accused of corruption by Iraqi authorities have fled the country to escape persecution thanks to their foreign passports, including former ministers Abdul Falah al-Sudani (trade), Hazim Shaalan (defence) and Ayham al-Samarrai (electricity).

Najah al-Shammari serves as the current Defense Minister in Adel Abdul Mahdi’s government from 2019. He is a Swedish citizen who is part of Mahdi’s cabinet. The minister is under investigation for benefit fraud for claiming housing and child benefits from Sweden, according to online news site Nyheter Idag and Swedish newspaper Expressen. He is being charged in Sweden with ‘crimes against humanity’.

President Barham Salih is a British citizen. A complaint was lodged against him by ‘Defending Christian Arabs’, who asked the Solicitor General in Scotland to open an investigation against him for’ authorizing crimes against humanity or being complicit in the widespread attack on civilian demonstrations in Scotland. Iraq that resulted in mass murders, injuries, illegal arrests and kidnapping ”.

Where Does the Money Go?

There are no robust statistics on the accumulated proceeds of corrupt practices since 2003 in Iraq.

Estimates of assets held abroad by Iraqis range from a minimum of $ 100 billion to $ 300 billion. The vast majority of these assets were acquired illegally. These figures are corroborated by discussions with Integrity Committee officials, along with estimates derived from inferences. Senior Lebanese bankers and Banque du Liban officials indicate that there was approximately $ 20 billion in deposits from Iraqis in Lebanese commercial banks at the start of the October 2019 banking crisis. These have now been effectively frozen within the Lebanese banking system. It’s a reasonable estimate to infer that there is a similar figure for Iraqi assets in Jordan. The other main Middle East destination of corrupt Iraqi funds is Dubai. It is very likely that a significant portion of Iraqi corrupt funds have been invested in real estate in Dubai, both residential and commercial. An often mentioned figure of the total amount of such funds is close to $ 25 billion.

A smaller percentage of Iraq’s corrupt funds are placed with Turkish banks and invested in Turkish real estate. It is very likely that this amount has increased significantly in recent years, partly due to the number of Iraqis now living in Turkey and of Turkish nationality. Other Middle East destinations for corrupt Iraqi funds are Kuwait and Egypt, but less than the four major countries mentioned before.

Outside the Middle East, London is the most important location. Iraqi corrupt funds finding refuge in the UK have been transferred from other locations in the Middle East. Money laundering and UK rules are very robust for banks and agents alike, but until recently, the identity of overseas funds earmarked for real estate investments in London escaped this scrutiny.

The total amount of funds invested by Iraqis in real estate in London is difficult to estimate. Real estate agents have reported that Iraqi funds have been deployed in large quantities in the residential property market in London. Entire floors of new-build apartments in London’s Nine Elms neighbourhood and other residential areas have been acquired by Iraqis directly, through nominees or through offshore companies. A good estimate of Iraqi corrupt funds invested in London real estate could be around $ 10 billion.

Switzerland is also a haven for Iraqi corrupt funds, but it is somewhat limited due to the high cost of holding a Swiss bank account and the lack of awareness of the new class of Iraqi ‘businessmen’ with the benefits of Switzerland. A very senior Swiss banker stated off the record that his bank alone holds about $ 1 billion in Iraqi funds.

Another destination for corrupt Iraqi funds is the USA. A large number of dual nationality Iraqis worked in various business ventures in Iraq and benefited from corrupt practices. In general, US citizens are not subject to the strict money laundering rules that apply to other nationalities when opening or managing bank accounts in the US. It has proven relatively easy for dual Iraqi / US citizens, who have been charged with corruption charges in Iraq, to ​​avoid freezing or seizing their assets in the US.[58]

The year 2019 saw the formation of a Supreme Anti-Corruption Council to take preventive measures to curb corruption. However, Moussa Faraj, the former chief of Iraq’s Commission on Public Integrity, revealed to an Iraqi publication that corruption starts at Iraq’s executive branch, and that this Anti-Corruption commission is extrajudicial and will not put an end to corruption. He said that MPs and government officials often intervened in and inhibited the work of independent bodies that stood in the way of their personal gain. This is seen through bribes, blackmail, blocking litigation, the incorrect placement of independent bodies under ministerial authority instead of parliamentary, etc. This is a flagrant violation of the rule of law – a clear demonstration that MPs, lawmakers, and decision-makers at every level engage in practices that seemingly place them above the law.[59]

Give Iraq Back to the Iraqi People

Iraqi MP Haider al-Mulla stated in an interview for As-Sumariya TV on January 16, 2013: “Allow me to tell you the following…. The entire political class and I repeat, the entire political class in Iraq, of which I am also a part, has their finances and those of their families very well organized so that they do not have to suffer when blood runs through the streets. The unfortunate population, on the other hand… ”

Mishan al-Jabouri, one of Iraq’s anti-corruption leaders said in a February 2016 interview: “There is no solution. Everybody is corrupt, from the top of society to the bottom. Everyone. Including me. At least I am honest about it. I was offered $5m by someone to stop investigating him. I took it, and continued prosecuting him anyway.”[60]

Corruption, the waste of government resources and the purchase of military equipment have increased Iraq’s budget deficit from $ 16.7 billion in 2013, $ 20 billion in 2016 to $ 23 billion for fiscal year 2019. And of course the IMF comes to the rescue and stands multi-billion dollar loans that make the country even more dependent on the US and other foreign creditors.

Should it come as a surprise that Iraq is witnessing a deficit of $ 43.9 billion in the 2021 budget? Should it come as a surprise that Iraq, as a middle-income country, isn’t capable of providing its people with the most basic necessities, like education, healthcare, housing, water, electricity….?

In March and April 2019, an extensive opinion poll carried out across Iraq found that the population were only united by very high levels of pessimism about the future of their country. At the centre of their concerns, and the key factor in driving mistrust, is the issue of corruption. In the poll, 82 per cent of Iraqis were concerned or very concerned about corruption at the highest levels of government; 83 per cent perceived corruption to be getting worse. It appears clear: politically sanctioned corruption among senior politicians and civil servants is systematically undermining popular faith in the Iraqi government and destroying the legitimacy of its leaders in the eyes of the population.[61]

Perhaps it’s time to acknowledge that the whole political and economic system, imported by the USA after the 2003 invasion, has to be reversed, because it was illegally imposed upon the Iraqi people and it serves only the Western interests and enriches the US installed Iraqi stooges. Perhaps it’s time to support the Iraqi uprisings against the unbridled corruption and foreign interference. Perhaps it’s time to give Iraq back to the Iraqis.

Dirk Andriensens is a renowned author, peace activist and criminologist, coordinator of SOS Iraq, member of the Executive Committee of the BRussell’s Tribunal, Belgium.  He is a Research Associate of the Centre for Research on Globalization (CRG).

*

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] https://tribune.com.pk/story/2279259/iraqs-century-of-humiliation-in-the-globalised-age

[2] http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/4353491.stm

[3] https://web.archive.org/web/20050524205830/http://www.worldtribunal.org/main/?b=1

[4] https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/iraq-10-years-how-baghdad-became-city-corruption-8520038.html

[5] https://www.ibtimes.co.uk/former-iraqi-pm-nouri-al-maliki-allegedly-siphoned-off-500bn-8-years-1526096

[6] http://dinarvets.com/forums/index.php?/topic/74763-a-quarter-trillion-dollars-the-size-of-corruption-in-iraq/

[7] https://www.yenisafak.com/en/world/iraqi-panel-says-2397-bln-smuggled-outside-iraq-3557960

[8] https://thearabweekly.com/kadhimi-going-after-big-fish-anti-corruption-crackdown

[9] https://www.aa.com.tr/en/middle-east/iraqi-panel-says-2397-bln-smuggled-outside-iraq/2097655

[10] https://reliefweb.int/report/iraq/unicef-iraq-humanitarian-situation-report-idp-crisis-end-year-2020

[11] https://reliefweb.int/report/iraq/humanitarian-action-children-2021-iraq

[12] https://www.haaretz.com/middle-east-news/.premium-iraq-is-rapidly-becoming-the-region-s-next-failed-state-1.9425548

[13] https://www.nytimes.com/2002/04/18/world/a-nation-challenged-the-president-bush-sets-role-for-us-in-afghan-rebuilding.html

[14] https://www.gicj.org/iraq_conference_speeches/Dr_Alkazaz_Presentation.pdf

[15] https://www.theguardian.com/world/2005/jul/07/iraq.features11 

[16] Iraq Revenue Watch, Report No. 7, Disorder, Negligence and Mismanagement: How the CPA Handled Iraq Reconstruction Funds (September, 2004) p. 2. The contracts at issue were those over $5 million in value.

[17] James A. Baker III and Lee H. Hamilton et al. “The Iraq Study Group Report” Vintage Books, New York (December 2006) p. 22

[18] https://www.cbsnews.com/news/meters-cost-iraq-billions-in-stolen-oil/  

[19] https://reliefweb.int/report/iraq/fuelling-suspicion-coalition-and-iraqs-oil-billions

[20] http://www.twf.org/News/Y2005/0714-Money.html

[21] https://corpwatch.org/article/mystery-missing-meters-accounting-iraqs-oil-revenue

[22] https://www.iraq-businessnews.com/2011/05/13/iraq-lags-on-oil-metering/

[23] https://www.nytimes.com/2004/05/28/world/struggle-for-iraq-new-looting-jordan-s-scrapyards-signs-looted-iraq.html

[24] https://archive.commondreams.org/scriptfiles/headlines05/0204-23.htm

[25] https://corpwatch.org/article/iraq-fraud-weapons-deals-drained-1-billion

[26] http://blackkrishna.blogspot.com/2005/08/811-theres-no-rebuilding-no-weapons.html

[27] https://www.seattletimes.com/nation-world/crucial-iraq-police-academy-a-disaster/

[28] http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/6076834.stm

[29] https://www.news.com.au/world/billion-missing-from-iraq/news-story/e6201af80c120a6f72afc195d1bc5041 

[30] https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2013/03/the-failed-reconstruction-of-iraq/274041/

[31] https://academic.oup.com/bjc/article/47/2/177/519163

[32] https://reliefweb.int/sites/reliefweb.int/files/resources/977ABA699FB1D8E1852572F400648580-globalpolicyforum-waroccupationiraq-june2007.pdf

[33] https://www.theguardian.com/world/2007/feb/08/usa.iraq1

[34] https://reliefweb.int/sites/reliefweb.int/files/resources/977ABA699FB1D8E1852572F400648580-globalpolicyforum-waroccupationiraq-june2007.pdf

[35] https://www.dpc.senate.gov/dpcdoc.cfm?doc_name=sr-111-1-116

[36] https://www.dpc.senate.gov/dpcdoc.cfm?doc_name=sr-111-1-116

[37] https://web.archive.org/web/20150929035703/http://www.brusselstribunal.org/SaiebKhalil240811.htm

[38] https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/feb/19/post-war-iraq-corruption-oil-prices-revenues

[39] https://hhi.harvard.edu/publications/english-version-never-forget-views-peace-and-justice-within-conflict-affected

[40] https://www.gicj.org/NOG_REPORTS_HRC_22/educationsystem.pdf

[41] https://www.cbsnews.com/news/iraq-paralyzed-by-corruption/

[42] https://www.rudaw.net/english/middleeast/iraq/241120191

[43] https://www.france24.com/en/20191124-in-protest-hit-iraq-parties-cling-to-lucrative-posts

[44] https://www.ganintegrity.com/portal/country-profiles/iraq/

[45] https://www.transparency.org/files/content/corruptionqas/Country_profile_Iraq_2015.pdf

[46] https://www.rudaw.net/english/middleeast/iraq/100820191

[47] https://www.ganintegrity.com/portal/country-profiles/iraq/

[48] https://thearabweekly.com/kadhimi-going-after-big-fish-anti-corruption-crackdown

[49] https://www.humanitarianresponse.info/sites/www.humanitarianresponse.info/files/2019/07/IOM-Iraq-Perceptions-on-Women%27s-Economic-Opportunities-in-Urban-Areas-of-Iraq–Motivations-and-Mechanisms-to-Overcome-Barriers.pdf

[50] https://tbinternet.ohchr.org/Treaties/CESCR/Shared%20Documents/IRQ/INT_CESCR_CSS_IRQ_21658_E.pdf 

[51] https://reliefweb.int/report/iraq/transparency-accountability-integrity-new-agreement-help-combat-corruption-iraq-enar

[52] https://www.chathamhouse.org/2019/10/corruption-continues-destabilize-iraq

[53] https://www.giswatch.org/en/country-report/internet-and-corruption/iraq

[54] https://borgenproject.org/10-facts-about-corruption-in-iraq/

[55] https://www.thenation.com/article/archive/secret-report-corruption-norm-within-iraqi-government/

[56] https://www.nytimes.com/2020/07/29/magazine/iraq-corruption.html

[57] http://iraqieconomists.net/en/2020/05/19/the-political-economy-of-institutional-decay-and-official-corruption-the-case-of-iraq/

[58] http://iraqieconomists.net/en/2020/05/19/the-political-economy-of-institutional-decay-and-official-corruption-the-case-of-iraq/

[59] https://eaford.org/site/assets/files/1132/the_rule_of_law_in_iraq.pdf

[60] https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/feb/19/post-war-iraq-corruption-oil-prices-revenues

[61] https://www.chathamhouse.org/2019/10/corruption-continues-destabilize-iraq

I believe that people should be aware that side effects can happened, that it is not good for everyone and in this case destroyed a beautiful life, a perfect family, and has affected so many people in the community. Do not let his death be in vain please save more lives by making this information news.” – Heidi Neckelmann, wife of Dr Gregory Michael, whose death was attributed to the Pfizer COVID vaccine.

LISTEN TO THE SHOW

Click to download the audio (MP3 format)

The vaccine for COVID is here.

While being told or left with the opinion it is the only relief to the burdens imposed over the last year, these new doses coming from the pharmaceutical companies Pfizer-BioNTech and Moderna arrived as a warm Christmas present for the locked down and masked masses.

As of 9:00am on January 22, fully 19,107,959 Americans had gotten at least one shot. More are planning to line up and take their dose in time. However, there are some reported difficulties with the MRNA Mimosas that could pose concern down the line.

In addition to a perfectly healthy 56 year old physician based in Florida who died after receiving Pfizer’s COVID vaccine, there was a story of a 41 year old woman in Portugal who died two days after getting the vaccine. And there was a 75-year-old Israeli man who had a heart attack only two days after receiving his dose.

In California, the State’s top epidemiologist, Dr Erica S Pan requested a halt on the huge batch of the Moderna vaccine on the grounds that it left people with “higher-than-usual number of possible allergic reactions.”

And in Norway, doctors have been advise to re-assess frail and terminally ill patients in the COVID inoculation crew after 33 elderly patients died shortly after the Pfizer-BioNTech injection.

Dr. William Wodarg and Dr. Michael Yeadon put out a petition in early December to call off all SARS-CoV-2 vaccine studies until a study design was put in place to address concerns about the vaccine and the inadequate study design behind it. The lack of testing the drug on animals, the lack of time to study the long-term effects, the accentuated process of an exaggerated immune reaction to a real or wide virus in a process known as antibody-dependent amplification (ADE), and the polyethylene glycol in the vaccine, a substance to which 70% of people have allergic and possibly fatal reactions, are just some of the concerns under consideration.

But COVID is a matter of life and death! According to some, heroic moves to rescue them with a cure cannot be held back on account of uncertain episodes.

The Global Research News Hour this week endeavours to explore the issue with three individuals all with somewhat different views and vantage points about the harm caused by these Pfizer-BioNTech and Moderna potions.

First up, Dr. Meryl Nass returns to the show outlining what authorities did to endanger patients with the Emergency Use Authorization legislation and the virtually helpless situation they endure if they do get vaccine injured. Second, Dr. Allison McGeer shares her views spotlighting the necessity of supplying the drug in a timely manner and the dangerous consequences of giving in to vaccine hesitancy in the ‘Age of COVID.’ Finally, Mary Holland, a representative of the Children’s Health Defense, spelled out her reasons for disagreeing with the use of the vaccines, given what we know about them so far, and states her objections to what she sees as censorship plaguing her group.

Meryl Nass M.D. is a General Internal Medicine Physician with 40 years of experience. She is an epidemic and anthrax expert and composes a series of blogs for the site Anthrax Vaccine as well as Global Research. She’s based in Ellsworth, Maine.

Allison McGeer M.D. is a specialist in internal medicine and is a Canadian infectious disease specialist in the Sinai Health System, She has led investigations into the severe acute respiratory syndrome outbreak in Toronto and worked alongside Donald Low. During the COVID-19 pandemic, McGeer has studied how SARS-CoV-2 survives in the air.

Mary Holland is the vice chair and general counsel for Children’s Health Defense.

(Global Research News Hour Episode 303)

LISTEN TO THE SHOW

Click to download the audio (MP3 format)

Transcript – Interview with Dr. Allison McGeer, Jan. 19, 2021

Global Research: Should the COVID vaccine be banned in the face of numerous instances of allergic reaction and death?

Dr. Allison McGeer: The answer to that is absolutely not. You know, the…when we introduce new vaccines or start using new vaccines we are very, very careful about safety surveillance. And so that means that whenever we see something, okay, question of increased allergic reactions in California, appears to be associated with blood batch, batch gets pulled, until we sort it. It’s probably not anything important, it’ll probably go back in. But we just don’t know that.

In Norway, there have been a number of deaths in long-term care after vaccine introduction. My understanding from accounts is it’s actually less than the expected number of deaths in long-term care for that period of time. So it is entirely appropriate that people report them, that they investigate them that they ask whether there’s any potential association with the vaccine because we need to be very careful.

But it’s almost certainly true that in Norway those are expected deaths that occur when you vaccinate frail, elderly residents in long-term care, unfortunately, their case fatality rate from all sorts of diseases is relatively high. And so it’s unlikely that any of those will turn out to be associated with vaccine.

Norway has not stopped its vaccination program. It’s just recommended that a little bit of caution in elderly residents on long-term care specifically in the same way that the UK advocates caution with people who’d had anaphylactic reactions to previous vaccines initially, but now with more experience with knowing that the risk of anaphylaxis, well it’s not zero – never is with vaccine or for that matter with any medication you take – but it’s low enough that people don’t need to be worried about it any longer.

So we can expect with a new, very large vaccine program rolling out, that because of the extreme caution that we apply to new vaccines there’s going to be temporary holds on things there’s going to be lots of investigations. That doesn’t mean there’s anything wrong with the vaccine at all. And it certainly in this circumstance doesn’t mean that taking the vaccine is not the safer of two choices.

We tend to think that, “okay I’m choosing whether or not to get the vaccine.” But that’s not actually the choice. The choice is “I am choosing to get vaccinated or I am choosing to live exposed to COVID-19.” And living exposed to COVID-19 is not a risk free thing to do. COVID-19 is a dangerous virus. Three thousand people a day are dying from it in the United States. And so it’s a balance. You know, which is a riskier thing to do, get the vaccine or get COVID. And no question from the data we have at the moment. For a great many adults, particularly older adults, getting the vaccine is the safer option.

GR: Are they adequately being warned of this risk? I mean if they could get anaphylaxis or possibly even a remote chance of dying before they take this (vaccine) and they can decide would you rather have the vaccine or would you rather have COVID.

AM: Yes, I think the answer is yes. Whenever we give somebody a vaccine it should come with adequate information. I think there’s been lots of discussion which has been very useful about allergic reactions to vaccine. A lot of information about how (inaudible) they are. I think…anytime

that a health care provider offers you medication for people…a health care provider of any sort offers you any intervention whether it be medication or vaccine or manipulation or injections there should always be a discussion about risk benefits and people should be making an informed choice. And I would hope that that’s what people are doing with respect to COVID vaccines.

GR: The first vaccines are involving messenger RNAs. They’ve never been used before. First time that they’re going out. They weren’t using lab animals. The FDA, the Health Canada, they approved it. Is it possible that in some way they’ve operated in haste? They’re so active, so much of a hurry to get this vaccine, that, you know, better a bad vaccine than no vaccine at all. What do you say to that?

AM: Well, we do actually use mRNA vaccines the better name practice, a number of mRNA vaccines that people are using, we’ve been investigating them in humans for a long time. Most commonly in humans they’re used in testing in cancer vaccines so the attempt to vaccinate you against your own cancer cells so that your body will attack and kill cancer. But there are also some mRNA vaccines for influenza, for instance, that are in development, have not been widely in humans, in part because we didn’t expect them to work very well.

So, we can expect to see a lot more mRNA vaccines out there now that we’ve found they’ve worked so well against COVID-19. But they have been subject to exactly the same and very stringent safety assessments that any vaccine comes from our (inaudible) has.

This is not that we have not applied the same safety standards to these vaccines. It’s just that because COVID is out there and because we know how dangerous it is we’ve been careful to do that really quickly so it’s involved a great many people, and a lot of their time, but we haven’t cut corners on any of the safety assessments. These vaccines got tested in animals, they got tested in humans in small numbers initially, they’ve been through the entire usual process for vaccines. It’s just been more quickly than we usually do it.

GR: Two prominent doctors, there was William Wodarg, the former chair of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe Health Committee and Michael Yeadon a former chief science adviser they submitted a petition in early December to stop the roll out of the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccines on the grounds that there were four perceived dangers. They include the formation of non neutralizing anti bodies which could result in exaggerated immune reaction if confronted by the real virus, the antibody-dependent amplification. Also they contain polyethylene glycol to which 70% of people are allergic and could develop a fatal reaction to the immunization. Also the vaccines contain antibodies against SARS-CoV-2 spike proteins, however, they could trigger an immune reaction to syncyntin-1 which is essential for the formation of placenta in humans and could leave them infertile.

And the short duration of the study does not allow for a realistic assessment of the late effects, as happened a decade ago with vaccinations to H1N1.

European Medical Agency didn’t agree with them. Should they have been? What do you say to those concerns? WAS IT charged TOO SOON OUT OF THE GATES?

AM: So, the answer to that is unequivocally no.

You know, it is true that there are some allergic reactions to that vaccine, but we will know what that number is now, it’s about ten per million doses of vaccine administered. That’s a little bit higher than with some other vaccines, but it’s still very low. It’s still…again in the balancing act though – risk of COVID, risk of vaccine – it does not change that balance at all. So yes, allergic reactions do happen but they are distinctly uncommon and well within the range of making us decide that we should take the COVID vaccine.

The fact that we don’t know how long the COVID vaccine lasts is absolutely true. That is always true when we introduce new vaccines. And in this particular setting, even if the COVID vaccine only lasted for a year, that would be a very significant benefit, you know? That would get us back to normal and then we’d have to get re-vaccinated. Well okay, we get vaccinated against flu every year. You know? We can manage that.

And so if the price of getting our lives back to normal, getting our economy going is getting a shot every year to protect us from COVID, I think most people would be willing to accept that as reasonable. I actually think the evidence suggests now that the vaccine will last considerably longer than that but we will have to see. Nonetheless, every time we introduce a new vaccine, we don’t know how long it’s going to last, okay?

We introduced Hepatitus B vaccine in the 1980s, right? We had no idea how long it was going to last. If we waited to know we’d still be waiting, because the vaccine’s good for a lifetime, okay? So, you have to introduce vaccines and then you have to do the assessment.

It is also true that we don’t know whether this vaccine protects you from asymptomatic infection and transmission, and that is really important if you want to prevent transmission of this disease. But again, if all the vaccine does is prevent serious illness, and doesn’t prevent transmission, that’s not great, but it’s a lot better than nothing and that’ll mean that we’ll switch away from these vaccines ultimately to some other vaccine that does protect you. But if in the meantime all those vaccines do is prevent people from dying from COVID-19 for the six or eight months until we get other vaccines, that’s still well worth having.

GR: That was Canadian infectious disease specialist Allison McGeer.

Transcript – Interview with Mary Holland, January 21, 2021.

 

Global Research: Since the vaccines have been released there have been a number of severe allergies and even some deaths and your associate The Defender printed them up. Are you…are they related to any of the fears that you had in your list of concerns. I mean, what is a scenario that you foresaw?

Mary Holland: Sadly Michael, it was a scenario we foresaw.

So, the only two COVID vaccines available in the United States, and in Canada and in many countries right now are what are called messenger RNA vaccines. Many people say they should not be called vaccines. They are not traditional, typical vaccines in any way.

Some people say that it should be called simply genetic engineering. This is literally injecting into the human body for the first time in history ever, on very, very radically short clinical trials. Genetic information to tell individual cells to create a protein against which the body will develop antibodies. This is not the traditional technology. The observational period in the clinical trials is about three months. There are many problems with the clinical trials I’d be happy to talk with you about. And so we’re very concerned.

There have been reports of widespread death in the elderly community. So there’s been an attempt to target nursing homes. We have information that there were just thirty three deaths in a Norweigan nursing home. Norway has now called for patients to be assessed on their frailty to see if they’re actually fit for vaccination because this is a very severe immune system event.

China has called for suspension of using the Pfizer vaccine in the elderly population. In New York State, where I’m located, there is a story about a nursing home in Upstate New York that just had over twenty deaths immediately after giving the vaccine. And in there are cases of younger, healthy people. A 56-year-old obstetrician in Florida who died within weeks of getting the vaccine. He developed thrombocytopenia, something that is known as a severe adverse event from vaccination.

A younger woman, 42, in Portugal, died two days after getting the vaccine.

One of the things that we warned about, our founder Robert F Kennedy Jr and our chair, he wrote a letter to the FDA and to the NIH back in March saying we knew that they were going to be using something called polyethylene glycol in the lipid nanoparticle envelopes around the messenger RNA in the Moderna vaccine. And so he wrote to FDA and to NIH saying we know that 80 percent of the population has severe allergic reactions to PEG.

Many, many medications are what they call PEGillated. They contain PEG which is thought to be inert but the research now is suggesting it’s not inert at all. It can cause severe allergic reactions. We know that that’s going to cause anaphylaxis in 80 percent of people and they’re going to die if they don’t get epinephrine. And in fact, we said you have to screen people for PEG sensitivity and that wasn’t done. And immediately after the roll-out of these COVID vaccines in the United Kingdom, what it received: two people with severe anaphylactic shock. And those aren’t the only problems.

The real bottom-line is Michael, they skipped over animal trials, they had about three months of observations in predominantly extra-ordinarily healthy people, they exclude people with co-morbid conditions for political trials, and we don’t know what’s going to happen. But in the short period of time that we’ve already observed these products to be on the market, these mRNA vaccines, the CDC has reported about one in forty two serious adverse events, health outcome events they call it. One in forty two, that’s more than 2 percent. That’s a lot! And we’ve already got sixty-six reported deaths in our adverse event reporting system.

GR: A doctor from Mount Sinai Hospital, I mean, she was going over that and she said that a lot of these sorts of instances can be expected because they’re very frail, and if you give one of them a shot, well, you don’t even know that… that the shot was responsible for killing them, according to her, because we got to get these people vaccinated right away. That the risk due to the vaccine is not like the risk due to COVID. So, what do you say to that?

AM: So, what we say to that is this is by its very definition, Michael, this is an experimental use authorization product. It is by its very definition experimental and we subscribe to the Nuremburg Code, the foundation of ethical medicine which says consent of the individual is absolutely essential.

So now in Norway they’re recommending that people who have a short life span ahead of them, they shouldn’t get this vaccine. Why should somebody’s life be cut short just because they’re frail. There’s no reason for that! So I think it’s an individual choice. I think the reality is is that we don’t know all of the adverse effects that are likely from this vaccine, and people are taking a calculated risk.

COVID is treatable! Ivermectin has now been recognized as an appropriate treatment by the FDA. Certainly there’s good science in other countries, not the US but about the hydroxychloroquine being used. Vitamin D deficiency is very closely associated with COVID morbidity and mortality. There are interventions for people who get COVID! The survival rate is in the high 90 percent.

So it’s an individual choice. Do people want to take the risk of taking the vaccine, or do they want to preserve the risk that they might get sick but that there are therapeutics available. That’s an individual choice, given that this is at this point still an experimental prize. .

GR: Do you think that the people are hearing the risk? I mean, anytime somebody, even doctors read…anytime somebody gets a shot, they should be warned of all the risk. Do you think that’s actually happening?

MH: No, I don’t think that people are being adequately given…I don’t think people are given sufficient information. I don’t think people are always being told that this is an experimental use authorization vaccine. It has not been licensed by the FDA. And that it is by its very nature experimental. And there may be known and unknown side effects, including death. I don’t think people are getting that information sufficiently. And that’s what they need to be told. In order to be able to give true, informed consent.

Consent implies that you have enough information on which to base a judgement, and if people are being told, “oh, there’s just going to be a little pinch in your arm but there’s nothing else that can go wrong,” that’s just false information.

GR: I was wondering, could you mention any of the other conflicts that causes your group to have doubts about accepting the vaccine?

MH: Well obviously, for instance the Moderna vaccine, which is the second one on the market in the U.S., it’s a co-production with the National Institute for Health. So this is a public-private partnership. Sadly, there’s an obvious conflict of interest that the government is not eager, likely, to decide that it’s own product is inadequate or is excessively dangerous. That’s an inherent conflict. It’s a very serious one.

Also, like I said, they skipped over animal trials. You know, the observation period’s very short. They didn’t do clinical trials in the target population. One of the target populations is the elderly. People of colour. They didn’t actually have large percentages of people in the clinical trials from those two target groups. So, we have to expect that there are going to be adverse events that we didn’t see in the clinical trial.

And furthermore, very problematic information that’s come to light in the British Medical Journal in the last couple of weeks by the Associate Editor Peter Doshi who did a deeper dive in information that’s just been published about the size of clinical trial by the FDA in four thousand pages, he uncovered that many people had suspected COVID but they didn’t have a matching polymerase chain reaction test that confirmed that COVID…well if you add any of the suspected COVID cases, which are people who have clinical symptoms, you know, fever, achiness, you know, sick, if you add in all of those people, you ended up with an efficacy rate of nineteen percent, or maybe twenty nine percent if you excluded some right after the Vaccination. That’s a world of difference from the ninety five percent efficacy that has been touted around the world.

So, there are just so many questions about this product that has been pushed out in this aggressive manner, as if we know that it’s going to solve the pandemic, when in point of fact we have no clue if it’s going to solve the pandemic.

Also, it was not tested for whether or not it stopped transmission. It was tested for whether it averted mild symptoms. What it’s going to do in terms of stopping transmission we have no idea.

GR: You know, one of the points that were raised in the conversation with Dr. McGeer was the fact that just because somebody gets the vaccine, well we don’t know for sure that they died from the vaccine. I mean there could have been other potential possibilities and that’s possibIe. But, it seems to me that when it comes to COVID, it doesn’t matter how you died. If you had COVID, it was COVID. So that it seems as if there’s a bit of a double-standard there. I mean, I don’t know. What do you think?

MH: I agree with that completely! I mean Dr. Birks from the COVID task force said that, you know, we are going to count anyone who dies with COVID as a COVID death. So literally, if somebody dies in a motorcycle accident because a car ran into them, but they test positive at death or on after death with COVID, that’s characterized as a COVID death.

That’s ridiculous! And yet that is what we have in the United States at least.

GR: Now, one of the other things she said, she talked about how long the COVID vaccine will actually be effective, and she herself said that if it only works against the virus for six or eight months, we may have to go out and get another vaccine. So, we are looking at every year, potentially, unless we’re really lucky, but every year potentially, we could have to go for our vaccine. Do you have any concerns that, not only about the vaccine but having to take it again an again and again?

MH: We have grave concerns about that! So, you know, we do a lot of study and put out a lot of information about the annual flu vaccine. So, this is not comparable, the ones that have come out on the market right now. These are novel technologies, these mRNA. But the flu vaccines we know cause the majority of the injuries in the national vaccine injury compensation program. It’s the majority of injuries that are compensated by the U.S. government.

Flu vaccines, people die from the flu vaccines. If we now have annual COVID vaccines or joint annual flu/COVID vaccines, you can be sure that they will cause injuries. I mean that’s just, you know, it is acknowledged that vaccines are unavoidably unsafe. No one knows exactly how the given individual will react to this medication.

You know, we never give prescription medications without examining the individual patient. And yet,

somehow, we imagine that we can give “vaccines,” a particular type of medication, on a one size fits all basis. It doesn’t work that way! It just doesn’t work that way! You actually have to examine the patient to figure out whether this medication is really appropriate for this individual.

And fortunately, the Norwegian health authorities have now said that about COVID vaccine. You need to examine whether this particular patient is fit for vaccination. If they are very frail, they are not fit for vaccination.

GR: A little while ago you mentioned there were alternatives to vaccines. You mentioned things like ivermectin and Vitamin D and so on. But, I mean, surely you have to have…these things have to go through peer review at the very least before you can authorize it. Is that the case? Can we legally go along with this or is there a potentially a down side that has not been explored?

MH: I’m only talking about things that have been robustly peer reviewed Michael. So, the literature on Vitamin D and COVID and other respiratory conditions is robust. This is peer reviewed science. And I’m telling you that the FDA…. I’m sorry…the NIH, the National Institute of Health in the U.S., just issued a statement saying that ivermectin is now considered appropriate for use against COVID. The United States has not embraced hydroxychloroquine, however many physicians and scientists around the world have. And again there is robust peer reviewed science showing that hydroxychloroquine and other chloroquine drugs are effective against COVID.

There’s no such thing as a perfect drug that doesn’t cause side effects in some people. But there are now therapeutics. I mean, the peak of this pandemic was almost a year ago – was March, April of 2020. We’re now not in the peak, and we have discovered effective, you know, combinations of things that seem to work effectively to prevent death and severe cases.

GR: There’s been a tendency on the part of the media to avoid talking about harm, it seems to me. Plenty of pro-vaccination points, but the anti-vaccination point is generally ignored. Could you talk about your experiences dealing with media.

MH: Yes! So, we know that the media has really embraced the narrative of the pandemic and, you know, COVID 24/7, and the deaths and the horror. And we know that they have not published about anything about the therapeutics and have taken a very taken a very jaundiced view towards anyone whose critical in any way about the vaccines or disputing the numbers and so on.

I think it’s a disservice to talk about the anti-vaccine movement. We don’t consider ourselves at Children’s Health Defense to be anti-vaccine. We’re pro-science! We want to see robust science! We want to see robust discourse! We believe you can only arrive at the right conclusion if you have free and open discourse about these issues and you publish all of the science. The media has really fallen down on its job in covering this story about the pandemic from our perspective.

The media has really fallen down on its job in covering this story about the pandemic from our perspective. And because the media has so fallen down, we created at the end of 2020 an online newspaper that comes out five times a week called The Defender. And we are covering the adverse events. And people can put in their comments “we can want to have conversation” so it’s www.childrenshealthdefense.org/defender. And we think that it’s crucial we talk about the adverse event, and we talk about if the vaccine is working great. But we have reservations based on the critical trials and about the suppression of information that’s critical.

GR: Are there any other ways that you’ve been having difficulty in the pandemic era?

MH: Well, we are actively, Michael, we are actively censored! I mean we were thrown off of mailchip. We have been closed down on vimeo. On our facebook page for Children’s Health Defense. We are routinely blocked from putting up certain stories and videos and they are labelled as ‘false.’ So we are battling censorship on a daily basis. Robert F Kennedy Jr our chair has been demeaned and criticized in an Op-Ed in the New York Times and was unable to publish any kind of response. So we are facing very real censorship that is critical.

I grew up believing that in a democracy, the loyal opposition is essential. You cannot get to the right public policy conclusions without robust debate, or the ‘cauldron of debate’ as Robert Kennedy called it. That’s been dismissed! You know now we in sort of the cancel culture world and the idea that censorship is somehow good for the public, you know these ideas are very disturbing.

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.facebook.com/heidi.neckelmann/posts/10157817790183977
  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on A Life Saving Hope or Death Defying Jab? Three Perspectives on the Experimental COVID Vaccine

We Are at War

January 24th, 2021 by Peter Koenig

First published by Global Research on January 9, 2021

We are at war. Yes. And I don’t mean the West against the East, against Russia and China, nor the entire world against an invisible corona virus.

No. We, the common people, are at war against an ever more authoritarian and tyrannical elitist Globalist system, reigned by a small group of multi-billionaires, that planned already decades ago to take power over the people, to control them, reduce them to what a minute elite believes is an “adequate number” to inhabit Mother Earth – and to digitize and robotize the rest of the survivors, as a sort of serfs. It’s a combination of George Orwell’s “1984” and Aldous Huxley’s “Brave New World”.

Welcome to the age of the transhumans. If we allow it.

Vaccination

That’s why vaccination is needed in warp speed, to inject us with transgenic substances that may change our DNA, lest we may wake up, or at least a critical mass may become conscious – and change the dynamics. Because dynamics are not predictable, especially not in the long-term.

The war is real and the sooner we all realize it, the sooner those in masks and those in social distancing take cognizance of the worldwide “anti-human” dystopian situations we have allowed our governments to bestow on us, the better our chance to retake our sovereign selves.

Today we are confronted with totally illegal and oppressive rules, all imposed under the pretext of “health protection”.

Non-obedience is punishable by huge fines; military and police enforced rules: Mask wearing, social distancing, keeping within the allowed radius of our “homes”, quarantining, staying away from our friends and families.

Actually, the sooner, We, the People, will take up an old forgotten characteristic of human kind – “solidarity” – and fight this war with our solidarity, with our love for each other, for mankind, with our love for LIFE and our Love for Mother Earth, the sooner we become again independent, self-assured beings, an attribute we have lost gradually over the last decades, at the latest since the beginning of the neoliberal onslaught of the 1980s.

Slice by tiny slice of human rights and civil rights have been cut off under false pretexts and propaganda – “security” – to the point where we, drowned in propagated dangers of all kinds, begged for more security and gladly gave away more of our freedoms and rights. How sad.

Now, the salami has been sliced away.

We suddenly realize, there is nothing left. Its irrecoverable.

We have allowed it to happen before our eyes, for promised comfort and propaganda lies by these small groups of elitists – by the Globalists, in their thirst for endless power and endless greed – and endless enlargements of their riches, of their billions. – Are billions of any monetary union “riches”? – Doubtfully. They have no love. No soul, no heart just a mechanical blood-pump that keeps them alive, if you can call that a “life”.

These people, the Globalists, they have sunk so deep in their moral dysfunction, totally devoid of ethics, that their time has come – either to be judged against international human rights standards, war crimes and crimes against humanity – similar as was done by the Nuremberg Trials after World War II, or to disappear, blinded away by a new epoch of Light.

As the number of awakening people is increasing, the western Powers that Be (PTB) are becoming increasingly nervous and spare no efforts coercing all kinds of people, para-government, administrative staff, medical personnel, even independent medical doctors into defending and promoting the official narrative.

It is so obvious, when you have known these people in “normal” times, their progressive opinions suddenly turning, by 180 degrees, to the official narrative, defending the government lies, the lies of the bought “scientific Task Forces” that “advise” the governments, and thereby provide governments with alibis to “tighten the screws” a bit more (Ms. Merkel’s remarks) around the people, the very people the governments should defend and work for; the lies and deceptive messages coming from “scientists” who may have been promised “eternal, endless ladders of careers”, or of lives in a hidden paradise?

What more may they get in turn for trying to subvert their friends’, peers’, patients’ opinions about the horror disease “covid-19”? – Possibly something that is as good as life itself – and is basically cost free for the avaricious rich. For example, a vax-certificate without having been vaxxed by the toxic injections, maybe by a placebo – opening the world of travel and pleasurable activities to them as “before”.

By the way, has anybody noticed that in this 2020 / 2021 winter flu-season, the flu has all but disappeared? – Why? – It has conveniently been folded into covid, to fatten and exaggerate the covid statistics. It’s a must, dictated by the Globalists, the “invisible” top echelon, whose names may not be pronounced. Governments have to comply with “covid quotas”, in order to survive the hammer of the Globalists.

Other special benefits for those selected and complacent defender of the official narrative, the placebo-vaxxed, may include dispensation from social distancing, mask wearing, quarantining – and who knows, a hefty monetary award. Nothing would be surprising, when you see how this tiny evil cell is growing like a cancer to take over full power of the world – including and especially Russia and China, where the bulk of the world’s natural resources are buried, and where technological and economic advances far outrank the greed-economy of the west. They will not succeed.

What if the peons don’t behave? – Job loss, withdrawal of medical licenses, physical threats to families and loved ones, and more.

Screen Shot: NTD, December 16, 2020

The Globalists evil actions and influence-peddling is hitting a wall in the East, where they are confronted with educated and awakened people.

We are at war. Indeed. The 99.999% against the 0.001%.

Their tactics are dividing to conquer, accompanied by this latest brilliant idea – launching an invisible enemy, a virus, a plandemic, and a fear campaign to oppress and tyrannize the entire world, all 193 UN member countries.

The infamous words, spoken already more than half a century ago by Rockefeller protégé, Henry Kissinger, comes to mind:

“Who controls food supply controls the people; who controls the energy can control whole continents; who controls money can control the world.”

Quoted below are some lines and thoughts of a 1 January 2021, RT Op-Ed article by Helen Buyniski entitled “Civil war, medical discrimination, spy satellites and cyborgs! How 2021 could make us yearn for 2020”The article may point us in a direction of what may happen in 2021, that we certainly do not yearn for:

“People everywhere are eager to bid farewell to 2020, a year in which our lives were turned upside down by power-mad elites who seized the Covid-19 pandemic as a chance to go full police state.

But be careful what you wish for…. merely putting up a new calendar does nothing to address [the mounting repression and tyranny], which seem certain to reach a breaking point.

Humanity has been pushed to the limit with arbitrary rules, enforced poverty, and mandated isolation — it will only take a spark or two for things to explode.”

And it continues –

As vaccines are rolled out to the general public, the divide between those obeying the rules and the dissidents will only grow. Those who decline to get the jab will be treated as pariahs, banned from some public spaces and told it’s their fault life hasn’t gone back to normal, just as so-called “anti-maskers” have been.”

And more glorious prospects

“Anyone who isn’t thrilled by the idea of ingesting an experimental compound whose makers have been indemnified from any lawsuits, will be deemed an enemy of the state, even separated from their children or removed from their home as a health risk. Neighbors will gleefully rat each other out for the equivalent of an extra chocolate ration, meaning even the most slavishly obedient individuals could end up in “quarncentration camps” for upsetting the wrong person.”

Yes, we are in the midst of war.

A war that has already ravaged our society, divided it all the way down to families and friends.

If we are not careful, we may not look our children and grandchildren in the eyes, because we knew, we ought to have known what was and is going on, what is being done, by a small dark power elite – the Globalists. We must step out of our comfort zone, and confront the enemy with an awakened mind of consciousness and a heart filled with love – but also with fierce resistance.

If we fail to step up and stand up for our rights, this war goes on to prepare future generations – to abstain from congregating with other people.

They are already indoctrinating our kids into keeping away from friends, school colleagues, peers, and from playing in groups with each other – as the New Normal.

The self-declared cupula – the crème of the crop of civilization – the Globalist evil masters, already compromised and continue to do so, the education systems throughout the globe to instill into kids and young adults that wearing masks is essential for survival, and “social distancing” is the only way forward.

Must see Video

Children of the Great Reset

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8ncE5yYQvJY (6 min. video).

