Global Research

The US and its long-time Puppet state, Colombia are moving towards another attempt for regime change against Venezuela’s President, Nicolas Maduro.  Secretary of State Mike Pompeo’s Latin American tour which included Colombia, Brazil, Guyana and Suriname, all share borders Venezuela was a display of the US flaunting its economic and military muscle to shape its Latin America policy for its economic and geopolitical advantage in the region. 

Pompeo’s press statement with Colombia’s President Ivan Duque began with

“The United States remains the largest single donor of humanitarian and development assistance around the world, including for Venezuelans in need, because doing our part to respond to global crisis situations is a national security priority.” 

There were two main issues they both agreed upon and that was to deepen ties economically with Pompeo promising more US investments in Colombia and to overthrow their common enemy, Nicolas Maduro.  Pompeo mentioned Colombia’s support behind Juan Guaido and the nations who influence the Maduro government including Cuba, Iran and Russia,

“Colombia’s backing of opposition leader Juan Guaido “and the democratic transition for a sovereign Venezuela free of malign influence from Cuba, from Russia, from Iran, is incredibly valued.”

Pompeo praised Colombia’s lapdog President by claiming that “You are a true leader for the region and the dignity of all of its people.”  Colombia’s President Ivan Duque has continued the same human rights violations from previous US supported regimes according to the Office of the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR) who released a statement on the matter in early January of this year:

We are deeply troubled by the staggering number of human rights defenders killed in Colombia during 2019. According to our records, 107 activists were killed last year, and our staff in Colombia are still in the process of verifying 13 additional cases reported during 2019 which, if confirmed, would raise the annual total to 120 killings. Attacks on human rights defenders had already intensified during 2018, when 115 killings were confirmed by the UN Human Rights Office in Colombia. And this terrible trend is showing no let-up in 2020, with at least 10 human rights defenders already reportedly killed during the first 13 days of January.

We renew our call on the Colombian Government to make a strenuous effort to prevent attacks on people defending fundamental rights, to investigate each and every case and to prosecute those responsible for these violations, including instigating or aiding and abetting violations. The vicious and endemic cycle of violence and impunity must stop. Victims and their families have a right to justice, truth and reparations.

The great majority of the 107 killings in 2019, happened in rural areas, almost all (98 %) in municipalities with illicit economies where criminal groups or armed groups operate, and 86 % of the total number took place in villages with a poverty rate above the national average. While more than half of the killings occurred in just four provinces — Antioquia, Arauca, Cauca and Caquetá — murders were nevertheless recorded in 25 different provinces. The single most targeted group was human rights defenders advocating on behalf of community-based and specific ethnic groups such as indigenous peoples and Afro-Colombians. The killings of female human rights defenders increased by almost 50 per cent in 2019 compared to 2018

Following his meeting with the Colombian president, Pompeo’s press statement signaled that the US will fund $348 million for “humanitarian assistance” which really means a “humanitarian intervention” in neighboring Venezuela:

The United States is demonstrating our continued commitment to the Venezuelan people and our response to the ongoing humanitarian crisis caused by the corrupt and illegitimate Maduro regime with the announcement of an additional nearly $348 million in humanitarian assistance.

This amount includes nearly $143 million from the State Department’s Bureau of Population, Refugees and Migration, and more than $205 million from the U.S. Agency for International Development

Washington is interested in Venezuela’s oil, they want a lapdog government under someone like Juan Guaido who Trump called “Venezuela’s true and legitimate president” in a State of the Union speech last February.  Trump visited South Florida in early July for a meeting with the U.S Military Southern Command and said that “something will happen with Venezuela. That’s all I can tell you” and that Washington “will be very much involved.”  Trump’s former National Security Advisor John Bolton, who is a neocon relic from the 1980′s told Fox News before he was fired that “we’re in conversation with major American companies now… It will make a big difference to the US economically if we could have American oil companies really invest in and produce the oil capabilities in Venezuela.”  Controlling Venezuela’s oil is Washington’s priority in South America, not for the humanitarian causes as Trump’s top neocon warmonger Mike Pompeo has claimed.  Pompeo emphasized on the continued success of Colombia’s ‘War on Drugs’or what he called “the poison of narcotics”, he said that

“our two countries are also standing strongly against the poison of narcotics.  Mr. President, your administration has been exemplary in this area.  Colombian law enforcement, even in these difficult times, has stepped up cocaine interdiction and eradication.  You manually cleared 57% more coca fields in 2019 than in the year prior, 2018.  Look, we all need to do more to reach the goal to cut this coca cultivation.  I know you’ll do that.  The U.S. is here to help by sharing resources, expertise, and we applaud the work that you have done.  Thank you for that.” 

Duque thanked Pompeo in response

“I think that, Mr. Secretary, we had a wonderful meeting, and I thank you once again for visiting our country, for being here.  And as we said repeatedly in the past, the U.S.-Colombia relationship is strengthened every day.  And you have said so – Colombia represents our most important ally in Latin America – and we feel the same.  And we do so because we share common values and we will continue to share and strengthen those values throughout our history.  So my gratitude to you and to President Trump.  Thank you so much.”

Hugo Chávez, the late Venezuelan President once said that

“Unfortunately, Colombia is, strategically, the beachhead for Yankee strivings in South America, their base of operations. [They] send elite troops under a drug-war façade. So Colombia is a country occupied by foreign troops that has yet to stop the production and trafficking of drugs.”

Indeed, Colombia is the main staging ground for any future US-led invasion against Venezuela who holds more oil than any of their South American counterparts.  The stage is set with the US and Colombia in an attempt to remove Maduro from power with either a coup attempt by the opposition or with a full US-led invasion.  However, if Washington were to launch a conflict with Venezuela, it would be most likely after the elections and if of course, Trump wins in November.  However, removing Maduro from power by force will be a difficult task to do since he has full-support of the Venezuelan military and the people who will be the core of the resistance.  Russia and China also back Maduro.  If the US were to achieve their goals of regime change, Big Oil would reap the benefits and Trump would keep another promise that he will surely brag about to his Latino base in South Florida made-up of right-wing Cuban exiles, Venezuelans and other Latino groups who support US efforts to overthrow the Venezuelan, Cuban and the Nicaraguan governments.  Trump’s first-term in office was relatively peaceful because he did not approve a conventional war, but in his second-term, he won’t be so-peaceful because he won’t owe the public anything, if of course he wins a second-term.

*

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

Timothy Alexander Guzman writes on his blog site, Silent Crow News, where this article was originally published. He is a frequent contributor to Global Research.

Featured image is from SCN

The London pan-Arab daily al-Quds al-Arabi (Arab Jerusalem) reports that the Israeli parliament, the Knesset, voted down a proposed basic law introduced by Yousef Jabareen on behalf of the Joint List. It aimed at altering the constitutional basis of the Israeli state, requiring democratic principles, cultural pluralism and complete equality for all citizen on both civil and national levels.

What follows is a paraphrase of the article with a few comments by me. One comment by me to begin with: Israel has all along had a choice between being a democratic state for all its citizens or being an ethno-nationalist oligarchy with second-class citizens at home and Apartheid subjects in the West Bank. This is not the first Knesset vote to demonstrate forcefully that the Israeli majority wants the latter.

The bill aimed at providing existential and democratic human rights, especially complete equality and the recognition of the Palestinian-Israeli ethnic identity. Israelis of Palestinian heritage comprise about 21 percent of Israel’s citizen population.

The Knesset roundly rejected the bill, with both the Likud-led far right coalition of prime minister Binyamin Netanyahu and the Blue and White bloc of his foreign minister and sometime rival, Benny Gantz, voting against it.

The bill specified that “Israel shall be a democratic state, guaranteeing equality in rights, and concentrating on the principles of human dignity, liberty and equality, in accord with the spirit of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights of the United Nations.” It further said, that “the state will provide equal legal protection to all its citizens, and will guarantee completely national, cultural, linguistic and religious privacy to the two national groups within it,the Jews and Arabs.”

The law specifies that “Arabic and Hebrew are the two official languages in the state, and the two languages have an equal position in all the functions and work of the legislative, executive and judicial branches.”

It sought to guarantee “to the aboriginal Palestinian Arab minority the just right to be represented and to be influential in all the branches of government in the state, in public institutions, in every setting where decisions are made,” and that “the Palestinian Arab minority in the state will have the right to establish its own institutions in the realms of education, culture and religion and will be authorized to manage these institutions via representative bodies chosen by Arab citizens.”

Jabareen, who has law degrees from Hebrew University and the American University and has taught law at Tel Aviv University and the University of Haifa, noted that international laws and instruments specify the protection of these rights of aboriginal minorities and that some countries, such as Canada and Australia, also guarantee them.

Canada recognizes special rights for the First Nations (what US tribes tend to call Indians, a term disliked among Canadian tribes). These rights are generic and specific:

“Generic rights are held by all Aboriginal peoples across Canada, and include:

Rights to the land (Aboriginal title)

Rights to subsistence resources and activities

The right to self-determination and self-government

The right to practice one’s own culture and customs including language and religion. Sometimes referred to as the right of “cultural integrity,”

The right to enter into treaties.

Specific rights, on the other hand are rights that are held by an individual Aboriginal group. These rights may be recognized in treaties, or have been defined as a result of a court case.”

Canada also recognizes special rights for the French minority (which settled before the English), and is an officially bilingual state.

According to al-Quds al-Arabi, Jabareen said that Israel has defined itself since it was established after the Catastrophe (nakbah) that befell the Palestinians as “a democratic Jewish state.”

Documents in the Israeli National Archives show that Zionist militias of the late British Mandate of Palestine admitted that they were responsible for 85% of the ethnic cleansing of the native Palestinian population in 1947-48. Contrary to international law, Israel refused to allow the 720,000 Palestinians expelled to return to their homes, making their families permanent refugees. There are now 12 million Palestinians, with some 2 million Israeli citizens, 5 million living under Israeli military occupation and kept stateless, and the rest refugees scattered among many countries, especially Jordan and Lebanon.

Then in the summer of 2018, Israel legislated what is known as the “National Law,” which defines it as a state of the Jewish people, ignoring the Israelis of Palestinian heritage and making them guests in their own country.

The first article of the National Law speaks of “the land of Israel” being the historic homeland of the Jewish people, wherein the state of Israel was established. As for the fourth article, it says that “the Hebrew language is the official language of Israel,” effacing Arabic, which had long been the second official language.

This law, which some consider to be racist, says that “the state considers the development of Jewish settlements to be a national value, and works to encourage and support their establishment and maintenance.”

During the past year, the Knesset has shot down numerous proposals to amend the National Law to forbid discrimination against non-Jews.

The Joint List, which largely comprises Israelis of Palestinian heritage along with leftist Jews, announced that it is forestalled from voting to amend the National Law because its fundamental position is that the law must be repealed in its entirety, and the complete equality of Palestinian Arab citizens must be enshrined.

*

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

Featured image is from Informed Comment

The US’ latest anti-Iranian sanctions won’t change much when it comes to the Islamic Republic’s present economic predicament but will almost certainly provoke a worsening of the so-called “trade war” with China since the real intent seems to be to target the countless companies that are poised to participate in those two countries’ reported $400 billion strategic partnership agreement by replicating the model of “maximum pressure” that’s been experimented against Huawei over the past year.

Check here for the latest update to this list. 

As Julian Assange fights U.S. extradition at the Old Bailey in London, over one hundred eminent political figures, including 13 past and present heads of state, numerous ministers, members of parliament and diplomats, have today denounced the illegality of the proceedings and appealed for Assange’s immediate release.

The politicians from 27 different countries and from across the political spectrum have joined 189 independent international lawyers, judges, legal academics and lawyers’ associations by endorsing their open letter to the UK Government warning that the U.S. extradition request and extradition proceedings violate national and international law, breach fair trial rights and other human rights, and threaten press freedom and democracy.

Politicians endorsing the call to free Julian Assange include Jeremy Corbyn, former Prime Minister of Spain, Luis Zapatero, several members of the European Parliament, former presidents of Brazil, Lula da Silva and Dilma Roussef, and Australian parliamentarians from the cross-party parliamentary group to free Assange.

Kenneth MacAskill, Member of UK Parliament, former Justice Secretary of Scotland, and lawyer, commented, “This is a political crucifixion not legal process and is about seeking to bury truth and those exposing it.”

The unprecedented appeal to the UK government by the international political community follows concerns raised by Amnesty International, the Council of Europe, The American Civil Liberties Union, Reporters Without Borders, Human Rights Watch, and numerous other rights organisations regarding the chilling effect Assange’s prosecution will have on press freedom. Amnesty International’s petition calling for the U.S. Government to drop its charges against Assange has garnered over 400,000 signatures.

Today marks the beginning of the third week of the extradition hearings, which have drawn wide criticism for failing to uphold the principle of open justice by preventing independent observers including from Amnesty International, PEN Norway and others from monitoring the trial.

The Trump administration is seeking Mr Assange’s extradition from the UK to prosecute him under the Espionage Act for his work as a journalist and publisher. The 2010 publications, on which the U.S. government’s attempted prosecution is based, brought to light a range of public interest information, including evidence of U.S. war crimes in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Last week during the hearing the court heard that Julian Assange and WikiLeaks undertook careful redaction processes to protect informants, that no informants are known to have been harmed by their publications, and that Julian Assange and WikiLeaks were not responsible for publishing un-redacted cables. Nevertheless, the prosecution asserted the right of the U.S. to prosecute all journalists and all media who publish classified information.

Quotes:

Luiz InácioLula da Silva, President of Brazil (2003-2010), Honorary citizen of the City of Paris (2020), Nobel Prize Nominee (2018):

“If the democrats of the planet Earth, including all journalists, all lawyers, all unionists and all politicians, have no courage to express themselves in defence of Assange, so that he is not extradited, it means we have a lot democrats out there who are liars. Assange should be perceived as a hero of democracy. He does not deserve to be punished. I hope the people of the UK, the people of France, the people of the United States will not allow this atrocity. As was the knee of a policeman killing a black man, this will be the knees of millions of governors from around the world suffocating Assange so that he dies. And we do not have the right to allow that.”

Andrew Wilkie MP, Independent Member for Clark and Co-Chair of the Bring Julian Assange Home Parliamentary Group:

“Julian Assange is being politically persecuted for publishing information that was in the public interest, including hard evidence of U.S. war crimes. That the perpetrator of those war crimes, America, is now seeking to extradite Mr Assange is unjust in the extreme and arguably illegal under British law. If it goes ahead, not only would Mr Assange face 175 years in prison, but the precedent would be set for all Australians, and particularly journalists, that they are at risk of being extradited to any country they offend.”

Mikuláš Peksa, Member of European Parliament, Member of the Committee on Industry, Research and Energy:

“Freedom of speech remains a crucial value in the beginning of the 21st century. Despite it sometimes revealing inconvenient truths, we shall do our best to protect it.”

Open Letter: http://www.lawyersforassange.org/en/open-letter.html

Political endorsements: http://www.lawyersforassange.org/en/endorsements.html

Legal signatories: https://www.lawyersforassange.org/en/signatories-all.html

Contact: [email protected]

Full list of political endorsements:

Heads of State

1. Alberto Fernández, President of Argentina (2019), lawyer, Professor of Criminal Law (University of Buenos Aires), former Chief of the Cabinet of Ministers, adviser to Deliberative Council of Buenos Aires and the Argentine Chamber of Deputies, deputy director of Legal Affairs of the Economy Ministry, Argentina

2. Cristina Fernández de Kirchner, Vice President of Argentina (2019), President of Argentina (2007-2015), lawyer, Argentina

3.  Dilma Rousseff, President of Brazil (2011-2016),economist, former Minister of Energy and former Chief of Staff of the Presidency of the Republic, Brazil

4. Ernesto Samper, President of Colombia (1994-1998),lawyer, economist, former Secretary General of UNASUR, Senator of the Republic and Minister of Economic Development, Ambassador of Colombia in Spain, Colombia

5.  Evo Morales Ayma, President of Bolivia (2006-2019), trade unionist, activist and Bolivian leader of Aymara descent, President of the Six Federations of the Tropic of Cochabamba, Former President pro tempore of UNASUR and CELAC, Bolivia

6.  Fernando Lugo, President of Paraguay (2008-2012)Senator, Roman Catholic priest and bishop, Paraguay

7.  José Luis Zapatero, Prime Minister of Spain (2004-2011), lawyer, Professor of Constitutional Law at the Faculty of Law of the University of León, former Deputy in General Courts by Madrid, deputy in General Courts of Spain, president of the Council of the European Union, Spain

8.  José (Pepe) Mujica, President of Uruguay (2010-2015)Former Deputy, Senator and Minister of Livestock Agriculture and Fisheries, Uruguay

9. Leonel Fernandez, President of the Dominican Republic (1996-2012), lawyer,president of the EU–LAC Foundation, president of the World Federation of United Nations Associations, Professor at Facultad Latinoamericana de Ciencias Sociales (FLACSO) and Universidad Autónoma de Santo Domingo, Dominican Republic

10.  Luiz InácioLula da Silva, President of Brazil (2003-2010), Honorary citizen of the City of Paris (2020), Nobel Prize Nominee (2018), Brazil

11.  Martín Torrijos, President of the Republic of Panama (2004-2009), political scientist and economist, Panama

12. Nicolas Maduro Moros, President of the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela, Venezuela

13.  Rafael Correa, President of Ecuador (2007-2017), former Minister for the Economy, Professor of Economics,Ecuador

Ministers, Diplomats and Politicians

14. Álvaro García Linera, Vice President of Bolivia (2006-2019), mathematician, academic, Bolivia

15.   Jeremy Corbyn, Labour Member of Parliament (since 1983), Leader of the Labour Party and Leader of the Opposition (2015-2020), United Kingdom

16.   John McDonnell, Member of Parliament (since 1997), Shadow Chancellor of the Exchequer (2015-2020), UnitedKingdom

17.  Andrew Wilkie, MP,Independent Federal Member for Clark, Australia

18.  Gregor Golobic, philosopher, former Minister of Higher Education, Science and Technology, former Secretary General of Liberal Democracy party, former president of Zares party, advisor to former President of the Republic of Slovenia, Dr. Janez Drnovšek, Slovenia

19.   Arthur Chesterfield-Evans M.B.,B,S., F.R.C.S.(Eng.), M.Appl.Sci. (OHS), M.Pol.Sci. Ex-Member of Legislative Council New South Wales Parliament, Australia

20.  Ögmundur Jónasson, former Icelandic Minister of Interior, Iceland

21.  Ron Paul, Former U.S. Congressman from Texas, USA

22.  Peter Whish-Wilson, Australian Greens, Senator for Tasmania, Australia

23.  Jožef Škol, political scientist, former Minister of Culture, former State Secretary for Culture, first president of the Liberal Democratic Party (LDS), former head of Liberal Democracy, former President of the National Assembly, Slovenia

24.  Prof. Slavoj Žižek, philosopher, sociologist, psychologist, psychoanalyst, theologian, politician and cultural critic, author, former member of the Liberal Democratic Party and its candidate for the presidency of the Socialist Republic of Slovenia (1990), Slovenia

25.  Carlo Sommaruga, lawyer, Member of Swiss Parliament, Conseiller aux Etats, Switzerland

26.  Patrick Breyer, Member of the European Parliament, Member of the Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs, Germany

27.  Marketa Gregorova, Member of the European Parliament, Vice-Chair of the delegation to the Euronest Parliamentary Assembly, Czech Republic

28.  Mikuláš Peksa, Member of the European Parliament, Member of the Committee on Industry, Research and Energy, biophysicist, Czech Republic

29.  Yanis Varoufakis, Member of the Hellenic Parliament for Athens B, Minister of Finance (2015), former Secretary-General of MeRA25, economist, academic, philosopher, Greece

30.  Spomenka Hribar, author, philosopher, sociologist, politician, columnist, public intellectual, co-founder of the Slovenian Democratic Union (1989), former prominent member of the Democratic opposition of Slovenia (Demos), and key figure in the efforts for the independence and democratization of Slovenia, Slovenia

31.  Cédric Wermuth, Congressman of the Nationalrat des Schweizerischen Parlaments, Vice President of the Social Democratic Party of Switzerland, Switzerland

32.  Enrique Fernando Santiago Romero, Congressman, Secretary-General of the Communist Party of Spain (PCE), lawyer,Spain

33.   Clare Daly, Member of the European Parliament, Republic of Ireland

34. Kenneth Wright MacAskill, Member of Parliament, Shadow SNP Spokesperson, Cabinet Secretary for Justice (2007-2014), United Kingdom

35.  Eleonora Evi, Member of the European Parliament, Italy

36.  Francesca Businarolo, Member of Parliament of Italy, lawyer, Italy

37.  Idoia Villanueva Ruiz, Member of the European Parliament, former Senator, Spain 

38.  Eric Bertinat, Conseiller municipal et chef de groupe UDC Ville de Genève, Président de la commission du lodgement, Ancien président du Conseil municipal,Switzerland

39. Ignazio Corrao, Member of the European Parliament, member of the European Parliament Committee on Development and the European Parliament Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs,lawyer, Italy

40.  Joti Brar, Deputy Leader of the Workers Party of Britain, United Kingdom

41. Gregor Gysi, Member of Parliament of the German Bundestag,lawyer, author, moderator, Germany

42. Guillaume Long, former Permanent Representative of Ecuador to the United Nations Organization,former Minister of Foreign Affairs,Minister of Culture and Heritage, Coordinating Minister of Knowledge and Human Talent, former advisor to the National Secretariat of Planning and Development of Ecuador,France / Ecuador

43.  Matthew Robson, former Minister for Courts, Minister of Corrections and Disarmament, Minister for Land Information, Associate Minister of Foreign Affairs, International Association Of Lawyers Against Nuclear Arms (IALANA), New Zealand

44. Michel Larive, Member of the French National Assembly, Member of the Committee for Cultural Affairs and Education, France

45.  Mike Gravel, United States Senator (1969-1981), who officially released the Pentagon Papers, former Speaker of the Alaska House of Representatives, presidential candidate (2008 & 2020), United States of America

46.  Mirella Liuzzi, Member of Parliament of Italy, Italy

47.  Piernicola Pedicini, Member of the European Parliament,Italy

48.  Rosa D’Amato, Member of the European Parliament,Italy

49.  Txema Guijarro García, Member of the Congress of Deputies, Chair of the Congress’ Committee on Budget, economist, Spain

50.  George Galloway, leader of the Workers Party of Britain, former Member of Parliament (1987-2009 and 2013-2015), former general secretary of War on Want, writer, broadcaster, United Kingdom

51. Prof. Jadranka Šturm Kocjan, retired Professor of pedagogy and psychology, Member of Parliament (1992-1996), Ambassador in Bucharest (2010-2015), Ambassador in Argentina, Chile, Paraguay, Peru, Uruguay (2015-2019), Slovenia

52. Franco Juri, geographer, journalist, publicist, author, Member of Parliament (1990-93, 2008-11), vice-president of the Zares Party (2011), Ambassador in Spain and Cuba (1993-1997), state secretary at the Ministry of Foreign Affairs (1997-2000), Slovenia

53.  Scott Ludlam, Senator (2008-2017), former deputy Leader of the Australian Greens, Australia

54. Adriana Salvatierra, Senator and President of the Senate of Bolivia, Bolivia

55.  Alberto Rodríguez Saá, Governor of San Luis Province, lawyer, Argentina

56.  Alejandro Navarro, Senator, Professor of Philosophy, Chile

57.  Alexandre Padilha, Senator, Minister of Institutional Relations in the Lula administration and Minister of Health under Dilma Rousseff, physician, Brazil

58. Alicia Castro, Argentina’s Ambassador in Russia, former Argentina’s Ambassador to the United Kingdom (2012- 2016), former Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela’s Ambassador to the United Kingdom, Argentina / Venezuela

59. Aloizio Mercadante, former Minister of Science, Technology and Innovation Minister of Educatio, former Chief of Staff of the Presidency of the Republic, former Deputy and Senator, Brazil

60. Andréia de Jesus Silva, State Congresswoman of Minas Gerais State, lawyer, Brazil

61. Áurea Carolina, Federal Congressman of Minas Gerais State, political scientist, Brazil

62. Beatriz Paredes, Senator,former Ambassador of Mexico in Cuba and in Brazil, former Congresswoman and former Governor of the state of Tlaxcala, former President of the Congress of the Union, the Chamber of Deputies and the Senate,Mexico

63.  Camilo Lagos, National President of the Progressive Party of Chile and of the Progresa Foundation,Chile

64.  Carlos Alfonso Tomada, Legislator of the City of Buenos Aires, lawyer, former Minister of Labor, Employment and Social Security, Director of the Centre for Labour and Development Studies of the National University of San Martín, Argentina

65. Carlos Ominami, former Minister of Economy, former Senator, economist, Order of the Rising Sun award-winner (Japan), Chile

66. Carlos Sotelo Garci?a, former Senator, former Undersecretary of Political Development, Secretary of Image and Propaganda Organization, Government Exercise and Electoral Action, Mexico

67. Celso Nunez Amorim, former Brazilian Ambassador to the United Kingdom, former Minister of Foreign Relations and former Minister of Defence, Professor of Political Science and International Relations, Brazil

68.  Clara López Obregón, former Minister of Labour,former Mayor of Bogotá and former Auditor General of the Republic, lawyer, economist, Professor at the Universidad del Rosario and Universidad de los Andes, Colombia

69.  Cuauhtémoc Cárdenas, former Senator for the state of Michoacán and former Head of Government of Mexico City,Mexico

70. Daniel Martinez, former Senator of the Republic and Mayor of Montevideo,former Minister of Industry, Energy and Mining, Uruguay

71.   David Choquehuanca, former Foreign Minister of Bolivia,Bolivia

72.  David Miranda, Federal Congressman of Rio de Janeiro State, named by named by Time magazine one of the world’s next generation of new leaders (2019), Brazil

73.  Edmilson Rodrigues, Federal Congressman of Pará State, former Mayor of Belém, architect, Brazil

74. Elizabeth Gómez Alcorta, Minister of Women, Genders and Diversity, lawyer, Professor, Member of Consejo de la Internacional Progresista, Argentina

75.  Esperanza Marti?nez, Senator, former Minister of Public Health and Social Welfare, Paraguay

76.   Fabiana Rios, Congresswoman, former Governor of the province of Tierra del Fuego, Argentina

77. Felipe Solá, Congressman, former Minister of Foreign Affairs, former Governor of the Province of Buenos Aires, Argentina

78.  Fernanda Melchionna, Federal Congressman of Rio Grande do Sul State, Leader of PSOL in the Federal Chamber of Deputies,Brazil

79.  Fernanda Vallejos, Congresswoman, economist, Argentina

80.  Fernando Haddad, former Minister of Education, former Mayor of São Paulo, former Chief of staff to the Finance and Economic Development Secretary of the Municipality of São Paulo and Special advisor to the Ministry of Planning, Budget and Management, presidential candidate (2018), lawyer, academic, Professor of Political Science, department of the University of São Paulo, Brazil

81.  Ivan Valente, Federal Congressman of São Paulo State, engineer, Brazil

82. Fernando Solanas, Argentine Ambassador to UNESCO, former National Senator, film director, screenwriter, special Honorary Golden Bear at Berlin Film Festival prize winner, Argentina

83.  Fidel Ernesto Naváez, former Ecuadorian Consul and First Secretary in the United Kingdom, Ecuador

84. Florencia Juana Saintout, Congresswoman of Buenos Aires Province, former dean of the Facultad de Periodismo y Cominicación Social (UNLP) (2010-2018),Argentina

85. Francisco Durañona, Senator, former Mayor of San Antonio de Areco, Argentina

86. Gabriel Mariotto, former vice Buenos Aires Governor, journalist,Argentina

87. Gabriela Rivadeneira, former President of the National Assembly of Ecuador, former Governor of Imbabura, Ecuador

88. Glauber Braga, Federal Congressman of Rio de Janeiro State, lawyer, Brazil

89. Horacio Chique, Councillor of Moreno FDT, Buenos Aires district, Argentina

90. Jorge Arreaza, Minister of Foreign Affairs of the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela, Venezuela

91. Jorge Enrique Taiana, Congressman,former Ambassador of Argentina in Guatemala,former Minister of Foreign Affairs, International Trade and Worship, Legislator of the Autonomous City of Buenos Aires, Argentina

92. José Eduardo Cardozo, former Minister of Justice, former Attorney General and Federal Deputy, lawyer,Brazil

93. José Miguel Insulza, Senator, former Secretary General of the Organization of American States, Minister of Foreign Affairs, former Home office Secretary, former Secretary General of the Presidency, former Minister of the Interior, lawyer and Professor of Political Theory at the University of Chile and of Political Science at the Catholic University, Chile

94. Julian Hill,  Member of Federal Parliament, Commonwealth of Australia, Australia

95.  Karol Cariola, Congresswoman,doctor in medicine, Chile

96.  Luiza Erundina, Federal Congresswoman of São Paulo State, former Mayor of São Paulo, sociologist, Brazil

97. Marcelo Brignoni, Chief of Staff of Advisors to the Presidency of MERCOSUR Parliament, former Congressman, Argentina

98. Marcelo Freixo, Federal Congresswoman of Rio de Janeiro State,. Chairman of the Defence of Human Rights and Citizenship Commission on the Rio de Janeiro Legislative Assembly, broadcaster and Professor, Brazil

99. Marco Enríquez-Ominami, former Congressman, founder and former president of Fundación Progresa, filmmaker, France / Chile

100. María Cristina Perceval, former Senator, Permanent Representative of Argentina to the United Nations (2012), Professor of Advanced Epistemology at UNCuyo, Argentina

101.  María José Lubertino, former National Congresswoman, President of the Asociación Ciudadana por los Derechos humanos, lawyer, Argentina

102.  María Rachid, Congresswoman for the constituency of Buenos Aires, Head of the Instituto contra la Discriminación de la Defensoría del Pueblo de Ciudad Autónoma de Buenos Aires (CABA), vice-president of the National Institute Against Discrimination, Xenophobia and Racism, Argentina.

103.  Maximiliano Reyes,Undersecretary for Latin America and Caribbean of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, former Congressman, Mexico

104.  Mónica Xavier, Senator, doctor in medicine, Uruguay

105. Oscar Alberto Laborde, Congressman, President of Mercorsur Parliament (Palasur), Argentina

106.  Pablo Bergel, former Congressman for the constituency of Buenos Aires, environmentalist, Argentina

107. Paulo Pimenta, State Congressman of Rio Grande so Sul State, journalist, Brazil

108.  Sâmia Bomfim, Federal Congresswoman of Rio de Janeiro State, Brazil

109.  Talíria Petrone, Federal Congresswoman of Rio de Janeiro State, Brazil

110. Tarso Genro, former Minister for Justice, International Relations and Education political adviser to Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva, former President of Brazil, former Governor of Rio Grande do Sul, former mayor of Porto Alegre, lawyer, Brazil

111. Tereza Campello, former Minister of Social Development and Fight against Hunger,economist, international consultant on social development and social protection, visiting fellow at University of Nottingham (UK), Professor and research associate at the Oswaldo Cruz Foundation (FIOCRUZ), Brazil

112.  Verónika Mendoza, former Congresswoman, former Vice Presidency of the Committee on Culture and Cultural Heritage, Member of the Commission of Andean, Amazonian and Afro-Peruvian Peoples, Environment and Ecology, shift coordinator of the Parliamentary Representation of Cusco, president of the Decentralization Commission, Peru

113. Wadih Damous, Congressman, former President of the Ordem dos Advogados do Brasil (OAB) in Rio de Janeiro, lawyer,Brazil

114.  Zoé Robledo Aburto, former Secretary of Human Rights, former Senator and Deputy, Director of the Mexican Social Security Institute, Mexico

Additionally

Kevin Rudd, statement by former prime minister of Australia, 2007-2010; 2013, Australia

Chris Williamson, former British member of parliament, 2010-2015; 2017-2019, United Kingdom

Political Parties

Pirate Party Slovenia, Slovenia

*

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 Lawyers for Assange

Dear Prime Minister,

Dear Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice,

Dear Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs,

Dear Home Secretary,

We write to you as legal practitioners and legal academics to express our collective concerns about the violations of Mr. Julian Assange’s fundamental human, civil and political rights and the precedent his persecution is setting.

We call on you to act in accordance with national and international law, human rights and the rule of law by bringing an end to the ongoing extradition proceedings and granting Mr. Assange his long overdue freedom – freedom from torture, arbitrary detention and deprivation of liberty, and political persecution.

A. ILLEGALITY OF POTENTIAL EXTRADITION TO THE UNITED STATES

Extradition of Mr. Assange from the UK to the US would be illegal on the following grounds:

1. Risk of being subjected to an unfair trial in the US

Extradition would be unlawful owing to failure to ensure the protection of Mr. Assange’s fundamental trial rights in the US. Mr. Assange faces show trial at the infamous “Espionage court” of the Eastern District of Virginia, before which no national security defendant has ever succeeded. Here, he faces secret proceedings before a jury picked from a population in which most of the individuals eligible for jury selection work for, or are connected to, the CIA, NSA, DOD or DOS.^[i]

Furthermore, Mr. Assange’slegal privilege, a right enshrined in Art. 8 European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) and long recognised under English common law, was grossly violated throughconstant and criminal video and audio surveillance at the Ecuadorian embassy carried out by the Spanish security firm, UC Global. This surveillance was, according to witness testimony, ordered by the CIA and has triggered an investigation into the owner of UC Global, David Morales, by Spain’s High Court, the Audiencia Nacional.[ii] The surveillance resulted in all of Mr. Assange’s meetings and conversations being recorded, including those with his lawyers. The Council of Bar and Law Societies of Europe, which represents more than a million European lawyers, has expressed its concerns that these illegal recordings may be used – openly or secretly – in proceedings against Mr. Assange in the event of successful extradition to the US. The Council states that if the information merely became known to the prosecutors, this would present an irremediable breach of Mr. Assange’s fundamental rights to a fair trial under Art. 6 of the ECHR and due process under the US Constitution.^[iii] Furthermore, the prosecuting state obtained the totality of Mr. Assange’s legal papers after their unlawful seizure in the Embassy. Upon hearing that the Government of Ecuador was planning to seize and hand over personal belongings of Mr. Assange, including documents, telephones, electronic devices, memory drives, etc. to the US, the UN Special Rapporteur on Privacy, Joseph Cannataci, expressed his serious concern to the Ecuadorian government and twice formally requested it to return Mr. Assange’s personal effects to his lawyers, to no avail.^[iv] The UN Model Treaty on Extradition prohibits extradition if the person has not received, or would not receive, the minimum guarantees in criminal proceedings, as enshrined in Art. 14 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR).^[v]

2. The political nature of the offence prohibits extradition

The US superseding indictment issued against Mr. Assange on the 24 June 2020 charges him with 18 counts all related solely to the 2010 publications of US government documents. The publications, comprising information about the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, US diplomatic cables and Guantanamo Bay, revealed evidence of war crimes, corruption and governmental malfeasance.^[vi]

Charges 1-17 are brought under the Espionage Act 1917, which, in name alone, reveals the political and antiquated nature of the charges.^[vii]Furthermore, the essence of the 18 charges concerns Mr. Assange’s alleged intention to obtain or disclose US state “secrets” in a manner that was damaging to the strategic and national security interests of the US state, to the capability of its armed forces, the work of the security and intelligence services of the US, and to the interests of the US abroad. Thus, the conduct, motivation and purpose attributed to Mr. Assange confirm the political character of the 17 charges brought under the Espionage Act (‘pure political’ offences) and of the hacking charge (a ‘relative political’ offence). In addition, several US government officials have at various times ascribed motives “hostile” to the US to Mr. Assange, an Australian citizen.^[viii] The UK-US Extradition Treaty, which provides the very basis of the extradition request, specifically prohibits extradition for political offences in Art. 4(1). Yet the presiding judge and prosecution wish to simply disregard this article by referring to the Extradition Act 2003 (“EA”) instead, which does not include the political offence exception. This blatantly ignores the fact that the EA is merely an enabling act that creates the minimum statutory safeguards, but it does not preclude stronger protections from extradition as expressly provided in subsequently ratified treaties such as the UK-US Extradition Treaty. Furthermore, there is broad international consensus that political offences should not be the basis of extradition.^[ix] This is reflected in Art. 3 of the 1957 European Convention on Extradition, Art. 3 ECHR, Art. 3(a) of the UN Model Treaty on Extradition, the Interpol Constitution and every bilateral treaty ratified by the US for over a century.

3. Risk of torture or other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment in the US

The United Nations Special Rapporteur on Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (“the UN Rapporteur on Torture”), Professor Nils Melzer, has expressed with certainty that, if extradited to the US, Mr. Assange will be exposed to torture or other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment. Similar concerns have also been raised by the UN Working Group on Arbitrary Detention, and Amnesty International has recently restated its concerns in relation to the unacceptable risk of mistreatment.^[x]

The detention conditions, and the draconian punishment of 175 years, in a maximum security prison, which Mr. Assange faces under the US indictment, would constitute torture or other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, according to the current UN Rapporteur on Torture and according to theconsistently expressed opinion of his predecessor, as well as of NGOs and legal authorities.^[xi]

If extradited, Mr. Assange would, by the US government’s own admission, likely be placed under Special Administrative Measures. These measures prohibit prisoners from contact or communication with all but a few approved individuals, and any approved individuals would not be permitted to report information concerning the prisoner’s treatment to the public, thereby shielding potential torture from public scrutiny and government from accountability.^[xii]

Under the principle of non-refoulement, it is not permissible to extradite a person to a country in which there are substantial grounds for believing that they would be subjected to torture. This principle is enshrined in the 1951 UN Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees, specifically Art. 33(1) from which no derogations are permitted. Also relevant are Art. 3(1) UN Declaration on Territorial Asylum 1967, Art. 3 of the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (CAT), and Art. 2 of the Resolution on Asylum to Persons in Danger of Persecution, adopted by the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe in 1967. As an obligation arising from the prohibition of torture, the principle of non-refoulement in this area is absolute and also takes on the character of a peremptory norm of customary international law, i.e. jus cogens.^[xiii]

Mr. Assange, who was accepted as a political asylee by the Ecuadorian government owing to what have proved to have been wholly legitimate fears of political persecution and torture in the US, should clearly have been accorded protection of this principle, firstly by Ecuador and secondly by the UK. Ecuador violated its human rights obligations by summarily rescinding Mr. Assange’s asylum in direct contradiction of the ‘Latin American tradition of asylum’^[xiv] and the Advisory Opinion OC-25/18 of 30 May 2018 of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights affirming the principle of non-refoulement in cases of persons who have entered an embassy for protection.^[xv] The entry of the Ecuadorian Embassy by UK police and the arrest of Mr. Assange were thus based on an illegal revocation of his nationality and asylum, which can only be rectified by the UK upholding its own duty to protect the principle of non-refoulement by denying extradition to the US.

B) VIOLATIONS OF THE FREEDOM OF THE PRESS AND THE RIGHT TO KNOW

Counts 1-17 of the indictment under the Espionage Act violate the right to freedom of expression, the right to freedom of the press and the right to know. These counts present standard and necessary investigative journalistic practices as criminal.^[xvi] Such practices include indicating availability to receive information, indicating what information is of interest, encouraging the provision of information, receipt of information for the purpose of publication, and publication of information in the public interest.

Under the charge of conspiracy to commit computer intrusion, the initial indictment criminalised also Mr. Assange’s alleged attempt at helping his source to maintain their anonymity while providing the documents in question, which falls squarely under the standard journalistic practice and duty of protecting the source. In a bid to detract from this fact and re-paint Mr. Assange as a malicious hacker, the US DOC has published a new “superseding indictment” on 24 June 2020, without even lodging it with the UK court first, alleging the recruitment of, and agreement with, hackers to commit computer intrusion. The new indictment has emerged unjustifiably late in the day, is based on no new information and the testimony of two highly compromised sources.

We agree with the assessment of the Commissioner for Human Rights of the Council of Europe that “The broad and vague nature of the allegations against Julian Assange, and of the offences listed in the indictment, are troubling as many of them concern activities at the core of investigative journalism in Europe and beyond.”^[xvii] Extradition on the basis of the indictment would gravely endanger freedom of the press, a cornerstone of European democracies enshrined in Art. 10 ECHR.^[xviii]

The US furthermore seemingly concedes the unconstitutionality of the charges, having stated in one of its submissions to the Court that Mr. Assange will be denied the protections of freedom of speech and the press guaranteed under the First Amendment due to his being a foreign national.^[xix] Furthermore, extraditing Mr. Assange to the US with the knowledge of their intended discrimination against him would make the UK an accessory in a flagrant denial of his right to non-discrimination.

The extradition to the US of a publisher and journalist, for engaging in journalistic activities while in Europe, would set a very dangerous precedent for the extra-territorialisation of state secrecy laws and “would post an invitation to other states to follow suit, severely threatening the ability of journalists, publishers and human rights organisations to safely reveal information about serious international issues.”^[xx] Such concerns for journalistic freedom are echoed by the journalistic profession – over a thousand journalists signed an open letter opposing Mr. Assange’s extradition.^[xxi]Massimo Moratti, Amnesty International’s Deputy Europe Director has branded the US government’s unrelenting pursuit of Mr. Assange as “nothing short of a full-scale assault on the right to freedom of expression” which “could have a profound impact on the public’s right to know what their government is up to.”^[xxii]

Furthermore the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe has stated that member States should “consider that the detention and criminal prosecution of Mr Julian Assange sets a dangerous precedent for journalists, and join the recommendation of the UN Special Rapporteur on Torture” in his call to bar the extradition and for the release from custody of Mr. Assange.^[xxiii]

C) VIOLATIONS OF THE RIGHT TO BE FREE FROM TORTURE, THE RIGHT TO HEALTH, AND THE RIGHT TO LIFE

The UN Rapporteur on Torture has reported, and continues to report, on the treatment of Mr. Assange as part of his United Nations mandate. On 9 and 10 May 2019, Prof. Melzer and two medical experts specialised in examining potential victims of torture and other ill-treatment visited Mr. Assange in Her Majesty’s Prison Belmarsh (“HMP Belmarsh”). The group’s visit and assessment revealed that Mr. Assange showed “all symptoms typical for prolonged exposure to psychological torture, including extreme stress, chronic anxiety and intense psychological trauma.”^[xxiv] The UN Rapporteur on Torture concluded “Mr. Assange has been deliberately exposed, for a period of several years, to persistent and progressively severe forms of cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, the cumulative effects of which can only be described as psychological torture”. The UN Rapporteur on Torture condemned “in the strongest terms, the deliberate, concerted and sustained nature of the abuse inflicted”, and characterised the failure of the UK government and the involved governments to take measures for the protection of Mr. Assange’s human rights and dignity as “complacency at best and complicity at worst”.^[xxv]

The abuse includes systematic judicial persecution and violations of due process rights in all jurisdictions involved and in all related legal proceedings.^[xxvi] It has most recently been demonstrated in the treatment of Mr. Assange during the extradition proceedings heard at Woolwich Crown Court, proceedings destined to be infamously remembered for the “glass box” to which Mr. Assange was confined as if he, an award winning journalist and a publisher, was a dangerous and violent criminal.

Mr. Assange was subjected to arbitrary detention and oppressive isolation, harassment and surveillance, while confined in the Ecuadorian embassy^[xxvii] and continues to be so subjected as a prisoner in HMP Belmarsh. In Belmarsh, Mr. Assange has served the irregular and disproportionate sentence of 50 weeks^[xxviii] for an alleged bail infringement. Perversely, the allegation, charge and conviction resulted from Mr. Assange legitimately seeking and being granted diplomatic asylum by the Ecuadorian government, which accepted Mr. Assange’s fear of politicised extradition to, and inhuman treatment in, the US, as well founded.^[xxix] Although Mr. Assange has now served the sentence, he remains imprisoned without conviction or legal basis for the purpose of a political, and thereby illegal, extradition to the US. Further, he is imprisoned amid the Coronavirus pandemic, despite the above and despite his vulnerability to the virus owing to an underlying lung condition exacerbated by years of confinement and a history of psychological torture. It is particularly worrisome that, as a result of his health and the medical circumstances, he has even been unable to participate by videolink at recent hearings, yet he has been refused bail.^[xxx]

UK authorities violated Mr. Assange’s right to health while deprived of his liberty in the Ecuadorian Embassy by denying him access to urgent medical diagnosis and care.^[xxxi] The two medical experts who accompanied the UN Special Rapporteur on Torture on his May 2019 visit to HMP Belmarsh warned that unless pressure on Mr. Assange was alleviated quickly, his state of health would enter a downward spiral potentially resulting in his death.^[xxxii] Mr. Assange’s father, Mr. John Shipton, has reported that his son was subjected to physical torture by his being placed in a “hot box.”^[xxxiii] On 1 November 2019 the UN Rapporteur on Torture stated: “[u]nless the UK urgently changes course and alleviates his inhumane situation, Mr. Assange’s continued exposure to arbitrariness and abuse may soon end up costing his life.”^[xxxiv] Soon after, on 22 November 2019, over 60 doctors from around the world raised concerns about the precarious state of Mr. Assange’s physical and mental health which included fears for his life, and requested his transfer to a hospital properly equipped and staffed for his diagnosis and treatment.^[xxxv]

Furthermore, it has been revealed by the employees of UC Global, who worked at the Ecuadorian embassy, that the CIA actively discussed and considered kidnapping or poisoning Mr. Assange.^[xxxvi] This shows a shocking disregard for his right to life and the due process of law of the very government seeking his extradition.

We would like to remind the UK government:

• of its duty to protect Mr. Assange’s right to life, which is the most fundamental human right enshrined in Art. 6 of the ICCPR, Art. 2 of the ECHR and Art. 2 of the Human Rights Act (HRA);
• that the prohibition of torture is a norm of international customary law and constitutes jus cogens. The prohibition is absolute and so there may be no derogation under any circumstances, including war, public emergency or terrorist threat. It is also enshrined in Art. 5 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR), Arts. 7 and 10 ICCPR, CAT, and Art. 3 ECHR;
• of its unconditional obligation, under Art. 12 CAT, to ensure that its competent authorities proceed to a prompt and impartial investigation of reported torture, which it has thus far failed to undertake; and
• that it is a member State of the World Health Organization, whose Constitution states: “The enjoyment of the highest attainable standard of health is one of the fundamental rights of every human being without distinction of […] political belief [,,,]everyone should have access to the health services they need, when and where they need them.”

We call on the UK government to take immediate action to cease the torture being inflicted upon Mr. Assange, to end his arbitrary and unlawful detention, and to permit his access to independent medical diagnosis and treatment in an appropriate hospital setting. That doctors, their previous concerns having been ignored, should have to call on governments to ‘End torture and medical neglect of Julian Assange’ in The Lancet is extremely worrying.^[xxxvii]

D) VIOLATIONS OF THE RIGHT TO A FAIR TRIAL

We condemn the denial of Mr. Assange’s right to a fair trial before the UK courts. This right has been denied as follows.

1. Judicial Conflicts of Interest 

Senior District Judge (Magistrates’ Courts) Emma Arbuthnot, who as Chief Magistrate oversees Mr. Assange’s extradition proceedings, has been shown to have financial links to institutions and individuals whose wrongdoings have been exposed by WikiLeaks, the organisation which Mr. Assange founded.^[xxxviii] This seemingly clear conflict of interest was, however, not disclosed by the District Judge. District Judge Arbuthnot did not recuse herself and was permitted to make rulings to Mr. Assange’s detriment, despite the perceived lack of judicial impartiality and independence. District Judge (Magistrates’ Courts) Michael Snow has further exhibited bias and unprofessionalism by participating in the defamation of Mr. Assange’s character, labelling the multi-award-winning public interest publisher and Nobel Peace Prize Nominee a “narcissist who cannot get beyond his own selfish interests” in response, ironically, to Mr. Assange’s legal team raising what were patently legitimate concerns regarding bias in the proceedings.^[xxxix]

2. Inequality of Arms

Mr. Assange has been denied time and facilities to prepare his defence in violation of the principle of equality of arms which is inherent to the presumption of innocence and the rule of law.

After his arrest, the British police did not allow Mr. Assange to collect and take his belongings with him.^[xl] Subsequently, Mr. Assange was deprived of his reading glasses for several weeks.^[xli] Until end of June 2020 he was also denied access to a computer. While a computer has now been provided it is without internet access and read only, preventing the possibility of Mr. Assange typing any notes thus being entirely unsuitable for the preparation of his defence. Mr. Assange was furthermore denied access to the indictment itself for several weeks after it had been presented, while his access to other legal documents remains limited to this day due to the bureaucracy and lack of confidentiality involved in prison correspondence. Furthermore, despite the complexity of the case and the severity of the sentence that Mr. Assange would face if extradited to be tried in the US, prison authorities are failing to ensure that Mr. Assange can properly consult with his legal team and prepare for his defence, by severely restricting both the frequency and duration of his legal visits. Since mid-March 2020, Mr. Assange has altogether not been able to meet in person with his lawyers.

The effects of the torture to which Mr. Assange has been subjected have further limited his ability to prepare his defence and, at times during proceedings, even to answer basic questions, such as questions about his name and date of birth.^[xlii] While further hearings have been delayed until September, it is unclear whether this will enable Mr. Assange the necessary time and resources to prepare his defence, since he is unable to communicate with his lawyers (due to his imprisonment during the pandemic) apart from being given limited concessions for a limited period of time, i.e. phone calls restricted to 10 minutes.

3. Denial of the defendant’s ability to properly follow proceedings and direct his legal team

Mr. Assange and his lawyers have repeatedly informed the Court of his inability to properly follow proceedings, to consult with his lawyers confidentially and to properly instruct them in the presentation of his defence due to his being prevented from sitting with them and being confined to a bulletproof glass box. The arrangement has forced Mr. Assange to resort to waving to get the attention of the judge or the people sitting in the public gallery, in order to alert his lawyers who are seated in the courtroom with their backs to him. Although District Judge Vanessa Baraitser accepted that the decision as to whether Mr. Assange should be allowed to sit with his lawyers was within her powers, yet she refused to exercise her power in Mr. Assange’s favour, despite the prosecution having made no objection to the application. Amnesty International has expressed concerns that if adequate measures are not in place at further hearings to ensure Mr. Assange’s effective participation in, and thereby the fairness of, the proceedings would be impaired.^[xliii]

4. Refusal to address mistreatment of the defendant

Mr. Assange’s lawyers informed the Court that during a single day, on 22 February, prison authorities handcuffed him 11 times, placed him in 5 different cells, strip-searched him twice, and confiscated his privileged legal documents. Overseeing the proceedings, District Judge Vanessa Baraitser explicitly refused to intervene with prison authorities claiming that she has no jurisdiction over his prison conditions. This oppressive treatment has rightly been condemned by The International Bar Association’s Human Rights Institute.^[xliv] Co-Chair, Anne Ramberg Dr jur hc, branded it a “serious undermining of due process and the rule of law.”^[xlv] Further, international psychiatrists and psychologists have cited this as further evidence of psychological torture.^[xlvi]

We remind the UK government that the right to a fair trial is a cornerstone of democracy and the rule of law. It is a basic human right enshrined in Art. 10 UDHR, Art. 14 ICCPR, Art. 6 ECHR and Art. 6 HRA. These provisions, along with long-standing common law principles, demand a fair and public hearing before an independent and impartial tribunal, the presumption of innocence until proven guilty, the right to be informed promptly and in detail of the nature and cause of the charges, the right to be provided with adequate time and facilities for the preparation of one’s defence, and the right to have the ability to communicate with one’s counsel.

For all these reasons we respectfully request that the UK government bring an end to the US extradition proceedings against Mr. Assange and ensure his immediate release from custody.

Yours sincerely,

Lawyers for Assange

*

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

^[i] The Central Intelligence Agency, The National Security Agency, U.S. Department of Defense, U.S. Department of State.

[ii] José María Irujo, ‘Director of Spanish security company that spied on Julian Assange arrested’, El País, (9 October 2019) available at:

https://english.elpais.com/elpais/2019/10/09/inenglish/1570606428_107946.html.

^[iii] Council of Bar and Law Societies of Europe (CCBE), CCBE Letter regarding the interception of communications between Julian Assange and his lawyers addressed to Ms. Priti Patel, 24 February 2020.

^[iv] United Nations Human Rights Office of the High Commissioner, ‘UN expert on privacy seriously concerned by Ecuador’s behaviour in Assange and Moreno cases’, (23 May 2019),available at:

https://www.ohchr.org/EN/NewsEvents/Pages/DisplayNews.aspx?NewsID=24646&LangID=E.

^[v] United Nations Model Extradition Treaty, Art. 3(f); International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, Art. 14.

^[vi] In the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, Alexandria Division, United States v. Julian Paul Assange, 24 June 2020, available at: https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/wikileaks-founder-charged-superseding-indictment, supersedes the indictment In the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, Alexandria Division, United States v. Julian Paul Assange, 23 May 2019, available at: https://www.justice.gov/opa/press-release/file/1165556/download.

^[vii] David Sadoff, Bringing International Fugitives to Justice, (Cambridge University Press, 2016), p. 202.

^[viii] For example, Mike Pompeo, US Secretary of State and former CIA Director, 13 April 2017 ‘WikiLeaks walks like a hostile intelligence service and talks like a hostile intelligence service… And it overwhelmingly focuses on the United States, while seeking support from anti-democratic countries and organizations. It is time to call out WikiLeaks for what it really is – a non-state hostile intelligence service often abetted by state actors’

^[ix] R. Stuart Phillips, ‘The Political Offence Exception and Terrorism: Its Place in the Current Extradition Scheme and Proposal for Its Future’, 15 Dickinson Journal of International Law, (1997) p. 342.

^[x] Amnesty International, ‘US/UK: Drop charges and halt extradition of Julian Assange’, (21 February 2020), available at: https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/news/2020/02/usuk-drop-charges-and-halt-extradition-of-julian-assange/.

^[xi] ‘UN torture rapporteur: Julian Assange’s detention has no legal basis’, Going Underground, (30 November 2019), available at: https://www.rt.com/shows/going-underground/474719-un-torture-rapporteur-assange/.

^[xii] Allard K. Lowenstein, The Darkest Corner: Special Administrative Measures and Extreme Isolation in the Federal Bureau of Prisons (International Human Rights Clinic; The Centre for Constitutional Rights, 2017).

^[xiii] Report submitted by the Special Rapporteur on Torture, Mr. Theo van Boven, Civil and Political Rights in Particular Issues Related to Torture and Detention, UN Doc. E/CN.4/2002/137, 26 February 2002, para. 14, and Committee against Torture (CAT), General Comment No. 4: On the implementation of Article 3 of the Convention in the context of Article 20, advanced unedited version, 9 February 2018, para. 9. This paragraph states that “The principle of “non-refoulement” of persons to another State where there are substantial grounds for believing that they would be in danger of being subjected to torture is similarly absolute”.

^[xiv] The term ‘Latin American tradition of asylum’ commonly refers to the catalogue of bilateral and multilateral treaties related to the legal institution of territorial and diplomatic asylum adopted for the benefit of politically persecuted persons in Latin America, including the non-extradition clause for political crimes or political motives.

^[xv] Advisory Opinion OC-25/18 of 30 May 2018 requested by the Republic of Ecuador, Inter-American Court of Human Rights (IACrtHR), (30 May 2018), available at:

https://www.refworld.org/cases,IACRTHR,5c87ec454.html, paras. 188-189; see also European Commission on Human Rights, W.M. v. Denmark, No. 17392/90. Decision on Admissibility of 14 October 1992, para. 1, and Human Rights Committee, Case of Mohammad Munaf v. Romania (Communication No. 1539/2006), UN Doc. CCPR/C/96/D/1539/2006, Views adopted on 21 August 2009, paras. 14.2 and 14.5.

^[xvi] David Greene, at conference organised by GUE/NLG, European Union Left – Nordic Green Left, Journalism Is Not A Crime – The Assange Extradition Case, (14 November 2019), available at: https://web-guengl.streamovations.be/index.php/event/stream/journalism-is-not-a-crime-the-assange-extradition-case.

^[xvii] Julian Assange should not be extradited due to potential impact on press freedom and concerns about ill-treatment, Commissioner for Human Rights for the Council of Europe (20 February 2020), available at: https://www.coe.int/en/web/commissioner/-/julian-assange-should-not-be-extradited-due-to-potential-impact-on-press-freedom-and-concerns-about-ill-treatment.

^[xviii] European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR), Goodwin v United Kingdom, para. 39.

^[xix] Mohamed Elmaazi, ‘Assange Extradition: US Government Claims Foreign Journalists Aren’t Protected by First Amendment’, Sputnik International (24 January 2020), available at: https://sputniknews.com/uk/202001231078116774-assange-extradition-us-government-claims-foreign-journalists-arent-protected-by-first-amendment-/; This was already previously hinted at by former CIA director Mike Pompeo who claimed that the First Amendment of the US Constitution should not apply to Mr. Assange at all, as he is not a US citizen. Glenn Greenwald, ‘Trump’s CIA Director Pompeo, Targeting WikiLeaks, Explicitly Threatens Speech and Press Freedoms’, The Intercept (14 April 2017), available at: https://theintercept.com/2017/04/14/trumps-cia-director-pompeo-targeting-wikileaks-explicitly-threatens-speech-and-press-freedoms/.

^[xx] Courage foundation, Briefing for the Council of Europe, ‘Why Opposing Julian Assange’s Extradition to the U.S. Matters for European Democracy’, (March 2019), available at: https://defend.wikileaks.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/03/Council-of-Europe-briefing.pdf.

^[xxi] Speak Up for Julian Assange: International journalist statement in defence of Julian Assange, available at: https://speak-up-for-assange.org/journalists-speak-up-for-julian-assange/.

^[xxii] Amnesty International, ‘ US/UK: Drop charges and halt extradition of Julian Assange’, (21 February 2020), available at: https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/news/2020/02/usuk-drop-charges-and-halt-extradition-of-julian-assange/.

^[xxiii] Council of Europe, Parliamentary Assembly, ‘Threats to Media Freedom and Journalists’ Security in Europe’, Resolution 2317 (2020), para. 6.2, available at: https://assembly.coe.int/nw/xml/XRef/Xref-XML2HTML-en.asp?fileid=28508&lang=en.

^[xxiv] United Nations Human Rights Office of the High Commissioner, ‘UN expert says “collective persecution” of Julian Assange must end now, (31 May 2019)’, available at: https://www.ohchr.org/EN/NewsEvents/Pages/DisplayNews.aspx?NewsID=24665.

^[xxv] Ibid.

^[xxvi] ‘UN torture rapporteur: Julian Assange’s detention has no legal basis’, Going Underground, (30 November 2019), available at: https://www.rt.com/shows/going-underground/474719-un-torture-rapporteur-assange/.

^[xxvii] United Nations Human Rights Council, Working Group on Arbitrary Detention, Opinion No. 54/2015 concerning Julian Assange (Sweden and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland), A/HRC/WGAD/2015, (22 January 2016) available at: http://www.ohchr.org/Documents/Issues/Detention/A.HRC.WGAD.2015.docx.

^[xxviii] United Nations Human Rights Office of the High Commissioner, ‘United Kingdom: Working Group on Arbitrary Detention expresses concern about Assange proceedings’, (3 May 2019), available at: https://www.ohchr.org/EN/NewsEvents/Pages/DisplayNews.aspx?NewsID=24552&LangID=E.

^[xxix] Deborah Shipley, Criminal Litigation Practice and Procedure, (2019), p 56: “Although failing to answer bail at the police station is technically a criminal offence, it is very rare in practice for the police to charge a suspect with this offence.”

^[xxx] Lizzie Dearden, ‘Julian Assange ‘too ill’ to attend latest court hearing in US extradition case’, The Independent, (1 June 2020), available at https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/julian-assange-court-hearing-us-extradition-health-ill-sick-a9543126.html.

^[xxxi] Open Letter to UK Home Secretary Priti Patel and Shadow Home Secretary Diane Abbott, (23 November 2019), available at: https://consortiumnews.com/2019/11/23/doctors-petition-uk-home-secretary-over-julian-assange/ and https://medium.com/@doctors4assange.

^[xxxii] ‘UN torture rapporteur: Julian Assange’s detention has no legal basis’, Going Underground, (30 November 2019), available at: https://www.rt.com/shows/going-underground/474719-un-torture-rapporteur-assange/.

^[xxxiii] John Shipton at GUE/NLG, European Union Left – Nordic Green Left, Journalism Is Not A Crime – The Assange Extradition Case, (14 November 2019), available at: https://web-guengl.streamovations.be/index.php/event/stream/journalism-is-not-a-crime-the-assange-extradition-case.

^[xxxiv] United Nations Human Rights Office of the High Commissioner, ‘UN expert on torture sounds alarm again that Julian Assange’s life may be at risk’, (1 November 2019), available at: https://www.ohchr.org/EN/NewsEvents/Pages/DisplayNews.aspx?NewsID=25249.

^[xxxv] Open Letter to UK Home Secretary Priti Patel and Shadow Home Secretary Diane Abbott, (23 November 2019), available at: https://consortiumnews.com/2019/11/23/doctors-petition-uk-home-secretary-over-julian-assange/ and https://medium.com/@doctors4assange.

^[xxxvi] Conrad Duncan, ‘Julian Assange: WikiLeaks founder ‘at high risk of suicide’ if extradited to US, hearing told’, The Independent (24 February 2020), available at: https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/julian-assange-extradition-hearing-wikileaks-suicide-us-trump-a9356141.html.

^[xxxvii] Frost S, Johnson L, Stein J, Frost W. ‘End torture and medical neglect of Julian Assange’, The Lancet (7 March 2020); 395:e44–5.

Hogan W, Frost S, Johnson L, Schulze T G, Nelson E A, Frost W. ‘The ongoing torture and medical neglect of Julian Assange’, The Lancet (4 July 2020); 396:22-23.

^[xxxviii] Matt Kennard and Mark Curtis, ‘Revealed: Chief magistrate in Assange case received financial benefits from secretive partner organisations of UK Foreign Office’ (21 February 2020), available at: https://www.dailymaverick.co.za/article/2020-02-21-revealed-chief-magistrate-in-assange-case-received-financial-benefits-from-secretive-partner-organisations-of-uk-foreign-office/.

^[xxxix] Simon Murphy, ‘Assange branded a narcissist by judge who found him guilty’, The Guardian, (11 April 2019), available at: https://www.theguardian.com/media/2019/apr/11/assange-branded-a-narcissist-by-judge-who-found-him-guilty.

^[xl] Mandate of the Special Rapporteur on torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, Reference UA GBR 3/2019, 27 May 2019, Geneva, available at: https://spcommreports.ohchr.org/TMResultsBase/DownLoadPublicCommunicationFile?gId=24641, p. 8.

^[xli] John Pilger, Talk given at Free the Truth conference, Novemer 2019, available at: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DH0s8hGLS6A&feature=share&fbclid=IwAR1jD_2OQuuHAoBkpksctnHj0UGt-A05epeihobvjzmqryfu0zXi_Ux1qG8.

^[xlii] Jack Peat, ‘Assange “struggles to say his own name” as he appears in curt’, The London Economic, (21 October 2019), available at: https://www.thelondoneconomic.com/politics/assange-struggles-to-say-his-own-name-as-he-appears-in-court/21/10/.

^[xliii] Amnesty International, ‘UK: Amnesty International urges the UK to guarantee a fair extradition process to Julian Assange’ (27 February 2020), available at: https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/news/2020/02/uk-amnesty-international-urges-the-uk-to-guarantee-a-fair-extradition-process-to-julian-assange/.

^[xliv] International Bar Association, the global voice of the legal profession, ‘IBAHRI condemns UK treatment of Julian Assange in US extradition trial’, (10 March 2020), available at: https://www.ibanet.org/Article/NewDetail.aspx?ArticleUid=c05c57ee-1fee-47dc-99f9-26824208a750.

^[xlv] Ibid.

^[xlvi] Lissa Johnson, ‘Psychological Torture, Coronavirus, and Julian Assange’, Concurrent Disorders, (2 April 2020) available at: https://concurrentdisorders.ca/2020/04/03/psychological-torture-coronavirus-and-julian-assange/.

The Trump administration, desperate for some good news, just manufactured its own news by confecting a ‘peace’ deal between Israel and a bunch of pipsqueak Arab monarchies – just in time for November US elections.

The Gulf monarchies – the United Arab Emirates and Bahrain – that signed this agreement are so frightened of neighboring Iran that they would happily have opted for Israeli rule rather than welcome the angry, unforgiving Iranians, who call the Gulf Arabs ‘traitors, cowards and backstabbers,’ a sentiment shared by much of the Arab world.

Few Americans could find these little sheikdoms on a map. But many evangelical voters, who have a comic-book view of the Mideast, will think the Trump administration has achieved a major feat by supposedly bringing peace to the Holy Land. Cynics, among them many Israelis, will likely scoff at such falafel in the sky thinking. Oman is expected to sign the new accord.

Israel remains intent on expanding its borders to gobble up all of what was historic Palestine and its water resources. Five million Palestinians will remain stateless. Israel also has its eye on fertile parts of Syria and Lebanon.

As I suggested in my book on Mideast strategy, ‘American Raj,’ the key beneficiaries of any Arab-Israeli peace deal would be Israel’s bankers, businessmen and arms makers. If a decent peace deal can be made with the Palestinians, the doors of the entire Muslim world (a fifth of humanity) will be opened to Israel’s commerce and finance. This will be a huge bonanza worth orders of magnitude more than the West Bank’s scrubby slopes.

But to do so, Israel’s hard right and religious extremists will have to lessen their demands for Arab land and water – that is, what they term, Greater Israel. Just as difficult and obdurate will be Trump’s evangelical core voters who want to see a mythical Biblical Israel recreated, paving the way for the return of the Messiah and earth’s fiery destruction.

The United Arab Emirates, population just under 10 million, is only 10% Arab. The rest of its people are mainly Indians and Pakistani coolies, giving rise to the old bon mot that Dubai and Abu Dhabi are the world’s best Indian-run cities.

Non-Arab members of the UAE are treated like slaves. They are paid a pittance, poorly fed, and live in squalor. Non-Arabs have no rights. Arab citizens don’t have any rights either, just a better standard of living.

I remember these tiny city states from the early 1970’s when I worked for a leading US firm that smuggled high-end cosmetics and perfumes into India, Pakistan and the USSR via Dubai’s busy port.

Back in the day, Britain’s intelligence agency, MI6, controlled Oman and its royal rulers. Similarly, the CIA today exercises great influence over Kuwait, Saudi Arabia and Jordan, not to mention Egypt and Morocco. Tiny Qatar maintains a degree of independence in the face of Saudi threats and efforts by the Trump people to crush it.

The big Mideast deal ballyhooed by Trump and Co. is in reality a phony peace between secretly allied Gulf States and Israel. They have been playing footsie for over a decade. It is not primarily about peace but about Iran and arms sales to the Gulf States and Saudi Arabia that they have no idea how to use. Weapons sales are a protection payoff to Washington, which has important bases in Qatar, the UAE, Oman, Saudi Arabia and Israel.

What next? Will Trump declare a trans-Pacific alliance between Tonga and the US to ‘contain’ China?

As for peace in the Mideast, recall the biting words of Roman historian Tacitus, ‘where they make a desert they call it peace.’ That is what awaits over five million Palestinian refugees, not a new dawn promised by the Trump administration.

*

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.

In 2015, my life fell apart.

The first signs of trouble came from my son Jaylon. He was five years old and, although he struggled with ADHD, perfectly healthy. But then he started acting out in ways he never had before. His school didn’t know how to handle it, so they started suspending him. By the time he was six, they had suspended him 70 times.

Jaylon wasn’t the only child struggling. Many other children in Flint were acting out too, and no one knew why.

Now we do: It was lead poisoning.

That same year, I was pregnant. We didn’t yet know we weren’t supposed to drink the water. We didn’t yet know we were bathing in poison.

I started bleeding and went to the emergency room. They did an ultrasound, said I had miscarried, and told me to go home. I told them something wasn’t right, even more than the miscarriage. But they ignored me, a lower-income African American woman.

Back at home, I started hemorrhaging. I had to be rushed back to the hospital. It turns out there was another baby — I had been pregnant with twins. The doctors had treated me so carelessly they didn’t even know there was another baby when they sent me home. That night, I lost that baby too.

Two years later, I lost another set of twins. My daughter miscarried my grandchild. She might never be able to have children.

This didn’t happen because of us, the residents of Flint. It didn’t even happen because of those we elected in our city. It happened because an “emergency management” board appointed by the state tried to cut costs by getting our water out of the polluted Flint River rather than Lake Huron.

This wasn’t a decision decided by democratic vote. This was forced on us without even the barest measure of corrosion controls, even though the toxicity of the Flint River is notorious. They gambled with our lives, and we lost.

And who has been held accountable? No one. There are no active indictments, charges, or court cases related to the poisoning. A few weeks ago, they announced a financial settlement of $600 million for victims, but it feels like too little, too late.

How can I put a price tag on the lost lives of my four babies, or on the damage to my son, which will last the rest of his life? How do you put a price tag on the trauma, pain, and turmoil that greedy politicians inflicted on our whole community for the sake of profit? You can’t.

Compensation for victims is the bare minimum of what needs to happen. My son and the kids of Flint need more support. The politicians responsible need to be held accountable. Black people, poor people, and struggling low-income people need to matter.

Ultimately, this isn’t just a story about Flint.

Thousands of communities across the United States have lead levels as bad or worse than Flint’s were. That’s why the Poor People’s Campaign is calling for clean, public water for every person in this country — and an end to water shutoffs for people struggling to pay bills, especially during a pandemic.

Enough lives have fallen apart. It’s time to start putting them back together.

*

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

The American Southwest is witnessing a horrific and inexplicable phenomenon, likely due to the climate crisis: hundreds of thousands of migratory birds are dying off. The birds seem to be just “falling out of the sky,” as The Guardian reported.

Throughout his tenure, Trump showed he’s a deal-breaker, not maker — notably by unilaterally abandoning the landmark INF Treaty and JCPOA nuclear deal.

Extending New START is jeopardized. Expiring on February 5, 2021 if not renewed, the decade-ago agreement is the only remaining arms control treaty between Russia and the US.

Preserving it is essential to avoid a greater arms race than already ongoing.

Between them, Russia and the US have an estimated 94% of nuclear warheads.

Bush/Cheney’s December 2001 Nuclear Posture Review (NPR), asserted America’s preemptive right to unilaterally declare and wage future wars using first strike nuclear weapons.

Obama’s 2010 and 2015 National Security Strategies pledged US first-strike use of these weapons against any adversary, nuclear armed or not.

Trump earlier said the US “must greatly strengthen and expand its nuclear capability…”

As long as these weapons exist, they’ll likely be used again with devastating effects.

The only way to prevent eventual nuclear war is by eliminating these weapons entirely.

Trump’s National Security Strategy falsely called China and Russia “revisionist powers” that seek to “challenge American power, influence, and interests” — to be countered by escalated US militarism, including “new weapons systems” for winning wars quickly.

According to Trump’s NSS, enhancing the US nuclear arsenal is “essential to prevent nuclear attack, nonnuclear strategic attacks, and large scale conventional aggression.”

The above is code language for asserting the preemptive right to use nukes against invented enemies for the US to defend its “vital interests.”

US imperial aims pose an unprecedented threat to everyone everywhere.

Obama approved a $1 trillion program to upgrade America’s nuclear arsenal over the next 30 years.

Trump supports the same policy instead of stepping back from the risk of unthinkable nuclear war able to kill us all.

New START imposes limits on US and Russian nuclear warheads and bombs — as well as on deployed ICBMs, submarine-launched ballistic missiles (SLBMs), and nuclear-capable heavy bombers.

The agreement doesn’t limit non-deployed ICBMs and SLBMs, but monitors their numbers and locations.

On Monday, Russia’s’ UN envoy Vassily Nebenzia said the following:

“If New START is not extended, we will find effective ways to protect ourselves.”

“We are certainly interested in extending the treaty, as we see it as a key element of strategic stability.”

Nebenzia stressed the Kremlin’s belief that the US wants the entire system of arms control agreements dismantled so it’s free to enhance its military capabilities unconstrained by bilateral or multilateral deals.

Calling its rage for militarism a “global problem…more and more evidence (reveals) its desire to secure full discretion for power projection and use of force.”

Trump regime envoy for arms control Marshall Billingslea said New START won’t be extended by the US unless Russia agrees to its demands.

Earlier, Russia’s upper house Federation Council International Committee chairman Konstantin Koshchev called Washington’s position on extending New START “alarming (by its) categoricalness.”

Its position is “either as we say or nothing,” a way to prevent New START’s extension, not the other way around.

The last remaining bilateral arms control treaty may end in February.

The Trump regime wants no limits on deployment of US-NATO weapons in Europe, including intermediate and short-range nuclear capable ballistic missiles.

Its one-sided demand is either accept this threat to its security or the US will be free to modernize and expand its nuclear arsenal without constraints.

Instead of extending New START  in its current form with no preconditions as Putin proposed, Billingslea offered only a nonbinding Trump regime memorandum of intent.

He also wants China made part of agreed on terms. Russia has no objection if Beijing approves the idea it rejected so far.

In July, its Department of Arms Control director general Fu Kong said the following:

“(I)t is unrealistic to expect China to join the two countries in a negotiation aimed at nuclear arms reduction” — given the difference in sizes of their nuclear arsenals.

Beijing reportedly has around 300 nukes compared to around 6,000  warheads by both Russia and the US, according to the Arms Control Association.

Moscow also called for Britain and France to be involved in current talks, what Billingslea rejected.

He also opposes Russia’s call for the US to reduce its nuclear arsenal in Europe.

He warned that if Moscow doesn’t yield to US demands, “after Trump is reelected, the ‘entrance fee’…will increase,” adding:

If a deal isn’t reached by February, the US will abandon New START entirely, where things appear to be heading.

So far, there’s been no official Kremlin response to Billingslea’s demands.

Russian upper house Federation Council Foreign Affairs Committee member Oleg Morozov called them “outrageous,” adding:

“It’s like saying: ‘Give me your gun and the gun of your neighbor or I’ll shoot you in the head.’ ”

According to the Arms Control Association, the Trump regime “oppose(s) an unconditional” extension of New START proposed by Russia.

An “impasse” between both countries on this vital to world security issue “cast(s) an ominous shadow over the future of the last remaining arms control agreement” between both countries.

Billingslea falsely called New START “deeply flawed” — how Trump regime officials describe all landmark deals they want abandoned.

Both sides remain far apart on key issues. Russian Deputy Foreign Minister Sergey Ryabkov involved in talks with Billingslea said “any additions” to New START “would be impossible both for political and procedural reasons,” adding:

Moscow will not support an “extension at any cost.”

“If the US embellishes its possible…decision in favor of extension with all sorts of preconditions and burdens, this work with all possible additional requirements, then I think the problem of extending the treaty won’t be that easy to resolve.”

With US elections approaching, New START expiring in February, and both sides miles apart on extending it, maintaining the landmark deal is jeopardized.

*

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

Award-winning author Stephen Lendman lives in Chicago. He can be reached at [email protected]. He is a Research Associate of the Centre for Research on Globalization (CRG)

His new book as editor and contributor is titled “Flashpoint in Ukraine: US Drive for Hegemony Risks WW III.”

http://www.claritypress.com/LendmanIII.html

Visit his blog site at sjlendman.blogspot.com.

---

“Towards a World War III Scenario: The Dangers of Nuclear War” 

by Michel Chossudovsky

Available to order from Global Research! 

ISBN Number: 978-0-9737147-5-3
Year: 2012
Pages: 102
Print Edition: $10.25 (+ shipping and handling)
PDF Edition:  $6.50 (sent directly to your email account!)

Michel Chossudovsky is Professor of Economics at the University of Ottawa and Director of the Centre for Research on Globalization (CRG), which hosts the critically acclaimed website www.globalresearch.ca . He is a contributor to the Encyclopedia Britannica. His writings have been translated into more than 20 languages.

Reviews

“This book is a ‘must’ resource – a richly documented and systematic diagnosis of the supremely pathological geo-strategic planning of US wars since ‘9-11’ against non-nuclear countries to seize their oil fields and resources under cover of ‘freedom and democracy’.”
–John McMurtry, Professor of Philosophy, Guelph University

“In a world where engineered, pre-emptive, or more fashionably “humanitarian” wars of aggression have become the norm, this challenging book may be our final wake-up call.”
-Denis Halliday, Former Assistant Secretary General of the United Nations

Michel Chossudovsky exposes the insanity of our privatized war machine. Iran is being targeted with nuclear weapons as part of a war agenda built on distortions and lies for the purpose of private profit. The real aims are oil, financial hegemony and global control. The price could be nuclear holocaust. When weapons become the hottest export of the world’s only superpower, and diplomats work as salesmen for the defense industry, the whole world is recklessly endangered. If we must have a military, it belongs entirely in the public sector. No one should profit from mass death and destruction.
–Ellen Brown, author of ‘Web of Debt’ and president of the Public Banking Institute   

Longtime incumbent President Alexander Lukashenko overwhelmingly defeated opposition candidates to remain in office.

US-designated puppet-in-waiting,  Svetlana Tikhanovskaya was chosen to serve Washington’s imperial interests.

On Saturday, Russian Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Maria Zakharova slammed Brussels for meddling in Belarusian internal affairs, saying the following:

“…Belarus is not the only example” of how the EU colludes with Washington against other countries in breach of the UN Charter and other international law.

“We call on the European Union to reconsider this course, which leads to the erosion of the legal basis of the international order, and in the case of Belarus, hinders normalization in the country.”

Stressing the illegality and destabilizing effects of possible EU sanctions on the country, Zakharova added:

“Our position regarding the sanctions mechanism used by the European Union is well-known.”

“It is illegitimate in terms of international law and represents unacceptable interference in internal affairs.”

“And in the context of the situation in Belarus, it contradicts the goal of restoring stability, establishing a dialogue, launching the constitutional process, and easing tensions, which EU representatives have said so much about.”

Zakharova also strongly criticized an invitation by EU foreign ministers for Tikhanovskaya to attend an upcoming ministerial meeting in Brussels, saying:

“EU foreign ministers’ overtures to the self-appointed Belarusian opposition representative and her invitation to Brussels ‘to communicate’ is an integral part of the scenario to meddle in Belarus’ domestic affairs.”

“It is a brazen violation of fundamental norms of the United Nations Charter and the Helsinki Final Act of the Conference on Security and Cooperation in Europe, which anniversaries are marked by international community this year.”

Russia views unacceptable bloc actions as further “proof of the European Union’s retreat from previous statements that there is no geopolitics in regard to Belarus or any parallels with the scenario of February 2014 in Ukraine when certain EU nations had come forward as so-called guarantors of the agreement between the government and opposition, which was trampled on the next day.”

Extrajudicial EU policy is supported by its foreign policy chief Josep Borrell and majority European Parliament MPs.

“The attempts to ‘rock the boat’ are obvious, and Brussels should not be surprised that there will be a response,” Zakharova stressed, adding:

“Behind imaginary concern for the people of Belarus, the EU actually tries to decide for them how they should live.”

“We would say again that the EU prefers not to talk about the constitutional reform, which aims to promote a nationwide dialogue in this country.”

“In general, we can see that disrespect for objective intra-political realities, rampant support to opposition forces, up to recognition of ‘impostors’ by certain EU member states which Brussels is unable to ‘rein in,’ and the option to oust the current government through sanctions, pressure and propaganda are being increasingly entrenched in the EU foreign policy arsenal.”

“Regrettably, Belarus is not the only example in this respect.”

Geopolitically, the EU is largely subservient to Washington’s agenda.

Separately, remarks by Belarusian Foreign Ministry spokesman Anatoly Glaz were similar to his Russian counterpart — stressing “impudent and open interference in the internal affairs of our country and complete disrespect for its citizens” by the EU and US.

Reciting scripted remarks, Tikhanovskaya called for “international community” intervention in Belarus by video message to the UN Human Rights Council — supporting the made-in-the-USA coup attempt to topple the country’s legitimate government.

Russia supports Belarusian sovereignty, free from foreign interference.

On Wednesday, Sergey Lavrov said during Lukashenko’s Sochi meeting with Putin days earlier, both leaders discussed implementation of the 1999 Union State treaty between both countries, adding:

“Work is underway.” Because over 20 years passed since both nations agreed on the treaty, governments of both nations “began to work on identifying the agreed-upon steps that would make our integration fit current circumstances.”

Lukashenko agreed on the need to deepen integration after resisting the idea throughout most of his time in office since 1994.

Given a made-in-the-US coup plot to replace him with pro-Western puppet rule, Lukashenko appears more willing for Belarus to join with Russia as part of a Union State.

As the saying goes, the devil is in the details. At the same time, consummation of a Union State agreement between both countries most likely would be an effective way to defeat the US coup plot.

Things are moving in this direction. It also makes sense because around 80% of Belarusians are ethnically Russian. Both countries share a slavic heritage.

They’re each other’s most important political, economic, trade, and defense partners. Lavrov expressed confidence about achieving bilateral integration — perhaps to be announced in the coming days or weeks.

*

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

Award-winning author Stephen Lendman lives in Chicago. He can be reached at [email protected]. He is a Research Associate of the Centre for Research on Globalization (CRG)

His new book as editor and contributor is titled “Flashpoint in Ukraine: US Drive for Hegemony Risks WW III.”

http://www.claritypress.com/LendmanIII.html

Visit his blog site at sjlendman.blogspot.com.

US President Donald Trump and his ‘war council’ – led by Secretary of State Mike Pompeo – have amplified their aggression against China. What began as a trade dispute in the 1990s has now escalated into the United States making an existential challenge against China.

The threat against China is made not for irrational reasons, but for perfectly rational ones, which are laid out below in our Red Alert no. 9 (also available as a separate download from our website). These have to do with the emergence of China as a major economic and technological power. What most rankles the US ruling class is that the various hybrid war techniques to weaken or overthrow the government are simply not available. The only means at the disposal of the United States to hold on to its power – chillingly – is armed force.

Is the United States trying to impose a war on China?

For the past several decades, the US has conducted a trade war against China. There are two key issues that worry the United States: first, a trade imbalance that benefits China, and, second, the growth of the Chinese technology sector. Techniques that the US has used against China include: pressuring China to revalue its currency against the dollar, pressuring China to prevent ‘piracy’ on intellectual property in order to slow down its domestic intellectual property developments, and pressuring China to slow down or cease its Belt and Road Initiative.

The US has now begun a war against the Chinese economy. The attempt to isolate Huawei and ZTE from their suppliers and their markets will have a debilitating impact on the growth potential of the Chinese economy. The US has sanctioned roughly 152 companies that make chips and other products for Huawei and ZTE. Increased bans – through the US government’s Clean Network initiative – would prevent US companies from using Chinese cloud services and undersea cables, and it would ban Chinese apps from appearing on app stores. The US government has increased pressure on other countries to join in this campaign.

The US government has increased its military pressure along the eastern rim of China. This includes the 2017 revival of the Quad (Australia, India, Japan, and the US), the creation of the US’ Indo-Pacific Strategy (its key document from 2020 is called ‘Regain the Advantage’), and the development of a range of new weaponry, including cyberweapons. This military power has come alongside hostile rhetoric against China, with attention focused on Hong Kong, Xinjiang, and Taiwan, and the depiction of the coronavirus pandemic as a ‘China virus’. Evidence is not as important here as the use of older racist and anti-Communist ideas to demonise China.

Why is the US increasing its pressure against China?

China’s technological advances could result in a generational advantage over the West. China’s scientific and technological developments came because of the country’s investment in higher education and in its ability to transfer technology from firms that entered the country to manufacture goods. In 2018, Chinese scholars for the first time published more scientific articles than their colleagues in the US, and Chinese firms filed more patent applications than US firms. Chinese tech firms have now produced products that appear to be ahead of US, European, and Japanese products. Examples for this include 5G, BeiDou (a better mapping technology than GPS), high-speed trains, and robots.

Faced with US pressure, China has crafted an independent trade and development agenda. Since the world financial crisis, China began diversifying its economy from reliance upon the US and European markets to build up its own internal market and to increase engagement with the Global South. The immediate projects that developed included the Belt and Road Initiative, the String of Pearls Initiative, the Forum on China-Africa Cooperation, the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation, and the China-Community of Latin American and Caribbean States Forum. The Chinese government has also begun to pay more attention to the Association of South-East Asian Nations (ASEAN). These moves come alongside a remarkable poverty eradication programme.

Currently, China is highly dependent on imported energy – such as gas from ASEAN nations, Australia, and Qatar. The China-Russia 6000kms ‘Power of Siberia’ pipeline will bring 38 billion cubic metres of natural gas, a substantial increase to meet the demands for the 90 billion cubic meters consumed by China. In 2014, Russia’s multinational energy corporation Gazprom and the China National Petroleum Corporation signed a $400 billion for a thirty-year deal.

Increasingly, China has attempted to build institutions outside of Western-controlled trade and development architecture, including the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank (founded in 2014). As part of this, China has committed to de-dollarisation; China has proposed to hold its reserves and to conduct trade in currencies other than the US dollar. This is a long-term but inevitable development, and one that threatens the overall role of the Wall Street-Dollar complex. China’s cooperation with Russia is most advanced in this arena, with about 50% of Russia-China trade conducted in roubles and yuan (Russia owns about 25% of the global yuan reserves). Both Russia and China are divesting themselves of their dollar reserves. In January 2020, Russia sold $101 billion, or 50%, of its dollar reserves and moved $44 billion into Euros and $44 billion into yuan. The yuan, however, represents only 2% of global currency reserves.

Against the eastward expansion of NATO and the emergence of the Quad, China and Russia have crafted a military and diplomatic Eurasian security bloc. This is evident in the arms deals and the military exercises, but also in diplomatic coordination. For example, Russian and Chinese foreign ministry spokespersons Maria Zakharova and Hua

Chunying said in late July that they would join efforts in combatting the information war against China and Russia. Chinese diplomats have taken a more forthright attitude in their statements; they have been dubbed the ‘wolf warrior diplomats’, an allusion to a popular film where a Chinese soldier from an elite Wolf Warrior troop defeats a group of terrorists led by an ex-US Navy Seal.

Clearly, the US has found that Chinese leadership has been unwilling to go the Gorbachev road – namely, to surrender the Chinese model to the will of the United States. There is no possibility that the Communist Party of China will dissolve itself. The Chinese middle class – possible fodder for a ‘colour revolution’ – does not have any appetite to overthrow the government. It is content with the direction of the government and sees that its government has improved living standards and has been able – unlike Western governments – to tackle the Coronavirus pandemic (as we write about in a series on ‘CoronaShock’). A Harvard University study shows that the government led by the Communist Party of China has increased its approval from 2003 to 2016, largely because of the social welfare programmes and the fight against corruption pushed by both the Communist Party of China and by the Chinese government. The overall approval stands at 93%.

What contradictions does the US war project face?

Chinese economic developments – such as the country’s capacity to outspend the US in development aid to outbid Western firms in trade deals – has produced alliances between China and key capitalist sectors in countries that have otherwise been secure US allies. Examples of this are amongst sections of the capitalist class in the Philippines and Sri Lanka, where Chinese investment has been welcomed.

The Chinese state has intensified its intervention in the tech sector inside China, with a $14 billion private and public fund to support tech developments. Semiconductor Manufacturing International Corporation (SMIC) – China’s top chip company – had an initial public offering (IPO) in Shanghai which netted $7. 5 billion. As a consequence of such funds and its own scientific developments, China will soon be able to bypass the US chip firms.

China’s economic capacity continues to exert pressure on fragments of capital in different countries. For instance, Australian mining companies rely upon China to buy iron ore from Australia. These companies lobby Canberra not to take too hostile a position against China. Roughly one third of Australia’s total exports go to China; these include soy, barley, meat, fruits, gas, and the raw minerals. The Australian government is forced to acknowledge these concerns, even though it has a longer-term perspective than the short-term profit concerns of the mining conglomerates. China has already hedged its bets, increasing purchases of soy and meat from Argentina and Brazil, and it will likely buy more mined goods from Brazil (Brazil’s Vale is using massive ships to carry mined goods to China).

The US military is stretched thin between the conflicts in Venezuela and Iran, and now in China. The US Navy has had four secretaries in a year, part of the chaos in the Trump administration. As a consequence, the US Navy has complained about the lack of ability to handle so many theatres of war at the same time. China has developed sophisticated defence mechanisms, such as cyber warfare techniques that have the ability to shut down US communications, starting with their satellites, and such as their Dongfeng missiles, which are capable of hitting the US navy ships that are in the South China Sea.

The eighth century Chinese poet Li Bai wrote of the ugliness of war; as far as war is concerned, nothing has changed over the centuries.

Soldiers smear their blood on the dry grass
While generals map the next campaign.

Wise people know winning a war
Is no better than losing one.

*

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

All images in this article are from tricontinental

The Center for Biological Diversity sued the administration for public records detailing the U.S. government’s efforts on behalf of Bayer, the maker of the herbicide glyphosate, to convince Thailand last year to reverse its planned ban of the cancer-linked chemical.

The lawsuit comes after documents previously obtained by the Center revealed evidence that the U.S. Department of Agriculture and U.S. trade officials worked closely with the pesticide and processed-food industries to pressure Thailand into scuttling its ban on glyphosate, which the World Health Organization’s cancer-research arm has listedas a probable carcinogen.

The lawsuit, which was filed on Wednesday, seeks additional documents that administration officials have refused to release regarding their communications with representatives of Bayer and other corporations that stood to benefit from the reversal of the ban.

“It’s bad enough that this administration has ignored independent science to blindly support Bayer’s self-serving assertions of glyphosate’s safety,” said Nathan Donley, a senior scientist at the Center. “But to then act as Bayer’s agent to pressure other countries to adopt that position is outrageous.”

The earlier communications obtained by the Center through a Freedom of Information Act request reveal a coordinated effort between U.S. officials and powerful, multinational corporations to thwart actions abroad that might harm sales of their products.

Bayer and Archer Daniels Midland, a U.S.-based international commodities trader, were two of the companies working with federal officials to pressure Thailand to reverse its plan to ban glyphosate, according to the documents.

In October 2019 Thailand’s National Hazardous Substances Committee voted to ban glyphosate and two other highly controversial pesticides: chlorpyrifos and paraquat. But one month later — five days before the ban was to go into effect — Thailand suddenly reversed its decision on glyphosate.

Records reveal that the U.S. government got involved after Bayer appealed to the administration to intervene on two separate occasions in September and October 2019. Both appeals for intervention were forwarded to Ted McKinney, USDA undersecretary for trade and foreign agricultural affairs, who previously worked for the pesticide company Dow Agrosciences for nearly 20 years.

Eight days after Bayer’s second request, McKinney sent an official letter to Thailand’s prime minister asking the country to reconsider its planned ban.

Concurrent with its efforts at USDA, Bayer was in regular contact with the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative, the federal agency responsible for recommending U.S. trade policy to the U.S. president.

Documents show that agency collected intelligence on individuals in the Thai government who supported the ban. In discussing the matter with representatives from Bayer, U.S. trade officials sought information on a supporter of the ban, the Thai deputy agriculture minister:

“…it would be useful to know her personal motivations (i.e., is she a diehard advocate of organic food; and/or staunch environmentalist who eschews all synthetic chemical applications). Knowing what motivates her may help with USG counter arguments.”

The U.S. trade office also asked who in Thailand would be in the best position to influence this decision. Bayer replied, “All efforts should be focused on the Prime Minister.”

Representatives of Archer-Daniels-Midland (ADM) also met with officials at the U.S. trade office in November and provided the agency with: “…some more intel on the issue, per the questions that were raised during our meeting…”

In October and November, there were at least two official meetings between ambassadors of the two countries. Memos from both meetings indicated that the glyphosate ban was discussed alongside the impending U.S. decision to revoke Thailand’s favorable trade status, allegedly due to worker rights issues. The Thai glyphosate ban and the decision to revoke trade preferences occurred on Oct. 22 and Oct. 25, respectively.

While the official White House media talking points specifically mention how to respond if asked whether the trade status decision was due to a cause other than workers’ rights (i.e. glyphosate), other talking points related to the U.S. response to Thailand’s glyphosate ban specifically omitted discussion of the trade preferences, stating that the U.S. trade office, “does not support inclusion of any mention of [trade preferences] in these talking points.”

Two days before Thailand reversed its planned ban on glyphosate, a draft letter to Thailand was sent to Agriculture Secretary Sonny Perdue for his approval. The content of that letter has not been revealed.

Included in the Center’s lawsuit against USDA is a demand for the final draft of that letter.

Read the full USDA FOIA production here

Read the full USTR FOIA production 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.

The Trump administration declared Saturday [1] that all UN sanctions against Iran had been restored, and that its triggering of the “snapback” mechanism in the UN Security Council resolution that enshrined the 2015 Iran nuclear deal had taken effect at 8 p.m. Eastern Time.

That is thirty days after Secretary of State Mike Pompeo notified the council that Iran was in “significant non-performance” with its obligations under the accord, known as the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, or JCPOA.

The White House plans to issue an executive order on Monday spelling out how the US will enforce the restored sanctions, and the State and Treasury departments are expected to outline how foreign individuals and businesses will be penalized for violations.

“The United States expects all U.N, member states to fully comply with their obligations to implement these measures,” Mike Pompeo said. “If UN member states fail to fulfill their obligations to implement these sanctions, the United States is prepared to use our domestic authorities to impose consequences for those failures and ensure that Iran does not reap the benefits of UN-prohibited activity.”

It’s worth pointing out that the Iran sanctions that were lifted in 2015 after the signing of JCPOA were “third party” sanctions, implying that any state or business organization doing business with Iran wouldn’t be able to engage in commercial activities with the US government and commercial enterprises based in the US.

This is exactly what the executive order on Monday would likely stipulate, and it needs to be seen whether the administration allows any exceptions or relief to states and business entities violating the order.

Although the European Union is resisting the Trump administration’s pressure to enforce the snapback mechanism, the global financial system is led by the United States. Europe and the UN will find no choice but to toe Washington’s line, if the Trump administration issues the executive order penalizing states and commercial organizations doing business with Iran.

Donald Trump has repeatedly said during the last four years that the Iran nuclear deal signed by the Obama administration in 2015 was an “unfair deal” that gave concessions to Iran without giving anything in return to the US.

Unfortunately, there is a grain of truth in Trump’s statements because the Obama administration signed the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) with Iran in July 2015 under pressure, as Washington had bungled in its Middle East policy and it wanted Iran’s cooperation in Syria and Iraq to get a face-saving.

In order to understand how the Obama administration bungled in Syria and Iraq, we should bear the background of Washington’s Middle East policy during the recent years in mind. The nine-year conflict in Syria that gave birth to myriads of militant groups, including the Islamic State, and after the conflict spilled across the border into neighboring Iraq in early 2014 was directly responsible for the spate of Islamic State-inspired terror attacks in Europe from 2015 to 2017.

Since the beginning of the Syrian conflict in August 2011 to June 2014, when the Islamic State overran Mosul and Anbar in Iraq, an informal pact existed between the Western powers, their regional allies and jihadists of the Middle East against the Iranian resistance axis. In accordance with the pact, militants were trained and armed in the training camps located in the border regions of Turkey and Jordan to battle the Syrian government.

This arrangement of an informal pact between the Western powers and the jihadists of the Middle East against the Iran-allied forces worked well up to August 2014, when the Obama Administration made a volte-face on its previous regime change policy in Syria and began conducting air strikes against one group of militants battling the Syrian government, the Islamic State, after the latter overstepped its mandate in Syria and overran Mosul and Anbar in Iraq from where the US had withdrawn its troops only a couple of years ago in December 2011.

After this reversal of policy in Syria by the Western powers and the subsequent Russian military intervention on the side of the Syrian government in September 2015, the momentum of jihadists’ expansion in Syria and Iraq stalled, and they felt that their Western patrons had committed a treachery against the jihadists’ cause, hence they were infuriated and rose up in arms to exact revenge for this betrayal.

If we look at the chain of events, the timing of the spate of terror attacks against the West was critical: the Islamic State overran Mosul in June 2014, the Obama Administration began conducting air strikes against the Islamic State’s targets in Iraq and Syria in August 2014, and after a lull of almost a decade since the Madrid and London bombings in 2004 and 2005, respectively, the first such incident of terrorism occurred on the Western soil at the offices of Charlie Hebdo in January 2015, and then the Islamic State carried out the audacious November 2015 Paris attacks, the March 2016 Brussels bombings, the June 2016 truck-ramming incident in Nice, and three horrific terror attacks took place in the United Kingdom within a span of less than three months in 2017, and after that the Islamic State carried out the Barcelona attack in August 2017, and then another truck-ramming atrocity occurred in Lower Manhattan in October 2017 that was also claimed by the Islamic State.

More to the point, the dilemma that the jihadists and their regional backers faced in Syria was quite unique: in the wake of the Ghouta chemical weapons attacks in Damascus in August 2013, the stage was all set for yet another no-fly zone and “humanitarian intervention” a la Gaddafi’s Libya; the war hounds were waiting for a finishing blow and then-Turkish Foreign Minister Ahmet Davutoglu and former Saudi intelligence chief Bandar bin Sultan were shuttling between the Western capitals to lobby for the military intervention. Francois Hollande, then the president of France, had already announced his intentions and David Cameron, then the prime minister of the UK, was also onboard.

Here it should be remembered that even during the Libyan intervention, the Obama administration’s policy was a bit ambivalent and France under the leadership of Nicolas Sarkozy, then the president of France, had taken the lead role. In Syria’s case, however, the British parliament forced David Cameron to seek a vote for military intervention in the House of Commons before committing the British troops and air force to Syria.

Taking cue from the British parliament, the US Congress also compelled Obama to seek approval before another ill-conceived military intervention, and since both the administrations lacked the requisite majority in their respective parliaments and the public opinion was also fiercely against another Middle Eastern war, therefore Obama and Cameron dropped their plans of enforcing a no-fly zone over Syria.

In the end, France was left alone as the only Western power still in favor of intervention; at that point, however, the seasoned Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov staged a diplomatic coup by announcing that the Syrian government was willing to ship its chemical weapons stockpiles out of Syria and subsequently the issue was amicably resolved.

Turkey, Jordan and the Gulf Arab states, the main beneficiaries of the proxy war against the Baathist government in Syria, however, had lost a golden opportunity to deal a fatal blow to their regional rivals.

To add insult to the injury, the Islamic State, one of the numerous militant outfits fighting in Syria, overstepped its mandate in Syria and overran Mosul and Anbar in Iraq in 2014, from where the US troops had withdrawn only a couple of years ago in December 2011.

Additionally, when the graphic images and videos of Islamic State’s executions surfaced on the internet, the Obama administration was left with no other choice but to adopt some countermeasures to show that it was still sincere in pursuing Washington’s dubious “war on terror” policy; at the same time, however, it assured its Turkish, Jordanian and Gulf Arab allies that despite fighting a war against the maverick jihadist outfit, the Islamic State, the Western policy of training and arming the so-called “moderate” Syrian militants will continue apace and that Bashar al-Assad’s days were numbered, one way or the other.

Moreover, declaring the war against the Islamic State in August 2014 served another purpose too: in order to commit the US Air Force to Syria and Iraq, the Obama administration needed the approval of the US Congress which was not available, but by declaring a war against the Islamic State, which was a designated terrorist organization, the Obama administration availed itself of the war on terror provisions in the US laws and thus circumvented the US Congress.

But then Russia threw a spanner in the works of NATO and its Gulf Arab allies in September 2015 by its surreptitious military buildup in Latakia that was executed with an element of surprise unheard of since General Rommel, the Desert Fox.

When Russia deployed its forces and military hardware to Syria in September 2015, the militant proxies of Washington and its regional clients were on the verge of drawing a wedge between Damascus and the Alawite heartland of coastal Latakia, which could have led to the imminent downfall of the Bashar al-Assad government.

With the help of the Russian air power, the Syrian government has since reclaimed most of Syria’s territory from the insurgents, excluding Idlib in the northwest occupied by the Turkish-backed militants and Deir al-Zor and the Kurdish-held areas in the east, thus inflicting a humiliating defeat on Washington and its regional clients.

Keeping this background of the quagmire created by the Obama administration in Syria and Iraq in mind, it becomes amply clear that the Obama administration desperately needed Iran’s cooperation in Syria and Iraq to salvage its botched policy of training and arming jihadists to topple the government Bashar al-Assad in Syria that backfired and gave birth to the Islamic State that carried out some of the most audacious terror attacks in Europe from 2015 to 2017.

Thus, Washington signed JCPOA in July 2015 that gave some concessions to Iran, and in return, then hardliner Prime Minister of Iraq Nouri al-Maliki was forced out of power in September 2014 with Iran’s tacit approval and moderate former Prime Minister Haider al-Abadi was appointed in his stead who gave permission to the US Air Force and ground troops to assist the Iraqi Armed Forces and allied militias to beat back the Islamic State from Mosul and Anbar.

The Iran nuclear deal, however, was neither an international treaty under the American laws nor even an executive agreement. It was simply categorized as a “political commitment.” Due to the influence of Zionist lobbies in Washington, the opposition to the JCPOA in the American political discourse was so vehement that forget about having it passed through the US Congress, the task the Obama administration faced was to muster enough votes of dissident Democrats to defeat a resolution of disapproval so that it couldn’t override a presidential veto.

The Trump administration, however, is not hampered by the legacy of Obama administration and since the objective of defeating the Islamic State had already been achieved in 2017, therefore Washington felt safe to unilaterally annul the Iran nuclear deal in May 2018 at Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s behest, and the crippling “third party” sanctions have once again been put in place on Iran.

*

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.

Nauman Sadiq is an Islamabad-based attorney, columnist and geopolitical analyst focused on the politics of Af-Pak and Middle East regions, neocolonialism and petro-imperialism. He is a regular contributor to Global Research.