Breaking the Social Fabric. Towards Totalitarian Rule

They, the Globalists, know damned well that once a civilization has lost its natural cohesion – the social fabric is broken, the very fabric that keeps a civilization together and dynamically advancing, they have won the battle. Maybe not the war, since the war will last as long as there is resistance. The “dynamic advancing” – or simply dynamics itself – is their nightmare, because dynamics is what makes life tick – life, people, societies, entire nations and continents. Without dynamics life on the planet would stand still.

And that’s what they want – a Globalist dictator, controlling a small population of serfs, or robotized slaves, that move only when told, own nothing and are given a digital blockchain controlled universal income, that, depending on their behavior and obedience, they may use to buy food, pleasure and comfort. Once the slaves are dispensable or incorrigible, their electronically controlled brains are simply turned off – RIP.

This may turn out to be the most devastating war mankind has ever fought.

May We, the People, see through this horrendous sham which is already now playing out, in Year One of the UN Agenda 21 /30;

And may We, the People, the commons, win this war against a power-thirsty elite and its bought administrators and “scientists” throughout the world – and restore a sovereign, unmasked, socially coherent society – in solidarity.


See the following Global Research articles by Peter Koenig on the “The Great Reset” 

The World Economic Forum (WEF) Knows Best – The Post-Covid “Great Global Reset”,

The Post Covid World, The WEF’s Diabolical Project: “Resetting the Future of Work Agenda” – After “The Great Reset”. A Horrifying Future

Die Post-Covid-Welt, das teuflische Projekt des WEF: „Resetting the Future of Work Agenda“ – Nach dem „Großen Reset“. Eine erschreckende Zukunft

COVID and Its Man-Made Gigantic Collateral Damage: The Great Reset – A Call for Civil Disobedience

Covid-19: The Great Reset – Revisited. Scary Threats, Rewards for Obedience….


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.

The Pentagon Speaks

January 23rd, 2021 by Jacob G. Hornberger

The Joint Chiefs of Staff have spoken. Issuing a remarkable memorandum to all members of the Armed Forces, the JCS have declared that Joe Biden will be the new president of the United States. The memo may have been not only one to military personnel but also to President Trump: No matter how convinced you are that the election was stolen from you, don’t even think about remaining in power because we will ensure your forcible exit from the White House.

Unfortunately, relatively few people, including libertarians, comprehend that the Pentagon, along with the CIA and the NSA and, to a certain extent, the FBI, are the part of the federal government in which ultimate power is being wielded. They are the ones who are ruling the roost in America. That’s why that memo is so important. It’s declaring how things will be.

This overwhelming power is usually exercised behind the scenes in order to make Americans feel comfortable that their government is different from other national-security governments. While the national-security branch of the government is driving the overall direction America will take, especially with respect to foreign affairs, it permits the other three branches to maintain the appearance of power. The idea is to convince Americans that the federal government operates the same as a national-security state as it did when it was a limited-government republic.

But it’s a lie, a very dangerous lie, one that unfortunately is lived by all too many Americans, especially those within the mainstream press.

If you haven’t read the book National Security and Double Government by Michael J. Glennon, you owe it to yourself to do so so. This is Glennon’s thesis — that the national-security establishment is the part of the federal government that is wielding and exercising the ultimate power within the governmental structure. At the same time, however, it permits the legislative, judicial, and executive parts of the government to continue appearing to be in charge.

Glennon is not some crackpot writer. He is professor of international law at the Fletcher School at Tufts University. He has served as a consultant to various congressional committees, the U.S. State Department, and the International Atomic Energy Agency. You can read a more complete biography here.

If Glennon is right — I am firmly believe that he is — then it requires people, including libertarians, to reevaluate everything they understand about the country, especially foreign affairs.

Consider, for example, the many laments against America’s “forever wars.” It’s a popular mantra, including among libertarians. But what good does it do to complain about “forever wars” if the root cause of such wars is left in place, where it is in charge?

In other words, the national-security establishment needs those forever wars, just as it needed the Cold War. Any national-security state necessarily depends of fear, crises, chaos, and emergencies — or “threats” of such things to sustain its existence, its power, and its money. They will always find something for people to be afraid of, even if they have to instigate it. Communism, terrorism, drug dealers, illegal immigrants, Muslims, Russia, China, North Korea, Cuba, ISIS, al-Qaeda, Iran, Syria, insurrectionists, revolutionaries, invaders, or whatever. Without such fearful things, people are apt to ask why they need a national-security state instead of a limited-government republic, which was the type of governmental structure on which America was founded.

What is the distinguishing characteristic of a national-security state, as compared to a limited-government republic? Power — raw, unadulterated power. With its vast military and arsenal of weaponry, along with extreme powers of assassination and surveillance, a national-security establishment has the means of imposing its will on government and on society. No one wields the countervailing power to resist.

This why precisely why our American ancestors opposed the creation of a national-security state or what they called “standing armies.” They understood that once such a governmental apparatus comes into existence, there is no practical way for the citizenry, even a well-armed citizenry, to oppose it. In fact, if the Constitutional Convention had proposed a Constitution that called into existence a federal government that was a national-security state, rather than a limited-government republic, there is no way that Americans would have approved the Constitution.

Practically from the beginning of the conversion to a national-security state, the other three branches have deferred to the overwhelming power of the Pentagon and its vast military-industrial complex, the CIA, and the NSA. All three of those branches have understood the nature of power.

For example, in the 1950s the Pentagon insisted that the Supreme Court grant it a state-secrets doctrine. Ordinarily, that is a legislative function; that’s the way things are ordinarily done in a democracy. The Supreme Court went along with what the Pentagon wanted, thereby circumventing the legislative process.

Consider assassination. The Constitution did not delegate such a power to the federal government. The Bill of Rights expressly prohibits the federal government from killing anyone without due process of law. Nonetheless, when the national-security establishment insisted on having the power to assassinate people, including Americans, the Supreme Court acceded to its demand.

Look at GItmo, where people have been held for for more than a decade without trial. Never mind that the Bill of Rights requires the federal government to grant people speedy trials. That doesn’t matter when it comes to the military and the CIA. The federal judiciary is not going to interfere.

Congress has proven to be just as deferential. For one thing, Congress is filled with people who   could be considered to be self-designated assets of the national-security establishment. This especially includes the military and CIA veterans. They are almost certain to go along with whatever the national-security establishment wants. For those who strenuously object, they encounter the threat of having military bases or projects in their districts canceled, in which case the mainstream media in their districts will go after them with a vengeance. And there is always the possibility of being “Hoovered” with the threat of having friendly assets in the mainstream press reveal compromising secrets about one’s personal life.

And woe to any president who takes on the national-security establishment. They all know this. That’s why there hasn’t been a president since John F. Kennedy willing to challenge them. For a while it looked like Trump was going to do so but it wasn’t long before Americans saw that he too quickly fell into line.

It’s time for Americans to do some serious soul-searching and to ask themselves some penetrating questions: Is a root cause of America’s many woes the fact that it is a national-security state, just like China, Russia, and North Korea? Is it time to restore America’s founding system of a limited-government republic? Which governmental structure is more likely to lead to liberty, peace, prosperity, and harmony?

*

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.

Jacob G. Hornberger is founder and president of The Future of Freedom Foundation. He was born and raised in Laredo, Texas, and received his B.A. in economics from Virginia Military Institute and his law degree from the University of Texas. He was a trial attorney for twelve years in Texas. He also was an adjunct professor at the University of Dallas, where he taught law and economics. In 1987, Mr. Hornberger left the practice of law to become director of programs at the Foundation for Economic Education. He has advanced freedom and free markets on talk-radio stations all across the country as well as on Fox News’ Neil Cavuto and Greta van Susteren shows and he appeared as a regular commentator on Judge Andrew Napolitano’s show Freedom Watch. View these interviews at LewRockwell.com and from Full Context. Send him email.

I sat behind a trading terminal at two Wall Street firms from 1986 to 2006. I can assure you that if the President of the United States was refusing to accept the outcome of a presidential election and urging a coup d’é·tat by his civilian militia, the stock market would have sold off by double digits. This era’s stock market has yawned at the spectacle.

I can further assure you that if an actual, violent coup d’état did occur inside the halls of Congress and played out in real time on every television network and cable news program in the country and around the world, there would have been a crash in the stock market. (I was sitting behind my trading terminal on October 19, 1987 when the Dow Jones Industrial Average crashed 22 percent by the end of the trading day and the country was peaceful.)

The stock market of that prior era would not have greeted 20,000 National Guard troops descending on the nation’s Capitol and television pictures of hundreds of those troops guarding the halls of Congress with a meaningless loss of 8 points — a tiny fraction of one percent.

Market Close on January 13, 2021

Clearly, today’s stock market is broken. And that’s a big problem for this country and the world because the U.S. stock market is supposed to be an early indicator of when things are going well and when things are going badly. When the U.S. stock market is sending a signal to the world that bloody coups of government are nothing to fret over, we’ve entered a dangerous dimension where fascist rule is deemed a good thing.

The stock market of my day reflected the composite wisdom of all of its participants. Today’s stock market appears to reflect the composite wisdom of only its fascist-inclined participants.

So how do we fix our broken stock market so that it is once again a barometer to lead the country in the right direction? We listen to our whistleblowers who love their country so much that they will put their careers on the line to blow the whistle on all that is wrong on Wall Street.

To read complete article click here

*

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

Ms. Martens is a former Wall Street veteran with a background in journalism.

Featured image is from Shutterstock

The New Tang Dynasty (NTD) broadcast a Press Conference of 9 January 2021 of independent French medical doctors for the truth about Covid-19. It is called “Coordination Santé Libre” or “Free Health Coordination”.

The Group, based in France, represents more than 30,000 medical doctors, an equal amount of medical care personnel, and more than 100,000 citizens.

Conférence de presse: Santé Libre | Des collectifs de médecins indépendants pour la Covid19 – Une Initiative de médecins libresfrançais (12 Janvier 2021)

NTD Television is the largest independent Chinese international TV channel. It was created in 2001 in New York, from where it broadcasts its programs to more than 100 million people around the world.

In 2010, a French branch was created, to serve mainly European viewers. NTD has become an effective alternative news network.

Since the independent French “Free Health Coordinators” have no access to French and European mainstream media, they have decided to work with NTD – benefitting from the broadcast network’s large coverage. Their goal is to inform as many people as possible about the truth behind Covid-19, clearing up myth, mysteries, scientific controversies and outright lies.

The Medical Coordination Group has created 4 cells of research and public information, covering covid prevention, treatment, dialogue and information, notably

(i) the (French) government’s prohibition of using traditional and effective anti-inflammatory and infection medication, like Ivermectin and others;

(ii) analyzing and making public the “figures” – the often false or misleading statistics about new “infections” or new “cases” – the mortality rate (what does it mean) – and bringing these corrected concepts to the public;

(iii) the different aspects and risks of the currently available – largely untested – vaccines in the west, specially the dangers of mRNA-type vaccines; and

(iv) public information – which is currently a topic of misinformation, a chaos of scientific and medical contradictions, manipulation of facts, half-facts and untruths, and outright lies, as well as intense fear campaigns. People in fear become weak, morally, physically and more vulnerable for diseases – all kinds of diseases – as well as obedient and depressed which may lead to suicide.

It is truly amazing what this French Medical Coordination has already done and is planning to continue doing to counter the current almost worldwide false and incomplete covid narrative – and bring truth to the people. – With this fantastic French initiative, there is a flicker of hope on the horizon that more and more people will see through this criminal covid endeavor.

*

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)

Peter Koenig is a Research Associate of the Centre for Research on Globalization.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Video: France’s Medical Doctors Speak Out. “Pour la vérité de Covid-19”

While the saccharine continues to ooze from the mainstream media for the incoming Biden Administration, the real iron fist of what will be the Biden foreign policy is starting to materialize. As if on cue, major bombings in Baghdad – by ISIS…remember them? – have opened the door for the Biden Administration to not only cancel President Trump’s troop drawdown from Iraq but to actually begin sending troops back into Iraq.

Is this to be Iraq War 4.0? 3.7? 5.0? Anybody’s guess.

If Biden uses this sudden – and convenient – unrest in Iraq as a trigger to return US troops (and bombs), it should not surprise anyone. As Professor Barbara Ransby points out in this video, Biden did much more to make the disastrous 2003 attack on Iraq happen than just vote “yes” on the authorization to use force. As Professor Ransby reminds us, Biden used the full power of his position as chair of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee to ensure the Senate approved George W. Bush’s lie-based war on Iraq. Biden prevented any experts who challenged the “Saddam has WMDs and he’s about to use them” narrative from being heard by Members of Congress, guaranteeing that only the pro-war narrative was heard.

As much as Bush or Cheney, Biden owns the 2003 US invasion of Iraq, which killed a million Iraqi civilians. And he may well be taking us back.

One figure in the Biden Administration who will play a pivotal role in returning the US to its hyper-interventionism in the Middle East is Secretary of State nominee Anthony Blinken. As a Biden Senate staffer in 2003, he helped the then-Foreign Relations Committee Chairman put together a pro-war coalition in the Democratic Party to support President Bush’s Republican push for invasion.

Later on Blinken was Obama’s Deputy National Security Advisor, where he successfully made the case that destroying both Libya and Syria were fantastic ideas. Both countries drowned in the Obama Administration’s “liberation” bloodbath and neither country has recovered from the “democracy” brought by Washington, but being a neocon foreign policy ideologue means never having to say you’re sorry.

And Blinken isn’t.

Not surprisingly, Blinken is a favorite of the AIPAC-bankrolled Foundation for the Defense of Democracies, which, as Phil Giraldi reported, Tweeted that Blinken would be part of a “…superb national security team. The country will be very fortunate to have them in public service.”

We have Senator Rand Paul (R-KY) to thank for at least bringing up the fact that Blinken has blundered from foreign policy disaster to foreign policy disaster – which only gets you promoted in Washington DC. In Blinken’s confirmation hearing, Paul reminded Blinken of his addiction to intervention in the Middle East and how that has worked out for everyone.

Paul reminded the Secretary of State nominee that his only criticism of the Syria “regime change” plan was that the US did not successfully overthrow Assad. But…the US was using jihadist proxies to overthrow the secular Assad, so what does this say about Blinken’s judgement?

“The lesson of these wars,” said Paul, is that ‘regime change’ doesn’t work!”

Paul added:

Even after Libya you guys went on to Syria wanting to do the same thing again… it’s a disaster.

You got rid of one ‘bad guy’ and another ‘bad guy’ got stronger.

Yes, Senator Paul is right. “Regime change” doesn’t work. It kills or destroys the lives of the most vulnerable. The poor and the innocent. The US enemies may occasionally find themselves on the wrong end of a noose or a knife rape, but it is the civilians who always suffer when they are “liberated” by Washington.

Buckle up, as incoming Senate Majority Leader Schumer advised, there’s a whole lot of interventionism in the queue. There’s a whole lot of death and destruction to be unleashed by Biden, Blinken, and their gang of “humanitarians.”

*

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

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Towards US “Hyper-interventionism” in the Middle East? Biden’s Secretary of State Nominee Anthony Blinken

If President Joe Biden intends to restore America’s credibility in the world, he needs to take these steps regarding Syria. Much of this applies to other countries as well:

1) End all sanctions and blockades. US sanctions are not benign means to put pressure on governments, they work in this way – to starve and isolate the economy and the people in order to make them so desperate they will rise up against their governments and do our malignant regime changes for us. They are in fact economic terrorism against entire populations.

2) End the illegal occupation by the US and allies of conventional troops, contractor/mercenaries, and proxies. The US is controlling almost 1/3rd of Syria’s lands – lands which not coincidentally contain Syria’s richest oil fields. America is selling off Syria’s oil to fund their arming, training and equipping of mercenary proxies to try to split Syria apart … Balkanization. It also serves to deprive Syrians of fuel they need for rebuilding; for their army to defeat the al Qaeda and other terrorists that hold Idlib province, ISIS cells in the west and south, and various terrorists still attacking in other areas of the country; for manufacturing, production and distribution; for heating and power for hospitals, schools, homes, businesses, etc. People are waiting for sometimes days in lines for gasoline.

3) Apply pressure on Israel and Turkey to end their illegal occupations of Syrian lands; to end their illegal, constant attacks against the sovereign nation of Syria; and to end their continued assistance to several terrorist groups.

In many ways, Syrians are suffering more now than ever. Since the collapse of Lebanon’s government and economy last year, their economy has spiraled down, out of control. Prices on even the most basic essentials for life are beyond the means of most people – to buy even a little chicken for example is a great extravagance. Corruption, war time inflation, smuggling, the black market and rise of mafias have exacerbated the misery of the people exponentially and many are without any hope for the future at all.

All of these problems are a direct result of the reckless and unjustifiable regime change efforts of the United States of America and its allies. The regime change aggression began under GW Bush; it escalated into violence under Obama; and has continued under Trump.

Joe Biden has signaled that instead of acting in good faith and ending US efforts to overthrow the government of Syria, he will escalate them and try to finish the job that Bush, Obama and Hillary (with Biden as VP) were all so determined to accomplish. High from getting Qaddafi tortured and killed and murdering Libya in the process, the Obama administration proceeded to try to rip Syria apart. They failed for the most part but Syria is bleeding. They’ve buried hundreds of thousands of their loved ones. Their army has been hemorrhaging blood – of their young men and old alike fighting ISIS, al Qaeda and other terrorist proxy armies all sponsored by the US and/or its allies, and the civilians as the victims of the violence by legions of terrorists.About ten million (out of a total population of 23 million) have been displaced, either having to relocate within the country or outside becoming refugees.

Huge swaths of their cities and infrastructure have been destroyed or heavily damaged both by the terrorists who were missioned with bringing death and destruction; and the efforts by the Syrian government and Army with their allies to defeat the mercenary thugs.

All the US has to do is end the aggression against that country which has never threatened America, in fact they’ve wanted only mutually beneficial and respectful relations with the West.

So President Biden – I call on YOU to end this murderous madness. End the terrorist proxy regime change attempt war against Syria. And do it NOW.

These people are not our enemies – we must stop treating them as such.

These photos are all from 2020/2021 with special thanks to Rida Ali and Roula Elias Naddour.

*

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


Order Mark Taliano’s Book “Voices from Syria” directly from Global Research.

Mark Taliano combines years of research with on-the-ground observations to present an informed and well-documented analysis that refutes  the mainstream media narratives on Syria. 

Voices from Syria 

ISBN: 978-0-9879389-1-6

Author: Mark Taliano

Year: 2017

Pages: 128 (Expanded edition: 1 new chapter)

List Price: $17.95

Special Price: $9.95 

Click to order

The mother of Eric Garner, who was brutally murdered by New York City police officers applying a chokehold as he pleaded “I can’t breathe,” testified this week before the International Commission of Inquiry on Systemic Racist Police Violence Against People of African Descent in the United States.

“They killed him. It is no justice for him. But we must still stand for justice,” Garner’s mother, Gwen Carr, said during the commission’s opening hearing on January 18, Martin Luther King Jr. Day. “We must get justice for those who come behind him.”

Another mother to testify before the commission was Dominic Archibald, the mother of Nathaniel Pickett II, who was murdered by a San Bernardino County, California, deputy sheriff who saw him lawfully walking in a crosswalk. “In the final moments of the only life he had, my only child was stopped, beaten, and terrorized like a dog,” she testified. “My son had a civil right to social freedom and a human right to life.”

Powerful testimony about the police killings of Garner, Pickett and Freddie Gray kicked off the first hearings of the Commission of Inquiry, which will consider nearly 50 cases of unjustified police homicides of Black individuals during 18 days of hearings that are being broadcast online.

This commission was convened by the National Conference of Black Lawyers (NCBL), International Association of Democratic Lawyers (IADL) and National Lawyers Guild (NLG) after the Trump administration prevented the UN Human Rights Council from establishing a UN commission to investigate systemic racism and police brutality in the U.S. The Council ordered the High Commissioner for Human Rights Michelle Bachelet to prepare a report about police violence against people of African descent, but not limited to the United States, by June 2021. Following the hearings, the NCBL-IADL-NLG Commission will write a report and submit it to the high commissioner to inform her task. The commission will publicize its report widely in the United States and globally for use in advocacy and litigation.

The cases of Garner, Pickett and Gray were presented to Commissioners Max Boqwana and Peter Herbert, two of the 12 eminent international lawyers serving on the Commission.

The Killing of Eric Garner

The killing of Eric Garner was the first case the commissioners heard. Garner died on July 17, 2014, after New York City Police Department officer Daniel Pantaleo put him in a prohibited chokehold while arresting him for selling single cigarettes from packs without tax stamps. A video of the killing showed Garner repeating the words “I can’t breathe” 11 times as he lay face down on the sidewalk. Garner remained on the ground for seven minutes after losing consciousness while officers waited for an ambulance to arrive. Garner was pronounced dead at the hospital one hour later.

After the video went viral, hundreds of demonstrations erupted throughout the country. One year later, Garner’s family agreed to a $5.9 million settlement. But neither state nor federal prosecutors ever brought criminal charges against Pantaleo. It took five years for him to be fired from the police force, and all that time, he continued to receive a full paycheck.

Carr invoked other mothers who have lost sons to racist police violence. “There’s tens of thousands of us out here,” she said. “Some of us are high-profile, as they call it. But each case should be high profile. One case is as bad as the next. Some of the mothers, they can’t get out of bed.” In a stinging indictment of the system, Carr charged, “They kill us twice. First, the police, they murder in broad daylight, they murder us in the night when they don’t think anyone’s looking, then they murder us in the newspaper, they bring out any little thing that they think that can criminalize us.”

Attorney Jonathan Moore, who represented Garner’s estate, testified at the hearing. He noted that none of the other five officers who helped Pantaleo kill Garner were ever brought up on disciplinary charges. “The problem is that the police have become an instrument of state control of mostly people of color and poor people as well,” he said. Policing in the United States is a reflection of our “horrible history of racism … beginning with slavery, and then with Jim Crow, and now with the rise of white supremacy,” Moore said. “It’s no coincidence that a number of those folks who assaulted the Capitol building on January 6 … were former military and law enforcement,” and even some current law enforcement.

The Killing of Nathaniel Pickett II

On November 19, 2015, Nate Pickett crossed the street in a marked crosswalk and walked toward the motel where he was living. Officer Kyle Woods yelled at Pickett to stop. Pickett continued to walk and then ran away, as he was legally entitled to do. But after Pickett tripped on some steps, Woods tackled him, punched him, and shot him twice in the chest. Woods never called for medical care after shooting Pickett, who was pronounced dead at the scene.

After the killing, Woods changed his story several times in an attempt to manufacture reasonable suspicion or probable cause to justify his illegal stop of Pickett. But the ride-along in Woods’s patrol car, a defense expert, and a videotape all put the lie to the officer’s story. After a civil jury trial, Pickett’s family received $15.5 million in compensatory damages but Woods was never charged with a crime. Archibald, Pickett’s mother, told the commissioners, “You could never pay me for my child. Whatever comes is just a down payment on justice.”

Archibald is a retired Army officer who served in Iraq, Afghanistan and Kuwait. “We have more stringent rules of engagement and human rights requirements against the known enemy than law enforcement has in the streets of America,” she said.

Dale Galipo, Archibald’s attorney, testified that he and Archibald went together to the district attorney “with the [civil] trial transcripts and all the evidence after we won … and he still would not press criminal charges.” Archibald continues her struggle to achieve justice for her son.

The Killing of Freddie Gray

After eating breakfast at a nearby restaurant, Freddie Gray and two friends were walking down the street in Baltimore on April 12, 2015. They were doing nothing illegal. Two Baltimore city police officers on bike patrol, with no reasonable suspicion or probable cause, rapidly rode toward the three young Black men. They “ran literally for their lives,” attorney William Murphy, who represented Gray’s family, testified at the hearing. When it was clear that Gray could not outrun the officers, he “stopped and laid on the ground to avoid being assaulted.” After they found a knife in Gray’s pocket, which he was legally allowed to possess, the officers “hogtied him by cuffing his hands behind his back, shackling his feet together, bending his legs behind his back and fastening his shackled feet to his cuffed hands.”

They placed Gray in a patrol van. Forty-five minutes later, after enduring a “rough ride,” Gray arrived at the precinct “unconscious with an 85% severed spine.” Following “an unwarranted delay,” Murphy said, Gray was ambulanced to the hospital, where he died two weeks later. Baltimore agreed to a $6.4 million settlement with the Gray family. The officers were brought to trial for the killing but they waived a jury trial and the judge acquitted them. After the U.S. Department of Justice demanded that Baltimore submit to federal supervision, the city and the Justice Department reached a consent decree, which is a court-ordered agreement after a major Justice Department investigation designed to correct long-standing unconstitutional practices in police departments. Baltimore remains under supervision.

Massive protests were held around the country after Gray’s death. Murphy told the commissioners, “There isn’t an African American in America that either hasn’t had a close friend or relative brutalized or themselves been brutalized [by the police].” He described the “two kinds of policing” — one for white people and one for Black people. “The police were originally employed to enforce slavery in America, and to catch escaped slaves,” Murphy noted. After the Civil War, they were used “to prevent Black people from voting. They were employed to terrorize Black communities all over this country, to prevent them from being involved in political activity.” Like Moore, Murphy drew a straight line from slavery to contemporary racist police violence.

The hearings will continue six days a week through February 6. The cases include the killings of George Floyd, Breonna Taylor, Michael Brown, Tamir Rice, Rayshard Brooks and many others. Click here to see a full schedule of cases and register for the hearings. Videos and transcripts of the hearings can be accessed here.

*

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

Copyright Truthout. Reprinted with permission.

Marjorie Cohn is professor emerita at Thomas Jefferson School of Law, former president of the National Lawyers Guild, deputy secretary general of the International Association of Democratic Lawyers and a member of the advisory board of Veterans for Peace. Her most recent book is Drones and Targeted Killing: Legal, Moral, and Geopolitical Issues.

She is a frequent contributor to Global Research.

U.S. Senator (Kentucky) Rand Paul recently challenged the new Secretary of State nominee Anthony Blinken on his history of pushing regime change in the Middle East and North Africa.

Sen. Paul began his argument by questioning Blinken’s role in the NATO intervention of Libya in 2001 and his support for the U.S. military invasion of Iraq in 2003, which the Kentucky congressman said was a major disaster that paved the way for a stronger Iran.

The congressman argued that Blinken continued to push regime change in Syria, which he said was a significant blunder, especially with the amount of money spent training “moderate rebel forces”.

Sen. Paul said the administration of former President Barack Obama spent $250 million (USD) on training 60 rebels, which he said was a waste of money.

He would go on to question why Blinken would support the Syrian opposition groups on the ground, as he pointed out the most powerful fighters are those from the jihadist groups like the Al-Nusra Front.

Sen. Paul then shifted his attention to NATO, which he said Blinken was trying to strengthen for the purpose of combatting Russia.

The senator said Blinken’s policy on NATO would lead to war with Russia, which the latter responded would have the opposite effect.

He concluded by saying that regime change needs to end because it is involving the U.S. in long wars that are costly to the military.

*

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: Video thumbnail from Rand Paul’s comments on regime change to the U.S. Secretary of State nominee Anthony Blinken. (video courtesy of Rand Paul)

…Alumbra, lumbre de alumbre, Luzbel de piedralumbre!

Assim começa O Senhor Presidente, obra fundamental da literatura latino americana, da qual procedem  ao mesmo tempo o realismo mágico e os grandes romances políticos sobre as ditaduras que causaram tanto sofrimento e destruição por todo o continente, como Eu, o Supremo do paraguaio Augusto Roa Bastos e O outono do patriarca do colombiano Gabriel Garcia Márquez.

O livro teve uma longa gestação, foi escrito entre meados dos anos 20 e início dos anos 30 do século passado por Miguel Ángel Asturias em Paris, onde se auto-exilou por mais de dez anos fugindo  da ditadura de Estrada Cabrera em seu país de origem, a Guatemala. À ditadura de Estada Cabrera, que durou de 1898 até 1920, sucedeu-se a ditadura de Jorge Ubico, o que fez com que o livro só fosse publicado em 1946, no México, ano em que também se publicou no Brasil o primeiro livro de um outro escritor fundamental: Sagarana  de João Guimarães Rosa. Os caminhos desses dois escritores se cruzariam em 1965, quando se realizou em Gênova o Congresso de Escritores Latino-Americanos e foi criada a Primeira Sociedade de Escritores Latino-Americanos, com Miguel Ángel Asturias e João Guimarães Rosa na sua direção. Em um intervalo durante este congresso em Gênova, Guimarão Rosa concedeu uma famosa entrevista ao crítico de literatura alemão Günter Lorenz , na qual fez um interessante comentário sobre Asturias ao responder a uma pergunta:

Guimarães Rosa: Acho que você me entendeu mal. Aparentemente está se referindo ao que aconteceu em Berlim. Acerca disto queria dizer que estou do lado de Asturias e não de (Jorge Luis) Borges. Embora não aprove tudo que Asturias disse no calor do debate, não aprovo nada do que disse Borges. As palavras de Borges revelaram uma total falta de consciência da responsabilidade, e eu estou sempre do lado daqueles que arcam com a responsabilidade e não dos que a negam.

Esta citação é muita curta, não contém muitas informações sobre o contexto,  mas ainda assim me parece suficiente para indicar que Guimarães Rosa reconhecia em Asturias um escritor com quem compartilhava  uma mesma posição: ambos assumiam a responsabilidade do escritor diante de sua época. 

Em O Senhor Presidente , Miguel Ángel Asturias confrontou a sociedade, a política e a literatura da América Latina de seu tempo como nenhum outro havia feito até então. Para o estudioso da literatura Latino-Americana Gerald Martin, autor do influente livro Journeys through the Labyrinth: Latin American Fiction in the Twentieth Century , trata-se de um romance único na literatura Latino-Americana, o primeiro a ‘combinar sua chamada à revolução na linguagem e na literatura com uma chamada à revolução social e política e o primeiro a desmascarar o autoritarismo e o patriarcalismo ao nível da consciência, ou seja, da interiorização do totalitarismo.’ 

Relendo O Senhor Presidente hoje, enquanto o Brasil sucumbe à incompetência generalizada, à corrupção desenfreada e à ignorância voluntária de uma parte significativa da população, reconheço muito em comum entre nosso país e o mundo descrito por Asturias em seu romance,  o de uma sociedade sofrendo sob  uma ditadura militar mesquinha e violenta. E diante das ameaças do Senhor Presidente Bolsonaro de um golpe de estado  e do estabelecimento definitivo de uma ditadura, o romance de Miguel Ángel Asturias se revela uma mensagem, uma advertência sobre o que ainda pode se transformar o nosso país. Porque tudo pode, sempre, piorar: o poço não tem fundo, nem limites a estupidez.

Uma personagem do romance, o General Canelas, cai em desgraça junto ao Senhor Presidente e tem que fugir da ditadura militar que ajudou a impôr. E durante a fuga pelo interior do país, confrontado pela miséria que o governo ditatorial tinha criado e que até pouco tempo atrás era invisível para ele, escondida que estava pelos privilégios de que ele desfrutava, pensa consigo mesmo:

Qual era a realidade? Não ter  pensado nunca  com a sua própria cabeça, ter pensado sempre com o quepe . Ser militar para manter no comando uma casta de ladrões, exploradores e traidores egoístas (…).

Quem tiver ouvidos, ouça. Quem tiver olhos, veja.

Num outro episódio do romance, uma empregada de um comandante da polícia recebe a solicitação de uma mulher humilde que apenas quer saber onde foi enterrado seu marido assassinado nos cárceres da ditadura. A empregada promete ajudar e fala com o comandante da polícia, que responde deste modo:

Não tem que dar esperanças. (…) A gente permanece nestes postos porque faz o que lhe é dito e a regra de conduta do Senhor Presidente é de não dar esperança e de pisoteá-los e espancá-los a todos porque sim.

Diante dos milhares de mortos pela pandemia do COVID 19, diante da destruição da floresta amazônica e do pantanal, como não ver nestas palavras a descriçâo exata da condura do Ministro Pazuello, do Ministro Salles e de tantos outros em cargos importantes do governo do Senhor Presidente Bolsonaro?

Quem tiver ouvidos, ouça.Quem tiver olhos, veja.

Miguel Ángel Asturias

E diante da inércia de grande parte da classe política, incapaz  de tomar uma atitude diante de tanto descalabro, mortes e destruição, sem nenhuma vergonha de seu próprio oportunismo, estas palavras escritas por Asturias e ditas por uma  personagem do romance, parecem sair da boca de milhões de brasileiros:

Não há esperança de liberdade, meus amigos; estamos condenados a suportá-lo até que Deus queira. Os cidadãos que ansiavam pelo bem do país estão longe (…) As árvores já não dão frutos como antes. O milho já não alimenta. O sono já não descansa. A água já não refresca. O ar torna-se irrespirável. Às pragas seguem as pestes, as pestes às pragas e não tarda virá um terramoto para pôr fim a tudo isto. (…) Para onde virar os olhos em busca de  liberdade?

Miguel Ángel Asturias, prêmio Nobel de Literatura de 1967, desde seu pequeno e sofrido país manda sua mensagem para o Brasil de hoje. Há que ler O Senhor Presidente. Resistir e buscar forças nas palavras encantatórias do romance. Volto ao seu começo:

Alumbra, lumbre de alumbre, Luzbel de piedralumbre, sobre la podredumbre! Alumbra, lumbre de alumbre, sobre la podredumbre, Luzbel de piedralumbre!Alumbra, alumbra, lumbre de alumbre…, alumbre…,alumbra…, alumbre de alumbre…,alumbra,alumbre…! 

Franklin Frederick

  • Posted in Português
  • Comments Off on O Senhor presidente. “Mensagem de Miguel Ángel Asturias” para o Brasil de Bolsonaro

Hoje, 22 de Janeiro de 2021, é o dia que pode ficar na História como o ponto de viragem para livrar a Humanidade daquelas armas que, pela primeira vez, têm a capacidade de fazer desaparecer a espécie humana e quase todas as outras formas de vida, da face da Terra. De facto, hoje entra em vigor o Tratado da ONU sobre a Proibição de Armas Nucleares. Mas também pode ser o dia em que entra em vigor um tratado destinado, como tantos outros anteriores, a permanecer no papel. A possibilidade de eliminar as armas nucleares depende de todos nós.

Qual é a situação da Itália e o que devemos fazer para contribuir para o objectivo de um mundo livre de armas nucleares? A Itália, um país formalmente não nuclear, concedeu há décadas o seu território para a instalação de armas nucleares americanas: actualmente bombas B61, que em breve serão substituídas pelas mais mortíferas B61-12. Também faz parte dos países que – como documentado pela NATO – “fornecem à Aliança aviões equipados para transportar bombas nucleares, sobre os quais os Estados Unidos mantêm um controlo absoluto, e pessoal treinado para o efeito”. Além do mais, existe a possibilidade de serem instalados no nosso território, mísseis nucleares de alcance intermédio (análogos aos euromísseis dos anos 80) que os EUA estão a construir depois de terem extinto o Tratado INF que os proibia.

Assim, a Itália viola o Tratado de Não-Proliferação de Armas Nucleares, ratificado em 1975, que estabelece: “Cada um dos Estados militarmente não nucleares, parte do Tratado, compromete-se a não receber de quem quer seja armas nucleares, nem a controlar tais armas, directa ou indirectamente”. Ao mesmo tempo, a Itália rejeitou em 2017 o Tratado da ONU sobre a Abolição de Armas Nucleares – boicotado pelos trinta países da NATO e pelos 27 da União Europeia – o qual estabelece: “Cada Estado Parte que tenha armas nucleares no seu território, possuído ou controlado por outro Estado, deverá assegurar a remoção imediata dessas armas”.

A Itália, na senda dos EUA e da NATO, opôs-se ao Tratado desde a abertura das negociações, decidida pela Assembleia Geral em 2016. Os Estados Unidos e as outras duas potências nucleares da NATO (França e Grã-Bretanha), os outros países da Aliança e os seus principais parceiros – Israel (a única potência nuclear do Médio Oriente), Japão, Austrália, Ucrânia – votaram contra. As outras potências nucleares, tais como a Rússia e a China (que se abstiveram), a Índia, o Paquistão e a Coreia do Norte, também votaram contra. Fazendo eco a Washington, o governo Gentiloni definiu o futuro Tratado como “um elemento de forte divisão que corre o risco de comprometer os nossos esforços a favor do desarmamento nuclear”.

Portanto, o governo e o parlamento de Itália são ambos responsáveis pelo facto do Tratado sobre a Abolição das Armas Nucleares – aprovado por larga maioria pela Assembleia Geral das Nações Unidas em 2017 e que entrou em vigor por ter atingido 50 ratificações – até à data, ter sido ratificado na Europa somente pela Áustria, Irlanda, Santa Sé, Malta e São Marino: o que constituiu um acto meritório, mas que não é suficiente para dar força ao Tratado.

Em 2017, enquanto a Itália rejeitava o Tratado ONU sobre a Abolição das Armas Nucleares, mais de 240 parlamentares – na sua maioria do PD e do M5S, com o actual Ministro dos Negócios Estrangeiros Luigi Di Maio na primeira fila – comprometeram-se solenemente, através da assinatura do Apelo ICAN, a promover a adesão da Itália ao Tratado ONU. Em três anos não moveram um dedo nessa direcção. Por trás de coberturas demagógicas ou abertamente, o Tratado ONU sobre a abolição das armas nucleares é boicotado no Parlamento, com algumas raras excepções, por todo o arco político, que concorda em vincular a Itália à política cada vez mais perigosa da NATO, oficialmente a “Aliança Nuclear”.

Tudo isto deve ser recordado hoje, no Dia de Acção Global, que apela à entrada em vigor do Tratado da ONU sobre a Proibição das Armas Nucleares, celebrado pelos activistas da ICAN e de outros movimentos antinucleares com 160 eventos, na sua maioria na Europa e na América do Norte. Precisamos de transformar este dia, numa mobilização permanente e crescente de uma frente ampla capaz, em cada país e a nível internacional, e de impor as escolhas políticas necessárias para alcançar o objectivo vital do Tratado.

 

Artigo original em italiano :

L’Onu proibisce le armi nucleari e l’Italia che fa?

(il manifesto, 22 de Janeiro de 2021)

https://ilmanifesto.it/oggi-in-vigore-il-trattato-onu-che-proibisce-le-atomiche/

Tradutora: Maria Luísa de Vasconcellos

  • Posted in Português
  • Comments Off on A ONU proíbe as armas nucleares e a Itália, o que é que faz?

In the 1980s, the US imposed a 100% tariff on virtually all Japanese electronics and forced Tokyo to sign a one-sided trade deal that reserved much of its domestic semiconductor sector for American companies.

***

With just days left in office, the Trump administration has blacklisted an additional nine Chinese companies, adding them to a long list of firms on the U.S. military blacklist and escalating the trade war on Beijing as the U.S. attempts to suppress China’s economic rise.

The Department of Defense claimed that those on its list are secretly owned or controlled by the Chinese military and that it was “determined to highlight and counter” threats that “appear to be civilian entities” but are not. Those companies are now likely partially blocked from the U.S. market and from doing business with American companies.

Chief on the list is electronics giant Xiaomi, whose stocks plunged by 11% this morning and have not recovered. While still relatively unknown in the U.S., Xiaomi is a global giant, manufacturing televisions, smartwatches, tablets, and all manner of home appliances. They are surely best known, however, as makers of smartphones. In quarter three of last year, Xiaomi stormed past Apple to become the planet’s third-largest smartphone maker, behind only Samsung and fellow-sanctioned Chinese giant Huawei. Xiaomi sold 46.5 million units, a 42% increase on Q3 last year — an impressive jump, especially considering the economic slowdown caused by the coronavirus pandemic. Airplane manufacturer Comac, oil giant CNOOOC and Chinese chipmaker SMIC were also added to the list.

Quickly developing a loyal base of customers, Xiaomi is increasingly seen across the planet as a major competitor to Apple, selling similarly specced units for a fraction of the price of an iPhone. By contrast, both Apple’s smartphone sales and market share have been falling dramatically, suggesting that, unlikely as it seems, Apple could go the way of Nokia or Motorola before them.

The government’s move is the latest episode in the ever-intensifying trade war against Beijing. The Trump administration has previously sanctioned other Chinese tech giants like smartphone manufacturer and 5G provider Huawei and video-sharing social media app TikTok, claiming them to be dangerous appendages of the Red Army. In 2020, the president threatenedto shut down TikTok, unless it was sold to an American corporation. Other pro-U.S. countries such as India went further, instituting an outright ban on the popular platform.

“Pivot to Asia”

It is unclear who, apart from American tech firms, have been the beneficiary of this trade war. A recently-published study found that Trump’s decisions on China have cost close to a quarter of a million American jobs already and will likely lead to the loss of 145,000 more by 2025.

The Trump administration has also built on President Obama’s military “Pivot to Asia,” attempting to encircle Russia and China with American military bases, and building alliances with Beijing’s neighbors in order to do so. U.S. warships and planes have been probing the Chinese coast for months, attempting to gain more knowledge about their defense systems. In July, the U.S.S. Rafael Peralta went within 41 nautical miles of the coastal megacity of Shanghai. Last month, the military also flew nuclear bombers over Chinese ships close to the province of Hainan Island.

The China tech ban mirrors the moves in the 1980s to destroy the Japanese semiconductor industry, which had rapidly risen and overtaken its American competitor. If nothing was done, Japan would have easily overtaken Silicon Valley to become the world’s electronics and communications capital. The U.S. imposed a 100% tariff on virtually all Japanese electronics and forced Tokyo to sign a one-sided trade deal that reserved much of its domestic semiconductor sector for American companies and opened the country up for American agribusiness. In no small part due to U.S. actions, much of the high-tech sector collapsed, and Japan has suffered over 30 years of economic recession since. Xiaomi also makes semiconductors.

China’s response to the news was to point the finger at the U.S. Zhao Lijian, a spokesman for the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, said that the United States has a long history of civilian-military tech partnerships and accused the Trump administration of double-standards and bullying.

Lijian is not incorrect; virtually every big American tech firm has close links with the government or the military. In November, for instance, Microsoft, Google, Oracle, IBM, and Amazon Web Services all signed a 15-year deal to provide the CIA and 16 other intelligence agencies with cloud computing and other digital services. In their book titled, “The New Digital Age: Reshaping the Future of People, Nations and Business,” Eric Schmidt and fellow Google executive Jared Cohen wrote, “What Lockheed Martin was to the twentieth century…technology and cyber-security companies will be to the twenty-first,” suggesting that they saw big tech’s role as the tip of the American spear.

During the presidential debates, Trump and Biden appeared to be trying to outcompete each other on their hawkishness towards China, each presenting the other as a puppet of Chinese Premier Xi Jinping. While Biden might not have opted for a ban on Chinese companies like Trump has, analysts suggest that he is unlikely to reverse this decision, nor to change the direction of American policy. Thus, the Xiaomi restrictions are unlikely to be the last shots fired in the growing trade war against Beijing.

*

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 a 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. He has also contributed to Fairness and Accuracy in ReportingThe GuardianSalonThe GrayzoneJacobin MagazineCommon Dreams the American Herald Tribune and The Canary.