Note

[1] US says all UN sanctions on Iran restored:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/us-says-all-un-sanctions-on-iran-restored-but-world-yawns/2020/09/19/afb460a2-fad4-11ea-85f7-5941188a98cd_story.html

Featured image is from Al-Masdar News

---

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

Michel Chossudovsky

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

ISBN Number: 978-0-9737147-6-0

Year: 2015

Pages: 240 Pages

List Price: $22.95

Special Price: $15.00

Click here to order.

Another day and another huge blow to the fossil fuel industry. A key investor in the new coal mine in Australia, operated by mining giant Glencore, has said it will not invest in the AUD 1.5 billion Valeria project as the economics “don’t stack up” anymore.

This week the investment firm concerned, UniSuper Management, said it would scrap investments that get more than 10% of revenue from thermal coal.

A spokesperson for the company told Bloomberg “I can’t think of a more tangible way of us demonstrating how seriously the risks are that are posed by decarbonization” than by withholding support for Glencore’s mine. “Thermal coal is bound to be a stranded asset,” they said. It is yet another sign that coal’s terminal decline is continuing. No one wants to invest anymore.

Where one dirty fossil fuel leads, others now follow. Oil is in deep trouble, too. On Monday, the global giant, BP, conceded in its Annual Energy outlook that within its “base-case scenario,” oil consumption has peaked for good in 2019.

Additionally, there has been a hugely influential conference of the oil industry in Singapore this week. The Asia Pacific Petroleum Conference (APPEC) was held virtually for the first time. Reuters reported, “major oil industry producers and traders are forecasting a bleak future for worldwide fuel demand.”

CNBC added that influential analysts at the conference put out a stern warning: due to the poor financial returns that oil companies were offering, in response the collapse in demand of oil, “drawing investment to the sector would be a problem.”

Ben Luckock, from trading company Trafigura, warned it might be “hard to see where the investment comes from.” He added, “who is going to fund our next investment cycle? Indeed, is anyone going to be incentivized to fund us?” In short, no one wants to invest anymore.

One such analyst, Ed Morse, managing director and global head of commodities research at Citi, said, “between a lot of us, we’re talking about another demand shock. It’s like fighting the last battle.”

It is not just analysts that are worried. One oil industry insider, Arif Mahmood, from Malaysian state producer Petronas warned the conference that after the pandemic, “energy transition will be pushed forward much faster.”

And as the industry fails to find investors and as oil companies cut costs, they are capping and leaving wells behind. They are capping wells in the hope that prices may rise, but in the meantime, the companies risk themselves going bust.

And when companies go bust, who will look after their leaking legacy?

An important investigation by Bloomberg Green, published yesterday, examined the issue of the shocking state of over three million abandoned oil and gas wells in the United States. Nor is this a problem only linked to America. There are believed to be nearly 30 million abandoned oil and gas wells worldwide.

Many of these wells are leaking methane, the potent greenhouse gas or polluting water courses. As the article states, “if carbon dioxide is a bullet, methane is a bomb.”

We have known for a long while that abandoned wells were a problem, but we still do not know the extent of the problem. Even now. The oil industry may be dying, but it will still pollute us for decades after its death.

One scientist tracking the issue, Mary Kang from Princeton, has been modeling how carbon dioxide and methane leak from old wells. In 2016, Kang published a study of 88 abandoned well sites in Pennsylvania, revealing that 90% of wells investigated leaked methane.

Another scientist working on the issue, Anthony Ingraffea, a Professor of Civil and Environmental Engineering at Cornell who has studied leaks from oil and gas wells for decades, told Bloomberg, “we really don’t have a handle on it yet… We’ve poked millions of holes thousands of feet into Mother Earth to get her goods, and now we are expecting her to forgive us?”

What we do know is that as more and more companies go bust in the coming days, weeks, months, and years, they will try to escape paying the cost to permanently seal their wells. It will be the taxpayers who pick up the billion dollar bill. The cost to safely plug and decommission the 100,000 active and idled wells in California alone could be in excess of $9 billion.

In the meantime, nonsensically, we carry on drilling. As I pointed out earlier in the week, despite this, and the climate emergency, California alone has approved 1,679 new drilling permits this year.

So we know we have a ticking climate “bomb” leaking from wells, as they spew out methane, exacerbating our climate emergency. But still we are not forcing oil companies to set aside billions to pay for their mess.

And when they go bankrupt, this situation is going to get worse. As Bloomberg notes, the oil industry may disappear, but “gas wells never really die.”

*

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

Featured image is by Hillebrand Steve, USFWS

In November 2013, after Ukrainian President Yanukovych refused to sign the Association Agreement with the EU due to its onerous conditions, members of non-governmental organizations funded by grants from Western foundations (popularly called “grant eaters”) brought their supporters to the Maidan demanding signing this agreement. Leftist organizations, including the Union of Anarchists of Ukraine (SAU), were initially wary of these protests. Everyone remembered the results of the first Maidan in 2004 and the Yushchenko regime which oversaw the fall of the economy and the standard of living of ordinary citizens, accompanied by the growing influence of nationalist ultra-right organizations. 

Nevertheless, following the techniques of “color revolutions”, repeatedly tested in the Third World countries, slogans of grassroots self-organization, priorities of local self-government, social demands to reduce prices and utility rates were thrown into Ukrainian society at the first stage of the protests. Therefore, leftist organizations could not stay away from such protests and were present at the first stage of the Maidan in the fall of 2013. In particular, anarchists from the SAU in Kiev, Vasilkov and Korosten were active there. At the headquarters of the Union of Anarchists, Odessa, where two rival camps—Maidan and Anti-Maidan—were formed, anarchists pursued a policy of uniting the forces of both movements to take local power under public control. This was the only case in Ukraine when Maidan and Anti-Maidan, on our initiative, put forward general requirements for the City Council regarding its subordination to the interests of citizens. 

Subsequent events showed that democratic and social slogans were only a bait for the accumulation of the protest electorate. At the second stage of the Maidan starting in January 2014, the leading role in the protests began to be played by ultra-right, radical nationalist organizations such as Right Sector, White Hammer, All-Ukrainian Union Svoboda, Organization of Ukrainian Nationalists (OUN), which, unlike the leftists, were well funded by oligarchs and Western funds and had their own militant training camps. In a series of skirmishes, they squeezed leftist organizations out of the protest camp and subsequently became the shock force of the coup d’état. Without militant radical nationalists, the peaceful majority of the protesters would have been incapable of overthrowing the Yanukovych regime. SAU groups also left the Maidan, but some of the anarchists remained on their own initiative. Subsequently, one of them, Sergei Kemsky from Korosten, was killed by a sniper and ranked among the Heavenly Hundred.

But the key role in the coup was played not by ultra-right militants, but by pressure from Western embassies and international organizations, which held back the government from dispersing the protests by force. As a result, after the shootings on the Maidan on February 20, 2014, in which the opposing sides accuse each other, the president and protest leaders signed a peace memorandum under the guarantees of the Western ambassadors, and Yanukovych withdrew the police forces. However, the Maidan immediately violated the agreement, seized government buildings and forced Yanukovych to flee.

The coup in Kiev was followed by a chain reaction of events in other parts of Ukraine. Russia took advantage of the complete rejection of nationalism and the Maidan in Crimea and, with the support of the local population, annexed the peninsula. After Donetsk and Luhansk revolted in a protest against the illegal authorities of the Maidan, the putschists sent troops there to quell the unrest, and thus began the so-called anti-terrorist operation – the war in Donbass. In other cities in southeastern Ukraine, where anti-Maidan sentiments were also strong, protests were quickly suppressed. In Odessa, the opponents of Maidan were dealt with most cruelly, with 48 anti-Maidan supporters burned to death in the House of Trade Unions in May 2014.

After the triumph of the new regime, which came to power not as a result of free elections, but through a coup d’état, its true face quickly began to show itself. Under the beautiful slogans of embracing “European values” and a high standard of living in the EU for ordinary Ukrainians, the Maidan regime actually pursued the goal of economic absorption of our country by Western capital with the help of the dependent comprador bourgeoisie placed and under the control of the embassies of NATO countries.

This can be clearly seen in the neoliberal shock doctrine reforms of 2014-16. There was a deliberate destruction of our economy in order to firmly take Ukraine under the control of Western governments and corporations. The severing of old economic ties in the east as a result of the conflict with Russia and the conditions of a free trade zone with the EU led to the bankruptcy and closure of many Ukrainian enterprises. They were sold for a pittance to western investors. The devastation of the banking system erased the last savings of the Ukrainians. According to Trump’s lawyer Giuliani, President Poroshenko, with the help of American partners, laundered billions of US dollars from the country, 70% of which allegedly went to his patrons. With such a fall in the economy and galloping inflation, the broad masses of the population were left without jobs and livelihood.

Other reforms dictated by the IMF froze wages and pensions in Ukraine, while prices and utility rates rose 6-7 times. As a result, over 60% of the population was thrown below the poverty line. The rise in prices and utilities together with the depreciation of labor was accompanied by the dismantling of the institutions of the social state — free education, medicine, and social security — inherited from the USSR. This also came as additional costs as the Ukrainians were rapidly becoming impoverished. Health care has become inaccessible to the mass of the population, who, as a result, simply abandoned it, forced to make do only with emergency help. Perhaps this is a common situation in Third World countries. But for the Ukrainians, who until the Maidan continued to use the remnants of social guarantees from the times of the USSR, it was a sudden and violent defeat of their socio-economic space and habitat.

The government was forced to create a system of utility subsidies, but it was designed for the lowest level of low-income citizens who could not physically pay for the high utility rates. The majority of citizens, whose income slightly exceeded the established level, were forced to pay the full cost, thereby working solely to cover utilities and food. Instead of the European standard of living promised on the Maidan, Ukrainians received poverty and social and labor lawlessness. The apotheosis of the cynicism of this process was the appeal to foreign investors by Leshchenko, the well-known «grant-eater» and at that time already the deputy of the Rada, to invest money in Ukraine, because through the efforts of the government, our labor force had depreciated so much that for a measly 300 dollars Ukrainians would be ready to toil away not to starve to death. 

Of course, such a policy of destroying the economy and devaluing the labor force with rising prices and utility rates caused widespread discontent among the working masses of Ukrainians. And to prevent the protests from spilling out into the streets, thus spoiling in the eyes of the world community a fictitious picture of universal support for the Maidan and neoliberal reforms in Ukraine, the ultra-right neo-Nazi organizations that participated in the coup came in handy for the Poroshenko regime. Having declared themselves patriots, they began to fight against any manifestations of social protest, practically suppressing the left movement in Ukraine. Many right-wing radicals had a status of non-staff personnel of law enforcement agencies or worked under the direct control of the Ministry of Internal Affairs and the SBU. From the outside, the situation looked like street clashes of two points of view in Ukrainian society, that is, a formally democratic process. But in reality, an illegal continuation of the police state was operating under the cover of ultra-right formations. 

This suppression of any disagreement with the predatory policy of the Maidan regime was helped by the law on decommunization, as well as the war in Donbass. Formally, the law condemned the totalitarian regimes in the USSR and Germany, but in fact, activists of ultra-right organizations with Nazi symbols and with complete inaction of the police, or even under police protection, attacked left-wing actions under the pretext of decommunization and the fight against Soviet symbols. And the war in Donbass made it possible to declare any social protests as intrigues of the Kremlin to undermine the Ukrainian rear, and to harshly suppress them as treason. In particular, this was how our rally against the growth of railway fares was dispersed, and after an attack on the rally on the Day of the Liberation of Odessa from Nazism on April 10, 2016, I was hospitalized with a complex fracture of my leg. Of course, the police have never investigated such attacks on citizens disloyal to the “pro-European government”.

As a result of such harassment and unofficial repressions, as well as the de facto ban on funding for social activity, the leftist movement in Ukraine practically collapsed. Many cells and entire parties ceased their activities, fearing for their lives; some fled the country, others switched sides to the ultra-right camp. 

Another area of sharp confrontation in Ukrainian society was the language and cultural policy of the Maidan regime. A good half of the country’s population are Russian speakers – citizens who for generations communicated here in their native language and then officially became founders of an independent Ukrainian state. Yet, their cultural rights became the target of a total offensive by this state, represented by the power of the putschists, through the universal Ukrainianization of administration, education, service sector and information field. In 21st century Europe, with its multiculturalism and free development of regional languages, an ugly doctrine of cultural monopoly came to reign in Ukraine. Such a policy of extreme nationalism provoked intense resistance in cities and regions where other cultures predominated, but it enjoyed the support of external management as an element of the transformation of our country into Anti-Russia — a completely antagonistic society with an alien culture. Thus, not only economic, but also cultural interests of Ukrainian citizens were sacrificed to the geopolitical plans of the Euro-Atlantic community.

In this atmosphere of nationalist harassment and ultra-right terror on the streets, with the full control of the media, the putschists held parliamentary and local elections in 2014 and 2015. The purity and democratic nature of these elections were assessed by the same non-governmental organizations funded by Western grants, as well as observers from NATO countries, which openly supported the Maidan coup. Therefore, the elections were recognized as lawful, and the new authorities as legitimate. But despite all these manipulations, even the polls, dependent on the Maidan regime, could not hide the catastrophic lack of confidence of citizens in the authorities they allegedly chose. In 2018, the president had 16% of support, the government 11%, and the parliament 8%.

Therefore, despite the apparent victory of the Poroshenko regime over the multinational Ukrainian society, no amount of repression could hide the acute discontent of the impoverished masses with this power. As a result, thanks to the protest electorate, the winner of the presidential elections in 2019 became a media character Zelensky. He had no relation to the regime and, on the contrary, was a well-known comedian-showman, who for many years performed with moderate political satire. But here, too, the Ukrainians fell into a political trap: the discredited power of the poorly disguised right-wing terror was replaced by unsullied “white collars,” who, however, turned out to be even more dependent on external rule and control by Western embassies.

Such a big victory for Zelensky with 73% of support, which accumulated all the existing dissatisfaction with the Poroshenko regime, was unexpected even for the organizers of his project. Hence, for the early parliamentary elections, announced immediately thereafter, they created a virtual party “Servant of the People,” named after the popular TV series starring Zelensky as President of Ukraine. This new party recruited complete amateurs, with zero experience in politics. But the real control behind the facade of these “new faces” was carried out by Western foundations and think tanks. The street terror of the ultra-right groups was curtailed, but practically none of the militants received any punishment; some of them, like C14, re-branded and switched to “sleep mode” until the time when they are needed again by the comprador regime.

However, during Poroshenko’s rule, all opposition organizations, including the left movement, were thoroughly crushed. And most importantly, in a country with an oligarchic economy and a poorly disguised right-wing dictatorship, there are neither powerful trade unions nor independent foundations that could support with resources the restoration of social activity and revival of the left movement for the labor and social rights of ordinary Ukrainians. And the parties of the parliamentary opposition are funded by the same big capital as the parties in the Maidan camp; therefore, they are vulnerable to the pressure of the collective West and are forced to negotiate without taking real steps to restore Ukraine’s independence and increase the well-being of its citizens.

The culmination of this external rule — and a clear indication of the cleansing of the left — was the adoption of the new law on March 31, 2020 which lifted the moratorium on the sale of agricultural land. Despite the fact that this was the last strategic resource of Ukraine, with the transfer of which into the hands of foreign capital the country would finally turn into a colony, the collusion of the elites allowed this law to be passed through parliament without any opposition under the pretext of quarantine, and there was no independent force to bring the Ukrainians on the streets to fight economic occupation.

With such a situation in the political and social sphere, aggravated by the consequences of the pandemic and a new collapse of GDP associated with it, on the eve of the local elections in October 2020, the Zelensky regime is not afraid to once again raise utility rates and continue the sale of the country’s assets, granting concessions for ports and preparing the privatization of Ukrzaliznytsia (Ukrainian railways). Libertarianism, declared as the ideology of his party, has in fact the most vulgar and primitive character as the liberation of society from state interference means the sale of the country’s last assets and a simultaneous tightening of labor and social legislation.

Therefore, while the upcoming local elections in October 2020 may present some advance, they will not fundamentally change the political situation in Ukraine. The Servant of the People party will get its share of the seats simply as the president’s force, as the party in power. The conditionally anti-Maidan parliamentary opposition represented by the Opposition Platform For Life(OPZZh) party will gain more percentages in the local councils of South-Eastern Ukraine. A new phenomenon is the party of media expert and emigrant Shariy (Political Party of Shariy, PPSh), which actively speaks out on the streets against the Zelensky regime and ultra-right activists of the National Corps. It also has a chance to create factions in a number of local councils. However, the PPSh is mainly a media political project and so far, the bright politicians of this party on the ground, whom Shariy plans to bring to the local government, have not been presented. This is holding back the growth of its electorate.

As long as Ukraine remains under external control, and civil society here is run by Western funds, the majority in the local councils of the western and central provinces will be occupied by the parties in the Maidan camp, like Poroshenko’s European Solidarity or Voice (Golos). These provincies are more nationalistic, their electorate does not trust the conventionally pro-Russian OPZZh and PPSh, and there are no left-wing parties to protect the interests of local workers in the country. A certain percentage of the seats will be taken by the parties of local elites, each in its own city or province: one attempt to unite such projects was the so-called party of mayors “Proposition.” Another common problem for all new parties is the so-called franchise principle, when spots on local ballots are sold under a party brand promoted in the media. Thus, politics is not changed by the efforts of like-minded groups; instead, elections are viewed as a business project in which entrepreneurs pay to obtain mandates in order to increase their income through participation in power.

In the seventh year of post-Maidan Ukraine, we have to admit that under the slogans of the struggle for democracy and “European choice,” a coup and the subsequent externally-controlled comprador regime have created a political system and a socio-economic situation that are completly hostile to the overwhelming majority of the country’s citizens. All these years, the Ukrainian state has been purposefully confiscating the social achievements of past years, narrowing the rights and freedoms of citizens of the country, depriving them of any prospects to get out of poverty and lawlessness. After the violent seizure of power, including law enforcement and oversight bodies, the Ukrainian society has lost any opportunity to control politics in its own country and elections of their own government. Now they are controlled by Western embassies and think tanks, the so-called “curators”, as well as non-governmental organizations sponsored by grants from Western foundations, which thus act as agents of influence that promote external interests.

Moreover, embassies and foundations do not hesitate to publicly dictate their will in a supposedly independent Ukraine. They openly support certain officials or activists – to the point that on June 18, 2020, before the court hearing on the election of a measure of restraint for ex-President Poroshenko, the US Embassy issued a statement on the inadmissibility of settling political scores through the system of justice. And on June 19, G7 ambassadors spoke out against the resignation of the head of the National Bank, Smoliy, who was involved in the withdrawal of billions from the country, which Trump’s lawyer spoke about. The interference of external management in the internal affairs of Ukraine has reached the point that, according to the latest memorandum with the IMF, the government is obliged to reduce the number of schools in the country.

State agitprop continues to ceaselessly broadcast about democratic achievements after the Maidan. But in reality, democracy, that is, the power of the people in Ukraine, has been turned into a fiction. The country is ruled by a poorly covered dictatorship of big business, based on ultra-right street gangs, which are an informal continuation of the police state. We live in a society of right-wing totalitarianism, where socio-economic and political conditions are formed by the interests of external management and foreign investors. On the global market, Ukraine is assigned the role of a supplier of cheap labor and plantations for transnational corporations. Therefore, the release from external control is a mandatory step towards reorienting the state from the demands of Western «curators» to the interests of its own citizens.

In such conditions, voters would find appealing a left-wing political project that protects the rights of workers and socially unprotected categories of the population, teaching them technologies of mutual aid and joint survival in times of crisis. But one of the main results of the neoliberal reforms was the final monopolization of media and financial resources in the hands of the oligarchy. Under the control of Western «curators», there are neither powerful trade unions nor independent social funds in the country, and the extremely impoverished population cannot support such a project with their own contributions. While with serious promotion efforts, it could win up to 30% of the vote in devastated Ukraine, political investors of such a project should have a completely different vision of the future of the country and its population – a multitude of independent and proactive workers, capable of raising production and pulling the economy out of a debt pit.

*

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.

Vyacheslav Azarov has worked as an electrician on fishing and commercial ships. In 1999 he became one of the founders of the Union of Anarchists of Ukraine and the chairman of its Political Executive Committee. He has done research on the theory and history of anarchism and has been published primarily in Ukraine and Canada. He is the author of the book Kontrrazvedka: The Story of the Makhnovist Intelligence Service, published by Black Cat Press. In 2014-2015, he was a candidate for mayor of Odessa.

While the world’s attention is absorbed by tectonic shifts unfolding across America as “a perfect storm of civil war, and military coup threatens to undo both the elections and the very foundations of the republic itself, something very ominous has appeared “off of the radar” of most onlookers. This something is a financial collapse of the trans-Atlantic banks that threatens to unleash chaos upon the world. It is this collapse that underlies the desperate efforts being made by the neo-con drive for total war with Russia, China and other members of the growing Mutlipolar Alliance today.

In recent articles, I have mentioned that the Bank of England-led “solution” to this oncoming financial blowout of the $1.5 quadrillion derivatives bubble is being pushed under the cover of a “Great Global Reset” which is an ugly and desperate effort to use COVID-19 as a cover for the imposition of a new post-covid world order operating system. Since the new “rules” of this new system are very similar to the 1923 Bank of England “solution” to Germany’s economic chaos which eventually required a fascist governance mechanism to impose it onto the masses, I wish to take a deeper look at the causes and effects of Weimar Germany’s completely un-necessary collapse into hyperinflation and chaos during the period of 1919-1923.

In this essay, I will go further to examine how those same architects of hyperfinflation came close to establishing a global bankers’ dictatorship in 1933 and how that early attempt at a New World Order was fortunately derailed through a bold fight which has been written out of popular history books.

We will investigate in depth how a major war broke out within America led by anti-imperial patriots in opposition to the forces of Wall Street and London’s Deep State and we will examine how this clash of paradigms came to a head in 1943-1945.

This historical study is not being conducted for entertainment, nor should this be seen as a purely academic exercise, but is being created for the simple fact that the world is coming to a total systemic meltdown and unless certain suppressed facts of 20^th century history are brought to light, then those forces who have destroyed our collective memory of what we once were will remain in the drivers seat as society is carried into a new age of fascism and world war.

Versailles and the Destruction of Germany

Britain had been the leading hand behind the orchestration of WWI and the destruction of the potential German-Russian-American-Ottoman alliance that had begun to take form by the late 19^th century as foolish Kaiser Wilhelm discovered (though sadly too late) when he said: “the world will be engulfed in the most terrible of wars, the ultimate aim of which is the ruin of Germany. England, France and Russia have conspired for our annihilation… that is the naked truth of the situation which was slowly but surely created by Edward VII”.

Just as the British oligarchy managed the war, so too did they organize the reparations conference in France which, among other things, imposed impossible debt repayments upon a defeated Germany and created the League of Nations which was meant to become the instrument for a “post-nation state world order”. Lloyd George led the British delegation alongside his assistant Philip Kerr (Lord Lothian), Leo Amery, Lord Robert Cecil and Lord John Maynard Keynes who have a long term agenda to bring about a global dictatorship. All of these figures were members of the newly emerging Round Table Movement, that had taken full control of Britain by ousting Asquith in 1916, and which is at the heart of today’s “deep state”.

After the 1918 Armistice dismantled Germany’s army and navy, the once powerful nation was now forced to pay the impossible sum of 132 billion gold marks to the victors and had to give up territories representing 10% of its population (Alsace-Loraine, Ruhr, and North Silesia) which made up 15% of its arable land, 12% of its livestock, 74% of its iron ore, 63% of its zinc production, and 26% of its coal. Germany also had to give up 8000 locomotives, 225 000 railcars and all of its colonies. It was a field day of modern pillage.

Germany was left with very few options. Taxes were increased and imports were cut entirely while exports were increased. This policy (reminiscent of the IMF austerity techniques in use today) failed entirely as both fell 60%. Germany gave up half of its gold supply and still barely a dent was made in the debt payments. By June 1920 the decision was made to begin a new strategy: increase the printing press. Rather than the “miracle cure” which desperate monetarists foolishly believed it would be, this solution resulted in an asymptotic devaluation of the currency into hyperinflation. From June 1920 to October 1923 the money supply in circulation skyrocketed from 68.1 gold marks to 496.6 quintillion gold marks. In June 1922, 300 marks exchanged $1 US and in November 1923, it took 42 trillion marks to get $1 US! Images are still available of Germans pushing wheelbarrows of cash down the street, just to buy a stick of butter and bread (1Kg of Bread sold for $428 billion marks in 1923).

With the currency’s loss of value, industrial output fell by 50%, unemployment rose to over 30% and food intake collapsed by over half of pre-war levels. German director Fritz Lang’s 1922 film Dr. Mabuse (The Gambler) exposed the insanity of German population’s collapse into speculative insanity as those who had the means began betting against the German mark in order to protect themselves thus only helping to collapse the mark from within. This is very reminiscent of those Americans today short selling the US dollar rather than fighting for a systemic solution.

There was resistance.

The dark effects of Versailles were not unknown and Germany’s Nazi-stained destiny was anything but pre-determined. It is a provable fact often left out of history books that patriotic forces from Russia, America and Germany attempted courageously to change the tragic trajectory of hyperinflation and fascism which WOULD HAVE prevented the rise of Hitler and WWII had their efforts not been sabotaged.

From America itself, a new Presidential team under the leadership of William Harding quickly reversed the pro-League of Nations agenda of the rabidly anglophile President Woodrow Wilson. A leading US industrialist named Washington Baker Vanderclip who had led in the world’s largest trade agreement in history with Russia to the tune of $3 billion in 1920 had called Wilson “an autocrat at the inspiration of the British government.” Unlike Wilson, President Harding both supported the US-Russia trade deal and undermined the League of Nations by re-enforcing America’s sovereignty, declaring bi-lateral treaties with Russia, Hungary and Austria outside of the league’s control in 1921. The newly-formed British Roundtable Movement in America (set up as the Council on Foreign Relations) were not pleased.

Just as Harding was maneuvering to recognize the Soviet Union and establish an entente with Lenin, the great president ate some “bad oysters” and died on August 2, 1923. While no autopsy was ever conducted, his death brought a decade of Anglophile Wall Street control into America and ended all opposition to World Government from the Presidency. This period resulted in the speculation-driven bubble of the roaring 20s whose crash on black Friday in 1929 nearly unleashed a fascist hell in America.

The Russia-Germany Rapallo Treaty is De-Railed

After months of organizing, leading representatives of Russia and Germany agreed to an alternative solution to the Versailles Treaty which would have given new life to Germany’s patriots and established a powerful Russia-German friendship in Europe that would have upset other nefarious agendas.

Under the leadership of German Industrialist and Foreign Minster Walter Rathenau, and his counterpart Russian Foreign Minister Georgi Chicherin, the treaty was signed in Rapallo, Italy on April 16, 1922 premised upon the forgiveness of all war debts and a renouncement of all territorial claims from either side. The treaty said Russia and Germany would “co-operate in a spirit of mutual goodwill in meeting the economic needs of both countries.”

When Rathenau was assassinated by a terrorist cell called the Organization Consul on June 24, 1922 the success of the Rapallo Treaty lost its steam and the nation fell into a deeper wave of chaos and money printing. The Organization Consul had taken the lead in the murder of over 354 German political figures between 1919-1923, and when they were banned in 1922, the group merely changed its name and morphed into other German paramilitary groups (such as the Freikorps) becoming the military arm of the new National Socialist Party.

1923: City of London’s Solution is imposed

When the hyperinflationary blowout of Germany resulted in total un-governability of the state, a solution took the form of the Wall Street authored “Dawes Plan” which necessitated the use of a London-trained golem by the name of Hjalmar Schacht. First introduced as Currency Commissioner in November 1923 and soon President of the Reichsbank, Schacht’s first act was to visit Bank of England’s governor Montagu Norman in London who provided Schacht a blueprint for proceeding with Germany’s restructuring. Schacht returned to “solve” the crisis with the very same poison that caused it.

First announcing a new currency called the “rentenmark” set on a fixed value exchanging 1 trillion reichsmarks for 1 new rentenmark, Germans were robbed yet again. This new currency would operate under “new rules” never before seen in Germany’s history: Mass privatizations resulted in Anglo-American conglomerates purchasing state enterprises. IG Farben, Thyssen, Union Banking, Brown Brothers Harriman, Standard Oil, JP Morgan and Union Banking took control Germany’s finances, mining and industrial interests under the supervision of John Foster Dulles, Montagu Norman, Averill Harriman and other deep state actors. This was famously exposed in the 1961 film Judgement at Nuremburg by Stanley Kramer.

Schacht next cut credit to industries, raised taxes and imposed mass austerity on “useless spending”. 390 000 civil servants were fired, unions and collective bargaining was destroyed and wages were slashed by 15%.

As one can imagine, this destruction of life after the hell of Versailles was intolerable and civil unrest began to boil over in ways that even the powerful London-Wall Street bankers (and their mercenaries) couldn’t control. An enforcer was needed unhindered by the republic’s democratic institutions to force Schacht’s economics onto the people. An up-and-coming rabble rousing failed painter who had made waves in a Beerhall Putsch on November 8, 1923 was perfect.

One Last Attempt to Save Germany

Though Hitler grew in power over the coming decade of Schachtian economics, one last republican effort was made to prevent Germany from plunging into a fascist hell in the form of the November 1932 election victory of General Kurt von Schleicher as Chancellor of Germany. Schleicher had been a co-architect of Rapallo alongside Rathenau a decade earlier and was a strong proponent of the Friedrich List Society’s program of public works and internal improvements promoted by industrialist Wilhelm Lautenbach. The Nazi party’s public support collapsed and it found itself bankrupt. Hitler had fallen into depression and was even contemplating suicide when “a legal coup” was unleashed by the Anglo-American elite resulting in Wall Street funds pouring into Nazi coffers.

By January 30, 1933 Hitler gained Chancellorship where he quickly took dictatorial powers under the “state of emergency” caused by the burning of the Reichstag in March 1933. By 1934 the Night of the Long Knives saw General Schleicher and hundreds of other German patriots assassinated and it was only a few years until the City of London-Wall Street Frankenstein monster stormed across the world.

How the 1929 Crash was Manufactured

While everyone knows that the 1929 market crash unleashed four years of hell in America which quickly spread across Europe under the great depression, not many people have realized that this was not inevitable, but rather a controlled blowout.

The bubbles of the 1920s were unleashed with the early death of President William Harding in 1923 and grew under the careful guidance of JP Morgan’s President Coolidge and financier Andrew Mellon (Treasury Secretary) who de-regulated the banks, imposed austerity onto the country, and cooked up a scheme for Broker loans allowing speculators to borrow 90% on their stock. Wall Street was deregulated, investments into the real economy were halted during the 1920s and insanity became the norm. In 1925 broker loans totalled $1.5 billion and grew to $2.6 billion in 1926 and hit $5.7 billion by the end of 1927. By 1928, the stock market was overvalued fourfold!

When the bubble was sufficiently inflated, a moment was decided upon to coordinate a mass “calling in” of the broker loans. Predictably, no one could pay them resulting in a collapse of the markets. Those “in the know” cleaned up with JP Morgan’s “preferred clients”, and other financial behemoths selling before the crash and then buying up the physical assets of America for pennies on the dollar. One notable person who made his fortune in this manner was Prescott Bush of Brown Brothers Harriman, who went onto bailout a bankrupt Nazi party in 1932. These financiers had a tight allegiance with the City of London and coordinated their operations through the private central banking system of America’s Federal Reserve and Bank of International Settlements.

The Living Hell that was the Great Depression

Throughout the Great depression, the population was pushed to its limits making America highly susceptible to fascism as unemployment skyrocketed to 25%, industrial capacity collapsed by 70%, and agricultural prices collapsed far below the cost of production accelerating foreclosures and suicide. Life savings were lost as 4000 banks failed.

This despair was replicated across Europe and Canada with eugenics-loving fascists gaining popularity across the board. England saw the rise of Sir Oswald Mosley’s British Union of Fascists in 1932, English Canada had its own fascist solution with the Rhodes Scholar “Fabian Society” League of Social Reconstruction (which later took over the Liberal Party) calling for the “scientific management of society”. Time magazine had featured Il Duce over 6 times by 1932 and people were being told by that corporate fascism was the economic solution to all of America’s economic woes.

In the midst of the crisis, the City of London removed itself from the gold standard in 1931 which was a crippling blow to the USA, as it resulted in a flight of gold from America causing a deeper contraction of the money supply and thus inability to respond to the depression. British goods simultaneously swamped the USA crushing what little production was left.

It was in this atmosphere that one of the least understood battles unfolded in 1933.

1932: A Bankers’ Dictatorship is Attempted

In Germany, a surprise victory of Gen. Kurt Schleicher caused the defeat of the London-directed Nazi party in December 1932 threatening to break Germany free of Central Bank tyranny. A few weeks before Schleicher’s victory, Franklin Roosevelt won the presidency in America threatening to regulate the private banks and assert national sovereignty over finance.

Seeing their plans for global fascism slipping away, the City of London announced that a new global system controlled by Central Banks had to be created post haste. Their objective was to use the economic crisis as an excuse to remove from nation states any power over monetary policy, while enhancing the power of Independent Central Banks as enforcers of “balanced global budgets”. elaborate

In December 1932, an economic conference “to stabilize the world economy” was organized by the League of Nations under the guidance of the Bank of International Settlements (BIS) and Bank of England. The BIS was set up as “the Central Bank of Central Banks” in 1930 in order to facilitate WWI debt repayments and was a vital instrument for funding Nazi Germany- long after WWII began. The London Economic Conference brought together 64 nations of the world under a controlled environment chaired by the British Prime Minister and opened by the King himself.

A resolution passed by the Conference’s Monetary Committee stated:

“The conference considers it to be essential, in order to provide an international gold standard with the necessary mechanism for satisfactory working, that independent Central Banks, with requisite powers and freedom to carry out an appropriate currency and credit policy, should be created in such developed countries as have not at present an adequate central banking institution” and that “the conference wish to reaffirm the great utility of close and continuous cooperation between Central Banks. The Bank of International Settlements should play an increasingly important part not only by improving contact, but also as an instrument for common action.”

Echoing the Bank of England’s modern fixation with “mathematical equilibrium”, the resolutions stated that the new global gold standard controlled by central banks was needed “to maintain a fundamental equilibrium in the balance of payments” of countries. The idea was to deprive nation states of their power to generate and direct credit for their own development.

FDR Torpedoes the London Conference

Chancellor Schleicher’s resistance to a bankers’ dictatorship was resolved by a “soft coup” ousting the patriotic leader in favor of Adolph Hitler (under the control of a Bank of England toy named Hjalmar Schacht) in January 1933 with Schleicher assassinated the following year. In America, an assassination attempt on Roosevelt was thwarted on February 15, 1933 when a woman knocked the gun out of the hand of an anarchist-freemason in Miami resulting in the death of Chicago’s Mayor Cermak.

Without FDR’s dead body, the London conference met an insurmountable barrier, as FDR refused to permit any American cooperation. Roosevelt recognized the necessity for a new international system, but he also knew that it had to be organized by sovereign nation states subservient to the general welfare of the people and not central banks dedicated to the welfare of the oligarchy. Before any international changes could occur, nation states castrated from the effects of the depression had to first recover economically in order to stay above the power of the financiers.

By May 1933, the London Conference crumbled when FDR complained that the conference’s inability to address the real issues of the crisis is “a catastrophe amounting to a world tragedy” and that fixation with short term stability were “old fetishes of so-called international bankers”. FDR continued “The United States seeks the kind of dollar which a generation hence will have the same purchasing and debt paying power as the dollar value we hope to attain in the near future. That objective means more to the good of other nations than a fixed ratio for a month or two. Exchange rate fixing is not the true answer.”

The British drafted an official statement saying “the American statement on stabilization rendered it entirely useless to continue the conference.”

FDR’s War on Wall Street

The new president laid down the gauntlet in his inaugural speech on March 4^th saying: “The money-changers have fled from their high seats in the temple of our civilization. We may now restore that temple to the ancient truths. The measure of the restoration lies in the extent to which we apply social values more noble than mere monetary profit”.

FDR declared a war on Wall Street on several levels, beginning with his support of the Pecorra Commission which sent thousands of bankers to prison, and exposed the criminal activities of the top tier of Wall Street’s power structure who manipulated the depression, buying political offices and pushing fascism. Ferdinand Pecorra who ran the commission called out the deep state when he said “this small group of highly placed financiers, controlling the very springs of economic activity, holds more real power than any similar group in the United States.”

Pecorra’s highly publicized success empowered FDR to impose sweeping regulation in the form of 1) Glass-Steagall bank separation, 2) bankruptcy re-organization and 3) the creation of the Security Exchange Commission to oversee Wall Street. Most importantly, FDR disempowered the London-controlled Federal Reserve by installing his own man as Chair (Industrialist Mariner Eccles) who forced it to obey national commands for the first time since 1913, while creating an “alternative” lending mechanism outside of Fed control called the Reconstruction Finance Corporation (RFC) which became the number one lender to infrastructure in America throughout the 1930s.

One of the most controversial policies for which FDR is demonized today was his abolishment of the gold standard. The gold standard itself constricted the money supply to a strict exchange of gold per paper dollar, thus preventing the construction of internal improvements needed to revive industrial capacity and put the millions of unemployed back to work for which no financial resources existed. It’s manipulation by international financiers made it a weapon of destruction rather than creation at this time. Since commodity prices had fallen lower than the costs of production, it was vital to increase the price of goods under a form of “controlled inflation” so that factories and farms could become solvent and unfortunately the gold standard held that back. FDR imposed protective tariffs to favor agro-industrial recovery on all fronts ending years of rapacious free trade.

FDR stated his political-economic philosophy in 1934: “the old fallacious notion of the bankers on the one side and the government on the other side, as being more or less equal and independent units, has passed away. Government by the necessity of things must be the leader, must be the judge, of the conflicting interests of all groups in the community, including bankers.”

The Real New Deal

Once liberated from the shackles of the central banks, FDR and his allies were able to start a genuine recovery by restoring confidence in banking. Within 31 days of his bank holiday, 75% of banks were operational and the FDIC was created to insure deposits. Four million people were given immediate work, and hundreds of libraries, schools and hospitals were built and staffed- All funded through the RFC. FDR’s first fireside chat was vital in rebuilding confidence in the government and banks, serving even today as a strong lesson in banking which central bankers don’t want you to learn about.

From 1933-1939, 45 000 infrastructure projects were built. The many “local” projects were governed, like China’s Belt and Road Initiative today, under a “grand design” which FDR termed the “Four Quarters” featuring zones of megaprojects such as the Tennessee Valley Authority area in the south east, the Columbia River Treaty zone on the northwest, the St Laurence Seaway zone on the North east, and Hoover Dam/Colorado zone on the Southwest. These projects were transformative in ways money could never measure as the Tennessee area’s literacy rose from 20% in 1932 to 80% in 1950, and racist backwater holes of the south became the bedrock for America’s aerospace industry due to the abundant and cheap hydropower. As I had already reported on the Saker, FDR was not a Keynesian (although it cannot be argued that hives of Rhodes Scholars and Fabians penetrating his administration certainly were).

Wall Street Sabotages the New Deal

Those who criticize the New Deal today ignore the fact that its failures have more to do with Wall Street sabotage than anything intrinsic to the program. For example, JP Morgan tool Lewis Douglass (U.S. Budget Director) forced the closure of the Civil Works Administration in 1934 resulting in the firing of all 4 million workers.

Wall Street did everything it could to choke the economy at every turn. In 1931, NY banks loans to the real economy amounted to $38.1 billion which dropped to only $20.3 billion by 1935. Where NY banks had 29% of their funds in US bonds and securities in 1929, this had risen to 58% which cut off the government from being able to issue productive credit to the real economy.

When, in 1937, FDR’s Treasury Secretary persuaded him to cancel public works to see if the economy “could stand on its own two feet”, Wall Street pulled credit out of the economy collapsing the Industrial production index from 110 to 85 erasing seven years’ worth of gain, while steel fell from 80% capacity back to depression levels of 19%. Two million jobs were lost and the Dow Jones lost 39% of its value. This was no different from kicking the crutches out from a patient in rehabilitation and it was not lost on anyone that those doing the kicking were openly supporting Fascism in Europe. Bush patriarch Prescott Bush, then representing Brown Brothers Harriman was found guilty for trading with the enemy in 1942!

Coup Attempt in America Thwarted

The bankers didn’t limit themselves to financial sabotage during this time, but also attempted a fascist military coup which was exposed by Maj. Gen. Smedley Butler in his congressional testimony of November 20, 1934. Butler had testified that the plan was begun in the Summer of 1933 and organized by Wall Street financiers who tried to use him as a puppet dictator leading 500 000 American Legion members to storm the White House. As Butler spoke, those same financiers had just set up an anti-New Deal organization called the American Liberty League which fought to keep America out of the war in defense of an Anglo-Nazi fascist global government which they wished to partner with.

The American Liberty league only changed tune when it became evident that Hitler had become a disobedient Frankenstein monster who wasn’t content in a subservient position to Britain’s idea of a New World Order. In response to the Liberty League’s agenda, FDR said “some speak of a New World Order, but it is not new and it is not order”.

FDR’s Anti-Colonial Post-War Vision

One of the greatest living testimonies to FDR’s anti-colonial vision is contained in a little known 1946 book authored by his son Elliot Roosevelt who, as his father’s confidante and aide, was privy to some of the most sensitive meetings his father participated in throughout the war. Seeing the collapse of the post-war vision upon FDR’s April 12, 1945 death and the emergence of a pro-Churchill presidency under Harry Truman, who lost no time in dropping nuclear bombs on a defeated Japan, ushering in a Soviet witch hunt at home and launching a Cold War abroad, Elliot authored ‘As He Saw It’ (1946) in order to create a living testimony to the potential that was lost upon his father’s passing.

As Elliot said of his motive to write his book:

“The decision to write this book was taken more recently and impelled by urgent events. Winston Churchill’s speech at Fulton, Missouri, had a hand in this decision,… the growing stockpile of American atom bombs is a compelling factor; all the signs of growing disunity among the leading nations of the world, all the broken promises, all the renascent power politics of greedy and desperate imperialism were my spurs in this undertaking… And I have seen the promises violated, and the conditions summarily and cynically disregarded, and the structure of peace disavowed… I am writing this, then, to you who agree with me that… the path he charted has been most grievously—and deliberately—forsaken.”

The Four Freedoms

Even before America had entered the war, the principles of international harmony which FDR enunciated in his January 6, 1941 Four Freedoms speech to the U.S. Congress served as the guiding light through every battle for the next 4.5 years. In this speech FDR said:

“In future days, which we seek to secure, we look forward to a world founded upon four essential human freedoms.

“The first is the freedom of speech and expression–everywhere in the world.

“The second is the freedom of every person to worship God in his own way–everywhere in the world.

“The third is the freedom from want–which, translated into world terms, means economic understandings which will secure to every nation a healthy peacetime life for its inhabitants–everywhere in the world.

“The fourth is freedom from fear–which, translated into world terms, means a worldwide reduction of armaments to such a point and in such a thorough fashion that no nation will be in a position to commit an act of physical aggression against any neighbor–anywhere in the world.

“That is no vision of a distant millennium. It is a definite basis for a kind of world attainable in our time and generation. That kind of world is the very antithesis of the so-called new order of tyranny which dictators seek to create with the crash of a bomb.

“To that new order, we oppose the greater conception–the moral order. A good society is able to face schemes of world domination and foreign revolutions alike without fear.

“Since the beginning of American history, we have been engaged in change–in a perpetual peaceful revolution–a revolution which goes on steadily, quietly, adjusting itself to changing conditions–without the concentration camp or the quicklime in the ditch. The world order which we seek is the cooperation of free countries, working together in a friendly, civilized society.

“This nation has placed its destiny in the hands and heads and hearts of millions of free men and women; and its faith in freedom under the guidance of God. Freedom means the supremacy of human rights everywhere. Our support goes to those who struggle to gain those rights or to keep them. Our strength is our unity of purpose.”

Upon hearing these Freedoms outlined, American painter Norman Rockwell was inspired to paint four masterpieces that were displayed across America and conveyed the beauty of FDR’s spirit to all citizens.

FDR’s patriotic Vice President (and the man who SHOULD have been president in 1948) Henry Wallace outlined FDR’s vision in a passionate video address to the people in 1942 which should also be watched by all world citizens today:

Churchill vs FDR: The Clash of Two Paradigms

Elliot’s account of the 1941-1945 clash of paradigms between his father and Churchill are invaluable both for their ability to shed light into the true noble constitutional character of America personified in the person of Roosevelt but also in demonstrating the beautiful potential of a world that SHOULD HAVE BEEN had certain unnatural events not intervened to derail the evolution of our species into an age of win-win cooperation, creative reason and harmony.

In As He Saw It, Elliot documents a conversation he had with his father at the beginning of America’s entry into WWII, who made his anti-colonial intentions clear as day saying:

“I’m talking about another war, Elliott. I’m talking about what will happen to our world, if after this war we allow millions of people to slide back into the same semi-slavery!

“Don’t think for a moment, Elliott, that Americans would be dying in the Pacific tonight, if it hadn’t been for the shortsighted greed of the French and the British and the Dutch. Shall we allow them to do it all, all over again? Your son will be about the right age, fifteen or twenty years from now.

“One sentence, Elliott. Then I’m going to kick you out of here. I’m tired. This is the sentence: When we’ve won the war, I will work with all my might and main to see to it that the United States is not wheedled into the position of accepting any plan that will further France’s imperialistic ambitions, or that will aid or abet the British Empire in its imperial ambitions.”

This clash came to a head during a major confrontation between FDR and Churchill during the January 24, 1943 Casablanca Conference in Morocco. At this event, Elliot documents how his father first confronted Churchill’s belief in the maintenance of the British Empire’s preferential trade agreements upon which it’s looting system was founded:

“Of course,” he [FDR] remarked, with a sly sort of assurance, “of course, after the war, one of the preconditions of any lasting peace will have to be the greatest possible freedom of trade.”

He paused. The P.M.’s head was lowered; he was watching Father steadily, from under one eyebrow.

“No artificial barriers,” Father pursued. “As few favored economic agreements as possible. Opportunities for expansion. Markets open for healthy competition.” His eye wandered innocently around the room.

Churchill shifted in his armchair. “The British Empire trade agreements” he began heavily, “are—”

Father broke in. “Yes. Those Empire trade agreements are a case in point. It’s because of them that the people of India and Africa, of all the colonial Near East and Far East, are still as backward as they are.”

Churchill’s neck reddened and he crouched forward. “Mr. President, England does not propose for a moment to lose its favored position among the British Dominions. The trade that has made England great shall continue, and under conditions prescribed by England’s ministers.”

“You see,” said Father slowly, “it is along in here somewhere that there is likely to be some disagreement between you, Winston, and me.

“I am firmly of the belief that if we are to arrive at a stable peace it must involve the development of backward countries. Backward peoples. How can this be done? It can’t be done, obviously, by eighteenth-century methods. Now—”

“Who’s talking eighteenth-century methods?”

“Whichever of your ministers recommends a policy which takes wealth in raw materials out of a colonial country, but which returns nothing to the people of that country in consideration. Twentieth-century methods involve bringing industry to these colonies. Twentieth-century methods include increasing the wealth of a people by increasing their standard of living, by educating them, by bringing them sanitation—by making sure that they get a return for the raw wealth of their community.”

Around the room, all of us were leaning forward attentively. Hopkins was grinning. Commander Thompson, Churchill’s aide, was looking glum and alarmed. The P.M. himself was beginning to look apoplectic.

“You mentioned India,” he growled.

“Yes. I can’t believe that we can fight a war against fascist slavery, and at the same time not work to free people all over the world from a backward colonial policy.”

“What about the Philippines?”

“I’m glad you mentioned them. They get their independence, you know, in 1946. And they’ve gotten modern sanitation, modern education; their rate of illiteracy has gone steadily down…”

“There can be no tampering with the Empire’s economic agreements.”

“They’re artificial…”

“They’re the foundation of our greatness.”

“The peace,” said Father firmly, “cannot include any continued despotism. The structure of the peace demands and will get equality of peoples. Equality of peoples involves the utmost freedom of competitive trade. Will anyone suggest that Germany’s attempt to dominate trade in central Europe was not a major contributing factor to war?”

It was an argument that could have no resolution between these two men…

The following day, Elliot describes how the conversation continued between the two men with Churchill stating:

“Mr. President,” he cried, “I believe you are trying to do away with the British Empire. Every idea you entertain about the structure of the postwar world demonstrates it. But in spite of that”—and his forefinger waved—”in spite of that, we know that you constitute our only hope. And”—his voice sank dramatically—”you know that we know it. You know that we know that without America, the Empire won’t stand.”

Churchill admitted, in that moment, that he knew the peace could only be won according to precepts which the United States of America would lay down. And in saying what he did, he was acknowledging that British colonial policy would be a dead duck, and British attempts to dominate world trade would be a dead duck, and British ambitions to play off the U.S.S.R. against the U.S.A. would be a dead duck. Or would have been, if Father had lived.”

This story was delivered in full during an August 15 lecture by the author:

FDR’s Post-War Vision Destroyed

While FDR’s struggle did change the course of history, his early death during the first months of his fourth term resulted in a fascist perversion of his post-war vision.

Rather than see the IMF, World Bank or UN used as instruments for the internationalization of the New Deal principles to promote long term, low interest loans for the industrial development of former colonies, FDR’s allies were ousted from power over his dead body, and they were recaptured by the same forces who attempted to steer the world towards a Central Banking Dictatorship in 1933.

The American Liberty League spawned into various “patriotic” anti-communist organizations which took power with the FBI and McCarthyism under the fog of the Cold War. This is the structure that Eisenhower warned about when he called out “the Military Industrial Complex” in 1960 and which John Kennedy did battle with during his 900 days as president.

This is the structure which is out to destroy President Donald Trump and undo the November elections under a military coup and Civil War out of fear that a new FDR impulse is beginning to be revived in America which may align with the 21^st Century international New Deal emerging from China’s Belt and Road Initiative and Eurasian alliance. French Finance Minister Bruno LeMaire and Marc Carney have stated their fear that if the Green New Deal isn’t imposed by the west, then the New Silk Road and yuan will become the basis for the new world system.

The Bank of England-authored Green New Deal being pushed under the fog of COVID-19’s Great Green Global Reset which promise to impose draconian constraints on humanity’s carrying capacity in defense of saving nature from humanity have nothing to do with Franklin Roosevelt’s New Deal and they have less to do with the Bretton Woods conference of 1944. These are merely central bankers’ wet dreams for depopulation and fascism “with a democratic face” which their 1923 and 1933 efforts failed to achieve and can only be imposed if people remain blind to their own recent history.

*

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 Saker.

Matthew Ehret is the Editor-in-Chief of the Canadian Patriot Review , a BRI Expert on Tactical talk, and has authored 3 volumes of ‘Untold History of Canada’ book series. In 2019 he co-founded the Montreal-based Rising Tide Foundation

All images in this article are from The Saker unless otherwise stated

On 11 December 2019, Ryan Lizza bannered at Politico, “Biden signals to aides that he would serve only a single term”, and reported that:

While the option of making a public pledge [to serve only one term] remains available, Biden has for now settled on an alternative strategy: quietly indicating that he will almost certainly not run for a second term while declining to make a promise that he and his advisers fear could turn him into a lame duck and sap him of his political capital.

According to four people who regularly talk to Biden, all of whom asked for anonymity to discuss internal campaign matters, it is virtually inconceivable that he will run for reelection in 2024, when he would be the first octogenarian president.

“If Biden is elected,” a prominent adviser to the campaign said, “he’s going to be 82 years old in four years and he won’t be running for reelection.” …

Ronald Reagan, who, along with Trump, was the oldest person to become U.S. President, was 70 when taking office in 1981, and he served two terms. In 1994, at the age of 83, he was diagnosed with alzheimer’s disease, which Biden, who now is near to 78, already (and far more than Trump) seems to have. Today’s America is being run by very “senior citizens.” Their life-expectancy is short, and their attention-span is also getting shorter. The V.P. pick is consequently far more important now than it ever used to be. Kamala Harris is 55 years old. Apparently, she’s now running for President — not only for Vice President — against the incumbent Trump; and her ‘boss’, Biden, isn’t discouraging her extraordinary behavior; he is instead assisting it. This is stunning. It suggests that he knows he’s severely in decline. Here are some recent signs of this:

A Biden-Harris campaign video was recently recorded, on September 12th, and published on the 15th, in which Kamala Harris says:

“A Harris Administration together with Joe Biden as the President of the United States, the Biden-Harris Administration, will have access, provide access, to one hundred billion dollars in loans and investments for minority business-owners.”

This statement was widely interpreted, among the surprisingly few news-media that reported it, to have been just a flub by her, nothing that’s really remarkable. However, a campaign video which was published later the same day, had Joe Biden himself, reading from a teleprompter, and saying:

“A Harris-Biden administration is going to relaunch that effort and keep pushing further to make it easier for military spouses and veterans to find meaningful careers to ensure teachers know how to support military children in their classrooms and to improve support for caregivers and survivors so much more than we do now.”

The indications seem fairly clear that if Americans vote for Joe Biden to become the President, then not only will he not serve a second term, but he might not even serve much (or perhaps even any) of his first term. Why would this be so? Why is not Biden himself publicly disowning what Harris had said, instead of himself saying essentially the same thing (as he did)? If the Democratic Party (like the Republican Party) is basically dictated-to by the billionaires who fund it in order to persuade voters in the Party’s primaries, whom to vote for and whom to vote against as that Party’s nominee, then clearly Kamala Harris was preferred by them, even more than they preferred Biden.

As-of 5 August 2019, when Forbes headlined “Here Are The Democratic Presidential Candidates With The Most Donations From Billionaires”, the rankings were this:

Rank in Billionaire Donors to:

#1 Pete Buttigieg: 23 billionaire donors

#2 Cory Booker: 18 billionaire donors

#3 Kamala Harris: 17 billionaire donors

#4 Michael Bennet: 15 billionaire donors

#5 Joe Biden: 13 billionaire donors

#6 John Hickenlooper: 11 billionaire donors

#7 Beto O’Rourke: 9 billionaire donors

#8 Amy Klobuchar: 8 billionaire donors

#9 Jay Inslee: 5 billionaire donors

#10 Kirsten Gillibrand: 4 billionaire donors

#11 John Delaney: 3 billionaire donors

#12 Elizabeth Warren and Steve Bullock: 2 billionaire donors each

#13 Tulsi Gabbard, Andrew Yang, and Marianne Williamson: 1 billionaire donor each

#14 Bernie Sanders, Julian Castro, Bill De Blasio, and Tim Ryan: 0 billionaire donors

Pete Buttigieg was preferred by them the most, but was even worse as a campaigner than Biden was, and therefore failed to attract many voters after New Hampshire. Kamala Harris was almost as preferred by the Party’s billionaires as Buttigieg was, but she was even less attractive to the Party’s voters than Buttigieg was. The Party’s billionaires would have been satisfied with any of the candidates except Sanders, but didn’t want to repeat what happened in 2016 and have yet another Hillary Clinton — who had raised more money from billionaires even than Trump did. On 16 April 2019, the New York Times bannered “‘Stop Sanders’ Democrats Are Agonizing Over His Momentum” and the article was really about the Party’s billionaires (and their agents, which the newspaper called “establishment-aligned Democrats”).

On 26 August 2019, The Atlantic, which — like the Times — represents Democratic Party billionaires, headlined “Elizabeth Warren Manages to Woo the Democratic Party Establishment”, and presented her, instead of Sanders, as the progressive option that the Democratic National Committee would happily have as the Party’s nominee. For example: “‘I hope Sanders supporters see Warren’s broadening support as a good thing and won’t now cynically try to paint her as beholden to insiders, because she’s not,’ said a DNC member who isn’t currently committed to any candidates and who spoke on the condition of anonymity.” Amongst the Party’s billionaires, Anyone But Sanders would be good, and maybe even Trump would be preferable to Sanders for their support.

Buttigieg, who is at the very opposite end of the age-spectrum, and who performed vastly better in the polling than did Harris, isn’t Black and female, and therefore Biden never even considered him for Vice President. Cory Booker is black, but he too is male, and performed even worse in the polling than did Harris.

Though Biden drew less billionaire donors than Harris did, he was vastly more of a draw for billionaires’ money than was his main competitor, Bernie Sanders, who attracted no billionaires. But Biden drew fewer of them than did any of the top three (Buttigieg, Booker, and Harris), all of whom were far lower in the pollings of the actual registered Democratic voters than Biden was. The Party’s billionaires simply weren’t convinced that Biden would be effective at getting done what they wanted the next President to do. Biden’s obvious incompetence didn’t inspire their campaign donations, whereas Buttigieg did. He was considered competent to do what they want done. The only voters who favored Biden were the Party’s more conservative ones. However, Buttigieg also appealed to these voters; and, so, in the early primaries, the conservative Democrats were split. Harris quit the contest on 3 December 2019, before any of the primaries. And, then, starting with the South Carolina primary on February 29th, in which the vast majority of the voters were Blacks, Biden suddenly trounced Sanders. It was Biden’s first-ever primary win in any of his lifetime’s three attempts at the Presidency.

After Sanders’s win in Nevada on February 25th — his 47% there, as compared to Biden’s 20%, and Buttigieg’s 14% — America’s billionaires knew that Buttigieg was hopeless, and so they poured huge sums into Biden’s campaign, because, by that time (February 29th), it had become clear that none of the other conservative Democratic contenders would stand any chance, at all, of winning. Michael Bloomberg, who was the self-financed billionaire in the contest, had entered the race only because Biden’s performances had been so bad that Bloomberg had become afraid Sanders might get the nomination; and, on the night of Super Tuesday, March 4th, Bloomberg quit, and endorsed Biden, and has supported him ever since. The Sanders campaign was blindsided by that sudden onslaught by the billionaires and their fronts, all backing only Biden. It worked.

These were the standings among the Democratic Party’s still-active Presidential contenders as of immediately prior to Super Tuesday, published by Forbes:

2 March 2020:

Rank in Billionaire Donors to:

#1 Biden 66

#2 Buttigieg 61

#3 Klobucar 33

#4 Steyer 13

#5 Warren 6

#6 Gabbard 3

#7 Bloomberg 1

#8 Sanders 0

(The others had already dropped out, and were therefore not listed.)

*

Biden who had had only 13 billionaires as-of 5 August 2019, had 66 as-of 2 March 2020. His opponent, Sanders, still had 0. This is how Biden ended up becoming the face of Harris’s Presidential campaign against Trump — who will have plenty of Republican billionaires funding his campaign.

So, is this how Kamala Harris will become America’s President? Or, will Trump’s billionaires instead succeed at defeating her?

On 12 August 2020, another magazine of the Democratic Party’s billionaires, Foreign Policy, was very excited about the Party’s Presidential choice, and headlined “Kamala Harris for the People:  As vice president, Harris would be ready to go toe-to-toe with adversaries, both foreign and domestic.”

Although Democratic Party billionaires might be as passionate for Harris as Republican Party billionaires are for Trump, will Democratic Party voters be as passionate for Biden as Republican Party voters are for Trump?

*

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.

Investigative historian Eric Zuesse is the author, most recently, of  They’re Not Even Close: The Democratic vs. Republican Economic Records, 1910-2010, and of  CHRIST’S VENTRILOQUISTS: The Event that Created Christianity.

Though lacking intellect and often ridiculed for frequent spelling errors on Twitter timeline, such as “unpresidented” and “covfefe,” implying he gets his news feed from television talk shows and rarely reads book and articles, Donald Trump is street smart and his anti-globalization agenda and down-to-earth attitude appeals to the American working classes.

In order to understand the real and perceived grievances of Donald Trump’s alt-right electoral base, we need to understand the prevailing global economic order and its prognosis. What the pragmatic economists predicted about free market capitalism has turned out to be true, whether the leftists like it or not. A kind of global economic entropy has set into motion, and money is flowing from the area of high monetary density to the area of low monetary density.

The rise of BRICS countries in the 21^st century is the proof of this tendency. BRICS are growing economically because the labor in developing economies is cheap; labor laws and rights are virtually nonexistent; expenses on creating a safe and healthy work environment are minimal; regulatory framework is lax; expenses on environmental protection are negligible; taxes are low; and, in the nutshell, windfalls for multinational corporations are massive.

Thus, BRICS are threatening the global economic monopoly of the Western capitalist bloc: North America and Western Europe. Here we need to understand the difference between manufacturing sector and services sector. Manufacturing sector is the backbone of economy; one cannot create a manufacturing base overnight.

It is based on hard assets: the national economies need raw materials; production equipment; transport and power infrastructure; and, last but not the least, a technically educated labor force. It takes decades to build and sustain a manufacturing base. But the services sector, like the Western financial institutions, can be built and dismantled in a relatively short period of time.

If we take a cursory look at the economy of the Western capitalist bloc, it has still retained some of its high-tech manufacturing base, but it is losing fast to the cheaper and equally robust manufacturing base of the developing BRICS nations. Everything is made in China these days, except for high-tech microprocessors, software, several internet giants, some pharmaceutical products, the Big Oil and the military hardware and defense production industry.

Apart from that, the entire economy of the Western capitalist bloc is based on financial institutions: the behemoth investment banks that dominate and control the global economy, like JP Morgan Chase, Citigroup, Bank of America, Wells Fargo and Goldman Sachs in the US; BNP Paribas and Axa Group in France; Deutsche Bank and Allianz Group in Germany; and Barclays and HSBC in the UK.

After establishing the fact that the Western economy is mostly based on its financial services sector, we need to understand its implications. Like I have contended earlier that it takes time to build a manufacturing base, but it is relatively easy to build and dismantle an economy based on financial services.

Moreover, the manufacturing sector is labor-intensive whereas the financial services sector is capital-intensive, therefore the latter does not create as much job opportunities to keep the workforce of a nation gainfully employed and sufficiently remunerated as the industrial sector does.

Although the bankers and corporate executives of the Western economies are the beneficiaries of such exploitative practices, the middle and working classes are suffering. Besides the Trump supporters in the United States, the far-right populist leaders in Europe are also exploiting popular resentment against free trade and globalization.

The Brexiteers in the United Kingdom, the Yellow Vest protesters in France and the far-right movements in Germany and across Europe are a manifestation of a paradigm shift in the global economic order in which nationalist, isolationist and protectionist slogans have replaced the free trade and globalization mantra of the nineties.

Donald Trump withdrawing the United States from multilateral treaties, restructuring trade agreements and initiating a trade war against China are meant to redress, at least cosmetically, the legitimate grievances of the American working classes against the wealth disparity created by laissez-faire capitalism and market fundamentalism.

From the end of the Second World War to the beginning of the 21^st century, the neocolonial powers brazenly exploited the resources and labor of the post-colonial world. But after China’s accession to the World Trade Organization in 2001, a paradigm shift occurred in the global economic order.

Behind the “Iron Curtain” of international isolation, China successfully built its manufacturing base by imparting vocational training and technical education to its disciplined workforce, and by building an industrial and transport infrastructure.

It didn’t allow any imports until 2001, but after joining the WTO, it opened up its import-export policy on a reciprocal basis, and since the labor is much cheaper in China than in the Western countries, therefore it now has a comparative advantage over the Western capitalist bloc which China has exploited in its national interest.

These prudent trade and economic policies, along with visionary leadership of Mao Zedong, Zhou Enlai and China’s vanguard socialist party, collectively, have placed China on the path to progress and prosperity in the 21^st century.

Regarding the issue of immigration to the developed world, there are two contrasting styles of debating a subject: those who prefer normative arguments, and those who choose descriptive line of reasoning. Most intellectuals nowadays adopt the former approach, but the truth unfortunately is generally bitter.

Let me admit that I do understand race relations is a sensitive subject in the modern world, particularly when millions of skilled and unskilled immigrants from the impoverished developing world have migrated to the economically prosperous developed countries to find a better future for themselves and their families.

However, instead of bending over backwards and demanding from the natives of their host countries to be more accommodating and totally non-communal, the immigrants need to understand that migration is not the natural order of societies.

In order to elaborate this paradox by way of an analogy, when we uproot a flowering plant from a garden and try to make it grow in a different environment, sometimes the plant flourishes in the new environment, but at other times it doesn’t, depending on the adaptability of the plant and the compatibility of the environment. If we want to change the whole environment to suit the needs of that particular uprooted plant, such an unrealistic approach may not be conducive to native flora and fauna of those habitats.

The prudent way to tackle the immigration problem is to discourage it by reducing the incentive for prospective immigrants to permanently abandon their homes, families and communities to find a better job in a foreign country and a radically different culture, where they might be materially better off but could find themselves socially isolated and emotionally desolate.

In order to minimize the incentive for immigration, we need to revamp the global economic order. Once the relative imbalance of wealth distribution between the developed and the developing world is narrowed down, then there will be no need for the people of one region and culture to relocate to another, except on a temporary basis for education, traveling and cultural exchange.

Humanism only implies that we should be just and fair in our approach. The human mindsets, attitudes and behaviors are structured and conditioned by their respective cultures and environments. A person born and bred in Pakistan or India generally has more in common with the people of the subcontinent.

For instance, when the first generation Indo-Pakistani immigrants relocate to foreign countries, they find it hard to adjust in a radically different culture initially. It would be unwise to generalize, however, because it depends upon the disposition and inclination of immigrants, their level of education and the value system which they have internalized during their formative years.

There are many sub-cultures within cultures and numerous family cultures within those sub-cultures. Educated Indo-Pakistani liberals generally integrate well into the Western societies, but many conservative Pakistani and Indian immigrants, particularly from backward rural areas, find it hard to adjust in a radically different Western culture. On the other hand, such immigrants from underprivileged backgrounds find the conservative societies of the Gulf countries more conducive to their social integration and individual well-being.

In any case, the second generation immigrants, who are born and bred in the Western culture, seamlessly blend into their host environments, and they are likely to have more in common with the people and cultures where they have been brought up. Thus, a first generation Pakistani-American is predominantly a Pakistani, while a second generation Pakistani-American is predominantly an American, albeit with an exotic-sounding name and a naturally tanned complexion.

*

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.

Nauman Sadiq is an Islamabad-based attorney, columnist and geopolitical analyst focused on the politics of Af-Pak and Middle East regions, neocolonialism and petro-imperialism. He is a regular contributor to Global Research.

The extradition trial of Julian Assange at the Old Bailey moved into a higher gear today.  Testimonies spanned the importance of classified information in war journalism, the teasing offer of a pardon for Assange by US President Donald Trump, torture inflicted by the US Central Intelligence Agency, the chilling effect of indictments under the Extradition Act and the legacy of the Collateral Murder video.

Hager, war and journalism 

Investigative journalist Nicky Hager did some dusting and sprucing of the image of Assange via testimony given on videolink: not the “difficult, awful” individual discussed in standard media outlets, he asserted, but a figure “devoted” to “trying to make the world a better place in an era when there is declining freedom of information in most of the world.”  Hager found Assange “thoughtful, humorous and energetic.”    

In his written testimony, Hager speaks to the role of journalism – the sort that matters, in any case – and war.  “It is in general impossible to research and write about war to a useful standard without access to sources that the authorities concerned regard as sensitive and out of bounds – and all the more so with the subject of war crimes.”  Classified information, notably in war, “is essential to allow journalism to perform its roles of informing the public, enabling democratic decision making and deterring wrongdoing.”

Hager managed to crowbar in a contemporary parallel on the importance of releasing the Collateral Murder, depicting the criminal slayings of civilians and journalists in New Baghdad.  The exposure of the incident, and the language used by the helicopter crew (“Look at those dead bastards”) contributed to “world opinion about the misuse of state power” in much the same way the video of George Floyd’s killing by Minneapolis police did to current debate.  

The prosecution was in no mood for this more nuanced Assange, sensitive to caution and discretion.  For them, he remains a cold, calculating figure of dangerous idiosyncrasies, who endangered the lives of individuals by publishing unredacted documents.  Hager had understood that WikiLeaks only released the documents once the cables had already found their way onto platforms such as Cryptome, courtesy of the publication of the password to an unencrypted file in a book by Guardian journalists David Leigh an Luke Harding.  “WikiLeaks made strenuous efforts to keep it secret, and it was released everywhere first.”

James Lewis QC for the prosecution suggested a corrective: that 154,000 US cables marked “simply protect” had already been published a week earlier.  Hager answered that this account was disputed.  In any case, the nine months between initial publication and the public availability of the unredacted material gave US authorities ample time to protect sources and “warn any informants who could’ve been named.”  The precautionary measures “taken by Julian Assange at the beginning help explain why there was not wholesale damage from those unredacted documents finding their way out.”

Robinson, Trump offers and pardons

The second instalment of the day’s proceedings brought the Trump administration to the fore, notably for the inescapable implication that this entire show is unmistakably and insolubly political.  The defence returned to a statement by Jennifer Robinson, Assange’s ever committed legal advisor, which had already been aired in extradition proceedings held on February 24, 2020.  It covered a purported meeting between ex-congressman Dana Rohrabacher and Trump associate Charles Johnson with Assange and Robinson in August 2017 at the Ecuadorean embassy in London.  The theme: a potential pardon for Assange, with a distinct, thorny catch. 

As Robinson’s statement, discussed by Edward Fitzgerald QC at the Woolwich Crown Court in February recalled, “the proposal put forward by Congressman Rohrabacher was that Mr Assange identify the source of the 2016 election publications in return for some kind of pardon, assurance or agreement which would benefit President Trump politically and prevent US indictment and extradition.” 

In Robinson’s testimony, Rohrabacher made his embassy visit with Trump’s executive blessing.  Upon his return to Washington, a presidential audience would be granted.  The congressman wished “to resolve the ongoing speculation about Russian involvement” in the publication of the Democratic National Committee disclosures by WikiLeaks in 2016.  Such speculation was proving “damaging to US-Russian relations, that it was reviving old Cold War politics, and it would be in the best interest of the US if the matter could be resolved.”  One way of doing so would be Assange’s yielding of relevant information about the source behind the DNC leaks, something of “interest, value and assistance to the President.”  

Assange was not forthcoming, preferring to push Rohrabacher to lobby Trump about the First Amendment implications of any indictment against the publisher.  With the duo leaving empty-handed, the suggestion by the defence is credible: the prospects of an indictment, considered unlikely during the Obama administration, had hardened.  Prosecutor Lewis was blandly dismissive of the entire episode.  “We obviously do not accept the truth of what was said by others.”

El-Masri and Torture 

The prosecutors had already made efforts to frustrate the insertion of Khaled el-Masri’s account into proceedings, a telling point given his experiences of torture at the hands of the CIA in 2004.  There was squabbling on the issue whether he be heard live by video or to have his statement read out in court.  “We see no utility whatsoever in having Mr el-Masri in court,” put the prosecution.  This prompted an intervention from Assange: “I will not accept you censoring a torture victim’s statement to this court.”

The prosecution relented to a reading of a summary, with the understanding that it did not stipulate that el-Masri had ever been tortured by the US government.  This was rich, and unpalatable stuff.  El-Masri, a German citizen, had been kidnapped at the Macedonian border, detained and kept incommunicado for 23 days in 2004.  It took the European Court of Human Rights in 2012 to confirm the CIA’s handiwork in torturing el-Masri, holding Macedonia responsible for being complicit and not investigating the case.  There had been no warrant for his arrest; his transfer to the US authorities amounted to “an extra-judicial transfer of persons from one jurisdiction or State to another, for the purposes of detention and interrogation outside the normal legal system, where there was a real risk of torture of cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment.”  At Skopje Airport, el-Masri “was severely beaten by several disguised men dressed in black”, subsequently “stripped and sodomised with an object.”

As el-Masri stated, “I record here my belief that without dedicated and brave exposure of the state secrets in question what happened to me would never have been acknowledged and understood.”  His “exposure of what happened was necessary not just for myself but for law and justice worldwide. My story here is not yet concluded.”

His statement also notes the broader, international dimension of collusion, a point reiterated in court by defence attorney Mark Summers QC.  Only with the publication of the cables by WikiLeaks, notes el-Masri, “did it become clear what pressures had taken pace beyond Macedonia’s collusion with the US.”  This included the ineffectual issuing of warrants for thirteen CIA operatives issued by a German state prosecutor.  In February 2007, the German Deputy Security Adviser, Rolf Nikel, was warned by the deputy chief of mission to Germany that “the issuance of international arrest warrants would have a negative impact on our bilateral relationship.  He reminded Nikel of the repercussions to US-Italian bilateral relations in the wake of a similar move by Italian authorities last year.”

El-Masri’s treatment, and the importance of the WikiLeaks disclosures in exposing it, have already been noted in the testimony and statement of John Goetz, who worked for Der Spiegel between 2010 and 2011.  The published cables supplied “an explanation about why there were so many difficulties during the investigation.”  It was “only when reading the diplomatic cables that we saw the role the US government was playing behind the scene.” Impediments continued to be put upon a fair and just resolution of the case, including threats by the US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo to sanction those bringing cases before the International Criminal Court.  El-Masri remains imperilled.

Carey Shenkman and the Espionage Act 

Carey Shenkman, First Amendment specialist and historian of the Espionage Act of 1917, duly resumed his testimony on the implications of his illuminating, and unsettling overview of the Act’s application.  The prosecution, this time steered by Clair Dobbin, continued to rely upon rulings on the Act suggesting that prosecuting journalists was permissible.  Challenges about its reach had been made and failed.  The jurisprudence on the statute had, over the years, been refined. 

Shenkman reminded the prosecution that such cases were marked by the punishment of government sources and insiders, not media representatives.  Suggesting that the jurisprudence on the Act had been “refined” was also a point of demurral, given that “national defence information” had been broadened to include anything government deems sensitive.  He also took issue with Dobbin’s view that prosecutors that shown considered “restraint” when using the Act.  The very fact that an indictment had been issued under its provisions against a journalist, whatever its prospects of success, instilled a “significant chilling effect”, applicable, potentially, to all those reading or retweeting defence information.

Yates, trauma and Collateral Murder 

The final part of the day’s proceedings was given over to the witness statement of former Reuters Baghdad bureau chief, Dean Yates.   His subject of torment: the killing of two of his colleagues, Namir Noor-Eldeen and Saeed Chmagh, among other civilians, by the crew of the Apache helicopter depicted in the video Collateral Murder.  Their deaths spurred Yates to identify the chain of events.  He submitted a Freedom of Information Act request; it was rejected.  He was shown select portions of the video by the US military, an act of wilful omission.  From the depths of deep confusion he blamed Namir “thinking that the helicopter fired because he had made himself look suspicious and it just erased from my memory the fact that the order to open fire had already been given.”  Assange had sniffed out that the rules of engagement had not been complied with.

Trauma followed.  Feelings of failure in not adequately protecting his staff.  Crushing shame.  Yates opined about the powerful effect of Collateral Murder, the shame it caused the US military, “fully aware that experts believe the shooting of the van was a potential war crime.”  Without the role played by Chelsea Manning and Assange, “Namir and Saeed would have remained forgotten statistics in a war that killed countless human beings, possibly hundreds of thousands of civilians.”  The act of disclosing the grisly encounter of July 12, 2007 was “100 percent an act of truth-telling, exposing to the world what the war in Iraq in fact was and how the US military behaved and lied.”

*

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 Another Day in the Empire

The graph below is from the UK’s Office of National Statistics. The darker line represents England; the lighter is Sweden. The graph compares all-cause mortality between the two lands based on how many people died per 100,000 (hence it’s relative regardless of the population of each country). This isn’t just people who supposedly died from COVID—it’s people who died from all kinds of diseases, injuries and old age.

First, you can see that both countries were showing a slight decline in deaths over the last five years. Secondly, we can also see that less people were dying in Sweden than England. Thirdly, the jagged nature of the graph illustrates how more people die in the winter months.

Fourthly is where the new normal kicks in: A few months into 2020 (when the lockdowns began) both countries saw a sudden and sharp rise in deaths; but England’s peak was at least twice that of Sweden. Clearly a higher percentage of people have dropped dead in England than Sweden.

Sweden of course had very little containment measures in place. Social distancing was done on a volunteer basis. There was no lockdown. Nursing homes were belatedly put into quarantine. England, on the other hand, went into full lockdown mode with police drones trailing joggers with a timer clicking away their allotted exercise ration.

The above graph sure does suggest that Sweden’s lack of restrictions did not hurt its population. The country’s winter death toll was not much higher than in 2015, 2017 and 2018.

On the other hand, despite lockdown, masks and a social distancing police state, England saw about double the number of deaths it usually sees at that time of the year. The UK government might argue it would have been even worse if they hadn’t gone into lock down mode; but then why did Sweden fair so much better?

As studies have shown, there are many reasons to conclude that locking people up, scaring them out of their minds and destroying their livelihood is quite harmful to their health.

“Danger and strife are the natural states of man. He, who deprives his fellow man of them, and shuts his fellow man safely within walls, hath made his brother a chattering ape,” wrote Taylor Caldwell in The Earth is the Lord’s.

*

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.

John C. A. Manley has spent over a decade ghostwriting for medical doctors, as well as naturopaths, chiropractors and Ayurvedic physicians. He publishes the COVID-19(84) Red Pill Daily Briefs – an email-based newsletter dedicated to preventing the governments of the world from using an exaggerated pandemic as an excuse to violate our freedom, health, privacy, livelihood and humanity. He is also writing a novel, Brave New Normal: A Dystopian Love Story. Visit his website at: MuchAdoAboutCorona.ca

Featured image is by caglecartoons.com

Yesterday Supreme Ct. Justice, Ginsburg, died. McConnell & Trump now moving rapidly to replace with 3rd right wing nominee to SCOTUS. Democrats mount feeble and futile defense, saying McConnell should not proceed with nomination based on McConnell’s own argument back in Feb. 2016 used to thwart the nomination of Obama’s Garland candidate; McConnell in reply expediting the nomination and promises Trump decision before Nov. 3 election.

The death of Ginsburg and quick replacement of another ultra conservative to SCOTUS has big implications for November’s election: it strengthens Trump’s strategy and plan to contest the election voting by mail process, declare it fraudulent (in select blue states), try to stop the counting of mail ballots, and have the Supreme Ct.–now in his pocket with 6-3 majority–cut off the vote counting, just as happened in Florida in 2000. Only this time not just in one state but across multiple states.

Trump’s strategy has become increasingly clear: create the public impression mail in voting is fraudulent and the basis for stopping the counting of mail ballots. This will be supported by what polls show as the likely way direct in person voting vs. mail voting will occur:

CNN polls show 65% of Biden supporters expect to vote by mail, while only 21% of Trump supporters will vote by mail. This will mean November 3 voting will show Trump winning by significant margins due to direct voting, confirmed by exit polls at the time. As mail in ballots will be counted, his lead will begin to fade in blue and swing states (though not likely in most red states due to widespread voter suppression). But before the mail in ballots do wipe out his lead, he’ll raise the ‘fraudulent’ voting claim, get Attorney General Barr to file injunctions to stop the vote count of mail in ballots, and push to the Supreme Court the approval to stop the vote count.

This is Florida’s 2000 election deja vu, except now in multiple states and not just involving voting irregularities in 3 counties in that state.

In 2000 the outcome was the Supreme Court de facto ‘selected’ the president, George W. Bush, with its 5-4 decision to stop the vote recount in Florida.

In 2020 the Supreme Court will be even more likely do the same–i.e. stop the vote count and ‘select’ Trump’– with a 6-3 vote. Except this time it will not even be a vote recount; it will be a first count of mail in ballot votes.

The 6-3 clear majority now gives Trump even more encouragement to implement this strategy: stop the vote count, direct the decision to the Supreme Court, and keep any resolution out of the US House of Representatives where, constitutionally it belongs.

Democrat leadership will be easily outmaneuvered in the Supreme Court nomination process about to begin. They will be outmaneuvered as well, I predict, in the post November 3 vote counting. The Democrats once again will prove themselves strategically and tactically inept in stopping Trump, as they have the entire previous four years.

One more nail will soon be hammered into the coffin of American Democracy, and this time a very large one.

Since the Republican and Democratic Party conventions in August I have been following and commenting on the unfolding of Trump’s strategy to engineer a legal de facto coup d’etat surrounding the November 3 elections. I have shared these reflections and observations in my almost daily tweets on the revealing of Trump’s strategy–as well as his statements showing his intent to destroy even the remaining remnants, as few as they are, of democratic and civil rights in America today in order to stay in power. Indeed, as he has publicly declared in his campaign speeches, he’s planning not only to win in November but is considering, as he put, “four more years after that, and maybe even four more, we’ll see”. In lock-step, his Attorney General, Bill Barr, has also publicly declared that protestors (including those protesting a future coup no doubt) should be considered “treasonous” and prosecuted under the sedition acts. For Trump too, protestors are “insurrectionists”, which means terrorists and ‘enemy combatants’ under the Patriot Act.

A political crisis, the dimensions of which have no precedent in America’s history, may be just around the corner. It’s negative impact on the present economic Great Recession 2.0 will be no less profound. It will ensure a further economic relapse and the W-Shape trajectory I’ve been predicting, or worse!

The following are my comments on twitter ever since the two parties’ conventions, as it was becoming increasingly clear what Trump, Barr, McConnell, and the others have in mind, and are planning, for the November elections and its aftermath.

(Join me for my future day by day comments on Twitter as Trump’s legal coup d’etat continues to unfold. Sign in to my Twitter account at @drjackrasmus)

*

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.

Jack Rasmus writes on his own blog site where this article was originally published. He is a frequent contributor to Global Research. 

Featured image is from Wikimedia Commons

 

First crossposted in March.

Below is our list of twelve medical experts whose opinions on the Coronavirus outbreak contradict the official narratives of the MSM, and the memes so prevalent on social media.

***

Dr Sucharit Bhakdi is a specialist in microbiology. He was a professor at the Johannes Gutenberg University in Mainz and head of the Institute for Medical Microbiology and Hygiene and one of the most cited research scientists in German history.

What he says:

As everyone knows, over the last couple of decades California has become a one-party Democratic state. Democrats hold a better than three-fourths hyper-majority in the State Assembly and their control is nearly as overwhelming in the State Senate. California has our nation’s largest Congressional delegation, and of its 53 members only seven are Republican.

Not only is every statewide officeholder a Democrat, but no Republican has won such a race in almost 15 years, with many of the recent contests not even featuring a Republican on the November ballot. The once-proud Republican Party of Reagan and Nixon has been reduced to almost total irrelevance.

This same pattern has held in national elections, with Donald Trump losing the 2016 California vote by a remarkable 30 points and the most recent polling data suggesting a similar outcome this November.

Except for tiny Hawaii, California is now America’s most heavily non-white state, with our white European population reduced to little more than 30% of the total. But such demographic factors explain only part of those lop-sided 2016 election results since white Californians supported Trump at a rate 20-25 points lower than whites in the rest of the country. If America’s entire white national electorate had voted like its Golden State counterpart, Trump would have lost all fifty states, mostly by huge landslides, and suffered by far the greatest electoral disaster in American history. All the Trump-hating pundits would have spent Election Night laughing and saying “I told you so!”

Although liberal domination of California state politics is not quite as absolute as Democratic control, the state is certainly very liberal, with our elected officials supporting all sorts of causes and policies that would be anathema in much of the rest of the country.

Given these political realities and expecting a heavy November turnout, state Democratic leaders believed they had the perfect opportunity this year to undo one of the last hated legacies of Republican Gov. Pete Wilson, the Prop. 209 ban on governmental Affirmative Action, passed into law by a relatively narrow 55% to 45% margin in 1996. Democrats felt quite confident that a full generation of demographic and ideological shifts had totally transformed the electorate, allowing them to win a resounding victory for “racial diversity” at the ballot box.

The plan to restore Affirmative Action became an unstoppable political juggernaut, with the Assembly voting 60-14 and the Senate 30-10 to place Prop. 16 on the November ballot, repealing Prop. 209. The project enjoyed the strong support of popular Gov. Gavin Newsom and nearly all other prominent political leaders, as well as the unanimous backing of the UC Board of Regents and the heads of all three public higher education systems. Leading sports teams such as the San Francisco Giants and the Golden State Warriors added their endorsements.

California’s Attorney-General is a liberal Democrat, and his office provided what seemed like a slam-dunk official title description for the ballot measure: “Allows Diversity as a Factor in Public Employment, Education, and Contracting Decisions.” In this day and age, what California voter could possibly oppose “Diversity”?

So much for theory. PPIC, California’s leading public policy thinktank, just released the first major poll on the November vote, and our morning newspapers revealed that the attempt to restore Affirmative Action will probably lose, perhaps even by a huge landslide.

The traditional rule in California politics is that support for a ballot measure steadily declines as Election Day approaches, with undecideds overwhelmingly breaking No. Therefore, at this stage a successful measure should probably have a lead of at least 10 points. For example, experts believe that Prop. 15—a split-roll tax initiative—appears to be in trouble given its weak 51% support.

Meanwhile, only 31% of voters are currently backing Prop. 16, aimed at restoring Affirmative Action. Anything might still happen, but those are dismal numbers just a couple of weeks before ballots are mailed out.

The demographic distribution of support also tells an interesting story. Whites are probably one-third or less of California residents, but for reasons of age and naturalization, they still constitute a slight majority of likely voters, and only 26% of whites support Prop. 16. It appears that most white California Democrats refuse to support Affirmative Action.

Latinos are California’s largest group, currently representing 40% of the total population and perhaps eventually rising to an outright majority according to some projections. Only 41% of Latinos seem to support Affirmative Action.

Asians have been the group most strongly opposed to the restoration of Affirmative Action, fearing that racial discrimination would exclude their children from Berkeley, UCLA, and other top UC campuses, and a few years ago their vocal opposition had blocked a previous attempt to repeal Prop. 209. PPIC polls normally break out their Asian numbers, but in this instance Asians and blacks were lumped together, registering a combined 40% support for Prop. 16. Perhaps PPIC feared that revealing Asians (and blacks) as extreme outliers on this divisive issue would produce bitter feelings. Since Asian respondents outnumbered blacks by more than 2-to-1 and probably showed very little support for Prop. 16, it seems likely that black support for Affirmative Action was overwhelming, probably in the 60-70% range.

The low level of Hispanic support for Affirmative Action may surprise many rightwingers, but it makes perfect sense. The overwhelming majority of Hispanics work in the private sector, often in small businesses where most or all of the other employees are also Hispanic. If you and most of your coworkers are Hispanic, Affirmative Action is simply meaningless.

Prop. 209 had required color-blind university admissions since 1996, but Hispanic students have nonetheless still done rather well over the last couple of decades, actually overtaking whites in University of California admissions a few years ago, though still heavily outnumbered by Asians at Berkeley and UCLA. Hispanic families seem quite satisfied with this situation, and have provided no grassroots support for restoring Affirmative Action in university admissions.

With the exception of a tiny sliver of “professional Hispanics” who have made an entire career out of their ethnicity, Affirmative Action has never historically been much of a Hispanic issue. Indeed, I once noted the strong support Pete Wilson had received in his first 1990 campaign for governor.

Although Hispanic and Asian numbers had been growing steadily for years, their support for Republicans had been growing as well, and by the early 1990s, a GOP candidate could regularly expect to receive around one-third or more of the Hispanic vote and half that of the Asian. For example, Pete Wilson’s narrow 1990 gubernatorial victory over Dianne Feinstein, which significantly relied upon his criticism of “racial quotas,” was achieved with 53 percent of the white vote, 47 percent of the Hispanic vote, and 58 percent of the Asian vote according to the prestigious California Field Poll used by the New York Times, though others placed his ethnic totals lower.

By contrast, the issue has always been heavily associated with blacks, who represent just 6% of California’s population but nonetheless still seem to receive a greatly disproportionate share of the high-profile “diversity” slots, including the vast financial rewards of plum positions in Hollywood and Silicon Valley.

Political analysts seemed quite surprised by the PPIC poll results, including the low Latino support for Affirmative Action. But they should have remembered the blue-collar Reagan Democrats of the 1980s, who turned against their traditional political party over similar issues. Perhaps over the last generation, more and more Latinos have come to associate “diversity” with stories of friends or relatives sometimes unfairly losing promotions to blacks whom they regarded as less competent.

For obvious reasons, these sorts of “politically-incorrect” private sentiments may not be readily apparent to our political elites, Latino or otherwise. Such individuals spend their time ensconced in the State Capital, working with liberal lobbyists, donors, and political operatives, who provide an entirely different view of the world. And as a result, certain polling numbers may continue to mystify them.

Back in the mid-1990s I remember having lunch with Pat Buchanan in DC. At one point, I mentioned that America’s rapidly-growing Hispanic population had an obvious and natural political leader, based upon such strong affinities in political ideology, cultural traits, personal background, and religion. But fate took a different turn, and Buchanan missed playing his historic role.

*

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 TUR

“We understand that not only for the Soviet Union but for other European countries as well it is important to have guarantees that if the United States keeps its presence in Germany within the framework of NATO, not an inch of NATO’s present military jurisdiction will spread in an eastern direction.”

– James Baker, in conversation with Mikhail Gorbachev [1]

LISTEN TO THE SHOW

Click to download the audio (MP3 format)

A series of setbacks may have put Russia, and leader Vladmir Putin on the defensive.

Alexei Navalny, a critic and opponent of Putin, was poisoned. The German government, and seemingly the western press have blamed the Russian State for this action, even though the Russians deny it.[2]

Meanwhile, in the country of Belarus, right across the Western border from Russia, there is an unprecedented uprising taking place blaming Alexander Lukashenko for fixing the elections against all rivals. Close to one hundred thousand people showed their opposition in weekly demonstrations. Violent crackdowns erupted. Several thousand arrested. [3]

Could this ferocious resistance result with time in another Ukraine style overthrow of the President?

And then there’s the more direct approach. NATO has apparently been upping its presence in the Barents sea and the Baltic sea, with more war training, combat manoeuvres and missile tests. This stage of their organization was intended to build a complex defense system for Europe. For that matter, it could just as easily by intended as developing a mechanism to wage war on Russia. [4]

All this while the U.S. gears up for another election and is already being blamed for interfering in the election…again!

Observers are getting the impression that tensions are ramping up, and could escalate going into autumn. Where is this conflict heading? These and related questions are the focus of this week’s Global Research News Hour broadcast.

In our first half hour, John Helmer, a journalist based in Moscow, opens up the Navalny case, outlining that Russia is not likely the culprit, that an opposition critic may be involved, and the motives behind the German government’s curious stance while they await the construction of a pipeline taking gas from Russia to Germany.

In our second half hour, Stevan Gijic is our guest. He will enlighten viewers with his breakdowns of Belarus, and of the NATO build-up, and where these events are likely to lead.

John Helmer is the longest continuously serving foreign correspondent based in Moscow, and directs his own independent bureau there. He has been a professor of political science, sociology and journalism, and has advised government heads in Greece, the United States and Asia. Helmer’s blog ‘Dances with Bears’ can be found at johnhelmer.net.

Stevan Gijic is a researcher at the Institute of European Studies in Belgrade. He focuses on European studies (especially the politics in central and eastern Europe and the Balkans), and Russian and post-Soviet politics and international relations. His field of expertise is in political science, diplomacy, history and geopolitics.

(Global Research News Hour episode 287)

LISTEN TO THE SHOW

Click to download the audio (MP3 format)

The Global Research News Hour airs every Friday at 1pm CT on CKUW 95.9FM in Winnipeg. The programme is also podcast at globalresearch.ca .

Notes:

1. National Security Archive, ‘Record of Conversation between Mikhail Gorbuchev and James Baker February 9, 1990’, https://nsarchive2.gwu.edu//dc.html?doc=4325680-Document-06-Record-of-conversation-between
2. Luke Harder and Kim Willshire (Sept. 14, 2020)’Alexei Navalny continues to improve, say German doctors’, The Guardian, https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/sep/14/alexei-navalny-continues-to-improve-say-german-doctors
3. https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-53637365
4. https://www.globalresearch.ca/nato-begins-military-maneuvers-barents-sea/5723488

 

President Donald Trump wants to take out president Bashar Al Assad. Controversy over his statements.

“I would’ve rather taken him out. I had him all set”… Mattis didn’t want to do it”

.

Déjà Vu: The history of extrajudicial assassinations

Political  assassinations and “extra-judicial executions” have been on the drawing board of US intelligence for more than half a century.

In the 1970s, the Senate Select Committee led by Sen. Frank Church  “to Study Governmental Operations with Respect to Intelligence Agencies” (Church Committee) confirmed that the CIA had been entrusted with the assassination of foreign heads of state and heads of government.  These included president Fidel Castro Ruz (several failed attempts),  Prime Minister Patrice Lumumba  (Republic of the Congo) and  Chilean President Salvador Allende. (See  Church Committee Archive).

The list is long…

The Church Committee investigated CIA plots to assassinate foreign leaders. 

The Secret Eisenhower-Macmillan 1957 Plan to Assassinate the Syrian President

With regard to Syria, a detailed Anglo-American plot to assassinate Syria’s president was formulated in 1957.  The stated objective of this Plan, entrusted to Britain’s Secret Intelligence Service (SIS) [today’s MI6] and the CIA, consisted in assassinating the Syrian president together with key political and military figures. “Mr Macmillan and President Eisenhower were left in no doubt about the need to assassinate the top men in Damascus.”

 “In order to facilitate the action of liberative forces, reduce the capabilities of the Syrian regime to organise and direct its military actions, to hold losses and destruction to a minimum, and to bring about desired results in the shortest possible time, a special effort should be made to eliminate certain key individuals. Their removal should be accomplished early in the course of the uprising and intervention and in the light of circumstances existing at the time.”  (The Guardian, 27 September 2003)

The stated pretext of the Macmillan-Eisenhower plan was that Syria was “spreading terrorism” and “preventing the West’s access to Middle East oil”  (sounds familiar).

The secret 1957 Plan called for the funding of a so-called “Free Syria Committee” (sounds familiar). It also involved  “the arming of “political factions with paramilitary or other actionist capabilities” within Syria. Under the plan, the CIA together with Britain’s Secret Intelligence Serivce (SIS) “would instigate internal uprisings”.

“Internal disturbances” in Syria would be triggered through covert operations. The “CIA is prepared, and SIS [MI6] will attempt, to mount minor sabotage and coup de main incidents [sic] within Syria, working through contacts with individuals.”

An all out invasion plan had also been envisaged. What was lacking from the 1957 plan, formulated at the height of the Cold War, was the “humanitarian” “Responsibility to Protect” R2P envelope. (see Felicity Arbuthnot SYRIA: CIA-MI6 Intel Ops and Sabotage).

Moreover, in contrast to today’s “Syrian Opposition” integrated by US-NATO supported Al Qaeda affiliated terrorists, the 1957 Anglo-American plan did not contemplate the recruitment of foreign mercenaries to wage their war.  The 1957 Eisenhower Macmillan Plan was not carried out due to lack of support by neighbouring Arab countries:

“The plan was never used, chiefly because Syria’s Arab neighbours could not be persuaded to take action and an attack from Turkey alone was thought to be unacceptable. (Ben Fenton, The Guardian, 27 September 2003, emphasis added)

Obama’s War Syria (2011- )

Visibly the “Rules have Changed”

Extrajudicial assassinations of political opponents are no longer limited to the realm of covert intelligence operations. They are openly heralded by US politicians (war hawks) as a means to achieving  peace: a “Responsibility to Protect” (R2P).

An invasion of Syria was contemplated in the immediate wake of the 2003 Iraq invasion by US Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld. It was put on hold.

The war on Syria, portrayed as a civil war, was launched under the Obama administration. Extrajudicial assassination of the Syrian head of State was openly contemplated as a means to reaching a “peaceful solution”, i.e. “preventing” president Bashar Al Assad from “slaughtering his own people”.

Realities are turned upside down. The architects of war are portrayed as “peace-makers”. Bashar Al Assad is an elected head of state. He has the full support of the Syrian people in leading the battle against Al Qaeda affiliated mercenaries supported and funded by US-NATO.

Several of America’s staunchest allies were in favor of the assassination option.  According to Australia’s foreign minister Bob Carr (October 2012) “the assassination [of president Al Assad] is a pre-condition of movement towards peace in Syria.”  The Australian, October 9, 2012)

France’s former president Nicolas Sarkozy “reportedly spent his last days in office trying to convince Obama to be part of the attack … on Assad’s palace, family and members of the Syrian government.” ( See The Deccan Herald, May 12, 2012).

President Obama, according to reports,

“was reluctant to be part of this ‘complex’ mission and despite repeated requests from former French president Nicolas Sarkozy, the plan to involve US forces never took off.” (See The Deccan Herald, May 12, 2012)

Flash Forward to the Trump Administration

A report in The Hill (September 15, 2020) suggests that Donald Trump had envisaged an extrajudicial assassination of  Syrian President Bashar Assad in 2017.  Former Defense Secretary James Mattis was allegedly opposed to this undertaking:

The president’s disclosure that an assassination operation was discussed came as part of a lengthy diatribe against Mattis, but it confirmed a piece of reporting from 2018 that Trump disputed at the time.

“I would’ve rather taken him out. I had him all set. Mattis didn’t want to do it. Mattis was a highly overrated general,” Trump said on “Fox & Friends.”

The president added that he did not regret the decision not to target Assad, saying he “could’ve lived either way.” The Syrian leader has overseen the deaths of scores of civilians amid a years-long civil war that has ravaged the country.

Journalist Bob Woodward reported in his 2018 book, “Fear,” that Trump urged Mattis that the U.S. should “f—— kill” Assad following an April 2017 chemical attack on civilians in Syria.

Mattis reportedly went along with the president’s demands during the phone call, but immediately told aides after hanging up that they would take a “much more measured” approach.

Trump was asked about the reporting at the time and said the assassination of Assad was “never even discussed.”

“No, that was never even contemplated, nor would it be contemplated and it should not have been written about in the book,” Trump said in September 2018. Brett Samuels, The Hill, September 15, 2020)

 

*

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.

Global Research Editor’s note 

In Ontario, the face mask is compulsory in the workplace. We bring to the attention of our readers the testimony of a Toronto School Bus Driver.

Millions of people Worldwide are forced to wear the mask.  Millions of people are facing the same predicament. It is part of the fear campaign based on lies and fabrications.

There is a vast scientific literature regarding the devastating health impacts of wearing the mask. And the media never quotes the peer reviewed reports.

Why are they ordering the wearing the face mask?

It is a breach of fundamental human rights. “Criminal negligence” by the government of Ontario is an understatement.

 

Michel Chossudovsky, Global Research, September 19, 2020

***

I am a 64-year old semi-retired school bus driver.  I drive in a populated suburb area north of Toronto. A one way run is 50 kilometres of suburban drive. Due to new face mask laws and/or special measures Act, public health authorities deem the wearing of the face mask as mandatory. 

And positive intentioned folks with fear of infection police it. They call-in or squeal on drivers who, due to policy, must now wear masks for 7 hours per day.

But wearing a mask in an empty bus? Logic versus rampant paranoia issues on that one.

The side effects into my second week of wearing a face mask are not headache and nausea but slight fatigue and nasal dry build up.  By that, I mean dry mucus in the frontal nose channel and in the sinus regions. I am a frequent user of nasal rinse, squeeze bottle type, e.g. Nielmed sinus rinse.

Water is infused with sea salt buffered by medical grade sodium bicarb. Normally I’d only use it in winter for dry air.  Or once a short June grass blooming season occurs.

But if mandatory masking continues, I’d highly likely use it more often to counter the usual restrictive drying mucus nasal effects.

I thought I could share this somewhat safe way to counter discomfort. Outside of home, squeeze-it or pressure charge nasal lubricant saline is another possible aid, I assume.

But unless it is proven prudent, why use the masks as a visual prop?

***

According to Dr. Pascal Sacré

Continuous wearing of masks aggravates the risk of infection. 

This statement is based on scientific and medical analysis.  

The air, once exhaled, is heated, humidified and charged with CO2. It becomes a perfect culture medium for infectious agents (bacteria, fungi, viruses).

Studies have shown that the porosity (microscopic holes) of the masks allows exhaled germs to accumulate on the external surface of the mask. Not only do we re-inhale our own CO2, but by touching our mask all the time (an inevitable gesture), we spread germs everywhere!

Forcing everyone to wear them all the time, while the epidemic is in a process of decline, is a scientific and medical aberration!

A pharmaceutical analysis has shown that in masks for personal use, there are “staphylococci, streptococci, neisseria, bacilli which contribute to contaminatation…”

*

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

Featured image is by Engin Akyurt from Pixabay

“A nation can survive its fools, and even the ambitious. But it cannot survive treason from within. An enemy at the gates is less formidable, for he is known and carries his banner openly. But the traitor moves amongst those within the gate freely, his sly whispers rustling through all the alleys, heard in the very halls of government itself.” – Marcus Tullius Cicero

The Transition Integrity Project (TIP) is a shadowy group of government, military and media elites who have concocted a plan to spread mayhem and disinformation following the November 3 presidential elections. The strategy takes advantage of the presumed delay in determining the winner of the upcoming election. (due to the deluge of mail-in votes.) The interim period is expected to intensify partisan warfare creating the perfect environment for disseminating propaganda and inciting street violence. The leaders of TIP believe that a mass mobilization will help them to achieve what Russiagate could not, that is, the removal Donald Trump via an illicit coup conjured up by behind-the-scenes powerbrokers and their Democrat allies. Here’s a little more background from an article by Chris Farrell at the Gatestone Institute:

“In one of the greatest public disinformation campaigns in American history — the Left and their NeverTrumper allies (under the nom de guerre: “Transition Integrity Project”) released a 22-page report in August 2020 “war gaming” four election crisis scenarios:….The outcome of each TIP scenario results in street violence and political impasse.

…Is it possible that the leadership of the American “Left”, along with their NeverTrumper allies, are busy talking themselves into advocating and promoting street violence as a response to a presidential election?