Featured image is from Wikimedia Commons

Can US Workers Be Dismissed for Refusing to Be Vaxxed?

January 22nd, 2021 by Stephen Lendman

According to Law Professor Dorit Reiss:

“Requiring a vaccine is a health and safety work rule, and employers can” fire noncompliant staff.

Attorney David Betras explained that “workplace vaccination requirements aren’t new, and they passed constitutional muster long ago,” adding:

“State and federal courts have repeatedly ruled providers can compel workers to be immunized against the flu and numerous other diseases.”

Not easily gotten exceptions exist under Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act for religious reasons.

Individuals whose health would be adversely impacted from vaxxing can be exempted under provisions of the Americans with Disabilities Act.

At the same time, workers seeking exemption bear the burden of proof not easily gotten at times.

If denied by an employer and sue, it’ll be costly with no assurance of prevailing.

Chances for advancement on the job will be adversely impacted if prevail.

If fired for refusal to be vaxxed, it’ll become a permanent part of your employment history.

Dismissed workers for this reason may also be ineligible for unemployment insurance benefits.

Attorneys J. Andrew Salemme and Kenneth Scholtz agree with above assessment, adding the following from the US Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), as follows:

During a “pandemic,” employers may legally require workers “to adopt infection-control practices.”

They may include “regular hand washing, coughing and sneezing etiquette, and proper tissue usage and disposal.”

Employees may be required “to wear personal protective equipment during a pandemic.”

“An employee may be entitled to an exemption from a mandatory vaccination requirement based on an ADA disability that prevents him from taking the influenza (or other) vaccine.”

“(U)nder Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, once an employer receives notice that an employee’s sincerely held religious belief, practice, or observance, prevents him (or her) from taking the influenza (or other) vaccine, the employer must provide a reasonable accommodation unless it would pose an undue hardship as defined by Title VII (‘more than de minimis cost’ to the operation of the employer’s business, which is a lower standard than under the ADA).”

“Generally, ADA-covered employers should consider simply encouraging employees to (be vaxxed) rather than requiring…it.”

According to the Constitution Center, legal debate over vaxxing existed since the early 20th century.

Except for federal legislation like the above, it’s an issue for individual states and local communities to set standards.

In Jacobson v. Massachusetts (1905), the Supreme Court upheld state authority to mandate vaxxing.

Justice John Marshall Harlan ruled said that personal liberties might be suspended in cases of the “common good” of the community.

At the same time, the Court recognized the importance of exemptions for issues relating to health.

In Zucht v. King (1922), the High Court ruled that admittance to school classrooms could be denied for refusal to be vaxxed, adding:

Such denial would not violate the 14th Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause.

In Prince v. Massachusetts (1944), the Supreme Court held that states may require vaxxing regardless of objections for religious reasons, stating:

“(T)he right to practice religion freely does not include liberty to expose the community or the child to communicable disease(s) or the latter to ill health or death.”

While the Court authorized individual states to require vaxxing, it hasn’t mandated the practice nationwide.

Unaddressed by the High Court is the issue of potential widespread harm to health and well-being by vaxxing — notably by hazardous experimental, fast-tracked, DNA altering covid vaccines.

At a time when these heavily promoted vaccines are being rolled out for mass-vaxxing nationwide, the issue of potential widespread harm should be taken up by the high court.

According to GazetteXtra, Rock Haven skilled nursing facility in Rock County, Wisconsin requires staff to be vaxxed for covid or be laid off.

Rock County administrator Josh Smith said a number of the facility’s staff were dismissed for refusal to be vaxxed with Moderna’s (high-risk) covid vaccine — known to be potentially hazardous to health he left unmentioned.

According to a Rock county employment ordnance:

“The appointing (county) authority may lay off an employee when an employee can no longer perform the essential functions of the job.”

Smith’s memo said dismissed nursing facility staff “will not be allowed to return to work until they have completed the COVID-19 vaccine series.”

According to an anonymous Rock Haven staff member, facility employees accepted layoffs as a price for declining to risk potential harm from vaxxing, adding:

A total of 27 facility employees sent letters to the county’s Health Services Committee that explained their concerns about wanting to protect their health by refusing to be vaxxed.

“There have been individuals who have had pretty severe reactions. We have had multiple worker’s comp claims needing to be filed because of them having to go out because of what has happened after the vaccine,” the anonymous employee explained.

For his part, Smith dismissively and inaccurately claimed that reported adverse events from vaxxing by Moderna’s vaccine doesn’t mean it’s “unsafe.”

Moderna and Pfizer covid vaccines are unapproved by the FDA.

Their use is permitted under emergency conditions that don’t exist.

Whether that argument and refusal to be vaxxed for self-protection can hold up in state or federal courts have yet to be tested.

*

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/

Round Up the Usual Suspects; Don’t Forget Putin

January 22nd, 2021 by Ray McGovern

Interviewed by Mrs. Clinton Monday, Speaker Nancy Pelosi eagerly rose to the bait when Clinton spoke of “her concerns that the outgoing commander-in-chief was compromised by the Kremlin”. Setting the stage, Clinton expressed the hope that “we’ll find out who he [Trump] is beholden to, “who pulls his strings”.

Clinton added ominously: “I would love to see his phone records to see whether he was talking to Putin the day that the insurgents invaded our Capitol”. She then asked Pelosi if the nation needs “a 9/11-type commission to investigate and report everything they can pull together.”

Pelosi agreed on the need for such a commission, and proceeded to burnish her own anti-Putin credentials:

“As I said to him [Trump] in that picture with my blue suit … pointing rudely at him, ‘With you Mr. President, all roads lead to Putin.’’ Pelosi conceded that she does not know ‘what Putin has on him politically, financially, or personally, but what happened last week was a gift to Putin.”

Putin’s Useful Idiots?

Pelosi added, “And these people, unbeknownst to them, they are Putin puppets. They were doing Putin’s business when they did that at the incitement of an insurrection by the president … so, yes, we should have a 9/11 commission and there is strong support in the Congress for that.”

What leaps out of this Clinton-Pelosi pas de deux is who is leading the dance. Clinton hints broadly (not, of course, for the first time) that Putin is pulling Trump’s strings. It is Clinton who voices suspicion that Trump and Putin were somehow coordinating on the phone on Jan. 6; and it is she who suggests that “a 9/11-type commission” might be needed.

Due largely to the captive “mainstream” media, ‘Russia Russia Russia’ has proved to be the gift that keeps giving for the Democrats. Are there limits to the degree of credence Americans will give to corporate media spinning all the sins attributed to Russian President Putin? Why the insinuation that he may be partly to blame for the violence at the Capitol on Jan. 6?

Russia is Convenient

It’s a matter of convenience. For the Democrats it has been super-convenient to blame Mrs. Clinton’s defeat in 2016 on Russia, although key aspects of that case (Russian “hacking” of the DNC, for example) have been debunked.

But, don’t go away, Russia, not just yet. The MICIMATT still finds you convenient as the kind of “threat” it can cite to justify spending untold billions of dollars on defense, enriching the already rich. Please see “Why Russia Must Be Demonized.”

The way the U.S. system is structured, it matters little in the grand scheme of things on where the money is spent – whether a Republican or Democrat sits in the Oval Office. In short, the Military-Industrial-Congressional-Intelligence-MEDIA-Academia-Think-Tank complex rules the roost (MEDIA in all caps, as the linchpin). Clinton wonders aloud who Trump “is beholden to”. Well, speaking of beholden, Joe Biden enters office with zero vaccination against being beholden – to the MICIMATT. It is fair to say that, without that the MICIMATT’s blessing, candidates end up like Bernie Sanders and Tulsi Gabbard.

Uncertainties

There are just enough straws in the wind to make the MICIMATT and its clients and supporters nervous. What would happen, should Putin and Russia become less demonized? Could there be a thaw in the unnecessarily chilly relations with Moscow? What could that mean for bloated defense spending – particularly at a time when those funds are so desperately and demonstrably needed at home?

It appears likely that strategic arms negotiations with Russia will be high on President Joe Biden’s agenda, as will cooperation with Russia and the other parties to the Iran nuclear deal from which Trump withdrew. Assuming William Burns, former ambassador to Russia, is confirmed as CIA director, Biden will have at his beck and call a straight-speaking, highly experienced expert who has dealt with President Putin. Burns was also one of the chief US negotiators of the Iran nuclear deal.

In my view, it is also significant that President-elect Biden has held back from explicit condemnation of Russia by name amid the recent flurry of accusations of Russian hacking of several US institutions over the past several months. Yes, he has referred to what Secretary of State Pompeo and Attorney General Barr have said blaming Russia, and it can be argued that he has indirectly implicated Russia in the context of his sparse statements on this issue.

In my experience, though, the Kremlin is likely to have taken note of the caution that Biden has exercised on this neuralgic issue. Nor has this likely escaped the attention of the MICIMATT and induced some worry about the long-term viability of the portrayal of Putin as villain.

The Kremlin Is Watching

Oliver Stone told me recently that, in one of his conversations in Russia, Mr. Putin, somewhat exasperated, said something along the lines of, “Now Russians are thought of like Jews before World War II”. Think about that. Amid the Russia Russia Russia over the past four-plus years, Putin has kept his voice down – and his powder dry – while staying open to negotiations to reduce arms competition, cyber warfare, and other facets of bilateral tension. If past is precedent, he is likely to see opportunities to take a fresh look at US intentions under President Biden – especially during the traditional “honeymoon” period normally accorded a new president.

But clearly, Putin is also aware of the parallels between the demonization of him and Russia and how Jews were blamed for just about everything during the Thirties. Evidence-free accusations by the likes of Pelosi and Clinton will make the task of restoring a modicum of trust an uphill battle.

*

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.

Ray McGovern works with Tell the Word, a publishing arm of the ecumenical Church of the Saviour in inner-city Washington. A CIA analyst for 27 years, he led the Soviet Foreign Policy Branch and prepared/briefed The President’s Daily Brieffor three presidents. In retirement he co-founded Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity (VIPS).

“Democracy has little meaning when big business rules the life of the country through its control of the means of production, exchange, transportation, and communication, reinforced by command of the press, press agents and other means of publicity and propaganda”. (US philosopher John Dewey(1))

Different systems of government have been tried in different countries over the years, but it is sometimes said that democracy is the least-worst method of running a country.(2) Democracy is supposed to mean ‘rule by the people’, where everyone has a say in how their country is run, and having real influence over decisions that affect their lives. In theory, everyone has an equal voice in shaping policy. There was a time, between approximately 1950-1970, that democracy in Britain and the US seemed to be working. In Britain the government created the National Health Service. The US made significant progress with civil rights. The gap between the rich and the poor (inequality) in both countries decreased tremendously. However, wealthy people and business leaders did not like the high taxes, which peaked at 98% in the UK, so they worked hard behind the scenes to change things. In the 1980s US President Ronald Reagan and British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher began a trend that is still continuing. They gave more and more power to big companies, and took less and less tax from the rich. Inequality in both countries has returned to levels that we have not seen since early last century,(3) and life for poor people has become harder and harder. This post and the next one will explain the main problems with US and British democracy.

Political Capture 

In practice, it is not too difficult for wealthy and powerful people and organisations to create a system that gives the appearance of democracy but does not really give ordinary people much say. Having a vote once every few years is not genuine democracy if the candidates are too similar. In his book entitled ‘Tragedy and Hope’, Carroll Quigley explained that what America needed was a system where:

“The two parties should be almost identical so that the American people can ‘throw the rascals out’ at any election without leading to any profound or extensive shifts in policy”(4)

This has been called ‘faux’ (false) democracy.(5) The US and Britain are good examples of this. The US has the Democratic and the Republican parties. Britain has the Labour and the Conservative parties. For some years now there has been little difference on key policies between the two main parties in each country.(6) Supposedly left-wing parties have moved further and further to the right. This means that many of their policies are intended to benefit big companies and the rich. The British parties became so similar that the former Labour leader, Tony Blair, and the former Conservative leader, David Cameron, were described as clones of each other.(7) In the US, Wikileaks released emails showing that the Democrats’ Presidential candidate, Hillary Clinton, was paid over $600,000 for 3 speeches to Goldman Sachs bankers explaining that her true policies, in favour of big business, and her public statements, are not the same.(8) This is called political capture.

In both countries there have also been few practical differences in foreign policy. In particular, both parties in each country have committed war crimes. The Russian leader, Stalin, said after World War Two that the Labour party were more conservative than the Conservatives when it came to preserving the British ruling class’s interests abroad.(9) Iraq was destroyed when Labour were in power, Libya was destroyed when the Conservatives were in power. In the US, a former official of the National Security Agency compared US President Bush (Republican) and his staff to the Corleone mafia family from the movie The Godfather.(10) Obama (Democrat) was just as criminal and started multiple wars. The same applies to all recent presidents, whichever party they are from. Even President Carter (Democrat), who was thought to be much more moderate about foreign intervention, was President when Afghanistan was de-stabilised by the CIA in 1979, leading to the creation of al-Qaeda (see earlier post on terrorism).

The extent of political capture has recently become clearer, as evidence has shown that the people who run the UK Labour Party, and the people who run the US Democratic Party, deliberately worked against politicians who wanted a fairer society. In the US they rigged the internal elections to make sure that Bernie Sanders did not become their Presidential candidate. In Britain, Jeremy Corbyn successfully became the leader of the Labour Party, but insiders actively undermined him when he tried to become Prime Minister.

The existing form of government in the US should really be called plutocracy, which means a country governed by the wealthy. The same is true, to a slightly lesser extent, in Britain. Various commentators have indicated that the extreme form of capitalism we have today, known as neoliberalism, where excessive wealth is concentrated into a few hands, and the rich have significant influence over politics, is incompatible with genuine democracy.(11)

Companies write our laws 

Many laws are heavily influenced by big companies. (This was discussed in the previous post on lobbying). Some laws are even written by corporate lawyers. As one commentator wrote about the US:

“Monsanto writes agricultural and food policy; ExxonMobil writes energy and foreign policy and Goldman Sachs writes financial policy for the federal government.”(12)

Up until 2016 there was an attempt to create what was known as the TTIP (Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership).(13) This was an immensely powerful set of regulations being made by, and for the benefit of, big business. This was described as a trade agreement, but it is more accurate to call it an agreement about the rights of investors. A key part of the TTIP is that an international company could sue a government because they might lose profits in the future due to new laws. The system would bypass existing legal systems, and be heard in a secret court that is heavily biased towards the companies. The effect of this would be to stop governments introducing new legislation to protect the environment, worker rights, safety standards or food standards. Public pressure stopped the TTIP, but similar rules already exist in some trade agreements, and they have seriously affected the ability of governments to regulate corporations. Corporate lobbyists will continue to pursue this type of agreement, which is intended to undermine democracy.

Regulatory Capture 

Many senior regulators come from the companies that are being regulated. These people see the world from the point of view of those companies. In 2008 there was a global financial crisis. It became clear that banks were engaged in widespread fraudulent activity that created serious instability. The main financial regulators in Britain and the US did not see their role as ‘policing’ corrupt financiers. They saw their role as enabling financiers to achieve their goals. The government had deliberately structured the regulator in this way. Experts from business helped the government write the laws and regulations in the first place. This is known as regulatory capture. Following the crisis, it was widely expected that new laws would be introduced to limit the activities of banks and other financial companies. Whilst there have been some changes, rules that might seriously limit the ability of banks to defraud everyone have not been introduced.

In the US, up until 2017, the internet companies were regulated by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC). There was regular criticism of the FCC that it had been captured by the biggest companies that it was supposed to regulate.(14) Those companies successfully lobbied politicians to change the system so that in future, some parts of their business will be regulated by a different regulator that has significantly less power, and less expertise, than the FCC.(15) The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is notorious for failing to properly regulate pharmaceutical companies,(16) and Donald Trump re-structured the Environmental Protection Agency (FDA) deliberately to serve corporate interests.(17)

The propaganda role of the media in perpetuating the illusion of democracy 

There have been a number of recent scandals in Britain where contributors making generous political donations were given honours, such as Knighthoods.(18) The media rightly criticised this. However, this is a good example of how media propaganda works. They criticise a trivial aspect of the system, but do not discuss the much deeper problems with the whole political system, which is much more important than the knighthoods.

Any observer of US politics can see that the two parties are extremely similar and that the elections in the US have become a form of theatre, where the media turn elections into an immense spectacle lasting for years, knowing that there is little difference between the two main parties on the key issues. The same is now true in Britain. The mainstream media play an essential role in 2 main ways. Firstly, they maintain the charade that we live in a genuine democracy and rarely discuss the problems with the system explained in these posts. Secondly, they destroy the reputations of anyone who challenges the system, such as Jeremy Corbyn or Wikileaks‘ founder Julian Assange, by repeatedly smearing 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 seventeenth 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) John Dewey, cited in Werner A. Meier, ‘Media Ownership: Does It Matter?’ at www.lirne.net/resources/netknowledge/meier.pdf 

2) This quotation is attributed to Winston Churchill, see discussion by J.K Baltzersen, ‘Churchill On Democracy Revisited’, Jan 24, 2005, at

www.enterstageright.com/archive/articles/0105/0105churchilldem.htm

3) Max Roser and Esteban Ortiz-Ospina, ‘Income Inequality’, Oct 2016, at https://ourworldindata.org/income-inequality

4) Carroll Quigley, ‘Tragedy and Hope: A History of the World in our Time’, quoted at  

https://www.goodreads.com/author/quotes/386296.Carroll_Quigley 

5) Scott Timberg, 4 April 2015, Salon, at 

https://www.salon.com/2015/04/04/how_the_1_percent_always_wins_we_live_in_a_faux_democracy_which_is_why_everyones_so_cynical_and_nobody_votes/ 

George Tyler, 2 Feb 2018, Democratic Audit UK, at

 https://www.democraticaudit.com/2018/02/02/american-democracy-sold-to-the-highest-bidder/

6) Noam Chomsky, Profit Over People

 7) Armando Iannucci, ‘Time Trumpet’, “changes” video excerpt from showing similarities between Tony Blair and David Cameron at 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3yEi72XfNbA

8) Chelsea Gilmour, ‘Clinton stalls on Goldman Sachs speeches’, 7 March 2016, at 

https://consortiumnews.com/2016/03/07/clinton-stalls-on-goldman-sachs-speeches/ 

9) Geoffrey Roberts, Stalin’s Wars: From World War To Cold War

10) Philip Golub, ‘The sun sets early on the American Century’, Le Monde Diplomatique, at http://mondediplo.com/2007/10/04empire 

11) Noam Chomsky really existing capitalism talk https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_uuYjUxf6Uk

12) Rob Urie, ‘Capitalism and the Illusion of Democracy’, Counterpunch, 24 April 2020, at https://www.counterpunch.org/2020/04/24/capitalism-and-the-illusion-of-democracy/ 

13) Corporate Europe Observatory, 11 April 2016 

https://corporateeurope.org/en/international-trade/2016/04/eus-ttip-position-regulations-be-made-and-big-business

Clare Provost and Matt Kennard, The Guardian 

https://www.theguardian.com/business/2015/jun/10/obscure-legal-system-lets-corportations-sue-states-ttip-icsid

14) Brian Kushnick, ‘Regulatory capture of the FCC – Yime to Clean House’, Huffington Post, 25 March 2013, at https://www.huffpost.com/entry/regulatory-capture-of-the_b_2936693 

15) Tom Wheeler, A goal realized: Network lobbyists sweeping capture of their regulator, Brookings, 14 Dec 2017, at https://www.brookings.edu/blog/techtank/2017/12/14/a-goal-realized-network-lobbyists-sweeping-capture-of-their-regulator/ 

16) Donald W. Light, Joel Lexchin and Jonathan J. Darrow, ‘Institutional Corruption of Pharmaceuticals and the Myth of Safe and Effective Drugs’, The Journal of Law, Medicine and Ethics, Vol. 41, Issue 3, 1 Oct 2013, at https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1111/jlme.12068 

17) Bryan Bowman, ‘Captured: How the Fossil Fuel Industry Took Control of the EPA’, TheGlobePost, 12 March 2019, at https://theglobepost.com/2019/02/01/epa-regulatory-capture/ 

18) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cash_for_peerages

Featured image is from InfoBrics

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on The Illusion of Democracy: Government by the Rich for the Even Richer

The Fatal Consequences of High Atmospheric Methane Levels

January 22nd, 2021 by Dr. Andrew Glikson

It is hard to think of a more Orwellian expression than that describing the increase in toxic atmospheric methane gas as “gas-led recovery.”

Several of the large mass extinctions of species in the geological past are attributed to an increase in atmospheric methane (CH₄), raising the temperature of the atmosphere and depriving the oceans from oxygen. Nowadays a serious danger to the atmosphere and for the life support systems ensues from the accelerated release of methane from melting Arctic permafrost, leaks from ocean sediments and from bogs, triggered by global warming.

As if this was not dangerous enough, now methane is extracted as coal-seam-gas (CSG) by fracking (hydraulic fracturing) of coal and oil shale in the US, Canada, Australia and elsewhere.

Methane-bearing formations, located about 300m-1000m underground, are fracked using a mixture of water, sand, chemicals and explosives injected into the rock at high pressure, triggering significant amounts of methane leaks into the overlying formations and escaping into the atmosphere (Figure 1).

Figure 1. Schematic illustration of coal-seam-gas fracking (R. Morrison, by permission).

CSG is made primarily of about 95-97% methane, which possesses a radiative greenhouse potential close to X80 times that of carbon dioxide (CO₂). The radiative greenhouse effect of 1 kg methane is equivalent to releasing 84 kg of CO₂ and decreases to 20 and 34 times stronger than CO₂ over a 100-year period.

Global methane deposits (Figure 2) and Australian methane-bearing basins (Figure 3) are proliferating. Fugitive emissions from CSG are already enhancing the concentration of atmospheric methane above drill sites and range from 1 to 9 percent during the total life cycle emissions. The venting of methane from underground coal mines in the Hunter region of New South Wales has led to an atmospheric level in the region of 3,000 parts per billion, with methane levels of 2,000 ppb (parts per billion) extending to some 50 km away from the mines. Peak readings in excess of 3000 ppb represent an amalgamation of plumes from 17 sources. The median concentration within this section was 1820 ppb, with a peak reading of 2110 ppb. Compare this with mean methane values at Mouna Loa, Hawaii, of 1884 ppb.

Figure 2. Global gas hydrate potential regions.

Fugitive methane emissions from natural, urban, agricultural, and energy-production landscapes of eastern Australia. The chemical signature of methane released from fracking is found in the atmosphere points to shale gas operations as the source.

Figure 3. Australian basins, oil and gas resources.

The accumulation of many hundreds of billions tons of unoxidized methane-rich organic matter in Arctic permafrost, methane hydrates in shallow Arctic lakes and seas, bogs, and as emanated from cattle and sheep, has already enhanced global methane growth over the last 40 years at rates up to 14 ppb/year (Figure 4).

Figure 4. Growth of atmospheric methane, Mouna Loa, Hawaii, between 1980-2020 and 2017-2020. NOAA.

The current methane level of 1884 ppb, ~2.5 times the <800 ppb level in 1840AD, indicating a mean growth rate of ~7 ppb/year (Figure 4), is attributable to in part to animal husbandry, permafrost melting, release from marine hydrates and bogs, and in part emissions from shale gas and fracking. as in the United States and Canada.

High levels of methane reduce the amount of oxygen breathed from the air, with health consequences. The toxicity of methane is corroborated in a 2018 study in Pennsylvania showing children born within a mile or two of a gas well were likely to be smaller and less healthy. New York State, Maryland, and Vermont have banned fracking, as have France and Germany.

According to Hansen (2018) reserves of unconventional gas exceed 10,000 GtC (billion tons carbon). Given the scale of methane hydrate deposits around the world (Figure 5), sufficient deposits exist to perpetrate a global mass extinction of species on a geological scale.¹

Figure 5. Estimates of methane held in hydrates worldwide. Estimates of the Methane Held in Hydrates Worldwide. Early estimates for marine hydrates (encompassed by the green region), made before hydrate had been recovered in the marine environment, are high because they assume gas hydrates exist in essentially all the world’s oceanic sediments. Subsequent estimates are lower, but remain widely scattered (encompassed by the blue region) because of continued uncertainty in the non-uniform, heterogeneous distribution of organic carbon from which the methane in hydrate is generated, as well as uncertainties in the efficiency with which that methane is produced and then captured in gas hydrate. Nonetheless, marine hydrates are expected to contain one to two orders of magnitude more methane than exists in natural gas reserves worldwide (brown square) (U.S. Energy Information Administration 2010). Continental hydrate mass estimates (encompassed by the pink region) tend to be about 1 per cent of the marine estimates.

*

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 Andrew Glikson is an Earth and Paleo-climate scientist, Canberra, Australia.

Note

¹ For 2.12 billion ton of carbon (GtC) raising atmospheric CO₂ by 1ppm, and assuming about 50% of CO₂ remaining in the atmosphere, future drilling and fracking could in principle raise atmospheric CO₂ level to about or more than 2000 ppm.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on The Fatal Consequences of High Atmospheric Methane Levels

The US share of the global economy has shrunk dramatically since 1960.  On the other hand, China is on pace to surpass the U.S. in GOP terms in 2030. 

This past week, the United States celebrated another Martin Luther King Jr. holiday. King’s murder occurred not a year after he came out in full opposition to the U.S. imperialist invasion of Vietnam, In the spirit of King’s anti-imperialist legacy and in remembrance of the “Cold War” which shaped the historical moment from which King arose, this is a previously unpublished article explaining why the U.S.’ New Cold War on China must be approached from a historical perspective as Biden replaces Trump at the helm of Commander in Chief of imperialism.

On September 3rd, China celebrated the 75th anniversary of its victory against Japanese aggression. Earlier this summer, the People’s Liberation Army (PLA) joined Russian military forces to celebrate the anniversary of Victory Day. China and the Soviet Union lost upwards of fifty million people  in total during the Second World War. The end of the Second World War also marked the beginning of the Cold War. Unlike the Second World War, which was largely a war between capitalist countries over the redivision of the world, the Cold War set the stage for a decades-long battle between contending social systems: capitalism and socialism.

The United States came out of World War II as the imperial hegemon and the largest capitalist economy in the world. Despite devastating losses to life and economic infrastructure, the Soviet Union emerged as a global power by employing a socialist model of development. There are many tragedies associated with the “old Cold War” between the United States-led capitalist bloc and the Soviet Union-led socialist bloc. Perhaps the biggest is that the U.S. maintained a monopoly on the ways in which the Cold War has been narrated historically. In the name of defeating the existential threat of socialism, the United States spent more than fifty years downplaying imperial violence during the Cold War as a benign and necessary precondition toward the preservation of democracy and liberty.

At no other point in history has it become more important to remember the casualties of the first Cold War to inform opposition to the New Cold War that has emerged against China. The dangers of the New Cold War against China are clear. According to renowned documentary filmmaker John Pilger, more than 400 military bases form a ring around China in the Asia Pacific.  On July 3rd 2020, two naval aircraft carriers and a B-52 bomber with nuclear capacity were deployed to the South China Sea . The Indo-Pacific Command will be in charge of over fifty percent of all U.S. military assets and sixty percent of U.S. naval assets by the end of 2020. U.S. President Donald Trump and his administration has rebranded the Obama Administration’s “Pivot to Asia” with a strategy of “Great Power Competition” at the barrel of a gun.

The U.S.-led New Cold War is not merely fought on the military front. Sanctions on Chinese Communist Party officials for evidence-free claims of Uyghur oppression, covert support from the National Endowment for Democracy (NED) for “pro-democracy” protestors in Hong Kong, threats to ban popular Chinese apps such as Tik Tok and WeChat, the closure of the Chinese consulate in Houston, and a host of other hostile measure have been taken by the United States to foment tensions with China. All of these measures foster an atmosphere of war not dissimilar to the one that existed throughout the latter half of the 20th century. The COVID-19 pandemic, which China contained in three months, has only given the United States further reason to scapegoat China to deflect from its own criminality. And because China possesses a different social system to the United States, peace-loving people should be very much concerned that the U.S. will commit further war crimes in its bid to contain China as it did during the first Cold War.

“The COVID-19 pandemic has only given the United States further reason to scapegoat China to deflect from its own criminality.”

The U.S. operated as a force of mass destruction throughout the duration of its crusade against communism from 1945-1991. U.S.-led covert military operations and occupations were commonplace in Latin America, Asia, and Africa. Two of the most notable U.S. occupations in Asia during the Cold War took place in Korea and Vietnam. From 1950-53, the Truman administration deployed weapons of mass destruction to prevent the Korean revolution from uniting the country along socialist lines. Over three million Koreans died over this period and cities such as Pyongyang were completely obliterated by the U.S. strategy of “bombing anything that moved.”  An armistice was signed in 1953, but the U.S. has yet to sign a formal peace treaty to truly put an end to the war.

While the U.S. invasion of Korea is known as the “Forgotten War,” many activists remember the U.S. war in Vietnam as the spark that set the anti-war movement ablaze. The U.S. initially provided indirect support to the brutal puppet regime in South Vietnam after the ouster of French colonial forces in the mid-1950s. However, by the latter half of the 1960s, the U.S. stepped up its campaign to defeat the National Liberation Front of Vietnam. Carpet bombings, torture campaigns, and massacres of women and children were just some of the brutal atrocities conducted by U.S. forces . An estimated four million Vietnamese were killed before the war’s formal end in 1975 and three million liters of deadly toxins of Agent Orange dropped onto Vietnam’s agricultural lands . Both the Vietnamese diaspora and former U.S. soldiers continue to struggle with the wide-ranging biological effects of Agent Orange toxins.

“The U.S. war in Vietnam was the spark that set the anti-war movement ablaze.”

Much of the Cold War was characterized by U.S. coups and proxy wars that installed compliant governments in countries deemed vulnerable to the influence of communism. In 1954, the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) engineered a coup of the progressive and democratically-elected president of Guatemala, Jacobo Arbenz. Arbenz’s violent ouster laid the basis for a three-decade long “civil war” that took the lives of over 200,000 Guatemalans, with the U.S. consistently supporting the puppet government militarily throughout the war. Guatemala was but one country in Latin America that was devastated by U.S. Cold War interventions. U.S.-backed contra wars, coups, and death squads murdered hundreds of thousands of people in Brazil, Chile, and Nicaragua over the course of the so-called Cold War.

Africa was viewed as an equally important battleground in the U.S. Cold War against communism. One of the most prominent examples of U.S. meddling in Africa during the Cold War occurred in the Democratic Republic of the Congo. The CIA, Belgium, and Congolese elites collaborated to assassinate the nation’s first democratically-elected president, Patrice Lumumba, in 1961. In 1966, Ghana’s first post-independence president, Kwame Nkrumah, was overthrown by a CIA-backed coup. Thomas Sankara of Burkina Faso met a similar fate not two decades later. Each one of these leaders were viewed as threats for their potential to align an independent Africa with the Soviet Union. Their demise laid the basis for the proxy wars, sanctions, and Western financial debt traps that plague the continent to this very day.

This only scratches the surface of the U.S.’ destructive role in the Cold War. Another casualty of the old Cold War was the struggle for a more egalitarian world. The Soviet Union’s collapse in 1991 paved the way for the normalization of capitalist and imperialist ideology, namely the notion that no alternative exists to the U.S. hegemony. All sectors of official society in the U.S. participated in the erasure of the domestic consequences of the Cold War such as the heavy-handed repression of socialists, communists, peace activists, and Black movement leaders throughout the 20th century. Hegemonic imperial narratives of American exceptionalism concocted and repeated ad nauseam since the fall of the socialist bloc have justified the decline of living standards for much of the world, including workers and poor people in the U.S.

A New Cold War against China has emerged from this backdrop to shine a light on a changing global landscape. China survived the onslaught of U.S. unipolar dominance and Cold War hostilities by integrating into the global capitalist economy. Few remember that China was once a very poor country that found itself completely isolated diplomatically and economically for more than two decades after the Chinese Revolution of 1949. China is no longer in such a position. China not only carries prestige in world affairs as the second largest economy in the world, but is also highly integrated with the economies of both the Global South and the Western world in ways that the Soviet Union was not.

China’s rise has also come during a period of U.S. decline in many areas, not least in the economic realm. The U.S. share of the global economy has shrunk dramatically since 1960.  On the other hand, China is on pace to surpass the U.S. in GDP terms by 2030. This is likely to accelerate due to the role that the uncontrolled spread of COVID-19 in the United States is playing in sinking the U.S. capitalist economy into a prolonged depression. The Trump administration has thus taken the position that if the U.S. cannot compete with China economically, then it will use whatever weapons possible to bully China into submitting to the dictates of the United States.

Make no mistake, the New Cold War against China is a bipartisan project. Biden and Trump used a great portion of the 2020 presidential election campaign to chastise each other over who is softer on China. The bipartisan character of the New Cold War is most starkly represented by the recent passage of the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) in July. Both chambers of Congress agreed to counter the “China threat” with a two billion dollar increase in the defense spending budget from 738 billion to 740 billion for fiscal year 2021. While Republican Congressmen Mitt Romney, Joshua Hawley, and Jim Inofe have been the most visible advocates of increased military hostilities toward China, the Democratic Party has done little to nothing to stem the tide of the New Cold War.

What this means is that the military industrial complex and its handful of private contractors have free reign to use anti-China hostilities to fuel a dangerous militarization of the Asia Pacific. The influence of the military industrial complex in the New Cold War against China is clearly spelled out in the Trump administration’s approval of up to ten billion USD worth in arms sales to Taiwan —a blatant violation of the One China policy. That the New Cold War against China is quite literally being fought on China’s doorstep should be enough to garner opposition from peace loving people in the United States and the world at large.

However, there are many more reasons why the U.S.’ New Cold War should be rejected. Increased hostilities toward China come at a time when U.S.-based workers are facing a devastating economic crisis on top of a pandemic that the U.S. government has utterly failed to contain. Furthermore, the U.S. has absolutely no authority to lecture China or any other nation on the treatment of ethnic minorities. Massive protests occurred nearly every day over the summer to protest the regularity with which Black Americans such as George Floyd are killed by U.S. police departments and incarcerated in U.S. jails.

Lastly, support for the New Cold War against China has reached dangerous levels of popularity in the United States. Over seventy percent of people in the U.S. hold a negative view of China. Anti-China racism is nearly two centuries old, and has been encouraged by both political parties in recent years to deflect blame onto China for the negative effects of globalization. Blaming China for U.S. economic policy detracts from the solidarity that is needed to address pressing global problems such as poverty, climate change, and war. No amount of hatred toward China will change the fact that its economic influence is here to stay. China will be a global leader in high-tech industrial production, green technology, and infrastructure development for years to come. The only question is whether the people of the United States will continue to abide by a hostile posture toward China which serves no one but the ultra-rich overlords of the American Empire.

This question cannot be answered without reference to historical memory. Tens of millions were sacrificed by the old Cold War to fulfill U.S. foreign policy objectives. The U.S. remains dedicated to endless war and its New Cold War against China only makes the world a more dangerous place for humanity. U.S. military expansion in the Asia Pacific only adds to the possibility of catastrophic confrontations between the U.S. and China, or more likely China and its regional neighbors. A more peaceful world where domestic and international problems can be resolved is only possible if and when the U.S. is forced to relate to other countries on the basis of cooperation and respect for self-determination.

*

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.

Danny Haiphong is a contributing editor to Black Agenda Report and co-author of the book American Exceptionalism and American Innocence: A People’s History of Fake News- From the Revolutionary War to the War on Terror. Follow his work on Twitter @SpiritofHo and on Youtube as co-host with Margaret Kimberley of Black Agenda Report Present’s: The Left Lens. You can support Danny at www.patreon.com/dannyhaiphong.

Featured image is from BAR

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Casualties of the Old Cold War Should Inform Opposition to U.S.’ New Cold War Against China

Biden’s Mask-Wearing Mandate

January 22nd, 2021 by Stephen Lendman

Biden and his press agent media won’t explain what’s vital for everyone to know.

On his first day in office as selected, not elected, president, he signed a blizzard of executive orders.

Among them was mandatory wearing of face masks in federal buildings and on its land. More on this below.

***

Face masks don’t protect and risk harm to health from extended use.

Porous to permit breathing, minuscule viral spores penetrate them easily, concentrate, and are inhaled.

When masked, normal breathing is impaired and exhaled air can go into eyes and irritate them.

Noted neurosurgeon Russell Blaylock explained the following about their use:

“As for the scientific support for the use of face masks, a recent careful examination of the literature, in which 17 of the best studies were analyzed, concluded that:”

“None of the studies established a conclusive relationship between mask/respirator use and protection against influenza infection.”

“(N)o studies have been done to demonstrate that either a cloth mask or the N95 mask has any effect on transmission of the COVID-19 virus.”

“Any recommendations, therefore, have to be based on studies of influenza virus transmission.”

“The fact is, there is no conclusive evidence of their efficiency in controlling flu virus transmission.”

Dr. Jim Meehan cited the following reasons why face masks aren’t needed and don’t work:

“Masks are ineffective, unnecessary and harmful,” noting peer-reviewed data. The don’t protect as falsely claimed.

“Risks outweigh the benefits.”

“Your CO2 inhalation is increased to dangerous levels.”

“Viral particles move through face masks with relative ease.”

“Your mask is a petri dish experiment” by permitting viral spores to penetrate, concentrate in nasal passages, “enter the olfactory nerves and travel to the brain.”

“Asymptomatic transmission of (covid…aka seasonal flu) does not occur to any significant level.”

Studies showed that “masked subjects were infected at the same rate as unmasked subjects.”

“You can take vitamin D,” C, and zinc for protection.

Reported numbers of covid cases “are deceptive.” Positive PCR tests are nearly always false.

“Successful, proven, affordable treatments exist” — harmful to health vaccines not needed.

The safe, effective, inexpensive treatment includes:

  • HCQ 200 mg tabs #16 (hydroxychloroquine)
  • Zinc sulfate 22O mg (or elemental Zinc 50 mg) # 15
  • Azithromycin 500 mg # 5 (Z pack) or
  • Doxycycline 100 mg # 10
  • Ivermectin 3 mg tabs #8 are also effective and safe.

Dr. Meehan explained that “(y)ou fight this virus with truth…Healthy people should not wear face masks.”

Voluntary house arrest under lockdown and quarantine do enormous harm and no good.

“Never before had anyone beaten a virus by quarantining the healthy,” said Meehan.

“We were not told that quarantining healthy people was a first-of-its kind experiment. And the experiment failed.”

We’re told and increasingly mandated to do polar opposite to what benefits health and well-being.

“(E)vidence shows that (when) healthy people (wear) face masks, (they pose) serious health risks to wearers” from extended use.

What’s gone on since early last year reflects “political agendas, symbolism, fear, and dividing and isolating the people.”

“It has nothing to do with science.”

“As a physician and former medical journal editor, I’ve carefully read the scientific literature regarding the use of face masks to mitigate viral transmission.”

“I believe the public health experts have community wearing of masks all wrong.”

Their use “decrease(s) oxygen, increase(s) carbon dioxide, and alter(s) breathing in ways that increase susceptibility and severity of” seasonal flu renamed covid.

“Mask wearers frequently report symptoms of difficulty breathing, shortness of breath, headache, lightheadedness, dizziness, anxiety, brain fog, difficulty concentrating, and other subjective symptoms while wearing medical masks.”

Despite scientific evidence about ineffective, potential harm from wearing face masks, incremental mandating of their use perhaps is heading toward requiring them for access to public places.

Biden’s executive order falsely claimed that he’s “relying on the best available data and science-based public health measures (sic),” adding:

“Such measures include wearing masks when around others, physical distancing, and other related precautions (sic).”

“(T)o protect the federal workforce and individuals interacting with the federal workforce, and to ensure the continuity of government services and activities, on-duty or on-site federal employees, on-site federal contractors, and other individuals in federal buildings and on federal lands should all wear masks, maintain physical distance, and adhere to other public health measures (sic).”

Complying with the above will have no positive effect on personal or public health — just possible harm from extended use of face masks.

Biden’s order also “encourag(es) masking across America. Will mandating it follow?

Will going unmasked in public places be criminalized ahead and subject to punishment?

Will removing face masks for dining in restaurants risk punishment if caught?

Will mass-vaxxing with hazardous to health, experimental, inadequately tested, DNA altering,  vaccines be mandated?

Will Biden’s executive order be followed by numerous other repressive ones and congressional legislation that aim to replace remaining freedoms with tyranny?

*

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

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

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

My two Wall Street books are timely reading:

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

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

“Banker Occupation: Waging Financial War on Humanity”

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

Featured image is from The White House Facebook

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Biden’s Mask-Wearing Mandate

The Biden administration will continue to recognize Juan Guaido as president of Venezuela and maintain devastating sanctions. For Venezuelans, there is no lesser evil — imperialism is bipartisan.

***

Anthony Blinken, President-Elect Joe Biden’s nominee for Secretary of State, has announced that the incoming administration will continue to recognize Juan Guaido as president of Venezuela. He made the remarks on Tuesday, adding that Biden would also continue sanctions on the country but target them “more effectively.” These actions are part of the United States’ ongoing effort to oust President Nicolas Maduro. 

In January of 2019, the government of Donald Trump, supported by far-right Brazilian President Jair Bolsonaro, attempted a military coup against the Maduro government. The plan, orchestrated by Mike Pompeo and Elliot Abrahams, was to install right-wing opposition leader Juan Guaido as president of Venezuela.

A few days after the failed coup attempt, tens of thousands mobilized in Caracas to watch Guaido swear himself in as interim president. Guaido argued that the 2018 elections, which saw Maduro elected to a second six-year term, were unconstitutional and illegitimate. He went on to say that he would use “the full weight of United States economic and diplomatic power to press for the restoration of Venezuelan democracy,” oblivious to the macabre irony of his statement.

In addition to the failed coup, Venezuela has been subjected to cruel U.S. sanctions and economic blockades, even in the midst of the coronavirus pandemic. These measures, together with the disastrous administration of President Maduro, have had devastating consequences for Venezuelans.

Biden’s recognition of Guaido as the president of Venezuela demonstrates that these aggressive imperialist policies will continue under his government. Even during the presidential campaign, he often sought to out-flank Trump from the right with anti-Venezuelan chauvinism, referring to Maduro as a “thug” and “dictator” whom he would be tough on.

Imperialism is a bipartisan affair in the United States — Republicans and Democrats alike have helped foment military coups and install governments aligned with U.S. interests to plunder Latin America’s resources. For the region’s masses, there is no lesser evil.

How can the bipartisan regime speak of restoring democracy to justify military interventions, coups, and regime changes when the decline of U.S. democracy has been exposed by the assault on the Capitol and the profound delegitimization of U.S. institutions?

Socialists must be anti-imperialists. The Left in the United States has the obligation to organize the struggle against the Biden government with an anti-imperialist perspective and to denounce the coup attempts, sanctions, and economic blockades against Venezuela, Cuba and the rest of Latin America.

*

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.

Otto is a psychology PhD student in New York City and former English teacher.

Featured image is from Left Voice

Boris Johnson Has Done Modi a Favour

January 22nd, 2021 by M. K. Bhadrakumar

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Boris Johnson Has Done Modi a Favour

This Week’s Most Popular Articles

January 22nd, 2021 by Global Research News

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on This Week’s Most Popular Articles

On Friday, January 22, people in cities and towns across in the United States and around the world, will celebrate the entry into force of the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons (TPNW).

Those gathering, online and elsewhere, stand in sharp contrast with the electric sense of fear felt by policy makers and others that President Trump might push the nuclear button in the immediate aftermath of his failed coup. With President Trump facing possible criminal conviction and terminal bankruptcy, and having the power to initiate nuclear war on his own authority, Nancy Pelosi had good reason to press the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, General Milley, to ensure that the president couldn’t take us all with him as he went down. For several days, headlines focused on the danger of nuclear war, which should facilitate arms control and disarmament advocacy in coming months.

For decades, absent such desperate circumstances, many world leaders and policy makers have understood that accidents and miscalculations—including the belief the nuclear war can be fought and won—could lead to nuclear catastrophe and urged action to eliminate nuclear weapons. A year before President Kennedy and Soviet Premier Khrushchev went “eyeball to eyeball” during the Cuban Missile Crisis, speaking from the dais of the U.N. General Assembly, Kennedy warned:

“Every man, woman and child lives under a nuclear sword of Damocles, hanging by the slenderest of threads, capable of being cut at any moment by accident or miscalculation or by madness.” The weapons of war, he urged “must be abolished before they abolish us.”

Since that day, during international crises and wars—on at least 24 occasions—U.S. presidents have prepared and/or threatened to initiate nuclear war. Similarly, leaders of each of the eight other nuclear powers has made similar threats at least once. Human survival indeed hangs from the slenderest of threads, a reality confirmed by the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists expert panel who have set their Doomsday Clock at 100 seconds to midnight, the closest to catastrophe since the clock was created in 1953 at the height of the Cold War.

During the 75 years since the unnecessary and functionally criminal indiscriminate atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, A-bomb survivors, scientists and physicians, scholars, community-based activists, diplomats and many national leaders have worked to prevent apocalypse and to create a nuclear weapons-free world.

A high point came in 1970 when, after years of protests, diplomacy and negotiations, the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty came into effect. This seminal treaty was a grand bargain made between the nuclear haves and have nots. In exchange for the non-nuclear weapons states foreswearing development or possession of nuclear weapons, the nuclear powers recognized their right to generate nuclear power for peaceful purposes (a mistake) and, in article XI, committed to engage in good faith negotiations for the complete elimination of their nuclear arsenals.

Refusing to compromise their omnicidal power and bowing to the interests of their respective military-industrial complexes, the “good faith” negotiations never occurred. India, Pakistan, Israel, and North Korea have since become nuclear powers, thus increasing the threats to human survival. Quantitative and qualitative nuclear arms races also followed, with the United States now on track to spend $2 trillion (an unimaginable sum) to replace its entire nuclear arsenal and its delivery systems.

Concerned about the prospects for human survival, and with the nuclear powers refusing to take meaningful steps year after year to fulfill their Article VI commitment, countries as diverse as Sweden, South Africa, Ireland and Mexico sought a means to break through the nuclear powers’ rationale; that national security concerns and the need to maintain nuclear deterrence required the maintenance of “modernization” of their nuclear arsenals. In 2013 the non-nuclear weapons states found their way to the obvious alternative paradigm: what nuclear weapons do to people.

The first of three Humanitarian Consequences of Nuclear Weapons conferences, held in Oslo that year, diplomats from 127 nations and civil society activists gathered to learn what nuclear weapons actually do and the dangers they represent. At the second conference, held the following year in Nayarit, Mexico, with all the nuclear powers absent except North Korea, conference organizers felt free to begin the conference with the testimonies of Hiroshima and Nagasaki A-bomb survivors. They described their suffering, losses, and the literal “Hell on earth” that they had witnessed, and they repeated their fundamental truth that “Human beings and nuclear weapons cannot coexist.” Power point presentations by representatives of the International Committee of the Red Cross and Chatham House in London demonstrated why no institution can meaningfully respond to the massive death and destruction inflicted by a single nuclear weapons detonation in a city.

The most telling moment in Nayarit came when, after hearing these testimonies and details about nuclear weapons “modernizations” and warfighting doctrines, a young African diplomat rose. With his pleading arms outstretched, he cried out “What are these people thinking?”

The outcome of the third and final Humanitarian Consequences conference, held in Vienna in December, 2014, was sealed shortly after it began. Following opening statements came the testimonies by a courageous Hiroshima survivor and an Australian Maori who described the deadly impacts of uranium mining. These framed the conference, but the coup de grace came from a woman who was assisted onto the stage in her wheelchair. Beginning with a heartrending cry that “My government has killed me” and in her passionate and unscripted speech, she explained how fallout from nuclear weapons testing (underground as well as atmospheric) had sickened her with cancer and taken the lives of many patriotic citizens of St. George, Utah. No one in the Palace hall was left unmoved, and the pathetic rebuttal by the U.S. ambassador was painfully embarrassing to all.

Following speech after speech by the assembled diplomats, the conference closed with the Austrian government’s pledge, joined by nearly all of the participating states. It reiterated the risks posed by nuclear weapons, described what it termed as the “legal gap for the prohibition and elimination of nuclear weapons” that must be filled (i.e. a means to hold the nuclear powers accountable to Article VI of the NPT,  and urged governments to join Austria in taking action to reduce the dangers of nuclear war).

That appeal led to the convening in 2017 of negotiations at the United Nations which concluded with the promulgation of the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons by 122 governments—none of them nuclear weapons states.

Having secured the necessary ratifications, the Treaty enters into Force on January 22, 2021. While opposed by the nuclear weapons states and their military allies, the Treaty further undermines the legitimacy of nuclear weapons and is designed to reinforce the NPT. It prohibits the development, production, manufacture, acquisition, possession, stockpiling, transfer, stationing, installation, and the threat to use nuclear weapons. Among its most important articles are those that forbid non-nuclear weapon states to assist the nuclear activities of the nuclear powers, for example refueling nuclear-capable bombers, the mandate to assist nuclear weapons victims, and the requirement that Treaty nations “encourage States not party to this Treaty to sign, ratify, accept, approve or accede to the Treaty.” “Encouragement” could take many forms: lobbying government officials, funding nuclear disarmament advocates, discouraging investments from corporations and financial institutions involved in the production of nuclear weapons. Ultimately, even sanctions!

There are no guarantees that the TPNW will move any of the nuclear powers, all of which are spending vast fortunes to upgrade their nuclear arsenals and delivery systems, and whose political systems are deeply influenced by their military-industrial complexes. The authors of the Prohibition Treaty understand that there are no short cuts to universalizing adherence to the treaty. They know that road to nuclear weapons-free world is a long and difficult one.

While activists in the United States take inspiration and encouragement from the TPNW, over the next several years, the most critically important campaigning will be in the so-called “umbrella states.”  These are the NATO nations, others in the Asia-Pacific, and the Russian dominated Commonwealth of Independent States, functionally protectorates that rely on the U.S. and Russian nuclear arsenals. Should one or more of these dependent states break ranks by signing and ratifying the Treaty, it will threaten to unravel the political fabric of the world’s nuclear disorder.

That possibility is not farfetched. A massive majority of Japanese want their government to sign the TPNW. Australia’s Labor Party, which was narrowly defeated in the country’s 2019 election, is committed to signing the treaty. And in the Netherlands a parliamentary majority voted in favor on the Treaty.

Those of us here in the United States who have confronted the humanitarian consequences of nuclear weapons and understand the urgency of nuclear disarmament have our own work cut out for us. In addition to doing all that we can to preserve constitutional democracy, to stanch the pandemic, and support revitalization of our economy, we can hold President Biden’s feet to the fire. He has pledged to extend the New START Treaty with Russia, due to expire in February, and to rejoin the JCPOA nuclear deal with Iran. Biden previously stated his opposition to the U.S. “first use” nuclear warfighting doctrine that could lead to miscalculations and “use them or lose them” missile launches by U.S. rivals. With Senator Markey and others in Congress urging a no first use policy, we should be encouraging our president to spend his political capital to ensure human survival.

And, as we look for the funds to revitalize our pandemic ravaged economy, we should be encouraging the president (and Congress) to act on his doubts about the value of replacing U.S. ground-based ICBMs and standoff cruise missiles which undermine rather than augment our real security.

The TPNW provides an encouraging opening. Human survival could well depend on taking advantage of 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.

Joseph Gerson is President of the Campaign for Peace, Disarmaent and Common Security, Co-founder of the Committee for a SANE U.S. China Policy and Vice President of the International Peace Bureau. His books include Empire and the Bomb, and With Hiroshima Eyes.

WHO Finally Admits COVID-19 PCR Test Has a ‘Problem’

January 22nd, 2021 by Dr. Joseph Mercola

In an “inauguration” of its own while Joe Biden was being sworn into office, the World Health Organization (WHO) initiated new rules regarding the PCR assays used for testing for COVID-19.

Even though they’ve been widely used across the U.S. and around the world to determine who has a positive case of COVID, PCR assays are not designed to be used as diagnostic tools, as they can’t distinguish between inactive viruses and “live” or reproductive ones.

Besides that, previously, the WHO had recommended 45 “amplification” cycles of the test to determine whether someone was positive for COVID or not.

The thing is, the more cycles that a test goes through, the more likely that a false positive will come up — anything over 30 cycles actually magnifies the samples so much that even insignificant sequences of viral DNA end up being magnified to the point that the test reads positive even if your viral load is extremely low or the virus is inactive and poses no threat to you or anyone else.

What that means in plain language is that the more cycles a test goes through, the more false positives that are reported.

Now, with the WHO’s lower PCR thresholds, it’s practically guaranteed that COVID “case” numbers will automatically drop dramatically around the world.

Here’s in-part what the WHO notice says:

Users of IVDs must read and follow the IFU carefully to determine if manual adjustment of the PCR positivity threshold is recommended by the manufacturer.

WHO guidance Diagnostic testing for SARS-CoV-2 states that careful interpretation of weak positive results is needed (1). The cycle threshold (Ct) needed to detect virus is inversely proportional to the patient’s viral load. Where test results do not correspond with the clinical presentation, a new specimen should be taken and retested using the same or different NAT technology.

WHO reminds IVD users that disease prevalence alters the predictive value of test results; as disease prevalence decreases, the risk of false positive increases (2). This means that the probability that a person who has a positive result (SARS-CoV-2 detected) is truly infected with SARS-CoV-2 decreases as prevalence decreases, irrespective of the claimed specificity.

Most PCR assays are indicated as an aid for diagnosis, therefore, health care providers must consider any result in combination with timing of sampling, specimen type, assay specifics, clinical observations, patient history, confirmed status of any contacts, and epidemiological information.

*

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 Shutterstock

US President Biden: How to Deal With China

January 22nd, 2021 by Tom Clifford

The lexicon has changed. Words and phrases that seemed to define our world until quite recently now belong to a bygone era. Remember BRICs? The grouping of the next economic superpowers. Well, Brazil, Russia, India and China now resemble a brash start-up promising a whole new way of doing things only to fall out among themselves.

Pivot to Asia? US forces redeploying. For what? Washington’s response has been half-hearted and ponderous. The South China Sea has been turned into a Chinese military zone. End of story. No amount of US redeploying will change that fact on the ground or in this case on the sea.

OK, how about Belt and Road? China was going to establish new markets along the traditional trade routes on both land and sea. We are not masking the truth when we acknowledge that in a time of COVID these trade routes will not be as active as once envisaged. And the Thucydides Trap? This suggested that a rising power challenging an established power will probably end in conflict. From China’s point of view that type of talk is redundant. China is no longer rising, it has emerged. No conflict.

Sanctions on China? Exports from China to the US rose 7.9 percent over 2019 to $45.2 billion despite tariff hikes on most Chinese goods by the Trump administration. You can hardly blame them in Beijing if they are asking for more sanctions.

Make America Great Again? America always was great not just through its economic muscle but because, at its best, it inspired. The American dream was not fantasy. But the storming of Congress showed an ugly side, a brush with fascism, that its opponents, China among them, will capitalise on.   After the storming many US politicians repeated, on cue, the mantra “This is not who we are.”

In Asia and China they asked, who are you? There have been times when it was who you were. The treatment of Native Americans, the 1954 overthrow of the democratically elected government of Guatemala, at the behest if the United Fruit Company opposing labor reforms, Allende overthrown and killed in 1973 in Chile, yes on 9/11.  Marcos in the Philippines. There are many more instances. Washington has a long history of organizing the storming of parliaments in other countries.

The main problem facing the administration of US President Joe Biden is how to deal with China, how to work with it. Climate change, and the urgent need to tackle it, dictates that the Beijing dictatorship is embraced rather than shunned. Besides, establishing an anti-China coalition is pointless. There are countries in Africa, South America and Europe that just won’t buy, literally, into any such a sentiment.  Australia, Japan and South Korea have had and hope to have, a profitable relationship with China, even allowing for setbacks. The US has to mend fences, not lecture, after the Trump debacle. The tombstone of failed leadership on the grave marking US abandonment of international obligations reads; the Paris Agreement, the World Health Organization, and the Trans-Pacific Partnership; NATO; weakened World Trade Organization; and imposed trade barriers on Washington’s closest allies.

Biden has his work cut out. But China and the US are not enemies. They share common interests, such as climate change and the battle against the pandemic.  China also faces huge challenges. In the rush to modernize its environment has paid a heavy toll. Its banking system is sclerotic. To describe it as Dickensian would be to give it a veneer of efficiency it does not merit. The largest note in domestic circulation is the 100 yuan bill (US$16 approx). The main reasons for this are fear of counterfeiting and to prevent large amounts of cash leaving the country. China urgently needs to introduce foreign competition and expertise to reform its financial sector.  Then there is human rights.  Xinjiang is a stain on China’s reputation and Beijing will be increasingly accountable for what is happening there. The great hope of Chinese modernizers that affluence would lead to more openness seems cruelly dashed. Chinese President Xi Jinping has one goal: to enhance the party’ leading role in society. In short, he believes that too much prosperity can damage the party’s health and that it lost too much ground in the years of largely coastal-region affluence, roughly 1990-2008, post Tiananmen to the financial crisis.

China will not be bullied but that does not mean Washington acquiesces.

Yes, the US is back. But China has arrived. Biden will be the first US president to deal with this. It will require a new lexicon.

*

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 OneWorld

L’Onu proibisce le armi nucleari e l’Italia che fa?

January 22nd, 2021 by Manlio Dinucci

Entra in vigore il Trattato Onu che proibisce le armi nucleari, ma la Nato proibisce all’Italia di aderirvi. Il governo non vede, non sente e non parla. Restano così in Italia, paese “non-nucleare”, le vecchie bombe nucleari Usa tra poco sostituite dalle nuove.

***

Oggi, 22 gennaio 2021, è il giorno che può passare alla storia come il tornante per liberare l’umanità da quelle armi che, per la prima volta, hanno la capacità di cancellare dalla faccia della Terra la specie umana e quasi ogni altra forma di vita. Entra infatti in vigore oggi il Trattato Onu sulla proibizione delle armi nucleari. Può essere però anche il giorno in cui entra in vigore un trattato destinato, come i tanti precedenti, a restare sulla carta. La possibilità di eliminare le armi nucleari dipende da tutti noi.

Qual è la situazione dell’Italia e cosa dovremmo fare per contribuire all’obiettivo di un mondo libero dalle armi nucleari? L’Italia, paese formalmente non-nucleare, ha concesso da decenni il proprio territorio per lo schieramento di armi nucleari Usa: attualmente bombe B61, che tra non molto saranno sostituite dalle più micidiali B61-12. Fa inoltre parte dei paesi che – documenta la Nato – «forniscono all’Alleanza aerei equipaggiati per trasportare bombe nucleari, su cui gli Stati uniti mantengono l’assoluto controllo, e personale addestrato a tale scopo». Inoltre, vi è la possibilità che vengano installati sul nostro territorio i missili nucleari a raggio intermedio (analoghi agli euromissili degli anni Ottanta) che gli Usa stanno costruendo dopo aver stracciato il Trattato Inf che li proibiva.

Carico di missili su un aereo F-16 nella base aerea statunitense di Aviano, Pordenone

In tal modo l’Italia viola il Trattato di non-proliferazione delle armi nucleari, ratificato nel 1975, che stabilisce: «Ciascuno degli Stati militarmente non nucleari, parte del Trattato, si impegna a non ricevere da chicchessia armi nucleari, né il controllo su tali armi, direttamente o indirettamente». Allo stesso tempo l’Italia ha rifiutato nel 2017 il Trattato Onu sulla abolizione delle armi nucleari – boicottato da tutti e trenta i paesi della Nato e dai 27 dell’Unione europea – il quale stabilisce: «Ciascuno Stato parte che abbia sul proprio territorio armi nucleari, possedute o controllate da un altro Stato, deve assicurare la rapida rimozione di tali armi».

L’Italia, sulla scia di Usa e Nato, si è opposta al Trattato fin dall’apertura dei negoziati, decisa dalla Assemblea generale nel 2016. Gli Stati uniti e le altre due potenze nucleari della Nato (Francia e Gran Bretagna), gli altri paesi dell’Alleanza e i suoi principali partner – Israele (unica potenza nucleare in Medioriente), Giappone, Australia, Ucraina – votarono contro. Espressero così parere contrario anche le altre potenze nucleari: Russia e Cina (astenutasi), India, Pakistan e Nord Corea. Facendo eco a Washington, il governo Gentiloni definì il futuro Trattato «un elemento fortemente divisivo che rischia di compromettere i nostri sforzi a favore del disarmo nucleare».

Il governo e il parlamento italiani sono quindi corresponsabili del fatto che il Trattato sull’abolizione delle armi nucleari – approvato a grande maggioranza dall’Assemblea generale delle Nazioni Unite nel 2017 ed entrato in vigore avendo raggiunto le 50 ratifiche – è stato ratificato in Europa fino ad oggi solo da Austria, Irlanda, Santa Sede, Malta e San Marino: atto meritevole ma non sufficiente a a dare forza al Trattato.

Nel 2017, mentre l’Italia rifiutava il Trattato Onu sulla abolizione delle armi nucleari, oltre 240 parlamentari – in maggior parte del Pd e M5S, con in prima fila l’attuale ministro degli Esteri Luigi Di Maio – si impegnavano solennemente, firmando l’Appello Ican, a promuovere l’adesione dell’Italia al Trattato Onu. In tre anni non hanno mosso un dito in tale direzione. Dietro coperture demagogiche o apertamente il Trattato Onu sull’abolizione delle armi nucleari viene boicottato in parlamento, con qualche rara eccezione, dall’intero arco politico, concorde nel legare l’Italia alla sempre più pericolosa politica della Nato, ufficialmente «Alleanza nucleare».

Tutto questo va ricordato oggi, nella Giornata di azione globale indetta per l’entrata in vigore del Trattato Onu sulla proibizione delle armi nucleari, celebrata da attivisti dell’Ican e altri movimenti anti-nucleari con 160 eventi per la maggior parte in Europa e Nordamerica. Occorre trasformare la Giornata in mobilitazione permanente e crescente di un ampio fronte capace, in ciascun paese e a livello internazionale, di imporre le scelte politiche necessarie a realizzare l’obiettivo vitale del Trattato.

Manlio Dinucci

 

  • Posted in Italiano
  • Comments Off on L’Onu proibisce le armi nucleari e l’Italia che fa?

The Making of US Empire at the Dawning of Its End

January 22nd, 2021 by Pepe Escobar

This article was originally published on Asia Times.

As the Exceptional Empire gets ready to brave a destructive – and self-destructive – new cycle, with dire, unforeseen consequences bound to reverberate across the world, now more than ever it is absolutely essential to go back to the imperial roots.

The task is fully accomplished by Tomorrow, the World: The Birth of U.S. Global Supremacy, by Stephen Wertheim, Deputy Director of Research and Policy at the Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft and a research scholar at the Saltzman Institute of War and Peace Studies at Columbia University.

Here, in painstaking detail, we can find when, why and especially who shaped the contours of US “internationalism” in a roomful of mirrors always disguising the real, ultimate aim: Empire.

Wertheim’s book was superbly reviewed by Prof. Paul Kennedy. Here we will concentrate on the crucial plot twists taking place throughout 1940. Wertheim’s main thesis is that the fall of France in 1940 – and not Pearl Harbor – was the catalyzing event that led to the full Imperial Hegemony design.

This is not a book about the U.S. industrial-military complex or the inner workings of American capitalism and finance capitalism. It is extremely helpful as it sets up the preamble to the Cold War era. But most of all, it is gripping intellectual history, revealing how American foreign policy was manufactured by the real flesh and blood actors that count: the economic and political planners congregated by the arch-influential Council on Foreign Relations (CFR), the conceptual core of the imperial matrix.

Behold Exceptionalist nationalism

If just one phrase should capture the American missionary drive, this is it: “The United States was born of exceptionalist nationalism, imagining itself providentially chosen to occupy the vanguard of world history”. Wertheim nailed it by drawing from a wealth of sources on exceptionalism, especially Anders Stephanson’s Manifest Destiny: American Expansion and the Empire of the Right.

The action starts in early 1940, when the State Dept. formed a small advisory committee in collaboration with the CFR, constituted as a de facto proto-national security state.

The CFR’s postwar planning project was known as the War and Peace Studies, financed by the Rockefeller Foundation and boasting a sterling cross-section of the American elite, divided into four groups.

The most important were the Economic and Financial Group, headed by the “American Keynes”, Harvard economist Alvin Hansen, and the Political Group, headed by businessman Whitney Shepardson. CFR planners were inevitably transposed to the core of the official postwar planning committee set up after Pearl Harbor.

A crucial point: the Armaments Group was headed by none other than Allen Dulles, then just a corporate lawyer, years before he became the nefarious, omniscient CIA mastermind fully deconstructed by David Talbot’s The Devil’s Chessboard.

Wertheim details the fascinating, evolving intellectual skirmishes along the first eight months of WWII, when the prevailing consensus among the planners was to concentrate on the Western Hemisphere only, and not indulge in “balance of power” overseas adventures. As in let the Europeans fight it out; meanwhile, we profit.

The fall of France in May-June 1940 – the world’s top army melting down in five weeks – was the game-changer, much more than Pearl Harbor 18 months later. This is how the planners interpreted it: if Britain were the next domino to fall, totalitarianism would control Eurasia.

Wertheim zeroes in on the defining “threat” for the planners: Axis dominance would prevent the United States “from driving world history. Such a threat proved unacceptable to U.S. elites”. That’s what led to an expanded definition of national security: the U.S. could not afford to be simply “isolated” within the Western Hemisphere. The path ahead was inevitable: to shape world order as the supreme military power.

So it was the prospect of a Nazi-shaped world order – and not U.S. security – that shook foreign policy elites in the summer of 1940 to build the intellectual foundations of global U.S. hegemony.

Of course there was a “lofty ideal” component: the U.S. would not be able to fulfill its God-given mission to lead the world towards a better future. But there was also a much more pressing practical matter: this world order might be closed to liberal U.S. trade.

Even as the tides of war changed afterwards, the interventionist argument ultimately prevailed: after all, the whole of Eurasia could (italics in the book) eventually, fall under totalitarianism.

It’s always about “world order”

Initially, the fall of France forced Roosevelt’s planners to concentrate on a minimum hegemonic area. So by midsummer 1940, the CFR groups, plus the military, came up with the so-called “quarter sphere”: Canada down to northern South America.

They were still assuming that the Axis would dominate Europe and parts of the Middle East and North Africa. As Wertheim notes, “American interventionists often portrayed Germany’s dictator as a master of statecraft, prescient, clever and bold.”

Then, at the request of the State Dept., the crucial CFR’s Economic and Financial Group worked feverishly from August to October to design the next step: integrating the Western Hemisphere with the Pacific Basin.

That was a totally myopic Eurocentric focus (by the way, Asia barely registers on Wertheim’s narrative). The planners assumed that Japan – even rivaling the US, and three years into the invasion of mainland China – could somehow be incorporated, or bribed into a non-Nazi area.

Then they finally hit the jackpot: join the Western Hemisphere, the British empire and the Pacific basin into a so-called “great residual area”: that is, the entire non-Nazi dominated world except the USSR.

They found out that if Nazi Germany would dominate Europe, the U.S. would have to dominate everywhere else (italics mine). That was the logical conclusion based on the planners’ initial assumptions.

That’s when U.S. foreign policy for the next 80 years was born: the U.S. had to wield “unquestionable power”, as stated in the CFR planners “recommendation” to the State Dept., delivered on October 19 in a memorandum titled “Needs of Future United States Foreign Policy”.

This “Grand Area” was the brainchild of the CFR’s Economic and Financial Group. The Political Group was not impressed. The Grand Area implied a post-war peace arrangement that was in fact a Cold War between Germany and Anglo-America. Not good enough.

But how to sell total domination to American public opinion without that sounding “imperialistic”, similar to what the Axis was doing in Europe and Asia? Talk about a huge P.R. problem.

In the end, U.S. elites always came back to the same foundation stone of American exceptionalism: should there be any Axis supremacy in Europe and Asia, the U.S. manifest destiny of defining the path ahead for world history would be denied.

As Walter Lippmann succinctly – and memorably – put it: “Ours is the new order. It was to found this order and to develop it that our forefathers came here. In this order we exist. Only in this order can we live”.

That would set up the pattern for the subsequent 80 years. Roosevelt, only a few days after he was elected for a third term, stated it was the United States that “truly and fundamentally…was a new order”.

It’s chilling to be reminded that 30 years ago, even before unleashing  the first Shock and Awe over Iraq, Papa Bush defined it as the crucible of a “new world order” (incidentally, the speech was delivered exactly 11 years before 9/11).

Henry Kissinger has been marketing “world order” for six decades. The number one U.S foreign policy mantra is “rules-based international order”: rules, of course, set unilaterally by the Hegemon at the end of WWII.

American Century redux

What came out of the 1940 policy planning orgy was encapsulated by a succinct mantra featured in the legendary February 17, 1941 essay in Life magazine by publishing mogul Henry Luce:  “American Century”.

Only six months earlier planners were at best satisfied with a hemispheric role in an Axis-led world future. Now they went winner takes all: “complete opportunity of leadership”, in Luce’s words. In early 1941, months before Pearl Harbor, the American Century went mainstream – and never left.

That sealed the primacy of Power Politics. If American interests were global, so should be American political and military power.

Luce even used Third Reich terminology: “Tyrannies may require a large amount of living space. But Freedom requires and will require far greater living space than Tyranny.” Unlike Hitler’s, the unbounded ambition of American elites prevailed.

Until now. It looks and feels like the empire is entering a James Cagney Made it, Ma. Top of the World! moment – rotting from within, 9/11 merging into 1/6 in a war against “domestic terrorism” – while still nurturing toxic dreams of imposing uncontested global “leadership”.

*

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.

Pepe Escobar, born in Brazil, is a correspondent and editor-at-large at Asia Times and columnist for Consortium News and Strategic Culture in Moscow. Since the mid-1980s he’s lived and worked as a foreign correspondent in London, Paris, Milan, Los Angeles, Singapore, Bangkok. He has extensively covered Pakistan, Afghanistan and Central Asia to China, Iran, Iraq and the wider Middle East. Pepe is the author of Globalistan – How the Globalized World is Dissolving into Liquid War; Red Zone Blues: A Snapshot of Baghdad during the Surge. He was contributing editor to The Empire and The Crescent and Tutto in Vendita in Italy. His last two books are Empire of Chaos and 2030. Pepe is also associated with the Paris-based European Academy of Geopolitics. When not on the road he lives between Paris and Bangkok.

He is a frequent contributor to Global Research.

The US State Department designated Yemen’s Houthi movement — the most effective force in fighting al-Qaeda — as a “terrorist” organization. Meanwhile Washington and Saudi Arabia have supported al-Qaeda.

***

The United States government has designated the main enemy of al-Qaeda in Yemen, the Houthi movement, as a terrorist organization, after spending years backing al-Qaeda in the country.

Like the US-led wars on Syria, Libya, former Yugoslavia, and 1980s Afghanistan, Yemen represents an example of an armed conflict where Washington has supported al-Qaeda and similar Salafi-jihadist extremists in order to foment regime change and extend its hegemony.

Since March 2015, the United States has helped oversee a catastrophic war on Yemen, the poorest country in the Middle East, aiding Saudi Arabia as it launched tens of thousands of air strikes on its southern neighbor, bombing the impoverished nation into rubble — and unleashing the largest humanitarian crisis on Earth.

Hundreds of thousands of Yemenis have died in this US-backed war. Tens of millions of civilians have been pushed to the brink of famine, as a result of intentional US-backed Saudi targeting of food production. Yemen’s health infrastructure was ravaged by the Western-sponsored bombing, precipitating the worst cholera outbreak in recorded history.

Throughout the war, al-Qaeda and other Salafi-jihadist groups have metastasized across the south of Yemen. The spread of these dangerous extremists is not a mere coincidence; it is the result of US government policy choices.

For years, forces in Yemen backed by the United States, Britain, Saudi Arabia, and the United Arab Emirates have fought in alliance with al-Qaeda. (And it is not the only ongoing conflict in the Middle East where the terror group has been allied with Washington. Former top Hillary Clinton advisor Jake Sullivan, now Joe Biden’s national security advisor, chirped in a 2012 email, “AQ is on our side in Syria.”)

There is overwhelming evidence exposing this de facto alliance between Washington and al-Qaeda. It has been documented even by mainstream corporate media outlets, from the Associated Press to the Wall Street Journal.

Western governments and Gulf monarchies are allied with al-Qaeda in Yemen because they share a common enemy: the Houthis, an indigenous, politically orientated Shia movement that emerged out of local struggles to resist Saudi Arabia’s extremist Wahhabi influence in the northern border area of Yemen.

The Houthis, who officially call themselves Ansar Allah, govern the northern regions of Yemen, where the majority of the population lives. They took control of the country after overthrowing an unelected and deeply corrupt US-backed authoritarian regime on September 21, 2014, in what they dubbed the September 21 Revolution.

Since March 2015, the United States and its allies Britain, Saudi Arabia, and the United Arab Emirates have proven unable to dislodge Ansar Allah from power. In desperation, the coalition has collectively punished the entire Yemeni civilian population, destroying much of the country around them in the process.

On January 10, 2021, the US State Department took its hybrid war on Yemeni civilians to the next level by officially designating the Houthi movement as a terrorist organization.

The terror label constituted a major blow to the international aid organizations working to prevent a famine and save civilian lives in Yemen. Because the Houthis run the government in most of Yemen, the designation effectively criminalized aid work in the majority of the country not under Washington’s de facto control.

The southern part of Yemen not governed by Ansar Allah is run by a US puppet government, ostensibly led by unelected President Abed Rabbuh Mansour Hadi, who has spent nearly the entire war living in Saudi Arabia.

Yemen’s US- and Saudi-backed southern government is closely linked to al-Qaeda. And with the full knowledge of officials in Washington, it has used al-Qaeda as the tip of the spear in its war on the Houthis.

US- and Saudi-backed coalition forces in Yemen have actively recruited al-Qaeda extremists in their fight against Ansar Allah, and the US military halted drone strikes on the Salafi-jihadists.

Yemeni al-Qaeda extremists who are individually named on the US terrorism list have been supported and funded by US-backed Gulf monarchies, and have carved out top positions in Yemen’s southern puppet government.

The Salafi-jihadist militants in Yemen are part of al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula, or AQAP, one of the terror group’s most extreme and brutal international affiliates, which used an ISIS-style flag for years before the self-declared Islamic State emerged out of the US-backed wars on Iraq and Syria.

Secretary of State Mike Pompeo claimed the terrorist designation was part of Washington’s drive to weaken Iranian influence in the region, as part of the US-led propaganda drive to paint the group as a mere “Iranian proxy.”

But though the Houthis have received political and media support from Iran, they are an independent indigenous group whose resistance struggle is deeply ingrained in Yemen’s history.

Like the Lebanese nationalist group Hezbollah, which is often compared to Ansar Allah, the Houthis are allies of Iran, but they are independent. Both grew out of indigenous struggles against attempted foreign domination of their countries – the Israeli war on Lebanon in the case of the former, and Saudi aggression in the case of the latter.

Ansar Allah, which adopted the slogan “Death to America, Death to Israel,” has also demonstrated a consistent anti-imperialist ideology and support for global resistance movements.

The Houthi government refuses to recognize Israel and vociferously promotes the Palestinian liberation struggle. It has also backed the Syrian government and its allies against Western-sponsored Salafi-jihadist militants.

Consistent with their ideology, the Houthis publicly expressed solidarity with Venezuela against the US-led coup attempt to install Juan Guaidó in 2019. Back in 2015, a senior Ansar Allah leader told journalist Safa al-Ahmad, “We will help oppressed people all over the world… We support Chávez in Venezuela. Why this insistence that we receive support from Iran, other than wanting to turn the struggle in this country and the region into a sectarian one, based on the American and Zionist agenda?”

The US terrorist designation is clearly meant to criminalize the Houthi movement, and the majority of Yemen as a whole, for its resistance to Washington’s geopolitical interests.

This labeling is ironic, because Yemenis have themselves held numerous protests under the banner, “No to American Terrorism on Yemen.”

During a protest marking the anniversary of the US-Saudi coalition bombing of a funeral hall that killed more than 140 people and wounded 600 more, Yemenis erected a blood-stained, demonic Statue of Liberty holding American and Israeli bombs, alongside a sign reading, “USA Kills Yemeni People.”

In a viral photo, a Yemeni man dressed up as Donald Trump, posing with an American flag cape and hat reading “oil” in front of a cow covered by a Saudi flag, standing above an Israeli flag.

Yemen protest Trump US cow Saudi Israel

A Yemeni man at a “Stop U.S. Terrorism on Yemen” protest in Sanaa in 2017

The US terrorist designation of Ansar Allah recalls similar labels applied to other national-liberation movements in the Global South.

South African anti-apartheid leader Nelson Mandela was on the US government’s terrorism list until 2008 (after the CIA helped the apartheid regime imprison him for 27 years).

Mandela’s African National Congress, or ANC, was designated a terrorist organization by Washington because of its support for armed struggle against South Africa’s US-backed apartheid regime. The ANC remained on the US terrorist list even after it became the elected government of the country’s post-apartheid democracy.

Further compounding the hypocrisy, Washington announced its terrorist designation against the Houthis just weeks after removing the Uighur extremist militia the East Turkistan Islamic Movement (ETIM) from the US terrorist list. This Salafi-jihadist group, which is also known as the Turkistan Islamic Party (TIP), has launched hundreds of terror attacks against the Chinese government and civilians, and seeks to carve off the western Chinese region of Xinjiang and establish an Islamic state called East Turkestan.

TIP is closely linked to al-Qaeda and is active in the war in Syria, in the al-Qaeda-controlled Idlib province, where the US has greenlighted missiles shipments. TIP is still recognized by the United Nations, European Nation, and many other countries as a terrorist organization, despite Washington’s de-listing.

But the US government’s terrorist labeling of the Houthis is doubly hypocritical, considering Washington enjoys a very cozy relationship with al-Qaeda in Yemen.

Mainstream corporate media extensively documents US alliance with al-Qaeda in Yemen

The existence of a de facto alliance between the United States, Saudi Arabia, and al-Qaeda is not just speculation by anti-war journalists; it has been acknowledged by mainstream corporate media outlets.

The Western and Gulf monarchy alliance with the notorious Salafi-jihadist terrorist group has been known since the very beginning of the international war on Yemen in 2015.

In July 2015, the Wall Street Journal published a report acknowledging that “Local militias backed by Saudi Arabia, special forces from the United Arab Emirates and al Qaeda militants all fought on the same side this week to wrest back control over most of Yemen’s second city, Aden, from pro-Iranian Houthi rebels.”

The Journal continued: “Saudi-backed militias are spearheading efforts to roll back Houthi gains and reinstate the government that the rebels drove into exile in neighboring Saudi Arabia. But they have turned to Yemen-based al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula, or AQAP, for help, according to local residents and a senior Western diplomat. This puts the U.S.-allied Gulf kingdom on the same side as one of the world’s most notorious extremist groups.”

Wall Street Journal al Qaeda Yemen Saudi UAE US

After al-Qaeda helped US-backed Yemeni forces expel the Houthis from the major southern city of Aden, “AQAP militants celebrated the victory alongside the militias, parading cadavers of Houthis on a main commercial street in the city to a cheering crowd,” the Wall Street Journal wrote.

Aden residents told the newspaper that they saw al-Qaeda flags flying all across the city.

The US government was well aware of the fact that it was strengthening al-Qaeda in Yemen. However, it continued to place the responsibility on Yemen’s Ansar Allah movement. The Journal reported, “American officials acknowledge that AQAP is one of the war’s biggest benefactors, but say Houthi rebels are ultimately to blame.”

In February 2016, video evidence of the dark alliance emerged for the first time. Journalist Safa al-Ahmad filmed forces from the US-, Saudi-, and UAE-backed coalition fighting alongside al-Qaeda against the Houthis, battling for control of the major city of Taiz. She published the footage with the BBC.

BBC Yemen al Qaeda coalition US SaudiIn January 2017, a United Nations panel of experts published an annual report on the Yemen war. The document (PDF) acknowledged that al-Qaeda “members have also taken part in the fight in Ta’izz on the side of the ‘resistance’ against Houthi and Saleh forces” (referring to previous President Ali Abdullah Saleh, who had formed an uneasy alliance with the Houthis until he turned on them and was killed in 2017).

A few sentences before in the same report, the UN experts added, “The Panel also assesses that AQAP is actively working towards preparing terrorist attacks to be launched against the West using Yemen as a base.” The statement represented a clear warning about the same kind of potential “blowback” attacks that American and European civilians have endured thanks to their governments’ sponsorship of Salafi-jihadist fanatics.

Washington’s support for al-Qaeda in Yemen under President Barack Obama was quietly acknowledged, but mostly ignored. When President Donald Trump came into office, however, corporate media outlets that had long whitewashed and ignored the Yemen war began to report more critically.

The Associated Press published a detailed investigation in August 2018 further documenting how US- and Saudi-backed coalition forces in Yemen “cut secret deals with al-Qaida fighters, paying some to leave key cities and towns and letting others retreat with weapons, equipment and wads of looted cash… Hundreds more were recruited to join the coalition itself.”

“Coalition-backed militias actively recruit al-Qaida militants, or those who were recently members, because they’re considered exceptional fighters,” the AP wrote.

The news outlet noted that some Yemeni al-Qaeda extremists on the US terrorism list were simultaneously being funded by Gulf monarchies to lead troops in the US-backed coalition.

“Key participants in the pacts said the U.S. was aware of the arrangements and held off on any drone strikes,” the report added.

AP Yemen al Qaeda US allies

“The larger mission is to win the civil war against the Houthis, Iranian-backed Shiite rebels. And in that fight, al-Qaida militants are effectively on the same side as the Saudi-led coalition — and, by extension, the United States,” the AP report stated bluntly.

The news outlet quoted a fellow at the Jamestown Foundation, a Cold War-era neoconservative think tank close to the CIA, who admitted, “Elements of the U.S. military are clearly aware that much of what the U.S. is doing in Yemen is aiding AQAP and there is much angst about that… However, supporting the UAE and the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia against what the U.S. views as Iranian expansionism takes priority over battling AQAP and even stabilizing Yemen.”

The damning AP investigation was followed by a 2019 CNN report which acknowledged that weapons sold by the United States to Saudi Arabia and the UAE were then transferred to al-Qaeda in Yemen.

In branding the Houthi movement as terrorists, the United States has not only evinced a staggering level of hypocrisy; it has effectively given a gift to the same extremist organization it used to justify its so-called “war on terror.”

*

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: Militants from Al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula (AQAP), which has been supported by the US and Saudi Arabia in Yemen (Source: The Grayzone)

Pompeo’s Last Stand

January 22nd, 2021 by Philip Giraldi

It is finally over. Joe Biden has been inaugurated President of the United States while his predecessor Donald Trump has retired to Florida. Trump intends to remain the driving force in the Republican Party but there are many in the GOP who would like to see him gone completely and the national media is obliging by depriving him of a “voice,” cutting him off from his preferred social media. The Democratic Party’s top “megadonor” Israeli film producer Haim Saban goes one step farther, recommending that all the media stop reporting on Trump and his activities, thereby taking away his platform and making him disappear politically speaking.

Prior to the inauguration, which proceeded protected by an unprecedented display of military and police, there had been so much going on in and around Washington that other serious developments worldwide were not getting the attention that they merited. President Donald Trump was impeached for “high crimes and misdemeanors” relating to his alleged encouragement of the January 6th rioting at the U.S. Capitol building, but to my mind the recent travels and meetings involving Secretary of State Mike Pompeo could turn out to be far more damaging to America’s long-term interests. One wonders why Pompeo was engaging in frenetic activity with the Administration that he represented being about to vanish in a few days, but the answer is perhaps obvious. Trump and Pompeo want to lay a foreign policy mine field for the Joe Biden White House, locking the new administration into policies that will prove difficult to untangle.

Pompeo has been most active in four areas: Iran, China, Cuba and Yemen. Iran, as has often been the case with the Trump Israeli-driven policy in the Middle East, has been the principal focus. The Trump Administration has consistently responded to Israeli and also Saudi perceptions of the threat from Iran to the entire region, even though those claims were generally based on self-interests and deliberately falsified intelligence. Washington has withdrawn from the nuclear agreement with Iran signed in 2015 and has been waging incrementally expanded economic warfare against the Iranians for the past three years. It has collaborated with the Israelis on assassinations and air attacks on primarily civilian targets in Syria and Lebanon.

During Trump’s last two weeks in power there was much talk about the possibility of a U.S. attack on Iran. The Israeli military was on alert and there was a surge in attacks on Syria, frequently using Lebanese airspace. One incident in particular on January 6th used U.S. intelligence to enable multiple bombing attacks on targets inside Syria, killing 57. Pompeo reportedly dined publicly in a well-known Washington restaurant Café Milano on the day after the carnage to discuss the “success” with Israel’s head of Mossad Yossi Cohen.

The public meeting with Cohen was a sign from the Trump Administration that the U.S. supports Israel’s bombing campaign against claimed Iranian targets in Syria. If Biden wishes to change that, he will have to do so publicly, earning the ire of Israel’s friends in the Democratic Party and media. And more was to come. Last Tuesday, Pompeo gave a speech in which he accused al-Qaeda and the Iranian government of being “partners in terror” , constituting an “axis” of terrorism. He further claimed that al-Qaeda has a “new home base” and a “new operational headquarters” built for it in Tehran, an assertion that ran counter to the intelligence collected by U.S. counterterrorism officials, who said there was no evidence to support such a claim. In fact, the Intelligence Community has long asserted that al-Qaeda is fundamentally hostile to Shi’ite Iran and that the Iranians return the favor. In other words, Pompeo is either lying or making something up that will be an impediment if Biden tries to improve relations with Tehran. Pompeo also went so far as to declare that Iran is the “new Afghanistan” for al-Qaeda, which is meant to imply that Iran is now its home base and safe haven. There is also no evidence to support that claim.