The answer is: Yes…. expect violence in the aftermath of the election, because now that is the new ‘normal.” (“How to Steal an Election”, Gatestone Institute)

Farrell is right. As we can see from the many articles that have recently popped up in the media, the American people are being prepared for a contested election that will fuel public anxiety and revolt. This all fits with the overall strategy of the TIP. Selected journalists will be used to provide bits of information that serve the interests of the group while the people will be told to expect a long and drawn-out constitutional crisis. Meanwhile, the media, the Democrat leadership, trusted elites and elements in the Intelligence Community will put pressure on Trump to step down while firing up their political base to take to the streets. TIP’s 22-page manifesto makes it clear that mass mobilization will be key to any electoral victory. Here’s an excerpt from the text:

“A show of numbers in the streets-and actions in the streets-may be decisive factors in determining what the public perceives as a just and legitimate outcome.” (“Preventing a Disrupted Presidential Election and Transition” The Transition Integrity Project)

In other words, the authors fully support demonstrations and political upheaval to achieve their goal of removing Trump. Clearly, this scorched earth approach did not originate with Joe Biden, but with the cynical and bloodthirsty puppetmasters who operate behind the curtain and who will do anything to advance their agenda.

This is a full-blown color revolution authored and supported by the same oligarchs and deep-state honchoes that have opposed Trump from the very beginning. They’re not going to back down or call off the dogs until the job is done and Trump is gone. And when the dust settles, Trump will likely be charged, tried, sentenced and imprisoned. His fortune will be seized, his family will be financially ruined, and his closest advisors and allies will be prosecuted on fabricated charges. There’s not going to be a “graceful transition” of power if Trump loses. He will face the full wrath of the scheming mandarins he has frustrated for the last 4 years. These are the men who applauded when Saddam and Ghaddafi were savagely butchered. Will Trump face the same fate as them?

Trump has less than two months to rally his supporters, draw attention to the conspiracy that has is presently underway, and figure out a way to defend himself against the coup plotters. If he is unable to derail the impending junta, his goose is cooked.

It’s worth noting, that the Transition Integrity Project (TIP) has no legal authority to meddle in the upcoming election. They were not appointed by any congressional committee nor did any government entity approve their intrusive activities. This is entirely a “lone wolf” operation designed to exploit loopholes in campaign laws in order to undermine public confidence in our elections and to express their unbridled hostility towards Donald Trump. That said, there analysis will probably influence those who share their views. In the first page of their “Executive Summary” they say:

“We assess with a high degree of likelihood that November’s elections will be marked by a chaotic legal and political landscape. We also assess that the President Trump is likely to contest the result by both legal and extra-legal means, in an attempt to hold onto power.” (Ibid)

This short statement provides the basic justification for the group’s existence. It presents the participants as impartial observers performing their civic duty by objectively analyzing exercises (war games?) that indicate that Trump will challenge the election results in a desperate attempt to hold on to power. Not surprisingly, the group provides no evidence that the president would react the way they think he would. In fact, their hypothesis seems extremely far-fetched given the fact that Trump has no militia, no private army, and very few allies among the political class, the Intelligence Community, the FBI, the military or the deep state. Who exactly does the group think would help Trump hold on to power: Bill Barr, Larry Kudlow, Melania??

There is nothing “impartial” about this analysis. It is partisan gibberish aimed at discrediting Trump while creating a pretext for launching a coup against him. Here is another sample of TIP’s “objective analysis” from page 1 of the manuscript:

“The Transition Integrity Project (TIP) was launched in late 2019 out of concern that the Trump Administration may seek to manipulate, ignore, undermine or disrupt the 2020 presidential election and transition process. TIP takes no position on how Americans should cast their votes, or on the likely winner of the upcoming election; either major party candidate could prevail at the polls in November without resorting to “dirty tricks.” However, the administration of President Donald Trump has steadily undermined core norms of democracy and the rule of law and embraced numerous corrupt and authoritarian practices. This presents a profound challenge for those –from either party –who are committed to ensuring free and fair elections, peaceful transitions of power, and stable administrative continuity in the United States.” (Ibid)

Got that? In other words (to paraphrase) “Trump is a corrupt dictator who hates democracy and the rule of law, but that is just our unbiased opinion. Please, don’t let that influence your vote. We just want to make sure the election goes smoothly.”

As we noted, the hatred for Trump permeates the entire 22-page document and that, in turn, undermines the credibility of the author to portray his project as an impartial examination of potential problems in the upcoming election. There is nothing evenhanded in the approach to these issues or in the remedies that are recommended. This is a partisan project concocted by malicious elites who despise Trump and who plan to remove him from office by hook or crook.

So, do we know who the leaders of this (TIP) group are?

Well, we know who their two main spokesmen are: Rosa Brooks– Georgetown law professor and co-founder of the Transition Integrity Project, and Ret. Col. Lawrence Wilkerson, Distinguished Adjunct Professor of Government and Public Policy at the College of William & Mary, and chief of staff to former Secretary of State Colin Powell. According to an article by Whitney Webb:

“(Rosa) Brooks… was an advisor to the Pentagon and the Hillary Clinton-led State Department during the Obama administration. She was also previously the general counsel to the President of the Open Society Institute, part of the Open Society Foundations (OSF), a controversial organization funded by billionaire George Soros. Zoe Hudson, who is TIP’s director, is also a former top figure at OSF, serving as senior policy analyst and liaison between the foundations and the U.S. government for 11 years.

OSF ties to the TIP are a red flag for a number of reasons, namely due to the fact that OSF and other Soros-funded organizations played a critical role in fomenting so-called “color revolutions” to overthrow non-aligned governments, particularly during the Obama administration. Examples of OSF’s ties to these manufactured “revolutions” include Ukraine in 2014 and the “Arab Spring”…..

In addition to her ties to the Obama administration and OSF, Brooks is currently a scholar at West Point’s Modern War Institute, where she focuses on “the relationship between the military and domestic policing” and also Georgetown’s Innovative Policing Program. She is a currently a key player in the documented OSF-led push to “capitalize” off of legitimate calls for police reform to justify the creation of a federalized police force under the guise of defunding and/or eliminating local police departments.Brooks’ interest in the “blurring line” between military and police is notable given her past advocacy of a military coup to remove Trump from office and the TIP’s subsequent conclusion that the military “may” have to step in if Trump manages to win the 2020 election, per the group’s “war games” described above.

Brooks is also a senior fellow at the think tank New America. New America’s mission statement notes that the organization is focused on “honestly confronting the challenges caused by rapid technological and social change, and seizing the opportunities those changes create.” It is largely funded by Silicon Valley billionaires, including Bill Gates (Microsoft), Eric Schmidt (Google), Reid Hoffman (LinkedIn), Jeffrey Skoll and Pierre Omidyar (eBay). In addition, it has received millions directly from the U.S. State Department to research “ranking digital rights.” Notably, of these funders, Reid Hoffman was caught “meddling” in the most recent Democratic primary to undercut Bernie Sanders’ candidacy during the Iowa caucus and while others, such as Eric Schmidt and Pierre Omidyar, are known for their cozy ties to the Clinton family and even ties to Hillary Clinton’s 2016 campaign.” (““Bipartisan” Washington Insiders Reveal Their Plan for Chaos if Trump Wins the Election“, Unlimited Hangout)

Is it safe to say that Rosa Brooks is a stooge (supported by Elite foundations) overseeing a color revolution in the United States aimed at toppling Trump and replacing him with a dementia-addled, meat-puppet named Joe Biden?

Political analyst Paul Craig Roberts seems to think so. Here’s what he said in a recent post at his website:

“I have provided evidence that the military/security complex, using the media and the Democrats, intends to turn the November election into a color revolution… The evidence of a color revolution in the works is abundantly supplied by CNN, MSNBC, New York Times, NPR, Washington Post and numerous Internet sites funded by the CIA and the foundations and corporations through which it operates.. … All of these media organizations are establishing the story in the mind of Americans that Trump will not leave office when he loses or steals the election and must be driven out.

…With Antifa and Black Lives Matter now experienced in violent protests, they will be unleashed anew on American cities when there is news of a Trump election victory. The media will explain the violence as necessary to free us from a tyrant and egg on the violence, as will the Democrat Party. The CIA will be certain that the violence is well funded….

… What is a reelected President Trump going to do when the Secret Service refuses to repel Antifa and Black Lives Matter when they breach White House Security? …

American Democracy is on the verge of being ended for all times, and the world media will herald the event as the successful overthrowing of a tyrant.” (“America’s Color Revolution”, Paul Craig Roberts)

Another of the leading spokesmen for TIP is Retired Colonel Lawrence Wilkerson who made this revealing statement in a recent interview:

“Let me just say some of the things that we’re putting out there. Among those things, one that is very important is the media, particularly the mainstream media. They cannot act as they usually act with regard to elections. They have to play a coup on election night. They can’t be declaring some state like Pennsylvania for one candidate or the other. When Pennsylvania probably has thousands upon thousands of votes yet to come in and count. So, the media has to get its act in order and it has to act very differently than it normally does.”

(NOTE: In other words, Wilkerson does not want the media to follow the normal protocols for covering an election, but to adjust their reporting to accommodate the aims of the coup-plotters. Does that sound like someone who is committed to evenhanded coverage of events, or someone who wants reporters to shape the news to meet the specifications of his own particular agenda? Here’s more from Wilkerson:)

“Second, ….we also have learned that poll workers have to be younger. And we’ve started a movement all across the country to train young people. And we’ve had really good luck with the volunteers to do so, to be poll workers. Because we found out in Wisconsin, for example, poll workers are mostly over 60. And many of them didn’t show up because they were afraid of COVID-19. And so Wisconsin went from about one 188 polling places, to about 15. That’s disastrous.” (“This ‘War Game’ Maps out what happens if the President contests the Election”, WBUR)

Why is Wilkerson so encouraged by the young people he’s trained to act as poll workers? Doesn’t that sound a bit fishy, especially from a dyed-in-the-wool partisan who’s mixed up with a group whose sole aim is to beat Trump? And why are the authors of the TIP manifesto so eager to reveal their true intentions. Take a look:

“There will likely not be an “election night” this year; unprecedented numbers of voters are expected to use mail-in ballots, which will almost certainly delay the certified result for days or weeks. A delay provides a window for campaigns, the media, and others to cast doubt on the integrity of the process and for escalating tensions between competing camps. As a legal matter, a candidate unwilling to concede can contest the election into January.…..”(Ibid)

So, that’s the GamePlan, eh? The coup plotters want a contested election that drags on for weeks, deepens divisions among the population, undermines confidence in the electoral system, instigates ferocious street fighting in cities across the country, and gives the Biden camp time to mobilize its political resources in Congress to mount a Constitutional attack on Trump.

Can we at least call this treachery by its proper name: Treason– “the crime of betraying one’s country by trying to overthrow the government?”

If the shoe fits…..

*

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

This article was originally published on The Unz Review.

Mike Whitney is a frequent contributor to Global Research.

Featured image is from TUR

Continuous wearing of masks aggravates the risk of infection. 

This statement is based on scientific and medical analysis.  

The air, once exhaled, is heated, humidified and charged with CO2. It becomes a perfect culture medium for infectious agents (bacteria, fungi, viruses).

Studies have shown that the porosity (microscopic holes) of the masks allows exhaled germs to accumulate on the external surface of the mask. Not only do we re-inhale our own CO2, but by touching our mask all the time (an inevitable gesture), we spread germs everywhere!

Forcing everyone to wear them all the time, while the epidemic is in a process of decline, is a scientific and medical aberration!

A pharmaceutical analysis has shown that in masks for personal use, there are “staphylococci, streptococci, neisseria, bacilli which contribute to contaminatation…”

Non-pharmaceutical Interventions”.

Masks with gloves, physical distancing (1.5 -2.0 m) and containment (lockdown) are part of so-called “Non-pharmaceutical Interventions“.

Masks are considered by governments as a “protection against the transmission of Covid-19”. It is better to wear a mask (any mask) than nothing. People are instructed to obey the guidelines of the Ministry of Health. These guidelines are erroneous.

They are imposed on population groups which have been traumatized by the fear campaign, applied in countries which have applied the lockdown.

In Belgium, 4 months after the lockdown was first introduced and more than 2 months after the end of confinement, wearing a mask is now compulsory for everyone, everywhere, even on the dikes, except for children under 12 years of age, who were not at the heart of the epidemic.

People are being masked and there is talk of reconfinement for the wrong reasons:

Authorities are confusing a resurgence of positive RT-PCR tests with a resurgence of COVID-19 infections, which is not the same thing!

The media say: “the number of infections is increasing again”, whereas it is the number of positive tests that is increasing.

The reality is that the epidemic is subsiding.

Masks: dangers not to be overlooked

Apart from overestimating the benefit of masks, the authorities underestimate its deleterious effects.

“The researchers found that about a third of the workers developed headaches with the use of the mask, most had pre-existing headaches that were aggravated by wearing the mask, and 60% needed pain medication to relieve it. With respect to the cause of the headaches, while the straps and pressure of the mask may be causative, most of the evidence points to hypoxia and/or hypercapnia as the cause. That is, a reduction in blood oxygenation (hypoxia) or an increase in blood C02 (hypercapnia).” [1]

Hypoxia (lack of blood oxygenation) due to prolonged mask wear is common [2-3-4] in apparently healthy individuals. It is even worse when worn by people suffering from chronic respiratory insufficiencies, already hypoxemic and/or hypercapnic at baseline.

Do our authorities underestimate or trivialize the deleterious effects of hypoxemia and chronic hypercapnia? These disorders can far outweigh the respiratory problems caused by COVID-19.

Image Source: Pikist.com

 

Masks: a usefulness to be put into perspective

Strong scientific evidence through randomized controlled trials (RCTs) has been required to validate the efficacy and safety of hydroxychloroquine!

Surprisingly, in the case of face masks, this criterion is no longer required.

Based on existing randomized controlled trials, there is no evidence that face masks work to reduce transmission by droplets and aerosol particles in viral respiratory diseases such as influenza or colds [5].

Professor Denis Rancourt [5] has conducted an extensive review of the literature on this topic.

The type of mask most widely used by the population, paper surgical masks, does not protect against viral transmission [6] :

“A surgical mask does not provide the wearer with a reliable level of protection against inhalation of small airborne particles and is not considered respiratory protection.

Permission to wear a surgical mask made more sense when scientists initially thought that the virus (SARS-CoV-2) was spread by large droplets. But more and more research shows that the virus is spread by tiny viral particles. “

Cotton (cloth) masks worn by some people do not do any better [7] :

“Neither surgical masks nor cotton masks effectively filtered out CoV-2 SARS when infected patients coughed. It should be noted that we found greater contamination on the outside surfaces than on the inside surfaces of the masks.

In conclusion, surgical and cotton masks appear to be ineffective in preventing the spread of SARS-CoV-2 from the cough of COVID-19 patients to the environment and to the external surface of the mask. “

Especially since masked people touch their faces more often than unmasked people.

Masks: a false sense of security

Wearing the mask induces a false sense of security.

People no longer pay attention and “forget” other gestures that are more essential than wearing a mask: hand washing or physical distance of more than 1.5 metres.

The WHO (World Health Organization) insists on the importance of washing hands, keeping one’s distance and avoiding touching one’s face, nose and mouth! It only recommends wearing a mask (surgical, N95 or FFP2) if you are ill or if you are caring for a sick person (health care staff) [8].

[8] ” At this time, there is no direct evidence (from studies of COVID-19 and healthy people in the community) on the effectiveness of widespread mask use by healthy people to prevent infections due to respiratory viruses, including COVID-19. ” [8]

In shopping malls, restaurants, bars or even on the street, I have observed a large number of people touching their faces regularly, distractedly, sometimes ten to fifteen times a minute, either as a reflex or to readjust their masks.

This is the case in hospitals, health care services, from caregivers, including doctors.

It’s stronger than you are, it’s an unconscious gesture.

The mask increases the contact between our fingers and our face [9] and that’s really harmful!

In Denmark [10], the Public Health Agency [10] testifies:

“We create a false sense of security (with the masks). Hans Jorn Jepsen Kolmos, a microbiologist and researcher at Odense University Hospital, puts it bluntly: “We don’t believe it. They are effective for the nursing staff or employees of retirement homes. But I am really very much opposed to their widespread use. It becomes a ritual that is adopted for no reason, and creates a false sense of security. The most important thing is to keep your distance, to wash your hands, and to clean the surfaces you have touched, such as door handles. This is the winning formula for hygiene. “

241 scientists [11] emphasize the need for proper air ventilation in workplaces, buildings, schools, hospitals and nursing homes. Opening doors and windows will have a far greater impact on the fight against viral transmission than wearing a mask, which, as we have seen, does not really protect and has deleterious effects on health.

Masks: a shock strategy tool

Here again, is the real problem more psychological than scientific?

Certainly, for the general public, the wearing of the mask reassures, whether its protection is real or not, whether it is well worn or not, or even, what is more serious, whether it makes things worse or not.

People need to believe in something that protects them from the scourge and it is true that the media and our “experts”, at least in Belgium, have done everything to make people very afraid and accept anything and everything.

Astronomical fines for not wearing the mask!

1000 euros in a closed space in Campanile, Italy [12].

250 euros fine in public places [13], in Belgium, 3 times more for restaurants and unmasked waiters.

What psychological terrorism!

Yet the wearing of masks everywhere and by everyone is not based on science or common sense and has serious deleterious effects on our health.

It impedes the application of  essential non-pharmaceutical measures and gives a false sense of security.

Rather than being strengthened, all these measures must be dissipated, as this epidemic is doing.

Physical distancing destroys the social relationships that are dear to every human being.

We are social beings: psychology, sociology, medicine, everyone knows that.

Excessive hand washing becomes a pathological hyperhygienism that takes on the appearance of OCD: obsessive compulsive disorder.

These extreme measures, which are no longer justified, must give way to common sense, to authentic social relations and to the return of confidence in one’s immune system and in the natural extinction of this epidemic contaminated by hysteria.

It is high time.

Dr. Pascal Sacré, physician specialized in critical care, author and renowned public health analyst, Charleroi, Belgium, Research Associate of the Centre for Research on Globalization (CRG). 

Translation from French. Maya for Global Research

Featured Image: pixabay.com

 

Notes :

[1] Le danger mortel des masques, by Dr. Russell L Blaylock, author, U.S. neurosurgeon, Assistant Professor of Clinical Neurosurgery at the University of Mississippi Medical Center and currently Visiting Professor in the Department of Biology at Belhaven College. Translation of the original articlel : Face Masks Pose Serious Risks to the Healthy, 26 may 2020 on the Global Research website.

[2] Preliminary report on surgical mask induced deoxygenation during major surgery, A Beder & al, Neurocirugia, 2008, 19, pp 121-126

[3] Respiratory consequences of N95-type Mask usage in pregnant healthcare workers—a controlled clinical study, Antimicrob Resist Infect Control, 2015, 4 : 48

[4] Headaches and the N95 face-mask amongst healthcare providers, Acta Neurologica Scandinavica, avril 2006

[5] La science est concluante : les masques n’empêchent PAS la transmission des virus, 26 mai 2020, article initialement paru en anglais sur le site ResearchGate, écrit par le Dr Denis Rancourt, PhD, consultable ici : Masks Don’t Work: A Review of Science Relevant to COVID-19 Social Policy

[6] Widely used surgical masks are putting health care workers at serious risk, 28 avril 2020

[7] Effectiveness of Surgical and Cotton Masks in Blocking SARS–CoV-2 : A Controlled Comparison in 4 Patients, Ann Intern Med, 6 avril 2020

[8] Nouveau coronavirus (2019-nCov) : conseils au grand public – Quand et comment utiliser un masque, WHO, mise à jour le 17 juin 2020, PDF téléchargeable : Conseils sur le port du masque dans le cadre de la COVID-19.

[9] Masques et gants, fausse bonne idée contre le virus, 17 March 2020, False good idea against the virus, on the Le Télégramme website. In the face of the spread of the coronavirus, masks and gloves have almost become a trend, “just in case”. But for the general population, wearing them is not necessarily effective, and may even encourage contamination, warn experts.

[10] Danemark : ce pays qui ne croit pas aux masques, 7 May 2020 on the website Le Point.fr. The Danish government advises against wearing them and epidemiologists are so unconvinced of their usefulness that they have launched a study on the subject

[11] It is Time to Address Airborne Transmission of COVID-19, par Lidia Morawska et Donald K Milton, 2020, Published by Oxford University Press for the Infectious Diseases Society of America.

[12] Déconfinement dans le sud de l’Italie : 1000 euros d’amende pour non-respect du port du masque en lieu clos

[13] Les amendes « corona » de 250 euros vont-elles pleuvoir ? Le ministre annonce un durcissement 

 

 

Donald Trump disclosed [1] in the morning show Fox and Friends yesterday that he contemplated assassinating Syrian President Bashar al-Assad following an alleged chemical weapons attack in April 2017 in Khan Sheikhoun, a strategic town in northwest Idlib province that has recently been liberated by the Syrian army, but then-Secretary of Defense Jim Mattis opposed the idea.

“I would have rather taken him out. I had him all set,” Trump said. “Mattis didn’t want to do it. Mattis was a highly overrated general, and I let him go.”

Since then-President Obama’s warning in 2013 that the use of chemical weapons was a “red line” for him, several false flag sarin attacks have been staged by terrorists themselves to enforce a US-led no-fly zone, a la Libya, over Syria, too.

After the purported chemical weapons strike in April 2017, a “visibly moved and tearful” Donald Trump appeared on television to make a momentous announcement, saying, “the attack has crossed a lot lines for me.” While making the statement, however, he was standing next to King Abdullah of Jordan who supported the terrorists in Syria.

According to an informative December 2013 report [2] from a newspaper affiliated with the UAE government which takes the side of Syrian opposition against the Syrian government, it is clearly spelled out that Syrian militants got arms and training through a secret command center based in the intelligence headquarters’ building in Amman, Jordan that was staffed by high-ranking military officials from 14 countries, including the US, European nations, Israel and the Gulf Arab States to wage a covert war against the government in Syria.

Following the alleged chemical weapons attack in Khan Sheikhoun in April 2017, the US launched 59 Tomahawk cruise missiles at al-Shayrat airfield in Homs governorate from where the Syrian plane allegedly took off to the chemical weapons strike site in northwest Idlib province.

And a year later on April 7, 2018, another false flag chemical weapons attack was staged in Douma. Couple of days later, on April 11, Trump tweeted: “Russia vows to shoot down any and all missiles fired at Syria. Get ready Russia, because they will be coming, nice and new and ‘smart!’ You shouldn’t be partners with a Gas Killing Animal who kills his people and enjoys it!”

After Trump’s advisers drew his attention to the fact that he might have telegraphed his intentions of bombing Syria to the Russians, one of the “smartest” American presidents ever came up with an even more puerile tweet the next day, saying:

“Never said when an attack on Syria would take place. Could be very soon or not so soon at all! In any event, the United States, under my Administration, has done a great job of ridding the region of ISIS. Where is our Thank you America?”

The fact was that during the week before the alleged chemical weapons strike, Donald Trump was so distracted by the FBI’s raid on the office of his attorney Michael Cohen and the release of former FBI director James Comey’s tell-all book that he had paid scant attention to what had happened in Syria. He kept fulminating about those two issues throughout the week before the strike on his Twitter timeline and mentioned the alleged Douma chemical weapons attack in Syria on April 7, 2018, only in the passing.

Even though Trump’s former babysitter Jim Mattis, then the Secretary of Defense, admitted on the record that though he was sure chlorine was used in the attack in Douma, he was not sure who carried out the attack and whether any other toxic chemical agent, particularly sarin, was used in the attack.

In fact, a subsequent OPCW report in July 2018 clarified that no nerve agents were used in the attack. If chlorine can be classified as a chemical weapon, then how is one supposed to categorize white phosphorous which was used by the US military in large quantities in its battle against the Islamic State in Raqqa?

Despite scant evidence as to the use of chemical weapons or the party responsible for it, Donald Trump ordered another cruise-missile strike in Syria a week after the alleged chemical weapons attack in Douma in collaboration with then-Theresa May government in the UK and the Emmanuel Macron administration in France.

In the cruise-missile strikes on April 14, 2018, against a scientific research facility in the Barzeh district of Damascus and two alleged chemical weapons storage facilities in Homs, 105 total cruise missiles were deployed, 85 were launched by the US, 12 by France and 8 by the UK aircraft.

It bears mentioning that the American air and missile strikes in Syria are not only illegal under the international law but are also unlawful according to the American laws. While striking the Islamic State targets in Iraq and Syria, Washington availed itself of the war on terror provisions in the US laws, known as the Authorization for the Use of Military Force (AUMF), but those laws do not give the president the power to order strikes against the Syrian government targets without prior approval of the US Congress which has the sole authority to declare war.

The Intercept reported last year [3] that the Trump administration had derived the authority to strike the Syrian government targets based on a “top secret” memorandum of the Office of Legal Counsel that even the US Congress couldn’t see. Complying with the norms of transparency and the rule of law were never the strong points of the American democracy but the Trump administration has done away with even the pretense of accountability and checks and balances in the conduct of international relations.

In conclusion, the only reason the Pentagon advised the “toddler-in-chief” against committing the folly of ordering the assassination of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad was that American forces were waging a military campaign against the Islamic State in Syria and Iraq in 2017.

Although the Syrian government has tolerated against its wishes the presence of US troops in eastern Syria fighting alongside Kurds, had Trump ordered the assassination of the Syrian president, it would have amounted to a declaration of an all-out war, making it impossible to maintain the presence of US forces not only in Syria but also in Iraq.

It’s worth pointing out here that although Trump did order the assassination of revered Iranian General Qassem Soleimani on January 3, by the time the US had already wrapped up anti-ISIS campaigns in Raqqa and Mosul. Whereas in 2017, the Pentagon had deployed tens of thousands of American troops across vast swathes of Syria and Iraq, ensuring their safety could have become an impossible task had Trump ordered the assassination of Bashar al-Assad.

*

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.

Nauman Sadiq is an Islamabad-based attorney, columnist and geopolitical analyst focused on the politics of Af-Pak and Middle East regions, neocolonialism and petro-imperialism. He is a regular contributor to Global Research.

Notes

[1] Syria calls US a ‘rogue state’ over Trump’s kill al-Assad plan:

https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2020/09/syria-calls-rogue-state-trump-kill-al-assad-plan-200916185541951.html

[2] Syrian rebels get arms and advice through secret command center in Amman:

http://www.thenational.ae/world/middle-east/syrian-rebels-get-arms-and-advice-through-secret-command-centre-in-amman

[3] Donald Trump ordered Syria strike based on a secret legal justification even Congress can’t see:

https://theintercept.com/2018/04/14/donald-trump-ordered-syria-strike-based-on-a-secret-legal-justification-even-congress-cant-see/

In Europe civil air traffic is expected to drop by 60% this year compared to 2019, due to Covid-19 restrictions, putting more than 7 million jobs at risk. On the other hand, military air traffic is growing.

On Friday, August 28, six US Air Force B-52 strategic bombers flew over the thirty NATO countries in North America and Europe in a single day, flanked by eighty fighter-bombers from allied countries in different sections.

This large exercise called “Allied Sky” – said NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg – demonstrates “the powerful commitment of the United States to the Allies and confirms that we are able to deter aggression.” The allusion to “Russian aggression” in Europe is evident.

The B-52s, that were transferred on August 22 from North Dakota Minot Air Base to Fairford in Great Britain, are not old Cold War planes used only for parades. They have been continuously modernized, and retain their role as long-range strategic bombers. Now they are further enhanced.

The US Air Force will shortly equip seventy-six B-52s with new engines at a cost of $20 billion. These new engines will allow bombers to fly 8,000 km without refueling in flight, each carrying 35 tons of bombs and missiles armed with conventional or nuclear warheads. Last April, the US Air Force entrusted Raytheon Co. to produce a new long-range cruise missile, armed with a nuclear warhead for the B-52 bombers.

With these and other strategic nuclear attack bombers, including the B-2 Spirit, the US Air Force has made over 200 sorties over Europe since 2018, mainly over the Baltic and the Black Sea close to Russian airspace.

European NATO countries participate in these exercises, particularly Italy. When a B-52 flew over our country on August 28, Italian fighters joined in. simulating a joint attack mission.

Immediately after, Italian Air Force Eurofighter Typhoon fighter-bombers took off to deploy to the Siauliai base in Lithuania, supported by about one hundred specialized soldiers. Beginning September 1, they will remain there for 8 months until April 2021, to “defend” the Baltic airspace. It is the fourth NATO “air policing” mission carried out in the Baltic area by Italian Air Force.

Italian fighters are ready 24 hours a day to scramble, to take off on alarm and intercept “unknown” aircrafts: they are always Russian airplanes flying between some internal airport and the Russian Kaliningrad exclave through international airspace over the Baltic.

The Lithuanian base of Siauliai, where they are deployed, has been upgraded by the United States; USA has tripled its capacity by investing 24 million euros in it. The reason is clear: the air base is just 220 km from Kaliningrad and 600 from St. Petersburg, a distance that a fighter like the Eurofighter Typhoon travels in a few minutes.

Why is NATO deploying these and other conventional and nuclear dual-capacity aircrafts close to Russia? Certainly not to defend the Baltic countries from a Russian attack which would mean the beginning of the thermonuclear world war if it happened. The same would happen if NATO planes attacked neighboring Russian cities from the Baltic.

The real reason for this deployment is to increase tension by creating the image of a dangerous enemy, Russia preparing to attack Europe. This is the strategy of tension implemented by Washington, with the complicity of European governments and Parliaments and the European Union.

This strategy involves a growing military spending increase at the expense of social spending. An example: the cost of a flight hour of a Eurofighter was calculated by the same Air Force in 66,000 euros (including the aircraft amortisation). An amount larger than two average gross salaries per year in public money.

Every time a Eurofighter takes off to “defend” the Baltic airspace, it burns in one hour the corresponding of two jobs in Italy.

*

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

This article was originally published in Italian on Il Manifesto.

Manlio Dinucci is a Research Associate of the Centre for Research on Globalization.

In the first such operation of its kind in 20 years, the British Navy were joined by American, Danish and Norwegian forces to supposedly demonstrate freedom of navigation against “Russian attempts” to control the Barents Sea in the Arctic, the British Ministry of Defense said in a statement.

“The ships undertook training with each other to further develop their Navies’ interoperability while asserting our nations’ commitment to upholding peace in the region,” the British Ministry of Defense added.

This is a rather curious claim to make, not only because the Arctic is already one of the most peaceful regions in the world, but Britain, unlike Russia, the US, Denmark (Greenland) and Norway, is not an Arctic country. Defence Secretary Ben Wallace said Britain intends to “re-engage more” in the Barents Sea in the future. This suggests that London is not motivated by “upholding peace,” but in pressurizing Russia and securing its own influence in the Arctic via not only NATO, but also the British-led Joint Expeditionary Force (JEF) that was created in 2012 and includes Denmark, Finland, Sweden, Norway, the Netherlands, Estonia and Finland.

“It is also the first time the UK has operated so far north alongside Denmark and Norway, both of whom are part of the Joint Expeditionary Force. Through groupings such as JEF and NATO, we demonstrate the UK’s commitment to peace, security, and freedom of access and navigation in the High North. These organisations are vital in setting the conditions for international security and it is crucial we all play our part in an increasingly unstable world of persistent challenge and competition,” the British Ministry of Defense said.

The British have effectively announced that they will create tensions and competition in the Barents Sea against Russia under the guise of “peace, security and free navigation,” despite not even being an Arctic country. British Defense Minister Ben Wallace said that the UK was committed to expanding its activity in the Barents Sea in the coming years, especially as melting ice on North Sea routes would cut the delivery of commercial cargo from China to Europe by 40%. However, according to The Telegraph, Wallace said countries like Russia may try to challenge the principle of freedom of navigation in the region.

After leaving the European Union, Britain is seeking new trade opportunities independent of Brussels, prioritizing logistical corridors and new trade routes. However, given the UK’s opportunity to approach the 21st century in a fresh way with independence from the EU, it appears decisionmakers in London are insisting on continuing an Atlanticist policy that still aims to contain Russia, even within Russia’s own sphere of influence. This is confirmed by information disseminated by British media such as the Mirror, which revealed that British forces were stationed in the Barents Sea and were only 50 nautical miles from the Russian coast. They also revealed that this particular region will become a routine area of ​​operations for British forces. In last week’s military exercises, the British-led forces were located near Severomorsk, over 2,500 kilometers away from the UK, where the Russian North Fleet was deployed.

The Arctic is rich in hydrocarbons and has a large store of fresh water. The amount of ice in the region is declining every year and this opens up new prospects for economic opportunities through shipping and trade. It appears that Britain wants to use these emerging trade routes whilst simultaneously pressurizing Russia.

NATO is also increasing its military infrastructure in the region by continuing to expand its missile defense system in Eastern Europe. This type of escalation by the West appears akin to Cold War hostilities despite it ending in the last decade of the 20th century. Russia’s coastline accounts for 53% of the Arctic Ocean’s entire coastline, rendering it impossible to contain Russia in the Arctic region.

However, this vast coastline also exposes Russia. It is for this reason that through a Kremlin decree signed by President Putin and authored by the Ministry of the Far East and Arctic, Moscow has prepared a 15-year-plan for the Arctic, titled: “On the Basics of State Policy of the Russian Federation in the Arctic for the Period Until 2035.” The plan identifies challenges to Russia’s national security, and it is for this reason that by 2035 Russia aims to build up to 40 Arctic vessels, new railways and seaports, and upgrade regional airports.

With Britain challenging Russia now in the Barents Sea, it is likely that Moscow will rapidly push ahead with its 15-year-plan, which says part of its purpose is to “strengthen national sovereignty and territorial integrity, promoting peace, stability and mutually beneficial partnerships […] in the Arctic zone.” It is unlikely that Britain and its allies will be able to contain Russia in the Arctic, but none-the-less, they have already announced their intentions to attempt this.

*

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

This article was originally published on InfoBrics.

Paul Antonopoulos is an independent geopolitical analyst.

Featured image is from InfoBrics

“We possess a single infallible guide, the Universal Spirit that lives in men as a whole, and in each one of us, which makes us aspire to what we should aspire: it is the Spirit that commands the tree to grow toward the sun, the flower to throw off its seed in autumn, us to reach out towards God, and by so doing, become united to each other.” — Leo Tolstoy (9 Sep1828 – 20 Nov 1910)

November 20 marks the death of Leo Tolstoy in 1910 when he left his estate Yasnaya Polyana and walked to a railroad station at Astopovo, a journey with no set destination.  As Isaiah Berlin writes at the end of his well-known essay on Tolstoy’s philosophy of history, The Hedgehog and the Fox:

“At once insanely proud and filled with self-hatred, omniscient and doubting everything, cold and violently passionate, contemptuous and self-abasing, tormented and detached, surrounded by an adoring family, by devoted followers, by the admiration of the entire civilized world, and yet almost wholly isolated, he is the most tragic of the great writers, a desperate old man, beyond human aid, wandering self-blinded at Colonus.”

Yet the darkness of the final two years of Tolstoy’s life was enlightened by his written contacts with Mohandas Gandhi (not yet called Mahatma).  Gandhi had read Tolstoy’s fundamental spiritual-political work The Kingdom of God is within You. Shortly after it was published in English in 1893 and had been much moved by it.  Gandhi had his friends translate the book into his native language, Gujarati.

Gandhi had read earlier in London Helena Blavatsky’s The Voice of Silence, published in 1889, which elaborated the doctrine of liberation through service to others with the Buddhist concept of bodhisattva — the enlightened being who postpones indefinitely entry into nirvana in order to serve others. The voice of the silence is the inner voice of the Higher Self or the soul. There is also developed the idea ‘to render good for evil’.

Thus Gandhi was well prepared to react positively to Tolstoy’s vision even if the vocabulary was largely Christian.  Christ’s teaching, writes Tolstoy, differs from other teachings in that it guides humans not by eternal rules but by an inward consciousness of the possibility of reaching divine perfection. Tolstoy stresses the Middle Way, which led the French writer E.M. de Vogue to write that Tolstoy had the soul of an Indian Buddhist.  Tolstoy had discovered that nonviolence must have a spiritual foundation, most clearly expressed for him in the Gospels.

Leo Tolstoy and Gandhi never met, but they corresponded with each other during the final two years of Tolstoy’s life, 1909 and 1910. Tolstoy had read Hind Swaraj (1909) where Gandhi set out his vision of a liberated India, the means to reach liberation, and what an independent India could mean for the world. It was Gandhi’s plan of action before he set out to put it in practice.  Gandhi had listed some of Tolstoy’s books in a list of supplementary readings to Hind Swaraj in particular The Kingdom of God is within You and Letter to a Hindoo, Tolstoy’s reply to an Indian revolutionary who had proposed a violent uprising.

Tolstoy wrote to Gandhi:

“I read your book with great interest because I think that the question you treat in it — the passive resistance — is a question of the greatest importance not only for India but for the whole humanity.”

Tolstoy had also read Joseph Doha’s 1909 biography of Gandhi An Indian Patriot in South Africa, the first biography of Gandhi to be written.  In August 1910, Gandhi wrote to Tolstoy to announce the creation of his ashram in South Africa called Tolstoy Farm.

Gandhi’s efforts in South Africa were signs to Tolstoy that nonviolence based on the importance of personal virtue could be put into practice.  Much of the last years of Tolstoy’s life was a harsh struggle against darkness as represented by the State, its war-making power, its ideologies, and the social thinking that structured the State. Colonialism, imperialism and the oppression of the indigenous races were the hallmark of the State. He saw the forces at work that would lead to the First World War and the Russian Revolution. By 1901 he had been excommunicated from the Russian Orthodox Church — not that he expected much light to come from Church-State relations. The Church did insist that no prayers be said at Tolstoy’s funeral.

For Tolstoy as for Gandhi, nonviolence was an expression of ‘soul force’ — the outward expression of the Inner Kingdom.

*

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

Featured image is from The Transnational

Alice’s “curiouser and curiouser” remark in Lewis Carroll’s Adventures in Wonderland applies to dubious twists in the Navalny novichok poisoning hoax.

No evidence or motive links Russia to what happened to him.

Was the August 20 Tomsk, Russia incident made-in-the-USA?

Was Germany pressured, bullied or bribed to go along — at the expense of its own self-interest?

Clearly Angela Merkel, other German officials, their Western counterparts, and establishment media know the claim about Navalny’s novichok poisoning is a colossal hoax.

They know that anyone exposed to the toxin, the world’s deadliest, would be dead in minutes.

The same goes for others in close proximity to the exposed individual.

Navalny is very much alive and recovering nearly a month after falling ill.

No one he came in contact with developed novichok poisoning symptoms.

Russian doctors treating him with state-of-the-art equipment and tests found no toxins of any kind in his system.

They saved his life and stabilized his condition, enabling him to travel to Berlin for further treatment.

If the Kremlin wanted him dead, he’d have been left untreated in Russia to die.

He’s recovering because of heroic treatment by Russian doctors.

On Thursday, elements close to Navalny shifted the fake news novichok poisoning narrative from tea he drank in the Tomsk, Russia airline terminal to the deadly nerve agent in his hotel room water bottle.

Are other versions of what happened to him coming ahead?

Claiming novichok traces were found in a hotel water bottle he drank from doesn’t pass the smell test.

The deadly substance in an opened hotel room bottle would likely contaminate and kill anyone near it.

If, in fact, Navalny was poisoned by novichok in his hotel room overnight, he’d have died in minutes, clearly not what happened.

The novichok in a hotel room bottle scenario is implausible on its face.

Claiming members of his team entered his hotel room after learning of his illness, found it uncleaned, and examined everything potentially useful for an investigation — “recording, describing, and packing” everything would have exposed them to novichok if it existed by touching the alleged bottle with the toxin.

Whatever happened to Navalny wasn’t from novichok poisoning in a bottle or from any other source.

On Thursday, Russia’s Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Maria Zakharova said Moscow’s representative to the OPCW Alexander Shulgin requested copies of files the organization received from Germany on Navalny’s condition, but got no response, adding:

“According to our data…Germany and a whole number of (other Western) countries (are) cultivating the OPCW” with regard to the Navalny incident.

Since he arrived in Berlin for treatment over three weeks ago, Merkel’s government stonewalled Russia by refusing to provide evidence it claims to have about novichok poisoning because there is none.

On Thursday, Putin spokesman Dmitry Peskov said “(t)here is too much absurdity about this whole situation to take anyone’s word on trust, so we are not going to take anyone’s word,” adding:

“(T)he situation is as follows: the OPCW Technical Secretariat says ‘we know nothing. Talk to the Germans,’ and the Germans say ‘we know nothing. Talk to the OPCW.”

Russian lower house State Duma Speaker Vyacheslav Volodin suggested foreign intelligence responsibility for what happened to Navalny.

On Thursday, majority Russophobic European Parliament (EP) MPs adopted a resolution that calls for an “immediate launch of an impartial  international investigation (sic)” on the Navalny incident by the EU, its allies, the UN, Council of Europe, and OPCW — to frame Russia for what happened to Navalny.

The resolution also calls for (unjustifiably and unlawfully) sanctioning Russia and suspending Nord Stream 2 construction.

EP resolutions are non-binding. The EP, Council of the European Union, European Council, and European Commission operate separately from individual member states.

Time and again earlier, they irresponsibly bashed Russia in cahoots with the US, adopting non-binding resolutions.

According to Zakharova earlier, anti-Russia propaganda is based on “paranoia…phobias, fictitious messages (and) myths.”

Interviewed by Radio Sputnik in Moscow, Sergey Lavrov said Western governments want Russia “punished both for what is happening in Belarus and for the incident with Navalny,” adding:

They refuse to fulfill mandated obligations under the European Convention on Legal Aid by not responding to official requests by the Russian Prosecutor General’s Office for documented information on Navalny’s condition.

“Germany says that it cannot tell us anything. They say, go to the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW).”

“We went there several times. They say go to Berlin.”

“They loudly declare that the fact of poisoning has been established. Except for Russia nobody could have done it. Admit it.”

“All this has already happened with the” fake news Skripals novichok poisoning incident.

Russia is a valued ally of all world community countries.

Instead of fostering cooperative relations with Moscow, actions by Germany and other EU countries risk rupturing them.

*

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

Award-winning author Stephen Lendman lives in Chicago. He can be reached at [email protected]. He is a Research Associate of the Centre for Research on Globalization (CRG)

His new book as editor and contributor is titled “Flashpoint in Ukraine: US Drive for Hegemony Risks WW III.”

http://www.claritypress.com/LendmanIII.html

Visit his blog site at sjlendman.blogspot.com.

In 1888,  the year before he went insane, Friedrich Nietzsche wrote the following in Twilight of the Idols:

We have got rid of the real world: what world is left?  The apparent world perhaps? … But no!  Along with the real world we’ve done away with the apparent world as well.

So, if you feel you also may be going insane in the present climate of digital screen life, where real is unreal but realer than real, the apparent is cryptic, and up is down, true is false, and what you see you don’t, it has a history.  One hundred and thirty-two years ago, Nietzsche added that “something extraordinarily nasty and evil is about to make its debut.”  We know it did, and the bloody butcher’s bench known as the twentieth century was the result. Nihilism stepped onto center stage and has been the star of the show ever since, straight through to 2020.  Roberto Calasso puts it this way in Literature and the Gods:

Here we are, announces Nietzsche, and it would be hard not to hear a mocking ring in his voice.  We thought we were living in a world where the fog had lifted, a disenchanted, ascertainable, verifiable world.  And instead everything has gone back to being a ‘fable’ again.  How are we to get our bearings … This is the paralysis, the peculiar uncertainty of modern times, a paralysis that all since have experienced.

Obviously, we haven’t gotten our bearings.  We are far more adrift today on a stormy electronic sea where the analogical circle of life has been replaced by the digital, and “truths” like numbers click into place continuously to lead us in wrong, algorithm-controlled directions. The trap is almost closed.

Of course, Nietzsche did not have the Internet, but he lived at the dawn of the electric era, when space-time transformations were occurring at a rapid pace.  Inventions such as photography, the phonograph, the telephone, electricity, etc. were contracting space and time and a disembodied “reality” was being born.  With today’s Internet and digital screen life, the baby is full-grown and completely disembodied.  It does nothing but look at its image that is looking back into a lifeless void, whose lost gaze can’t figure out what it’s seeing.

Take, for example, the phonograph, invented by Thomas Edison in 1878.  If you could record a person’s voice, and if that person died, were you then listening to the voice of a living person or one who was dead?  If the person whose voice was recorded was alive and was miles away, you had also compressed earthly space. The phonograph suppressed absence, conjured ghosts, and seemed to overcome time and death as it captured the flow of time in sound.  It allowed a disembodied human voice to inhabit a machine, an early example of downloading.

“Two ruling ambitions in modern technology,” writes John Durham Peters in his wonderful book, Speaking into the Air, “appear in the phonograph: the creation of artificial life and the conjuring of the dead.”

Many people started to hear voices, and these people were not called deluded. Soon, with the arrival of cinema, they would see ghosts as well.  Today, speaking ghosts are everywhere, hiding in hand-held devices. It’s Halloween all year round as we are surrounded by electronic zombies in a screen culture.

This technological annihilation of space and time that was happening at a frenetic pace was the material background to Nietzsche’s thought.  His philosophical and epistemological analyses emerged from German intellectual life of his time as well, where theologians and philosophers were discovering that knowledge was relative and had to be understood in situ, i.e., within its historical and social place or context.

Without going into abstruse philosophical issues here, suffice it to say, Nietzsche was suggesting that not only was God dead because people killed him, but that knowledge was a fiction that changed over time and was a human construction.  All knowledge, not just science, had to be taken “as if” it were true.  This was a consoling mental trick but falsely reassuring, for most people could not accept this, since “knowledge” was a protection racket from pain and insanity. It still is. In other words, not only had people murdered God, but they had slain absolutes as well. This left them in the lurch, not knowing if what they knew and believed were really true, or sort of true – maybe, perhaps. The worm of uncertainty had entered modern thought through modern thought.

While the average person did not delve into these revolutionary ideas, they did, through the inventions that were entering their lives, and the news about Darwin, science, religion, etc., realize, however vaguely, that something very strange and dramatic was under way. Life was passing from substance to shadow because of human ingenuity.

It is similar to what so many feel today: that reality and truth are moving beyond their grasp as technological forces that they voluntarily embrace push everyday life towards some spectral denouement.  An inhuman, trans-human, on-line electronic life where everything is a parody of everything that preceded it, like an Andy Warhol copy of a copy of a Campbell’s soup can with a canned mocking laugh track that keeps repeating itself.  All this follows from the nineteenth century relativization of knowledge, or what at least was taken as such, for to say all knowledge is relative is an absolute statement.  That contradiction goes to the heart of our present dilemma.

This old feeling of lostness is perhaps best summarized in a few lines from Mathew Arnold’s 19^th century poem, “Dover Beach”:

The Sea of Faith
Was once, too, at the full, and round earth’s shore
Lay like the folds of a bright girdle furled.
But now I only hear
Its melancholy, long, withdrawing roar,
Retreating, to the breath
Of the night-wind, down the vast edges drear
And naked shingles of the world.

But that was then.  Today, the Joker’s sardonic laughter would suffice.

***

I am sitting outside as I write, sipping a glass of wine before dinner.  Although New England fall weather is approaching, a nasty mosquito is buzzing around my head.  I hear it.  I am in killer mode since these bastards love to bite me.  This is real life.  If I went into the house and connected to the Internet on the computer screen – news, social media, anything – I would be entering another dimension.  Screen life, not real life. The society of the spectacle. No real mosquitoes, no wine, no trees swaying in the evening breeze.

In his novel, The Sun Also Rises, written between Nietzsche’s time and now, Ernest Hemingway, a man who surely lived in the physical world, writes of how Robert Cohn, the boxing champion from Princeton University, wants Jake Barnes, the book’s protagonist, to take a trip with him to South America.  As they sit and talk in Paris, Barnes says no, and tells Cohn, “All countries look just like the moving pictures.”

Whether Hemingway was being ironic or not, or simply visionary, I don’t know.  For in the 1920s, before passports and widespread tourism, there were many places you could only see if you traveled to them and they would never appear in moving pictures, while today there is almost no place that is not available to view beforehand on the internet or television.  So why go anywhere if you’ve already seen it all on a screen? Why travel to nowhere or to where you have already been?  Déjà vu all over again, as Yogi Berra put it and everyone laughed.  Now the laugh is on us.

***

This is neither an argument nor a story.  It’s real.  I am trying to get my bearings in a disorienting situation. Call it a compass, a weather-vane, a prayer.  You can call me Al or Ishmael.  Call me crazy.  Perhaps this writing is just an “as if.”

***

About fifteen years ago, I was teaching at a college where most communication was done via email.  I was, as they say, out of the loop since I didn’t do email. I was often asked why I didn’t, and I would repeatedly reply, like Melville’s Bartleby, because “I prefer not to.”  Finally, in order to keep my job, I succumbed and with the laptop computer they provided me, I went “on-line.”  There were 6,954.7 emails in my in-box from the past three years.  In those three years, I had performed all my duties scrupulously and hadn’t missed a beat.  Someone showed me how to delete the emails, which I did without reading any, but I had entered the labyrinth. I went electronic.  My reality changed. I am still searching for Ariadne’s thread.

***

But I am not yet a machine and refuse the invitation to become one.  It’s a very insistent invitation, almost an order.  Neil Postman (Oh such a rich surname!) sums it up well in Technopoly: The Surrender of Culture to Technology:

The fundamental metaphorical message of the computer, in short, is that we are machines – thinking machines, to be sure, but machines nonetheless.  It is for this reason that the computer is the quintessential, incomparable, near perfect machine for Technopoly.  It subordinates the claims of our nature, our biology, our emotions, our spirituality.  The computer claims sovereignty over the whole range of human experience, and supports its claim by showing that it ‘thinks’ better than we can…John McCarthy, the inventor of the term ‘artificial intelligence’…claims that ‘even machines as simple as thermostats can be said to have beliefs…What is significant about this response is that it has redefined the meaning of the word ‘belief’ … rejects the view that humans have internal states of mind that are the foundation of belief and argues instead that ‘belief’ means only what someone or something does … rejects the idea that the mind is a biological phenomenon … In other words, what we have here is a case of metaphor gone mad.

Postman wrote that in 1992, before the computer and the internet became ubiquitous and longer before on-line living had become de rigueur – before it was being shoved down our throats as it is today under the cover of COVID-19.

There is little doubt that we are being pushed to embrace what Klaus Schwab, the Executive Chairman of the World Economic Forum (WEF), calls COVID-19:The Great Reset, that involves a total acceptance of the electronic, on-line life.  On-line learning, on-line news, on-line everything – only an idiot (from Greek, idiotes, a private person who pays not attention to public affairs) would fail to see what is being promoted.  And who controls the electronic life and internet?  Not you, not I, but the powers that be, the intelligence agencies and the power elites. Goodbye  body, goodbye blood – “I don’t think we should ever shake hands ever again, to be honest with you,” said Dr. Anthony Fauci, the director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID) in support of human estrangement.