The Trump Administration has also included Cuba on the list of state sponsors of terrorism, based on nothing whatsoever, apparently as something of a throw away item to shore up support from the rabid Cuban exile community in Florida. So too the decision to designate the Houthis of Yemen as terrorists to give a parting gift to the Saudis and the UAE. Yemen is suffering from famine and the terror designation will have a drastic impact on imports of food and medicine, condemning many Yemenis to death. Daniel Larison opines that the “Houthi designation is by far the worst thing that Pompeo has done as Secretary of State, because if it is not quickly reversed it will lead directly to the deaths of tens and possibly even hundreds of thousands of people. It takes severe cruelty to look at a war-torn, famine-stricken country that depends heavily on outside aid and imports and then choose to suffocate the survivors with additional economic warfare. That is what Pompeo has done, we shouldn’t forget that.”

And, incidentally, the United States gains absolutely nothing from killing thousands of people in Yemen, but that is not all. Pompeo has also opened the door to new problems with China. His easing of the longstanding restrictions on contacts between American diplomats and Taiwanese has been described by the State Department as a strong gesture of support for the democratic government and “ally” in Taipei. It overturns more than forty years of “strategic ambiguity” which has prevailed since Richard Nixon traveled to Beijing and recognized the communist People’s Republic of China as China’s only legitimate government, to include over Taiwan by implication. The so-called “One China” principle states that Taiwan and China are part of the same China with the U.S. recognizing, though not necessarily endorsing, that the PRC has a historic claim to sovereignty over Taiwan.

Apart from locking in policies that Biden will find hard to shift, Pompeo also has a secondary motive. It is widely believed that he would like to run for president in 2024. He will need the support of the Israelis and their powerful domestic lobby as well as the Cubans in Florida and it does not hurt to show him playing hardball in the Middle East and against an increasingly vilified China. The so-called neocons, who have again become influential in the Republican Party and the media, demand tough talk and even tougher action from their candidate and Pompeo is already running hard to oblige 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.

Philip M. Giraldi, Ph.D., is Executive Director of the Council for the National Interest, a 501(c)3 tax deductible educational foundation (Federal ID Number #52-1739023) that seeks a more interests-based U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East. Website is https://councilforthenationalinterest.orgaddress is P.O. Box 2157, Purcellville VA 20134 and its email is [email protected].

He is a frequent contributor to Global Research.

Featured image is from Another Day in the Empire

Biden Exploits His Capitol Gains

January 22nd, 2021 by Diana Johnstone

First published by Consortium News on January 11, crossposted on Global Research on January 13, 2021

Joe Biden’s own language certainly sounded less like a magnanimous winner uniting his people than like that used by autocrats and dictators to hold onto power, argues Diana Johnstone.

***

What happened in the Capitol on Jan. 6 was not surprising. It could have been avoided. It could have been prevented if the Democratic Establishment which held onto keys of power throughout Trump’s mandate had truly wanted a smooth presidential transition. For months prior to the election, the elite Transition Integrity Project was spreading the alarm, loudly echoed by liberal media, that Trump would lose and refuse to acknowledge his loss.

There was a simple, obvious way to avoid such a drama. In an article for Consortium News last August, I suggested how this could be done.

It seems to me that if the Democratic establishment gave priority to a peaceful election and transition, against the possibility that Trump might reject the results, the smart and reasonable thing to do would be to reassure him on the two counts which they suggest might incite him to balk: postal vote fraud accusations and the threat of criminal charges against him. […]

As for postal balloting, it should be conceivable that Trump’s misgivings are justified. […] In an age when anyone can photocopy any document, when mails are slow and when there are many ways in which ballots might be destroyed, such misgivings are not far-fetched. […]

For the sake of domestic peace, why not try to find a compromise? Kamala Harris has introduced legislation to generalize postal balloting. Why not, instead, extend polling time, opening polls not only on the second Tuesday in November but on the preceding Saturday and Sunday? This would provide time to allow voters afraid of Covid-19 to keep distances from each other, as they do when they go to the supermarket. It would reduce the number of absentee ballots, the time needed for counting and above all the suspicions attached to postal voting. But the more wary Trump is of postal voting, the more Democrats insist on making it universal.

It becomes clearer and clearer that hatred of Trump has reached such a pitch, that for the Democratic establishment and its hangers-on, defeating Trump at the polls is not enough. They are practically inciting him to contest the election. Then they can have something more exciting and decisive: a genuine regime change.”

So indeed what we got was something more exciting. Not exactly regime change, because we are seeing instead a powerful reaffirmation of the regime that was really still there during Trump’s largely deformed four-year term. The haste with which his aides and allies desert him in his last hour makes this clear. He was always a president without a team, operating on hunches, rhetoric and advice from his son-in-law and a few insiders who were really outsiders.

But what we are getting is indeed exciting: an alleged “insurrection” supposedly incited by Trump to “steal the election” (which it had absolutely no way of doing). The scenes of disorder have been instantly exploited to plunge him and his followers into an abyss of ignominy, if not criminal proceedings and imprisonment.

More Like Otpor

Image on the right: Otpor graffiti in Belgrade, 2001. (Wikimedia Commons)

What happened on Jan. 6 was not an insurrection. Anyone wanting to know what an insurrection is should look up the U.S.-sponsored armed uprising that overthrew duly elected Chilean President Salvador Allende on Sept. 11, 1973. The Capitol disturbance was more like what happened when U.S.-trained “Otpor” militants broke into the Serbian parliament in the midst of that country’s 2000 presidential election and set fire to ballot boxes.

Or check out a particularly pertinent insurrection when truly violent demonstrators took over the Ukrainian Parliament in 2014 and overthrew the government, an event hailed by then U.S. Vice President Joe Biden as a great victory for democracy. Then there was the Hillary-endorsed coup in Honduras, the almost successful attempt to overthrow democracy in Bolivia, the U.S.-backed Guaido farce in Venezuela, etc., etc., etc.

No, an insurrection is not when a large crowd of people who feel their candidate has been cheated vent their indignation by managing to break into “their” parliament with no purpose in mind. Most of the intruders milled about taking selfies with no clear idea what to do next. By world standards, the “violence” on Jan. 6 was very mild indeed, the only gun violence being the fatal shooting of an unarmed Trump enthusiast, Ashli Babbitt, who could easily have been pushed back from her adventurous attempt to climb over a barricade.

The intrusion was so far from carrying out a pro-Trump plan that it had the opposite effect. The immediate political result of the eruption of the undisciplined crowd was to prevent Republican Senators who were so inclined from presenting their arguments against the legitimacy of the November vote. If anything, the action worked in the favor of President-elect Biden.

One might think that in his moment of victory, a true statesman would demonstrate the qualities it takes to lead a nation by offering to bring all people together as fellow Americans. He did quite the opposite.

The very next day after the Capitol happening, in his small fiscal haven home state of Delaware, Biden raged against his opponents as a terrorist mob, no less.

They weren’t protestors,” he proclaimed. “Don’t dare call them protesters. They were a riotous mob. Insurrectionists. Domestic terrorists. It’s that basic. It’s that simple.”

Trump, said Biden, “has unleashed an all-out assault on our institutions of democracy from the outset, and yesterday was but the culmination of that unrelenting attack.” Trump had poisoned the political environment by using “language that autocrats and dictators use all over the world to hold on to power.”

Biden’s own language certainly sounded less like a magnanimous winner uniting his people than like that used by autocrats and dictators to hold onto power. Trump was trying to “deny the will of the American people,” he said, much as Trump said of him. The whole problem was that “the will of the American people” was far from unanimous.

The Authoritarian Center

So even before his inauguration, President-elect Biden has given us a bitter taste of days ahead. There is to be no sacred unity, but deepened division between The Good (woke liberals), the Bad (Russians and other enemies of Our Democracy) and the Ugly Americans, to be labeled Domestic Terrorists, White Supremacists and fascists.

The authoritarian center, ranging from opportunistic Republicans to The Squad, can rally around the necessary purge of Domestic Terrorists, silencing their communications and getting them properly fired from their jobs.

The Establishment has long been determined to crush Trump. But there is talk of “purging” all his followers as well. Biden is already speaking like a War President, calling for measures to combat the internal enemy such as accompany major wars.

The oligarchic nature of the American War Party is revealed by the haste with which privately owned social media enterprises silence dissent – even the still acting President of the United States. Indeed, who really rules the United States? Is the president only an agent of economic powers whose role is to serve their interests? And the trouble with Trump is that he had not been picked for the job.

Trump managed to appeal to millions of discontented Americans without offering any coherent practical program to replace the War Party with policies capable of transforming the nation into a haven of peace and prosperity. His confusion mirrored the ideological confusion of a population scandalously undereducated in history and political ideas. The illusion that Trump was the leader dissident Americans needed cost Ashli Babbit her life and led thousands of Trump voters into what amounts to a trap. Trump himself was led into the trap.

A completely different approach to politics is needed to restore democracy to America. All appeals to identities and ideologies can only deepen the confusion and divisions, because they prevent people from understanding each other.

The Biden administration appears intent on strengthening such confusion and divisions precisely by recourse to identities and ideologies. I firmly believe that only a scrupulously rational, open-minded, factual and pragmatic approach to clearly defined practical problems could bring peace to the United States, a peace that could favor peace in the world.

From outside the melee, it is easy to define the serious issues that should dominate political debate in the United States. But instead of that, we hear a torrential exchange of insults. The establishment elite cannot stoop to exchange viewpoints with populists denounced as deplorable, racist, misogynist, white supremacist, fascist and now even “terrorist.”

The populists’ unfocused denunciation of the elite describes Wall Street Democrats as “socialists” and veers off into accusations of genocidal vaccination campaigns, occult pedophile rites and Satanism. Instead of anything resembling a clear political division, America is increasingly split by blind, burning mutual hatred.

What American political life needs is not more censorship, but the self-censorship of reason. That is very far away.

*

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.

Diana Johnstone lives in Paris.  Her latest book is Circle in the Darkness: Memoirs of a World Watcher and is also the author of Fools’ Crusade: Yugoslavia, NATO, and Western Delusions. Her lates book is Queen of Chaos: the Misadventures of Hillary Clinton. The memoirs of Diana Johnstone’s father Paul H. Johnstone, From MAD to Madness, was published by Clarity Press, with her commentary. She can be reached at [email protected]

Diana Johnstone is a Research Associate of the Centre for Research on Globalization.

Featured image: Storming of the US Capitol on 6 January 2021 (TapTheForwardAssist/Wikimedia Commons)

全球研究文章现已提供中文

January 22nd, 2021 by Global Research News

亲爱的读者,我们很高兴地宣布,我们最近向Global Research推出了翻译插件。

“翻译网站”下拉菜单位于网站的顶部横幅中,可让您从27种不同的语言中进行选择,

单击一下按钮即可将整个网站翻译成其他语言。我们邀请您对其进行测试,请随时将您可能需要的任何反馈发送至[email protected]

  • Posted in English, 中文
  • Comments Off on 全球研究文章现已提供中文
القراء الأعزاء ، يسعدنا أن نعلن أننا قدمنا ​​مؤخرًا مكونًا إضافيًا للترجمة إلى Global Research. تقع القائمة المنسدلة "ترجمة موقع الويب" في الجزء العلوي من موقع الويب ، وتتيح لك الاختيار من بين 27 لغة مختلفة يمكن ترجمة الموقع الإلكتروني بالكامل إليها بنقرة زر واحدة. ندعوك لاختباره ولا تتردد في إرسال أي ملاحظات قد تضطر إلى ذلك إلى [email protected]
  • Posted in Arabic, English
  • Comments Off on مقالات البحث العالمية متاحة الآن باللغة العربية

Selected Articles: President Joe Biden’s “Dark Winter”

January 21st, 2021 by Global Research News

President Joe Biden’s “Dark Winter”: Code Name for a Scenario in Which a Biological Weapon Was Used Against the American Populace

By Michael Snyder, January 21 2021

First published in November 2020. “Dark Winter” was mentioned in the course of the election campaign.  According to Michael Snyder in an incisive and carefully researched article “Joe Biden specifically warned us about a “dark winter” during the final presidential debate in October… that the U.S. was “about to go into a dark winter.”

“Q Anon” May Have Been an FBI Psyop

By Swiss Policy Research, January 21 2021

Given the recent revelations by British investigator David J. Blake – who for the first time was able to conclusively show, at the technical level, that the “Russian hacking” operation was a cyber psyop run by the FBI and FBI cyber security contractor CrowdStrike – the Reuters report may in fact indicate that “Q Anon” was neither a hoax nor “Russian”, but another FBI psychological cyber operation.

Fauci Now Says COVID-19 Vaccine May Become Mandatory

By Dr. Joseph Mercola, January 21 2021

Will the COVID-19 vaccine become mandatory? That’s a question many are asking these days and, by the looks of it, the answer may well be yes — although as I’ll explain later, I suspect the harms of the vaccine will become so apparent that it’ll kill such efforts before they become widespread.

Barrage of New Countries and Airlines to Adopt Vaccine Passports

By Steve Watson, January 21 2021

New York Times admits schemes could lead to “a dystopic system that would limit the rights of people who have been careful to avoid infection and are unable or unwilling to be vaccinated”

Video: “The New Normal” Documentary

By happen.network, January 21 2021

We bring to the attention of GR readers this outstanding documentary entitled the New Normal which investigates the corona crisis, as well as it’s aftermath. “The Fourth Industrial Revolution” under the World Economic Forum’s ” Great Reset has been put forth. What are the consequences for the World’s 7.8 billion people.

Vaccine Injury Reporting Systems ‘Utterly Inadequate,’ Independent Researchers Say

By Children’s Health Defense, January 21 2021

New peer-reviewed study of adverse events following MMRV vaccines highlights the urgent need for independent research on vaccine safety and the importance of informed consent and vaccine choice.

The COVID-19 RT-PCR Test: How to Mislead All Humanity. Using a “Test” To Lock Down Society

By Dr. Pascal Sacré, January 21 2021

The misuse of the RT-PCR technique is used as an intentional strategy by some governments, supported by scientific safety councils and by the dominant media, to justify the violation of a large number of constitutional rights, the destruction of the economy with the bankruptcy of entire active sectors of society.

The 2020 Worldwide Corona Crisis: Destroying Civil Society, Engineered Economic Depression, Global Coup d’État and the “Great Reset”

By Prof Michel Chossudovsky, January 21 2021

We are at the crossroads of one of the most serious crises in modern history. We are living history, yet our understanding of the flow of events since January 2020 has been blurred. Worldwide, people have been misled both by their governments and the media.
.

That $2.6 Trillion Stimulus Was One Heck of a Holiday Bonus to Defense Contractors

By Ross Marchand, January 21 2021

America’s debt has more than doubled over the past ten years, skyrocketing from $13 trillion to more than $27 trillion over just two presidential administrations. And, despite successive presidents’ promises to “wind down” conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan, the defense budget has only gone in one direction— up.

Washington’s 40-year North Korea Policy: Success or Failure?

By Prof. Joseph H. Chung, January 21 2021

Washington’s 40-year offensive policy of North Korean regime change has gone nowhere. Bill Clinton created a chance of peace with North Korea in 1994 and he blew it. George W. Bush accepted the 2005 agreement for peace, then, he threw it away. Donald Trump had the golden chance for peace at 2018 Hanoi Summit, but he lost the chance. Barack Obama has made North Korea a Nuclear State.

UK Mega Meddling – UK Sets Up Media Influencing Project in Venezuela Amid Secretive £750,000 ‘Democracy Promotion’ Programme

By Matt Kennard and John McEvoy, January 21 2021

The UK government has established a journalism project to ‘influence’ Venezuela’s ‘media agenda’ while a Foreign Office-funded foundation is spending £750,000 on a secretive ‘democracy-promotion’ programme in the country, as Britain appears to deepen efforts to remove the Maduro government.

How to Buy Politicians: Corruption and Lobbying

By Rod Driver, January 21 2021

The term corruption conjures up images of brown envelopes stuffed full of used notes being passed furtively under a table as a bribe. However, this is just one type of corruption. In Britain, Europe and the US, the corruption that really matters is built into the system, in the forms of donations, favours and influence.

Farmers’ Protests Reflect Existential Crisis of Indian Agriculture

By Colin Todhunter, January 21 2021

With over 800 million people, rural India is arguably the most interesting and complex place on the planet but is plagued by farmer suicides, child malnourishment, growing unemployment, increased informalisation, indebtedness and an overall collapse of agriculture.

  • Posted in NO READ MORE LINK
  • Comments Off on Selected Articles: President Joe Biden’s “Dark Winter”

Global Research Editor’s Note

This article was published on November 29, 2020.

“Dark Winter” was mentioned by Joe Biden in the course of the election campaign. 

 According to Michael Snyder in this incisive and carefully researched article “Joe Biden specifically warned us about a “dark winter” during the final presidential debate in October that the U.S. was “about to go into a dark winter.”

Biden stated in the immediate wake of the November elections: “There is a need for bold action to fight this pandemic…”, “We’re still facing a very dark winter.”

Will this “Very Dark Winter” mentioned incessantly by Joe Biden during the election campaign be addressed in the course of the first 2-3 months of the Biden-Harris administration? 

On the day preceding his inauguration, Biden intimated that “he would take office amid a “dark winter,” and the outlook is only getting bleaker”. Does this not suggest a political scenario (coupled with a renewed fear campaign) of an epidemic “spiralling out of control”. 

In his acceptance speech, Biden referred to a “winter of peril and possibility”, intimating that the Virus (rather than government policy makers) should be held responsible for mass poverty, unemployment and bankruptcy.

“A once-in-a-century virus silently stalks the country”.

“It’s taken as many lives in one year as America lost in all of World War Two. Millions of jobs have been lost. Hundreds of thousands of businesses closed.”

And immediately upon assuming office, the Biden White House announced drastic Covid policy measures including a “100 Days Masking Challenge” “to reduce the spread of the virus”.

An executive order created “a COVID-19 response coordinator, who will be tasked with coordinating the government’s response to the pandemic, including the vaccine rollout, and who will report directly to Biden.”

Michel Chossudovsky, GR Editor, January 21, 2021

***

Could it be possible that the phrase “dark winter”  has some sort of deeper meaning that most of us are not meant to understand?  We have heard that phrase over and over again in recent weeks, and usually it has been used in discussions regarding the current state of the COVID-19 pandemic. 

But it also turns out that “Dark Winter” was also a code name for a high level simulation that was conducted back in 2001.  That simulation envisioned a scenario in which a widespread smallpox attack was unleashed inside the United States.  As you will see below, the simulation was “designed to spiral out of control”, and the hypothetical consequences were absolutely disastrous.

The reason why this is a concern is because so many of these “simulations” and “exercises” end up mirroring real life events that happen at a later date.

For example, most of you have probably heard about Event 201 by now.  On October 18th, 2019 a group of prominent individuals gathered in New York City to simulate what would happen during a worldwide coronavirus pandemic

Event 201 simulates an outbreak of a novel zoonotic coronavirus transmitted from bats to pigs to people that eventually becomes efficiently transmissible from person to person, leading to a severe pandemic. The pathogen and the disease it causes are modeled largely on SARS, but it is more transmissible in the community setting by people with mild symptoms.

Of course COVID-19 started spreading in China just a few weeks later.

We have seen this same pattern happen so many times, and now we are being told over and over again that a “dark winter” is ahead.

For example, Joe Biden specifically warned us about a “dark winter” during the final presidential debate in October

Joe Biden warned at Thursday night’s presidential debate that the U.S. was “about to go into a dark winter,” echoing the concerns of public health experts who caution about increased daily Covid-19 case counts converging with the annual flu season.

“We’re about to go into a dark winter. A dark winter,” Biden said. “And he has no clear plan, and there’s no prospect that there’s going to be a vaccine available for the majority of the American people before the middle of next year.”

It is interesting to note that he repeated the phrase twice.

It is almost as if he was determined to make sure that he said it correctly.

And then he started using the phrase over and over again on the campaign trail and he kept using it even after the voting was over.

For example, here is an instance where he used the phrase on the Monday after the election

Joe Biden on Monday warned that a “very dark winter” is approaching as the U.S. coronavirus case count nears 10 million.

“There is a need for bold action to fight this pandemic,” Biden said in Delaware. “We’re still facing a very dark winter.”

I never thought too much about his use of that phrase, but could it be possible that it is actually some sort of a code word or signal?

We do know that it was a code word for a high level exercise that was held in 2001.  The following comes from Wikipedia

Operation Dark Winter was the code name for a senior-level bio-terrorist attack simulation conducted on June 22–23, 2001. It was designed to carry out a mock version of a covert and widespread smallpox attack on the United States. Tara O’Toole and Thomas Inglesby of the Johns Hopkins Center for Civilian Biodefense Strategies (CCBS) / Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS), and Randy Larsen and Mark DeMier of Analytic Services were the principal designers, authors, and controllers of the Dark Winter project.

It is interesting to note that smallpox is a highly infectious disease that involves sores appearing on the skin.

For those that have read my latest book, you already understand why that detail is so important to me.

And as I already mentioned above, this exercise was specifically designed “to spiral out of control”

Dark Winter’s simulated scenario involved an initial localized smallpox attack on Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, with additional smallpox attack cases in Georgia and Pennsylvania. The simulation was then designed to spiral out of control. This would create a contingency in which the National Security Council struggles to determine both the origin of the attack as well as deal with containing the spreading virus. By not being able to keep pace with the disease’s rate of spread, a new catastrophic contingency emerges in which massive civilian casualties would overwhelm America’s emergency response capabilities.

Could it be possible that Biden and others are using the phrase “dark winter” to signal that something is about to spiral out of control?

I don’t know.  I am just asking the question.

In Operation Dark Winter, the spread of smallpox also resulted in a “massive loss of civilian life”

The disastrous contingencies that would result in the massive loss of civilian life were used to exploit the weaknesses of the U.S. health care infrastructure and its inability to handle such a threat. The contingencies were also meant to address the widespread panic that would emerge and which would result in mass social breakdown and mob violence. Exploits would also include the many difficulties that the media would face when providing American citizens with the necessary information regarding safety procedures. Discussing the outcome of Dark Winter, Bryan Walsh noted “The timing–just a few months before the 9/11 attack–was eerily prescient, as if the organizers had foreseen how the threat of terrorism, including bioterrorism, would come to consume the U.S. government and public in the years to come.”

So let me try to summarize what we have learned.

Operation Dark Winter envisioned a scenario in which a highly infectious disease that causes sores on the skin spirals out of control and causes a “massive loss of civilian life”.

And suddenly Joe Biden and other elitists have begun repeating this phrase over and over again as we head into 2021.

Be sure to bookmark this page so that you can refer back to it later.

Reality is often stranger than fiction, and the table has been set for some really, really strange things to happen.

*

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.

Michael Snyder’s brand new book entitled “Lost Prophecies Of The Future Of America” is now available on Amazon.com.  In addition to his new book, he has written four others that are available on Amazon.com including The Beginning Of The EndGet Prepared Now, and Living A Life That Really Matters. He has published thousands of articles on The Economic Collapse BlogEnd Of The American Dream and The Most Important News which are republished on dozens of other prominent websites all over the globe.

Featured image is from TheFreeThoughtProject

Post-9/11, war on dissent in the US raged.

In 2010, the ACLU said “freedom is under fire in the US.”

“There is a pall over our fire. (There are) attempts to squelch dissent.”

“A chilling message has gone out across America: Dissent if you must, but proceed at your own risk.”

Post-9/11, (AG John Ashcroft) “used his bully pulpit to shut down dissent and debate.”

It’s ongoing in Washington. Legitimate protesters are considered enemies of the state.

Divergence from the official narrative is at risk of being criminalized.

During Obama/Biden’s tenure, the Center for Constitutional Rights said the following:

“The growing threat to the right to dissent has been demonstrated in the US government’s efforts to silence speech, and criminalize and target peaceful movements,”

adding:

“These efforts are becoming more aggressive, emboldened further by the Supreme Court’s increasingly conservative decisions, for instance regarding material support in the form of humanitarian aid to so-called terrorist organizations.”

Diverging from the official narrative increasingly is considered a threat to national security.

Speech, media and academic freedoms are threatened — censorship the new abnormal.

Supreme Court Justice William Brennan long ago stressed:

“(I)f there is a bedrock principle underlying the First Amendment, it is that government may not prohibit the expression of an idea simply because society finds the idea offensive or disagreeable.”

Justice Thurgood Marshall once said: “(A)bove all else, the First Amendment means that government has no power to restrict expression because of its message, its ideas, its subject matter, or its content.”

Separately he said:

“If the First Amendment means anything, it means that a State has no business telling a man, sitting alone in his own house, what books he may read or what films he may watch. Our whole constitutional heritage rebels at the thought of giving government the power to control men’s minds.”

In 2017/18/and 19 congressional sessions, the Domestic Terrorism Prevention Act was introduced but not passed by both houses of Congress.

Ahead of Wednesday’s transition of power in Washington — Biden/Harris to replace Trump — Dem Senator Richard Durbin said he’ll reintroduce the Domestic Terrorism Prevention Act.

Durbin is using the January 6 anti-Trump Capitol Hill false flag as a pretext to more greatly assault free expression and other freedoms in the US than already.

“After the attack on the Capitol, I hope that Congress can finally come together and do something to address (the) threat” of domestic terrorism, he said.

Notably since the 9/11 mother of all false flags, invented domestic terrorism has been used as a pretext for waging war on a free and open society — totalitarianism replacing it.

According to Durbin, legislation he’ll introduce calls for establishing government offices at the DOJ, FBI and DHS — on the phony pretext of preventing future incidents like what happened on January 6.

“It would require these offices to regularly assess the domestic terrorism threat,” he said.

If enacted into law, it’ll be another nail in the coffin of disappearing freedoms in the US — by targeting  for elimination what free and open societies hold dear.

When dissent is redefined as terrorism, censorship becomes the new abnormal, along with totalitarian rule.

Biden falsely blamed pro-Trump elements for what happened on January 6, calling them domestic terrorists and insurrectionists — a gross perversion of reality.

What happened on Capitol Hill was all-about slamming Trump for what he had nothing to do with.

It was to push the envelope for denying him a run for a second term in 2024.

It was to permanently smear him for invented reasons, ignoring justifiable ones.

It was to ease Biden/Harris’ transition to power, enabling them and a Dem-controlled Congress to more greatly wage war on fundamental freedoms.

Earlier I called the Capitol Hill incident America’s Reichstag fire. What followed in its wake needs no elaboration.

Will history repeat in similar form? Will what’s inconceivable become reality?

In response to earlier congressional introduction of the Domestic Terrorism Prevention Act, the ACLU said the following:

Enactment of the legislation risks more greatly “undermin(ing) and violat(ing) equal protection, due process, and First Amendment rights.”

It’ll “double down on an already flawed domestic terrorism framework” that’s been used to crack down on invented domestic threats.

“This bill codifies authorities and actions of national security and counterterrorism components of the (DOJ and DHS), authorizing domestic terrorism units or offices to monitor, investigate, and prosecute incidents of (alleged) domestic terrorism” — that’s likely to be invented, not real.

“These kinds of government abuses are not new, and they are ongoing.”

They’ve been around throughout the republic’s history.

Hardening them over time is especially worrisome.

At risk is eliminating free and open expression, along with other fundamental freedoms that are too precious to lose.

Proposed legislation authorizes the  FBI’s Counterterrorism Division to more aggressively investigate alleged domestic terrorism — ignoring agency abuses of civil liberties since established in 1908 under J. Edgar Hoover.

The ACLU stressed that the proposed legislation “would not only entrench a system that lacks meaningful oversight, transparency, and legitimate standards, but also (will) codif(y) a framework that is used to target and discriminate against the very communities Congress (pretends) to protect.”

The measure is a further assault on a free and open society — already threatened by other police state laws.

If enacted into law, it’ll hasten the arrival of tyranny instead of all-out efforts to prevent it.

*

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

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

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

My two Wall Street books are timely reading:

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

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

“Banker Occupation: Waging Financial War on Humanity”

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

Featured image is from Occidental Observer

Video: “The New Normal” Documentary

January 21st, 2021 by happen.network

We are at the crossroads of one of the most serious crises in World history. We are living history, yet our understanding of the sequence of events since January 2020 has been blurred.

Worldwide, people have been misled both by their governments and the media as to the causes and devastating consequences of the Covid-19 “pandemic”.  

We bring to the attention of GR readers this outstanding documentary entitled the New Normal which investigates the corona crisis, as well as it’s aftermath.

A “The Fourth Industrial Revolution” under the World Economic Forum’s ” Great Reset has been put forth. What are the consequences for the World’s 7.8 billion people. 

(M. Ch. GR Editor)

 

Watch the video below.

*

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

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Video: “The New Normal” Documentary

Donald Trump has used his four years as US president to demonstrate his deep commitment to the Zionist state of Israel. He has striven to enable Israel to take control of occupied Palestine with an iron grip, and given it the upper hand in the region. No other US president has given Israel as much as Trump: none dared to recognise Jerusalem as the unified capital of the colonial state; none dared to move the US Embassy to the holy city; none dared to acknowledge Israel’s annexation of the occupied Syrian Golan Heights; none dared to give legitimacy to Israel’s settlements on occupied land; and none dared to accept Israeli annexation, including Benjamin Netanyahu‘s plans to impose sovereignty on the occupied Jordan Valley. For good measure Trump also stopped US donations to the UN Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees (UNRWA) in an effort to annul the whole refugee issue.

Trump’s most recent gift to the Israelis was the so-called Abraham Accords. Under his patronage, the UAE, Bahrain, Sudan and Morocco normalised relations with Israel last year.

His parting gift to the occupation state, however, is the integration of the Israel Defence Forces (IDF) alongside Arab troops within US Central Command (CENCOM), which has a base at Al-Udeid Air Base in Qatar. (image below)

This is something Israel has been waiting and hoping for. From this we can deduce that Gulf reconciliation between Saudi Arabia, the UAE and Bahrain on one side, and Qatar on the other, was achieved on direct orders from the Trump White House.

American Jewish organisations have been pressing Washington to include the IDF in CENTCOM in order to link Israeli national security to America’s, but previous administrations have always refused this, given the sensitivity between the Arab countries and the occupation state.

The latest decision seems a bit academic, however, given that the IDF has had a strong presence at the heart of US military decision-making for a number of years, and the fact that America’s wars in the Middle East, especially in Iraq, have been fought in defence of the occupation state and to maintain its hegemony.

This was actually confirmed after the second Gulf War, when General Norman Schwarzkopf, commander of the US Central Command between 1988 and 1991, proudly told Israeli leaders that he had destroyed the Iraqi army on their behalf in Operation Desert Storm.

The Jewish Institute for National Security of America (JINSA), the members of which include former US and Israeli military leaders, has finally succeeded in pressuring Trump to make this dangerous decision. It will allow the occupation state to officially and effectively participate under the umbrella of CENTCOM in any military operation alongside Arab forces.

Before this move, Israel was within the scope of the US leadership in Europe but not the Middle East, to avoid any problems about coordination between Israel and Arab troops. With the exception of Egypt and Jordan, no Arab countries had peace treaties with Israel. That has all changed.

The Trump administration has thus put the other Arab countries on the spot as they are facing a fait accompli of having to coordinate military activities with Israel. This affects Saudi Arabia and Kuwait in particular, as they already coordinate militarily with the US forces based in their countries which are subject to the authority of CENCOM. Qatar too, of course, which hosts the command structure, under General Frank Mackenzie. With Israel now also under CENCOM, Arab countries will be under more pressure to accept normalisation after the occupation state has basically become a protector of them and their regimes.

The US Central Command is the most powerful military force in the Middle East. It was established in 1983 to enhance American capabilities in confronting the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, and in light of the escalation of the Iran-Iraq war. This imposed US domination over the Middle East. Having achieved its target in that respect, the new target became Islam.

Under the banner of the so-called “war on terror”, sparking a low level third world war, CENTCOM became responsible for managing it, with operations in Iraq, Syria, Afghanistan and the Gulf. It has specific strategic goals set by the Pentagon, as it supervises coordination with the countries that “host” — not that they have much choice — US forces operating from military bases in the Gulf. Strategies drawn up include all Arab armies in the Middle East, as well as Afghanistan and Pakistan, in addition to the security mission against Iran. Adding Israel to these forces makes it an active element in US military operations in the Middle East.

This necessarily means coordination, planning and military cooperation between the occupation army and the Arab armies; they are now arms of the same body, as we will see in any war in the region, with Iran for example; or another crisis in Gaza against which war will be waged under the pretext of fighting “terrorism”. What will the Arab position be in such scenarios if their forces are allied with Israel? Who will they stand with?

This “Arab-Israeli NATO” is supported by the US and I predicted that it would happen in the wake of the Abraham Accords, because political, economic and cultural normalisation falls short unless it is crowned with military normalisation. The latter is the whole point of these normalisation deals, which were pushed through solely to serve the interests of the Zionist entity.

Arab issues are now surrounded completely by America, all within the broader project known as the deal of the century. General Frank MacKenzie can go anywhere in the region without being controlled or monitored, and can collect intelligence about any and all Arab countries. Of course, this will be shared with Israel, which will expose Arab security even more in the next phase of the colonial re-conquest of the Middle East. Indeed, what we call Arab national security may disappear from the political lexicon, becoming “Israel-Arab national security” instead.

“The easing of tensions between Israel and its Arab neighbours subsequent to the Abraham Accords has provided a strategic opportunity for the United States to align key partners against shared threats in the Middle East,” said the Pentagon. According to JINSA, placing Israel within CENCOM was delayed due to the hostility of the Arab countries towards the state. “But the agreements opened the doors to achieve a strategic goal that was not possible [before].”

Indeed, this military normalisation would not have happened had it not been for the deals struck last year which dealt a blow to the notion of Arab unity; there will be catastrophic consequences. Nevertheless, the ordinary people are optimistic that they will be able to overcome this latest disaster that the dictatorial regimes have created. The regimes may be Zionist, but their people are not.

*

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 Amira Abo el-Fetouh is an Egyptian political columnist.

Featured image: US President Donald Trump speaking at an AIPAC conference, Washington DC, 21 March 2016 [Lorie Shaull/Flickr]

Democracy USA? Biden’s Neoliberal “Far Left Wing Agenda”

January 21st, 2021 by Philip A Farruggio

You look at what they call ‘The Industrialized world’ and you can get a feel for how they run their democracies. Canada, France, New Zealand, Australia, South Korea and Scotland, to name a few, all have at least FIVE viable political parties. Germany and Italy have SIX. The UK has SEVEN. Japan and Sweden have EIGHT. Norway has NINE. Turkey has TEN. Switzerland has TWELVE. The Netherlands and Poland have THIRTEEN. Spain tops the list with FOURTEEN. Now, we know that in most of those nations there are one or two, perhaps three or four prominent parties. Yet, in many instances coalitions are needed to run their governments. Not so in the good ole USA.

Historically, many times in our nation there have been popular third party movements. What happened in most cases? Duh, the empire, through its powerful leverage using this Two Party system, has either Co-opted third parties by overwhelming them by outspending them severely, or using the controlled media to disenfranchise them in the eyes of the ‘Sucker Public’.

Recently, we have seen how the Sanders’ Democratic Socialist campaign was vilified by both the Republican and Democratic run news stations as being ‘Far Left wing radicals and Marxists’. If you wish to scare the ‘Sucker Public’ just label someone as a Marxist AKA Communist. This has been successfully done for as long as this writer can remember.

What the movers and shakers of this empire want is a Compliant Voter/Citizen.

The Chinese restaurant joke still resonates well: Just choose from Column A or Column B… either way you LOSE… with no ice cream dessert!

Thus, the Two Party/One Party scam has allowed our republic to move more and more to the Right politically. If Richard Nixon was a politician today he would be labeled as a ‘Moderate Republican’.. or perhaps even a Democrat!

They labeled Bill and Hillary Clinton as Marxists, ditto with Obama, and now his chosen successor Biden. Today, Senator Lindsay Graham warned of the Biden administration coming in as having a ‘Far Left wing agenda’. Did Graham see how many Neo Liberal appointees Biden has named?

The ‘War Hawks’ will fill the halls of our Capitol!

We won’t see any Medicare for All under Biden.

We won’t see large corporate America being taxed along with the super rich.

No Universal Basic Income to save hundreds of millions of us.

Just a few band-aids to stop some of the bleeding.

Why, he won’t even institute Sanders’ idea of a $2000 per person stimulus check (one time only by the way). He plans to deduct the $600 we already got from that total.

If we had a viable multi party system here in the ‘Land of the Free’ perhaps there would be more adjustments. Instead, we stay with this phony Two Party/One Party fantasyland. Sure, they joined together to get rid of the craziness of Trump.

Imagine if there was more than just the Chinese menu, Trump may have never been elected in the first place… or Biden now.

If there was a viable Libertarian Party, along with ditto for a Green Party, or Socialist Party, the obscene military spending (accounting for 50% of our federal taxes) would have never been allowed to surge to such high numbers. Same for those nearly 1000 overseas military bases our taxes throw down the rabbit hole.

We would still have major problems inside of this empire. As the Jack Nicholson character said in the film ‘ One Flew over the Cuckoo’s Nest’ after he failed to win a bet by lifting the stone water fountain: “At least I tried. That’s more than I can say for you guys!”

*

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

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

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Democracy USA? Biden’s Neoliberal “Far Left Wing Agenda”

On the eve of incoming US President Joe Biden’s inauguration, as if in celebration of his “success”, quite a few things coincided in the Middle East, most of them to America’s detriment.

These include: the anniversary of the killing of Iranian Brigadier General Qassem Soleimani, the new killing of top nuclear scientist Mohsen Fakhrizadeh, and a ramping up of Israeli airstrikes on Iranian targets in Syria.

As a result, the American Forces in the Middle East appear to be fresh out of luck in the first weeks of 2021. A series of misadventures has befallen US soldiers in Syria and Iraq.

On January 19th, a US AH-64 Apache attack helicopter allegedly crashed in the northeastern Syrian province of Hasakah.

It reportedly crashed inside the US base at the al-Jabsa oil field near the city of al-Shaddadi. There is no information on any casualties as yet, but there were likewise initially none when Iranian ballistic missiles hit the US al-Asad base in Iraq back in January 2020.

On January 9th, disaster had struck in the central and southern regions of Iraq as 3 US convoys were reportedly hit by IEDs. These attacks were an unsurprising adverse effect of the standoff between the US-led coalition and the Iranian-aligned Axis of Resistance in the Middle East.

Days later a series of explosions hit positions of the Popular Mobilization Units (PMU) southwest of Baghdad. The PMU are aligned with Iran, a major force in the fight against terrorism and a part of the Iraqi Armed Forces.

This attack was attributed to Israel and the United States, but Washington vehemently denied playing any part in it.

The U.S. encountered all of these misfortunes while Iran was carrying out a brand-new military drill, by the name of Eqtedar 99, which is taking place on the southeastern Makran coast, just after two American B-52 strategic bombers flew close to the region.

In an interesting spin, Tehran claimed this close fly-by as a sign that Washington is fearful of Iran’s “defensive might”. The bombers, which are capable of dropping nuclear gravity bombs, were deemed “void of operational value” by Chairman of the Chiefs of Staff of the Iranian Armed Forces Major General Mohammad Baqeri.

Even on Donald Trump’s last day in office, on January 19th, the Middle East is still on the brink of a devastating escalation with every side attempting to forward its agenda and damage that of its adversaries.

*

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

Sweden’s growing ties with NATO over the past half-dozen years make many observers wonder whether the Nordic country will soon join the transatlantic bloc, but it actually doesn’t even have to do so formally since it’s already a de facto member considering its close security cooperation with it, which means that Sweden is still a security threat to Russia despite not crossing Moscow’s red line of officially joining NATO.

***

Sweden’s been in popping up more frequently in international news over the past month after lawmakers approved the largest defense spending increase in 70 years on 15 December which will boost expenditures by 40% by 2025. The Hill opined that “Russia Prompts Sweden To Revive Its Defense”, while Bloomberg later reassured everyone that “Sweden’s NATO Skepticism Endures While Russia Flexes Muscles”, pointing to the fact that Swedes are pretty much evenly split between joining NATO, declining to do so, and remaining undecided. Importantly, Sweden adopted the so-called “NATO option” of neighboring Finland for the first time ever where it’ll ambiguously not rule out NATO membership sometime in the future. In possible connection with that, Sputnik reported that “’When The War Comes’ Miniseries By Swedish Armed Forces Features Russia As A Threat”, hinting that the country’s permanent military, intelligence, and diplomatic bureaucracies (“deep state”) are working hand-in-glove with the media to promote future NATO membership on an anti-Russian basis.

Nevertheless, Sweden doesn’t need to join NATO to be a security threat to Russia. As The Hill noted in its earlier cited op-ed, “Sweden and Finland not only have increasingly integrated their own forces but, as members of the European Union, have committed themselves to the defense of their EU partners, which include the three small Baltic states that border Russia. In addition, in 2014, both countries signed cooperative arrangements with NATO, permitting NATO exercises on their soil. Both participated in NATO’s 2015 Arctic Challenge exercise. Moreover, Finland and Sweden signed new agreements with the U.S. Department of Defense, which call for much closer American cooperation with each country bilaterally and, as of 2018, with both countries in a trilateral arrangement.” It also bears mentioning that Sweden pushed the factually false narrative about a so-called Russian phantom sub hunt back in 2015 that I analyzed at the time as providing the pretext for strengthening subregional military integration into what I described as the “Viking Bloc”.

This concept refers to Sweden’s leading role in organizing the anti-Russian military capabilities of “Greater Scandinavia” — itself, Norway, and Denmark (“Traditional Scandinavia”) as well as their historical-cultural partners in Finland, the Baltics, and Iceland. All but Sweden and Finland are NATO members, but the latter two’s close security cooperation with the bloc as was earlier explained makes them de facto members. As such, just like Ukraine which is also a member of “Shadow NATO” (my term for the alliance’s informal members), Sweden already represents a security threat to Russia even though it hasn’t yet and might not ever cross Moscow’s red line of formal membership. The reason for this assessment is that the bloc is clearly calling the shots when it comes to Sweden’s security strategy, relying on it to flex its historic leadership muscles to expand its “sphere of influence” throughout “Greater Scandinavia” on the pretext of helping its historical-cultural partners “defend themselves from Russian aggression”.

This is part of the larger strategy pushed by the US since 2015 which I analyzed in a January 2015 piece for Sputnik titled “Lead From Behind: How Unipolarity Is Adapting To Multipolarity”. The gist is that America realized that it’s much more financially, militarily, and organizationally efficient to delegate leadership responsibilities to its top regional allies so that they can take the lead on its behalf in pursing shared security objectives such as “containing” Russia. In the specific context of the present article, this relates to Sweden’s “Lead From Behind” role in assembling the “Viking Bloc” across “Greater Scandinavia”. Readers should be reminded that that Swedish “deep state” never forgot the Russian Empire’s victory over them in the early 18th century Great Northern War which directly led to their country’s demise as one of Europe’s Great Powers. Just like with the nearby Poles, historical memory pervades throughout all levels of its “deep state” and endured for centuries as Sweden waited for the right moment to finally take its revenge against Russia.

Sweden is striving to support NATO’s anti-Russian “containment” policy in Northern Europe despite not being a formal member of the bloc, hoping that it’ll be rewarded with American approval for its own “sphere of influence” over the lands of “Greater Scandinavia” in which its “deep state” believes that they have the historical right to exercise a form of hegemony. Truth be told, they’ll likely succeed for the most part since the smaller surrounding countries (especially the Baltics) have jumped on the anti-Russian bandwagon and are eager to receive as much military support from America’s new de facto Swedish ally as possible. They seem to hope that submitting themselves to this emerging regional order will work out to their national benefit in some way or another, perhaps economically through a “deluge” of Swedish investments after having accepted that their countries are unable to survive as truly independent states. If this growing “sphere of influence” remained economic and cultural, then it wouldn’t be a threat to Russia, but the problem is its dark military dimension.

*

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

This article was originally published on OneWorld.

Andrew Korybko is an American Moscow-based political analyst specializing in the relationship between the US strategy in Afro-Eurasia, China’s One Belt One Road global vision of New Silk Road connectivity, and Hybrid Warfare. He is a frequent contributor to Global Research.

Featured image is from OneWorld

America’s debt has more than doubled over the past ten years, skyrocketing from $13 trillion to more than $27 trillion over just two presidential administrations. And, despite successive presidents’ promises to “wind down” conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan, the defense budget has only gone in one direction— up. 

The dysfunctional budgeting process was on full display during the last week of 2020 when lawmakers crammed through a $740 billion defense funding deal as part of a massive $2.3 trillion spending bonanza. This included $696 billion for the Pentagon, and the rest for non-DoD spending like the nation’s nuclear weapons program under the Department of Energy. Members of Congress didn’t have all that much time to speed read through the bill’s more than 5,500 pages, allowing special interests to insert massive giveaways to the military-industrial complex. One government watchdog called the overstuffed stimulus package “a sweetheart deal for defense contractors.”

Washington needs to ramp up accountability, not goodies to contractors with clout.

Of the many egregious items baked into the combined COVID-omnibus bill, the handouts to the over-budget F-35 fighter jet program take the cake. The spending agreement greenlights 96 new F-35s, or 17 more than the Trump administration requested. The cost of these expensive new toys is $9.6 billion, enough money to pay for the grocery bills of America’s poorest households for a month. These expenditures might be understandable if the F-35 was capable of protecting America at an affordable price-tag. But the fighter jet has proven to be a high-speed disaster for taxpayers.

The Drive contributor Thomas Newdick notes,

“All three F-35 variants have in the past been plagued by a litany of deficiencies, including performance limitations, difficulties operating in extreme weather, dangerous cockpit pressure incidents, faults in the helmet-mounted display, serious safety concerns in the event of a blown tire, and more.”

And due in part to “technical difficulties,” operational testing of the F-35 in the Joint Simulation Environment has been delayed and won’t commence until mid-to-late 2021. But even without proper testing and evaluation against simulated threats, lawmakers are insisting on buying more F-35s at an outrageously-high cost.

The bill also showers $23.3 billion on the Navy for 10 ships, including funding of an extra Virginia-class submarine for the low, low price of $2.3 billion. At first glance, this seems like an eminently reasonable request. Unlike the F-35 program, Virginia-class attack submarines have a reliable track-record of ahead-of-schedule production, without significant cost overruns. It’s not the program itself that’s the problem, but rather the timing. The Navy is also constructing the first Columbia-class ballistic missile submarine this year, leading to concerns that building an additional Virginia-class ship would strain the Navy’s industrial bandwidth.

Even though the chief rationale for the extra Virginia-class submarine is countering Chinese naval might, the U.S. is actually on stronger footing than some defense hawks suggest, at least for now. According to some observers, Chinese submarines tend to be smaller and shorter-ranged than their U.S. counterparts. We should not discount our allies’ efforts to supplement deterrence in the region, either. Taiwan’s submarine program today sends a strong message that we are not alone and should be thinking about opportunities for sharing the burdens of balancing power in the western Pacific.

Additionally, Defense News contributor Joe Gould notes that the omnibus bill funds “the Army long-range hypersonic weapon at $861 million, or $60 million above the request; provides $88.1 million above the request for systems integration and testing in support of the Army’s mid-range missile development; and provides $161 million to support the Army’s enduring Indirect Fire Protection Capability program.” These programs may well be worthwhile, but it’s unclear why lawmakers continue to insist on putting in funding above initial requests. The military, after all, would surely have no issue requesting additional funding if they felt they needed it.

Perhaps the most egregious area of spending, however, is the $77 billion in Overseas Contingency Operations expenditures. OCO is a black hole of waste devoid of any accountability, yet lawmakers continue to fund these open-ended operations. In theory, this spending category is supposed to go to the fight against Middle East militants and the war in Afghanistan. But watchdogs realized years ago that OCO has become a yearly “slush fund” to pay for non-war related items. Back in 2017, the Government Accountability Office found that “the amount of OCO appropriations DoD considers as non-war increased from about four percent in fiscal year 2010 to 12 percent in fiscal year 2015.”

Admiral Mike Mullen, former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said it best when he proclaimed the national debt to be the number one threat to national security. That doesn’t mean not having a Pentagon or national defense, but it does mean getting serious about how such spending is prioritized.

By scrapping the F-35 program and committing to a more sustainable pace of submarine production, the U.S. can ensure an effective national defense without breaking the bank. The entire world — including U.S. taxpayers — is watching.

*

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: F-35 Lightning II demonstration team members sprint to their positions during the ground show at the Defenders of Liberty Air & Space Show at Barksdale Air Force Base, La., May 17, 2019. (U.S. Air Force photo by Senior Airman Alexander Cook)

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on That $2.6 Trillion Stimulus Was One Heck of a Holiday Bonus to Defense Contractors

“Q Anon” May Have Been an FBI Psyop

January 21st, 2021 by Swiss Policy Research

A recent Reuters investigation may indicate that “Q Anon” was in fact an FBI cyber psyop.

The “Q Anon” phenomenon has generally been regarded as a hoax or prank, originated by online message board users in late October 2017, that got out of control. The “Q Anon” persona was preceded by similar personae, including “FBI anon”, “CIA anon” and “White House insider anon”.

“Q Anon” originally called himself “Q clearance patriot”. Former CIA counterintelligence operative Kevin M. Shipp explained that an actual “Q clearance leaker” – i.e. someone possessing the highest security clearance at the US Department of Energy, required to access top secret nuclear weapons information – would have been identified and removed within days.

However, in November 2020 Reuters reported that the very first social media accounts to promote the “Q Anon” persona were seemingly “linked to Russia” and even “backed by the Russian government”. For instance, the very first Twitter account to ever use the term “Q Anon” on social media had previously “retweeted obscure Russian officials”, according to Reuters.

These alleged “Russian social media accounts”, posing as accounts of American patriots, were in contact with politically conservative US YouTubers and drew their attention to the “Q Anon” persona. This is how, in early November 2017, the “Q Anon” movement took off.

But given the recent revelations by British investigator David J. Blake – who for the first time was able to conclusively show, at the technical level, that the “Russian hacking” operation was a cyber psyop run by the FBI and FBI cyber security contractor CrowdStrike – the Reuters report may in fact indicate that “Q Anon” was neither a hoax nor “Russian”, but another FBI psychological cyber operation.

Of note, US cyber intelligence firm New Knowledge, founded by former NSA and DARPA employees and tasked by the US Senate Intelligence Committee, in 2018, with investigating alleged “Russian social media operations” relating to the 2016 US presidential election, was itself caught faking a “Russian social media botnet” in order to influence the 2017 Alabama senate race.

If the “Q Anon” persona – similar to the Guccifer2.0 “Russian hacker” persona played by an FBI cyber security contractor – was indeed an FBI psychological operation, its goal may have been to take control of, discredit and ultimately derail the supporter base of US President Trump. In this case, the “Q Anon” movement may have been a modern version of the original FBI COINTELPRO program.

Postscript

Contrary to some media claims, the person or people behind the “Q Anon” persona have never been identified. Some media speculated that James Watkins, the owner of the 8chan/8kun message board, on which “Q” was posting his messages, might be “Q” or might be linked to “Q”, but Watkins denied this. In September 2020, the owner of QMap, a website aggregating “Q” messages, was identified as a Citigroup employee, but again no actual link to “Q” could be established.

*

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

Featured image is from SPR

Biden’s Inaugural Address: An Exercise in Mass Deception

January 21st, 2021 by Stephen Lendman

Four years ago on January 20, Trump vowed to transfer power from Washington “and give it back to you, the people (sic).”

Saying while privileged Americans prospered, ordinary ones struggled to get by.

“That all changes starting right here and right now because this moment is your moment. It belongs to you (sic),” he said, adding:

“The forgotten men and women of our country will be forgotten no longer (sic).”

“The American carnage stops right here and stops right now…The oath of office I take today is an oath of allegiance to all Americans (sic).”

We know how Trump’s mass deception turned out.

Time and again, political candidates promise one thing, then deliver something entirely difference if elected, notably in the US.

Government of, by, and for all Americans equitably is pure fantasy.

Like most of his predecessors, Trump served privileged interests exclusively at the expense of ordinary people he was indifferent toward.

Will that all change right here, right now under Biden/Harris?

Will the sun henceforth rise in the West and set in the East?

Dissembling is what politicians do. It goes with the territory, especially in the West, the US most of all.

It’s why they can never be trusted. Rare exceptions prove the rule.

Biden built a near-half century political career on a foundation of Big Lies and mass deception.

They’ll surely continue as long as he remains in office.

Believing otherwise is naive and wishful thinking.

What almost never happens in the US surely isn’t what’s coming ahead. Expect the opposite.

Prepare to be betrayed because it’s baked in the cake.

Once a servant of privileged interests and his own exclusively over the general welfare, always one.

Biden is a longstanding “deep state” tool — controlled by higher powers.

That’s what he’s always been all about. The same goes for Harris over a shorter duration.

Otherwise they wouldn’t have been chosen to replace Trump.

They’re reliable, controllable, and vitually certain to make an already bad situation worse on their watch for ordinary people at home and abroad.

That’s the only change I expect ahead — a dark chapter in US history growing darker, dystopia on their watch to deepen.

Harris is president in waiting, a hardline former prosecutor to take over when cognitively impaired Biden can no longer fake it even in sound bites.

He long ago abandoned public addresses, a lookalike double making them for him — including his inaugural address.

Roots of tyranny already exist in the mythical land of the free and home of the brave.

Follow their further sprouting ahead as dark forces controlling Biden/Harris likely snuff out what remains of a free and open society to solidify unchallenged deep state control.

Biden’s tenure began by mandating harmful-to-health face masks that don’t protect in federal buildings and on its lands by executive order.

It “call(s) on governors, public health officials, mayors, business leaders and others to implement masking, physical distancing, and other measures to control Covid-19,” according to the new regime’s seasonal flu (renamed covid) czar Jeff Zients.

Will the above be mandated ahead nationwide — followed perhaps by mandated vaxxing with what risks great harm or worse when taken as directed?

Will the above and mandated vaccine passports for access to public places become part of the new abnormal?

Will dissent against unacceptable Biden/Harris regime policies be criminalized as domestic terrorism?

Will we be cowed into submission to US dark forces for our own good?

Will war on humanity at home and abroad harden under selected, not elected, Biden/Harris — an illegitimate duo now empowered?

What Will Happen to US-Russia Relations?

After attending their inauguration with the capital under unprecedented lockdown and militarization, Russia’s envoy to Washington Anatoly Antonov said the following:

“I would like to believe that a new chapter in the development of the (US) begins today and, of course, that a new chapter in the development of Russian-American relations begins as well,”

Adding, After monitoring Wednesday’s events and public remarks on US television, “I can’t say that we found a lot of positive in the speeches” made by elements of the new Biden administration.

Antonov, other Russian officials, and their counterparts in other nations free from US control know that chances for improved relations between their countries and Washington is virtually nil.

The new adminstration’s geopolitical agenda is sure to be uncompromisingly hardline against all nations unwilling to sacrifice their sovereign rights to a higher power in Washington.

On Tuesday, Russia’s lower house State Duma Speaker Vyacheslav Volodin acknowledged reality in police state America, saying the following:

“Those who participated in unauthorized political actions everywhere were anointed by Washington as fighters for freedom and democracy.”

“When the same thing happen(s) in the (US), (they’re) labelled…domestic terrorists who face 15-20 years in prison.”

“(They’ll) be real political prisoners. Let’s call a spade a spade.”

That’s part of how the US operates at home and abroad — a take no prisoners approach to governing.

Biden/Harris replaced Trump by coup d’etat, likely to enhance swamp rule that’s festered and hardened for decades — the American way’s ugly face.

No government of, by, and for everyone ever existed from inception, no democracy other than a fantasy version wrapped in the American flag to foster the illusion of what doesn’t exist and never did.

The US is run by deep state militarists, corporatists, and other tyrannical elements for their own self-interest at the expense of ordinary people everywhere — to be exploited, not served.

Biden/Harris were chosen to front for the dirty system at a time of imperial USA’s deepening decline en route to history’s dustbin where it belongs.

They’re beholden to dark forces controlling them.

Will martial law be declared ahead on the phony pretext of foreign threats and domestic terrorism to counter?

Will what remains of a free and open society be replaced by full-blown totalitarian rule, enforced by police state harshness?

Make no mistake. Biden/Harris and members of their regime are enemies of ordinary people, hostile to their interests, wanting them exploited, not served.

Along with likely escalated foreign aggression against one or more invented enemies, homeland despotism will likely harden on their watch for our own good we’ll likely be told.

With history in mind in my lifetime since Franklin Roosevelt goaded imperial Japan to attack the US, knew Pearl Harbor was coming but failed to warn its commander to give him the war he wanted, America has been on a downward trajectory toward full-blown despotism.

JFK, RFK and MLK were eliminated for standing in the way of what US dark forces have been pursuing for generations.

Trump was an aberration so had to be denied a second term, brazen fraud the vehicle to elevate Biden/Harris to power.

Big Media-proliferated mind manipulation promotes the official narrative by suppressing hard truths.

Public mind control convinces most people to go along with what harms their health, welfare, safety, and a nation unfit to live  in.

A permanent war on humanity rages at home and abroad, Biden/Harris appointed the latest maestros of misery over ordinary Americans.

Their diabolical mission is hidden behind smiling faces, a facade that’s part of mass deception.

They’ll preside over affairs of state extrajudicially like most of their predecessors.

Wreckage they inherited may be shattered beyond repair before passing the baton to what’s likely to be full-blown tyranny under whoever succeeds them — based on what’s been happening post-9/11, greatly escalated last year.

Russian State Duma Speaker Volodin got it right saying:

A nation “which lectures the whole world about the standards of democracy” denies it to its own people and tolerates it nowhere else.

That’s the agenda Biden/Harris inherited, charged with serving the interests of dark forces controlling them.

Forewarned is forearmed. The only solution is popular revolution.

The alternative is ruler/serf USA ahead.

It’s baked in the cake without all-out resistance to reject what no one should accept.

*

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

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

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

My two Wall Street books are timely reading:

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

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

“Banker Occupation: Waging Financial War on Humanity”

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

Featured image is from The White House Facebook

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Biden’s Inaugural Address: An Exercise in Mass Deception

Washington’s 40-year North Korea Policy: Success or Failure?

January 21st, 2021 by Prof. Joseph H. Chung

Washington’s 40-year offensive policy of North Korean regime change has gone nowhere.

Bill Clinton created a chance of peace with North Korea in 1994 and he blew it.

George W. Bush accepted the 2005 agreement for peace, then, he threw it away.

Donald Trump had the golden chance for peace at 2018 Hanoi Summit, but he lost the chance.

Barack Obama has made North Korea a Nuclear State.

Joe Biden, 46th president of the U.S. has quasi impossible mission of saving America from the murderous corona-virus, the torn economy and, above all, the deeply divided society. The virus will go away and the economy will be eventually recovered. But, the task of unifying the society is something else. The divide of the American society is essentially due to poor management of the 150-year old racial relations and disorderly neo-liberal economic growth and there is no guarantee that the Biden will be able to unify the country. One thing sure is that Biden should give priority to the solution of internal racial problem instead of trying to change regimes of other countries including North Korea.

Biden will eventually have to do something about North Korean problems. It is hoped that he will not spend eight years of “strategic patience” which was the North Korean policy of his former boss, Barack Obama. I presume that Biden’s perception of North Korean problems is based on the views of American media, think tanks, academia and politicians. Their perception of North Korean issues is based on the 70-year old mistrust and hatred toward North Korea. What these views are saying is that the failure of Washington’s North Korea policy is attributable to the dishonesty and unreliability of North Korea. Unfortunately, as long as Biden relies on these views, his North Korea policy will fail just like his predecessors’ policies have failed.

In this paper, I am presenting alterative view which is, I believe, more objective and more useful for the solution of North Koreans problems. I may add that my view is shared by most of the liberal minded North Korean affaires experts in South Korea including former Ministers of Unification of Korea.

Image on the right: President Donald J. Trump and North Korean leader Kim Jong Un, walk together to their one-on-one bilateral meeting, Tuesday, June 12, 2018, at the Capella Hotel in Singapore. (Official White House Photo by Stephanie Chasez)

In this paper, I am asking two questions. What has been the nature of Washington’s North Korea policy for last 40 years? Was it a failure or a success?

The primary objective of Washington’s North Korea policy has been the: regime change and the denuclearization of North Korea. One may add that China containment policy and the sales of military equipment were its objective as well, although they were not officially recognized objectives.

Policy of Regime Change has failed 

The change of North Korean regime has been the core of Washington’s North Korea policy. This policy is based on West’s negative perception – even demonization – of North Korean regime of Juchéism. In the eyes of the media, think tanks and politicians of the West, Juchéism is a dangerous ideology which, if spread, can pollute the Western value of democracy.

Washington’s strategy of regime change is built up on two tactics: total war or/and internal revolt. The total war was planned several times since as early as 1950. The U.S. had an idea of attacking North Korea with nuclear weapon during the Korean War (1950-1953). In 1992, Bill Clinton was going to bomb North Korea. In 1968, after the capture by Pyongyang of the USS Pueblo, a spy ship, Washington was going to attack North Korea. In 2017, Trump was ready to invade North Korea

But, none of these plans was carried out because of the huge human casualties. According to John Bolton, one of the most ardent supporter of the war mentioned that within 30 minute of the war, several millions of citizens of Seoul city will be sacrificed, apart from the deaths of American troops and their families.

The alternative option taken by Washington along with the conservative forces in South Korea was to provoke internal revolts, topple the Juché government and establish a democratic regime.

To provoke the internal revolt against the North Korean government, the U.S. and its allies have used several tactics.

First, the tactic used was the creation of fear so that the people would blame the government for its failure of assuring citizens’ security. This has been done for decades by U.S.-South Korea joint military exercises. According to the people who have lived in North Korea, these military exercises were so extensive, so violent and so intense that that the North Koreans people became utterly frightened and even terrorized. This tactic was a failure. The North Koreans have endured without complaining against the government. On the contrary, they rather blamed the U.S. and its allies.

Second, the U.S. and its allies have been relying on anti-Juché propaganda through radio, TV, seminars with North Korean refugees and even the air-born propaganda balloons. The propaganda was designed to show the superiority of democracy of South Korea over Juchéism of North Korea. This approach has failed primarily, because North Koreans had contempt for the South Korean regime for its corruption, its being vassal regime of Washington and its being pro-Japan. North Koreans knew that South Korea was richer than North Korea, but they seemed to think that the North Korean government looked after the ordinary citizens far better than the conservative South Korean counterparts.

Third, Washington and the conservative South Korean government have been trying to isolate Pyongyang from the international community through diplomatic pressure and economic aid, but this tactic has not produced the expected results. North Korea has diplomatic relations with 164 countries, although the number of embassies abroad is much smaller.

Fourth, Washington has been imposing on North Korea endless sanctions against the North. Washington and the conservative government of South Korea thought that these sanctions would lead to the massive complaints against the government, but this has not happened in North Korea for the simple reason that the people had been used to it on the one hand and, on the other, North Korea enforced self sufficiency and increasingly used the underground trade with China and other neighbouring countries to get daily necessities and even oil.

Despite all these harsh tactics deployed by the U.S. and its allies, the citizens of North Korea have not revolted and the Juchéism has survived.

This can be explained by two additional factors. On the one hand, Juchésim has evolved from militarism (Sun-gun) to double priority of military force and economic development (Byun-jin) and now, to economic development. In other words, Juchéism has been evolving from the military-oriented system to people’s welfare-oriented system.

On the other hand, we must know the cultural impact of the leader-people relation embodied in the Juchéism. The ideology of Juché is highly inspired by Confucianism in which the people regard the head of state as father and obey. In the West, one wonders how the Kim’s family has been able to maintain the power for 70 years. Given the harsh living conditions, the North Koreans could have risen up and try to topple the government. But this has not happened, because the government-people relation is not necessarily one of ruler-ruled coercive relations but rather one of ruler’s paternalistic care-people’s gratitude. However, as the North Korean society becomes more open and globalized, such Confucian relations will have to go through changes. And, the regime will become more open and more globally acceptable regime.

Policy of Denuclearization has gone no where

Politicians and bureaucrats in Washington have been trying to convince the world that Washington’s North Korea policy of denuclearization is the best assurance of peace on the Korean peninsula. In fact, the U.S. had good opportunities to achieve the objective of denuclearization. But, unfortunately, Washington blew all these opportunities.

The first opportunity was the Framework Agreement of October 21, 1994 by virtue of which North Korea would stop all nuclear program in return of the construction of two civil use light water nuclear reactors and provision of oil. But this was cancelled because of the non-implementation of the Agreement by Washington and Seoul. One of the reasons of the non-implementation of the Agreement was the death of Kim Il-sung in July 1994. Washington hoped that Kim-il-sung’s death would provoke popular revolt and topple the government.

But there was no popular revolt and the regime was still there. This meant that Washington and Seoul had to implement the Agreement. But, neither South Korea nor the U.S. wanted the implementation of the Agreement. So, Washington and Seoul were looking for events which could justify the non-implementation of the Agreement, Well, North Korea provided an event.

On August 31, 1998, Kim Jong-il, successor of Kim Il-sung made a test of Missile Taepodong-1 to show the dissatisfaction with the non-implementation of the Agreement. This gave Washington the justification for scraping the Agreement. And, in 2002, the Agreement just disappeared into thin air, when George W. Bush declared that North Korea was a part of ” Axis of Evil”.

The second was the 2005-Agreement which was produced as a result of the 6-Party Talks. George W. Bush blew the chance of denuclearization. North Korea was quite disappointed with Washington’s hesitation to implement the 1944-Agreement and, in December of 2002, Pyongyang announced that it would reactivate the Yongbyon nuclear facilities. This obviously alarmed the Bush government and in 2003, the 6-party Talk began under the presidency of China. The member countries included the two Koreas, Japan, Russia and the U.S.

On August 9, 2003, the first meeting of the 6-Party Talk took place. The talk was difficult because of Pyongyang’s uranium enriching program which North Korea denied, while The U.S. suspected. In order to put pressure on Pyongyang, the U.S. froze 25 million USD deposited by North Korea in a bank (Banco Delta Asia) in Macao.

Nevertheless, on September 19, 2005, a joint statement was announced. In this Statement, North Korea pledged to abandon nuclear program and respect the IAEA (International Atomic Energy Agency) Safe Guards rules as well as its return to NPT (Non-proliferation Treaty) in exchange of non-aggression of the U.S. However, there was no positive sign of realization of the Statement. Then, in order to speed up the process and to show its potential nuclear capacity, Pyongyang undertook the first nuclear test on October 9, 2006.

The 6-Party Talk continued until 2007. In 2007 the group announced the Action Plan of the 2005 Statement. In this plan North Korea would go further by promising no export of nuclear products, while the U.S. would provide 900,000 tons of oil. Moreover, North Korea will be removed from the list of terrorism sponsor countries.

Then February 2008, the anti-Pyongyang conservative party of Lee Byong-bak took over the power in South Korea and the 6-PartyTalk mechanism disappeared. Nevertheless, Washington could, if it wanted, implement the 2005 Joint Statement despite the Lee Myong-bak’s anti- North Korea policy.

Barack Obama who succeeded George W. Bush could continue the 6-Party talk, but he failed. He could try to improve the bilateral relations, but he did not. Rather, he spent 8-year of “Strategic Patience”, which has led to 3 nuclear tests out of 6 nuclear tests ever undertaken by Pyongyang and 83 missile tests representing 57% of all missile tests undertaken by North Korea. In this way Obama made North Korea a de facto Nuclear State and a missile super power.

The third was Trump’s engagement policy designed to bring peace to the Korean peninsula. But, he had to deal with North Korea which was deeply disappointed by the 8-year “strategic patience”. When Donald Trump took over the power on January 20, 2017, Pyongyang was in a difficult situation because of Obama’s North Korea policy of doing nothing. But it had a high hope for Trump’s more positive policy of peace dialogue and engagement. But, nothing happened. To show its disappointment, North Korea tested on July 4, 2017 the ICBM, Hwasung-14 with a range of 8,500 KM and undertook test of hydrogen bomb on September 3, 2017. Trump reacted violently and threatened Pyongyang with “fury and fire”.

Here, we can see that Americans felt insecure. And, Trump felt the need for engagement with Kim Jong-un. But, having no experience in managing international crisis, Trump relied on Moon Jae-in, president of South Korea, for the engagement and the Singapore Summit took place on June 12, 2018 leading to joint statement on some basic guiding principles of the bilateral engagement. But the real test took place in Hanoi on February 27-28, 2019, which was sabotaged by hardliners in Washington. It was just too bad. Remember this. Kim Jong-un went to Hanoi by train taking three days travel to Hanoi. He did this to show his sincerity of solving the nuclear crisis. It was a golden opportunity to find the solution. But Trump blew it.

Image below: U.N. Ambassador Nikki Haley and National Security Advisor H.R. McMaster during September briefing on North Korea. (White House)

What emerges from these episodes is the pattern of Washington’s North Korean denuclearization policy. The pattern may be summarized:

American nuclear threat→North Korean deterrent reactions (missile tests or nuclear tests)→fear in the U.S.→Washington-Pyongyang Peace Agreement→restoration of calm in the U.S.→Cancellation of the agreement

Let us apply this pattern to what happened to the 1994 Framework Agreement.

  • Prior to the 1994 Framework Agreement, North Korea was threatened by possible nuclear attack by the U.S. The Soviet Union’s collapse in 1989 meant for Pyongyang the end of Soviet protection against American nuclear attack and North Korea felt the need for nuclear development for defensive purpose.
  • In 1992, Pyongyang withdrew from NPT, which alarmed Washington. Bill Clinton planed military intervention-most likely nuclear attack.
  • Owing to the Jimmy Carter’s mediation, Washington and Pyongyang signed the 1994 Agreement.
  • Calm was restored in the U.S.
  • The U.S. and its allies looked for an excuse for cancelling the Agreement. In 1998, North Korea launched missile to complain the delay of the Agreement implementation.
  • And, in 2002, George W. Bush made North Korea as a part of the “Axis of Evil”. In this way, the 1994 Agreement has gone with the political wind.

Now let us look at the end of 2005 Joint Statement.

  • Having lost the chance of peace through the 1994 Agreement, North Korea needed to put pressure on the U.S. Pyongyang said that it could reactivate the Yongbyon nuclear facilities.
  • Being alarmed, Washington persuaded China, in 2003, to organize the 6-Party Talk.
  • On September 19, 2005, the 6-Party Talk signed the Joint Statement in which North Korea would stop all nuclear programmes in return of non aggression of the U.S.
  • North Korea being fed up with the non-fulfillment of the joint Statement, undertook the first nuclear test on October 9, 2006
  • In 2007, the 6-Party-Talk tried to continue its dialogue and the Action Plan was announced.
  • Calm was restored in the U.S.
  • George W. Bush put North Korea back on the list of terrorism-sponsor country. The 2005-Agreement disappeared with no trace.

Now, let us see the episode of the 2019 Hanoi Summit

  • For 8 years (2009-2017), Barack Obama relied on “Strategic Patience” to solve the North Korean nuclear crisis. But he did nothing to undertake dialogue with Pyongyang
  • North Korea was hoping that Donald Trump would open the door for bilateral peace dialogue in vain.
  • Being disappointed, North Korea launched in July 2017 the ICBM Hwasung-14 which can reach Alaska. And on September 3, Kim Jong-un tested hydrogen bomb. So, Americans felt insecure.
  • Trump was alarmed
  • Through productive mediation of Moon Jae-in, Donald Trump met Kim Jong-un three times. The Hanoi Summit has given the golden chance for the solution of the North Korean nuclear crisis. But Trump let the chance to fly away.

When we see the 40-year experience of the American North Korea policy, we are made to wonders if Washington really desires denuclearization. If Washington really wanted denuclearization, it has had three occasions for denuclearization, but it has let them to go away. Why? Does Washington really want denuclearization of North Korea? But, what it has shown so far make us doubt its sincerity for denuclearization.

What has happened makes us to believe that Washington does not really want North Korean denuclearization. What has taken place makes us to think that Washington prefers a nuclear North Korea and resulting tension which justifies the presence of U.S. military in South Korea for the China containment policy and which assures the lucrative market of American military equipment in Korea and Japan.

To sum up, the general evaluation of Washington’s 40-year North Korea policy is very negative. It has failed in changing Juchéism. The denuclearization policy has gone nowhere. The regime Juchéism is still there intact. The number of nuclear bombs may be increasing.

If there is anything which the U.S. has accomplished, it is the expansion of market of American military equipment and the enhancement of China containment. It is hoped that Biden will come up with North Korea policy that aims at real denuclearization, the lasting peace in Korea and in the region.

It is hoped that Biden will not repeat what his predecessor have done. His policy should be based on mutual trust and respect and find solution through dialogue and negotiation.

*

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.

Professor Joseph H. Chung is professor of economics and co-director of the East-Asia Observatory (OAE) of the Research Center for Integration and Globalization (CEIM), Quebec University in Montreal (UQAM).

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

Featured image is from Shutterstock

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Washington’s 40-year North Korea Policy: Success or Failure?
  • Tags:

The UK government has established a journalism project to ‘influence’ Venezuela’s ‘media agenda’ while a Foreign Office-funded foundation is spending £750,000 on a secretive ‘democracy-promotion’ programme in the country, as Britain appears to deepen efforts to remove the Maduro government.

***

As Venezuela’s political crisis continues, the UK government has initiated a new project promoting investigative journalism in Latin America which furtively covers Venezuela.

The project, launched last summer and intended to “influence” the media agenda in the country, follows a long history of the British government using journalism as an influencing tool. It raises suspicions that it aims to help remove the leftist government of Venezuela president Nicolás Maduro.

In a separate programme, the Westminster Foundation for Democracy (WFD), a majority UK-government funded organisation, has spent over £750,000 to “strengthen democracy” in Venezuela since 2016, according to documents obtained by Declassified.

The WFD’s programmes in the country are shrouded in secrecy due to apparent concerns about the security of its staff, although its country representative advertises his affiliation to the organisation online.

The British government controversially recognises Venezuelan opposition figure Juan Guaidó as president and is running a number of anti-government programmes in the country using the Conflict, Stability and Security Fund (CSSF) which supports projects designed “to tackle instability and to prevent conflicts that threaten UK interests”.

The aim of the fund’s new journalism project is stated to be the creation of a “new platform that strengthens media organisation [sic] throughout the region and provides journalists with a platform in which they can collaborate and build regional stories”.

Programme literature notes that successful applicants should display “a capacity to link into – and ultimately influence – local and national media agendas”.

But they are warned that “the British government — and its resourcing of the project — should not be expressly referred or linked to the individual outputs of the project (i.e. individual articles, events etc).”

Run by the British embassy in Bogotá, Colombia, the call for applications noted that successful bids would start in August 2020. There has been no public update since, although the Foreign Office told Declassified there had been delays due to the coronavirus pandemic.

On the public advert, applicants are advised to budget up to £250,000 for their projects, but the Foreign Office told Declassified: “it is not currently possible to confirm what budget will be available for this project.”

Declassified’s repeated questions about the project to its two coordinators in Bogotá went unanswered. However, a Foreign Office spokesperson told Declassified:

“It is inaccurate to conflate this call for bids with the UK position on Venezuela, which has not changed. We want to see a democratic transition with free and fair elections take place in Venezuela.”

The CSSF put out a public call in June last year for applications from journalists seeking to cover crime and corruption in Colombia, Peru and Panama, adding there was the “potential to cover linked events in other neighbouring countries”. The word Venezuela did not appear.

However, CSSF documentation published three days before the advert outlined the same programme with the addition of Venezuela in its title. The furtive inclusion of the country appears to reflect Foreign Office reticence to publicise its increased involvement in Venezuela.

The summary of another CSSF programme, again in Colombia for the year ending March 2020, includes the recommendation to “engage” Foreign Office officials “about options to develop CSSF programmes in Venezuela”.

A September 2019 job advert for a CSSF programme manager in Lima, Peru, notes that the successful applicant will work “with colleagues in Colombia, Panama and, potentially, Venezuela”. 

Declassified recently revealed that the CSSF has spent £450,000 setting up an anti-government coalition in Venezuela, again by furtively adding the project to an existing programme focused on Colombia and beginning in 2019.

Journalism as information war

The UK government has long used the media to undermine foreign leaders and political movements it perceives as a threat to British business interests.

Declassified recently revealed that a secretive Cold War propaganda unit, named the Information Research Department (IRD), tried to prevent Chilean socialist Salvador Allende from winning presidential elections in 1964 and 1970.

Declassified files also reveal that during the Brazilian dictatorship of 1964-1985, the IRD “assiduously cultivated” one of Brazil’s leading left-wing publishers, Samuel Wainer.

Though the unit was shut down in 1977, Britain has continued to sponsor journalistic ventures in Latin America. In response to a freedom of information request, the Foreign Office revealed that, between January 2016 and September 2018, it funded Venezuelan news outlet Fundación Efecto Cocuyo, as well as the Instituto Radiofónico Fe y Alegría and Sindicato Nacional de Trabajadores de la Prensa.

While receiving funds from the British government, Efecto Cocuyo teamed up with two British organisations — Bellingcat and Forensic Architecture — to “call for more evidence” regarding the killing of Óscar Pérez at the hands of Venezuelan police. Pérez, a police officer, had hijacked a police helicopter and, on 27 June 2017, used it to attack a number of government buildings in central Caracas.

In July 2019, Efecto Cocuyo’s editor, Luz Mely Reyes, spoke at the UK government’s “Global Conference for Media Freedom” event in London. Then foreign secretary Jeremy Hunt, addressing the conference, said Reyes “has defied the Maduro regime by co-founding an independent news website, Efecto Cocuyo”, without mentioning the website’s links to the British government.

London’s support for media projects in Venezuela appears to mirror that of the US National Endowment for Democracy (NED). According to its accounts, the NED has funded “freedom of information” projects in Venezuela aimed at fostering a “greater understanding of the spillover effects of Venezuelan corruption and criminal activity” by working with “investigative journalists and partner organisations”.

A 2017 NED project, with a budget of over $60,000, aims to “increase transparency and accountability in the Venezuelan government procurement processes. And to foster collaboration with journalists across the region”.

Media freedom group, Reporters Without Borders, which is also funded by the NED, notes: “Venezuela’s president since 2013, Nicolás Maduro persists in trying to silence independent media outlets and keep news coverage under constant control.”

It adds: “The climate for journalists has been extremely tense since the onset of a political and economic crisis in 2016, and is exacerbated by Maduro’s frequent references to ‘media warfare’ in an attempt to discredit national and international media criticism of his administration.”

Venezuelan journalist Luz Mely Reyes speaks at the UK government’s Global Conference for Media Freedom alongside Jeremy Hunt, then UK foreign secretary, London, 10 July 2019. (Photo: Twitter / Press Gazette)

The embassy in Bogotá

One of the two Foreign Office points of contact for the project at the British embassy in Bogotá is Claudia Castilla, a Colombian national who was a UK government-funded Chevening Scholar in London from 2017-18.

Castilla appears to be a strong supporter of the Venezuelan opposition, writing in February 2014 “I think I fell in love with Leopoldo López”, referring to a leading opposition figure. At the time US-educated López was promoting street protests in a strategy known as “The Exit”, after Maduro won presidential elections in April 2013.

From 2014-15, Castilla worked as a research assistant for the Colombian chapter of Transparency International, where she “formulated public policy recommendations”. Declassified recently revealed the UK government funded Transparency International’s Venezuelan chapter to set up an “anti-corruption” coalition in the country.

From 2012 to 2013, Castilla worked for the Cerrejón Foundation, the charitable arm of the controversial Cerrejón coal mine in Colombia which is run by three London-listed mining multinationals. For the latter period of her employment, Castilla was the foundation’s “social control advisor”.

‘Democracy promotion’

Documents obtained by Declassified also show that the Westminster Foundation for Democracy — Britain’s “democracy promotion” arm — has been running expensive programmes in Venezuela.

The WFD claims to be “the most effective organisation sharing the UK democratic experience”, but its operations are shrouded in secrecy.

Venezuela hosts the WFD’s only full-scale programme and permanent office in Latin America as part of a project which began in 2016. Since then the WFD has spent £760,680, according to figures obtained by Declassified.

The largest outlay was £248,725 in 2017-2018, as the EU announced a sanctions regime against Venezuela and British officials intensified calls for “different people at the helm” of the Venezuelan government.

Alan Duncan, then minister of state for the Americas, said in 2018: “Maduro’s double crime is that his destruction of the economy has been followed by the systemic undermining of democracy.” He added: “The revival of the oil industry [in Venezuela] will be an essential element in any recovery, and I can imagine that British companies like Shell and BP, will want to be part of it.”

Last year, the WFD spent £113,193 on its Venezuela operations, while Declassified understands a bid for funding of just over £27,500 for next year is awaiting approval. The WFD has two full-time staff in Venezuela.

In December, UN human rights experts found that “since November 2020 Venezuela has systematically stigmatised and persecuted civil society organisations, dissenting voices and human rights defenders”.

The WFD has no similar programmes in UK government-allied dictatorships such as Saudi Arabia, Oman, Bahrain, or the United Arab Emirates.

The Foundation told Declassified: “WFD works to strengthen democracy around the world. We are funded by the UK as well as other governments (including Canada, Germany, Norway and Switzerland) and international organisations (such as the United Nations Development Programme) and are operationally independent.”

But the vast majority of the WFD’s funding comes from the British government. In the year to March 2020, it provided £11.4-million to the Foundation, while all other sources of income added up to £1.5-million.

The WFD said that in Venezuela it works “with a range of MPs, National Assembly staff, civil society, and academics” but it refused to disclose to Declassified information about who those partners are. It said this was “to avoid endangering the physical health or safety of those partners”.

However, the WFD’s country representative in Venezuela advertises his position on his public Linkedin page, and his email and phone number are available through WFD job adverts.

As its Venezuela programme began in 2016, the WFD published an article on the independent news site openDemocracy in association with Daniel Fermín, a Venezuelan researcher.

The article asked: “Can Venezuela’s president [Nicolás Maduro] be unseated peacefully?”. In the following two years, openDemocracy was awarded $99,661 (£74,131) by the US analogue of the WFD, the National Endowment for Democracy.

According to a 2018 WFD posting for a job in Venezuela’s capital, Caracas, its country representative is expected to work with the British embassy and must “contribute to development of future business opportunities in Venezuela”.

When asked why it focused on Venezuela, the foundation told Declassified: “WFD programmes have been active in other countries across Latin America. We stand ready to launch new programmes and country offices when the opportunity arises.”

Neutrality 

The WFD says that it “works on a cross-party basis” in Venezuela, “seeking to engage all sides of the political divide while supporting democratic institutions in the country”.

In January 2019, shortly after Guaidó proclaimed himself president, the WFD’s country representative wrote that “last years elections [sic] were a sham and therefore Maduro is an usurper”.

The next month — after trucks of the United States Agency for International Development (USAID) attempted to enter Venezuelan territory — he said: “Non-intervention cannot be an absolute principle that doesn’t consider other factors”.

On 30 April, when Guaidó launched an armed coup attempt in Caracas, the WFD’s representative announced that Guaidó’s actions were “not an assault on democracy but the other way round”. Elsewhere, he has described Chavismo — referring to former president Hugo Chávez — as a “plague”.

UK parliamentarians overseeing WFD’s operations have also disparaged the Venezuelan government. Conservative MP Richard Graham, the chair of WFD’s board of governors for the duration of its Venezuela project, said in December 2019 that “Islington Corbynsistas [sic] don’t get that extreme left ideas never work, whether in 2019 Venezuela or 80s Liverpool”.

The WFD’s board is appointed by the UK foreign secretary and is modelled on the NED, which has beendescribed by the Washington Post as the “sugar daddy of overt [US] operations”. Since Chávez’s election in 1998, the NED has been the guiding hand behind a number of efforts to overthrow the government in Venezuela.

While the NED’s operations abroad have received some independent scrutiny, the WFD – has largely operated under media silence.

*

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.

Matt Kennard is head of investigations at Declassified UK.

John McEvoy is an independent journalist who has written for International History Review, The Canary, Tribune Magazine, Jacobin, Revista Forum, and Brasil Wire.

Featured image: UK Foreign Secretary Dominic Raab meets Juan Guaidó, recognised by Britain as Venezuela’s ‘interim president’, in London, 21 January 2020. (Photo: UK government)

In the wake of the January 6 insurrection, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi would have us believe that the United States and Israel have a common enemy.

Pelosi implies that the American insurrectionists whose ideologies are rooted in racism, xenophobia and supremacy represent a threat to both the US and Israel — i.e., she believes antisemitism threatens the well-being and sanctity of the apartheid Jewish state, just as its existence among the ranks of the insurrectionists threatens American democracy.

That’s a big lie. What helped create Israel is the antisemitic motivations of British politicians. What poses a threat to Israel is anti-Zionism not antisemitism.(See: How Anti-Semitism Helped Create Israel: At a desperate moment in World War I, British elites appealed to what they saw as the monolithic, all-powerful forces of “international Jewry” to turn the tide of the conflict — and promised them Palestine.)

Israel fights its domestic anti-Zionist threat by, among other things, reining in human rights groups such as B’Tselem when they tell the truth about the nature of the state as an apartheid state. For example, Israel’s education minister has banned B’Tselem from lecturing at schools because its mission of ensuring “human rights, democracy, liberty and equality to all people, both Palestinian and Israeli, living between the Jordan River and the Mediterranean Sea” is antithetical to the Zionist creed.

Worth noting is that “so far neither the New York Times or Washington Post have reported on the B’Tselem report.”

For both Israel and the United States, the security threat today is deeply rooted in their histories and how they came to be. One difference is that supremacist, discriminatory and apartheid ideology is today enshrined in Israel’s Basic Law: Israel as the Nation-State of the Jewish People (the equivalent of a constitution), but thankfully not in the American Constitution any longer. (Although slavery is never mentioned in the Constitution, there are 11 clauses that allude to its existence.The 13th amendment abolished slavery and involuntary servitude in 1865; the 14th amendment of 1868 granted citizenship to “All persons born or naturalized in the United States,” thereby granting citizenship to former slaves; the 15th amendment, ratified in 1870, extended the right to vote to Black males, etc.)