Peter Koenig, one of the most astute investigators of this propaganda effort, puts it this way:

The panacea of the future will be crowned by the Pearl of the Fourth Industrialization – Artificial intelligence (AI). It will be made possible by a 5G electromagnetic field, allowing the Internet of Things (IoT). Schwab and Malleret [Schwab’s co-author] won’t say, beware, there is opposition. 5G could still be blocked. The 5G existence and further development is necessary for surveillance and control of humanity, by digitizing everything, including human identity and money.

It will be so simple, no more cash, just electronic, digital money – that is way beyond the control of the owner, the truthful earner of the money, as it can be accessed by the Global Government and withheld and / or used for pressuring misbehaving citizens into obeying the norms imposed from above. You don’t behave according to our norms, no money to buy food, shelter and health services, we let you starve. No more travel. No more attending public events. You’ll be put gradually in your own solitary confinement. The dictatorial and tyrannical global commandeering by digital control of everything is the essence of the 4^th Age of Industrialization – highly promoted by the WEF’s Great Reset.

***

Like everything, of course, this push to place life under the aegis of cyberspace has a history, one that deifies the machine and attempts to convince people that they too are machines without existential freedom.  Thus the ongoing meme pumped out for the past three decades has been that we are controlled by our brains and that the brain is a computer and vice versa. Brain research has received massive government funding. Drugs have been offered as the solution to every human problem. So-called diseases and disorders have been created through the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of  Mental Disorders (DSM) and matched to pharmaceutical drugs (or the revers) for scandalous profits. And the mind has been reduced to a figment of deluded  imaginations. People are machines; that’s the story, marvelous machines.  They have no freedom.

If one wishes an example of techno-fascism, there is one from the art world. Back in the 1920s and 1930s there was an art movement known as Futurism.  Its leader proponent was an Italian Fascist, friend of Mussolini, Filippo Tommaso Marinetti.  The futurists claimed that all life revolves around the machine, that the machine was god, that it was beyond human control and had to be obeyed.  They extolled war and speed and claimed that humans were no more significant than stones.  Patriotism, militarism, strength, method, and the kingdom of experts were their blueprint for a corporate fascist state.  The human eye and mind would be re-educated to automatically obey the machine’s dictates.

Now we have cyberspace, digital machines, and the internet, an exponential extension of the machine world of the 1930s and the rise of Mussolini, Fascism, and Hitler.  That this online world is being pushed as the new and future normal by trans-national elite forces should not be surprising.  If human communication becomes primarily digitally controlled on-line and on screens, those who control the machines will have achieved the most powerful means of mind control ever invented. That will be MKULTRA on a vast scale.  Surveillance will be complete.

Yes, there are places on the internet where truth is and will be told, such as this site where you are reading this; but as we can see from today’s growing censorship across the web, those power elites and intelligence forces who  control the companies that do their bidding will narrow the options for dissenting voices. Such censorship starts slowly, and then when one looks again, it is a fait accompli. The frog in the pan of slowly heating cold water never realizes it is being killed until it is too late. Free speech is now being strangled. Censorship is widespread.

The purpose of so much internet propaganda is to confuse, obsess, depress, and then repress the population. The overlords accomplish this by the “peculiar linking together of opposites – knowledge with ignorance, cynicism with fanaticism – [which] is one of the chief distinguishing marks of Oceanic society,” writes Orwell in Nineteen Eighty-Four.  “The official ideology abounds with contradictions even where there is no practical reason for them.”  One look into one’s life will suffice to see how the overlords have set people against each other.  It’s a classic tactic.  Divide and conquer. Trump vs. Biden, Democrats vs. Republicans, whites vs. blacks, liberals vs. conservatives. Pure mind games. Contradictions every day to create social disorientation.  Orwell describes Doublethink as follows:

Doublethink means the power of holding two contradictory beliefs in one’s mind simultaneously, and accepting both of them.  The Party intellectual knows in which direction his memories must be altered; he therefore knows he is playing tricks with reality; but by the exercise of doublethink he also satisfies himself that reality is not violated.  The process has to be conscious, or it would not be carried out with sufficient precision, but it also has to be unconscious, or it would bring with it a feeling of falsity and hence of guilt…To tell deliberate lies while genuinely believing them, to forget any fact that has become inconvenient, and then, when it becomes necessary again, to draw it back from oblivion for just as long as it is needed, to deny the existence of objective reality and all the while to take account of the reality which one denies – all this is indispensably necessary…If one is to rule, and to continue ruling, one must be able to dislocate the sense of reality. [author’s emphasis]

Nietzsche said that along with the real world we have done away with the apparent as well.  Digital online life has accomplished that.  It has allowed the rulers – through the media who are the magicians who serve them – to create counterfeit news and doctored videos at will, to present diametrically opposed points of view within the same paragraph, and to push breaking news items so fast that no one half-way sane could keep up with their magic shows. Nietzsche obviously didn’t foresee this technology, but he sensed the madness that the relativity of knowledge and the technology of his day would usher in.

***

The popular 1990s term “Information Superhighway,” meaning the internet and all digital telecommunications, was the perfect term to describe this lunacy. Get on that highway and go as fast as you can while trying to catch the meaning of all the information flashing past you as you speed to nowhere.  For not only does censorship, propaganda, disinformation, mixed messages, and contradictions line the road you are traveling, but contextless information overload is so heavy that even if you were stopped in a traffic jam, there is too much information to comprehend.  And if you think this Superhighway is a freeway, think again, for the cost is high. No one puts out their hand and asks you to pay up; but the more you travel down this road you’ll notice you are missing a bit of flesh here and some blood there.  And without a speed pass, you are considered road kill.

To make matters much worse, they say we need 5G to go much faster.

Paul Virilio, who has devoted himself to the study of speed (dromology), puts it this way in Open Sky:

The speed of the new optoelectronic and electroacoustic milieu becomes the final void (the void of the quick), a vacuum that no longer depends on the interval between places or things and so on the world’s very extension, but on the interface of an instantaneous transmission of remote appearances, on a geographic and geometric retention in which all volume, all relief vanishes.

***

And yet I don’t have a simple answer to the internet dilemma. You are reading it on-line and I am posting it there.  It is very convenient and quick. And yet…and yet….

Can we just walk away from it?  Maybe.  Perhaps like those few who, in Ursula K. Le Guin’s excruciating story, “The Ones Who Walk Away From Omelas,” we may decide the price for our conveniences and so-called happiness is too high and that there are hidden victims that this techno-scientific “progress” creates beneath its veneer of efficiency.  Others, us, our children, all children, who are reaching out not for speed and machines, but for the human touch that the on-line propagandists hope to destroy.  In Le Guin’s story, the price nearly all the citizens of Omelas are willing to pay for their happiness and comfort is the imprisonment of a single child.  Perhaps we should consider what we are doing to all the world’s children and their futures.

My friend Gary recently sent me this letter.  I believe it sums up what many people feel. There is a vast hunger for reality and truth. The analog life. How to live it – the question hangs in the air as the artificial intelligence/digital controllers try to reduce us to machines.

Although apparently it isn’t clear if Twain ever said this, it’s still a great quote:  (“If you don’t read the newspaper, you’re uninformed.  If you do, you’re misinformed.”)  To which “amen” is the only appropriate response.

I continue to daily stay abreast of events through the web, and these days much of what passed for “progressive media” simply regurgitates the covid madness as if it had been delivered on stone tablets – rather than by the same MSM that lie to us daily about literally ANYTHING of any importance.

There are days I wonder “why” I continue to bother to follow the unfolding madness as if it made some “difference.”  I could certainly play guitar more, and I might even get it together to write a few pieces on the nature of our collective madness, for which I have studiously assembled copious notes.  I really don’t need any more information or examples – I think I have things covered on that front.

Instead I find myself daily doing the little dance we’re all familiar with – uncomfortable with being “uninformed” – yet at almost every turn finding myself being routinely – “misinformed” – and so having to sift through the endless debris to have any chance at developing any coherent understanding of the world.

So yes, I totally get the draw of just saying to hell with the internet.  After years of shifting through the endless propaganda operations our generation has been subject too, I have no doubt you and I see through most the nonsense for what it is before we even have the proof in hand.  Once the rose-colored glasses of ‘American exceptionalism’ are off, one can almost sense and see through the lies in real time even as they are being uttered.

Reading Gary’s words reminded me of those of the Trappist monk Thomas Merton’s definition of the Unspeakable:

It is the void that contradicts everything that is spoken even before the words are said, the void that gets into the language of public and official declarations at the very moment when they are pronounced, and makes them ring dead with the hollowness of the abyss.  It is the void out of which Eichmann drew the punctilious exactitude of his obedience…

Yes, real time, real life – as we do our little dances.

Can we do our little dances and preserve reality?  I’m not sure.

*

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

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

Distinguished author and sociologist Edward Curtin is a Research Associate of the Centre for Research on Globalization. He is the author of the new book: https://www.claritypress.com/product/seeking-truth-in-a-country-of-lies/

---

Seeking Truth in a Country of Lies

Author: Edward Curtin

ISBN: 9781949762266

Published: 2020

Options: EBOOK – Epub and Kindle, paper, PDF

Click here to order.

.

There is an old saying that allegedly came out of the French Revolution, that revolution, like the god Saturn, devours its own children. It was reportedly uttered by Georges Danton at the trial that preceded his execution and could be applied equally to the demise of Trotsky after the Russian Revolution. It meant that the leaders that drove the dramatic political developments frequently get a taste of power and become resistant to any further change. They often end up turning on their own former followers who have different ideas on how to run the country.

Nearly all the top-level political appointees that have served the Donald Trump administration would describe themselves as conservatives but genuine conservatives as they would have been configured during the presidency of Dwight Eisenhower have actually been quite thin on the ground. One recalls how Ike publicly denounced the developing “Military Industrial Complex,” explaining how “We pay for a single fighter plane with a half-million bushels of wheat. We pay for a single destroyer with new homes that could have housed more than 8,000 people. This is not a way of life at all. Under the cloud of threatening war, it is humanity hanging from a cross of iron.” That was real conservatism speaking. These days, when genuine conservatives cast in that mold do turn up, there is frequently a concerted effort to make them go away.

The latest genuine conservative candidate for high office who is being subjected to character assassination by many of the usual suspects is Colonel Douglas Macgregor, nominated on July 27^th by President Trump to serve as U.S. Ambassador to Germany. Macgregor, if he can survive the approval process in the Senate where the GOP has a slight majority, will be replacing Richard Grenell, an extremely unpopular chief of mission who did major damage to relations with the host country due to his arrogance and propensity to spread White House propaganda. Germany is, by the way, a major European ally.

The Macgregor nomination has been viciously attacked by CNN, Max Boot of the Washington Post and by the Anti-Defamation League (ADL). Politico describes himas a “renegade retired colonel” and Congressional Democrats like the hopelessly corrupt Senator Robert Menendez are also piling on while piously insisting that “Macgregor’s comments disqualify him from any government office.” That alone should be enough to convince the casual observer that Macgregor is fully qualified for the job and should be approved.

And if anything else should be required, Mac is a decorated combat-experienced Army officer who won a Bronze Star for valor when he commanded an armored brigade that went into battle against Saddam’s elite forces in the 1991 Gulf War. He and his men destroyed 70 enemy armored vehicles in a major engagement. He has written five books and is a regular contributor to the commentary on the thoughtful end of conservative media, by which I mean Tucker Carlson. He also reportedly speaks regularly to Donald Trump, so the presumption is that he is trusted by the president and could actually have some positive influence over policy.

And as for his practical qualifications to interact well with the host country, Macgregor is a West Point graduate who speaks German fluently and studied German military and political history at the University of Virginia, where he earned an M.A. and a Ph.D. His advanced study focused on the World War Two fighting between the then Soviet Union and Nazi Germany.

So, let’s review some of the genuine good old-fashioned American interests based conservative principles that Macgregor stands for. Bear in mind that his language is often salty, blunt and to the point, and he rarely worries about being politically correct. He is highly critical of orthodox military thinking as exemplified by the “failed” Iraq and Afghan Wars, which he fought in, and he refers to the generals and defense contractors as components of a “self-licking ice cream cone.”

Macgregor sees no national security justification for the continued presence of U.S. troops in Syria and he has also argued that the United States has no compelling national interest to remain in Iraq. He believes that NATO is no longer useful and that the United States should not be defending a prosperous Europe from a Russia that poses no real threat, a view shared by many all across the political spectrum both in the U.S. and Europe.

Macgregor has also observed correctly that an expansionistic Turkey rather than Iran poses the real threat to stability in the Middle East and he doubts whether Iran wants to attack anyone. He has described political ex-General David Petraeus as a “useful fool” who serves as a mouthpiece for pro-war politicians and the media and has criticized the Clinton Administration’s intervention against Serbian forces during the Kosovo War in the 1990s to “put, essentially, a Muslim drug mafia in charge of that country. These people have never been our friends. They aren’t ever going to be our friends. They are incurably hostile. I’m talking about the Sunni Islamists.” He has likewise condemned the Obama overthrow of the Libyan government, turning a prosperous and stable nation into a terrorist haunted hellhole.

Macgregor will be tasked with restoring the balance in the German-American relationship at a time when 12,000 U.S. troops will be withdrawn from the country. Trump did not inform the German Chancellor Angela Merkel in advance of the decision and there are reports that there were a number of nasty phone calls with Trump characteristically hurling insults and accusations. Macgregor will be tasked with fixing that even though he has made it clear that nearly all U.S. troops should be withdrawn from Germany because he believes that there is no risk that Russia will attack anyone beyond its current borders in Eastern Europe.

Against all the positives relating to Macgregor, the critics have compiled a list of what they regard as his failings. He has called illegal immigration from Mexico a national security threat being encouraged by the Democratic Party to change the U.S. demographics in its favor. As a response, he has called for martial law along the border if required to stop the immigrants and he would enforce it by shooting intruders if necessary. Regarding Germany itself, he has been a critic of Merkel’s opening her borders to waves of illegal immigrants. One might note that these are essentially standard conservative positions, with the exception of the shooting, that won the presidency for Trump in 2016. Merkel’s open immigration policies have also been widely condemned by both Germans and other Europeans.

Macgregor is skeptical of Russiagate and believes that the Russian intervention to seize parts of Ukraine was a predictable defensive reaction to a coup engineered by the United States. Max Boot, born in Russia and Jewish, is a neocon and no friend of the Kremlin. He interprets Macgregor’s unwillingness to demonize Russia as “a disquieting tendency to echo Vladimir Putin’s propaganda,” which it is not. It is a realistic assessment of the dangerous situation in Eastern Europe engineered by Boot and his neocon friends.

But the real issue that the critics have with Macgregor inevitably come down to the Israel/Jewish agenda, a hurdle that is also bedeviling the nomination of William Ruger, another antiwar critic of Middle Eastern foreign policy, who has been nominated as ambassador to Afghanistan. Per Boot “[Macgregor] even thinks that Germany has gone too far in making penance for Nazi crimes,” citing a 2018 comment by the colonel: “There’s sort of a sick mentality that says that generations after generations must atone for the sins of what happened in 13 years of German history and ignore the other 1,500 years of Germany. And Germany played a critical role in central Europe in terms of defending and preserving Western civilization.”

The ADL has expressed “deep concern” over the Macgregor appointment due to his “problematic remarks,” which it also describes as “highly troubling.” They have expressed their concern by way of a letter to Chairman Jim Risch and also to senior Democratic Party Ranking Member Bob Menendez of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. They accused Macgregor of having “downplay[ed] the importance of commemorating the Holocaust era, [and] exaggerating the views and influence of ‘people who call themselves neocons.’”

Of course, the neocons are fundamentally a Jewish movement that inter aliaengages in the promotion of perpetual U.S. engagement in the Middle East on behalf of Israel. Ironically, while Macgregor is opposed to military intervention nearly everywhere, he is well-liked and even admired by the Israeli military officers and other officials that he met with on numerous visits to Israel both as an Army officer and since that time. He supports “defensible borders” for the Jewish state and has called the move of the U.S. Embassy to Jerusalem “long overdue.”

But Macgregor’s actual credentials come up against the Jewish suffering requirement. ADL Chief Executive Jonathan Greenblatt argued that “We need an American ambassador in Berlin who will forcefully push back against antisemitism and the minimizing of the Holocaust, not somebody whose past statements indicate that he might encourage those hateful ideas.” The ADL letter also complained that Macgregor’s apparent views “…would also place him at odds with the overwhelming bipartisan consensus of Congress, as demonstrated by legislation passed in this Congressional session with the encouragement of ADL such as the Never Again Education Act as well as House and Senate resolutions that condemned antisemitic tropes about dual loyalty or Jewish power.”

It is indeed interesting how Jewish groups exercise their power freely and openly demonstrate dual loyalty when it suits them and then pretend that they are both powerless and loyal Americans when someone challenges them. ADL and other organizations like it are in the “what have they done for the Jews” business. Continuing to tighten the screws on Germany to make reparations for Israel and the diaspora a perpetual gift that keeps on giving is one of their key objectives. The Never Again Education Act is little more than a government subsidized program to make sure that American school children are fed an approved diet of propaganda about what happened in Europe between 1939 and 1945. It makes Jews perpetual victims that always have to be protected and given special dispensation by the powers that be.

In this case, having an ambassador in Germany who just might not spend his time catering to Jewish interests by “forcefully push[ing] back against antisemitism and the minimizing of the holocaust” is something that must be nipped in the bud by ADL. That is too bad, as there are bilateral issues like trade and defense involving Germany and the U.S. that impact on all Americans and Douglas Macgregor would appear to be the right man to deal with them. But as is all too often the case in the United States, the loudest voices, like ADL, are generally the ones that Congress pays attention to.

*

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.org,address 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 Wikimedia Commons

The prospect of adverse effects of wireless radiation on the human body has sparked fears about 5G technology in Switzerland.

The country is at the forefront of the 5G rollout in Europe, installing over 2,000 antennas last year alone.

However, the speed of the implementation is slowing down over some people’s concerns that the technology might be harming them.

In Nyon, on the banks of Lake Geneva, local resident Anna Frusciante, who is electro-hypersensitive, pointed out to Euronews the number of new antennas.

According to the WHO, those who claim to suffer from electro-hypersensitivity report a variety of health problems, which they relate to being exposed to electromagnetic frequencies, such as mobile phone signals. While some report mild symptoms like rashes and skin irritation, others are so severely affected that they change their entire lifestyle.

Anna is worried about the invisible effects that the antennas, she ays, are having on her.

“This is one of the latest antennas installed in Nyon. It is right in the city centre, on a residential building. It is also close to a secondary school building,” she explained.

Being electro-hypersensitive, like around 10% of the Swiss population, cost Anna her previous job – and forced her to move from place to place.

She has lived with her mother for over a year now, but she is about to move again.

“In mid-April last year, I struggled to sleep again. I had palpitations. And after three days I was exhausted. Then someone told me, there is a 5G antenna in Nyon.

“I looked at the official map, looked at the address, and it turned out that this antenna was 200 meters from my bedroom.

“I put my bed back in the car and returned to sleeping in the woods as before, when I did not know how to protect myself,” she said.

5G Rollout

5G has been launched in 17 countries in Europe, including Switzerland, Norway and the UK.

But the new technology, promising a hyper-connected world, is still being tested.

In Switzerland, 90 per cent of the territory is covered by standard 5G, a kind of enhanced 4G.

Protests and restrictions have hampered the real 5G network, known as 5G Plus, from being rolled out.

Euronews met Olivier Bodenmann, an electrical engineer and the founder of ‘Stop 5G‘.

“What worries us is the power increase. The operators would like to increase it to a factor of four. Currently in Switzerland, the limit is up to five or six volts per metre. But the operators would like 20,” he said.

Electro-hypersensitivity

Electro-hypersensitivity is not recognised in Switzerland as an illness, and is difficult to detect.

“The diagnosis is not straight forward, also the research on certain pathologies is difficult. And no research means no suitable treatment for the patient,” said Dr Philippe Tournesac.

“There is a whole category of the population that is at risk of suffering from more electromagnetic waves. And we might also see people, perhaps, who will suddenly identify their hypersensitivity,” he added.

Switzerland installed over 2,000 antennas last year alone (Source: Euronews)

Honeybees Experiment

Biologist Daniel Favre is of the view that more research is needed into 5G.

He has signed appeals sent to the United Nations and the European Union asking for its health effects to be reassessed.

Daniel has also been looking into the impact electromagnetic fields have on honeybees.

The idea is to record the sound of the bees and analyse it.

“Look at the waveform. The thicker it is, the greater the intensity of the sound. When the phones are active, the colony is disturbed. And as soon as the phones are turned off, the colony reverts to its normal noise.”

“Implementing 5G safely for people and the environment requires more time for independent research,” he added.

*

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 Euronews

Opponents of WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange often hold up Pentagon Papers whistleblower Daniel Ellsberg as an example of someone who was responsible for a good leak. They insist WikiLeaks is not like the Pentagon Papers because supposedly Assange was reckless with sensitive documents.

On the seventh day of an extradition trial against Assange, Ellsberg dismantled this false narrative and outlined for a British magistrate court why Assange would not receive a fair trial in the United States.

Assange is accused of 17 counts of violating the Espionage Act and one count of conspiracy to commit a computer crime that, as alleged in the indictment, is written like an Espionage Act offense.

The charges criminalize the act of merely receiving classified information, as well as the publication of state secrets from the United States government. It targets common practices in news gathering, which is why the case is widely opposed by press freedom organizations throughout the world.

James Lewis, a prosecutor from the Crown Prosecution Service who represents the U.S. government, told Ellsberg,

“When you published the Pentagon Papers, you were very careful in what you provided to the media.”

The lead prosecutor highlighted the fact that Ellsberg withheld four volumes of the Pentagon Papers that he did not want published because they may have impacted diplomatic efforts to end the Vietnam War. However, Ellsberg’s decision to withhold those volumes had nothing to do with protecting the names of U.S. intelligence sources.

As Ellsberg described for the court, the 4,000 pages of documents he disclosed to the media contained thousands of names of Americans, Vietnamese, and North Vietnamese. There was even a clandestine CIA officer, who was named.

Nowhere in the Pentagon Papers was an “adequate justification for the killing that we were doing,” Ellsberg said. “I was afraid if I redacted or withheld anything at all it would be inferred I left out” the good reasons why the U.S. was pursuing the Vietnam War.

Ellsberg was concerned about revealing the name of a clandestine CIA officer, though he mentioned the individual was well-known in South Vietnam. Had he published the name of the officer today, the Intelligence Identities Protection Act could have easily been used to prosecute him. But he left it in the documents so no one could make inferences about redacted sections that may undermine what he exposed.

Like Assange, Ellsberg wanted the public to have a complete record.

This did not exactly distinguish Ellsberg from Assange so Lewis explicitly highlighted an article, “Why WikiLeaks Is Unlike The Pentagon Papers,” by attorney Floyd Abrams, which he wrote for the Wall Street Journal.

Abrams was one of the attorneys who represented the New York Times in the civil case that argued the government should not be able to block the media organization from publishing the Pentagon Papers. And like Lewis, Abrams fixated on the four volumes that were kept confidential.

Ellsberg insisted Abrams was “mistaken.” He never had any discussion with Ellsberg while defending the right to publish before the Supreme Court so Ellsberg said Abrams could not possibly understand his motives very well.

In the decades since the Pentagon Papers were disclosed, Ellsberg shared how he faced a “great deal” of defamation and then “neglect” to someone who was mentioned as a “clear patriot.” He was used as a “foil” against new revelations from WikiLeaks, “which were supposedly very different.” Such a distinction is “misleading in terms of motive and effect.”

Ellsberg noted Assange withheld 15,000 files from the release of the Afghanistan War Logs. He also requested assistance from the State Department and the Defense Department on redacting names, but they refused to help WikiLeaks redact a single document, even though it is a standard journalistic practice to consult officials to minimize harm.

“I have no doubt that Julian would have removed those names,” Ellsberg declared. Both the State and Defense Departments could have helped WikiLeaks remove the names of individuals, who prosecutors insist were negatively impacted.

Yet, rather than take steps to protect individuals, Ellsberg suggested these government agencies chose to “preserve the possibility of charging Mr Assange with precisely the charges” he faces now.

Not a single person has been identified by the U.S. government when they talk about deaths, physical harm, or incarceration that were linked to the WikiLeaks publications.

The lead prosecutor asked Ellsberg if it was his view that any harm to individuals was the fault of the American government for letting Assange publish material without redactions.

Ellsberg indicated they bear “heavy responsibility.”

Lewis attempted to trap Ellsberg into conceding Assange had engaged in conduct that resulted in grave harm to vulnerable individuals. He read multiple sections of an affidavit from Assistant U.S. Attorney Gordon Kromberg, who is in the Eastern District of Virginia where Assange was indicted.

It covered a laundry list of allegations: they named local Afghans and Iraqis that were providing information to coalition forces, forced journalists and religious leaders to flee, led to harassment of Chinese academics labeled as “rats,” fueled violent threats against people who met with U.S. embassy staff, resulted in Iranians being identified and outed, and spurred violence by the Taliban.

“How can you say honestly and in an unbiased way that there is no evidence that WikiLeaks put anyone in danger?” Lewis asked.

Ellsberg told Lewis he found the government’s assertions to be “highly cynical.” He invited Lewis to correct him if he was wrong, but it is his understanding that no one actually suffered harm as a result of these threats. “Did one of them suffer the carrying out of these threats?”

Lewis replied the rules are you don’t get to ask the questions. He tried to move on as Ellsberg insisted he be allowed to provide the rest of his answer, but Judge Vanessa Baraitser would not let Ellsberg complete his response.

It deeply upset Assange, who spoke from inside the glass box where he sits each day. Baraitser reminded him not to interrupt proceedings as Edward Fitzgerald, a defense attorney, attempted to convince the court that Ellsberg should be able to finish his answer.

Lewis continued,

“Is it your position there was absolutely no danger caused by publishing the unredacted names of these informants?”

In response, Ellsberg said the U.S. government is “extremely cynical in pretending its concerned for these people.” It has displayed “contempt for Middle Easterners” throughout the last 19 years.

As Lewis insisted one had to conclude Iraqis, Afghans, or Syrians named in the WikiLeaks publications were murdered or forced to flee, Ellsberg refused to accept this presumption.

“I’m sorry, sir, but it doesn’t seem to be at all obvious that this small fraction of people that have been murdered in the course of both sides of conflicts can be attributed to WikiLeaks disclosures,” Ellsberg stated.

If the Taliban had disappeared someone, Ellsberg said that would be a seriously harmful consequence. “I am not aware of one single instance in the last 10 years.”

At no point did the lead prosecutor offer any specific example of a death, and so the record remains as it has been since Chelsea Manning was put on trial. The government has no evidence that anyone was ever killed as a result of transparency forced by WikiLeaks.

Ellsberg informed the court his motive was no different from Assange’s motive. The Espionage Act charges that Assange faces are not meaningfully different either. And, in fact, he faced efforts by the government to wiretap and incapacitate him just like Assange did while in the Ecuador embassy in London.

Ellsberg recalled that he did not tell the public what led him to disclose the Pentagon Papers because he expected to be able to testify about his motive during his trial.

When his lawyer asked him why he copied the Pentagon Papers, the prosecution immediately objected. Each time his lawyer tried to rephrase the question, the court refused to permit him to tell the jury “why he had done what he’d done.”

Federal courts continue to handle Espionage Act cases in the same manner. “The notion of motive or extenuating circumstances is irrelevant,” Ellsberg added.

“The meaning of which is I did not get a fair trial, despite a very intelligent and conscientious judge. No one since me has had a fair trial.”

“Julian Assange could not get a remotely fair trial under those charges in the United States,” Ellsberg concluded.

*

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

The September 12 demonstration “Stop 5G” in Rome rightly focuses on the possible electromagnetic consequences for health and environment, in particular on the decree that prevents mayors from regulating the installation of 5G antennas in the municipal area.

However, the Italian public continues to ignore a fundamental aspect of this technology: its military use. We have already warned about it in the manifesto (10 December 2019) but with poor results. The subsequent programs launched by the Pentagon, officially documented, confirm what we wrote nine months ago.

The “5G Strategy,” approved on May 2, 2020, stated that

“the Defense Department must develop and employ new concepts of operation that use the ubiquitous connectivity that 5G capabilities offer to increase the effectiveness, resilience, speed, and lethality of our Forces.“

The Pentagon is already experimenting military applications of this technology in five air, naval and land forces bases: Hill (Utah), Nellis (Nevada), San Diego (California), Albany (Georgia), Lewis-McChord (Washington), Dr. Joseph Evans, technical director for 5G at the Department of Defense, in a press conference on June 3 confirmed.

He then announced that 5G military applications will soon be tested in seven other bases: Norfolk (Virginia), Pearl Harbor-Hickam (Hawaii), San Antonio (Texas), Fort Irwin (California), Fort Hood (Texas), Camp Pendleton (California) and Tinker (Oklahoma).

Experts predict that 5G will play a decisive role in the development of hypersonic weapons, including nuclear warheads: huge amounts of data must be collected, processed and transmitted very quickly to guide them on variable trajectories, escaping interceptor missiles. The same data collection is necessary to activate the defenses in the event of an attack with such weapons, relying on automatic systems.

The new technology will also play a key role in the battle network, being able to connect millions of two-way radio equipment in a limited area.

5G will also be extremely important for the Secret Services and Special Forces: it will make possible much more effective espionage systems and increase the lethality of drone-killers.

These and other military applications of this technology are certainly being studied in China and other countries as well. Therefore, the ongoing 5G is not only a trade war.

The strategic document of the Pentagon confirmed it: “5G technologies represent crucial strategic capabilities for the national security of the United States and for that of our allies.” It is therefore necessary to “protect them from our adversaries” and convince our allies to do the same to ensure the “interoperability” of military applications of 5G within NATO framework.

This explains why Italy and other European allies of the US have excluded Huawei and other Chinese companies from 5G telecommunication equipment supply tenders.

“5G technology” – explains Dr. Joseph Evans in the press conference at the Pentagon – “is vital to maintain military and economic advantages of the United States,” not only against its adversaries, especially China and Russia, but against its allies.

For this reason,

“the Department of Defense is working closely with industrial partners, who invest hundreds of billion dollars in 5G technology, in order to exploit these massive investments for military applications of 5G,” including military and civilian “dual-use applications“. . .

In other words, the 5G commercial network, built by private companies, is used by the Pentagon at a much lower cost than would be necessary if the network were built solely for military purposes.

 The common users, to whom the 5G multinationals will sell their services, are going to pay for a technology that, as they promise, should “change our lives,” but at the same time it will be used to create a new generation of weapons for a war, meaning the end of human generations.

Watch the video below in Italian.

*

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

This article was originally published in Italian on Il Manifesto.

Manlio Dinucci is a Research Associate of the Centre for Research on Globalization.

This year’s stay-at-home orders and lockdowns imposed by governments on their populations represent a watershed moment in the history of the modern state.

Before March 2020, it is unlikely that many politicians—let alone many ordinary people—thought it would be feasible or likely for government officials to force hundreds of millions of human beings to “self-isolate.”

But it turns out governments were indeed able to force a sizable portion of the population to abandon jobs, religious practices, extended families, and community life in the name of “flattening the curve.”

Whether through fear manufactured by the news media or through outright threats of punishment, business owners shuttered their shops and offices, churches closed down, and schools abandoned their students.

Over time, most governments lessened their restrictions, largely out of fear that tax revenues would collapse and out of fear that the public would become unwilling to obey lockdown edicts indefinitely.

Those fears—not scientific objectivity—have been guiding the gradual loosening of lockdowns and lockdown-related restrictions in recent weeks. After all, in many jurisdictions—both in the USA and in Europe—cases and case growth are far above what they were back in March and April when we were told that high case totals absolutely required strict lockdowns. If case numbers are higher now than during the previous peak, why no new lockdowns?

Make no mistake, many politicians would love to impose lockdowns again, and indefinitely. After all, the power to micromanage the behavior of every business and household in the manner of covid lockdowns is a power undreamed of by even the most despotic emperor of old. It’s not a power a regime would abandon lightly.

But could they get away with it? This is a question every prolockdown politician is asking. For the extent to which lockdowns have been scaled back and lessened, we cannot thank any enlightenment or change of heart on the part of politicians. If lockdowns now seem to be receding, it’s because policymakers fear another round of lockdowns would be greeted with resistance rather than obedience. In short, the retreat of lockdowns is a result of an uneasy truce between the antilockdown public (which is by no means the whole public) and the prolockdown politicians. The politicians have conceded nothing in terms of their asserted authority, but they nonetheless fear greater resistance in the future.

Regimes Continue to Threaten More Lockdowns

Although they’re slowly backing off on full lockdowns for now, governments have been very careful to maintain that they retain the power to reimpose them—including full-on strict and ruthless lockdown—at any time. In some areas, this has already been done, such as in southern Australia and in New Zealand. In the state of Victoria in Australia, for instance, residents in recent weeks have been subject to strict curfews and even road closures preventing them from traveling more than a few miles form their homes. Those who dissent—such as a pregnant mother who was arrested for merely discussing an upcoming protest—are brutalized. Meanwhile, military personnel enforce martial law, dragging people from their cars and demanding they show their “papers.”

China continues to impose regional and partial lockdowns. Belgium, meanwhile, insists it may yet still impose “total lockdown.” Back in July, the UK’s Boris Johnson told the nation’s residents to follow the social distancing rules now or face harsher lockdowns in the future. Last week Johnson’s government announced strict new social distancing rules, prohibiting any gatherings of more than six people in most cases.

Nor have American politicians abandoned these newfound powers. In Utah, which did not impose a lockdown in March or April, the authorities are still threatening a possible future “complete shutdown.” Governors in states including Texas, Pennsylvania, Illinois, New York, and Michigan have all threatened new lockdowns if the residents don’t do as they’re told.

(Only two governors, to my knowledge, have said they will not impose future lockdowns. Earlier this month, Governor Ron DeSantis of Florida vowed “we will never do any of these lockdowns again,” and Governor Kristi Noem of South Dakota, which has never imposed a lockdown at all, has also said lockdowns are not on the table.)

In many cases politicians have substituted face masks and targeted lockdowns (of bars and nightclubs, etc.) in lieu of full stay-at-home orders. This limits public dissent by limiting the number of businesses and industries where people are thrown out of work and business owners are effectively robbed of their property. Fewer destitute or jobless voters likely translates into less active dissent.

This permanent embrace of emergency power is to be expected. Governments have long used crises as an excuse to expand government power, often with the glowing approval of the electorate. After the end of World War II, for example, the party platform of the British Labour Party explicitly sought to extend wartime economic planning indefinitely. The idea was that central planning had won the war and now it would “win the peace.” This meant a host of boards and commissions that would control everything from farming to housing.

But that’s just one example. As Robert Higgs has shown in his book Crisis and Leviathan, using wars and other crises to permanently expand state power is just standard operating procedure for countless regimes. It’s what governments do.

Governments Are Limited Only by the Public’s Resistance

On the other hand, governments are limited by how much the public is willing to tolerate. As Étienne de La Boétie has shown, all regimes—even authoritarian ones—are ultimately limited by public approval and obedience. Without public opinion on their side, regimes become constrained, even in a police state.

Ludwig von Mises built on this notion when he noted in his book Liberalism:

there has never been a political power that voluntarily desisted from impeding the free development and operation of the institution of private ownership of the means of production. Governments tolerate private property when they are compelled to do so, but they do not acknowledge it voluntarily in recognition of its necessity. Even liberal politicians, on gaining power, have usually relegated their liberal principles more or less to the background. The tendency to impose oppressive restraints on private property, to abuse political power, and to refuse to respect or recognize any free sphere outside or beyond the dominion of the state is too deeply ingrained in the mentality of those who control the governmental apparatus of compulsion and coercion for them ever to be able to resist it voluntarily. A liberal government is a contradictio in adjecto. Governments must be forced into adopting liberalism by the power of the unanimous opinion of the people; that they could voluntarily become liberal is not to be expected.

In other words, governments don’t refrain from exercising ever more power unless they are prevented from doing so. But what did he mean by a government being “forced into adopting liberalism by the power of the unanimous opinion of the people”? Mises was very much a man who understood how states work in the real world. So it’s a safe bet that he didn’t think the public’s “unanimous opinion” was somehow magically transformed into a government limiting itself.

Rather, Mises understood that governments are limited by pressures applied by groups external to the state apparatus itself. These could take the form of widespread noncompliance, peaceful protests, or even armed resistance. But to think that governments will limit themselves without at least the fear of some form of resistance would be fanciful, to say the least.

And this is likely what is limiting governments in their dreams of ever-harsher lockdowns right now. We’ve already seen this dynamic in action in Serbia, for example, where the regime attempted to reimpose a nationwide lockdown. This proposal was greeted with both peaceful and violent protests. The state partially retreated and opted instead for much weaker regional lockdowns. Protests also continue to grow in Germany, and have even cropped up in London.

In the US, of course, protests of various types have appeared since April, and given the volume of anger over lockdowns and business closures expressed across a wide variety of media, it’s easy to see why state and local governments should expect trouble if they try another full-scale lockdown. One need only step out one’s front door in many areas to see countless examples of passive noncompliance and resistance to mask orders and social distancing decrees.

Complicating matters is the low state of public approval of police forces. It’s true that police tend to receive public support when they are seen battling rioters and thugs. But public support would likely wither quickly were the police unleashed on middle-class suburbanites who fail to follow stay-at-home orders.

If American governors and mayors try a new set of lockdowns, just how far will they willing to go to enforce them? Will they call in the national guard and open fire on middle-class dissenters? If police attempt to break into homes in the manner we have witnessed in Australia, things might turn out quite differently here. In situations like that, at least some residents will defend themselves with firearms.

Ensuring compliance will also become especially difficult as lockdowns empty the public purse. As the economy weakens, so will tax revenues, and public welfare programs can’t subsist on newly printed money forever. As local, state, and federal amenities and free money programs come up short of funds, it will become harder to buy off the voters with yet another government check.

Admittedly, governments can always double down on enforcement by imposing strict police states. This can work in the short term. But then what? Outside of places like China and Australia, it appears many regimes aren’t yet prepared to find out. But they’re not willing to concede defeat, either. The lockdown state will press the issue as far as the voters and taxpayers are willing to let it go.

*

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.

Ryan McMaken (@ryanmcmaken) is a senior editor at the Mises Institute. Send him your article submissions for the Mises Wire and The Austrian, but read article guidelines first. Ryan has degrees in economics and political science from the University of Colorado and was a housing economist for the State of Colorado. He is the author of Commie Cowboys: The Bourgeoisie and the Nation-State in the Western Genre.

Featured image is from Mises Wire

The economic state of the US is worse than during the depths of the 1930s Great Depression.

Economic collapse grips the country. Tens of millions of working-age Americans are unemployed, most others way underemployed earning poverty wages.

The Economic Collapse blog explained that “more than half of all households in some of our largest cities are currently facing serious financial problems” because of dire economic conditions.

It noted that the US suicide rate rose every year since the run-up to the 2008-09 financial crisis.

In June, a US Centers for Disease Control and Prevent survey found that almost 11% of respondents considered suicide in the past month — 25% of those aged 18 – 24.

This astonishing data is more evidence of a nation in decline, worlds apart from my long ago boyhood, adolescence, and youth — a time of countless opportunities for young people like myself with nothing special going for me.

Conditions today are polar opposite. Discretionary spending on US militarism, warmaking, corporate handouts, and police state harshness come at the expense of eroding public services and career opportunities for youths.

The disparity between rich and most others in America today matches or exceeds the late 19th/early 20th century robber barons age.

Poverty is the leading growth industry in the world’s richest country, accelerating exponentially because of made-in-the-USA coronavirus and economic collapse.

According to economist John Williams, year-over-year inflation is 9%, up from 7.7% in May, based on how calculated pre-1990.

Real unemployment is 28%, not the phony 8.4% BLS figure.

The US was at the height of its preeminence on the world stage post-WW II.

It was maintained for some years in the post-war era.

Decline began and continued in recent decades, notably post-9/11, and especially this year with nothing in prospect indicating positive change.

The long ago founded republic no longer exists, replaced by the imperial state, military Keynesianism, ruinous military spending, and governance serving privileged interests exclusively — while vital homeland needs go begging, social justice disappearing.

On Thursday, the Economic Policy Institute (EPI) explained that “(h)alf a year into the pandemic (and economic collapse), millions of people are unemployed,” adding:

Last week, “(a)nother 1.5 million people applied for unemployment insurance (UI) benefits.”

The number includes “860,000 people who applied for regular state UI and 659,000 who applied for Pandemic Unemployment Assistance (PUA).”

The latter is the federal program for workers ineligible for UI. Benefits provided for 39 weeks will expire at yearend if not renewed.

EPI explained that “(l)ast week was the 26th week in a row total (of) initial (UI and PUA) claims (that) were far greater than the worst week of the 2008-09 Great Recession.”

Most US states provide 26 weeks of UI. When exhausted, eligible individuals can apply for an additional 13 weeks of Pandemic Emergency Unemployment Compensation (PEUC).

At this time, Republicans and Dems are deadlocked on extending federal unemployment benefits — politicizing the issue ahead of November elections, ignoring millions of US households in need of federal help.

Congressionally authorized $600 in weekly UI benefits to eligible recipients expired at end of July.

According to the Center for American Progress (CAP):

“(T)ypical unemployment benefits being received across the country shows that there isn’t a single county, parish, borough, census area, or city in the United States where state unemployment benefits alone can cover a set of very modest monthly expenses…for a typical one-adult, one-child family.”

Even House passed $600 Federal Pandemic Unemployment Compensation (FPUC) is inadequate to cover essentials to life and welfare for the average US household, said the CAP.

EPI stressed that no where in the US can a typical family “live on unemployment insurance alone.”

Spending because of $600 in weekly UI benefits supported 5.1 million jobs, EPI explained.

Without it, they’re being lost. America’s most disadvantaged are hardest hit with little income and no health insurance — millions of affected households with no relief in prospect.

*

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

Award-winning author Stephen Lendman lives in Chicago. He can be reached at [email protected]. He is a Research Associate of the Centre for Research on Globalization (CRG)

His new book as editor and contributor is titled “Flashpoint in Ukraine: US Drive for Hegemony Risks WW III.”

http://www.claritypress.com/LendmanIII.html

Visit his blog site at sjlendman.blogspot.com.

Over one million people have signed an online charter against normalisation with Israel, according to an Emirati civil society group.

The launch of the Palestine Charter comes the same week as both the United Arab Emirates and Bahrain officially signed normalisation agreements – named the Abraham Accords – with Israel at a White House ceremony.

The charter’s creator, an Emirati grassroots organisation called the UAE Anti-Normalisation Association, has launched a Twitter hashtag titled “people against normalisation”, urging followers to add their signatures. The charter states that:

• Palestine is an independent Arab state whose borders are from the river to the sea, and will remain Arab no matter how long the Zionist occupation lasts.
• No one has the mandate to cede an inch of Palestinian territory, no matter how strong it is in position and in its right.
• Anyone who decides to cede the land of Palestine and the right of its people to build an independent state with the city of Jerusalem as its capital does not represent the Arab people.
• Normalisation is rejected in all its forms and the free people will not accept it or any agreement with the occupying Zionist entity.

A number of associations across the region have lent their support to the initiative, including the Palestine Advocacy Association, the Bahrain Society for Resistance to Normalisation, Moroccan Observatory against Normalisation and the Palestinian Forum in Jordan.

1.7 مليون موقع على #ميثاق_فلسطين الإلكتروني ..

لا توجد قضية في العالم ممكن ان يجتمع عليها الناس مثل هذه القضية pic.twitter.com/do22JGVk6N

— حمد الشامسي (@ALshamsi789) September 17, 2020

Translation: 1.7 million [signatories] on the Palestine Charter electronic site. There is no issue in the world on which people can come together like this

طيب يا جماعة الان توقيع ما السلام الصهاينة صار وانتهى اتمنى لو هذه الدول تنزل استبانة عما اذا كان الشعوب مؤيدة لهذا الاتفاق مع ان الاستبانة المفترض تنزل قبل التوقيع فقط لجس نبض الشارع العربي و مدى موافقته على مثل هذا الاتفاق طبعا الحكومات دائما تفوز ب99% لكن على الاقل -1 https://t.co/4CGZ6ExATc

— Ali H Al Hammadi (@ali3hassan) September 16, 2020

Translation: Now that this peace deal with the Zionists has been done I wish these countries would release a questionnaire on whether people support this agreement, although the supposed resolution is agreed before the signing, just to feel the pulse of the Arab street and the extent to which it approves of such an agreement. 

Last week, the UAE Anti-Normalisation Association held a seminar with a group of experts, writers and intellectuals who stressed the importance of fighting normalisation and promoting awareness to ensure that all attempts to build mutual relations between Arabs and Israel are addressed.

The association has also pledged to set up more activities and events in the near future in its fight against normalisation.

Crackdown on anti-normalisation activists

The number of Emirati critics of the normalisation deal has been less noticeable online than those in support of it, due to the crackdown against dissent in the Gulf country.

Many of the Emiratis who have voiced their rejection of their country’s latest agreement have been based abroad, where they run less of a risk of being imprisoned for expressing their views.

نعرف أن التوقيع لن يحرر فلسطين ولن يوقف اتفاقية السلام بين (الإمارات/البحرين) وإسرائيل، ولكنه اعترافنا الثابت بعدالة هذه القضية وبأننا #خليجيون_ضد_التطبيع https://t.co/DE0Skw5KrU pic.twitter.com/sMVcbrhnpG

— آلاء (@alaa_q) September 15, 2020

Translation: We know that the signatures will not free Palestine and will not stop the peace agreement between (UAE/ Bahrain) and Israel, but it is our firm recognition of the justice of this issue and that we are Gulf Arabs against normalisation.

حتى يعلم الجميع أن #التطبيع_الاماراتي_الاسرائيلي ليس قضية فتح علاقات و إنما هو انسلاخ عقائدي وإنساني وذوبان في المشروع الصهيوني العنصري الإرهابي.
ولا يمكن تفسير هذا السلوك بحسن النية،وإنما تعمد لنقض أسس الدولة وترسيخ عداء بينها وبين المجتمع العربي والإسلامي. https://t.co/9nfRTLqiWu

— أحمد الشيبة النعيمي (@Ahmad_Alshaibah) September 17, 2020

Translation: So that everyone knows, the UAE-Israeli normalisation is not a question of opening relations, but an ideological and human immersion into the Zionist racist and terrorist project. This behaviour cannot be interpreted in good faith, but rather to break the foundations of the State and establish animosity between it and the Arab and Muslim society.

هذا هو وفد العار الذي سيخلده التاريخ في صفحاته السوداء
وفد اتفاقية التطبيع بين #محمد_بن_زايد و #نتنياهو
الوفد الذي ذهب ليبصم على اتفاقية الخيانة للأمة ومقدساتها.
الوفد الذي يجعل من المحتل عنوان "السلام"
ويجعل من المقاومة الشرعية إرهاب.
تبت يدا من خطط ووقع#التطبيع_خيانة#الإمارات pic.twitter.com/jnNJqZhZ5V

— محمد بن صقر (@saqer2030) September 14, 2020

Translation: This is the delegation of shame that history will immortalise in its black pages. The delegation of the normalisation agreement between Mohamed Bin Zayed and [Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin] Netanyahu. The delegation that went to sign off on the agreement that betrayed our nation and holy places and who label legitimate resistance as terrorism. May the hands of those who planned and signed be ruined.

According to Emirati human rights activist Hamad al-Shamsi, who lives in exile in Turkey and was sentenced in absentia to 15 years in prison for his links to the al-Islah, an Islamist movement connected to the Muslim Brotherhood, those who oppose normalisation in the UAE could face a 10-year prison sentence and a fine of 1m dirhams ($27,220).

A number of activists and human rights lawyers in the Emirates have been imprisoned or silenced for voicing support for democratic rights that conflict with the views of UAE rulers.

More than 100 peaceful activists and critics of the UAE government have been imprisoned on vague national security-related charges since 2011, with at least 67 of them still in prison today, according to Amnesty International.

Bahraini citizens have been more vocal in their rejection both online and during protests in the country, despite the ongoing crackdown on dissidents, which has seen hundreds imprisoned since 2011 for demanding reforms in the kingdom.

لافتات علقت في شوارع البحرين اليوم#بحرينيون_ضد_التطبيع pic.twitter.com/zQo77rLYOv

— عبير الخليل🇵🇸 (@abeer_alkalil8) September 13, 2020

Translation: Banners hung in the streets of Bahrain today #Bahrainis_Against_Normalisation

Many have been accused by the state of being Iranian mercenaries and have had their citizenships stripped.

*

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 IMEMC

A less dramatic day, but marked by a brazen and persistent display of this US Government’s insistence that it has the right to prosecute any journalist and publication, anywhere in the world, for publication of US classified information. This explicitly underlay the entire line of questioning in the afternoon session.

The morning opened with Professor John Sloboda of Iraq Body Count. He is a Professor of Psychology and musicologist who founded Iraq Body Count together with Damit Hardagan, and was speaking to a joint statement by both of them.

Professor Sloboda stated that Iraq Body Count attempted to build a database of civilian deaths in Iraq based on compilation of credible published material. Their work had been recognised by the UN, EU and the Chilcot Inquiry. He stated that protection of the civilian population was the duty of parties at war or in occupation, and targeting of civilians was a war crime.

Wikileaks’ publication of the Iraqi War Logs had been the biggest single accession of material to the Iraq Body Count and added 15,000 more civilian deaths, plus provided extra detail on many deaths which were already recorded. The logs or Significant Activity Reports were daily patrol records, which recorded not only actions and consequent deaths the patrols were involved in, but also deaths which they came across.

After the publication of the Afghan war Logs, Iraq Body Count (IBC) had approached Wikileaks to be involved in the publication of the Iraq equivalent material. They thought they had accumulated a particular expertise which would be helpful. Julian Assange had been enthusiastic and had invited them to join the media consortium involved in handling the material.

There were 400,000 documents in the Iraq war logs. Assange had made very plain that great weight must be placed on document security and with careful redaction to prevent, in particular, names from being revealed which could identify individuals who might come to harm. It was however impossible to redact that volume of documents by hand. So Wikileaks had sought help in developing software that would help. IBC’s Hamit Dardagan had devised the software which solved the problem.

Essentially, this stripped the documents of any word not in the English dictionary. Thus arabic names were removed, for example. In addition other potential identifiers such as occupations were removed. A few things like key acronyms were added to the dictionary. The software was developed and tested on sample batches of telegrams until it worked well. Julian Assange was determined redaction should be effective and resisted pressure from media partners to speed up the process. Assange always meticulously insisted on redaction. On balance, they over-redacted for caution. Sloboda could only speak on the Iraq War Logs, but these were published by Wikileaks in a highly redacted form which was wholly appropriate.

Joel Smith then stood up to cross-examine for the US Government. I am sure Mr Smith is a lovely man. But sadly his looks are against him. You would certainly not enter an alleyway if he were anywhere nearby. The first time I saw him I presumed he was heading for the dock in court 11.

As is the standard prosecution methodology in this hearing, Mr Smith set out to trash the reputation of the witness. [I found this rather ironic, as Iraq Body Count has been rather good for the US Government. The idea that in the chaos of war every civilian death is reported somewhere in local media is obviously nonsense. Each time the Americans flattened Fallujah and everyone in it, there was not some little journalist writing up the names of the thousands of dead on a miraculously surviving broadband connection. Iraq Body Count is a good verifiable minimum number of civilian deaths, but no more, and its grandiose claims have led it to be used as propaganda for the “war wasn’t that bad” brigade. My own view is that you can usefully add a zero to their figures. But I digress.]

Smith established that Sloboda’s qualifications are in psychology and musicology, that he had no expertise in military intelligence, classification and declassification of documents or protection of intelligence sources. Smith also established that Sloboda did not hold a US security clearance (and thus was in illegal possession of the information from the viewpoint of the US government). Sloboda had been given full access to all 400,000 Iraq War Logs shortly after his initial meeting with Assange. They had signed a non-disclosure agreement with the International Committee of Investigative Journalists. Four people at IBC had access. There was no formal vetting process.

To give you an idea of this cross-examination:

Smith Are you aware of jigsaw identification?
Sloboda It is the process of providing pieces of information which can be added together to discover an identity.
Smith Were you aware of this risk in publishing?
Sloboda We were. As I have said, we redacted not just non-English words but occupations and other such words that might serve as a clue.
Smith When did you first speak to Julian Assange?
Sloboda About July 2010.
Smith The Afghan War logs were published in July 2010. How long after that did you meet Assange?
Sloboda Weeks.
…..

Smith You talk of a responsible way of publishing. That would include not naming US informants?
Sloboda Yes.
Smith Your website attributes killings to different groups and factions within the state as well as some outside influences. That would indicate varied and multiple sources of danger to any US collaborators named in the documents.
Sloboda Yes.
Smith Your statement spoke of a steep learning curve from the Afghan war logs that had to be applied to the Iraq war logs. What does that mean?
Sloboda It means Wikileaks felt that mistakes were made in publishing the Afghan war logs that should not be repeated with the Iraq war logs.
Smith Those mistakes involved publication of names of sources, didn’t they?
Sloboda Possibly, yes. Or no. I don’t know. I had no involvement with the Afghan War logs.
Smith You were told there was time pressure to publish?
Sloboda Yes, I was told by Julian he was put under time pressure and I picked it up from other media partners.
Smith And it was IBC who came up with the software solution, not Assange?
Sloboda Yes.
Smith How long did it take to develop the software?
Sloboda A matter of weeks. It was designed and tested then refined and tested again and again. It was not ready by the original proposed publication date of the Iraq war logs, which is why the date was put back.
Smith Redaction then would remove all non-English words. But it would still leave vital clues to identities, like professions? They had to be edited by hand?
Sloboda No. I already said that professions were taken out. The software was written to do that.
Smith It would leave in buildings?
Sloboda No, other words like mosque were specifically removed by the software.
Smith But names which are also English words would be left in. Like Summers, for example.
Sloboda I don’t think there are any Iraqi names which are also English words.
Smith Dates, times, places?
Sloboda I don’t know.
Smith Street names?
Sloboda I don’t know.
[Sloboda was obviously disconcerted by Smith’s quickfire technique and had been rattled into firing back equally speedy and short answers. If you think about it a moment, Iraqi street names are generally not English words.]
Smith Vehicles?
Sloboda I don’t know.
Smith You said at a press conference that you had “merely scratched the surface” in looking at the 400,000 documents.
Sloboda Yes.
Smith You testified that Julian Assange shared your view that the Iraqi war logs should be published responsibly. But in a 2010 recorded interview at the Frontline Club, Mr Assange called it regrettable that informants were at risk, but said Wikileaks only had to avoid potential for unjust retribution; and those that had engaged in traitorous behaviour or had sold information ran their own risk. Can you comment?
Sloboda No. He never said anything like this to me.
Smith He never said he found the process of redaction disturbing?
Sloboda No, on the contrary. He said nothing at all like that to me. We had a complete meeting of minds on the importance of protection of individuals.
Smith Not all the logs related to civilian deaths?
Sloboda No. The logs put deaths in four categories. Civilian, host nation (Iraqi forces and police), friendly nation (coalition forces) and enemy. The logs did not always detail the actions in which deaths occurred. Sometimes the patrols were the cause, sometimes they detailed what they came across. We moved police deaths from the host nation to the civilian category.

[One of the problems I personally have with IBC’s approach is that they accepted US forces’ massive over-description of the dead as “hostile”. Obviously when US forces killed someone they had an incentive to list them as “hostile” and not “civilian”.]

Smith Are you aware that when the Iraq Significant Activity Reports (war logs) were released online in October 2010, they did in fact contain unredacted names of co-operating individuals?
Sloboda No, I am not aware of that.
Smith now read an affidavit from a new player [Dwyer?] which stated that the publication of the SAR’s put co-operating individuals in grave danger. Dwyer purported to reference two documents which contained names. Dwyer also stated that “military and diplomatic experts” confirmed individuals had been put in grave danger.
Smith How do you explain that?
Sloboda I have no knowledge. It’s just an assertion. I haven’t seen the documents referred to.
Smith Might this all be because Mr Assange “took a cavalier attitude to redaction”?
Sloboda No, definitely not. I saw the opposite.
Smith So why did it happen?
Sloboda I don’t know if it did happen. I haven’t seen the documents referred.

That ended Professor Sloboda’s evidence. He was not re-examined by the defence.

I have no idea who “Dwyer” – name as heard – is or what evidential value his affidavit might hold. It is a constant tactic of the prosecution to enter highly dubious information into the record by putting it to witnesses who have not heard of it. The context would suggest that “Dwyer” is a US government official. Given that he claimed to be quoting two documents he was alleging Wikileaks had published online, it is also not clear to me why those published documents were not produced to the court and to Professor Sloboda.

We now come to the afternoon session. I have a difficulty here. The next witness was Carey Shenkman, an academic lawyer in New York who has written a book on the history of the Espionage Act of 1917 and its use against journalists. Now, partly because Shenkman was a lawyer being examined by lawyers, at times his evidence included lots of case names being thrown around, the significance of which was not entirely clear to the layman. I often could not catch the names of the cases. Even if I produced a full transcript, large chunks of it would be impenetrable to those from a non-legal background – including me – without a week to research it. So if this next reporting is briefer and less satisfactory than usual, it is not the fault of Carey Shenkman.

This evidence was nonetheless extremely important because of the clear intent shown by the US government in cross examination to now interpret the Espionage Act in a manner that will enable them to prosecute journalists wholesale.

Shenkman began his evidence by explaining that the 1917 Espionage Act under which Assange was charged dates from the most repressive period in US history, when Woodrow Wilson had taken the US into the First World War against massive public opposition. It had been used to imprison those who campaigned against the war, particularly labour leaders. Wilson himself had characterised it as “the firm hand of stern repression”. Its drafting was extraordinarily broad and it was on its surface a weapon of political persecution.

The Pentagon Papers case had prompted Edgar and Schmidt to write a famous analysis of the Espionage Act published in the Colombia Law Review in 1973. It concluded that there was incredible confusion about the meaning and scope of the law and capacity of the government to use it. It gave enormous prosecutorial discretion on who to prosecute and depended on prosecutors behaving wisely and with restraint. There was no limit on strict liability. The third or fifth receiver in the chain of publication of classified information could be prosecuted, not just the journalist or publisher but the person who sells or even buys or reads the newspaper.

Shenkman went through three historic cases of potential criminal prosecution of media under the Espionage Act. All had involved direct Presidential interference and the active instigation of the Attorney General. All had been abandoned before the Grand Jury stage because the Justice Department had opposed proceeding. Their primary concern had always been how to distinguish media outlets. If you prosecuted one, you had to prosecute them all.

[An aside for my regular readers – that is a notion of fairness entirely absent from James Wolffe, Alex Prentice and the Crown Office in Scotland.]

The default position had become that the Espionage Act was used against the whistleblower but not against the publisher or journalist, even when the whistleblower had worked closely with the journalist. Obama had launched the largest ever campaign of prosecution of whistleblowers under the Espionage Act. He had not prosecuted any journalist for publishing the information they leaked.

Claire Dobbin then rose to cross-examine on behalf of the US Government, which evidently is not short of a penny or two to spend on multiple counsel. Mrs Dobbin looks a pleasant and unthreatening individual. It was therefore surprising that when she spoke, out boomed a voice that you would imagine as emanating from the offspring of Ian Paisley and Arlene Foster. This impression was of course reinforced by her going on to advocate for harsh measures of repression.

Ms Dobbin started by stating that Mr Shenkman had worked for Julian Assange. Shenkman clarified that he had worked in the firm of the great lawyer Michael Ratner, who represented Mr Assange. But that firm had been dissolved on Mr Ratner’s death in 2016 and Shenkman now worked on his own behalf. This all had no bearing on the history and use of the Espionage Act, on which he had been researching in collaboration with a well-established academic expert.

Dobbin than asked whether Shenkman was on Assange’s legal team. He replied no. Dobbin pointed to an article he had written with two others, of which the byline stated that Shenkman was a member of Julian Assange’s legal team. Shenkman replied he was not responsible for the byline. He was a part of the team only in the sense that he had done a limited amount of work in a very junior capacity for Michael Ratner, who represented Assange, that related to Assange. He was “plankton” in Ratner’s firm.

Dobbin said that the article had claimed that the UK was illegally detaining Assange in the Ecuadorean Embassy. Shenkman replied that was the view of the UN Working Group on Arbitrary Detention, with which he concurred. Dobbin asked if he stood by that opinion. Shenkman stated that he did, but it bore no relationship to his research on the history of the Espionage Act on which he was giving evidence.

Dobbin asked whether, having written that article, he really believed he could give objective evidence as an expert witness. Shenkman said yes he could, on the history of use of the Espionage Act. It was five years since he had left the Ratner firm. Lawyers had all kinds of clients that very loosely related in one way or another to other work they did. They had to learn to put aside and be objective.

Dobbin said that the 2013 article stated that Assange’s extradition to the United States was almost certain. What was the basis of this claim? Shenkman replied that he had not been the main author of that article, with which three people were credited. He simply could not recall that phrase at this time or the thought behind it. He wished to testify on the history of the Espionage Act, of which he had just written the first historical study.

Dobbin asked Shenkman if he was giving evidence pro bono? He replied no, he was appearing as a paid expert witness to speak about the Espionage Act.

Dobbin said that the defence claimed that the Obama administration had taken the decision not to prosecute Assange. But successive court statements showed that an investigation was still ongoing (Dobbin took him through several of these, very slowly). If Assange had really believed the Obama administration had dropped the idea of prosecution, then why would he have stayed in the Embassy?

Shenkman replied that he was very confused why Dobbin would think he had any idea what Assange knew or thought at any moment in time. Why did she keep asking him questions about matters with which he had no connection at all and was not giving evidence?

But if she wanted his personal view, there had of course been ongoing investigations since 2010. It was standard Justice Department practice not to close off the possibility of future charges. But if Holder and Obama had wanted to prosecute, wouldn’t they have brought charges before they left office and got the kudos, rather than leave it for Trump?

Dobbin then asked a three part question that rather sapped my will to live. Shenkman sensibly ignored it and asked his own question instead. “Did I anticipate this indictment? No, I never thought we would see something as political as this. It is quite extraordinary. A lot of scholars are shocked.”

Dobbin now shifted ground to the meat of the government position. She invited Shenkman to agree with a variety of sentences cherry-picked from US court judgements over the years, all of which she purported to show an untrammelled right to put journalists in jail under the Espionage Act. She started with the Morison Case in the fourth appellate circuit and a quote to the effect that “a government employee who steals information is not entitled to use the First Amendment as a shield”. She invited Shenkman to agree. He declined to do so, stating that particular circumstances of each case must be taken into consideration and whistleblowing could not simply be characterised as stealing. Contrary opinions exist, including a recent 9th appellate circuit judgement over Snowden. So no, he did not agree. Besides Morison was not about a publisher. The Obama prosecutions showed the historic pattern of prosecuting the leaker not the publisher.

Dobbin then quoted a Supreme Court decision with a name I did not catch, and a quote to the effect that “the First Amendment cannot cover criminal conduct”. She then fired another case at him and another quote. She challenged him to disagree with the Supreme Court. Shenkman said the exercise she was engaged in was not valid. She was picking individual sentences from judgements in complex cases, which involved very different allegations. This present case was not about illegal wiretapping by the media like one she quoted, for example.

Dobbin then asked Shenkman whether unauthorised access to government databases is protected under the First Amendment. He replied that this was a highly contentious issue. There were, for example, a number of conflicting judgements in different appellate circuits about what constituted unauthorised access.

Dobbin asked if hacking a password hash would be unauthorised access. Shenkman replied this was not a simple question. In the present case, the evidence was the password was not needed to obtain documents. And could she define “hacking” in law? Dobbin said she was speaking in layman’s terms. Shenkman replied that she should not do that. We were in a court of law and he was expected to show extreme precision in his answers. She should meet the same standard in her questions.

Finally Dobbin unveiled her key point. Surely all these contentious points were therefore matters to be decided in the US courts after extradition? No, replied Shenkman. Political offences were a bar to extradition from the UK under UK law, and his evidence went to show that the decision to prosecute Assange under the Espionage Act was entirely political.

Mrs Dobbin will resume her cross examination of Mr Shenkman tomorrow.

Comment

I have two main points to make. The first is that Shenkman was sent a 180 page evidence bundle from the prosecution on the morning of his testimony, at 3am his time, before giving evidence at 9am. A proportion of this was entirely new material to him. He is then questioned on it. This keeps happening to every witness. On top of which, like almost every witness, his submitted statement addressed the first superseding indictment not the last minute second superseding indictment which introduces some entirely new offences. This is a ridiculous procedure.

My second is that, having been very critical of Judge Baraitser, it would be churlish of me not to note that there seems to be some definite change in her attitude to the case as the prosecution makes a complete horlicks of it. Whether this makes any long term difference I doubt. But it is pleasant to witness.

It is also fair to note that Baraitser has so far resisted strong US pressure to prevent the defence witnesses being heard at all. She has decided to hear all the evidence before deciding what is and is not admissible, against the prosecution desire that almost all the defence witnesses are excluded as irrelevant or unqualified. As she will make that decision when considering her judgement, that is why the prosecution spend so much time attacking the witnesses ad hominem rather than addressing their actual evidence. That may well be a mistake.

*

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

Featured image is by thierry ehrmann | CC BY 2.0

The extradition trial of Julian Assange at the Old Bailey struck similar notes to the previous day’s proceedings: the documentary work and practise of WikiLeaks, the method of redactions, and the legacy of exposing war crimes.  In the afternoon, the legal teams returned to well combed themes: testimony on the politicised nature of the Assange prosecution, and the dangers posed by the extra-territorial application of the Extradition Act of 1917 to publishing. 

Assange the discerning publisher (for the defence) or reckless discloser (for the prosecution) were recurrent features.  This time, it was John Sloboda, co-founder of the British NGO, Iraq Body Count, who took the stand.  IBC had its origins in a noble sentiment: to give “dignity to the memory of those killed.”  To know how loved ones perished sates a “fundamental human need”, and aids “processes of truth, justice, and reconciliation.”  The outfit “maintains the world’s largest public database of violent civilian deaths since the 2003 invasion, as well as a separate running total which includes combatants.”

Central to Sloboda’s testimony was the importance of the Iraq War Logs, released in October 2010. As IBC puts it, the logs did not constitute the first release of US military data on Iraqi casualties but were pioneering, making it “possible to examine such data and to compare and combine it with other sources in a way that adds appreciably to public knowledge.”  The compilation of 400,000 Significant Activity reports put together by the US Army comprised, in Sloboda’s words, “the single largest contribution to public knowledge about civilian casualties in Iraq.”  They were, he told the court, “a very meticulous record of military patrols in streets in every area of Iraq, noting and documenting what they saw.”  Some 15,000 previously unknown civilian deaths were duly identified.

In terms of collaboration, IBC approached WikiLeaks in the aftermath of publishing the Afghan War Diary.  An invitation from Assange to join a media consortium including The Guardian, Der Spiegel and The New York Times followed.  “It was impressed on us from our early encounters with Julian Assange that the aim was a very stringent redaction of documents to ensure that no information damaging to individuals was present.” 

The redaction of the logs was part of a “painstaking process” that took “weeks”.  Given the physical impossibility of manually redacting 400,000 documents in timely fashion, “The call was out to find a method that would be effective and would not take forever.”  Sloboda made mention of a computer program developed by a colleague, one that would remove names from the documents.  “It was a process of writing the software, testing it on logs, finding bugs, and running it again until the process was completed.”  

The publication release was delayed, as the software in question “was not ready by the original planned publication date”.  Modifications were also affected in terms of how thoroughly redaction might take place of “different categories of information”: the removal of architectural features (mosques, for instance), or expertise or professions of individuals.

Pressure was placed on WikiLeaks by the other media partners to publish.  Their contribution to the redaction process had been sparse and manual: a mere sampling.  Assange held firm against such impatience: redactions had to take place systematically; “the entire database,” recalled Sloboda, was “to be released together.”  If anything, the final product was one of overcautious sifting, one overly pruned to prevent any dangers.  

For all that, Sloboda insisted in his witness statement that a decade on, the Iraq War Logs “remain the only source of information regarding many thousands of violent civilian deaths in Iraq between 2004 and 2009.”  The position of IBC was simple: “civilian casualty data should always be made public.”  In doing so, no harm hard occurred to a single individual, despite repeated assertions by the US government to the contrary, not least because of the thorough redaction process.  “It could well be argued, therefore, that by making this information public, [Chelsea] Manning and Assange were carrying out a duty on behalf of the victims and the public at large that the US government was failing to carry out.” 

Joel Smith QC for the prosecution duly probed Sloboda on his experience in the field of classifying or declassifying documents, and whether he had earned his stripes dealing with corroborating sources in an oppressive regime.  Such questioning had a simple purpose: to anathemise the civilian or journalist publisher of documents best left to agents and thumbing bureaucrats.  Had Sloboda and staff at the IBC been appropriately vetted?  “We paid a visit to the offices of the Bureau of Investigative Journalism and were asked to sign a non-disclosure agreement with the then director Iain Overton.  I don’t remember any vetting process.”   

Sloboda, in his written submission, conceded that the previous publications by WikiLeaks, in particular the Afghan War Diary, came with its host of challenges, a “steep learning curve for all of those concerned.”  To Smith’s questioning, he revealed that “there was a sense there needed to be a better process in the next round”, the redaction process having not quite been up to scratch.

Another line of the prosecution’s inquiry was the accuracy of the redaction.  Was there human agency at any time in reviewing the war logs to avoid any “jigsaw risk” enabling the identification of individuals?  Checking did take place, answered Sloboda, “but no human could go through them all.” 

Smith, as with other prosecutors, persevered with the Assange as ruthless motif, this time asking if Sloboda was aware of comments allegedly made at the Frontline Club for journalists.   The transcript of the event supposedly has the publisher claiming that WikiLeaks nursed no obligation to protect sources in leaked documents except in cases of unjust reprisal.  “Today is the first time that I have read the transcript.”  Sloboda could “remember nothing like that in our conversations about the Iraq logs.”

The possibility that Iraqi lives were probably put at risk was aired, with Smith reading a witness statement from assistant US attorney Kellen S. Dwyer that the Iraq War Logs had named local Iraqis who had been informants for the US military.  (Dwyer’s competence might be gauged by the “cut and paste” mistake he made in revealing that Assange had been charged under seal.)  To this unprovable assertion or assessment (qualifying risk and harm), Sloboda expressed surprise; if the reference was to “the heavily redacted logs published in October 2010, this is the first time I have heard of it.”

Human rights attorney and historian Carey Shenkman followed to testify via videolink.  Shenkman, a keen student of the historical and often invidious use of the Espionage Act, was in the employ of the late and formidable Michael Ratner, president emeritus of the Center for Constitutional Rights.  Shenkman’s written testimony is withering of the statute now being used with such relish against Assange. 

Much said by Shenkman would be familiar to those even mildly acquainted with that period of executive overreach.  It arose from “one of the most politically repressive” times in US history, a nasty product of the Woodrow Wilson administration’s fondness of targeting dissidents.  “During World War I, federal prosecutors considered the mere circulation of anti-war materials a violation of the law.  Nearly 2,500 individuals were prosecuted under the Act on account of their dissenting opposition to US entry into the war.”  Among them were such notables as William “Big Bill” Haywood of the International Workers of the World, film producer Robert Goldstein and, with much disgrace, Eugene Debs, presidential candidate for the Socialist Party. 

The word “espionage”, he explained to Judge Vanessa Baraitser, was a misnomer.  “Although the law allowed for the prosecution of spies, the conduct it prescribed went well beyond spying.”  The Act became the primary “tool for what President Wilson dubbed his administration’s ‘firm hand of stern repression’ against opposition to US participation in the war.”

As Shenkman noted in his statement to the court, the Act targeted spying for foreign enemies in wartime and was intended to address “such matters as US control of arm shipments and its ports”.  But it also “reflected the government’s desire to control information and public opinion regarding the war effort.”

Its broadness lies in how it criminalises information: not merely “national security information” but all material falling under the umbrella of “national defence” information.  Shenkman has previously argued that public interest defences focused on the positive outcomes of disclosures be given to whistleblowers and hacktivists.  But for the First Amendment advocate, the Espionage Act remains fiendishly controversial when it comes to the press, the reason, he testified, why there was never “an indictment of a US publisher under the law for the publication of secrets.  Accordingly, there has never been an extraterritorial indictment of a non-US publisher under the Act.” 

The idea of prosecuting publishers involving grand juries had been flirted with in some cases, but never seen through.  Shenkman offered a few highlights.  The Chicago Tribune faced the possibility in 1942 when it published secrets after the Battle of Midway. The effort crumbled when the prosecutor in that case, William Mitchell, expressed doubts that the Espionage Act extended to newspapers.  The Truman administration had also tentatively tested these waters, arresting three journalists and three government sources for conspiracy to violate the Act.  No indictments followed, though it emerged that political pressure had been brought to bear on the Justice Department from “multiple factions within the Truman administration.”  An uproar led to a jettisoning of the case and the imposition of small fines.

Previous examples are also noted in Shenkman’s court submission, including the threatened prosecutions of Seymour Hersh during the Ford administration, and James Bamford in 1981.  Dick Cheney, future dark puppeteer of the George W. Bush administration, felt it would be “a public relations disaster” to target Hersh.

According to Shenkman, a chilling change in the winds took place during the Obama administration, if only briefly.  Fox News journalist James Rosen had been named as an “aider, abettor, and co-conspirator” in a Justice Department case against Stephen Kim, a State Department employee.  The effort stalled and Eric Holder’s remarks on resigning as Attorney General in 2014 spoke of deep regret that Rosen had ever been named.  Journalists felt relief. 

Then came the Assange indictment.  “I never thought based on history we’d see an indictment that looked like this.”  It was part of the Trump administration’s desire “to escalate prosecutions as well as ‘jailing journalists who publish classified information.’  The Espionage Act’s breath provides such a means.” 

Prosecutor Claire Dobbin was blunter than her colleague, preoccupied with attacking Shenkman’s credibility for having worked with Ratner when representing Assange.  Little time was spent on the substance of Shenkman’s submission; instead, the prosecution sought to convince the witness that the case against Assange would be best heard on US soil.

What mattered to Dobbin was taking the politics out of the prosecution.  Surely, she put to Shenkman, he could still believe in 2015 that the US would bring charges against Assange.  The less than subtle insinuation here is that a refusal to do so under the Obama administration was merely a lull rather than an abandonment of interest.  “[O]ftentimes,” replied Shenkman, “these things are left to simmer, but ultimately, an indictment was not brought.”  Had President Barack Obama and Attorney General Holder wished to pursue Assange, they would have surely shown a measure of eagerness to do so.

More could be said about the politicisation thesis: the singular use of the Espionage Act, the framing of the charges, and the timing of the indictment, all pointing to “a highly politicized prosecution.”

Prosecutorial tactics switched to hair splitting.  What constituted the stealing of national security and national defence information?  Would that be covered by the First Amendment?  Depends, countered Shenkman, reminding Dobbin of the recent 9^th Circuit Court of Appeals decision in United States v Moalin accepting the merit of Edward Snowden’s disclosures on unwarranted surveillance by the National Security Agency, despite deriving from an instance of theft.

There was a divergence of views on the issue of “hacking” as well.  “Are you saying that hacking government databases is protected under the First Amendment?” shot Dobbin.  Again, more clarity was needed, suggested Shenkman.  The Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, for instance, makes no reference to the term.  Nuance is required: “crack a password’ and “hack a computer” have “scary” connotations; in other instances there would be “ways the First Amendment could be relevant.”

Given such disagreement and lack of clarity of terms, Dobbin pushed Shenkman to agree that a US court would be the most appropriate body to determine the issue. “No,” came the emphatic answer.  The way the indictment had been drafted was political.  The prosecution had, effectively, dithered.

*

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: Julian Assange court sketch, October 21, 2019, supplied by Julia Quenzler.

The misleadingly described “peace” deal between “Israel” and the UAE will enable the self-professed “Jewish State” to use the latter’s military and civilian port infrastructure in the Gulf of Aden, thus challenging recent Turkish inroads in this part of the world and allowing Tel Aviv to project itself as a trans-regional power of significance, especially in East Africa and eventually everywhere else on the continent too.

From Diplomatic “Peace” To Military Partnership

Covid-19 cases are on the rise again in the U.S.

Why are Dr. Anthony Fauci’s NIAID, the FDA, and the CDC so blind to the real-world success of HCQ+azithromycin?  

If this combination is the simple, cheap, safe way to prevent hospitalization, would government agencies, Big Pharma, and the corporate media want to know?

If yes, then the proposed solution from a prominent Yale epidemiologist would prevent hundreds of thousands of deaths, and help the world to recovery.

Real-World Research on Hydroxychloroquine

During February and March of 2020, there was a lot of excitement in the medical community[i] because early indications in China and France seemed to show a cure for people in the early stage of Covid-19. The ancient anti-malarial drug quinine (aka chloroquine, aka hydroxychloroquine, aka HCQ) had been repurposed to show very promising results against Covid-19 when given to outpatients with early symptoms.

On March 21 all that changed when President Donald Trump tweeted:

“HYDROXYCHLOROQUINE & AZITHROMYCIN, taken together, have a real chance to be one of the biggest game changers in the history of medicine.”[ii]

HYDROXYCHLOROQUINE & AZITHROMYCIN, taken together, have a real chance to be one of the biggest game changers in the history of medicine. The FDA has moved mountains – Thank You! Hopefully they will BOTH (H works better with A, International Journal of Antimicrobial Agents)…..

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) March 21, 2020

Hydroxycholoroquine, made from the ancient, cheap, and plentiful anti-malarial drug quinine, had suddenly become highly politicized. Its industry rivals and the media vigorously decried a business president, who, not a doctor, had dashed hopes for a profitable magic-bullet drug by tweeting an almost-free solution.

On May 22, hydroxychloroquine (HCQ), which has been on the WHO list of essential medicines since 1977, was sent into further freefall by a deceptive, industry-backed Lancet article claiming that hydroxychloroquine was causing heart problems in hospitalized Covid patients across six continents.[iii]

Headlines blared, hydroxychloroquine clinical trials were called off, and the World Health Organization recommended that physicians everywhere stop prescribing HCQ for Covid-19.

By May 27, Dr. Harvey Risch, Professor of Epidemiology at the Yale Schools of Public Health and Medicine, had confronted this disaster. He issued an urgent call through the top-ranked American Journal of Epidemiology for hydroxychloroquine + azithromycin “to be widely available and promoted immediately for physicians to prescribe.”[iv]

“Five studies,” he wrote from Yale, “including two controlled clinical trials, had demonstrated significant major outpatient treatment efficacy.” Incredibly, this call for immediate action published in America’s top epidemiology journal did not appear in the mainstream news.[v]

Instead, the opposite occurred. Although international protest drove the Lancet to retract its fraudulent May 22 article on June 4, the retraction made few headlines.  In those two short weeks the U.S. media, with one voice, established HCQ as “controversial,” “anecdotal,” and even “dangerous” when paired with Gilead Science’s highly publicized golden goose, remdesivir.

On May 21, the day before the Lancet’s HCQ attack appeared, the ever-helpful New York Times had issued a timely update of its massive 7,500-word hit piece against Dr. Didier Raoult, the French microbiologist whose published studies in March and April had preceded Yale’s profit-threatening call for sanity.

What was the Covid-HCQ background in China and France?

Dr. Didier Raoult, M.D., PhD., age 68, has long been France’s most cited microbiologist. For 35 years he has been professor of infectious diseases at the Aix-Marseille University in Marseille. Twelve years ago he founded, and is director of, the university’s Institute of Emerging Tropical Diseases.

Raoult is co-author of 2,300 published, peer-reviewed articles, in which he follows classical research standards by stating plagiarism checks, conflict of interest declarations, and funding declarations.

He is married to a psychiatrist and they have three children. In a July 7 BFM-TV interview he said that his philosophy it to treat patients like family.  He also has three laboratories in Senegal, West Africa.

A vacation village near Marseille in Carry le Rouet was used to quarantine French citizens returning from Wuhan in case they needed treatment. President Macron visited Raoult on April 9.

What had Raoult learned from China?

During the early months of the pandemic, Raoult discovered studies from China showing that the repurposed anti-malarial generic drugs chloroquine and hydroxychloroquine were found to be effective in arresting the SARS-CoV-2 coronavirus in vitro (in the laboratory).[vi]

Further Chinese studies followed, including randomized clinical trials, showing that when administered to patients in combination with the antibiotic azithromycin, during the early days of the infection, their symptoms would most often resolve.[vii]

It thus seemed that almost anyone with early symptoms who tested positive could benefit from effective, affordable prophylactic treatment.

Raoult welcomed the people of Marseille for HCQ-azithromycin treatment and they lined up (socially distanced) around the block outside his 200-staff clinic.

This led to published studies. A first group of 80 patients showed a 50-fold benefit, and a larger group of 1,061 patients showed a similar result while achieving a mortality rate of only 0.5% – and with no cardiac toxicity.[viii]

Recent HCQ efficacy studies, unreported by the mainstream media

Two new independent U.S. studies have come to similar conclusions as Dr. Rault in Marseille and Dr. Risch at Yale:

• On July 1, 2020, the Henry Ford Health System in Southeast Michigan reported that a peer-reviewed retrospective study of 2,541 Detroit cases showed up to 71% mortality reduction in early treatment, using HCQ and azithromycin.[ix]
• In a June 30, 2020 study, Dr. Takahisa Mikami and his team at the Icahn School of Medicine, Mount Sinai, New York, analyzed the outcomes of 6493 patients who had confirmed Covid-19 and found that hydroxychloroquine decreased the mortality in hospitalized patients.[x]

The Corporate Profits­ Triad: Big Pharma, Media, Government

The Government arm of the triad

1. Conflicts of interest: the corporate fox in the government henhouse

During recent decades, the health role of government, which is to serve and protect its citizens, has been muddied by increasing corporate representation and influence in higher education and on government advisory committees and foundations. The drug industry, for example, funds university research, pours millions into medical schools, has personnel appointments to university faculties, and supplies textbooks to students.

In 1995 Congress established the private CDC Foundation to support the work of the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).

In public-private partnerships, there is a thin line between support and conflict of interest. Susan Perry writes of the Gilead Tamiflu scandal in 2015:

“Unbeknownst to many, the CDC receives substantial industry funding through the CDC Foundation. A spokesperson said that over the past three years the foundation has received an average of about $6.3 [million] from the industry a year, 21% of the foundation’s overall funding. Since 1995 the foundation has received funding from more than 150 corporate “partners,” including Gilead, which holds the patent on oseltamivir [Tamiflu], as well as Genentech and Roche, the drug’s manufacturers.”[xi]

The creation of the CDC Foundation in 1995 altered the make-up of the highly respected CDC as a purely a tax-supported agency belonging to, and financed by, the people it served.

Dozens of pharmaceutical companies, including Gilead Sciences Inc., contribute millions of dollars to the CDC Foundation each year.[xii]

2. Anthony Fauci’s strange position on hydroxychloroquine

On April 4, a major fight erupted at a meeting of the White House Coronavirus Task Force, when economics advisor Peter Navarro passed around file folders, pointing out that overseas hydroxychloroquine studies showed “clear therapeutic efficacy.” The government’s top infectious diseases specialist, Dr. Anthony Fauci, countered that there was only anecdotal evidence that HCQ works.[xiii]

The evidence above shows that Fauci was wrong.  Navarro was furious and a heated argument ensued.

As the head of the $5.9 billion National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID), Fauci should have known better – he should have known about the clinical trials, case reports, and observational studies in the medical literature. And he must certainly have known that it is not ethical to perform placebo-controlled studies during a pandemic:  if the drug saves lives, some of the placebo people will die – a point often made by Professor Raoult.

Nor did Fauci mention real-world treatment guidelines. An April 17 article from the “Elsevier Public Health Emergency Collection” shows that government guidelines in Ireland, Saudi Arabia, and Egypt list chloroquine and hydroxychloroquine as the first line of defense for mild-to-moderate Covid-19. The U.S. guideline listed only remdesivir as the first-line defense.[xiv]

Dr. Fauci should have known about, and mentioned, such national guidelines beyond the United States.

But most particularly, Fauci should have known about the two most critical reasoning aspects regarding hydroxychloroquine:

It is only recommended with azithromycin or doxycycline, and only in an early illness outpatient setting in order to stop the infection before hospitalization becomes necessary.[xv]

The studies above show that this is not rocket science. Why is Dr. Fauci still talking about anecdotal evidence?

Why did he not retract what he told CNN on Wednesday, May 27, referring to what became the May 22 Lancet scandal?

“Clearly the scientific data is really quite evident now about the lack of efficacy for it.”[xvi]

The corporate arm of the triad: Gilead’s checkered past

To begin with a snapshot of where Gilead’s remdesivir studies stood when on June 29 the US DHSS purchased $1.6 billion worth (500,000 doses, the world supply until the end of August) – the excerpt below from a June 24 article in the British Medical Journal assesses the problems:

“A serious imbalance in covid-19 research strongly favours the study of drug treatments over non-drug interventions, with many studies too small or too weak to produce reliable results.  Equally concerning is the release of partial or preliminary findings before peer review—often through commercial press releases—that is distorting public perceptions, ongoing evaluations efforts, and political responses to the pandemic.

Remdesivir is a key example. The antiviral drug, made by US company Gilead, was unapproved at the start of the pandemic, but in early April the New England Journal of Medicine published a small descriptive study of a compassionate use scheme for patients with covid-19. Gilead funded the study, a third of the authors were Gilead employees, and Gilead’s press release reported “clinical improvement in 68% of patients in this limited dataset.”  Despite being a non-randomised, uncontrolled, company funded study of just 53 patients, media headlines described “hopeful” signs and reported “two thirds” of patients showing improvement.[xvii]

Two weeks later, the Lancet published a randomised placebo controlled trial of remdesivir from China, finding no statistically significant clinical benefit in the primary outcome of time to clinical improvement. Twelve per cent of participants taking remdesivir stopped treatment early because of adverse events, compared with 5% taking placebo. The trial was stopped before meeting recruitment targets.”[xviii]

The only study demonstrating even marginal efficacy shows remdesivir to reduce hospital recovery times 31%, from 15 days to 11 days.[xix]  In light of this benefit, Gilead’s Chairman Daniel Oday explained on June 29 how the company had priced the drug – which had little to do with its cost of $10 per dose to manufacture,[xx] or concern for the cost to the patient, but everything to do with what the market of desperate governments during a pandemic would bear:

“In normal circumstances, we would price a medicine according to the value it provides. The first results from the NIAID study in hospitalized patients with COVID-19 showed that remdesivir shortened time to recovery by an average of four days. Taking the example of the United States, earlier hospital discharge would result in hospital savings of approximately $12,000 per patient. Even just considering these immediate savings to the healthcare system alone, we can see the potential value that remdesivir provides…

We have decided to price remdesivir well below this value. To ensure broad and equitable access at a time of urgent global need, we have set a price for governments of developed countries of $390 per vial. Based on current treatment patterns, the vast majority of patients are expected to receive a 5-day treatment course using 6 vials of remdesivir, which equates to $2,340 per patient…

At the current price of $390 per vial, remdesivir is positioned to achieve the aim of providing immediate net savings for healthcare systems…The price for U.S. private insurance companies, will be $520 per vial. At the level we have priced remdesivir and with government programs in place, along with additional Gilead assistance as needed, we believe all patients will have access.”[xxi]

Incredibly, none of the studies published before this purchase had mentioned side effects of the drug, although in the China study, kidney injury had led to discontinuation for one patient, and in its original use for ebola, liver risks had been identified.[xxii] On July 5­, a public health official reported that “remdesivir is showing reports of liver damage in patients across India.”[xxiii]

On June 30, the day after the DHSS $1.6 billion purchase, an International Journal of Infectious Diseases (IJID) preprint reported that two of five patients in a hospital enrolled in the French Discovery trial had to be put on dialysis for renal insufficiency caused by remdesivir toxicity.[xxiv] That’s 40%.

To summarize the problems with remdesivir:

1. The very few control trials were poorly designed, influenced by vested interests, lacked precision, provided low-quality evidence, or produced negative results.
2. There have been doubts about the regulatory decision of approving it and the purchasing decision to stockpile it.
3. There was little mention of adverse effects in the published literature. Post-marketing surveillance has uncovered adverse effects.

In other words, the benefits behind the purchase were overplayed, and the harms were underplayed.

Sadly, this whole story is a close replica of the costly Tamiflu (antiviral oseltamivir) management disaster that played out during the swine flu H1N1 “pandemic” of 2008-09.[xxv]

On July 2, Christopher Morten, a U.S. patent lawyer – having observed the remdesivir purchase debacle after the government had subsidized the development of the drug – published the article, “A powerful law gives HHS the right to take control of remdesivir manufacturing and distribution.”[xxvi]

Further tax dollars may not be lost.

The media arm of the triad: Remdesivir vs HCQ

Hydroxychloroquine’s days were numbered on March 21 when Donald Trump called it a game changer, and it became terminally ill on May 22 when the prestigious Lancet claimed heart effects on six continents.

Whatever predisposition the media may have had to objectively report the repurposingof a safe old drug had vanished. The battle against it was now framed as the President’s ignorant personal views vs. the reportedly non-existent randomized control trials for a “heart-threatening” drug.

HCQ was losing.

A ray of light shone briefly May 14 with the announcement of a NIAID clinical trial to investigate whether HCQ+azithromycin administered early in illness could prevent hospitalization. However, it was quietly extinguished when the trial suddenly ended June 20, unreported, nine days before the massive remdesivir purchase assailed the headlines June 29.

June 29 was a coordinated victory for corporate interests at the expense of the people’s wellness and their pocketbooks.

Conclusion

Reality in the citizen mind has had nothing to do with all the global HCQ studies that have been withheld from curing hundreds of thousands of people at the first sign of illness.

The coordinated triad network has instead sacrificed thousands of lives by propagandizing people into fearfully believing that once they get really sick, remdesivir helps, whereas HCQ does not.

The public is simply not allowed to know about a well-documented solution that threatens corporate profits and the captured media. (The evidence supporting this claim can be explored in depth at “The Media Sabotage of Hydroxychloroquine Use for COVID-19: Doctors Worldwide Protest the Disaster.”[xxvii])

It seems fitting to conclude on a positive note with these practical, responsible words from Yale epidemiologist Dr. Harvey Risch – words that could well be remembered each day by Dr. Tony Fauci; by the CDC and the FDA; and by any media interested in the public health:

“It is our obligation not to stand by, just ‘carefully watching,’ as the old and infirm and inner city of us are killed by this disease and our economy is destroyed by it and we have nothing to offer except high-mortality hospital treatment.  We have a solution, imperfect, to attempt to deal with the disease.  We have to let physicians employing good clinical judgement use it and informed patients choose it.  There is a small chance that it may not work.  But the urgency demands that we at least start to take that risk and evaluate what happens, and if our situation does not improve we can stop it, but we will know that we did everything that we could instead of sitting by and letting hundreds of thousands die because we did not have the courage to act according to our rational calculations.”[xxviii]

*

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

[i] “SECOND OPINION: Doctors Discuss the Politicization of Hydroxychloroquine,” June 18, 2020, at 10:21 min. (https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=7&v=m_JIz780i5w&feature=emb_logo).

[ii] Twitter:  https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1241367239900778501

[iii] The Lancet, “RETRACTED: Hydroxychloroquine or chloroquine with or without a macrolide for treatment of COVID-19: a multinational registry analysis, by Mandeep R. Mehra et al,” Lancet, 5 June 2010 (https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(20)31180-6/fulltext).

[iv] Harvey A. Risch, “Early Outpatient Treatment of Symptomatic, High-Risk Covid-19 Patients that Should be Ramped-Up Immediately as Key to the Pandemic Crisis,” Amer. J. Epid, 27 May 2020 (https://academic.oup.com/aje/advance-article/doi/10.1093/aje/kwaa093/5847586). Risch is Professor at the Yale Schools of both Medicine and Public Health.

[v] Elizabeth Woodworth, “The Media Sabotage of Hydroxychloroquine Use for Covid-19: Doctors Worldwide Protest the Disaster,” Global Research, 30 June 2020 (https://www.globalresearch.ca/media-sabotage-hydroxychloroquine-covid-19-doctors-worldwide-protest-disaster/5717382).

[vi] X. Yao, F. , et al., “In vitro antiviral activity and projection of optimized dosing design of hydroxychloroquine for the treatment of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2),”Clin. Infect. Dis.9 March 2020 (online ahead of print:  https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32150618/).

Liu, et al., “Hydroxychloroquine, a less toxic derivative of chloroquine, is effective in inhibiting SARS-CoV-2 infection in vitro,” Cell Discov, 18 March 2020 p. 16 (https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32194981/),

Wang, et al., “Remdesivir and chloroquine effectively inhibit the recently emerged novel coronavirus (2019-nCoV) in vitro,” Cell Res, 30, 4 February 2020, pp. 269-271 (https://www.nature.com/articles/s41422-020-0282-0).

[vii] The Chinese studies are cited in this article: P. Gautret P, et al., “Clinical and microbiological effect of a combination of hydroxychloroquine and azithromycin in 80 COVID-19 patients with at least a six-day follow up: a pilot observational study,” Travel Medicine and Infectious Disease, March-April 2020 (https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1477893920301319).

Chen, et al., “Efficacy of hydroxychloroquine in patients with COVID-19: results of a randomized clinical trial,” MedRxiv, 10 April 2020, awaiting peer review (https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.03.22.20040758v3).

[viii] P. Gautret, et al., “Clinical and microbiological effect of a combination of hydroxychloroquine and azithromycin in 80 COVID-19 patients with at least a six-day follow up: a pilot observational study,” Travel Medicine and Infectious Disease, March-April 2020 (https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1477893920301319).

Matthieu Million, et al., “Early treatment of 1,061 COVID-19 patients with hydroxychloroquine and azithromycin, Marseille, France,”Travel Medicine and Infectious Disease, in press 20 April 2020 (http://santepublique-editions.fr/objects/Article-Raoult-20-avril-2020.pdf).

[ix] Samia Arshad, et al., “Treatment with Hydroxychloroquine, Azithromycin, and Combination in Patients Hospitalized with COVID-19,” International Journal of Infectious Diseases, 1 July 2020, DOI:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijid.2020.06.099(https://www.ijidonline.com/article/S1201-9712(20)30534-8/fulltext).

[x] Takahisa Mukami, et al., “Risk Factors for Mortality in Patients with COVID-19 in New York City,” J. Gen. Intern. Med., 30 June 2020 (https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32607928/).

[xi] Susan Perry, “CDC’s advice to take Tamiflu is compromised by financial conflicts of interest,” MinnPost, 12 February 2015 (https://www.minnpost.com/second-opinion/2015/02/cdcs-advice-take-tamiflu-compromised-financial-conflicts-interest/).

[xii] CDC Foundation, “Our Partners: Foundations.” The following includes a list of CDC Foundation corporate donors and partners over time.”   (https://www.cdcfoundation.org/partner-list/corporations).

[xiii] Jonathan Swan, “Scoop: Inside the epic White House fight over hydroxychloroquine,” Axios, 5 April 2020 (https://www.axios.com/coronavirus-hydroxychloroquine-white-house-01306286-0bbc-4042-9bfe-890413c6220d.html).

[xiv] M. Tobaiqy, et al., “Therapeutic management of patients with Covid-19:  a systematic review,” Infection Prevention in Practice, 17 April 2020 (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7162768/)

[xv] Harvey A. Risch, “Early Outpatient Treatment of Symptomatic, High-Risk Covid-19 Patients that Should be Ramped-Up Immediately as Key to the Pandemic Crisis,” Amer. J. Epid, 27 May 2020 (https://academic.oup.com/aje/advance-article/doi/10.1093/aje/kwaa093/5847586). Risch is Professor at the Yale Schools of both Medicine and Public Health.

[xvi] Devan Cole, “Fauci: Science shows hydroxychloroquine is not effective as a coronavirus treatment,” CNN, 27 May 2020 (https://www.cnn.com/2020/05/27/politics/anthony-fauci-hydroxychloroquine-trump-cnntv/index.html).

[xvii] Christopher Rowland, “Gilead’s experimental drug remdesivir shows ‘hopeful’ signs in small group of coronavirus patients,” Washington Post, 10 April 2020 (https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/2020/04/10/gileads-experimental-drug-remdesivir-shows-hopeful-signs-small-group-coronavirus-patients/).

[xviii] Ray Moynihan et al.,“Commercial influence and covid-19,” BMJ2020;369:m2456 (Published 24 June 2020) (https://www.bmj.com/content/369/bmj.m2456).

[xix] Jon Cohen, “Large trial yields strongest evidence yet that antiviral drug can help COVID-19 patients,” Science, 29 April 2020 (https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2020/04/large-trial-yields-strongest-evidence-yet-antiviral-drug-can-help-covid-19-patients).

[xx] Melanie D. Whittington and Jonathan B. Campbell, “Alternative Pricing Models for Remdesivir and Other Potential Treatments for COVID-19,” Institute for Clinical and Economic Review, 1 May 2020 (https://icer-review.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/05/ICER-COVID_Initial_Abstract_05012020-3.pdf). In a May 1, 2020 study, the ICER calculated that the cost of producing the remdesivir “final finished product,” including the pharmaceutical ingredients, formulation, packaging, and a small profit margin, was $9.32 US for a 10-day course of treatment.

[xxi] Daniel Oday, “Press Release:  Open Letter from Chairman Daniel Oday,” Gilead Sciences, 29 June 2020 (https://www.gilead.com/news-and-press/press-room/press-releases/2020/6/an-open-letter-from-daniel-oday-chairman–ceo-gilead-sciences).

[xxii] Crystal Phend, “Remdesivir Safety Forecast: Watch the Liver, Kidneys,” Medpage Today, 19 May 2020 (https://www.medpagetoday.com/infectiousdisease/covid19/86582).

[xxiii] Bindu Shajan Perappadan, “COVID-19 drugs under review after trial results,” The Hindu, 5 July 2020 (https://www.thehindu.com/news/national/covid-19-drugs-under-review-after-trial-results/article31996031.ece).

[xxiv] Marie Dubert and Francois-Xavier Lescure, et al (14 more), “Case reports study of the first five patients COVID-19 treated with remdesivir in France,” International Journal of Infectious Diseases, in press, journal pre-proof, available June 30 online (https://www.sciencedirect.com/S1201971220305282).

[xxv] Yogendra Kumar Gupta, et al., “The Tamiflu fiasco and lessons learnt,” Indian J Pharmacol.2015 Jan-Feb; 47(1): 11–16 (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4375804/).

[xxvi] Christopher Morten, “A powerful law gives HHS the right to take control of remdesivir manufacturing and distribution,” StatNews, 2 July 2020 (https://www.statnews.com/2020/07/02/powerful-law-gives-hhs-right-to-control-remdesivir-manufacturing-distribution/).

[xxvii] Elizabeth Woodworth, “The Media Sabotage of Hydroxychloroquine Use for COVID-19: Doctors Worldwide Protest the Disaster,” Global Research, June 30 (https://www.globalresearch.ca/media-sabotage-hydroxychloroquine-covid-19-doctors-worldwide-protest-disaster/5717382).

[xxviii] Harvey A. Risch, “Early Outpatient Treatment of Symptomatic, High-Risk Covid-19 Patients that Should be Ramped-Up Immediately as Key to the Pandemic Crisis,” Amer. J. Epid, 27 May 2020 (https://academic.oup.com/aje/advance-article/doi/10.1093/aje/kwaa093/5847586). Risch is Professor at the Yale Schools of both Medicine and Public Health.

September 16.  Central Criminal Court, London.  Proceedings today at the Old Bailey regarding Julian Assange’s extradition returned to journalistic practice, redaction of source names and that ongoing obsession with alleged harm arising from WikiLeaks releases.  John Goetz of Der Spiegel added his bit for the defence, making an effort to set the record straight on the events leading up to the publishing of un-redacted US diplomatic cables on September 2, 2011.

The picture that emerges from Goetz is not Assange the reckless cavalier indifferent to human life but of a more considered publisher, working with news organisations to redact the names of informants, insisting on the use of encrypted communications, cognisant of the risk of harm facing them.  Goetz noted that WikiLeaks had a “very rigorous redaction process”, evident in its approach to the Afghanistan files; Assange was “very concerned with the technical aspect of trying to find the names in this massive collection of documents.”  

Der Spiegel itself had interviewed Assange on the process in 2010, a point remarked upon by Goetz.  As Assange said at the time.  “We understand the importance of protecting confidential sources, and we understand why it is important to protect certain US and ISAF sources.”  Cases “where there may be a reasonable chance of harm occurring to the innocent” were identified.  “Those records were identified and edited accordingly.”  The practice seemed to have paid off.  Goetz noted that the trial of Chelsea Manning, based on her disclosures to WikiLeaks, revealed no cases of harm to any informant.

Mark Summers QC sensed a chance to interrogate another aspect of the prosecution case on Assange’s supposed callousness about the fate of informants, captured by the alleged remark, “They’re informants, they deserve to die.”  That now infamous dinner at London’s Moro restaurant is recorded by The Guardian journalists David Leigh and Luke Harding in WikiLeaks: Inside Julian Assange’s War on Secrecy (2011).  It supposedly took place in early July 2010 a few weeks prior to the publication of the Afghan War Diaries. Goetz had been in attendance.  Leigh, also at the dinner, was mistaken: Assange had never said anything of the sort. 

James Lewis QC for the prosecution spluttered in alarm at this course of questioning from the defence.  Goetz had not mentioned this in his written testimony; a supplemental witness statement would have to be submitted.  Judge Vanessa Baraitser agreed, amputating a potentially fruitful line of inquiry. 