To understand the parallel between the two settler-colonial states better, read the following words [min 18:33] by Distinguished Professor of African American Studies at Princeton University Eddie S. Glaude Jr. about the United States, while transposing specific references (in bold):

We’ve been having this conversation for a number of years. We saw it in real time over this last election [the Palestinian intifadas] when we think back on American [Israeli] history, we know that what is challenged, what has been the contradiction, what has been the serpent wrapped around the legs of the table upon which the constitution [Israel’s basic law] was signed, the declaration of independence was crafted, was this belief that white [Jewish] people matter more than others [certainly Palestinian Arabs], this ideology of whiteness [Jewishness] … we think about every moment of crisis that challenged the basic precepts of democracy [colonization and apartheid] it has been in defense of this belief that this country ought to remain a white [Jewish] nation.

In both Israel and the United States, as their respective histories indicate, the underlying cause of injustice is supremacy or, in other words, hate, intolerance and a sense of entitlement by one group of people over another. (See: ‘Yes, we’re racists. We believe in racism’: Embracing racism, rabbis at pre-army yeshiva laud Hitler, urge enslaving Arabs)

Today, the situation is much worse in Israel than it is in the United States. The US continues to lie about Israel while at the same time being more honest about itself than it has been for decades. So, whereas the news media and politicians are finally trying to reattach people to reality and facts, especially the fact that the majority of all terrorist plots and attacks (57% of 893) from 1994 to 2020 were perpetrated by right wing terrorists, they continue to lie about the apartheid nature of the Israeli state.

In connection with Israel, the big lie is two-fold. One has to do with its vaunted claim as the “only democracy in the Middle East,” when in fact it is an apartheid state (see: This is apartheid: The Israeli regime promotes and perpetuates Jewish supremacy between the Mediterranean Sea and the Jordan River).

The second big lie has to do with what Tony Blinken, Joe Biden’s choice for secretary of state, calls “the Jewish homeland,” which in fact is a denial of Palestinian centuries-long history in their homeland and an embrace of the Zionist concept of Jewish nationalism. (See: Palestine: A Four Thousand Year History by Nur Masalha, in which the Palestinian historian clearly shows that Palestine is grounded in a distinctive Palestinian culture that long predates the Old Testament narrative of Israelite conquest, a history where Jews, Christians, Muslims and others lived together peacefully. Israel continues to ignore and erase this history in the interests of a modern invention rooted in ancient myths.)

For a refutation of Jewish nationalism, see The Invention of the Jewish People by Shlomo Sand, which, according to a 2009 review, is “a definitive and learned polemic against this idea [the Zionist idea of Jewish nationalism] which has caused so much terror in our world today.”

Trump’s racist acts/speech are being denounced — from his Muslim Ban to his “good on both sides” in Charlottesville, to his outrageous remarks about Mexican immigrants or his “China virus” taunts, to his refusal to condemn white supremacy and the Proud Boys by saying “stand back and stand by,” etc., etc.

However, what continues appallingly to be listed on Trump’s positive side of the ledger, without question or irony, includes this: the move of the American embassy in Israel to occupied and annexed Jerusalem and “renewed peace in the Middle East,” which has no Palestinian support and was recognized early on as being all “about shoring up Trump’s slumping electoral campaign and improving Netanyahu’s battered image in Israel [rather] than bringing peace to the Middle East.”

Writing in Newsweek on the day before Trump’s departure from D.C., Yishai Fleisher, International Spokesman, Jewish illegal “settlement” of Hebron, praises the disgraced Republican leader for attacking “calcified anti-Israel lies and instead [telling] the plain truth — and by doing so, lift[ing] the Jewish state’s international standing many-fold.” Trump’s inversion of reality about Israel is as effective as his big lie about the American election. But now that he is toppled, the U.S. fights supremacy at home but continues to defend supremacy in Israel.

To my mind, the most positive aspect of Trump’s legacy in the United States is the change we are now observing in the national discourse, i.e., bringing to the fore that which commentators have been describing as “hiding in plain sight” — the white supremacist history and character of this nation. Because of that slow and painful shift in discourse since the Black Lives Matter protests began over George Floyd’s murder at the hands of a white policeman on May 25, 2020, we have all become better educated.

For example, I now know (and I didn’t before) about the Tulsa Race Massacre (also known as the Tulsa Race Riot), which occurred over 18 hours on May 31-June 1, 1921, when a white mob attacked black residents, homes and businesses; I know (and I didn’t before) that when racist laws in Oregon were put on the ballot for repeal in 2002, 30% of electors voted against the repeal.

The big question is whether, even with such facts in the foreground, the Biden administration can “pivot” or roll back the setbacks to its pluralistic aspirations that are now in high relief. With millions still supporting Trump, the words of Martin Luther King Jr. below, slightly paraphrased (originally, they were about Vietnam and the Vietnamese people), still ring true:

The world now demands a maturity of America that we may not be able to achieve. It demands that we admit that we have been wrong from the beginning of our adventure in Vietnam [America], that we have been detrimental to the life of… [many peoples]. The situation is one in which we must be ready to turn sharply from our present ways.

America is talking about what the January 6 insurrection represents: the entrenchment of white supremacy and racism in American society at the highest levels.

It is not talking honestly about its closest ally, about what Israel’s dispossession of Palestinians represents. US politicians on both sides of the aisle lie about it every chance they get. US Secretary of State Pompeo’s declaration that the Israel boycott (BDS movement) is anti-Jewish, for example.

U.S. Rep. Rashida Tlaib had this to say on Democracy Now!:

It is so critically important that we call it [Israel’s racism] out. Our country continues to enable that country and enable Netanyahu, who continues to spew anti-Arab rhetoric that allows violence towards Palestinians to continue in a way that is so inhumane and doesn’t follow international human rights.

Bringing anguish to millions of Palestinians, the United States continues to support the fascist violence and aggression to which Israel resorts so as to continue to exist and expand as an apartheid Zionist Jewish state on Palestinian land.

*

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.

Rima Najjar is a Palestinian whose father’s side of the family comes from the forcibly depopulated village of Lifta on the western outskirts of Jerusalem and whose mother’s side of the family is from Ijzim, south of Haifa. She is an activist, researcher and retired professor of English literature, Al-Quds University, occupied West Bank. She is a frequent contributor to Global Research.

Featured image: The Israeli and American flags displayed on the walls of the Old City in Jerusalem (Photo: Yonatan Sindel)

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on As Trump Departs, America Is “Anti-Supremacist” at Home but “Pro-Supremacist” for Israel
  • Tags:

How to Buy Politicians: Corruption and Lobbying

January 21st, 2021 by Rod Driver

“Very few of the common people realize that the political and legal systems have been corrupted by decades of corporate lobbying”(1)

Until recently, the terms Public Relations (PR) and lobbying were used slightly differently. Lobbying means direct communications with policy-makers. PR is more general and refers to all communications. The US introduced regulations to restrict the activities of lobbyists, so lobbyists tried to get around these regulations by labelling their activities as PR. There is now considerable overlap between the two activities. This post discusses activities that have traditionally been known as lobbying.

Political Corruption – It’s Not A Bribe If You Call It A ‘Donation’ 

The term corruption conjures up images of brown envelopes stuffed full of used notes being passed furtively under a table as a bribe. However, this is just one type of corruption. In Britain, Europe and the US, the corruption that really matters is built into the system, in the forms of donations, favours and influence. (This is sometimes called collusive corruption, where politicians and business people collude with each other). Big corporations are happy to spend a few million dollars/euros/pounds on political ‘donations’ if they get back billions in extra profits due to laws and regulations biased in their favor,(2) or from existing laws being weakened. In any other context we would call this bribery.

Politics in the US is expensive. Many US businesses now make large bribes to both of the major US political parties.(3) The main method is known as a ‘fundraiser’. This is an event where corporations pay large sums to politicians using a lobbyist as an intermediary. The politicians know where the money has come from, and they know who expects favourable legislation in return.(4) US politicians are therefore dependent on their most successful lobbyists, and their wealthiest supporters. The evidence overwhelmingly indicates that money and wealth influence policy.(5) One former insider said of their work:

the more money you have, the more your voice is heard …It was an endless cycle of money trading hands for votes…every fundraiser is a legal bribe”(6)

America is effectively a business-run society. A good example would be the insurance and drug companies, who make big profits from the existing US healthcare system. Companies spend hundreds of millions of dollars each year bribing politicians to avoid changes that would decrease their profits.(7) President Obama introduced some changes, but the final legislation was so watered down that the US healthcare system is still nowhere near the type of National Health Service that is commonplace elsewhere. Some of the changes will actually increase the profits of the health insurance companies.(8) The donations in Britain are smaller than in the US, but they have been effective in distorting Britain’s economy so that it benefits the rich at the expense of everyone else. European health services, including Britain’s, are slowly and steadily being privatised.(9) This is not about making the health service better or more efficient. It is to enable corporations to extract profits.

Lobbying is a Huge Industry 

The exact scale of lobbying is unknown. It has been a multi-billion dollar industry in the US for many years, where the official expenditure on lobbying is $7 billion per year, but there is a great deal of secret lobbying, so the estimated total is believed to be closer to $14 billion. More recently, lobbying in Brussels to manipulate European legislation has reached a similar scale.(10) It was estimated in 2017 that there were 25,000 lobbyists in Brussels. Britain has the third biggest lobbying industry in the world, estimated at £2 billion each year.(11) However, lobbying in Britain is even more secretive than in the US, so whilst many examples of lobbying have been well-documented, we do not have a clear picture of everything that goes on.

To make their lobbying even more effective, companies in an industry will get together to form organisations, such as the European Banking Federation, to lobby on their behalf. There are more than 1,000 of these in Brussels. Even larger groups, such as Business Europe, will represent a wide range of businesses. These groups are well-funded and influential. Due to their expertise they will initiate discussions about legislation, and even draft first proposals for new laws or regulations. The bank, Citigroup, wrote US legislation in 2014 to ensure that banks could be bailed out following a future financial crisis. Key politicians who supported the bill received large contributions from financial companies.(12)

David vs Goliath 

In theory, other groups, such as consumer groups, unions, environmentalists and non-government organisations (NGOs) are also able to lobby, but their spending and influence add up to a small fraction of corporate lobbying. One researcher concluded that “For every $1 spent by public interest groups and unions…corporations spent $34.”(13) A US analysis in 2010 found that the financial companies alone employed 5 lobbyists for each member of congress.(14) In some industries, such as banking, there is no organised opposition to the corporate lobby.(15)

The nature of lobbying can also be quite personal, involving long-term social and working relationships, lunches, dinners, and job opportunities for relatives and friends. Billionaires, such as Richard Branson, can invite Prime Ministers to holiday on their private island. Rupert Murdoch, owner of multiple media outlets in many countries, was able to have personal meetings with US President Trump, various Prime Ministers, and their closest advisors. This type of meeting is considered mutually beneficial to both parties.  NGOs and other groups do not generally have these close connections. Corporate lobbyists spend more money, employ more people, with more contacts and better insider knowledge, have better access to policymakers and better information. This undermines democracy, and creates governments that work well for the rich and powerful, but not for everyone else.(16)

Echo Chambers 

Lobbying strategies are more successful if information appears to come from several, apparently independent, sources. Therefore lobbyists use many of the same strategies as PR consultants, such as the media, think tanks and academics, as echo chambers to reinforce their message. This is important because companies are not trusted as honest sources of information. Their relationship with the media can be quite complex. Lobbyists actively recruit former journalists because of their political contacts. Lobbyists feed stories to the press, but they also try to stop negative stories appearing.(17) They are sometimes able to persuade journalists to drop a story, either by offering an alternative story, or by threatening to cut access to their clients in future. This works because journalists get so many stories from lobbyists, so loss of access would have serious consequences for them. If all else fails lobbyists will threaten legal action. This has been very effective, particularly in the UK.

Lobbying services are also offered by think tanks, lawyers, management consultants and accountants. This creates serious conflicts of interest, as accountancy firms and consultants often advise governments on regulations, but then advise clients on how to get around those same regulations. This has been particularly clear in the banking sector, where accountants operate lucrative businesses advising their wealthiest clients on activities such as setting up layers of subsidiaries and holding companies, so that they can hide their assets overseas in tax havens, or game the system so that their profits appear in the lowest tax jurisdiction.(18)

Revolving Doors and Conflicts of Interest 

The issue of ‘revolving doors’, where people move from jobs in government to jobs in big business, and vice versa, was mentioned in an earlier post about the weapons industry. The problem is extremely widespread and affects the most important business sectors in Britain, Europe and the US. When former business-people go to work with the government, they will see the world from the perspective of big business, irrespective of the downsides to the rest of society. In Britain this is most clear in the Health Service, where former staff of the biggest US Healthcare companies have been gradually re-structuring the National Health Service (NHS), and privatizing parts of it, so that shareholders can extract wealth from it. (This will be discussed in detail in a later post about the NHS).

The problem is also important when people move in the opposite direction, from government to business. For example, lots of British politicians involved in decisions about the privatisation of the healthcare system have gone on to take well-paid jobs with private companies who benefitted from those decisions. A conflict of interest refers to a situation where a person is making decisions about an issue, but gains personally from those decisions. In the UK in 2008 there were 30 former government ministers (who were still politicians) who had jobs with corporations.(19) A later study in 2010 showed there were over 140 members of the House of Lords with financial connections to healthcare companies.(20) Their main role is to help the business manipulate government, by utilizing their contacts, or exploiting their knowledge of weaknesses in existing legislation.

A growing trend is for policymakers to join lobbying companies, and vice versa. Lobbyists actively headhunt government employees who have been involved in writing legislation. In the US, “about half of retiring senators and a third of retiring House members register as lobbyists.”(21) The average salary is approximately 10 times as much as in their government job. The same happens in Europe, where banking regulators go on to earn big salaries working as bank lobbyists, and former lobbyists get appointed to senior roles with organisations that are supposed to regulate particular industries(22). In 2019 the chief lobbyist for Santander Bank, Jose Manuel Campa, became the new head of the European Banking Authority. It is therefore unlikely that banks will be properly regulated in the near future.

The Most Powerful Lobbying Organisation in the World is the US Government 

There is an additional layer of lobbying which is extremely important, but almost never discussed openly by the mainstream media. Individual governments lobby other governments and organisations. This is notable in finance, where the British government lobbied hard to avoid stricter financial regulation by Europe following the 2008 financial crisis. In a later post we will talk about political and regulatory capture (this is sometimes called ideological capture), where politicians see the world from the point of view of big companies. Politicians lobby for regulations that will be profitable for companies, but might have serious consequences for citizens.(23)

The US government uses a combination of threats and bribes to achieve its goals all over the world. It lobbies at the UN to create support for its illegal wars; it lobbies other governments so that its tobacco companies can be allowed to sell and advertise their cigarettes abroad; it uses its diplomats and trade negotiators to arrange deals that benefit its exporters. Government lobbying is just as secretive as corporate lobbying, involving backroom deals, and promises of aid and loans in exchange for votes. Many countries try to do the same, but the scale of the US’s economic threats and bribes, backed up by its willingness to impose sanctions and overthrow governments using its military, means that it is usually able to get its way, irrespective of the downsides for people in other countries. This creates huge advantages for US companies.

Transparency Is Important, But It Won’t Change Anything By Itself 

One of the big problems with lobbying is that most of it is secret. Greater transparency might help, but is probably only a small part of any future solution. Many people have argued for information about what executives are paid. We now have a fairly good idea of executive pay, but it has not led to serious change.

From 2005-2010 there was an annual award known as the Worst EU Lobby Award, where people voted for the worst corporate offenders, and the worst conflicts of interest by politicians who are helping to manipulate laws on behalf of corporations. In 2005, the fake grassroots organisation, C4C (Campaign for Creativity) lobbied for stronger patents. In 2006 the oil company ExxonMobil won for paying millions of dollars in order to fund 39 groups of climate skeptics. This gave the impression that climate change skeptics come from respectable sources, when many of them are paid to write corporate propaganda.(24) In 2007 BMW, Daimler and Porsche won for lobbying against carbon dioxide (CO2) reductions. In 2008 agrofuel (crops used as fuel) lobbyists tried to claim that they are sustainable, when they are not. In 2010, Goldman Sachs and the derivatives lobby group ISDA lobbied to protect their most complex financial products, despite the dangers they create, and the energy company, npower, claimed it was green while trying to keep coal powerplants open. Whilst these awards irritated people in business and the lobbying industry, they did not receive mainstream media coverage, so few people were aware of them, and they had little effect in changing anything.

Various ideas have been discussed to make lobbying more transparent, but none of the measures attempted so far has teeth. Lobbyists don’t want their activities to be out in the open, and governments like having secret connections with the wealthiest parts of society. The EU and UK have what are known as transparency registers to monitor lobbyists, but they are ineffective. The UK register has been described as “completely unfit for purpose”.(25) At the same time, corporate lobbyists keep working behind the scenes to actually decrease transparency.(26) Transparency by itself is not enough. It is just a starting point. The whole concept of corporate lobbying needs to be challenged much more seriously.

*

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 sixteenth 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) This quote is attributed to a writer named Steven Magee, but I have been unable to find the original source. 

2) Bill Allison and Sarah Hakins, ‘Fixed Fortunes: Biggest Corporate Political Interests spend billions, get trillions’, Sunlight Foundation, 17 Nov 2014, at https://sunlightfoundation.com/2014/11/17/fixed-fortunes-biggest-corporate-political-interests-spend-billions-get-trillions/

3) Laura McCamy, ‘Companies donate millions to political causes to have a say in government – here are 10 that have given the most in 2018’, 13 Oct 2018, at https://www.businessinsider.com/companies-are-influencing-politics-by-donating-millions-to-politicians-2018-9?r=US&IR=T

4) RepresentUs, ‘5 Crazy Facts About Lobbyists’, 11 Feb 2016, at https://represent.us/action/5-facts-lobbyists/

5) Martin Gilens and Benjamin Page, ‘Testing Theories of American Politics: Elites, Interest Groups and Average Citizens’, Perspectives on Politics, Sep 2014, Vol.12, No. 3, at https://scholar.princeton.edu/sites/default/files/mgilens/files/gilens_and_page_2014_-testing_theories_of_american_politics.doc.pdf 

6) Jimmy Williams, ‘I was a lobbyists for more than 6 years. I quit. I couldn’t take it any more’, Vox, 29 June 2017, at https://www.vox.com/first-person/2017/6/29/15886936/political-lobbying-lobbyist-big-money-politics 

7) ‘Sector Profile: Health’, at https://www.opensecrets.org/federal-lobbying/sectors/summary?id=H

8) John Nichols, ‘Kucinich’s Health Reform Dissents Merit Consideration’, The Nation, 9 March 2010, at http://www.thenation.com/blog/kucinichs-health-reform-dissents-merit-consideration 

9) Rachel Tansey, ‘The creeping privatization of healthcare: Problematic EU policies and the corporate lobby push’, 2 June 2017, at https://corporateeurope.org/en/power-lobbies/2017/06/creeping-privatisation-healthcare

10) Lobbying Database at, http://www.opensecrets.org/federal-lobbying/

11) Tamasin Cave and Andy Rowell, A quiet word: Lobbying, Crony Capitalism and Broken Politics in Britain, 2014, p.8

12) Mansur, Gidfar, ‘There’s Something Absolutely Insane Happening In The House Right Now’, bulletin.represent.us, 29 Oct 2103, at https://bulletin.represent.us/theres-something-absolutely-insane-happening-house-right-now/

13) https://www.vox.com/2016/1/15/10775788/revolving-door-lobbying

14) The Center for Public Integrity, 21 May 2010, updated 19 May 2014, at https://publicintegrity.org/politics/five-lobbyists-for-each-member-of-congress-on-financial-reforms/

15) Tamasin Cave and Andy Rowell, A quiet word: Lobbying, Crony Capitalism and Broken Politics in Britain, 2014

16) Sarah Clarke, ‘Inequality is spiraling because our democracy is broken’, 16 May 2019, at https://leftfootforward.org/2019/05/inequality-is-spiraling-because-our-democracy-is-broken/ 

17) Tamasin Cave and Andy Rowell, A quiet word: Lobbying, Crony Capitalism and Broken Politics in Britain, 2014

18) Rachel Tansey, ‘Accounting for Influence: how the big four are embedded in EU policy-making on tax avoidance’, Corporate Europe Observatory, July 2018, at https://corporateeurope.org/sites/default/files/tax-avoidance-industry-lobby-low-res.pdf

19) ‘Pressure To Reveal ex-Ministers’ Outside Pay’, Financial Times, Wed, Mar 26

20) Tamasin Cave and Andy Rowell, A quiet word: Lobbying, Crony Capitalism and Broken Politics in Britain, 2014, p.34

21) Lee Drutman, ‘About half of retiring senators and a third of retiring House members register as lobbyists’, Vox, 15 Jan 2016, at https://www.vox.com/2016/1/15/10775788/revolving-door-lobbying 

22) Duncan Lindo, 22 Feb 2019, ‘Still going round in circles: The revolving door between banks and their regulators’, Finance Watch, 22 Feb 2019, at https://www.finance-watch.org/still-going-round-in-circles-the-revolving-door-problem-between-banks-and-their-regulators/

23) Vicky Cann and Belen Belanya, ‘Captured States: When EU governments are a channel for corporate interests’, Corporate Europe Observatory, Feb 2019, at https://corporateeurope.org/sites/default/files/ceo-captured-states-final_0.pdf

24) Corporate Europe Observatory, ‘A bird’s eye view on 15 years CEO’, 2 May 2012, at https://corporateeurope.org/en/power-lobbies/2012/05/bird-eye-view-15-years-ceo

25) Tamasin Cave, ‘Theresa May’s chance to shine a light on lobbying’, Spinwatch, 2 Sep 2016, at http://spinwatch.org/index.php/issues/lobbying/item/5893-theresa-may-s-chance-to-shine-a-light-on-lobbying 

26) Jonathan Cook, Capitalism is double-billing us: We pay from our wallets only for our future to be stolen from us’, 25 Oct 2020, at https://www.jonathan-cook.net/blog/2020-10-25/capitalism-double-billing/

About Suffering: A Massacre of the Innocent in Yemen

January 21st, 2021 by Kathy Kelly

In 1565, Pieter Bruegel the Elder created The Massacre of the Innocents, a provocative masterpiece of religious art. The painting reworks a biblical narrative about King Herod’s order to slaughter all newborn boys in Bethlehem for fear that a messiah had been born there. Bruegel’s painting situates the atrocity in a contemporary setting, a sixteenth-century Flemish village under attack by heavily armed soldiers. 

Depicting multiple episodes of gruesome brutality, Bruegel conveys the terror and grief inflicted on trapped villagers who cannot protect their children. Uncomfortable with the images of child slaughter, the Holy Roman Emperor Rudolph II, after acquiring the painting, ordered another reworking. The slaughtered babies were painted over with images such as bundles of food or small animals, making the scene appear to be one of plunder rather than massacre.

Were Bruegel’s anti-war theme updated to convey images of child slaughter today, a remote Yemeni village could be the focus. Soldiers performing the slaughter wouldn’t arrive on horseback. Today, they often are Saudi pilots trained to fly U.S.-made warplanes over civilian locales and then launch laser-guided missiles (sold by Raytheon, Boeing, and Lockheed Martin), to disembowel, decapitate, maim, or kill anyone in the path of the blast and exploding shards.

For more than five years, Yemenis have faced famines while enduring a naval blockade and routine aerial bombardment. The United Nations estimates the war has already caused 233,000 deaths, including 131,000 deaths from such indirect causes as lack of food, health services, and infrastructure.

Systematic destruction of farms, fisheries, roads, sewage and sanitation plants, and health-care facilities has wrought further suffering. Yemen is resource-rich, but famine continues to stalk the country, the United Nations reports. Two-thirds of Yemenis are hungry and fully half do not know when they will eat next. Twenty-five percent of the population suffers from moderate to severe malnutrition. That includes more than two million children.

Equipped with U.S.-manufactured Littoral Combat Ships, the Saudis have been able to blockade air and sea ports that are vital to feeding the most populated part of Yemen—the northern area, where 80 percent of the population lives. This area is controlled by Ansar Allah (also known as the “Houthi”). The tactics being used to unseat the Houthis severely punish vulnerable people—those who are impoverished, displaced, hungry, and stricken with diseases. Many are children who should never be held accountable for political deeds.

Yemeni children are not “starving children.” They are children being starved by warring parties whose blockades and bomb attacks have decimated the country. The United States is supplying devastating weaponry and diplomatic support to the Saudi-led coalition, while additionally launching its own “selective” aerial attacks against suspected terrorists and all the civilians in those suspects’ vicinity.

Meanwhile, the United States, like Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates, has cut back on its contributions to humanitarian relief. This severely affects the coping capacity of international donors.

For several months at the end of 2020, the United States threatened to designate Ansar Allah as a “Foreign Terrorist Organization.” Even the threat of doing so began affecting uncertain trade negotiations, causing prices of desperately needed goods to rise.

Five CEOs of major international humanitarian groups jointly wrote to U.S. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, on November 16, urging him not to make this designation. Numerous organizations with extensive experience working in Yemen described the catastrophic effects such a designation would have on delivery of desperately needed humanitarian relief.

Nevertheless, Pompeo announced, late in the day on Sunday, January 10, his intent to go ahead with the designation.

Senator Chris Murphy, Democrat of Connecticut, termed this terrorist designation a “death sentence” for thousands of Yemenis. “Ninety percent of Yemen’s food is imported,” he noted, “and even humanitarian waivers will not allow commercial imports, essentially cutting off food for the entire country.”

U.S. leaders and much of the mainstream media responded vigorously to the shocking insurrection at the U.S. Capitol, and the tragic loss of multiple lives as it occurred; it is difficult to understand why the Trump Administration’s ongoing massacre of the innocents in Yemen has failed to generate outrage and deep sorrow.

On January 13, journalist Iona Craig noted that the process of delisting a “Foreign Terrorist Organization”—removing it from the government’s list—has never been achieved within a timeframe of less than two years. If the designation goes through, it could take two years to reverse the terrifying cascade of ongoing consequences.

The Biden Administration should immediately pursue a reversal. This war began the last time Biden was in office. It must end now; two years is time Yemen doesn’t have.

Sanctions and blockades are devastating warfare, cruelly leveraging hunger and possible famine as a tool of war. Leading up to the 2003 “Shock and Awe” invasion of Iraq, U.S. insistence on comprehensive economic sanctions primarily punished Iraq’s most vulnerable people, especially the children. Hundreds of thousands of children died tortuous deaths, bereft of medicines and adequate health care.

Throughout those years, successive U.S. administrations, with a mainly cooperative media, created the impression that they were only trying to punish Saddam Hussein. But the message they sent to governing bodies throughout the world was unmistakable: If you do not subordinate your country to serve our national interest, we will crush your children.

Yemen hadn’t always gotten this message. When the United States sought United Nations’ approval for its 1991 war against Iraq, Yemen was occupying a temporary seat on the U.N. Security Council. It surprisingly voted then against the wishes of the United States, whose wars of choice around the Middle East were slowly accelerating.

“That will be the most expensive ‘No’ vote you will ever cast,” was the U.S. ambassador’s chilling response to Yemen.

Today, children in Yemen are being starved by monarchs and presidents colluding to control land and resources.

“The Houthis, who control a large part of their nation, are no threat whatsoever to the United States or to American citizens,” declares James North, writing for Mondoweiss. “Pompeo is making the declaration because the Houthis are backed by Iran, and Trump’s allies in Saudi Arabia and Israel want this declaration as part of their aggressive campaign against Iran.”

Children are not terrorists. But a massacre of the innocents is terror. As of January 19, 268 organizations have signed a statement demanding an end to the war on Yemen. On January 25, “The World Says No to War Against Yemen” actions will be held worldwide.

It was of another painting of Bruegel’s, The Fall of Icarus, that the poet W.H. Auden wrote:

About suffering they were never wrong,

The old Masters: how well they understood

Its human position: how it takes place

While someone else is eating or opening a window or just walking dully along;

. . . How everything turns away

Quite leisurely from the disaster.

This painting concerned the death of one child. In Yemen, the United States—through its regional allies—could end up killing many hundreds of thousands more. Yemen’s children cannot protect themselves; in the most dire cases of severe acute malnourishment, they are too weak even to cry.

We must not turn away. We must decry the terrible war and blockade. Doing so might help spare the lives of at least some of Yemen’s children. The opportunity to resist this massacre of the innocents rests with 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.

Kathy Kelly has worked for nearly half a century to end military and economic wars. At times, her activism has led her to war zones and prisons. She can be reached at: [email protected].

Featured image is from Yemen Press

The Cuba Solidarity Campaign adds its voice to the worldwide condemnation of the outgoing Trump administration’s listing of Cuba as a ‘state sponsor of terrorism’.

Trump’s move is designed to hinder the incoming Biden administration from reprising the Obama era’s rapprochement with Havana. Obama’s decision to formally remove Cuba from the terrorism list in 2015 was an important step that led to the restoration of diplomatic relations later that year.

Returning Cuba to the list is a unilateral measure that has been widely condemned and ridiculed. It is further evidence, if any is needed, of how sections of the right-wing in the US bully those who oppose its neo-liberal policies.

The move panders to the powerful, far-right anti-Cuba groups in Florida, who wield significant power within the Republican Party and form part of Trump’s core support.

Richard Burgon MP said it was “a disgraceful decision made for cynical political objectives and based upon lies. Obama rightly removed Cuba from this classification and I hope that Joe Biden does so too, and swiftly.”

There are already so many sanctions in place, tightened further by Trump, that the terrorism listing is unlikely to have significant or immediate effects. However it will entrench the sanctions policy, adding weight to the threats against international companies wishing to trade with Cuba, and it will make it more difficult for the incoming US administration to move towards an alternative policy of rapprochement and engagement with the island.

The US announcement is discredited, dishonest and comes from a morally bankrupt administration. Cuba is not in any way ‘a state sponsor of terrorism’. The opposite is true: Cuba is a state victim of terrorism. Since 1959, over 3,000 Cubans have lost their lives to terrorist acts, most of which have emanated from the US. These include numerous early acts of aggression and sabotage following the 1959 Revolution, peaking in the 1961 Bay of Pigs invasion, the bombing of a Cuban airliner in 1976 killing 73 people, and the hotel bombings in Havana in the 1990s designed to destroy the growing Cuban tourist industry.

The only terrorist aggression involving Cuba is coordinated, sponsored and perpetrated from the territory of the US, whose government is complicit and responsible for these atrocities.

We call on the incoming Biden administration to reverse this outrageous decision, and for good people across the world to join the campaign for an end to the US’s illegal blockade. Countries need to be able to engage and cooperate with each other in a spirit of mutual respect and understanding. At this time of worldwide pandemic, friendship across frontiers is surely the only way forward.

*

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

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Cuba Solidarity Campaign Statement on the United States Listing of Cuba as a State Sponsor of Terrorism
  • Tags: , ,

Vehicles move slowly a few metres down the crowded main street of Aizarya, a Palestinian suburb east of Jerusalem, before stopping again.

Islam Rabea, a 23-year-old minibus driver, pulls on the handbrake and begins musing again.

“This town is more crowded than a can of tuna fish,” he says. “There’s one entrance, which is also the only exit, and I drive people to it back and forth all day.”

Aizarya’s only route to the outside world is to the east via an Israeli-built road, facing the entrance of Maale Adumim, the largest illegal Israeli settlement in the occupied West Bank, built almost entirely on lands belonging to the Palestinian town.

To the west is Abu Dis, another Jerusalem suburb flanked by Israel’s separation wall, which forces all Abu Dis’s traffic to pass through Aizarya and exit east.

Last week, however, the Israeli government approved a project that would build extensive new sections of its separation wall around Aizarya’s north and east, severing it from the Israeli road and direct route to Jerusalem it has enjoyed for centuries, which now would be only accessible to Israeli settlers.

Israel’s government has allocated 14m shekels ($4.3m) for the project, according to Israeli NGO Peace Now.

Aizarya wouldn’t be totally cut off by the scheme. A new entrance to the town and Abu Dis would be erected to the north. That would move traffic towards Ramallah, away from the settlers’ view, and sever it from Jerusalem, the city that Aizarya has always been a satellite of.

map

“It wouldn’t change much for me, as a minibus driver. I’d still have to drive through this crowded cage to the new way out. But it would cut the town off completely from Jerusalem,” Rabea says.

‘Greater Jerusalem’ and Israeli annexation

This is not merely a traffic issue.

By funnelling Aizarya’s people away from Jerusalem and running the separation wall along the edge of the town, the suburb would be further cut off from the surrounding lands that Palestinian residents for centuries have worked and lived on.

The more would see Aizarya’s lands not already settled on by Israel as “effectively annexed”, according to its mayor, Issam Faroun, who says that his town would be “stripped of its lands – to the bone”.

Israel would also be “crippling its urban growth by expropriating the remaining lands the town had left to build on”, he says.

Faroun insists that the new Israeli project is “part of the ‘greater Jerusalem project’ and Israeli annexation plans”.

The Israeli separation wall to the west of Aizarya and Abu Dis (MEE/Qassem Maaddi)

The Israeli separation wall to the west of Aizarya and Abu Dis (MEE/Qassam Muaddi)

Last summer, Israel appeared set to unilaterally annex parts of the West Bank, including settlements around East Jerusalem such as Maale Adumim. Those plans faltered because of international pressure, and were allegedly delayed as part of Israel’s normalisation deal with the UAE.

However, Israel continues to pursue a longstanding policy of surrounding East Jerusalem with settlements that over time has been cutting it off from the West Bank.

That “greater Jerusalem project”, also known as E1, would see Aizarya’s lands swallowed up for settlement expansion. Eventually, it is believed, Israel intends to annex all settlements ringing East Jerusalem.

“The space they plan to annex is equivalent to the surface of East Jerusalem,” notes Bassam Bahar, an activist from Abu Dis. “The idea is to make the settlements part of the holy city, while leaving us, Palestinian suburban areas, out of it.”

Settlement activities east of Jerusalem began in the early 1970s, after the area was seized from Jordan and occupied by Israel in the 1967 Middle East war.

“Back then, we used to walk to Jerusalem. There were only a handful of settler trailers on two hilltops that the Jordanian government had made public land back in the 1950s,” recalls Faroun. “The Israeli government started expropriating more land around those hilltops and building on them. Those were supposed to be Aizarya’s future urban growth space. Today, it is the Maale Adumim settlement.”

Aizarya has lost 5,000 dunums of land to Maale Adumim, and another 2,000 to a buffer zone between the two that the Israeli authorities created.

The town’s residents were left with just 3,000 dunums of surrounding land on which to live and grow their crops, from the original 11,000 dunums they had before the occupation.

map

However, Aizarya remained connected to Jerusalem from the west, and to the West Bank cities of Jericho, Bethlehem and Hebron to the east. The main road between both directions crossed through the town.

That changed in the late 1990s, when the entire West Bank was separated from Jerusalem by a checkpoint system, following the Oslo Accords.

That’s about the time Rabea was born. “I remember, growing up, that people would go to Jerusalem through Aizarya and the neighbouring town of Abu Dis,” Rabea says.

“But when the Israelis built the wall in 2005 to the west of the town, it became a dead-end. The town grew more crowded and the main road to Jerusalem became the jammed street that we are now driving on. It often takes an hour to drive from one end of the town to the other.”

Using the last days of Tump

Aizarya’s highly strategic location between Jerusalem and the West Bank has long kept it in Israel’s sights, and its future remains key for any plans to expand settlement blocs around the holy city.

“The Israelis have had this project in mind for years,” says Bahar.

“The only thing which held them back from implementing it was international pressure. We explained the project to several European and American diplomats in 2008. They were all shocked, and pressured Israel to suspend its plans.”

Over the past four years, however, the Trump administration has given Israel almost carte blanche to pursue its expansionist policies at the expense of the Palestinians. Settlement building has skyrocketed, and the Israeli government has been using the final days of Donald Trump’s presidency to push through schemes and projects that would be frowned upon by the incoming Biden administration.

“The Israeli government is using the last days under the Trump administration to push its annexation plans in the east of Jerusalem forward, and it is us who pay the consequences,” Faroun laments. “I can’t plan for the future. There is no future.”

“Back in 1998, we elaborated a full-scale development plan for Aizarya, including a sewage system, housing, jobs and healthcare, but we couldn’t do any of it because we have no space left. All our lands were taken,” he adds.

As Israel has altered Aizarya’s routes over time, the town’s people have suffered the consequences. Children who once attended school in neighbouring towns and cities found the commute impossible, swelling classes in Aizarya and spurring dropouts.

“Our youth used to go to schools in Ramallah in high numbers before the wall was built. Those who had the Jerusalem ID went through the checkpoint every day,” Faroun says.

“After the wall was built, we have had to use roads that take two hours to reach both cities. Education rates dropped dramatically.”

Rabea was one of Aizarya’s affected youth.

“Growing up, I thought more of confronting the settlers and the occupation than I thought of studying. That eventually got me arrested at the age of 18. I was the youngest Palestinian in my prison,” he says.

After his release, Rabea never went back to school. Instead, he began making a living driving passengers through Aizarya’s and Abu Dis’s crowded streets. But history and politics have never left his mind.

“At one point I used to have some hope that these settlements were temporary, that they will withdraw and let us have a country in the 1967 borders,” he says, adding sarcastically: “Yes, I believed that, but at least I have the excuse that I was a kid.”

For Bahar, the story of Aizarya is the story of Palestine – and it has no happy ending.

“This is not only about Aizarya, Abu Dis and East Jerusalem. This is about Palestine never having a chance to become a state,” he says. “It is not about blocking another road or colonising another piece of land. It is about making life so difficult for us here, that we eventually leave.”

Releasing the handbrake and rolling his bus a little further down the road, Rabea insists he’s not going anywhere anytime soon.

“I’m too young to give up,” he says with a resigned smile. “I’m not leaving anywhere.”

*

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: Issam Faroun pointing a 1930s panoramic photo of Aizarya (MEE/Qassam Muaddi)

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on ‘Stripped to the Bone’: Israel Advances Plan to Cut Off Palestinian Suburb from Jerusalem

Russia’s Financial Strategy for Africa

January 21st, 2021 by Kester Kenn Klomegah

In order to raise its geopolitical influence, Russia has been making efforts identifying mega infrastructure projects such as nuclear power and energy, natural resources exploration and talks consistently about increasing trade with Africa. On the other hand, Russia primarily needs to work on a coordinated mechanism for financing these corporate policy initiatives and further push for increased trade with Africa.

On November 23, a videoconference organized by Federation Council of Russia, Chamber of Commerce and Industry of Russia and Business Russia Association, focused partly on identifying funding sources for exports, concretizing proposals for increasing exports to Africa and looking at facilitating amendments to the Russian legislation if required to promote exports to the African market.

Senator Igor Morozov, a member of the Federation Council Committee on Economic Policy, and newly elected Chairman of the Coordinating Committee on Economic Cooperation with Africa, noted during the meeting that in conditions of pressure from sanctions, it has become necessary to find new markets, new partners and allies for Russia.

“This predetermines the return of Russia back to Africa, makes this direction a high priority both from the point of geopolitical influence and in the sphere of trade and economic context.”

“It is important for us to expand and improve competitive government support instruments for business. It is obvious that over the thirty years when Russia left Africa, China, India, the USA, and the European Union have significantly increased their investment opportunities there in the region,” Morozov stressed.

With a renewed growing interest in the African market, Russians are feverishly looking for establishing effective ways of entry into the huge continental market. As result, Senator Igor Morozov unreservedly suggested creating a new structure within the Russian Export Center – an investment fund. He explained thus:

“Such a fund could evaluate and accumulate concessions as a tangible asset for the Russian raw materials and innovation business.”

The Coordinating Committee for Economic Cooperation with African States was created on the initiative of the Chamber of Commerce and Industry of the Russian Federation and Vnesheconombank with support from the Federation Council and the State Duma of the Federal Assembly of the Russian Federation. It has had support from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, the Ministry of Economy and Trade, the Ministry of Natural Resources, as well as the Ministry of Higher Education and Science.

During a restructuring meeting with the Coordinating Committee for Economic Cooperation with African States, President of the Russian Chamber of Chamber and Industry, Sergei Katyrin, said

“the primary task now to accelerate Russia’s economic return to African continent, from which we practically left in the 90s and now it is very difficult to increase our economic presence there in Africa.”

According to Katyrin, Russia’s economic presence in Africa today is significantly inferior in comparison to the positions of leading Western countries and BRICS partners.

“It’s time to overcome this yawning gap. Today, we face a difficult task to ensure the activities of Russian entrepreneurship on the African continent in the new conditions, taking into account all the consequences of the coronavirus pandemic.”

Katyrin stressed the necessity to resolve financial mechanism for business and for infrastructural projects.

“We need a state financial mechanism to support the work of Russian business in Africa otherwise it will be very difficult to break through the fierce competition of Western companies with such support. We need to focus on those areas where you can definitely count on success,” he told the meeting.

With the participation of representatives of business and expert circles, this committee’s primary task is to consolidate the efforts of business, government and public structures of Russia, facilitate the intensification of economic activities in Africa. It has the responsibility for adopting a more pragmatic approach to business, for deepening and broadening existing economic collaborations and for the establishment of direct mutually beneficial contacts between entrepreneurs and companies from Russia and African countries.

During this October meeting, the participants discussed various issues and acknowledged that the committee has achieved little since its establishment. The meeting identified factors that have hindered its expected achievements and overall performance since 2009. Admittedly, a quick assessment for over one decade (2010 to 2020) has shown very little impact and tangible results.

The committee’s document listed more than 150 Russian companies as members, most of them hardly seen participating in business events in order to get acquainted with investment opportunities in Africa.

Notwithstanding the setbacks down these years, Russians are still full of optimism. Completely a new team was put in place during the meeting hosted by the Russian Business Chamber. Russian Senator Igor Morozov was elected as the new Chairman of the Coordinating Committee for Economic Cooperation with African States.

Over the years, experts have reiterated that Russia’s exports to Africa could be possible only after the country’s industrial based experiences a more qualitative change and argued the benefits for introducing tariff preferences for trade with African partners.

“The situation in Russian-African foreign trade will change for the better, if Russian industry undergoes technological modernization, the state provides Russian businessmen systematic and meaningful support, and small and medium businesses receive wider access to foreign economic cooperation with Africa,” Professor Alexey Vasileyev, former director of the Institute for African Studies (IAS) under the Russian Academy of Sciences.

As a reputable institute established during the Soviet era, it has played a considerable part in the development of African studies in the Russian Federation. For over 25 years, Professor Vasileyev directed the Institute for African Studies. His research interests extend beyond the Middle East. For instance, he carried out analysis of socio-economic problems of Africa, including Sub-Saharan Africa. He has many books and monographs including the one titled Africa: The Stepchild of Globalization and Africa, the Challenges of the 21st Century.

Professor Vasileyev, now the Chair for African and Arab Studies at the Peoples’ Friendship University of Russia (since 2013), and Special Representative of Russian President for Relations with African leaders (2006–2011), pointed out that the level and scope of Russian economic cooperation with Africa has doubled in recent years, “but unfortunately Russian-African cooperation is not in the top five of the foreign players in Africa.”

Speaking particularly about trade, the professor noted that not all African countries have signed agreements with Russia, for example, on the abolition of double taxation. He urged African countries to make trade choices that are in their best economic interests and further suggested that Russia should also consider the issue of removal of tariff and non-tariff restrictions on economic relations.