A picture of tussling between authorities and media outlets emerged, with WikiLeaks and partner media outlets having communications with the US government prior to publication.  Efforts were made to identify areas of sensitivity; officials were variably bemused.  A delegation of New York Times reporters made their way to the White House ostensibly to discuss the imminent release, with Eric Schmitt informing Goetz of the conveyed message that 15,000 documents within the Afghan War Diaries would not be published.  The call to assist with redactions was met with “derision”.

The bungle that led to the publication of the entire trove of un-redacted cables was also re-visited.  It gave Goetz a chance to patiently point out that the password to the unencrypted file with the cables had found its way into the aforementioned book by Leigh and Harding.  The magazine Die Freitag got wind of it, publishing the details, despite, according to Goetz, Assange’s efforts to stop it.  Publishing outfits such as Cryptome capitalised with abandon.  With the train set in motion, Assange and WikiLeaks contacted the State Department’s emergency phone line.  The cat had scurried out of the bag; sources had been named.  The response from Washington was cool, dismissive.  WikiLeaks subsequently published what had already been released.  During the examination of Goetz, Lewis got muddled over the Afghan War logs and diplomatic cables.  The journalist was happy to correct him. 

The Goetz testimony also spoke to the value of the WikiLeaks disclosures.  Details had been sparse on the fate of kidnapped German national Khalid el-Masri, who had been captured by the Central Intelligence Agency in Macedonia in 2004.  A search of the trove by Goetz revealed that CIA abductors had “forced el-Masri onto a military plane, sodomized him and sent him” to Afghanistan.  The revelations led to the issuing of an arrest warrant by a state prosecutor based in Munich for 13 CIA agents.  Another search of the cables found that pressure from Washington had been brought to bear on the prosecution to defang the process, issuing a warrant in a jurisdiction where the agents did not live.

With Goetz’s testimony done, the defence attempted to incorporate a statement by el-Masri into the court record.  The prosecution took issue, claiming that he did not feature in the charges against the WikiLeaks publisher, making such evidence irrelevant and inadmissible.  An agitated Lewis suggested that the defence, in reading the statement, would be wasting half-an-hour of the court’s time.  Judge Baraitser was put out at the manner of the prosecutor’s objection; such an approach might mean her accepting the evidence “unchallenged”.  After much discussion Lewis suggested edits. The statement seems to remain in legal limbo.

The other blazing feature of today’s proceedings was the appearance of Daniel Ellsberg, the aged whistleblower of Pentagon Papers fame. Over the years, he has become a grandfatherly presence in the debates on disclosing classified material for public consumption and debate.  The documents he passed on to the New York Times in 1971 shed light on the futility of US involvement in the Vietnam War while revealing habitual public mendacity on the part of various administrations.  “My own actions in relation to the Pentagon papers and the consequences of their publication have been acknowledged to have performed such a radical change of understanding.  I view the WikiLeaks publications of 2010 and 2011 to be of comparable importance.” 

Before the court, Ellsberg attested to the common beliefs he shared with Assange: opposing wars, holding to those cardinal principles of keeping the powerful accountable and the state transparent.  Common ground was also shared about the invasion of Iraq (a “crime” and “aggressive war”); and Afghanistan, a modern Vietnam redux of infinite stalemate.  Over time, attitudes had changed to documents discussing such behaviour in war.  The killings, abuses and war crimes in Afghanistan and Iraq had been buried in “low-level field reports” so as to be banal.  The Pentagon Papers had been seen as the palace jewels of secrecy; the Iraq and Afghan war logs were merely classified as “secret”.

Such leaks as the Collateral Murder video, the infamous portrayal of a war crime committed by an US Army Apache helicopter in New Baghdad, shed light on this culture of lethal normalisation. Murder it was, but “the problematic word in the title was ‘Collateral’, implying that it was unintended.”  Chelsea Manning was also to be praised for “willing to risk her liberty and even her life to make this information public.  It was the first time in 40 years I saw someone else doing that, and I felt kinship towards her.”

The Espionage Act, Ellsberg reflected, discouraged such acts of informing disclosure.  He found this much to his chagrin during his 1973 trial, in which motivation was dismissed as irrelevant. 

“The Espionage Act,” rued Ellsberg, “does not allow for whistleblowing, to allow you to say you were informing the polity.  So I did not have a fair trial, no one since me had a fair trial on these charges, and Julian Assange cannot remotely get a fair trial under those charges if he were tried.” 

In cross-examination, the prosecution brought up the straw man argument used by critics of WikiLeaks, including Floyd Abrams, an attorney who represented the New York Times in the Pentagon Papers case.  The argument seeks to distinguish Ellsberg’s conduct and the right of the paper to publish, as distinct from that of Assange.  Ellsberg found such views ignorant of motive, whether of his or Assange’s.  Abrams had not troubled himself to go through the entirety of the Pentagon papers, nor discuss motivations with him.    

From this distinction arose the idea of the noble, ennobled Ellsberg, and the wicked, fallen Assange.  Exempting him from criticism while criticising Edward Snowden, Manning and Assange involved “a distinction which in my view is entirely misleading.”  Apart from “the computer aspects which didn’t exist back then, I see no difference between the charges against me and the charges against Assange.”  He also challenged the distinction (white Ellsberg, dark Assange) by suggesting he had not done as Assange had in terms of care: redacted names, withheld 15,000 sensitive documents, or approached the Pentagon and State Department for assistance in making further redactions.  The refusal to accept such offers from WikiLeaks might have been purposely done, suggested Ellsberg, to enable a future prosecution.   

Ellsberg attempted to set Lewis straight in his contention that withholding four volumes of the Pentagon Papers at the time was a saintly gesture to prevent harm to the US.  The whistleblower disagreed.  The move was intended to prevent a disruption to ongoing peace talks.  “I want to get in the way of the war, I don’t want to get in the way of the negotiations.”  To have redacted the papers would have risked compromising their accuracy. 

The prosecution, desperate to nab their quarry, insisted on pushing Ellsberg on the issue of harm that the disclosures might have had.  Lewis seemed incredulous that any witness could claim that “there is no evidence that WikiLeaks put anyone in danger.”  He also read the contents of Assistant US Attorney General Gordon Kromberg’s affidavit at some length, a crude recycling of many of the claims made at the Manning trial that failed to stick on the charge of “aiding the enemy”.  Ellsberg snorted, claiming such assertions to be the mark of high cynicism. “Am I right in that none of these people actually suffered physical harm?” Lewis tartly responded: “The rules are that you do not get to ask the questions.” 

Ellsberg, however had decent answers.  He could also point to the findings of the US Defense Department that no demonstrable harm had arisen from the releases.  At the Manning court martial, the prosecutors similarly conceded that not a single death could be identified as a result, a point made by Brigadier General Robert Carr under cross-examination.   

Ellsberg also suggested that US authorities had done little by way of assisting the concealing of informant identities when approached by WikiLeaks.  US wars in the Middle East over the last two decades, the sort that Assange had tried to end, had caused a million deaths and 37 million refugees. 

This did not prevent Lewis from speculating about those who had disappeared in Iraq, Afghanistan and Syria.  It was “common sense” to suggest that they had either been murdered or forced to flee.  “I’m sorry sir,” came the reply, “but it doesn’t seem to be at all obvious that this small fraction of people that have been murdered in course of both sides of the conflicts can be attributed to WikiLeaks disclosures.”  A truly palpable hit.

*

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 InfoBrics

The independent studies of various scientists have highlighted several issues on the virus. Many inconsistencies have emerged from many points of view which are summarized in these two letters. The reflections start from two complementary approaches and ask for explanations by offering new approaches and protocols.

***

Recipients

• Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus , World Health Organization;
• Mario Monti , Head of Health for the World Health Organization;
• Ursula Von der Leyen , President of the European Commission;
• David Sassoli, President of the European Parliament;
• to the Presidents of each Nation;
• to the Ministers of Health of each nation.

Letter from:

Antonietta Gatti, Fellow of Soc. Of Biomaterials and Eng., Italy
Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., Lawyer, USA

Dear Presidents and Ministers,

As an international group of scientists, doctors and lawyers, we contact you today about the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic, which has changed life around the world.

A variety of aspects about the SARS-CoV-2 virus and related therapeutics have been proven wrong. These included information provided by the WHO, the EU and governmental bodies in many European countries.

We are particularly concerned about the mechanism by which the virus works and the therapeutic protocols used almost identically around the world.

Several clinical aspects of SARS-CoV-2 behavior that we have observed are in stark contrast to what information authorities and the media have reported.

To properly understand the viral activity of SARS-CoV-2, we need more information.

A key question is why the concentration of lethality [% of deaths out of total positive subjects] was so different across European countries.

Therefore, we seek to understand and scientifically explain the concentration of mortality differences [the differences in mortality rates] from the virus in different countries and areas of Europe.

This knowledge is essential to determine if an ad hoc vaccine  , with all the associated risks, is really necessary, as many of you have stated.

If there is no answer we will consider you in accordance with our conclusions.

We thank you for your attention, and confident of your feedback, we send you cordial greetings.

***

Construction of Russia’s Nord Stream 2 gas pipeline to Germany is about 94% completed.

The project is all about supplying Germany and other European countries with readily available low-cost Russian natural gas — around 30% cheaper than US liquified natural gas (LNG).

Both right wings of the US one-party state want the pipeline halted to benefit US producers at Russia’s expense.

US sanctions on the project breach international law, Germany’s Angela Merkel earlier saying “(w)e oppose extraterritorial sanctions…(W)e don’t accept” them.

“We haven’t backed down (on wanting Nord Stream 2 completed) nor do we intend to back down.”

Last December, German Foreign Minister Heiko Mass said “European energy policy is decided in Europe, not the United States. We reject any outside interventions and extraterritorial sanctions.”

Did the novichok poisoning of Putin critic Alexey Navalny hoax change things?

During a September 24 – 25 summit of EU leaders, the future of Nord Stream 2 will be discussed.

Ahead of the summit, Merkel’s government offered to invest around one billion euros (about $1.2 billion) in construction of two terminals in Germany for US LNG.

According to the German broadsheet Die Zeit, by letter to Trump regime Treasury Secretary Mnunchin in August, German Vice Chancellor and Finance Minister Olaf Scholz said the following:

“In exchange (for Berlin’s proposed LNG investment), the US will allow unobstructed finalization and use of Nord Stream 2,” adding:

“(E)xisting legal options for (challenging US) sanctions (on firms involved in the project) have not been exhausted yet.”

The broadsheet added that Scholz first expressed Berlin’s proposal verbally, confirming it by letter.

Proposed German LNG terminals would be built in Brunsbuttel and Wilhelmshaven.

Berlin’s proposal also included a gas transit contract for Ukraine and financing of a terminal for Poland’s use of US LNG.

Following the Navalny false flag, opinion on completing Nord Stream 2 in Germany is divided.

Merkel still supports the project as evidenced by her government’s offer to build two terminals for US LNG in exchange for dropping sanctions on the pipeline by the US.

 

Last June, US Senate hardliners proposed legislation to expand Nord Stream 2 related sanctions.

It targets all nations and enterprises involved in the project, including underwriting, insurance and reinsurance companies.

At the time, Gazprom CEO Alexey Miller said Russia will complete construction of the project on its own — expected to be operational in January or shortly thereafter.

Last month, German Foreign Minister Heiko Mass expressed “displeasure” to Pompeo about US sanctions on the project.

Last week, Polish government spokesman Piotr Muller was quoted saying the following:

“Poland has from the very beginning emphasized that European solidarity (on Nord Stream 2) should be unambiguous.”

“Therefore, if such a need is expressed by the German side, Poland is open to the idea of using the infrastructure which it is building for its own energy security.”

His remark followed German media reports that Merkel said a decision by her government on Nord Stream 2 has not been made in light of the Navalny incident.

German officials supporting the project stressed that the country will be the main beneficiary of its completion economically, environmentally and strategically.

Construction on the proposed 800 – 950 km Baltic Pipe gas pipeline from Norwegian North Sea waters to Poland hasn’t begun.

If completed in October 2022 as proposed, it’ll be able to deliver about 10 billion cubic meters of natural gas annually — less than 20% of Nord Stream 2’s 55 billion annual cubic meter capacity.

Berlin earlier was skeptical about the project because of environmental concerns.

Days earlier, Polish energy expert Jakub Wiech called it “pointless” to compare Baltic Pipe to Nord Stream 2, given the latter project’s far greater capacity and ability to provide gas to other Western European countries.

A day after the Navalny incident last month, Merkel said Nord Stream 2 will be completed regardless of threatened new US sanctions on firms involved in the project.

Separately on Wednesday, Putin spokesman Dmitry Peskov said Nord Stream 2’s completion should not be raised in discussing the Navalny incident.

“It should stop being mentioned in the context of any politicization.”

“This is a commercial project that is absolutely in line with the interests of both Russia and European Union countries, and primarily Germany.”

No evidence links Russia to Navalny’s illness.

Whatever caused it wasn’t from a novichok nerve agent, the deadliest know substance able to kill exposed individuals in minutes.

Over three weeks after falling ill, Navalny is very much alive, recuperating in a Berlin hospital, and able to be ambulatory for short periods.

A Final Comment

On September 14, CNBC reported the following:

“Experts say Berlin is unlikely to (abandon Nord Stream 2 that’s) over 94% completed after almost a decade’s construction, involv(ing) major German and European companies, and is necessary for the region’s current and future energy needs,” adding:

“In this case, economic and commercial interests could trump political pressure” against Russia.

Chief eurozone economist Carsten Brzeski said he doesn’t see  “Germany pulling out of the project…Many (in the country) are still in favor of it.”

CNBC noted that

“Germany has been reluctant to link the fate of its involvement with Nord Stream 2 to the Navalny incident so far, and (FM Heiko) Maas conceded that stopping the building of the pipeline would hurt not only Russia but German and European firms.”

“(O)ver 100 companies from 12 European countries” are involved in the project…about half of them from Germany.”

*

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

Award-winning author Stephen Lendman lives in Chicago. He can be reached at [email protected]. He is a Research Associate of the Centre for Research on Globalization (CRG)

His new book as editor and contributor is titled “Flashpoint in Ukraine: US Drive for Hegemony Risks WW III.”

http://www.claritypress.com/LendmanIII.html

Visit his blog site at sjlendman.blogspot.com.

Featured image is from Asia Times

It appears as if Saudi de facto ruler, Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman, is on a mission to destroy the world oil giant by one after the other ill-conceived economic decisions. Now, as MBS orders yet new desperation cuts in Saudi oil prices, his economy is imploding from all sides—from the stupid Vision 2030 plan to even the traditional oil sector, the source for 87% of the Kingdom budget. The economic decline of Saudi Arabia will have huge geopolitical consequences beyond the Middle East.

As if it had learned nothing from its 2014 oil price war, then targeting the growing USA oil shale industry, Saudi Prince MBS ordered a new oil price war in March. That was after Russia, not an official OPEC member, declined to accept an added 300,000 barrel a day cut in output. The Russian argument was that doing so in a very uncertain world oil market would be foolish and counter-productive. The Russians were right. Saudis flooded world markets with an added 3 million barrels a day by early April. That was just the time when the global panic around the COVID-19 coronavirus spread led to a de facto shutdown of world airlines, auto and truck and ship fuel demand. MBS forgot to take that into account, and oil prices plunged. With it, the Saudi oil revenues to the state budget fell too.

Backfire

Within two weeks following the March Saudi oil war, this against both Russia and USA, world oil prices had plunged from near $60 a barrel to below $30. A catastrophe to put it mildly. Saudi Arabia needs oil at $90 a barrel to balance its state budget according to Fitch Ratings. By April as the coronavirus lockdowns were in full force around the world, Saudi oil export revenue was down a whopping 65% from April 2019. To put this into perspective in 2012 Saudi oil export earnings were some $350 billion. For 2020 estimated earnings may not reach $150 billion.

By early April global oil demand had plunged by an unheard-of 30% as the coronavirus lockdowns took their toll on the world economy. Only because of an unprecedented temporary OPEC cut then in oil production of 10 million barrels daily, led by Saudi, and this time joined by Russia, did world prices slowly rise from lows nearly $20 to around $40 a barrel, still a far cry from recovery. However prices are again going lower in mid-September as the world economy, including China and the USA, are far from recovered in oil demand.

Vision 2030?

This situation is a disaster for the mid-term project of MBS to leapfrog Saudi Arabia from oil dependency into the 4th Industrial Revolution. MBS took a report prepared for him by the controversial McKinsey consultants and called it Vision 2030.

To call the Saudi Vision 2030 an unrealistic pipe dream is putting it mildly. The blueprint, unveiled by MBS in late 2017, calls for making an advanced high-tech nation out of the desert Kingdom in little more than a decade by 2030.

The overall Vision 2030 plan is little more than a grab-bag of neoliberal proposals that will do little in the current environment to bring the promised new economy. In reality it will likely destroy what oil-based economic stability there is and greatly aggravate income disparities within Saudi Arabia where an estimated 20% live in poverty despite decades of oil wealth.

Explicit goals as of 2016 included three main pillars to create a “vibrant society, a thriving economy, and an ambitious nation,” whatever that means. Out of the 33 headings in the Vision, 14 deal with the economy, 11 with social issues, and eight with administration. With a population 70% officially overweight, MBS’ “vision” includes a goal of “doubling the number of Saudis exercising each week.” Other goals include raising personal savings, and having three cities among the top 100 ranked globally. Neom is not one.

Then the plan states lofty goals such as to increase non-oil GDP from 16 percent to 50 percent of GDP; reduce unemployment from 12 percent to 7 percent; attract $1 trillion in foreign investment. Then incredibly, the vision aims to attract 1.2 million (non-religious) tourists, and 30 million pilgrims a year and to “raise the Public Investment Fund’s assets to $2 trillion.” In 2018 Saudi attracted a mere 200,000 tourists aside from religious pilgrimages. Last year, some 2.6 million pilgrims went on Hajj, with religious tourism generating $12 billion. This year due to coronavirus all pilgrimages were cancelled.

The Saudi state PIF (Public Investment Fund) currently has some $320 billion. Goal is $2 trillion. Simply said, the Vision 2030 that should lift Saudi Arabia out of the petroleum era into the high-tech era with 5G, AI, gene-editing and such, has planned to open up the country, one of the most religiously conservative in the world, by privatizing chunks of the valuable state sector, cutting government oil and other subsidies (de facto a tax on the population who can least afford it) , and somehow attracting foreign investors. That was in 2018. The website officially has not been updated since.

Neom

The heart of the “vision” of MBS is creation of an entirely new city, Neom, which means “new future” in Arabic, about the size of Belgium. The official website describes the plan, “Neom will include towns and cities, ports and enterprise zones, research centers, sports and entertainment venues, and tourist destinations. It will be the home and workplace for more than a million citizens from around the world.” As a euphoric MBS told Bloomberg in a 2017 interview: “We want the main robot and the first robot in Neom to be Neom, robot number one. Everything will have a link with artificial intelligence, with the Internet of Things – everything.”

The planned location for Neom is on a barren patch of desert on the Red Sea near to southern Israel, Egypt and Jordan. The closest Saudi town is Tabuk. As the official description notes, the planned one million residents will not likely be native Saudi engineers and IT rocket scientists. They must import the high-tech talent.

The estimated $500 billion futuristic Neom is the pet project of MBS within the Vision 2030. It is to be financed by the Saudi PIF chaired by the omnipresent Crown Prince Mohammad bin Salman Al Saud. The PIF is to finance the Saudi “great leap forward.” It even included a Saudi-financed scheme to incorporate Egypt’s town of Sharm el-Sheikj as part of the Neom luxury tourist and economic zone.

How? Here it gets sticky. In 2016 Saudi foreign reserves were at $700 billion. This April, as oil prices collapsed, they stood at $448 billion. To meet rising state budget deficits the government has tripled VAT consumer taxes and doubled the price of gasoline, hardly winning public support. VAT went from 5% in 2018 to 15% this year.

The Public Investment Fund headed by MBS has fared none too well either.

The much-touted source that was expected to raise another $100 billion for the PIF was the privatization of the huge ARAMCO state oil company. In the current oil environment, it flopped. Instead of the initial five percent to be floated, and raise over $100 billion, the IPO was scaled down, with 1.5 percent sold for $26.5 billion, most internally, as foreign investors were not interested in the prospect. Now with their latest oil war, foreign confidence in ARAMCO as an investment is gone. “They’ve lost everyone’s confidence, including those that invested in Aramco, as they started a price war and cheated them all [of expected profits],” said Hugh Miles, editor of Arab Digest, in Cairo. Future sales of Aramco stock were intended to transform PIF into a $3 trillion fund. Not likely at present.

Another hope of MBS to pump up the assets of his PIF fund was to sink billions into the Japan SoftBank. That has also turned out badly. In May, SoftBank announced that during the fiscal year 2019-2020, the Vision Fund, in which Saudi Arabia’s PIF invested $45 billion, incurred a loss calculated at $17.7 billion. According to reports Saudi Arabia’s PIF has also cancelled plans to join with SoftBank in a $200 billion solar farm.

More recently the Saudi central bank, SAMA, loaned another $40 billion to the PIF to take advantage of what it hopes are bargain buys amid the COVID-19 lockdowns. They are betting on a future recovery of the global economy, including of the troubled Boeing, that is looking ever more dubious.

With the hopes for transforming the Saudi economy tied to the state oil giant ARAMCO prospects amid corona lockdowns and declining oil prices are grim. To make matters worse ARAMCO must pay a dividend of $75 billion as it promised when it listed 5 percent of its stock in December 2019. The company has to keep up these annual payments for the next five years.

At this point not only is Neom dead in the water, but also with it the entire Vision 2030 is a shambles. Saudi Arabia is struggling as never since 1945.

Geopolitical implications

Now that her allied neighbors, the UAE and Bahrain, have formally agreed to recognize Israel, MBS is under significant pressure to join the US-brokered initiative. All indications are that world oil demand, especially in the industrial countries of the EU and North America will decline as pressure for a green agenda politically grows. That has already created a serious global oil glut that Saudi is able to do little to change.

The recent 25-year Iran-China strategic partnership which apparently includes a significant military component, increases the pressure on MBS and the Saudis to devise a new geopolitical strategy beyond the series of proxy wars in Yemen and elsewhere that have been a significant failure for the Saudi side, with Iran-backed Houthi rebels able to regularly lob missiles at Riyadh and other Saudi targets. Several months ago the UAE intervened in Yemen to effectively partition the country along old Cold War lines, effectively ending the fruitless, destructive war against Saudi wishes, a clear humiliation of MBS.

Three years ago MBS declared an economic embargo against Qatar based on the latter’s close ties to the Muslim Brotherhood, now banned in Saudi Arabia, Egypt and other Gulf monarchies. As MBS is being pressed to openly join UAE and Bahrain in recognition of Israel, something already well underway behind the scenes, Washington this week urged Saudi Arabia to heal its rift with Qatar in order to increase pressure on Iran. Were that to happen, with Saudi Arabia today in a far weaker economic position, a new strategy of dealing with Iran might emerge. What would be the future of China’s Belt, Road Initiative that once envisioned extending to Turkey and Israel is unclear amid strong US counter-pressures. At this point, as the entire Middle East is in flux, the once mighty Saudi monarchy is looking like a giant with feet of clay as it sees the twilight of its power over world oil.

*

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.

F. William Engdahl is strategic risk consultant and lecturer, he holds a degree in politics from Princeton University and is a best-selling author on oil and geopolitics, exclusively for the online magazine “New Eastern Outlook” where this article was originally published. He is a Research Associate of the Centre for Research on Globalization.

Featured image is from NEO

---

Seeds of Destruction: Hidden Agenda of Genetic Manipulation

Author Name: F. William Engdahl

ISBN Number: 978-0-937147-2-2

Year: 2007

Pages: 341 pages with complete index

List Price: $25.95

Special Price: $18.00

 

This skilfully researched book focuses on how a small socio-political American elite seeks to establish control over the very basis of human survival: the provision of our daily bread. “Control the food and you control the people.”

This is no ordinary book about the perils of GMO. Engdahl takes the reader inside the corridors of power, into the backrooms of the science labs, behind closed doors in the corporate boardrooms.

The author cogently reveals a diabolical world of profit-driven political intrigue, government corruption and coercion, where genetic manipulation and the patenting of life forms are used to gain worldwide control over food production. If the book often reads as a crime story, that should come as no surprise. For that is what it is.

We hope that by publishing diverse view points, submitted by journalists and experts dotted all over the world, the website can serve as a reminder that no matter what narrative we are presented with, things are rarely as cut and dry as they seem.

If Global Research has been a resource which has offered you some solace over the past few months, we ask you to make a financial contribution to our running costs so that we may keep this important project alive and well! We thank you for your support!

There is a technical issue regarding our email send-out of selected articles, which we hope to resolve.

The support of readers is essential to sustaining our endeavors.  Click to donate:

*     *     *

Ireland: ‘Draconian’ Restrictions Around COVID-19 Condemned by Health Service Executive Doctor

By Paul Cullen, September 17, 2020

Covid-19 is “much less severe” than the average annual flu and current “draconian” restrictions are no longer justified, according to a senior Health Service Executive doctor.

People at low risk from the virus should be exposed to it so they can develop herd immunity and reduce the risk to vulnerable groups, according to Dr Martin Feeley, clinical director of the Dublin Midlands Hospital Group.

Open Letter from Medical Doctors and Health Professionals to All Belgian Authorities and All Belgian Media

By Docs4opendebate, September 17, 2020

We, Belgian doctors and health professionals, wish to express our serious concern about the evolution of the situation in the recent months surrounding the outbreak of the SARS-CoV-2 virus. We call on politicians to be independently and critically informed in the decision-making process and in the compulsory implementation of corona-measures. We ask for an open debate, where all experts are represented without any form of censorship. After the initial panic surrounding covid-19, the objective facts now show a completely different picture – there is no medical justification for any emergency policy anymore.

A Huge Number of Medical Doctors Ask for a Reassessment of the Corona Measures

By Docs4opendebate, September 17, 2020

In the Netherlands, doctors have come together and drafted an open letter addressed to colleagues and the government pleading for proportional measures. This letter aims to stimulate an open and frank debate on how to tackle the Covid-19 outbreak and was signed by more than 800 doctors. The petition has been stopped by now.

COVID-19: Guidance for School Reopening. Report by The Hospital For Sick Children and Unity Health Toronto

By SickKids, September 16, 2020

Multiple reports from around the world indicate that children and youth account for less than 5-10% of SARS-CoV-2 symptomatic infections.[12-14] In Canada, of 114,597 COVID-19 cases reported as of July 27, 2020, 8,747 (7.5%) were in individuals aged 0-19 years.[15] While this may, at least in part, be related to testing strategies and test performance in children and youth as well as early school closure, there is some data to suggest children, particularly those under 10 years of age, may be less susceptible to SARS-CoV-2 infection and potentially less likely to transmit the virus to others.

Video: Irish Doctor Speaks Out About Covid-19 Lies

By Mark Taliano, September 15, 2020

She first knew the pandemic was “fake” when the WHO first declared pandemic with an announcement of 4,291 deaths globally. This, she says, represents 1 death per 1.8 million people. Context is important.

When rules were changed around Death Certificate coding, as happened in North America and beyond, it was the first time in her professional career that she had witnessed this. It meant that COVID data could not be compared to previous outbreaks, it couldn’t be compared to “what had happened before”.

Video: COVID-19 the “Pandemic” Is Over. “A Novel Virus Closely Related to Corona Viruses Which Contribute to the Common Cold”

By Dr. Mike Yeadon and Julia Hartley-Brewer, September 14, 2020

Mike Yeadon, Pfizer former chief scientific advisor: Ferguson’s model has no validity in the view of most scientists:

“Yes, its a novel virus but its very closely related to at least four other viruses that circulate freely in the population, which are all corona viruses and contribute to the common cold, so bluntly it was naive of them (government etc) to assume everyone was susceptible..”

“We Have a Lot of Evidence that It’s a Fake Story All Over the World” – German Doctors on COVID-19

By Arjun Walia, September 14, 2020

Many of the claims these doctors make have been ‘debunked’ by mainstream media, federal health regulatory agencies and ‘fact-checkers’ that are patrolling the internet. Any information that does not come from the (WHO) is not considered reliable, truthful or accurate, and that would include the information presented in this article and information shared by these experts in the field. People are being encouraged to visit the WHO’s website for real and accurate information about COVID-19 instead of listening to doctors and scientists who oppose the narrative of these health authorities.

Face Masks Pose Serious Risks to the Healthy

By Dr. Russell Blaylock, September 14, 2020

Researchers found that about a third of the workers developed headaches with use of the mask, most had preexisting headaches that were worsened by the mask wearing, and 60% required pain medications for relief. As to the cause of the headaches, while straps and pressure from the mask could be causative, the bulk of the evidence points toward hypoxia and/or hypercapnia as the cause. That is, a reduction in blood oxygenation (hypoxia) or an elevation in blood C02 (hypercapnia).

In defiance of world community sentiment and SC Res. 2231 — that’s binding international and US constitutional law — the Trump regime will unilaterally reimpose sanctions on Iran that were lifted when the JCPOA took effect.

According to Trump regime envoy for regime change in Venezuela and Iran Elliott Abrams, “virtually all UN sanctions on Iran will come back into place this weekend at 8:00 PM Eastern Time on Saturday the 19th,” adding:

“The arms embargo will now be reimposed indefinitely and other restrictions will return, including the ban on Iran engaging in enrichment and reprocessing-related activities, the prohibition on ballistic missile testing and development, and sanctions on the transfer of nuclear and missile-related technologies to Iran.”

During a Wednesday press briefing, Pompeo said the following:

“We will return to the United Nations to reimpose sanctions (on Iran) so that the arms embargo will become permanent next week.”

He expects the world community to observe what the vast majority of its member states oppose.

He illegally claimed that the US is unilaterally entitled to impose snapback sanctions on Iran, “and that’s what we’ll do…to ensure that those sanctions are enforced” — even though after abandoning the JCPOA in May 2018, the Trump regime has no legal say on matters relating to the landmark agreement.

On September 1 in Vienna, Joint Commission of the JCPOA signatories Russia, China, Britain, France, Germany and Iran stressed the importance of preserving the JCPOA.

These nations reject imposition of so-called snapback sanctions on Iran.

Following the meeting, Russia’s Deputy Foreign Minister Sergey Ryabkov stressed that

“(w)e are certain that if the international community and the UN Council members will continue to stick to principled positions on this issue, which is what we are working on, then the situation will emerge when the US will be alone in the UN Security Council with this paradoxical point of view.”

With few exceptions, the Trump regime lacks international support to abandon what’s affirmed by SC Res. 2231.

In Vienna, Iran’s Deputy Foreign Minister Abbas Araqchi said the following:

“All JCPOA members and the majority of the international community members are opposed to the US’ unilateral policies and its policy of weakening multilateralism, international organizations and multilateral approaches in the international relations.”

A joint statement by remaining P4+1 signatories said in part:

“All participants reaffirmed the importance of preserving the agreement, recalling that it is a key element of the global nuclear non-proliferation architecture, as endorsed by UN Security Council Resolution 2231 (2015).”

“Full implementation of the agreement by all sides remains crucial.”

On October 18, the UN conventional arms embargo on Iran expires.

Last month, Security Council members overwhelmingly defeated the Trump regime’s aim to extend it indefinitely — the Dominican Republic alone siding with the US position.

On issues related to Iran, the JCPOA, snapback sanctions, and expiring arms embargo on the country, the US is isolated on the world stage.

During his Wednesday briefing, remarks by Abrams displayed typical US imperial arrogance, saying that “we expect all UN member states to implement the UN sanctions fully and respect the process and obligations to uphold these sanctions” — followed by unacceptable Iran bashing comments repeated many times before by Trump regime officials.

Key going forward is whether nations wanting the JCPOA preserved will maintain their resolve to uphold SC Res. 2231 that affirmed the agreement — especially Britain, France, Germany and Brussels.

Key also is what actions will the Trump regime take against nations unwilling to observe its unlawfully imposed snapback sanctions and arms embargo on Iran — which is their legal right.

Next Tuesday during the General Assembly’s 75th anniversary session, Trump will address the body in New York.

According to his UN envoy Kelly Craft, he’ll likely be “the only world leader to be speaking in person” — others delivering pre-recorded video messages.

He’ll no doubt include his regime’s policies on Iran in his remarks — around six weeks ahead of US November presidential and congressional elections.

Aside from Israel, a few Gulf states, and perhaps a few Latin American ones, the world community is against imposition of snapback sanctions and indefinitely extending an arms embargo on Iran to preserve the landmark JCPOA agreement.

AP News reported that JCPOA signatories Britain, France and Germany “will likely respond” to unlawful Trump regime actions on Iran this weekend “by issuing a statement reiterating their position that the United States cannot trigger snapback” or extend the expiring arms embargo, adding:

“(O)pposition to the US (position on Iran) is widespread and strong, including from 13 of the other 14 Security Council members.”

*

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

Award-winning author Stephen Lendman lives in Chicago. He can be reached at [email protected]. He is a Research Associate of the Centre for Research on Globalization (CRG)

His new book as editor and contributor is titled “Flashpoint in Ukraine: US Drive for Hegemony Risks WW III.”

http://www.claritypress.com/LendmanIII.html

Visit his blog site at sjlendman.blogspot.com.

Featured image is a White House photo by Shealah Craighead

This year’s Amazon fire season is one of the most serious ever, even though it’s not attracting near the media attention as last year. More than one thousand major fires have already been detected in the rainforest biome this year, with 82 major fires reported in protected areas and Indigenous territories, as of September 10, 2020.

Across the Brazilian Amazon, September has averaged 53 major fires per day (up from 18 in August) says the non-profit MAAP. But according to other sources, there are more than 6,000 hotspots flaring up in just a single day.

With statistics like these apparently diverging so widely among multiple sources, how do we know for sure what, and how much, rainforest is truly burning where? And how exactly are all these fires detected, and what do these numbers mean in reality?

To answer, we have to start in space.

Many satellites circle the Earth daily, some outfitted with tools tailored for fire monitoring. These devices record a variety of data that, when put together with other data sets, give us a multifaceted, well rounded, and increasingly accurate, view of the year’s fires.

The Suomi National Polar-orbiting Partnership (Suomi NPP) satellite operated NASA and NOAA detects fires on earth through infrared sensing. Artist rendering via NASA.

These “near real time” fire detection systems fall into two major types: those sensing heat radiating from the Earth’s surface (“hotspots”) and those detecting aerosol emissions (particles released into the atmosphere from burning biomass). A fire’s presence can also be confirmed in some cases via high-resolution imagery, visual data also gathered by satellites.

An orbiting fire monitoring system basically works like this: a satellite instrument detects fires (either via hotspots or aerosol emissions). These fire alerts are relayed to individual organizations, including NASA or INPE, the Brazilian space agency, who process the incoming information to control for noise in the data (such as heat signals from an industrial blast furnace rather than an Amazon fire). The processed data is then sent to a visualization platform, bringing these satellite-based alerts to decisionmakers or the general public on the Internet. Several of these platforms now exist, including some that launched just this year. Each system analyzes the data somewhat differently — with each assessment valuable in its own way.

Some near real time Amazon fire monitoring platforms, by organization:

• MAAP: The Amazon Real Time Fire Monitoring app uses aerosol detection data (ESA’s Sentinel-5P satellite TROPOMI data) verified with hotspot data and satellite imagery.
• NASA: The U.S. space agency’s new Amazon Dashboard utilizes both hotspot and aerosol fire detection, combined with deforestation and land cover data to determine specifically what type of fires are burning.
• INPE: Brazil’s national space research institute (Programa Queimadas) uses hotspot data from many different satellites for its fire dashboard and fire monitoring program.
• Global Forest Watch (GFW): Uses hotspot analysis (NASA’s Suomi NPP satellite VIIRS data), but primarily focuses on deforestation.
• Infoamazonia: Fire Map uses hotspot data (VIIRS data)
• Greenpeace: The NGO’s new Global Fire Dashboard uses hotspot data (NASA Aqua/Terra satellite MODIS data)

Hotspot data (sometimes called VIIRS or MODIS data) is widely reported in the media, but it can be misleading as a stand-alone metric for Amazon fires because hot spots aren’t well differentiated. Very small, localized events such as a farmer carrying out the yearly burn of corn stubble in a field can generate enough heat to send off an alert. The result is tens of thousands of undifferentiated hotspot alerts, when in reality, there may only be several hundred major deforestation-related fires or forest fires burning.

However, hotspot data is still useful for situational awareness and because it has been collected for decades, so is utilized for making quantitative and location comparisons over time. Also, because it is easily available and straightforward, hot spot data is used by several platforms including Global Forest Watch and Greenpeace’s new Global Fire Dashboard.

MAAP’s novel Real-time Amazon Fire Monitoring app shows major fires as of Sept 10, 2020. shows major fires as of Sept 10, 2020.

A closer look at MAAP Amazon fire detection

For Amazon fire reporting in 2020, Mongabay has relied heavily on the near-real time fire monitoring data provided by MAAP.  MAAP’s novel Real-time Amazon Fire Monitoring app  (launched in May 2020) uses a combination of aerosol emissions data, hot spot data, and verification from satellite imagery to report on what it calls “major fires.”

A “major fire” as defined by MAAP is one with an aerosol index of  >1 (appearing cyan-green to red on the app). Once an alert is detected, MAAP uses hotspot data to pinpoint the source of aerosol emissions. Using the coordinates from this hotspot source, MAAP analyzes high-resolution satellite images from the Planet Explorer to confirm whether the fire is in a recently deforested area or in a standing forest, and measures the area burned.

Mongabay has also created its own fire dashboard based on  MAAP data, which is regularly updated for use in stories.

Major fires in Brazil in 2020

Fire data from MAAP’s Amazon Fire Monitoring App is updated in real time and will include data from after the publication date

Cartography by Willie Shubert in collaboration with InfoAmazonia.org, click this to view.

Importantly, most Amazon fires are not acts of nature. Rather, the majority of fires burn over recently deforested land, with the blazes intentionally set by land grabbers, farmers, and landowners, converting newly cleared forest into pasture and croplands — sometimes as part of a longstanding process of illegally converting public lands to private lands.

Last year, MAAP analyzed archived satellite imagery from Planet Explorer, and found that many of 2019’s fires burned areas deforested earlier that same year, clearing that started just after President Jair Bolsonaro took office. The Bolsonaro administration is known for its policies friendly to the Amazon’s land grabbers.

“The data from MAAP…focuses only on large deforestation events and depend on a fair amount of manual labor, but the data are therefore also highly confident as they use multiple lines of evidence to confirm both the driver (deforestation) and the emissions (aerosols) coming from the fire,” Niels Andela told Mongabay in an email; he is a lecturer in remote sensing at Cardiff University and developed the algorithm behind NASA’s Amazon Dashboard platform.

NASA’s Amazon Dashboard showing hotspot data by fire type on September 10, 2020.

A closer look at NASA’s Amazon Dashboard

NASA’s new Amazon Dashboard, launched August 19, uses a more automated approach than MAAP, and claims some major advances in the way fires are monitored. The platform identifies the number of significant fires burning in the Amazon (instead of just hotspots), what type of fires are burning, and how many new fires started each day — all using automated data collection and computer analysis.

The Amazon Dashboard uses an algorithm to cluster active hotspots into individual fire events (major fires), sometimes composed of hundreds of hotspots. These fire events are also classified as one of four fire types: deforestation, understory fires, small clearing and agricultural fires, and savanna/grassland fires — determined by hotspot data combined with deforestation and landcover data.

“The key advantage of our method is that it is fully automated and thus maps all fires across the region,” Andela said. “Also, we provide much more information than just deforestation fires. For example, our dataset allows for quick identification of all new fires burning across a given region and is intended to support land managers.… Particularly the early identification of understory fires is critical for firefighting efforts.”

“We hope this tool pushes the conversation past some of the confusion surrounding the 2019 fire season,” Doug Morton of NASA’s Goddard Space Flight Center, who helped develop the dashboard, said. “Satellites detect large numbers of fires in South America every year, but not all of these fires are of equal importance.”

Hotspot alerts are available in the INPE fire monitoring platform (Programa Queimadas) from many different satellites. Here, Amazon hotspot data from September 10, 2020 from all satellites are shown. A menu on the left allows the user to select time, location, satellites, etc.

A closer look at INPE’s fire monitoring program

Brazil’s national space research institute, INPE, uses hotspot data from 13 different satellites to compile its Amazon fire dashboard and fire monitoring program (Programa Queimadas) and filters this data using its own algorithms.

“We filter the data and we eliminate the industrial areas [i.e. blast furnaces] or volcanoes,” Alberto Setzer, an INPE senior scientist involved in producing official fire data told Mongabay. “And I suspect most sites in the world don’t do this type of analysis.”

INPE has been monitoring fires for over 20 years and their system is useful for making comparisons of hotspot counts across time or within specific regions including states, municipalities, protected areas, or Indigenous territories. The hotspot data is also easy to overlay with satellite imagery, making it useful for local enforcement and management agencies or the media to pinpoint locations of interest for further investigation.

How do satellite fire detection tools work?

Hotspot data: It’s intuitive that light on earth can be detected from space, but how is heat detected without a thermometer on the ground? Much as the human eye can detect color variation in the visible light spectrum, satellites are outfitted with tools that can “see” temperature differences.

Fires emit most of their energy in the thermal infrared domain as “infrared light,” invisible to the naked eye but not to a satellite. One particular infrared wavelength (around 4000 nanometers) is especially associated with fires. Several different satellite instruments are used to detect this specific wavelength, allowing for the verification of the thermal signature, or the heat released, from fires on the ground.

These fires are pinpointed by looking for a contrast between a “hot pixel” or “hot spot” (coded yellow to red in an image) and the cooler surrounding pixels portrayed in other colors. The VIIRS instruments onboard the Suomi-NPP satellite (launched in 2012) and the NOAA20 satellite (launched in 2017) are the latest generation of these instruments and have an improved higher resolution of 375 meters. This more tightly focused pixel area allows for the detection of smaller or more low-intensity fires, such as those burning in the understory of a tropical forest. Higher resolution also means its easier to pinpoint a precise location.

However, “You have to be careful about making a distinction between fires and fire pixels,” says Louis Giglio. “Pixels are what you see from VIIRS,” he explains, cautioning against the equation of individual hotspots and fires. Giglio is a research professor at the University of Maryland who studies remote sensing of active fires and burned areas.

Aerosol data: MAAP uses aerosol index data to detect major fires, the idea being that a fire burning enough biomass — organic matter — to emit smoke plumes into the atmosphere is one big enough to be worthy of investigation.

Aerosols are particles suspended in the atmosphere (including smoke, dust, fog, mist, and pollution). Satellite sensors that measure aerosols detect the light scattered by these aerosols in contrast to the reflectance from the background (Earth).

The MODIS (Moderate Resolution Imaging Spectroradiometer) sensor on NASA’s satellites detects aerosols that come from fire (smoke), dust, pollution, but it does not always discriminate smoke from dust.

The TROPOMI sensor on the European Space Agency’s Sentinel-5P satellite, on the other hand, is quite sensitive to aerosol layer height as well as absorption, so it can differentiate between dust and smoke, as smoke rises higher into the atmosphere.

MAAP’s novel Real-time Amazon Fire Monitoring app shows aerosol emissions alerts by location on Sept 10, 2020. MAAP uses Sentinel-5P satellite data.

Some Widely-Used Fire Monitoring Satellite Tools:

Satellites detecting thermal signature (hot spots):

• NASA’s and NOAA’s joint Suomi NPP satellite detects thermal signatures with the VIIRS(Visible Infrared Imaging Radiometer Suite) at 375 meter resolution.
• NOAA’s NOAA-20 satellite detects thermal signatures with the VIIRS (Visible Infrared Imaging Radiometer Suite) at 375 meter resolution.
• NASA’s Terra and Aqua satellites detect thermal signatures with the MODIS (Moderate Resolution Imaging Spectroradiometer) instrument at 1000 meter resolution.

Satellites detecting aerosols (smoke particles):

• European Space Agency satellite Sentinel-5P detects aerosol emissions with the TROPOMI
• NASA’s Terra and Aqua satellites detect aerosol emissions with the MODIS (Moderate Resolution Imaging Spectroradiometer) sensor.

How does all of this information translate into action?

Although INPE, Brazil’s national space research institute, has access to all of the tools and monitoring methods mentioned here, as well as possessing its own advanced methods for detecting Amazon fires, how decisionmakers use this information depends on political will, current policies, enforcement actions and suppression capabilities.

“They [INPE] have wonderful resources, really impressive,” Kátia Fernandes, a climate scientist at the University of Arkansas said. “So, knowing where deforestation is happening, where fires are occurring, this is not a bottleneck for taking action. What does change over time is investment in law enforcement.”

A moratorium on burns was issued on July 15, 2020 by the Bolsonaro administration, making all subsequent intentionally set Amazon fires illegal. Since that time, INPE’s data has been used to prosecute and fine some offenders. But the funding and organizational capacity of fire control and enforcement agencies such as IBAMA, Brazil’s environmental agency, have been significantly curtailed by the current government. And reportedly, efforts by the Army to control this year’s fires have been insufficient.

A fire in the the Pantanal region of Corumbá, generating immense environmental and public health damage. Ibama teams and other institutions fight fire fronts with great difficulty in moving. Photo courtesy of IBAMA

State of the art satellite monitoring and moratoriums do little good when regulatory agencies lose the support and funding they require to conduct boots-on-the-ground fire control, or the ability to prosecute those who set illegal fires. IBAMA, for example, given the job of patrolling and fighting fires across the entire Amazon basin, is operating this year with just five helicopters.

“No matter how much technology we throw out at this [fire crisis], or how many better methods or algorithms or AI or whatever,” Giglio said, “nothing’s going to change until you address the problems on the ground.”

*

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.

Liz Kimbrough is a staff writer for Mongabay. Find her on Twitter: @lizkimbrough_

Cyprus has become the victim of fresh external push-and-pull efforts with the aim of dragging the island republic, a European Union (EU) member, into one or other of the rival East Mediterranean orbits of Russia and the US.

Cyprus received Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov on September 8. He came to Nicosia to mark the 60th anniversary of the establishment of diplomatic relations and the signing of an amended double taxation agreement. Lavrov used the occasion to voice Russia’s concern over Turkey’s risky actions in the Eastern Mediterranean and to call for dialogue.

Russia and Cyprus have had particularly warm relations over the decades for several reasons.  Russia supported Cypriot independence from Britain, Russia and Cyprus both embrace the Orthodox Christian faith, and the Cypriot Communist Party has been a king-maker over the decades. The predecessor of current Cypriot President, Nicos Anastasiades, was Cyprus’ first communist president and the EU’s only communist president.

In 2015, Anastasiades and his Russian counterpart Vladimir Putin signed an agreement to give Russian naval ships access to Cypriot ports for maintenance and refuelling. This has upset the Trump administration. Although it does not really want to employ assets to assert US naval power in this region, it does not want Russia to do so. To Washington’s chagrin, Moscow has gained influence in the Levant by playing a key role in Syria’s civil and proxy wars, preventing the overthrow of the government and imposing, along with Turkey, a ceasefire in Syria’s northwestern Idlib province.

Last December, the US Congress adopted a law approving the partial lifting for one year of a US embargo on the sale of non-lethal military equipment to Cyprus in exchange for abandonment of the deal granting access to Cypriot ports to Russian naval vessels. US lawmakers from both the Republican and Democratic parties argued that Russian ships do not need to call at Cypriot ports because they have a naval base at Tartus in nearby Syria.

Cyprus Foreign Minister Nicos Christodoulides has tried to get round the US legislation by saying that Cypriot policy on this issue has not changed and Russian ships would be allowed to dock for “humanitarian reasons”, whatever that means. Presumably, Nicosia hopes to buy US equipment while allowing Russian ships to pause at Cypriot ports.

Ahead of the November US election, Trump administration realised that denying Cyprus US military equipment could alienate the influential Greek lobby in the US, which has been pressing for the lifting of the 1987 US embargo. US citizens of Greek origin number 1.4 million and they vote in Florida, Pennsylvania and Michigan, swing states Trump needs to win. Their political interests are represented by lobby groups operating under the umbrella of the American Hellenic Institute, which promotes policies favourable to Greece and Cyprus. The Institute often works in concert with the all-powerful Israeli lobby. This is significant at this time because Cyprus, Israel, Greece and Egypt have joined forces to counter Turkey’s expansionist ambitions in the Eastern Mediterranean.

There are estimated to be about 500,000 US citizens of Turkish origin who do not pack similar power of the ballot. However, over the years Ankara has built up an influential political lobby in Washington and Trump has expressed his admiration for Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan who jails journalists, political opponents and critics.

Nevertheless, 48 hours after Lavrov’s departure, US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo informed the Cypriot government that he intended to make a three-hour stop-over on Saturday evening after attending the launch of Taliban and Afghan government talks in Doha. Following talks with Anastasiades and Christodoulides, Pompeo urged Turkey to halt activities boosting tensions in the Eastern Mediterranean and called on all involved to hold talks. He expressed deep concern over Turkey’s continuing deployment of survey and drill ships and armed naval escort vessels in Cypriot and Greek waters. Cyprus has the right to exploit its offshore natural resources and to harvest hydrocarbons in its exclusive economic zone, Pompeo stated.

He said Trump had spoken to both Erdogan and Greek Prime Minister Kyriacos Mitsotakis about rising tensions in the Eastern Mediterranean with the aim promoting dialogue.

However, as I mentioned Trump is a great admirer of Erdogan and did not prevent him invading and occupying swathes of Syrian territory along the border with Turkey. Instead, Trump capitulated and gave Erdogan permission to seize specific areas from which Turkish troops and their takfiri allies expelled more than 250,000 Syrian Kurds.

The US has refrained from taking action against Turkey for its intervention in the Libyan civil war on the side of the UN-recognised government in Tripoli in the west, which is under challenge from the parliament based in Tobruk in the east. The latter’s forces, commanded by rebel General Khalifa Haftar, had camped outside Tripoli for months until Turkey dispatched reinforcements for the largely takfiri militias defending Tripoli and turned the tide of battle. In exchange, Ankara demanded that Tripoli unilaterally declare a broad exclusive economic zone extending across the sea that would meet Turkey’s self-declared zone and bisect the Eastern Mediterranean. Erdogan has sworn to protect with force this fait accompli recognised by no one but Ankara and Tripoli.

If this is allowed to stand, the Turkey-Libya zones would cut off Egypt, Israel, Cyprus and Lebanon to the east from countries on the west. Turkey also intends to block the construction of the Eastern Mediterranean pipeline designed to carry natural gas to Italy and prevent Cypriot and Greek drilling within their own territorial waters. It is unlikely that Turkey would tangle with Israel or Egypt on this issue while major gas fields have not been proven off Lebanon. So far, Erdogan has stated he will not back down on his demand that Turkey should have full rights over Eastern Mediterranean maritime resources.

Due to Erdogan’s stubborn stand and Trump’s admiration of Erdogan, Pompeo’s surprise mission to Cyprus is unlikely to cool tensions or counter Russia’s efforts to maintain ties to Cyprus and Greece without alienating Turkey. Both Washington and Moscow do their best to maintain good relations with aggressive Erdogan in the hope that he will not start a war.

*

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

Featured image is from InfoBrics