In order to increase trade, Russia has to improve its manufacturing base and Africa has to standardize its export products to compete in external markets. Russia has only few manufactured goods that could successfully compete with Western-made products in Africa. Interestingly, there are few Russian traders in Africa and African exporters are not trading in Russia’s market, in both cases, due to multiple reasons including inadequate knowledge of trade procedures, rules and regulations as well as the existing market conditions, he said.

He believes that it is also necessary to create, for example, free trade areas.

“But before creating them, we need information. And here, I am ready to reproach the Russian side, providing little or inadequate information to Africans about their capabilities, and on the other hand, reproach the African side, because when our business comes to Africa, they should know where they go, why and what they will get as a result,” Professor Vasileyev explicitly added.

The United States, European Union members, Asia countries such as China, India and Japan, have provided funds to support companies ready to carry out projects in various sectors in African countries. Some have publicly committed funds, including concessionary loans, for Africa.

For example, during the last Ministerial Conference of the Forum on China-Africa Cooperation (FOCAC), Chinese President Xi Jinping said

“China will expand cooperation in investment and financing to support sustainable development in Africa. China provided US$60 billion of credit line to African countries to assist them in developing infrastructure, agriculture, manufacturing and small and medium-sized enterprises.”

It fully understands Africa’s needs and its willingness to open the door to cooperation in the field of scientific and technological innovation on an encouraging basis. The method for financing the building of infrastructure is relatively simple. In general, governments obtain preferential loans from the Export-Import Bank of China or the China Development Bank, with the hiring of Chinese building contractors.

The Chinese policy banking system allows leading Chinese state-owned enterprises to operate effectively in Africa, with the majority of these active in infrastructure and construction in Africa. China has always been committed to achieving win-win cooperation and joint development with Africa. Russia could consider the Chinese model of financing various infrastructure and construction projects in Africa.

Official proposals for all kinds of support for trade and investment has been on the spotlight down the years. In May 2014, Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov wrote in one of his articles:

“we attach special significance to deepening our trade and investment cooperation with the African States. Russia provides African countries with extensive preferences in trade.”

Lavrov wrote:

“At the same time, it is evident that the significant potential of our economic cooperation is far from being exhausted and much remains to be done so that Russian and African partners know more about each other’s capacities and needs. The creation of a mechanism for the provision of public support to business interaction between Russian companies and the African continent is on the agenda.”

After the first Russia-Africa Summit in the Black Sea city, Russia Sochi in October 2019, Russia and Africa have resolved to move from mere intentions to concrete actions in raising the current bilateral trade and investment to appreciably higher levels in the coming years.

“There is a lot of interesting and demanding work ahead, and perhaps, there is a need to pay attention to the experience of China, which provides its enterprises with state guarantees and subsidies, thus ensuring the ability of companies to work on a systematic and long-term basis,” Foreign Minister Lavrov explicitly said.

According to Lavrov, the Russian Foreign Ministry would continue to provide all-round support for initiatives aimed at strengthening relations between Russia and Africa.

“Our African friends have spoken up for closer interaction with Russia and would welcome our companies on their markets. But much depends on the reciprocity of Russian businesses and their readiness to show initiative and ingenuity, as well as to offer quality goods and services,” he stressed.

Amid these years of Western and European sanctions, Moscow has been looking for both allies and an opportunity to boost growth in trade and investment. Currently, Russia’s trade with Africa is less than half that of France with the continent and 10 times less than that of China. Asian countries are doing brisk business with Africa. According to UNCTAD’s World Investment Report 2020, the top five investors in the African continent are Netherlands, France, the United Kingdom, the United States and China.

In 2018, Russia’s trade with African countries grew more than 17 per cent and exceeded $20 billion. At the Sochi summit, Russian President Vladimir Putin said he would like to bring the figure $20 billion, over the next few years at least, to $40 billion.

In practical reality, from January 2021 marks the start of the African Continental Free Trade Area (AfCFTA), gives an additional signal for foreign players to take advantage of this new opportunity in Africa. As trumpeted, the AfCFTA has a lot more on offer besides the fact that it creates a single market of 1.3 billion people.

That said however, Russia, of course, has its own approach towards Africa. It pressurizes no foreign countries neither it has to compete with them, as it has its own pace for working with Africa. With the same optimism towards to taking emerging challenges and opportunities in Africa, Russia has to show financial commitment especially now when the joint declaration from the first historic Summit held in October 2019 ultimately seeks a new dynamism in the existing Russia-Africa relations.

*

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, previously worked for Inter Press Service (IPS), and now a frequent and passionate contributor to Global Research.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Russia’s Financial Strategy for Africa

Why Hardly Anyone Trusts the Virus Experts

January 21st, 2021 by John Rubino

Early in the pandemic, “trust the science!” could actually be used in a debate without attracting derisive laughter. But as the flip-flops, mistakes and, yes, lies have accumulated, a consensus seems to be forming that the health care authorities are no more trustworthy than the people running Congress or the Fed.

For proof, let’s start with vitamin D, which sure seems to lessen the severity of coronavirus infections. As the chart below illustrates (couldn’t find the source, but google “covid vitamin D” and you’ll find lots of studies that track with this data), people with higher levels of vitamin D in their bloodstream tend to experience covid-19 as a non-event while people low levels found the infection life-threatening.

vitamin D covid virus experts

There are obvious questions about causality here, so calling vitamin D a “cure” is going way too far. But if it has even a marginal effect – and the data suggest considerably more — a rational government would, you’d think, be handing out vitamin D like Halloween candy. In fact, since we’re mandating/prohibiting all kinds of other behaviors, we might expect vitamin D consumption to be required along with masks and social distancing.

Even covid-czar Anthony Fauci recently said:

“If you are deficient in vitamin D, that does have an impact on your susceptibility to infection. So I would not mind recommending — and I do it myself — taking vitamin D supplements.”

So why aren’t family-sized bottles of vitamin D arriving in the mail from the CDC? A cynic might wonder if the fact that Big Pharma doesn’t make much money from cheap, widely available supplements plays a role in the government’s apparent lack of interest.

Now about those lockdowns. Tom Woods has been producing charts that appear to show virtually no difference in virus outcomes between US states with aggressive lockdown policies and those without. California, for instance, has shuttered most of its small businesses and imposed widespread curfews, while Florida hasn’t. Here’s the result:

covid Florida California virus experts

As for the rest of the world – where they’re supposedly doing better than the US – the pattern of zero correlation between lockdowns and virus spread seems to be holding. France imposed a full national lockdown in March – after which the virus spiked. Then they added mask mandates (indoor and outdoor), with fines attached. And daily new cases soared.

France covid virus experts

Then of course there’s the lying. Dr. Fauci first claimed that masks don’t help – when he believed they did help — because he feared mask shortages for health care workers. He also admits to changing the official line on herd immunity according to what he thinks we’re ready to hear.

And, in what sounds more like incompetence than dishonesty, he’s apparently been answering the question “when will life go back to normal?” with whatever pops into his head at the time. In early 2020, it was the coming Autumn. In July, it was “a year or so.” More recently it’s “well into 2021.”

But the biggest and by far the most outrageous reason for this growing mistrust has to be the World Health Organization which, well, read for yourself:

WHO official urges world leaders to stop using lockdowns as primary virus control method

The World Health Organization’s special envoy on COVID-19 urged world leaders this week to stop “using lockdowns as your primary control method.”

“We in the World Health Organization do not advocate lockdowns as the primary means of control of this virus,” Dr. David Nabarro said to The Spectator’s Andrew Neil. “The only time we believe a lockdown is justified is to buy you time to reorganize, regroup, rebalance your resources, protect your health workers who are exhausted, but by and large, we’d rather not do it.”

Nabarro went on to point out several of the negative consequences lockdowns have caused across the world, including devastating tourism industries and increased hunger and poverty.

“Just look at what’s happened to the tourism industry in the Caribbean, for example, or in the Pacific because people aren’t taking their holidays,” he said. “Look what’s happened to smallholder farmers all over the world. … Look what’s happening to poverty levels. It seems that we may well have a doubling of world poverty by next year. We may well have at least a doubling of child malnutrition.”

In the United States, lockdowns have been tied to increased thoughts of suicide from children, a surge in drug overdoses, an uptick in domestic violence, and a study conducted in May concluded that stress and anxiety from lockdowns could destroy seven times the years of life that lockdowns potentially save.

The health care establishment could have saved a lot of time — and embarrassment — by just asking regular people about this stuff.  But then they would have made a lot less money.

*

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.

Fauci Now Says COVID-19 Vaccine May Become Mandatory

January 21st, 2021 by Dr. Joseph Mercola

Will the COVID-19 vaccine become mandatory? That’s a question many are asking these days and, by the looks of it, the answer may well be yes — although as I’ll explain later, I suspect the harms of the vaccine will become so apparent that it’ll kill such efforts before they become widespread.

In a January 1, 2021, Newsweek interview,1 Dr. Anthony Fauci said he was “sure” some institutions and businesses will require employees to be vaccinated, and that it’s “quite possible” the vaccine will be required for overseas travel.

When asked about the possibility of mandating the vaccine on a local level, such as for children attending school, he stated that “Everything will be on the table for discussion.” That said, he pointed out that since “we almost never mandate things federally” — with regard to health — he doesn’t believe a national vaccine mandate will be enacted.

In related news2 December 21, 2020, presidential candidate Joe Biden rolled up his sleeve to get publicly inoculated against COVID-19, stating that the vaccine was “nothing to worry about.” He’s also gone on record saying he will push for a 100-day mask mandate in federal buildings if he wins the presidency.3

Can Experimental Vaccines Be Mandated?

While many vaccines are required by state or local law, the thing that sets the COVID-19 vaccine apart from all others is the fact that it is still an experimental vaccine. While Moderna and Pfizer have been granted emergency use authorization for their respective vaccine candidates, they still haven’t even completed Stage 3 clinical trials yet.

The mRNA technology used in these vaccines is also experimental, and the sheer speed at which the vaccines have been developed and tested precludes us from knowing much about their side effects, especially in the long term.

As of December 18, 2020, the adverse event rate in the U.S. was 2.79%.4 This means your risk of harm from the vaccine is far greater than your risk of dying from COVID-19, which has an overall noninstitutionalized infection fatality rate of just 0.26%.5 Among those under the age of 40, the infection fatality rate is a mere 0.01%.6

If an experimental vaccine were to be mandated, it would set a frightening precedent and pave the way for all sorts of nonconsensual medical experimentation on the general public, going forward.

In a December 29, 2020, article7 in JAMA, the authors discuss the legal possibility of mandating COVID-19 vaccines, stating that “SARS-CoV-2 vaccines hold promise to control the pandemic and help restore normal social and economic life.”

However, this is questionable, considering the fact that the effectiveness of the vaccines is only measured by their ability to lessen moderate to severe COVID-19 symptoms such as cough and headache. Presumably, this would lower the risk of hospitalization and death for vaccinated individuals.

However, as explained in “How COVID-19 Vaccine Trials Are Rigged,” the vaccines were not evaluated for their ability to actually prevent infection and transmission of the virus. And, if the vaccine cannot reduce infection, hospitalizations or deaths, then it cannot create the vaccine-acquired herd immunity required to end the pandemic.

What’s more, in a November 26, 2020, BMJ article,8 Peter Doshi, associate editor of The BMJ, points out that while Pfizer claims its vaccine is 95% effective, this is the relative risk reduction. The absolute risk reduction is actually less than 1%. He also stresses that severe side effects appear commonplace:

“Moderna’s press release states that 9% experienced grade 3 myalgia and 10% grade 3 fatigue; Pfizer’s statement reported 3.8% experienced grade 3 fatigue and 2% grade 3 headache. Grade 3 adverse events are considered severe, defined as preventing daily activity. Mild and moderate severity reactions are bound to be far more common.”

New York Considers Forced Vaccination Bill

None of these open questions is stopping the New York Senate from considering a forced vaccination bill (A4169). As reported by constitutional attorney KrisAnne Hall:10

“January 6 New York Assemblymen will be asked to vote on a bill that will authorize the Governor and/or health officials to seize custody of New Yorkers, imprison, and force vaccinate them without due process.

This bill is not only a threat to the Constitution of New York, the people of New York, but also everyone in America if you consider the way certain legislation can spread throughout America in the age ‘crisis’ …

If passed this legislation will place in the hands of the Governor, or his designated agent, the full and autonomous authority to ‘order’ the ‘removal’ and ‘detention’ of every person the Governor or his ‘delegee’ determines ‘may pose’ a ‘significant and imminent threat to public health’ …

Once some health department worker thinks a New Yorker is a carrier or contact to a carrier, that person will be seized and held without hearing, trial, due process, or bond for a period of time to be determined by the health department.”

As noted by Hall, this bill violates the U.S. Constitution in several different ways. For starters, it eliminates your right to due process before forcing you into the custody of health officials, as well as your right to trial “as required by Article I sec 1 and Article VI Sec 18a of the New York Constitution.”

It also “arbitrarily reduces the well-established standard of strict scrutiny required for the infringement of these fundamental rights to the lesser standard of ‘clear and convincing evidence’ which will be determined solely by the Governor or some worker in the New York Health Department.” This, in turn, violates the constitutional principle of separation of powers.

Thirdly, “A-416 is a bold violation of Article 1 sec 5 and Article 1 sec 12 of the New York Constitution” as it would deprive you of your “inherent rights to due process related to a search and seizure” of your property and/or your body.

“New Yorkers cannot allow that to happen. Everyone in New York needs to contact their Senator and Assemblyman and DEMAND they vote no on A-416. Everyone in America needs to contact their State and demand that such legislation never be drafted,” Hall writes.11

In her blog post, Hall includes sample letter and phone scripts you can use when contacting your representatives.

Blackmailing the Public to Force Vaccine Uptake

Getting back to the JAMA article12 discussing the legal possibility of mandating COVID-19 vaccines, the authors point out that mandating a vaccine while it’s still under an emergency use approval is “legally and ethically problematic.”

“Vaccine mandates are unjustified because an EUA requires less safety and efficacy data than full Biologics License Application (BLA) approval. Individuals would also likely distrust vaccine mandates under emergency use, viewing it as ongoing medical research,” the article states.

Once the vaccine is fully licensed, however, vaccine mandates “could be imposed in multiple sectors,” according to the authors. Still, they point out that “Given the rarity of adult mandates, states are unlikely to enact mandatory COVID-19 vaccinations for the adult population, especially in the absence of long-term safety data.”

Private companies, on the other hand, can require vaccination as a condition of employment, and according to a Yale CEO survey, 71% of company executives supported the implementation of COVID-19 vaccine mandates in the workplace.13

The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission has already ruled that businesses can compel their employees to get vaccinated, and that they may fire those who refuse. Employers must, however, allow for medical exemptions and “offer reasonable accommodations based on religion or disability.”14

Schools may also end up requiring COVID-19 vaccination for students, faculty and staff, and it seems likely the vaccine may simply be added to the ACIP-recommended list of childhood vaccinations. Most troubling, however, is the proposal to require vaccination as a condition of service. According to the JAMA article:15

“It is foreseeable that businesses in certain high-risk settings could require proof of vaccination as a condition of service, such as in long-distance travel (plane, rail, bus), restaurants, and entertainment (sports, movies, theater).

While states might be constitutionally barred from requiring vaccines to participate in religious worship, it is conceivable that some churches, synagogues, or mosques might consider such conditions for congregants. Local or state governments could also require vaccination as a condition of service.”

To be clear, even if state and federal governments don’t mandate the vaccine, by barring unvaccinated people from traveling, participating in social events and even entering into government buildings, they are essentially mandating it. Unvaccinated people would become second-class citizens that aren’t permitted to work, travel, conduct business or engage socially. What kind of life is that?

Yet this is precisely what we may be facing. As noted by the JAMA authors, “If scientific and logistical challenges can be overcome, linking vaccinations as a condition of providing service could be an effective incentive for vaccination.” They really should call it what it is: blackmail.

Many Front-Line Workers Refuse COVID-19 Vaccine

Distribution of Pfizer’s and Moderna’s vaccines began at the end of December 2020. In the U.S., most states have elected to begin distribution among front-line health care workers and in senior care facilities. However, despite media fanfare, many health care workers are leery of the vaccine.

According to news reports, about half of all front-line workers in Riverside County, California, have refused the vaccine,16 as have 60% of nursing home staff in Ohio,17 40% of staff at Chicago’s Loretto Hospital18 and 40% of LA’s front-line workers.19 Similar rates of vaccine refusal are being reported in several European countries.20

Interestingly, a survey by the National Association of Health Care Assistants revealed a whopping 72% of certified nursing assistants plan to refuse the vaccine,21 as are 55% of firefighters in New York, according to a December 2020 poll by the Uniformed Firefighters Association.22 The reason for this widespread hesitation is as understandable as it is justifiable. As noted in the Western Journal:23

“Throughout the coronavirus pandemic, any skepticism about the virulence of the virus or wisdom of draconian shutdowns was met with the mantra ‘follow the science’ to stifle any serious debate.

All along the way, however, officials did anything but as they imposed useless mask mandates, allowed Black Lives Matter protests despite closing businesses and imposing social distancing on everyone else, and even expressed skepticism about any vaccine simply because it was developed at the behest of President Donald Trump.

But worst of all, officials undermined science by suggesting that vaccination distribution begin based on race rather than in the nursing home populations that were actually ravaged by the virus.

In short, governments and the medical community killed any credibility they had at the beginning of the pandemic with their repeated hypocrisy and mixed messages. It’s no wonder these workers are reluctant to follow them now and are instead relying on their gut instincts to mistrust the untested vaccine and COVID-19 agenda.”

Side Effects and Deaths Are Stacking Up

The fact that high rates of side effects and sudden deaths are already being reported will hardly improve matters in coming weeks and months. For example, January 4, 2021, RT reported24 that health authorities in Portugal were “on alert” after the sudden death of a 41-year-old pediatric surgery assistant who had been in good health. She was found dead in her bed just two days after being inoculated with Pfizer’s COVID-19 vaccine.

December 30, 2020, the Daily Star reported25 the death of an elderly resident in Lucerne, Switzerland, five days after receiving the Pfizer vaccine. The man had previously “reacted negatively” to the seasonal influenza vaccine. According to the report, he suffered from dementia but was otherwise in good health.

December 26, 2020, a Boston doctor with severe shellfish allergy suffered a life-threatening anaphylactic reaction to the Moderna vaccine. As reported by RT:26

“Within minutes, Sadrzadeh’s tongue and throat began to tingle and go numb, a reaction that he associated with his shellfish allergy. Even more concerning, his blood pressure then dipped so low that it wasn’t even detectable with a monitor. Luckily, the doctor had brought his own EpiPen, which he administered on himself before hospital staff rushed him to the emergency room …

‘I feel that if I did not have my EpiPen with me, I would be intubated right now, because it was that severe,’ he said, adding that it was the worst allergic reaction he had experienced since he was 11 years old. The physician said he now recommends that people with allergies receive the vaccine in a hospital setting, instead of getting it from a clinic or local provider …

The concerning case is the first of its kind to be linked to the Moderna jab. Officials with the Food and Drug Administration and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention are investigating at least six cases of severe allergic reactions occurring in people who took the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine.”

A December 21, 2020, article27 in The Defender reported the U.S. Food and Drug Administration is investigating a series of allergic reactions to the Pfizer vaccine. Aside from the Boston doctor, other reports of allergic reactions, including anaphylactic shock, include four health care workers in Illinois and three health care workers in Alaska.28 Cases of anaphylaxis also emerged within days of the rollout of Pfizer’s and Moderna’s vaccines in the U.K.29

Thousands Injured in Mere Days

According to the CDC,30 by December 18, 2020, 112,807 Americans had received their first dose of COVID-19 vaccine. Of those, 3,150 suffered one or more “health impact events,” defined as being “unable to perform normal daily activities, unable to work, required care from doctor or health care professional.”

That’s 2.79%. Extrapolated to the total U.S. population of 328.2 million, we can then expect 9,156,780 Americans to be injured by the vaccine if every single man, woman and child is vaccinated. Is this really reasonable for a virus that has an average survival rate of 99.74%?31

V-safe active surveillance for COVID-19 vaccines

In the end, I suspect and predict that widespread mandates for COVID-19 vaccination will not take place. I believe there will simply be too many injuries and deaths from the first and second rounds of vaccinations, and that will destroy any and all vaccine mandate arguments.

Allergy Alert

Many suspect polyethylene glycol (PEG), found in both Pfizer’s and Moderna’s vaccines, might be the culprit causing allergic reactions and anaphylaxis. According to Robert F. Kennedy Jr., “studies show that 1 in 7 Americans may unknowingly be at risk of experiencing an allergic reaction to PEG.”32

Kennedy believes “everyone should be screened for anti-PEG antibodies before getting the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines,” adding that “It is unconscionable that, instead, the FDA and CDC are encouraging people to go ahead and risk a life-threatening anaphylactic reaction and just assume that someone will be on hand to save them.”33

It’s worth noting that the CDC has updated its vaccine guidance in response to reports of allergic reactions to the Pfizer vaccine, stating that:34

“If you have had a severe allergic reaction to any ingredient in an mRNA COVID-19 vaccine, you should not get either of the currently available mRNA COVID-19 vaccines. If you had a severe allergic reaction after getting the first dose of an mRNA COVID-19 vaccine, CDC recommends that you should not get the second dose.

CDC has also learned of reports that some people have experienced non-severe allergic reactions within 4 hours after getting vaccinated (known as immediate allergic reactions), such as hives, swelling, and wheezing (respiratory distress).

If you have had an immediate allergic reaction — even if it was not severe — to any ingredient in an mRNA COVID-19 vaccine, CDC recommends that you should not get either of the currently available mRNA COVID-19 vaccines.

If you had an immediate allergic reaction after getting the first dose of an mRNA COVID-19 vaccine, you should not get the second dose … People who are allergic to PEG or polysorbate should not get an mRNA COVID-19 vaccine.”

COVID-19 Outbreaks Occurring Among Vaccinated

Yet another interesting problem that has arisen is that many newly vaccinated individuals are suddenly testing positive for COVID-19. In a San Jose, California, hospital, 51 employees tested positive within 10 days of vaccination, although it’s unclear whether all of them had actually received the vaccine.35

One died from COVID-19 complications. Interestingly, the outbreak is being blamed on an employee who showed up wearing an inflatable Christmas costume. The same pattern has been reported elsewhere.

For example, in Israel, 21 residents of a retirement home tested positive for the virus after receiving the vaccine.36 Authorities pointed out that since two doses are required to provide protection against SARS-CoV-2, you can still catch it after the first dose. The same argument was made in the San Jose hospital case.

A doctor in Philadelphia also tested positive after taking the vaccine,37 as did a nurse in San Diego.38In each case, health authorities have insisted that it’s not the vaccine causing the problem but, rather, the fact that the shot needs time to work.

Overall, there’s plenty of reason to be cautious and delay COVID-19 vaccination as long as possible. As mentioned earlier, I believe that, in time, the harms will become apparent enough that any talk about mandating these vaccines will simply evaporate.

*

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 Newsweek January 1, 2021

2 NBC News December 21, 2020

3 9 News Australia December 4, 2020

4, 29, 30 CDC.gov Anaphylaxis following mRNA COVID-19 vaccine receipt (PDF)

5, 6, 31 Annals of Internal Medicine September 2, 2020 DOI: 10.7326/M20-5352

7, 12, 13, 14, 15 JAMA December 29, 2020 DOI: 10.1001/jama.2020.26553

8 The BMJ Opinion November 26, 2020

9 New York Senate Assembly Bill A416

10, 11 KrisAnneHall.com

16, 17 NBC News December 31, 2020

18 NPR January 1, 2021

19 Newsweek December 31, 2020

20 Zerohedge December 27, 2020

21, 23 Western Journal January 4, 2021

22 NBC New York December 6, 2020

24 RT January 4, 2021

25 Daily Star December 30, 2020

26 RT December 26, 2020

27, 28, 32, 33 The Defender December 21, 2020

34 CDC.gov COVID-19

35 ABC 7 News January 5, 2021

36 The Jerusalem Post January 3, 2021

37 NBC Philadelphia December 31, 2020

38 Kiro7 News December 30, 2020

Featured image is from Health Impact News

Cuban blood left its stamp on the conscience of the world after the Angolan Wars of 1975-1988.  Corporate politicians are united in their desire for us to ignore this reality.

Fed up with foreign wars, Portuguese officers overthrew Prime Minister Marcello Caetano on April 25, 1974.  Many former colonies had the opportunity to define their own future.

Angola had been the richest of Portuguese colonies, with major production in coffee, diamonds, iron ore and oil.  Of the former colonies, it had the largest white population, which numbered 320,000 of about 6.4 million.  When 90% of its white population fled in 1974, Angola lost most of its skilled labor.

Three groups juggled for power.  The Popular Movement for the Liberation of Angola (MPLA), headed by Agostinho Neto was the only progressive alternative.  The National Front for the Liberation of Angola (NFLA), led by Holden Roberto, gained support from Zaire’s right-wing Joseph Mobutu, a conspirator in the assassination of Patrice LumumbaJonas Savimbi, who ran the National Union for the Total Independence of Angola (UNITA), worked hand-in-hand with South Africa’s apartheid regime.

Portugal told South Africa to remove its troops from Angola, which it did by October, 1974.  Recently defeated in Viet Nam, the US felt unable to send troops.  Encouraged by the Ford administration South Africa returned to Angola within a year.

Meanwhile, Fidel Castro’s representatives met with Neto along with the head of MPLA’s recently organized militia, the Popular Armed Forces for the Liberation of Angola (FAPLA).  Not eager to intervene, Cuba declined to give financial support.

The South African invasion began October 14 when many of its white troops pretended to be UNITA forces by darkening their faces with “Black Is Beautiful” camouflage cream.  By November, Fidel knew that without help the Angolan capital would fall to apartheid forces and he approved military assistance.  The small number of Cubans who arrived were critical in stopping the South African drive to Angola’s capital, Luanda.

Intense hostility between UNITA and the FNLA resulted in the latter being crushed by early 1976, simplifying the conflict to battles between the MPLA and UNITA, with their allies.  Cuban troops reached the southern border with Namibia, completely pushing out the forces of apartheid.

Multiple factors propelled Cuba’s entry.  The 1959 revolution was so intensely opposed by the US that it became clear that the best defense of Cuba would be an offense.  A campaign in Africa would be less likely to provoke a direct confrontation, largely because most Americans did not see Africa as part of their backyard.  A huge number of Cubans are of African descent and revolutionaries saw anti-racism as core to their politics.  Fidel referred to the anti-apartheid struggle as “the most beautiful cause.”

The second phase of war 

Since the fighting seemed to decrease, the number of Cuban soldiers in Angola dropped from 36,000 in April 1976 to under 24,000 within a year.  However, when France and Belgium sent troops to Zaire, Cuba halted its troop withdrawal.

Throughout the Angolan conflict, South Africa and the US ignored international law and acted as if it was perfectly natural for South Africa to dominate Namibia.  After South African planes massacred Namibian refuges at the Cassinga camp in Angola in May 1975 US President Jimmy Carter brushed it aside and quipped that “we hope it’s all over.”

Memories of that massacre stayed in the mind of a 12 year old girl, Sophia Ndeitungo: “The first Cubans I ever saw were the soldiers who came” to rescue them.  Most Cubans were white, so she “…thought they were South Africans.  Later, we understood that not all whites are bad.”  Sophia was relocated to Cuba’s Isle of Youth to study.  She graduated from Havana’s medical school, married another Cassingan refugee, returned to Namibia, and became head of its armed forces medical services in 2007.  For thousands of black Africans, Cubans were the only white people who showed them any kindness.

Exuberant over the 1980 US election of Ronald Reagan, South Africa stepped up its raids in Angola, Mozambique, Zimbabwe, Zambia, Lesotho, Swaziland, and Botswana.  In August 1981 South Africa poured 4000 to 5000 troops into southern Angola with tanks and air support.  It expanded tactics to include poisoning wells, killing livestock and destroying food distribution and communications.  It was in this context that Cuba began sending 9000 troops back to Angola during August 1983.

Savimbi: Ally of US and South Africa 

Throughout the Carter administration and the early Reagan years, the US increased its flow of weapons to UNITA.  As early as 1974 UNITA’s leader Savimbi had established contacts with the Portuguese dictatorship and promised South Africa that he would help them build an anti-communist bloc.  Savimbi spoke fluent English, oozed self-confidence, cleverly manipulated his audience, knew just what Americans wanted to hear, and was “without scruple.”  In other words, his combination of qualities was a perfect fit for a CIA front man.

Savimbi consolidated his local power by executing village opponents as “sorcerers.”  He had total control and did not tolerate dissent.  By 1980, in addition to ridding UNITA of those who challenged him, Savimbi had “…the wives and children of the dissenters burned alive in public displays to teach the others.”

Special Forces Colonel Jan Breytenbach saw Savimbi as a “manipulator extraordinaire … As a political leader, he was very good.  I would compare him to Hitler.”  This comparison to Hitler was not a slighting of Savimbi – it was a compliment, as multiple top South African politicians had been members of pro-Nazi groups.

Among those who overlooked Savimbi’s campaigns of mass destruction was President Jimmy Carter, who took time out of his schedule of human rights advocacy to arrange the flow of secret US dollars to UNITA.  In 1985 Steve Weissman summed up attitudes that spanned both parties:  “We wanted to hurt Cuba, and we wanted to help people who wanted to hurt Cuba.  When Savimbi said that he was ‘fighting for freedom against Cuba’ – this was his trump card.  It was impossible to counter it. Savimbi had one redeeming quality: he killed Cubans.”

South African attitudes toward Savimbi fit into its broader perspective of utter contempt for blacks.  Deaths of whites were followed by announcements from the army and newspaper obituaries in the press.  Deaths of black soldiers were not broadcast either by their military superiors or by the press at home.

South African views mirrored those of US politicians.  A 1971 amendment to the US sanctions bill by former KKK member and Democrat Senator Harry F. Byrd (VA) exempted chrome, thereby pulling all teeth from consequences to the white minority government of Rhodesia.  A much-publicized July 1986 speech by Reagan lavished praise on South African whites who he said gave great opportunity to blacks.

Conflicts between allies

Considerable discord between allies arose from the marriage of necessity between Cuba and the Soviet Union.  Cuba’s strategy had been for it to confront the better armed and trained South African forces and for Angola’s FAPLA to counter internal enemies in guerrilla warfare.  The Soviets believed that FAPLA should develop a conventional army with tanks and heavy weapons to fight South Africa.

But Angolan troops had virtually no formal education.  Officers might have reached the second, third or fourth grade, but the army’s rank and file typically had never been to school and were unable to master sophisticated weapons provided by the Soviets.

While Cuba advocated FAPLA’s concentrating on UNITA, it simultaneously cautioned that the Angolan military should have Cuban backup whenever venturing into territory largely surrounded by UNITA and South African troops.  President Neto died in September 1979 and his successor, José Eduardo dos Santos, was often lured by Soviet visions of having a conventional army strong enough to overcome both opposition forces.

Throughout the conflict, the Soviets acted as if the primary weapons of war were logistical plans, tanks and weapons, while for Cuba the maps of war were drawn from the hearts and minds of those who used these weapons.  Cuba understood that the Angolan front was part of a broad campaign against racist domination across southern Africa.

By March 1976, Cuba’s initial victory over South Africa let loose a “tidal wave” against white racist rule as blacks became joyfully aware that apartheid forces were vulnerable.  In September 1977 Steve Biko died in police custody and within a month the government had banned 18 organizations and the most important black newspaper.  In September 1984 a new South African constitution bestowed political participation upon “coloreds” and Indians while denying the same rights to blacks.  Black townships in the industrial centers of the country exploded.  Massive demonstrations, strikes, school walkouts and boycotts of white owned stores spread like wildfire.  Soon funerals for victims of state repression were added to the events.

The ceremony for awarding the Noble Peace Prize to Bishop Desmond Tutu drew a huge rally.  Open opposition to apartheid mushroomed hand-in-hand with intensification of the war in Angola.  By 1987 the South African demonstrations were so large that thousands of white solders were assisting police within its borders.

Soviets were generally aloof from those they came to protect.  Africans themselves noticed how quickly Cuban soldiers, doctors, and others stationed near them melded into their society.  One recruit remembered that “The Cubans ate what we ate, slept in tents like us, lived as we did.’”  Physician Oscar Mena described his work in Angola as a “beautiful experience.”  Soviets in Angola seemed to think of it more as a job.  Battlefields reflected the cultural chasm – Soviet advisers stood on the sidelines of fighting while Cubans always joined in combat.

Dancing barefoot on a razor’s edge

In 1985 the Soviets persuaded Angola to attack UNITA’s stronghold in Mavinga, despite dire warnings from Havana that they would have to go through an area controlled by UNITA and create a supply line that it could not possibly defend.  It met with a disastrous defeat.  The same tragedy was repeated in 1987.

Afterwards, South Africa’s General Geldenhuys boasted of its victory to the press, which sparked intense global repudiation since that country had claimed non-involvement in Angola.  Was the time now ripe for Cuba to launch an all-out attack on South Africa’s forces?  This decision had Fidel dancing on a razor’s edge.

The most delicate balancing act was with the Soviet Union.  Without its financial aid, Cuba could not carry out the war.  Without its donation of military supplies, Angola’s FAPLA would be unable to fight.  But its repeated bungling of strategic decisions threatened every aspect of the war.

No less sensitive was Angola, which seemed mired in corruption.  Yet, the MPLA government was vastly superior to whatever Savimbi would usher in.  A victory in Angola would strike a mortal blow into the heart of apartheid; but, Cuba could not go forward without approval from Luanda.

Cuba had saved its most powerful weapons for self-protection in the event of a US invasion.  As Cubans drew weary of a decade and a half of sacrifice, Fidel and Raúl knew that being too cautious might mean missing an opportunity that would never repeat itself.  However, moving too quickly could cause a defeat that would demoralize and exhaust the Cuban troops, doctors, and people at home.

They also knew that thousands of white soldiers became unavailable for service in Angola because they were needed in South Africa to suppress dissent.  Reagan’s embroilment in the Iran-Contra scandal left the US unable to go on an attack.

Cuba’s leaders agreed that the hour had arrived to send vastly more troops and arms to Angola, including its best planes, its best pilots and its most sophisticated weapons.  In March 1988 FAPLA and Cuba defended the town of Cuito Cuanavale as it was attacked by South African and UNITA troops.  Enough Cuban planes and pilots had arrived for them to score a victory in the air.  At the same time Angolan troops drove back the ground attack.  South African troops were demoralized as it signaled the beginning of the end.  Nelson Mandela observed that this key battle “destroyed the myth of the invincibility of the white oppressor.”

Despite the clear defeat of apartheid forces, US diplomats continued to tell their Soviet counterparts that South Africa would not leave Angola until all Cuban troops were gone.  Fidel told the Soviet negotiator to “… ask the Americans why has the army of the superior race been unable to take Cuito, which is defended by blacks and mulattoes from Angola and the Caribbean?”

Cuban negotiator Risquet politely told them “The South Africans must understand that they will not win at this table what they have failed to win on the battlefield.”  Knowing that a full invasion of Angola would be rebuffed internationally, result in thousands of casualties, and potentially leave the country unable to defend itself from internal black rebellion, South African politicians gave the nod to its commanders to leave.  Its troops were withdrawn from Angola by August 30, 1988.

In Angolan elections dos Santos of the MPLA defeated Savimbi (49.8% to 40.1%).  In April 1990 South African president Frederick de Klerk legalized the African National Congress and South African Communist Party as he freed Nelson Mandela, who was elected to head the country in April 1994.

Many of the parallels between the US in Viet Nam and Cuba in Angola were striking and both foreign interventions had a profound effect on public consciousness.  Yet, Cuba was defending an actual country from invasion while the division of Viet Nam into “North” and “South” was a figment of the imaginations of French and Americans, which is to say that no foreign invasion occurred.  It was no coincidence that Cuba treated Angola as a sovereign state (despite many differences) while US politicians had as much respect for Vietnamese as a puppeteer has for his many toys.

No one appreciated the political reality more than South Africans who opened Freedom Park in Pretoria in 2007.  Its Wall of Names includes 2103 Cubans who lost their lives in the Angolan war.  Cuba is the only foreign country represented on the Wall.

Note.  This article is based on the following: information documented in Piero Gleijeses’ Visions of Freedom: Havana, Washington, Pretoria, and the Struggle for Southern Africa, 1976-1991 (2013); interviews by Hedelberto López Blanch which appear in his book Historias Secretas de Médicos Cubanos (2005); interviews by the author reported in his book Cuban Health Care: The Ongoing Revolution (2020); and interviews by Candace Wolf in her unpublished paper, The Zen of Healing (2013).  A version of this article appeared in openDemocracy.

*

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

Don Fitz ([email protected]) is on the Editorial Board of Green Social Thought.  He was the 2016 candidate of the Missouri Green Party for Governor.  His book on Cuban Health Care: The Ongoing Revolution has been available since June 2020 and has citations for all quotations in this article.

With over 800 million people, rural India is arguably the most interesting and complex place on the planet but is plagued by farmer suicides, child malnourishment, growing unemployment, increased informalisation, indebtedness and an overall collapse of agriculture.

Given that India is still an agrarian-based society, renowned journalist P Sainath says what is taking place can be described as a crisis of civilisation proportions and can be explained in just five words: hijack of agriculture by corporations. He notes the process by which it is being done in five words too: predatory commercialisation of the countryside. And another five words to describe the outcome: biggest displacement in our history.

In late November 2018, a charter was released by the All India Kisan Sangharsh Coordination Committee (an umbrella group of around 250 farmers’ organisations) to coincide with the massive, well-publicised farmers’ march that was then taking place in Delhi.

The charter stated:

“Farmers are not just a residue from our past; farmers, agriculture and village India are integral to the future of India and the world; as bearers of historic knowledge, skills and culture; as agents of food safety, security and sovereignty; and as guardians of biodiversity and ecological sustainability.”

The farmers stated that they were alarmed at the economic, ecological, social and existential crisis of Indian agriculture as well as the persistent state neglect of the sector and discrimination against farming communities.

They were also concerned about the deepening penetration of large, predatory and profit hungry corporations, farmers’ suicide across the country and the unbearable burden of indebtedness and the widening disparities between farmers and other sectors.

The charter called on the Indian parliament to immediately hold a special session to pass and enact two bills that were of, by and for the farmers of India.

If passed by parliament, among other things, the Farmers’ Freedom from Indebtedness Bill 2018 would have provided for the complete loan waiver for all farmers and agricultural workers.

The second bill, The Farmers’ Right to Guaranteed Remunerative Minimum Support Prices for Agricultural Commodities Bill 2018, would have seen the government take measures to bring down the input cost of farming through specific regulation of the prices of seeds, agriculture machinery and equipment, diesel, fertilisers and insecticides, while making purchase of farm produce below the minimum support price (MSP) both illegal and punishable.

The charter also called for a special discussion on the universalisation of the public distribution system, the withdrawal of pesticides that have been banned elsewhere and the non-approval of genetically engineered seeds without a comprehensive need and impact assessment.

Other demands included no foreign direct investment in agriculture and food processing, the protection of farmers from corporate plunder in the name of contract farming, investment in farmers’ collectives to create farmer producer organisations and peasant cooperatives and the promotion of agroecology based on suitable cropping patterns and local seed diversity revival.

Now in 2020, rather than responding to these requirements, we see the Indian government’s promotion and facilitation of – by way of recent legislation – the corporatisation of agriculture and the dismantling of the public distribution system (and the MSP) as well as the laying of groundwork for contract farming.

This legislation comprises three acts: The Farmers’ Produce Trade and Commerce (Promotion and Facilitation) Act 2020, Farmers (Empowerment and Protection) Agreement on Price Assurance and Farm Services Act 2020 and Essential Commodities (Amendment) Act 2020

Although the two aforementioned bills from 2018 have now lapsed, farmers are demanding that the new pro-corporate (anti-farmer) farms laws are replaced with a legal framework that guarantees the MSP to farmers.

According to an article by the Research Unit for Political Economy (RUPE), it is clear that the existence of MSPs, the Food Corporation of India, the public distribution system and publicly held buffer stocks constitute an obstacle to the profit-driven requirements of global agribusiness interests who have sat with government agencies and set out their wish-lists.

RUPE notes that India accounts for 15 per cent of world consumption of cereals. India’s buffer stocks are equivalent to 15-25 per cent of world stocks and 40 per cent of world trade in rice and wheat. Any large reduction in these stocks will almost certainly affect world prices: farmers would be hit by depressed prices; later, once India became dependent on imports, prices could rise on the international market and Indian consumers would be hit.

At the same time, the richer countries are applying enormous pressure on India to scrap its meagre agricultural subsidies; yet their own subsidies are vast multiples of India’s. The end result could be India becoming dependent on imports and the restructure of its own agriculture to crops destined for export.

RUPE concludes:

“Vast buffer stocks would still exist; but instead of India holding these stocks, they would be held by multinational trading firms, and India would bid for them with borrowed funds.”

Instead of holding physical buffer stocks, India would hold foreign exchange reserves.

Successive administrations have made the country dependent on volatile flows of foreign capital and India’s foreign exchange reserves have been built up by borrowing and foreign investments. The fear of capital flight is ever present. Policies are often governed by the drive to attract and retain these inflows and maintain market confidence by ceding to the demands of international capital.

This throttling of democracy and the ‘financialisation’ of agriculture would seriously undermine the nation’s food security and leave almost 1.4 billion people at the mercy of international speculators and foreign investment.

But agricapital’s free-for-all bonanza and the planned displacement of tens of millions of cultivators mirrors what has been happening across the world for many decades: the consolidation of a global food regime based on agro-export mono-cropping (often with non-food commodities taking up prime agricultural land) linked to sovereign debt repayment and foreign exchange inflows and earnings and World Bank/IMF ‘structural adjustment’ directives.

The outcomes have included a displacement of a food-producing peasantry, the dominance of Western agri-food oligopolies and the transformation of countries from food self-sufficiency to food deficiency. Little wonder then that among the owners of global agribusiness family firm Cargill 14 are now billionaires – the very company that profited from running down India’s edible oils sector in the 1990s.

It is not that India needs these people. It is already the world’s largest producer of milk, pulses and millets and the second-largest producer of rice, wheat, sugarcane, groundnuts, vegetables, fruit and cotton. This is despite India’s farmers already reeling from the effects of 30 years of neoliberal policies, decades of public underinvestment/disinvestment and a deliberate strategy to displace them at the behest of the World Bank and predatory global agri-food corporations.

If unrepealed, the recent legislation represents the ultimate betrayal of India’s farmers and democracy as well as the final surrender of food security and food sovereignty to unaccountable corporations. This legislation is wholly regressive and will eventually lead to the country relying on outside forces  to feed its population – and a possible return to hand-to-mouth imports, especially in an increasingly volatile world prone to conflict, public health scares, unregulated land and commodity speculation and price shocks.

A shift towards food sovereignty – encompassing local people’s right to healthy and culturally appropriate food and their ability to define and control their own food and agriculture systems – is key to achieving genuine independence, national sovereignty, food security and facilitating farmers’ demands.

*

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.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Farmers’ Protests Reflect Existential Crisis of Indian Agriculture
  • Tags: