Foreign hackers are determined as ever to steal technology, meddle in elections and skew foreign policy, but fear not! The CIA has apparently been authorized to deliver preemptive cyber-strikes based on partisan mythmaking.

US, UK and Canadian intelligence dropped a 16-page report on Thursday accusing “Russian hackers” – specifically APT29, the “Cozy Bear” hacking group of ‘Russiagate’ fame – of targeting unspecified entities involved in developing the (increasingly controversial) Covid-19 vaccine.

However, the report is fraught with the same factual pitfalls plaguing previous unsubstantiated “Russian hacking” tales, seemingly designed to capitalize on the general population’s ignorance about cyber-attacks – or vaccines, for that matter. While Democrat-linked cybersecurity firm CrowdStrike specializes in attributing state actors to malware attacks, more reputable companies avoid doing so based solely on the malware used, since hacking groups often exchange tools or even collaborate.

The best, or just best-funded hackers are able to not only cover their tracks effectively but create a fake trail leading to someone else. The WikiLeaks Vault 7 release in 2017 exposed the disturbing tools the CIA has at its disposal for simulating foreign cyberattacks, tools that allow the agency to make it seem like Moscow or Tehran is behind a hack when the real culprits are in Langley, Virginia.

Russia is far from the only country to be accused of such behavior, of course – China was accused of attempting to steal coronavirus vaccine research back in May, while US and UK intelligence agencies warned that same month that other “threat groups” were “actively targeting” local governments, pharmaceutical and research firms, healthcare facilities, and universities for virus-related hacking.

Nor is this latest outbreak of finger-pointing limited to the pandemic. On Thursday, UK foreign minister Dominic Raab denounced “Russian actors” for “almost certainly” seeking to meddle in the 2019 election – not by actually breaking any laws, but by “amplifying” documents leaked by other people on Reddit and circulated around social media in the run-up to December’s contest.

Raab didn’t name any of the Russians responsible for circulating the material, perhaps mindful of the embarrassment that befell his ideological brother-in-arms, Atlantic Council bot-hunter Ben Nimmo, who accused several real people of being “Russian bots.” Further covering his bases, Raab in the same statement acknowledged that there was “no evidence of a broad-spectrum Russian campaign against the General Election.”

Even the most nonspecific shrieking about Russian hackers plotting to steal vaccine data, however, distracts from the inconvenient reality that the vaccines under development in the UK and US are performing abysmally. Neither the US company Moderna – initially hailed as the frontrunner despite never having brought a vaccine to market before – nor the UK’s collaboration between Oxford University and pharma giant AstraZeneca have produced any encouraging results in their clinical trials.

That didn’t stop the US from ordering 300 million doses of the Oxford jab, though the Trump administration’s coronavirus czar Anthony Fauci has already begun lamenting the “general anti-science, anti-authority, anti-vaccine feeling among some people in this country” he fears will keep Americans away from the needle.

With regard to hacking, however, the world might be more concerned about the CIA than the Russians – especially following Wednesday’s Yahoo News report that the agency had received carte blanche from Trump to wage preemptive (i.e. unjustified) cyber-warfare against any individual or organization it could link to a “handful of adversarial countries.” 

According to several former US officials, the CIA has been wielding unprecedented offensive powers against American civilians only tenuously connected to Washington’s geopolitical rivals since 2018, checking off at least 12 cyber-attacks on its “wish list” already. Liberated from the tiresome need to provide “years of signals and dozens of pages of intelligence”justifying raining computer-borne chaos and destabilization on its victims, the CIA has wrought “a combination of destructive things – stuff is on fire and exploding – and also public dissemination of data: leaking or things that look like leaking.” 

News of the CIA being given carte blanche appears at the same point in the US election cycle as the 2018 report about a similar measure that freed the hands of the Pentagon to conduct its own cyberattacks without interference from the State Department or any intelligence agencies.

With a hotly anticipated election coming up in November, it’s not hard to imagine how a few well-placed “leaks” or “destructive things” might convince voters to put aside their concerns about the administration’s response to the pandemic – or to place it front and center, depending on whether the CIA has decided it can live with four more years of Trump.

One thing is certain: the “Russian meddling” narrative isn’t going away anytime soon.

*

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.

Helen Buyniski is an American journalist and political commentator at RT Op-Ed. Follow her on Twitter @velocirapture23

Remdesivir’s fight against Hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) is somewhat symbolic of the fight of medical journals, of corrupt institutions against field medicine, of the many general practitioners who are at the bedside.

Remdesivir is an expensive molecule, owned by a pharmaceutical company, Gilead Sciences Inc. In the race for a miracle cure for COVID-19, Gilead is trying to win because it can make a lot of money [1].


1] Hydroxychloroquine is a royalty-free, publicly available and very inexpensive molecule. In other words, although it was originally manufactured by a pharmaceutical company, Sanofi, it will not benefit the industry and therefore will not benefit all the people corrupted by it.

Remdesivir’s fight against Hydroxychloroquine is the symbol of the fight of false medicine, big money medicine, against evidence-based medicine, a medicine that can bring big money to the patient (his health), at little or no cost to society.

Hydroxychloroquine (a treatment defended by Professor Raoult in Marseilles, France, among others) is said to be ineffective in COVID-19, even dangerous [2].

This is simply not true. [2]

There is ample evidence that Hydroxychloroquine, whether or not combined with azythromycin and zinc, is effective in inhibiting viral replication in SARS-CoV-2, with a completely satisfactory safety profile, especially for physicians who are used to and authorized to prescribe it. These molecules, chloroquine and hydroxychloroquine, have been known for decades [3]. This is the truth.

Conversely, it is said that Remdesivir is effective and without any particular danger.

This is not true.

Remdesivir can cause severe kidney failure (requiring dialysis, kidney transplant), liver failure, genetic mutation, heart problems up to cardiac arrest, among others [4]. This is the truth.

On the one hand, the [fake] Lancet study [which was retracted] was trying to demolish hydroxychloroquine [5], on the other hand, the New England Journal of Medicine praises Remdesivir [6-7].

In a previous article, I wrote that what the former editors of these journals say is what we should think: corruption and lies at every level [8].

[8] For all doctors of integrity, true scientists, the public, this could even become a criterion of analysis: when a “big” medical journal praises a drug, beware! When it demolishes a treatment, then you’d do well to take an interest in it.

Remedying Hydroxychloroquine is still a big money story.

Medicine is more than that now.

Remdesivir would bring 4,500 dollars per treatment to Gilead [9].

Hydroxychloroquine, even in combination with Azithromycin, costs only 10 euros [US$ 12] per treatment and brings nothing to the pharmaceutical industry.

-Instead of blaming and scaring everyone with exaggerated mortality figures and second waves that do not exist,

-instead of imposing measures as ineffective as well as toxic such as wearing masks everywhere for everyone,

-instead of making people believe that effective and cheap drugs are dangerous and that expensive and dangerous drugs are the solution,

-instead of bowing down to vaccination, the illusory Holy Grail in the fight against VIDOC-19, here is what our high health authorities should do :

  1. Take the advice of scientists calling for calm and realism along the lines of Professor John Ioannidis of Stanford University
  2. Observe and measure real facts, not statistical mathematical models.
  3. Do not confuse positive RT-PCR test with COVID-19 disease.
  4. Drastic protective measures should be provided only for fragile and high-risk people.
  5. Let healthy, healthy people, especially young people and children, move freely without masks.
  6. To offer the entire population psychological care adapted to manage post-traumatic stress states generated by anxiety-provoking media.
  7. Enable all primary care physicians to prescribe the hydroxychloroquine-azythromycin-zinc combination to real patients with VIDOC-19 at the first sign of illness, according to the safety procedures that have been well established over the years that these drugs have been prescribed for their various indications.

 

This is only possible if these high health authorities are not the object of corruption with all the money accruing from pharmaceutical companies.

On the last point, number 7, the Brussels general practitioner Eric Beeth and I have sent a letter to all the officials concerned, the Minister of Health, members of the COVID-19 council within SCIENSANO, which is supervising the government in the management of the crisis, requesting the freedom for all Belgian doctors to prescribe hydroxychloroquine as a COVID-19 treatment and, above all, the constitution of a sufficient stock of this drug in Belgian pharmacies.

We are waiting for an answer.

Dr Pascal Sacré

Featured Image: By BaptisteGrandGrand, Remdesivir 3D structure, April 30, 2020. Wikipedia.

Notes :

[1] Une brève histoire du remdésivir (GS-5734),  17 juin 2020, mise à jour le 25 juin 2020

[2] Hydroxychloroquine versus Remdesivir, 8 juillet 2020

[3] Hot Topic, Chloroquine for the 2019 novel coronavirus SARS-CoV-2, International Journal of Antimicrobial Agents, February 2020

[4] L’entreprise Gilead aurait-elle dissimulé la vraie toxicité du Veklury© (remdesivir) ?, 8 juillet 2020, “It therefore appears that, based on the evidence presented above, we can strongly believe that Veklury (remdesivir) is a harmful drug and that this evidence has been concealed by Gilead. We believe that the lobbying operation conducted in the media and certain public health authorities in order to discredit hydroxychloroquine, specifically in hospitals, was intended to make Velkury (remdesivir) the only solution in this situation.”

[5] RETRACTED: Hydroxychloroquine or chloroquine with or without a macrolide for treatment of COVID-19: a multinational registry analysis

[6] Compassionate Use of Remdesivir for Patients with Severe Covid-19, NEJM 10 avril 2020

[7] Remdesivir for the Treatment of Covid-19 — Preliminary Report, NEJM 22 mai 2020

[8] COVID-19: le côté obscur de la science révélé, “Much of the scientific literature, probably half of it, could be simply wrong, afflicted by studies with small samples, minute effects, invalid preliminary analyses, and blatant conflicts of interest*, with the obsession to follow trends of dubious importance in fashion, science has taken the wrong turn into darkness. “

[9] Remdésivir : une molécule d’intérêt thérapeutique très discutable sur le COVID-19

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on COVID-19 – Remdesivir: License to Kill. Hydroxychloroquine: Prohibition to Cure.

中国经济与全球化。展望未来.

July 17th, 2020 by Peter Koenig

经济发展中的合作理念加上无止境的创造–避免冲突和前进,这是一个坚实的道原则–使中国发展到今天的地位–成为世界第二大经济体,而70年前几乎是零起步。中国是社会主义成功的一个生动例子。或者像中国人所说的那样,”有中国特色的社会主义”。一个从不寻求冲突或侵略其他国家,而是努力建立伙伴关系,和平共处的国家。这让西方国家,尤其是自诩为美帝的国家感到担忧。

2013年9月7日,远见卓识的习近平主席在哈萨克斯坦纳扎尔巴耶夫大学重启了具有2100年历史的古老丝绸之路。调整到21世纪,它被称为 “一带一路 “倡议,但它的基础还是老一套,在各国人民之间搭建桥梁,交流商品、研究、教育、知识、文化智慧,和平、和谐、’双赢’的风格。

**

你可以点击下面的链接阅读整篇文章的英文版,也可以用手机翻译

China’s Economy and Globalization: A Look into the Future                                                                  

By Peter Koenig, July 17, 2020

  • Posted in 中文
  • Comments Off on 中国经济与全球化。展望未来.

Ontario: An Economic Recovery for Who?

July 17th, 2020 by Bruce Kecskes

In the first week of July, the Ontario government announced the COVID-19 Economic Recovery Act (Bill 197). The sweeping omnibus bill changes twenty pieces of existing legislation and introduces several new acts. There has been little discussion in the mainstream media regarding the content of the bill, outside of the talking points provided by the Minister of Municipal Affairs, Steve Clark, and Education Minister Stephen Lecce. According to Clark, the Recovery Act would speed up the process for environmental assessments, address unemployment, create new consumer protections, and attract investors to the province. Lecce has declared that the omnibus contains measures to end school suspension prior to the fourth grade.

Any criticism of the bill that has appeared in the media, insofar as there has been any published criticism at all, has centered around the inclusion of measures which have little to do with COVID-19 or the economy. Such unrelated measures include changes to the Education Act, modifying the appointment process for provincial justices of the peace, and an array of other bureaucratic alterations. What has not yet been significantly interrogated is what impact the relevant measures to economic recovery will have. Who is being saved through this economic recovery plan? In a neoliberal economy, there is no such thing as mutually beneficial legislation for labour and capital, and of these antagonistic classes, it is capital that, almost without fail, is the beneficiary of state economic planning. This is the case with the COVID-19 Economic Recovery Act. The measures by which the Ford government intends to save the economy signals the end of pandemic politics and elucidates the establishment’s forthcoming post-Covid political project. The emergency fiscal and monetary policy appears to be over, and the omnibus bill warns of a swift return to the neoliberal orthodoxies of flexibilization, deregulation, and codification of the power of investor capital.

Back to the Neoliberal Project

The provincial government’s renewed commitment to the neoliberal project is, of course, unsurprising. All three of the major provincial parties have been fully invested in the neoliberal policy consensus since the 1990s, transforming Ontario from the former Keynesian heartland of Canada to the epicenter of pro-market governance (Albo 2019, 5). Doug Ford’s specific adherence to the market enabling tenets of neoliberalism is also well understood. Ford came to power campaigning on the mixed messages of ‘anti-elite’ right-wing populism, dogmatically neoliberal fiscal policies, and, oxymoronically, promises to increase public spending with no cuts to public services (Albo 2019, 30). These contradictions were resolved by the 2019 budget, which proved that Ford’s populist message had little impact on his neoliberal project, and that the promises of increased spending on transit, housing, and childcare were not to be believed. Ford almost immediately imposed a public spending and hiring freeze, cut the carbon trading system, and halted the planned minimum wage increase, while the budget entrenched the administration’s commitment to the neoliberals’ ideals of austerity, low taxes, labour discipline, and market expansion.

So, while the neoliberal reforms woven throughout the omnibus bill are not surprising, they are significant at this moment in history. The global pandemic has exacerbated the inherent violence and legitimation crisis of neoliberalism and plainly exposed underlying systemic conflicts along the lines of class and race. This defining public health crisis of our time has reinforced and accelerated the need to confront the neoliberal project. The ruling class’s sustained commitment to the project at this historical juncture must be met with the highest levels of scrutiny and with vehement opposition.

Modernization as Neoliberalization

What does this omnibus bill contain? There are several minor COVID-19 related safety measures imposed on an array of ministries and departments. Changes to the City of Toronto Act and the Municipal Act, for instance, will allows for electronic participation in City Council and committee meetings and will permit the practice of proxy voting. Furthermore, changes are made across several departments to allow for electronic rather than paper pathways.

These minor nods to safety aside, the true nature of the bill is in its neoliberal regulatory agenda. The most salient part of the bill to this effect is the new piece of business legislation it introduces, the Modernizing Ontario for People and Businesses Act (MOPBA). Repealing and replacing the Reducing Regulatory Costs for Business Act, 2017, and the Burden Reduction Reporting Act, 2014, the primary intention of MOPBA is to ease the ‘regulatory burden’ of corporations doing business in Ontario. It codifies into legislation neoliberal principles of regulatory reduction, which the government has been operating under informally up until this point. Furthermore, the act broadens the reach of existing burden reduction requirements, extending them to cover legislation, regulations, policies, and forms (Office of the Premier 2020). It is a perfect example of the contradictory nature of neoliberalism as a deregulatory project, as regulations are not being repealed, but rather, corporate profits are being protected through the imposition of new regulations.

The role of MOPBA in protecting businesses from the auspices of state regulation should come as little surprise. The idea of “modernizing” markets has become a grim euphemism for pro-corporate regulatory reforms since the neoliberal turn. One might consider the Commodity Futures Modernization Act, enacted in 2000 by President Clinton, which legally exempted the burgeoning derivatives market from regulatory oversight, contributing greatly to the 2008-9 financial collapse. For a more recent and closer-to-home example, there is the Ontario Capital Markets Modernization Taskforce, formed in the Fall of 2019. The taskforce, composed of Bay Street executives and lawyers, was given a mandate by the provincial government to identify and propose methods of decreasing the regulatory burden on capital investors.

Regulatory burdens for corporations are further eroded by the omnibus bill through its significant overhaul of the Environmental Assessment Act (EAA), making it even more clear that the primary effect of this act is insulating businesses from public oversight. The most significant change made to the act is the creation of a “streamlined” assessment process for new projects. The degree to which the environmental assessment process will be altered by this streamlining is yet unclear, but statements made by government officials suggest that this new process will be significantly less scrupulous than the previous system. In their review of the proposed streamlining process, the Canadian Environmental Law Association has concluded that it will likely be implemented to eliminate existing requirements for Class environmental assessments, and undermines the public-interest purpose of the existing EAA (Lindgren 2020).

The goal of this amendment is to accelerate new development projects by reducing the requirements for environmental assessments. While this may encourage new building initiatives in the province, it comes with significant cost to environmental sustainability, as the true environmental impact of new projects may not be fully understood or considered. Furthermore, no clear criteria exist for determining which new projects qualify for the new streamlined assessment, but the bill does clarify that the Environment Minister can make such determinations. This leaves open the possibility that the less rigorous streamlined process will be applied far more broadly than the alternate comprehensive assessment option.

Protecting Investment Capital

In addition to the pro-business measures established by the omnibus bill, last week the Ford government announced the creation of Invest Ontario, a new agency tasked with attracting foreign investment to the province. This appears to be the latest of a series of semi-autonomous provincial agencies, with broad-neoliberal mandates, similar to the aforementioned Capital Market Modernization Taskforce. The agency will be mandated to make Ontario “more competitive while sending a strong signal to investors that the province is open for business” (Office of the Premier 2020). Through this mandate, the provincial government is committing to a renewed race to the bottom. Previous attempts, in Ontario and elsewhere, to foster a competitive investment climate have involved reducing corporate taxes, eliminating protective measures for workers and the environment, and legislatively protecting foreign capital from any risk of expropriation or limitation to its mobility.

There is currently little information available about this proposed agency outside of its mandate; however, it is not difficult to imagine the measures that will be recommended to make Ontario a “one-stop shop” for investors (Invest Ontario 2020). The specific agenda of the agency will be highly dependent on the, yet unknown, composition of its board of directors. Past indicators suggest that the board will be full of Bay Street executives and the like. State actions that heighten the power and security of international capital necessarily have the inverse impact on the working class. Government funding will likely be depleted by providing corporate tax breaks which in turn, may lead to cuts in essential public goods. Anti-union legislation is also a common instrument employed by the state to attract international corporations, as is the weakening of employment and labour securities to limit regulatory restrictions on prospective new employers.

Neoliberal Ontario in a Post-Pandemic World

Not all economic recoveries are created equal. It is important to question who exactly the beneficiaries of a recovery plan will be and who will bear the associated burdens. Will it be the workers, the unemployed, and the precariously employed who are rescued? Or will the economic recovery plan solidify the power of capital and be paid for by the working class? The COVID-19 Economic Recovery Act provides a clear answer: the province intends to save employers, developers, and investors, using workers and the environment as fodder.

It is, of course, no surprise that the “Make Ontario Open for Business” government has again implemented a range of neoliberal regulatory reforms. While not surprising, it is significant at this historical juncture. The COVID-19 Economic Recovery Act is a harbinger of the post-pandemic political landscape. It affirms the role of the state, at least in Ontario, within the post-pandemic world as being the handmaiden of capital. Elements of the omnibus, like the introduction of MOPBA and the changes to the EAA, further demonstrate that the role of the neoliberal state is not necessarily one of deregulation, but rather it is tasked with the imposition of new regulations that insulate corporate capital from democratic challenges to accumulation.

The pandemic has yielded immense suffering and exacerbated the systemic violence of neoliberalism, and the province appears unwilling to help the working people of Ontario through the COVID-19 Economic Recovery Act or any other means. The public health crisis is far from over, but the provincial government is already signalling its sustained commitment to the neoliberal political orthodoxy that will define their post-pandemic response. As the economic recovery unfolds, the guiding logic behind the omnibus bill suggests that Ontario is likely to enact further neoliberal policy reforms, promoting workforce flexibility, limiting regulatory oversight, and generally promoting the privileged position of corporate capital. The left has been contesting the provincial government along these lines for decades, and opposition of this nature from unions, the organized anti-austerity front, and community solidarity groups remains vital.

*

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.

Bruce Kecskes is a Toronto-based writer and researcher concerned with issues pertaining to labour and political economy.

Sources

Albo, Greg. “Divided Province: Democracy and the Politics and State Restructuring in Ontario.” In Divided Province: Ontario Politics in the Age of Neoliberalism, edited by Greg Albo and Bryan Evans, 3-40, Montreal and Kingston: McGill-Queen’s University Press.

Invest Ontario. 2020. “About Invest Ontario.” Invest in Ontario. July 9, 2020.

Lindgren, Richard. 2020. Preliminary Analysis of Schedule 6 of Bill 197: Proposed Amendments to the Environmental Assessment Act. Canadian Environmental Law Association.

Office of the Premier. 2020. “Ontario Starting Down the Path to Growth, Renewal and Economic Recovery.” Ontario Newsroom. July 8, 2020.

Featured image is from The Bullet

Current federal unemployment benefits expire in days.

In May, House-controlled Dems narrowly passed a new $3 trillion stimulus package.

So-called Health and Economic Recovery Omnibus Emergency Solutions (HEROES) legislation extends current federal benefits through at least yearend.

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell and other Senate Republicans called the measure “dead on arrival.”

The GOP-controlled Senate and Trump want aid going largely to corporate America, favoring crumbs alone for ordinary people in need.

Trump opposes extension of benefits in any amount that doesn’t include suspension of employer and worker payroll taxes at least through yearend. More on this below.

Days earlier, McConnell suggested support for renewed stimulus to individuals earning $40,000 or less annually.

Corporate giveaway CARES Act legislation gives households a one-time direct deposit of $1,200, married couples $2,400, plus an additional $500 per child.

Benefits apply to households earning up to $75,000, $150,000 for married couples, scaled down amounts going to households earning up to $99,000/$198,000 for married couples.

Unemployed workers now get $600 weekly for four months through July 31.

If benefits aren’t extended at a time of economic collapse, punctuated by 17 straight weeks of over a million new claims for unemployment benefits — real US unemployment exceeding 32%, based on how calculated pre-1990, things will be catastrophic for millions of US households.

Last week, Treasury Secretary Mnuchin said the White House now favors more stimulus, based on what the GOP-controlled Senate agrees on.

According to Center on Budget and Policy Priorities chief economist Chad Stone, Dems and Republicans may agree on reduced stimulus in the coming days.

Without vitally needed federal aid, jobless US workers will only get state benefits to last from 26 to 39 weeks — amounts ranging from $531 in Massachusetts to $101 in Oklahoma.

Economic collapse produced an unprecedented housing crisis, millions of unemployed Americans missing recent rent and mortgage payments.

In 29 states, no moratorium on evictions exists. CARES legislation granted a temporary reprieve for residents of dwellings backed by federal mortgages or  government-assisted housing payments.

The provision covers about 30% of renters. What’s needed is a moratorium on rent and mortgage payments for unemployed workers — as long as economic crisis conditions affect them.

The same goes for student loan indebtedness.

House Dems support these policies for political reasons — ahead of November elections. Many Republicans oppose them.

Are mass evictions coming in the weeks and months ahead without enough federal unemployment aid to prevent them?

So far, over 51 million Americans filed new claims for unemployment benefits — around one-third of peak employment pre-economic collapse levels.

As large numbers of layoffs continue, the ranks of America’s unemployed are rising steadily, an unprecedented Greater Depression calamity for affected tens of millions.

Most likely before end of July, Republicans and Dems will agree on extending reduced federal stimulus benefits.

The White House suggested willingness to accept a scaled-back amount to needy households on the order of between $200 and $400.

According to the Washington Post this week, the White House signaled a “willingness to approve a narrow extension of the enhanced unemployment benefits” well below the current amount — along with another one-time stimulus payment, similar to what the CARES Act authorized for the most needy households.

With little time left before current federal benefits expire, it’s vital for legislation to be adopted by Congress and signed into law by Trump in the coming days.

On Thursday, Politico reported that DJT won’t agree to more stimulus without a payroll tax cut, citing three unnamed White House sources.

His aim that’s supported by hardline Republicans is cutting Social Security and Medicare funding to kill both programs over time.

So far, Dems reject the scheme. Politico said the idea “has fallen on deaf ears on Capital Hill,” Dems and most Republicans against it — with November elections less than four months away.

“(T)here is no sign” that Senate Majority Leader McConnell will include a payroll tax cut in a GOP stimulus bill.

Senate Finance Committee chairman Grassley opposes the idea. For Dems, it’s “a non-starter,” Politico reported.

On July 16, the Economic Policy Institute (EPI) stressed that US unemployment remains at historically high levels.

In the most recent week, 2.5 million US workers applied for unemployment insurance — not the reported 1.3 million figure, EPI saying “that’s not the right number to use.”

It ignores “pandemic unemployment assistance (PUA)” for workers not eligible for regular unemployment benefits.

The weekly headline number is also seasonally adjusted, distorting reality that affects the nation’s unemployed.

If a large enough amount of stimulus isn’t extended for as long as economic crisis conditions exist, individuals with less money will spend less because they have less to spend — making dire economic conditions worse than already.

EPI explained that households now getting $600 weekly support the equivalent of “over 5 million jobs.”

If the amount expires entirely, “more than 5 million jobs” will be lost. If the amount is scaled back, lost jobs will be proportional to amounts no longer received.

If Congress doesn’t pass veto-proof legislation quickly to circumvent possible Trump opposition, state agencies will face an “administrative nightmare,” said EPI, adding:

If benefits aren’t reinstated right away, “recipients will face a lapse in benefits of two to four weeks.”

Most Americans are enduring the most dire economic conditions in US history — that are likely to be protracted.

If federal aid to the unemployed isn’t continued in large enough amounts and renewed as long crisis conditions continue, tens of millions of America’s most disadvantaged will face harder than ever hard times that seemed unimaginable last year.

*

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.

Relations between the U.S. and European powers like Germany and France are reaching a historic low. This is especially true after U.S. President Donald Trump withdrew a large portion of the American military stationed in Germany to other European countries and after German Chancellor Angela Merkel refused to travel to the G7 summit in the U.S. because of the out of control coronavirus situation in the North American country. Another major reason for the breakdown of relations is Washington’s announcement that companies participating in the Nord Stream 2 pipeline project will be sanctioned.

Merkel said in an interview for The Guardian that the Germans grew up knowing that the U.S. wanted to be a world power. However, now that the U.S. is abusing its power against some of its strongest allies, Germany, which is currently holding the EU Presidency, could make efforts for the European bloc to be more independent of the U.S.

Although a multipolar world order has been emerging for over a decade, the pandemic has accelerated the redistribution of the current international balance of power. Europe has found itself needing to make an urgent decision – remain in Washington’s orbit or establish greater independent thinking to serve its own interests. The idea of European independent decision making has been gaining clout. A strong advocate is French President Emmanuel Macron who speaks of the “brain death of NATO” and attempted to impose extremely high taxes on American network giants like Google. In fact, many of the major EU countries have pushing for the bloc to be more independent of Washington. This is contrast to most of the former Warsaw Pact members of the EU, like Poland and Lithuania, who are aggressively pro-U.S.

Along with Macron, Ursula von der Leyen often said that the EU Commission, that she is the president of, would make its own decision on its geopolitical direction. In addition, Merkel, who has taken on the leadership role in the EU for the second time, has chosen the motto for her second chairmanship: “Together. Making Europe Strong Again.” Some major European politicians now understand the geopolitical direction that Europe should develop – and if it wants to remain relevant it needs to find its own independent path. We are beginning to see this, especially with Germany strongly resisting pressure from the U.S. to cancel the Nord Stream 2 pipeline construction with Russia.

It is unlikely that Europe will fully break off from Washington’s orbit due to historical and ethnic ties, but European independent decision making is becoming more apparent.  The order by Trump for 10,000 U.S. soldiers to be withdrawn from Germany could convince Berlin and the other EU countries that it is time to reconsider the foundations of NATO that lost its legitimacy after the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991. This is why Europeans could take a big step towards establishing a pan-European defense system or an organization that could replace NATO – a proposition that Macron fully supports.

While the U.S. remains the greatest military and economic power in the world today, it is clear that it is losing its global influence to China and Russia. Therefore, the U.S. will actively defend its status, whether Trump remains in power or his Democrat rival Joe Biden wins the upcoming election. The most important geostrategic interests for the U.S. will remain constant no matter who is in power.

Trump wants to block China’s Belt and Road Initiative from expanding, keep Chinese companies like Huawei away from Europe’s technological infrastructure, curb Chinese expansion in the Pacific region, and challenge Beijing’s influence in Africa, Latin America and Central Asia. For her part, Merkel wants to use her upcoming meeting with the Chinese president to determine future relations with China. In fact, the EU is facing a dilemma: maintain its current relationship with the U.S. or gradually turn to China.

Relations between the major powers have become much more changeable than before. The EU has every opportunity to develop new models of cooperation between different civilizations, especially between Europe and Asia. An advantage Europe has is that it can emphasize thousands of years of trade between Europeans (beginning with Ancient Greeks and Romans) and East Asian kingdoms. However, for this to occur, Germany needs to make the first brave step of pursuing policies that are to the benefit of Europe and not the agendas of Washington. It is for this reason that Merkel is defying Trump’s orders to stop the construction of Nord Stream 2. It is also why Macron is planting the idea of NATO being a redundant organization and that Europe must work towards normalcy with Moscow after European Union-Russian relations strained when Crimea reunited with Russia in 2014.

None-the-less, Germany’s presidency over the EU may be the most important junction of the bloc’s history since the collapse of the Soviet Union. The world is on the cusp of a multipolar order with a more evenly distributed power structure – Germany representing the EU must decide to join this new world order or remain stuck in the old 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.

This article was originally published on InfoBrics.

Paul Antonopoulos is an independent geopolitical analyst.

Featured image is from InfoBrics

“The Great Reset” Fraud

July 17th, 2020 by Matthew Ehret-Kump

Like everyone, I would love to live in a pollution-free world.

I would love to see human civilization strike a balance with nature and at the risk of sounding like a naïve idealist, I sincerely do believe that this is ultimately our destiny as a species.

My personal experience has led me to the conclusion that we have only failed to achieve this paradigm as a species due to the system (and cultural influence) of oligarchism which has managed to stubbornly sink its claws parasitically onto its host for a few too many generations- corrupting and perverting everything that it dominates.

Due to the pervasiveness of oligarchism, mass exploitation, wars and pollution have lain waste to ecosystems and countless human lives alike, and as the neo-liberal order continues to careen towards the inevitable breakdown of a 2 quadrillion dollar derivatives bubble which our un-repentant decades of decadence has caused, very serious choices will need to be made.

False Remedies to the Oncoming Meltdown

Many false solutions will be presented as society wakes up to the burning building it is trapped in, and unless our minds have become aware of those false solutions, (not to mention those arsonists managing this fire from the top), then many well-intentioned souls from all walks of life may sign onto their own death warrants and accidentally usher in a solution far worse than the disease they sought to remedy.

Before you, dear reader, accuse me of being overly dramatic in my claims, let me bring your attention to a June 3rd event sponsored by the World Economic Forum (WEF) entitled The Great Reset featuring impassioned calls by leaders of the IMF, World Bank, UK, USA, corporate and banking sector to take advantage of COVID-19 to shut down and “reset” the world economy under a new operating system entitled the Green New Deal.

 

WEF founder and Executive Chairman Klaus Schwab said

“the world must act jointly and swiftly to revamp all aspects of our societies and economies, from education to social contracts and working conditions… Every country, from the United States to China, must participate, and every industry, from oil and gas to tech, must be transformed. In short, we need a ‘Great Reset’ of capitalism.”

Schwab’s message was amplified by Prince Charles who gushed over the this golden opportunity to radically modify human behaviour in ways that decades of environmentalism have failed to accomplish when he said:

“We have a golden opportunity to seize something good from this [COVID-19] crisis. Its unprecedented shockwaves may well make people more receptive to big visions of change,”

While the World Economic Forum is usually known as a forum of global corporate elites, this organization branched out in recent years to become a leader in global pandemic coordination as a co-sponsor of the creepy October 2019 Event 201 and has embraced leaders of typically “anti-capitalist” resistance groups like Greenpeace who now speak regularly at their events.

Jennifer Morgan (current head of Greenpeace) stated at the event

“We set up a new world order after World War II… We’re now in a different world than we were then. We need to ask, what can we be doing differently? The World Economic Forum has a big responsibility in that as well—to be pushing the reset button and looking at how to create well-being for people and for the Earth.”

So is this definition of international wellbeing truly what it appears? Or does something more nefarious lurk under the surface? How can we know?

Those who are ignorant to their history will easily believe the cover story they are being fed by the players managing the World Economic Forum. The cover story is as follows: A new system was shaped during a two week conference in Bretton Woods New Hampshire 1944 under the leadership of Franklin Roosevelt and this was designed to export the New Deal program which reconstructed America after the Great Depression to the rest of the world. Since our current crisis demands a new system in a similar manner as the world needed a reset in 1932 and again in 1945, so too must we do so again.

On the surface this is all true. But here’s the rub…

FDR’s New Deal was premised around:

1) Stopping a bankers’ dictatorship in 1933 when he singlehandedly torpedoed the Bank of England/League of Nations’ London Conference,

2) imposing mass regulation on Wall Street speculators under Glass-Steagall laws and the broad bank acts that broke up megabanks, created the SEC, protected legitimate savings and put hundreds of elite bankers on trial under the Pecora Commission,

3) launched vast infrastructure projects under the Tennessee Valley Authority, Rural Electrification projects, Grand Coulee Dam, Hoover Dams etc which increased the national productive powers of labor turning America into a FULL SPECTRUM agro-industrial economy capable of constant growth, and 4) fought valiantly to guarantee those same capabilities to all nations of the world in total opposition to the British Empire.

Today’s Green New Dealers use the form and name of FDR’s historic precedents but are totally committed to the opposing goals.

Under the global response mechanisms being proposed by the oligarchs running the World Economic Forum’s Great Reset strategy, green energy grids designed to lower the world temperature by two degrees within 30 years by de-carbonizing society will have the effect of reducing the productive powers of labor of all nations rather than increasing those powers as the original New Deal had done.

Meanwhile Cap and Trade/Carbon pricing mechanisms designed by the Bank of England and the Carney/Bloomberg Task Force on Climate Related Financial Disclosures promise to create financial incentives to reduce the world population potential by deconstructing the industrial economic order needed to sustain the nearly 8 billion souls on the surface of earth currently. In a recent speech to the City of London the former head of the Bank of England who now leads Boris Johnson’s Climate Finance team said:

“Achieving net zero emissions will require a whole economy transition – every company, every bank, every insurer and investor will have to adjust their business models. This could turn an existential risk into the greatest commercial opportunity of our time.”

Carney, who also happens to be the architect of the Central Bankers Climate Compact has previously threatened destruction on all businesses that refuse to conform to the new green standards which he and his controllers wish be imposed upon the world saying: “the firms that anticipate these developments will be rewarded handsomely. Those that don’t will cease to exist”.

While the new reset green system promises to feature more regulations onto finance, will those regulations be controlled by sovereign nation states in the interests of the general welfare of their people or by private central banks in the interests of an oligarchical elite obsessed with control, balance, and keeping nations gullible, confused, divided, depopulated and impoverished?

I think you can figure this out for yourself.

The only form of a legitimate Great Reset that will protect people, nations and reduce the influence of the financial oligarchy WHILE actually protecting the environment in the long-run is tied to the modern International New Deal known as the Belt and Road Initiative. By creating a new system of finance tied to long-term development, agro-industrial growth of full spectrum economies across the world, China and its allies have taken up the torch which was dropped by Franklin Roosevelt’s early death on April 12, 1945. Any arrangement for a new economic reset would have to adhere to the proven principles of anti-fascist political economy that have been proven to work in the past and continue to work in the present.

A powerful start to this reset would involve President Trump agreeing to an emergency summit of Russia-China and the USA followed by a five-nation summit featuring the UK and France under the guidelines set forth by President Putin in January 2020 and reiterated again weeks ago.

*

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

Matthew J.L. Ehret is a journalist, lecturer and founder of the Canadian Patriot Review. He is a frequent contributor to Global Research.

Featured image is from SCF

Mike Pompeo’s statement that Beijing’s claims in the South China Sea are unlawful was seen by some as a dramatic step toward war. But it’s little more than bluster as the US knows it is not yet capable of taking military action.

Secretary of State Mike Pompeo issued a statement this week which rejected – as official US policy – China’s territorial claims in the South China Sea, saying that there was no legal basis for China’s claims and accusing China of using intimidatory tactics against littoral states with competing claims.

“We are making clear,” the statement read, “Beijing’s claims to offshore resources across most of the South China Sea are completely unlawful, as is its campaign of bullying to control them. The world will not allow Beijing to treat the South China Sea as its maritime empire.”

Under its self-proclaimed “nine-dash line” policy, China claims about nine-tenths of the 3.5-million square kilometer South China Sea. In addition to asserting territorial claims over existing shoals and islands, China has constructed a series of fortified man-made islands which it has used to assert its presence in the region. Five other nations – the Philippines, Vietnam, Brunei, Malaysia and Taiwan – dispute China’s claims, and have filed various legal challenges over the years, some of which have been recognized as valid under UN arbitration.

Until Pompeo’s statement was issued, the official US policy was one of neutrality regarding China’s territorial claims. Now the US has lined up against China in a dramatic manner. The timing of Pompeo’s statement did not take place in a vacuum.

Less than two weeks ago, the United States Navy undertook a fresh round of “freedom of navigation” exercises aimed at putting China on notice that its territorial aspirations in the South China Sea would not go unchallenged. The deployment of two carrier battle groups was an unprecedented display of military muscle flexing, remarkable not simply for the size and scope of the drill, but rather the context in which it was conducted.

Yesterday, the UK, America’s closest ally, said it was intending to station one of its new aircraft carriers in the region, apparently as a measure to counter an “increasingly assertive China.” 

China has, in recent months, publicly displayed its own military arsenal, in particular two classes of missiles, known as the DF-21 and DF-26, which have been given the moniker “carrier killers” for obvious reasons.

The Global Times, an English-language paper published under the auspices of the Chinese Communist Party, made reference to these missiles in a tweet published in response to the deployment of the US carriers, noting that “China has a wide selection of anti-aircraft carrier weapons like DF-21D and DF-26 “aircraft carrier killer” #missiles. South China Sea is fully within grasp of the #PLA; any US #aircraftcarrier movement in the region is at the pleasure of PLA.”

The US Navy’s Chief of Information, Rear Admiral Charlie Brown, sent out a tweet in response, declaring

“And yet, there they are. Two @USNavy aircraft carriers operating in the international waters of the South China Sea. #USSNimitz & #USSRonaldReagan are not intimidated #AtOurDiscretion.”

Admiral Brown’s bluster disguises the reality that missiles such as the DF-21 and DF-26, which are referred to as “anti-access/area denial” weapons (AA/AD), represent a new face of maritime warfare that makes the US carrier battle group obsolete.

This is reflected in new guidance issued by the Commandant of the Marine Corps for the marines to restructure its amphibious strike capability to reflect this new reality.

“Visions of a massed naval armada nine nautical miles off-shore in the South China Sea preparing to launch the landing force…are impractical and unreasonable,”General David Berger noted. “We must accept the realities created by the proliferation of precision long-range fires, mines, and other smart-weapons, and seek innovative ways to overcome those threat capabilities.”

The importance of the Commandant’s guidance is that it is based in reality, not theory – the Marine Corps is currently undergoing a radical restructuring of its combat organization and capability, shedding so-called “legacy” capabilities such as heavy armor and military police in favor of a new “expeditionary” structure which will operate from advance bases in the Pacific and make use of its own long-range strike capabilities to disrupt a potential adversary – in this case, China.

While some feverish commentators took Pompeo’s words as setting the legal foundation for the use of military force against Beijing, the truth is that neither the Marine Corps nor the US Navy are able to successfully execute a China-beating military campaign in the South China Sea today – and any such capability is years away. This is the fallacy of Secretary Pompeo’s statement – words that cannot be backed up with might are, to be blunt, meaningless.

Pompeo’s statement did not specify what consequences the US is prepared to impose in the event China continues its aggressive assertion of its “nine-dash line” claims, for the simple fact that there are no meaningful consequences that can be imposed.

Pompeo’s bluster seemed more intent in driving a wedge between China and its Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) trading partners, many of whom have territorial disputes with China in the South China Sea, than starting a war.

China has been for years now seeking to strengthen its economic and security ties with the ASEAN bloc, much to the consternation of the US. Indeed, one of the major obstacles faced by the US in confronting China in the South China Sea is the reticence among the very nations Pompeo sought to court in his statement to alienate relations with China, whose status as the region’s most economically powerful trading partner most ASEAN nations cannot ignore.

Here, President Trump’s precipitous decision to withdraw from the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) in 2018 has come back to haunt US policy makers – void of any viable US-led economic alternative, the ASEAN nations have no choice but to gravitate toward China.

By putting down a marker that it views the totality of China’s South China Sea claims as legally impermissible, the Trump administration is seeking to influence the diplomatic arena where the various disputes China has with the South China littoral states will be handled for the foreseeable future.

Other than words, however, the US has limited leverage that it can apply – freedom of navigation exercises are an irritant to China, but have done nothing to halt its expansion in the region, and in the aftermath of the collapse of the TPP, the US has failed to put forward any coherent regional economic development strategy to counter that of China.

The critical question is to what extent the South China Sea littoral nations are willing to rally around the new US declaratory policy regarding China’s ambitions in the South China Sea. Lacking either the military muscle to compel Chinese change or the economic wherewithal to offer a meaningful alternative to China’s economic influence, Pompeo’s statement is little more than empty words masking growing US impotence.

The fact that the sole meaningful response to China’s stance in the South China Sea being pursued by the US is a radical restructuring of the Marine Corps solely designed to engage China militarily in the region should be worrisome to all; by failing to back up strong rhetoric with meaningful policy options, the US is in danger of backing itself into a corner for which the only solution will be the military tool offered by the marines. The entire world should hope and pray that it does not come to that.

*

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

Scott Ritter is a former US Marine Corps intelligence officer. He served in the Soviet Union as an inspector implementing the INF Treaty, in General Schwarzkopf’s staff during the Gulf War, and from 1991-1998 as a UN weapons inspector. Follow him on Twitter @RealScottRitter

Featured image: The Arleigh Burke-class guided-missile destroyer USS Ralph Johnson (DDG 114) steams near the Spratly Islands in the South China Sea. July 14, 2020 © U.S. Navy Photo by Mass Communication Specialist 3rd Class Anthony Collier

What: Israeli missile kills four children of the same family on a beach in Gaza

When: 16 July, 2014

Where: The Gaza Strip, occupied Palestine

What happened?

Israel’s military offensive on the Gaza Strip in 2014 — “Operation Strong Cliff” from 8 July until 26 August — was one its deadliest ever against the Palestinians besieged in the coastal strip of land. Aside from the destruction of the civilian infrastructure and its disproportionate use of air strikes, among the war crimes that Israel committed during this offensive was its often deliberate targeting of civilian areas. This was arguably the most shocking crime of all.

On the afternoon of 16 July, four children belonging to Bakr family ventured onto the beachfront at Gaza City’s small harbour, playing near the boats that their fathers used as fishermen to earn a living. During the offensive, Israel banned all Palestinian fishermen from going out in their boats and essentially closed the port.

As the four cousins – 11-year-old Mohammad Ramiz Bakr, 9-year-old Ismail Mahmoud Bakr, and Ahed Atef Bakr and Zakariya Ahed Bakr, both aged 10 – continued to play with other children from their family, Israeli forces shelled the area and the fishing boats. One of the boys was killed immediately. The other three children started running from the beach when a second shell killed them too.

Three other members of the Bakr family were severely injured in the attack: 13-year-old Hamad Bakr was hit by shrapnel in the chest; 11-year-old Motasem Bakr was injured in his head and legs; and 21-year-old Mohammad Abu Watfah’s stomach was pierced by shrapnel.

A photographer for the New York Times, Tyler Hicks, witnessed the second strike after he heard “a loud, close blast.” He then heard the second blast while grabbing his equipment, later recalling that “I saw that boy running, and by the time I had reacted he was already dead. That’s the image that will stay with me.”

What happened next?

Following the killing of the four boys, the Israeli military admitted that it had conducted the strike and called it, dismissively, “a tragic outcome,” claiming that it mistook the children for Hamas militants. International outrage followed and Israel launched its own internal investigation into the killings, which was completed almost a year later in June 2015.

The resulting report essentially exonerated Israel from any responsibility:

“The incident took place in an area that had long been known as a compound belonging to Hamas’s Naval Police and Naval Force (including naval commandos), and which was utilised exclusively by militants.” This compound, said the statement, “spans the length of the breakwater of the Gaza City seashore, closed off by a fence and clearly separated from the beach serving the civilian population.”

This was what the Israel military claimed, even though the hut around which the children were playing was in the clear sight of nearby hotels where international journalists were staying. All of them reported that they saw no militants in that area at the time of the strike.

The Israeli military statement continued, saying that it had “carried out a number of attacks on the compound in the days prior to the incident” and, in one attack the day before, “a container located inside the compound, which was used to store military supplies, was attacked.”

This, again, contradicts the accounts of many of the journalists who were there. The compound in question, they confirmed, was easily accessible to both fishermen and local Palestinians who visit the beach to swim and relax, therefore making it a poor location for Hamas to store its military supplies. Furthermore, the container which the Israeli report described was found to have contained no military equipment when investigated.

In August 2018, it was revealed by The Intercept that a secret report by the Israeli military police said that the strikes were conducted without authorisation. According to the leaked report, the Israeli drone operators confessed that they contacted their superiors after they killed the first child, seeking authorisation for the second strike and clarification on what to do about the fleeing children who they allegedly mistook for militants. The report states, however, that “less than a minute later, the drone operators decided to launch a second missile, killing three more children, despite never getting an answer to their question.”

The killing of the Bakr boys was, as far as many people are concerned, evidence that Israel was targeting civilians and civilian areas indiscriminately in the numerous air attacks that it has conducted on the Gaza Strip. It symbolised the killing of innocents by the Israeli military, children being regarded as blameless and easily distinguishable from Hamas fighters, and not connected at all to the politics in the name of which civilians are all too often crushed.

Barely three years later, Israel detained the Bakr family fishermen, while at least 1,500 homes destroyed in that same 2014 offensive still need to be rebuilt.

Six years later, justice for the Bakr family has yet to be seen. Israel’s “investigation” of its own war crime has made sure of that.

*

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

Featured image is from Pinterest

Millions of Americans have awakened to the shocking realization that they are living in a veritable police state as they witness unarmed peaceful protesters for racial justice being confronted by a militarized police force replete with armored personnel carriers, assault rifles, submachine guns, flashbang grenades, pepper spray, rubber bullets, visor helmets, bulletproof vests and helicopters.  More often than not, the force is deployed as a menacing phalanx armed to the teeth by the Pentagon for the purpose of suppressing protests.  In recent years, the force has been used in American ghettos to quell a restive Black underclass.  Today, it can be seen in the main thoroughfares, business districts and civic centers of prominent cities including the nation’s capital where police and national guard units removed protesters from the gates of the White House on June 1 so that President Trump could pose for a photo opportunity in front of St. John’s Episcopal Church.  Not since U.S. troops under the command of General Douglas MacArthur cleared the bonus army of protesting World War I veterans from encampments during the 1930s or armed troops faced anti-Vietnam war protesters at the Pentagon during the 1960s has such a militarized show of force been displayed in Washington.

As protesters demanding racial justice and an end to police brutality have taken to the streets in unprecedented numbers in response to police executions of George Floyd, Breonna Taylor, Elijah McClain and countless other black lives lost, instances of violent police tactics escalated.  Thousands of peaceful protesters have been arrested, detained and brutalized as demonstrators confront agents of the police state.  Calls emerged to “defund” or “abolish” the police.  Those demands will be ignored by state power. Systemic change will only come about when the very state that deploys police forces is itself abolished and replaced by a socialist democracy.

Image on the right: Brutal: A Minnesota police officer sprays protesters with pepper spray at the weekend (Source: Morning Star)

To accomplish this daunting task, a sustained social struggle that has as its goal revolutionary transformation of the American terror state will be needed.  Anything short of this aim will only produce superficial reforms that will leave America’s predatory imperialist system intact.  A revolutionary movement requires leadership.  None exists in the United States with any influence with the American population. The goal of the U.S. government will be to ensure that a condition of political isolation and fragmentation persists among the working class and the poor.

Any transformative social movement that may emerge from the ongoing anti-racist protests will face a repressive apparatus of Orwellian proportions.

The physical architecture of the repressive apparatus includes a militarized police force that is linked to a vast prison-industrial gulag.  Surplus weaponry of the U.S. imperialist war machine used for decades to kill the poor inhabitants of third world countries has come home to the shores of America. Police forces across the country have been equipped with advanced military weapons designed for war zones, including 13,000 Mine Resistant Ambush Protected (MRAP) tactical vehicles.  The armored vehicles were developed in Iraq as a response to the use of improvised explosive devises (IEDs) by resistance forces.  They were also deployed in Afghanistan.  The vehicles cost between $500,000 to $1,000,000 per carrier.  The Defense Logistics Agency has calculated that the Pentagon practice of giving unused military weaponry to police departments has cost $7.4 Billion since 1997.  The U.S. militarized police force is only one part of the state’s architecture of repression.

The national security autocracy is another. The structure of the national security autocracy consists of the president, the secretaries of State and Defense, National Security Council, Joint Chiefs of Staff and 16 intelligence agencies, the most prominent of which are the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), National Security Agency (NSA), Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) and Department of Homeland Security (DHS).  The national security autocracy is supplanted by a privatized intelligence network so vast as to defy description.

Since 9/11, the architecture of domestic repression has been expanded and merged with domestic law enforcement and the military through the creation of the Department of Homeland Security, FBI Joint Terrorism Task Forces, Fusion Centers, FEMA Detention Camps, Northcom (U.S. Military Northern Command) and a privatized American intelligence network.

The privatized American intelligence network is so extensive that over 250,000 private contractors are working in approximately 2,000 companies and 1,200 government organizations on top secret security programs in 10,000 locations across the country.  And this may only be the tip of the private covert intelligence iceberg.

The NSA can now monitor any phone conversation, email message, website visit, social network interaction, text message, or online book purchase in the country.  Privacy has been destroyed in the United States as an expansive National security autocracy augments the militarized police state.  And the security apparatus has been actively involved in coordinating the repression of Black Lives Matter and anti-racist protests across the nation.

Ominously, the Department of Homeland Security has warned that the George Floyd protests could be infiltrated by “domestic terrorists”, meaning anarchist groups such as Antifa.  The warning follows an accusation by President Trump and Attorney General William Barr that blamed Antifa and other left-wing groups for instigating violent protests.  Trump also threatened to label Antifa a “domestic terrorist organization.”  Following Trump’s lead, Barr stated that the FBI’s Joint Terrorism Task Forces would coordinate police activity aimed at finding and arresting violent protesters.

The designation used by DHS to identify members of Antifa as “domestic terrorists” is their classification as “anarchist extremists.”  According to bureaucrats at DHS, anarchist extremists are those individuals who oppose capitalism, globalization, and U.S. government institutions.  Anti-capitalists, anti-globalists and anti-imperialists can now be targeted by DHS as “extremists” allowing the U.S. government to proscribe political belief, association and activity.

There is ample precedent for DHS involvement in domestic repression.  Extensive documentation has revealed that the Federal Bureau of Investigation, Department of Homeland Security and local police forces coordinated the violent repression of Occupy Wall Street.  The protest movement was targeted as a criminal and terrorist threat.  This is not surprising as post-9/11 anti-terrorist legislation such as the USA PATRIOT Act of 2001 expanded the definition of terrorism so broadly as to criminalize political dissent.

Occupy activists were arrested, held in detention for hours on end without access to lawyers, violently assaulted by police forces, beaten, tear gassed, secretly infiltrated and surveilled.  Information gathered by police about protesters was funneled to Fusion Centers and FBI Joint Terrorism Task Forces.

The FBI has a sordid history of domestic political repression that culminated in the Cointelpro program from 1956 until 1971.  The covert program was used against domestic political dissidents involved in civil rights, anti-war, feminist, Black liberation, Native American and anti-colonialist movements of the 1960s. The program was revealed by courageous anti-war activists who stole files from an FBI office in Media, Pennsylvania in 1971 that were published in the underground press.  Revelations of FBI Cointelpro helped build public opposition to illegal government activity.  The disclosures forced Congress to investigate the role of intelligence agencies in suppressing social rebellion during the turbulent era of the 1960s.

In 1976, Senator Frank Church chaired the United States Senate Select Committee to Study Government Operations With Respect to Intelligence Activities.  The Church Committee found extensive violations of civil liberties by the U.S. intelligence community and proposed restrictions on the domestic activities of intelligence agencies that were not adopted by Congress.  Public outcry to the findings of the Church Committee pressured President Ford’s Attorney General Edward Levi to issue internal restrictions on the FBI that prevented the agency from investigating individuals engaged in constitutionally protected political activity.  Those restrictions were swept away after the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001 by Bush’s Attorney General John Ashcroft.

The continued integration of the U.S. military/security/intelligence apparatus with a militarized police state bodes ill for emerging social movements that are fractured by the identity politics of the Democratic party and the liberal left in America.  Until and unless a politics of solidarity coalesces to confront the systemic and institutional crisis of imperialistic capitalism and the military/industrial/security complex that protects the American plutocracy, the social forces needed to defeat racism and class oppression will be repressed and diverted into the cage of electoral politics with promises of transient reform.

*

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.

Donald Monaco is a political analyst who lives in Brooklyn, New York.  He received his Master’s Degree in Education from the State University of New York at Buffalo in 1979 and was radicalized by the Vietnam War.  He writes from an anti-imperialist, anti-capitalist perspective.  His recent book is titled, The Politics of Terrorism, and is available at amazon.com

Click image below to order Donald Monaco’s Book 

As the combined impact of the corona virus and the wholesale destruction of America’s history and culture, or at least the part of it that is white, continues, it is nice to see that other nations are getting into the game that will lead to the de facto elimination of western civilization. No one is yet quite up the U.S. level of senseless destruction and looting by the heroes of Black Lives Matter (BLM) and Antifa, but in Britain mobs are beating policemen, statues including that of Winston Churchill are being attacked and the Cenotaph commemorating the country’s war dead has been vandalized. In a bizarre incident demonstrating the fundamental ignorance of the wreckers, a memorial to those who died at the 1651 Battle of Worcester in the English Civil War has suffered “significant damage”, with the letters BLM painted on the marker.

Perhaps the most ridiculous SJW demand arising out of the ethno-racism nonsense that has induced the politicians and journalists to go down on their knees and beg for forgiveness is the argument that the Arch of Titus in Rome, which has been standing for two thousand years, should be destroyed because one of its panels depicts the triumphal parade that displayed the loot obtained from the Roman capture of Jerusalem in 70 A.D. Yeshiva University senior Michael Weiner writing in the Jewish magazine “The Forward” argues that “…like Columbus, Robert E. Lee, and King Leopold II, it too must come down. There is no excuse for Italy to maintain, fund, and proudly display a structure that celebrates the destruction of Jerusalem, the forced displacement of the Jews of Judea, and the burning of the Temple… As an ancient propaganda tool to glorify Rome’s bloody conquests and a modern emblem of Christian persecution and Jewish subjugation, the Arch of Titus is a cruel symbol.”

Weiner seems unaware, or more likely does not care, that there is considerable irony in his denunciation of the Roman subjugation of Judea while ignoring the very real contemporary genocide of the Palestinian people by his co-religionists in Israel. It just goes to show you that once the destruction game starts, anyone who has a grievance can join in and the damage will increase exponentially as every foolish demand becomes self-justifying.

If the current political turmoil ever reverts to anything like normalcy, what is likely to emerge out the other end is a coalition of grievance groups that have figured out that destroying things indiscriminately to make some people feel consumed with guilt so you can steal their money and property is a whole lot easier than actually having to come up with something reasonable. Whatever it winds up calling itself the “NewPolitics” will look a lot like Nancy Pelosi’s groveling Democratic Party or possibly Britain’s Labour Party under its new dystopian leader Keir Starmer, whose overriding mission appears to be ridding the world of anti-Semitism.

Be that as it may, and assuming that the world will not end in the next year or so, the distraction arising from the virus and demonstrations has provided plenty of opportunity for the Trump Administration’s consigliere Mike Pompeo and his foreign allies to make mischief all around the world. Indeed, there have been opportunities for several “twofers” with condemnation of China’s and Venezuela’s relations with Iran permitting attacks on multiple “enemies” simultaneously.

China is completing a “New Silk Road” trade agreement with Iran that will reduce the impact of U.S. sanctions while Iran has been supplying refined petroleum products to Venezuela. Washington has been working hard to disrupt both developments, even threatening to use counter-terrorism legislation to intercept the Greek-owned but carrying-Iranian-fuel tankers in international waters.

The real question all along has been whether the United States and Israel will attack Iran now or later, but the usual anonymous sources in Washington that provide the New York Times with fodder for its fabricated foreign policy pieces are now suggesting that we are looking at something that might be called “incremental conflict management”, which would consist of a series of “short-of-war clandestine strikes, aimed at taking out the most prominent generals of the Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps and setting back Iran’s nuclear facilities.”

Brian H. Hook, the State Department’s special envoy for Iran described the U.S. government’s vapid Iran policy by observing “We have seen historically that timidity and weakness invites more Iranian aggression.” Also, in an election year, “incremental” sounds better than real war and it also obscures the reality that Israel is already attacking Iran and its allies, almost daily, aided by the Trump Administration and also encouraged by a belligerent U.S. Congress.

The U.S. approach to Iran is only marginally more subtle than that of the Jewish state, consisting of seeking to destroy the country’s economy by blocking its oil exports and its banking sector. Last week a U.S. court in Washington cited “anti-terror legislation” to rule against Iran, awarding $879 million in damages to the survivors and families of the U.S. airmen killed in the Khobar Towers bombing attack in 1996. Iran has denied involvement in the bombing and there is certainly no hard evidence that it was behind it, but the victims will in any event have a hard time collecting their money as the Iranian government has had many of its bank accounts frozen by the U.S. Treasury.

The “incremental war” crowd sees a situation in which the United States and Israel have de facto been pursuing a plan to bring down the Iranian government while also devastating its nuclear program. The United States is applying the economic pressure through an increasing use of sanctions, while Israel regularly bombs Iranians and Iranian proxies in Syria and Lebanon. The two governments believe that the combination of military force and economic sanctions will eventually force the Iranian regime to basically surrender and effectively disarm without having to escalate into an open, shooting war.

The only problem with the staged approach is that Israel has already, in the past two weeks, directly attacked major research and development facilities inside Iran, and has apparently done so in part with missiles fired either from Israeli fighter-bombers or from ships offshore in the Persian Gulf. The two attacks took place on July 2, 2020, one directed against the Iranian nuclear research facility at Natanz and the second was targeting a claimed missile development center at Parchin. Neither attack was much reported in the western media even though they together appeared to be a major escalation of the Iran-Israel conflict, with potentially significant consequences.

Even the Times, again relying on an anonymous “Middle Eastern intelligence official with knowledge of the episode,” eventually reported that Natanz was not hit by a cyber-attack, as had been previously suggested, but by a “powerful bomb” which might well have been placed in the site’s main building by an Israeli agent. One assumes that the “Middle Eastern official” was Israeli and Israeli media sources also confirmed that Parchin was hit by missiles fired from an F-35 Israeli Air Force plane, which suggests that the Benjamin Netanyahu is not exactly being shy about what his government did.

The point is that the U.S. and the Israelis are intent on going to war against enemy number one Iran and are packaging their actions in such away as to suggest that they are really behaving in a moderate fashion. They are assuming that Iran will retaliate, but in such a way as to avoid intensifying the conflict. In reality, taking action to destroy a nation’s economy is an act of war just as much as is staging attacks using bombs carried by spies or using missiles fired from planes. There is already a war going on, but the smokescreen provided by the coronavirus spread and BLM means that no one seems to want more on their plate and there is great reluctance to call it for what it is.

*

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.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Turmoil at Home, Turmoil Abroad: Israel and the U.S. Escalate Their War Against Iran
  • Tags: , ,

Urgent: Evo Sí Again, Trudeau Not Again

July 17th, 2020 by Arnold August

On July 15, 2020, the right-wing candidate for the upcoming October 20 presidential elections in Bolivia, Luis Fernando Camacho, issued an appeal to the Organization of Americans States (OAS). Camacho, who led the violent coup (backed by Trump, Trudeau and the OAS) against Evo Morales last fall complained about the electoral system.

Camacho concluded that “we must not allow the elections to become an act of resurrection” of Evo’s party MAS (Movement for Socialism). It is an open appeal to the US-controlled OAS to interfere once again in the elections as it did last fall. Camacho, according to the polls, would garner only 7 per cent of the votes while the MAS ticket is ahead in the polls.

After the coup last fall, Evo was forced into exile while the Camacho clique carried out massacres against the Indigenous and violent suppression of the MAS militants.

Evo Morales tweeted on July 15:

“Asking the OAS to rule on the suspension of the elections in Bolivia is a new blow against democracy, it is a form of intervention against the sovereignty of the State and the dignity of the people;  and furthermore it is being asked by those responsible for the tragic events of 2019”

Moreover, the resistance seems to be gearing up. On July 16, the on-the-ground Kawsachun News reported that:

“The Central Obrera Boliviana (COB), Bolivia’s main workers federation, demands adhesion to the September 6th election date as adopted by the TSE [Election authority].”

This is a story in development. However (for the moment) in order to provide some background information, please take the time to view this short YouTube clip. It forecasts the role of the Trudeau government as an active proponent of the coup.

This second youtube clip consists of my appeal to Canadians, Québécois and Indigenous nations in English, French and Spanish.

This appeal is, generally speaking, still applicable. We have to act now to stop the hand of Trudeau — once again — to back this latest blatant attempt to interfere in the internal affairs of Bolivia.

*

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 Canada Files.

Featured image is from TCF

If you are adamant about not wearing a mask, you are not going to like this news one bit.  Coming into this week, Costco, Starbucks, Best Buy and Panera Bread were requiring customers to wear masks to come into their stores, but most other major retailers were still giving people the freedom to choose whether they wanted to wear a mask or not.  I know that a lot of people appreciated this freedom to choose, but it is about to come to an abrupt end.  On Wednesday, Walmart and Kroger announced that they will be starting to require consumers to wear masks in all of their stores, and the National Retail Federation is pushing all of the rest of their members to do the same thing.  In the days ahead it is expected that most of them will follow suit, and that means that soon there will be very few major retail stores that you are able to enter without wearing a mask.

Walmart says that they decided to make this change in order to “bring consistency” across all of their stores.  The following comes from the official Walmart website

As the number of confirmed cases has spiked in communities across the country recently, so too have the number and types of face covering mandates being implemented. Currently about 65 percent of our more than 5,000 stores and clubs are located in areas where there is some form of government mandate on face coverings. To help bring consistency across stores and clubs, we will require all shoppers to wear a face covering starting Monday, July 20. This will give us time to inform customers and members of the changes, post signage and train associates on the new protocols.

In the region of the country where I live, there are a ton of people that feel very strongly about not wearing masks, and this announcement is going to hit them really hard.

There is only one Walmart within a 90 minute drive of where I live, and virtually everyone in the region pops in there at some point.  But now those that do not want to wear masks will be excluded, and there will be some very hard feelings over this.

If you try to enter a Walmart without a mask next week, you will be greeted at the door by a “Health Ambassador” wearing a black shirt.  I find it very interesting that they specifically chose the color black, and I think that it would have been helpful if they had chosen a more friendly color.  In any event, these new positions are being created in order to ensure that only people wearing masks are able to get into the stores.  Of course Walmart is trying to make this sound as non-threatening as possible

In addition to posting clear signage at the front of our stores, Walmart has created the role of Health Ambassador and will station them near the entrance to remind those without a mask of our new requirements. Our ambassadors will receive special training to help make the process as smooth as possible for customers. The ambassadors, identifiable by their black polo shirts, will work with customers who show up at a store without a face covering to try and find a solution. We are currently considering different solutions for customers when this requirement takes effect on July 20.

Needless to say, this announcement by Walmart is likely to spark an avalanche of other announcements by major retailers.

In fact, Kroger made an announcement just hours after Walmart did

Within hours, Kroger — the largest U.S. supermarket chain — said it will also require shoppers to wear masks starting July 22.

And as I mentioned above, the National Retail Federation is already pushing all of their members to fall in line

The president of the  National Retail Federation trade group wants retailers to adopt a nationwide policy that requires customers to wear masks, and hopes Walmart’s decision to do so would galvanize other companies to take similar action, reports Reuters.

“Shopping in a store is a privilege, not a right. If a customer refuses to adhere to store policies, they are putting employees and other customers at undue risk,” the NRF says.

We will be told that this is just a “temporary” thing, but at what point will we be able to start shopping without masks again?

It certainly won’t be any time in 2020.  This week, CDC director Robert Redfield saidthat he anticipated that this fall and winter “are probably going to be one of the most difficult times that we’ve experienced in American public health”…

I am worried. I do think the fall and the winter of 2020 and 2021 are probably going to be one of the most difficult times that we’ve experienced in American public health because of what you said — the co-occurrence of Covid and influenza, and this is where I’d like to continue to work with you to get the American public to embrace the influenza vaccine so we can try to minimize the impact of inluenza, because I think those two respiratory pathogens hitting us at the same time do have the potential to stress our health system.

Ultimately, we will probably be forced to wear masks until the pandemic ends.

But what if this pandemic lasts for years?

A couple days ago, I authored an article in which I discussed three separate scientific studies which all showed that COVID-19 antibodies disappear very, very rapidly.  In fact, some patients no longer had detectable antibodies just weeks after originally testing positive for antibodies.

What this means is that it appears that COVID-19 is very similar to many other less dangerous coronaviruses that are floating around out there.  Just like there is no lasting immunity to “the common cold”, there also appears to be no lasting immunity to COVID-19.

That means that no “vaccine” is going to save us, we will never get to the point of “herd immunity”, and this virus will circulate all over the globe year after year.

So does this mean that wearing masks will now become a permanent requirement in our society?

We should certainly hope that won’t be the case, but unfortunately we aren’t the ones making the decisions.

*

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

Michael Snyder is the publisher of The Economic Collapse BlogEnd Of The American Dream and The Most Important News, whose articles are republished on dozens of other prominent websites all over the globe. He has written four books that are available on Amazon.com including The Beginning Of The EndGet Prepared Now, and Living A Life That Really Matters.

Featured image is from TMIN

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Soon, You Will Need to Wear a Mask to Enter Virtually Every Major Retail Store in America
  • Tags: ,

Early on July 16, unidentified warplanes conducted at least 3 airstrikes on the Turkish-occupied town of al-Bab in the Syrian province of Aleppo. The strikes destroyed a large building in the town center and led to multiple casualties. Pro-Turkish sources claim that there were civilian casualties only and that the United States or Russia were behind the strikes.

A few hours later, the Turkish Interior Ministry reported that a reconnaissance plane crashed in the Turkish province of Van, near the Iraqi border. 7 personnel, including 2 pilots, on board died in the incident that happened on Mount Artos.

Earlier this year, a series of airstrikes by unidentified aircraft killed several prominent terrorists, including well-known ISIS members, that were freely hiding in the Turkish-controlled part of Syria. The July 16 strikes could be a part of this campaign.

In response to all these developments, Turkish sources cried foul about the killed terrorists and Turkish-led forces were conducting strikes on positions of the Kurdish-led Syrian Democratic Forces on the contact line in northern Syria. The Turkish Army reacted in a similar way to the July 16 events by shelling SDF positions near Tell Rifat.

On July 15 afternoon, a weapon depot of the SDF exploded in the province of al-Hasakah. The explosion that erupted next to the residential area of the al-Asrafiyah district reportedly killed or injured several SDF members.

Last month, an ammo depot of the SDF in in the vicinity of the town of Rmelan in the same province also exploded. Some sources claimed that Turkish warplanes destroyed it. However, the SDF didn’t provide any information on the incident.

On top of this, a series of explosions rocked the SDF-controlled city of Raqqa on July 14. Three IEDs exploded inside an abandoned building in the al-Tub al-Hadith district in the city center and the fourth one in the al-Jazzrah district in the western part of the city. There have been no reports on casualties and no group has claimed responsibility for the attack. Nonetheless, the main suspect is ISIS cells, which recently increased activity on the eastern bank of the Euphrates.

Meanwhile, the Syrian Army artillery struck positions of Turkish proxies near the villages of al-Bara, Fatterah, Sufuhon and Fleifel in southern Idlib. The tensions in the region heightened since the car bomb attack on a joint Russian-Turkish patrol on July 14. Pro-militant sources reported multiple artillery and air strikes on their positions claiming that the Russians and Assad regime are once again opressing peaceful al-Qaeda members.

*

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

SUPPORT SOUTHFRONT: 

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

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Video: Unidentified Warplanes Struck Turkish-led Forces in Syria. Turkish Spy Plane Crashed Near Iraqi Border
  • Tags: ,

China’s special administration region of Hong Kong saw the passing of a security law outlawing acts universally recognized as criminal and threats to any nation’s security and sovereignty.

Despite what would appear to be common sense legislation, the Western media has cried “controversy.” While the West claims it fears curbs on freedoms inside China – it is becoming increasingly clear that the West’s real fears revolve around the “freedom” of its proxies and their attempts to maintain Hong Kong as a defacto Western foothold.

British state media, the BBC in their article, “Hong Kong security law: What is it and is it worrying?,” would note:

Hong Kong was always meant to have a security law, but could never pass one because it was so unpopular. So this is about China stepping in to ensure the city has a legal framework to deal with what it sees as serious challenges to its authority.

The BBC would also list acts criminalized under the law which include:

  • secession – breaking away from the country
  • subversion – undermining the power or authority of the central government
  • terrorism – using violence or intimidation against people
  • collusion with foreign or external forces

Nothing on the list is in any way controversial, with virtually all other nations on Earth maintaining similar laws on their respective books.

Additionally, Hong Kong – a region that belonged to China before being taken by force by the British Empire in 1841 and a region that now once again belongs to China after its handover to Beijing in 1997 – is clearly China’s to govern and to do so in any manner China decides. Laws it passes regarding Hong Kong are not Washington or London’s business just as laws passed regarding US or UK territory are none of Beijing’s.

The BBC and many others across the Western media have attempted to claim the new security law is “controversial” simply because despite the UK’s handover of Hong Kong to China in 1997, the UK and the US have both attempted to maintain the region as a foothold inside China – and to do so specifically by engaging in literally everything on the list outlawed by the bill – including secession, subversion, terrorism, and collusion.

The BBC article explains:

Hong Kong was handed back to China from British control in 1997, but under a unique agreement – a mini-constitution called the Basic Law and a so-called “one country, two systems” principle.

The BBC never explains why China should be bound by an agreement made with the UK – a hostile foreign occupier now fully departed from China’s restored sovereign territory.

Those complaining the loudest in Hong Kong – according to the BBC article itself – include culprits guilty of all the above – including Joshua Wong and his US-backed “Demosisto” political party and other recipients of US and UK funding and support.

Wong and mobs he helped organize and lead systematically destroyed Hong Kong’s infrastructure, used violence against political opponents, and openly appealed to the US and UK to intervene.

Repeatedly exposed have been the vast amounts of resources from the US government funneled into Hong Kong propping up this so-called “pro-democracy” movement.

The generally pro-Western South China Morning Post even admitted to extensive US meddling in Hong Kong in an article titled, “US has been exposed for funding last year’s Hong Kong protests.”

The article noted:

Imagine how the American government would react if multiple Chinese state agencies such as Xinhua were exposed secretly helping protest groups across the United States to evade surveillance and crackdowns by law enforcement agencies.

Washington would probably threaten China with war. Roughly, though, the little-known but powerful US Agency for Global Media has been doing just that in Hong Kong. It oversees funding for various news and information operations around the world, including Voice of America and Radio Free Asia.

About US$2 million was earmarked for the protest movement in Hong Kong, but has now been frozen as part of a general overhaul and restructuring by a new agency boss.

As clear as the South China Morning Post article makes US meddling in Hong Kong, it is just scratching the surface of the scale and duration of US meddling in China’s internal affairs – particularly in regards to Hong Kong.

Virtually every aspect of Hong Kong’s opposition is a product of US meddling with the majority of protest leaders having literally been hosted in Washington D.C. and the direct recipients of US funding and support to build up their respective movements and carry out US objectives under the smokescreen of promoting “democracy.” This has been the case for years, long before the most recent protests.

All of this constitutes a clear breech of China’s sovereignty – a violation of international law and norms – but also a violation in terms of Washington’s own laws. For example, were China – as the South China Morning Post article imagined – aiding subversion in the US in a similar manner – it would be deemed absolutely illegal under US law and those involved would face equal or harsher punishments than under Hong Kong’s new security law.

That China’s move to shield its borders from overt, admitted foreign meddling should be considered “controversial” by the West illustrates just how deep the West’s double standards run and how Western foreign policy is driven by the principle of “might makes right” with all other principles serving merely as smokescreens.

And while the US and UK condemn China for reasserting itself over its own territory and people, the US and UK both continue illegal wars and occupations thousands of miles from their own shores all across the globe. The Western media is tellingly silent about this hypocrisy.

While the US and UK may believe crying “controversy” over the new Hong Kong security law helps paint themselves as defenders of “human rights,” “freedom,” and “democracy,” it in fact only further paints Western foreign policy as dangerously hypocritical.

*

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.

Tony Cartalucci is a Bangkok-based geopolitical researcher and writer, especially for the online magazine New Eastern Outlook” where this article was originally published. He is a frequent contributor to Global Research.

Featured image is from Global Times

After the corona crisis, may the world be facing a monumental paradigm shift of power towards a more balanced civilization – more social justice and equity? The global almost total lockdown, chosen by most governments around the globe in response to mastering the Covid-19 crisis, devastated the world economy, as we know it – and hundreds of millions of lives. Was it necessary? Will there be a time when those responsible for this universal, scientifically unnecessary lockdown be held accountable?   

The last six months, governments around the world have almost unilaterally committed an auto-destruction of their socioeconomic fabric and collectively of the global economy. It may never return to the “normal” of the times before COVID. That, per se, may not be a bad omen, though, as our pre-corona existence – especially in the west – was everything else but an ethical “normal”.

Pre-Corona Globalization and Economic Development

Neoliberal economics have “normalized” greed, inequity, exploitation of people and depletion of resources. This was largely possible due to an ever more reckless ultra-capitalist globalization and privatization of everything – goods, services and assets through international corporatism and globalized private banking.

Global finance was – and still is to some extent – dominated by a fiat US-dollar system aiming at total control of the world’s riches towards a global economic and resources hegemony, enforced by sanctions and confiscation of assets, coercing dissenting nations under the dictate of the United States and her western allies. The countries that did not cave in – Cuba, Venezuela, Iran, Syria, Yemen, North Korea – and not least, of course, China and Russia are relentlessly assailed.

The corona pandemic temporarily slowed western pressure on China and Russia, as it brought about an abrupt stop to world economic activities, causing a melt-down of assets, plunging stock markets by over 30 percent, creating untold bankruptcies, unemployment and human misery unrecorded in past history. The calamity may be far surpassing the Credit Crisis of 1772, the Great Depression (1929 – 1933) and the Financial Crisis of 2007 – 2009, possibly by orders of magnitude, once the dust settles and a more accurate accounting can take place. This may take months, if not years.

Estimates from the International Labor Office (ILO) now predict unemployment and underemployment may reach up to 2.0 billion people, worldwide, more than half of the globes total workforce, many of them living in precarious conditions well before the corona outbreak. The World Food Program (WFP) fears that hundreds of millions of people may be affected by famine and tens of millions may die. This is a somber base from which to look forward into – let’s hope – a brighter future.

The silver lining of this dark corona cloud is that the dollar hegemony is coming to an end, and instead the world is presented with a wide-open window of new opportunities to stitch a social fabric that fits all or most of humanity – forging a new social contract towards creating a common future for mankind.

Salient features under globalization as we know it

Economic development under unfettered globalized capitalism has in the past 70 years ravaged the globe and in the Global South has drastically increased inequality, injustice among peoples and nations. The Washington Consensus (1989) has given free reign for forging unequitable trade agreements which often undermined and even annihilated national sovereignties of poorer countries, for example, driving local farmers off their land by forcing subsidized western agricultural crops into their countries.

Globalization under the neoliberal concept has also brought privatization of everything, but especially of social services and infrastructure, destroying the peoples’ accumulated asset base – shuffling social capital from the bottom to the top, to the western private banking sector and a few oligarchs, thereby destroying the little and often flimsy social safety nets poorer nations may have established – safety nets which would come in handy now with Covid-caused poverty skyrocketing. CNBC reports that America’s billionaires added US$ 434 billion to their fortunes during the 3 months of U.S. lockdown between mid-March and mid-May 2020.

China’s 1949 Revolution initiated by Chairman Mao presented a new concept of economic and social development, one that still holds as of today. After western devastation of China, it started wisely in building strength by seeking self-sufficiency in education, health and nutrition – and in eradicating poverty. The Chinese society worked and keeps working in a flux of constant creation – with natural ups and downs and trials and errors – but steadily advancing, learning – and succeeding which, in turn, motivates new creation, new achievements.

After reaching this first objective of basic autonomy, China opened her gates to the world to continue the harmonious flow of creating relationships for trade and investments, educational and cultural exchange and gradually moving into research and cutting-edge science to share with the world. It is the contrary of what the west is used to. It is cooperation instead of competition. A concept hardly understood in the profit-driven capitalist west.

The idea of cooperation in economic development coupled with an endless flow of creation – avoiding conflicts and moving forward, a solid Tao principle – has grown China to where she stands today – becoming the world’s second largest economy, after starting practically from zero only 70 years ago. China is a vivid example of socialist success. Or, as the Chinese would say, “socialism with Chinese characteristics”. A nation that never seeks conflicts or invasions of other countries, but strives for partnerships and peaceful cohabitation. This worries the west, especially the self-declared US empire.

On 7 September 2013, Visionary President Xi Jinping re-initiated the ancient 2100-year-old Silk Road at Kazakhstan’s Nazarbayev University. Adjusted to the 21st Century, it is called the Belt and Road Initiative (BRI), but it is based on the same old principles building bridges between peoples, exchanging goods, research, education, knowledge, cultural wisdom, peacefully, harmoniously and ‘win-win’ style.

In his inauguration speech, President Xi spoke about “People-to-People Friendship and Creating a better Future”. But he went further, pointing to the history of exchanges under the Ancient Silk Road among people from different creeds and cultures,

“they had proven that countries with differences in race, belief and cultural background can absolutely share peace and development as long as they persist in unity and mutual trust, equality and mutual benefit, mutual tolerance and learning from each other, as well as cooperation and win-win outcomes.”

This is the corner stone for the development endeavor of the 21st century. It signals a globalization under different terms – a globalization under equals. And, yes, a New Social Contract. Partner countries are invited, not coerced, to participate in this mammoth enterprise to span the world with land and maritime routes, for trade, for joint research and scientific exchanges, leading to an endless flow of ideas for new technologies but also of social sciences to enhance peaceful human interactions. A case in point may be the new China-Cuba collaboration in health science that emerged from the corona crisis.

Globalization under a new normal

China will play a major role in the new emerging world order – not a One World Order, as a small western elite envisions, but a new paradigm built on partnership, on equality on building bridges, instead of walls, avoiding and resolving conflicts peacefully and without violence. Call it a new Social Contract to span the world for all those who are interested in participating. The corona crisis is gradually bringing an awakening for a new consciousness, one that we always had but got buried in the rush of things – greed, power, comfort and also neglect for the less privileged and destitute.

China may be a guiding light for the realization of this new paradigm. Why? – Because China experienced in her 70 years of Revolution what the corona-devastated world needs today to rebuild and to restart with a new set of values towards a better equilibrium of access to goods, services and resources, while maintaining a healthy environment.

What propelled China forward, was the simple principle of local production for local markets and local consumption with a local currency through a public banking system managed by a sovereign central bank working for the good of the people (not for shareholders), gearing towards an equitable development and self-sufficiency for all. This does not preclude private sector participation at all. But the State sets rules and parameters within which private interests may move. That’s why China is “A socialist nation with Chinese characteristics.”

Prospects for a new concept of globalization

China’s economy is strong. Despite a practical standstill of about two months, China has almost recovered, while the west is still struggling to find common denominators for collaboration and for revamping their economies. The IMF had originally predicted a global GDP decline of 3% for 2020, and a slight growth for 2021. In the meantime, the IMF adjusted the decline to 5.5 %; still way too little, since the world hasn’t even seen the tip of the iceberg yet of this global mammoth socioeconomic disaster. For China the IMF foresees a modest growth of 1.1% in 2020. Both figures are likely underestimates. Given the massive wipe-out of much of the global economy, 2020 negative GDP for the world may be as high as 10% to 15% when the chips are down and counted.

On the other hand, China having recovered rather quickly and with a public banking sector destined to address the economy’s weak spots, 2020 growth might be in the order of 3% to 3.5%. But as a leading economist from the International Monetary Institute (IMI) of Beijing’s Renmin University says – “we are talking about quality growth”, meaning, growth will focus on the social dimension of people’s needs.

China will forge ahead with the socioeconomic development program of the century – the BRI and expand her partner and associate members, already more than 160 today. Due to the corona catastrophe, foreign debt has been rising almost in reverse proportion as GDP has declined. President Xi has pledged 2 billion dollars to fight the virus. Additional debt relief especially to the poorer debt-strangled Belt and Road partners, might facilitate progress towards a better-connected world.

A new kind of globalization will rise from the ashes of the corona crisis. Restoring individual countries sovereignty, as well as their monetary, financial and economic autonomy and without a debt stranglehold preventing them from prospering, is crucial for becoming equal partners in a new globalized world. BRI is the new vehicle promoting self-assured partners that do not have to fear “sanctions” for wanting to preserve their sovereignty.

The west, especially Washington may not like this “game changer” approach. Therefore, China may not be spared in the foreseeable future from western bashing and aggressions. The reasons are NOT corona guilt or mismanagement, or unfair trade, reasons Washington likes to propagandize. These false accusations are meant to denigrate China to break or weaken the world’s trust in China’s economy and in particular her strong and gold backed currency, the yuan.

China’s central bank (People’s Bank of China – PBC) has just launched a trial run in a number of cities, including Shenzhen, Suzhou, Chengdu, and Xiong’an of her new crypto-currency, the e-RMB (Ren Min Bi, meaning People’s Money), or Yuan.

Eventually the new cyber money will be rolled out internationally for trade, commodity pricing – and even as a safe and stable reserve currency. The digital blockchain money assures the users total security, no interference from outside. It is a protection from” sanctions” and arbitrary confiscation. This will add a new dimension to China’s economic strength. Not only will her economy soon outrank that of the United States, but the yuan may also shortly become the key reserve currency in the world.

Look at the huge continent of Eurasia which is also connected to Africa. To serve this enormous landmass no seas have to be crossed. Its easy trading, friendly relations, no conflicts, because equal partners strive for the real meaning of trade, no losers, only win-win. Then there are the countries of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO), which in addition to China include also Russia, India and Pakistan – and soon also Iran, with Malaysia and Mongolia in observation status waiting in the wings.

China is also boosting trade among the ASEAN+3 countries (Association of Southeast Asian Nations – Brunei, Cambodia, Indonesia, Laos, Malaysia, Myanmar, the Philippines, Singapore, Thailand, and Vietnam; plus 3 = Japan, South Korea and China). Monetary transactions will take place in local currencies, not the US dollar. They will be using CIPS (Cross-Border Interbank Payment System), avoiding the dollar controlled SWIFT payment scheme.

SCO and ASEAN+3 account for about half the world population and for one third of the globes economic output. It is a formidable market and most of it on this huge landmass called Eurasia. No need for the belligerent west.

This new form of non-aggressive and non-invasive globalization may make example and evoke reflection. Perhaps it may serve others, Europe for instance – as a vehicle to recover from the colossal corona collapse. Imagine a globalized world among equals – a community seeking a common future for mankind.

*

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

This article was originally published on New Eastern Outlook.

Peter Koenig is an economist and geopolitical analyst. He is also a water resources and environmental specialist. He worked for over 30 years with the World Bank and the World Health Organization around the world in the fields of environment and water. He lectures at universities in the US, Europe and South America. He writes regularly for Global Research; ICH; New Eastern Outlook (NEO); RT; Countercurrents, Sputnik; PressTV; The 21st Century; Greanville Post; Defend Democracy Press; The Saker Blog, the and other internet sites. He is the author of Implosion – An Economic Thriller about War, Environmental Destruction and Corporate Greed – fiction based on facts and on 30 years of World Bank experience around the globe. He is also a co-author of The World Order and Revolution! – Essays from the Resistance. He is a Research Associate of the Centre for Research on Globalization.

While many activities blocked by the lockdown are struggling to restart after the restriction’s relaxation, there is something that never stopped, and is now accelerating: Camp Darby, the largest US arsenal in the world outside the motherland, which is located between Pisa and Livorno.

After cutting about 1,000 trees in the “protected” natural area of San Rossore Regional Park, the construction of a railway section connecting the Pisa-Livorno line to a new loading and unloading terminal across the Canale dei Navicelli on a new revolving metal bridge, began.

The almost twenty meters high terminal will include four tracks capable of accommodating nine wagons each. By means of container-handling trolleys, incoming weapons will be transferred from railway wagons to large trucks and weapons leaving will be transferred from trucks to railway wagons. The terminal will allow the transit of two trains per day, which will connect the base to the port of Livorno through densely populated areas, carrying explosive loads.

Following the increased movement of weapons, the connection through the canal and  the Camp Darby road  to the port of Livorno and Pisa airport is no longer sufficient. In the base’s 125 bunkers, continuously supplied by the United States, more than one million artillery shells, aircraft bombs and missiles are stored (according to rough estimates), to which thousands of tanks, vehicles and other military materials are added.

Since 2017, new large ships, capable of carrying over 6,000 vehicles and loads on wheels each, make monthly calls to Livorno, loading and unloading weapons that are transported to the ports of Aqaba in Jordan, Jeddah in Saudi Arabia and other Middle Eastern airports to be used by U.S. and Saudi and other forces in the wars in Syria, Iraq and Yemen.

Just as the expansion of Camp Darby, the largest US arsenal abroad, is underway, an online Tuscan newspaper headlines “Once upon a time Camp Darby”, and explained that “the base has been scaled down for defense cuts decided by US governments. ” and the newspaper Il Tirreno announced “At Camp Darby only the Italian flag flies: the USA flag has been lowered after almost 70 years”. Is the Pentagon closing the base, returning the territory on which it was created to Italy? It is quite the contrary.

The US Army granted the Italian Ministry of Defense a portion of the base (34 hectares, about 3% of the entire area of 1,000 ha.) previously used as a recreation area, for the Italian Special Forces Command transfer ( Comfose), initially housed in the Gamerra barracks in Pisa, the parachuting training center seat (the manifesto, 5 March 2019).

The transfer took silently place during the lockdown and now Comfose announced that its headquarters are located in the “new military area”, in fact annexed to Camp Darby, a base where US and Italian soldiers’ joint training has been taking place for some time. The Comfose transfer to an area annexed to Camp Darby, formally under the Italian flag, allows the full integration of the Italian special forces with the US forces, using them in covered operations under US command. They are all under the hood of military secret.

Visiting the new Comfose headquarters, Defense Minister Lorenzo Guerini called it not only the Special Forces ” nerve center” but also of the “Army Psyops Units”. The task of these units is “to create the consensus of the local population towards the military contingents employed in peacekeeping missions abroad”, or to convince them that invaders are peacekeepers.

Finally, Minister Guerini indicated the new headquarters as a model for a “Green Barracks” project. A model of “well-being and eco-sustainability”, which lays on a million explosive warheads.

*

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.

Does Sanders Have a Secret Deal with Biden?

July 17th, 2020 by Eric Zuesse

Though Bernie Sanders is less dishonest than any other of the U.S. political leaders who have contested in the 2016 and 2020 U.S. Presidential primary campaigns, no one should trust his endorsements of the DNC’s choice (which was what it was) of Joe Biden to carry the Party’s banner against Trump. Sanders knows that he was cheated out of the nomination by the DNC’s billionaires in 2020, just as he had been in 2016. And he knows that Biden is just as corrupt as Trump. Why, then, does Sanders endorse Biden?

Is it because “the voters of the Democratic Party chose Biden?” Well, in a sense, they did — from 29 February 2020 onward they did, because the billionaires were no longer donating mainly to Pete Buttigieg (23 billionaires), Cory Booker (18), Kamala Harris (17), Michael Bennett (15) and Joe Biden as #5 (at 13). (Sanders was at 0.) So, they suddenly piled in, on Biden, right after Sanders’s win in Nevada, the last before the February 29th South Carolina primary, and the final score of billionaires became Biden 66, Buttigieg 61, Klobuchar 33, Steyer 13, Warren 6, Gabbard 3, Bloomberg 1, and Sanders still 0 (and nothing being shown for candidates who had withdrawn early).

Instead — and no one can say why or what with any certainty — Sanders probably has some commitment from Biden regarding national policies once Biden becomes the President. (Trump himself does everything he can to assist that outcome, Biden’s Presidency. He might not be doing it intentionally, but he is doing it very successfully.)

Furthermore, Sanders knows, or ought to know, that Joe Biden was one of the leading segregationists in the U.S. Senate and was condemned in 1977 by Ted Kennedy and others for the insincerity of his protestations to the contrary. At the very same time in the 1960s when Sanders himself was being arrested in Chicago for demonstrating peacefully against the segregationist policies of Mayor Richard J. Daley, Joe Biden was a college playboy but subsequently lied to say that while in college he worked with civil rights leaders to end segregation. Yet Sanders, himself, remains silent about Biden’s lying, and about Biden’s actual support for segregation. Why?

Everything in politics is for only two purposes: winning power, and exercising power.

Sanders’s promise to support the Party’s nominee was implicitly based upon his expectation that he would not be, yet again, cheated out of receiving its nomination. That expectation was not fulfilled. The DNC knew, even back in May 2016, that Sanders would be stronger than Hillary against Trump, but they nonetheless rigged the results for Hillary against Sanders (and sometimes even blatantly) because their billionaires are more important to them than their voters are. And the same happened with Biden against Sanders in 2020. So: what obligation does Sanders have now to the DNC? Clearly, none. What obligation does he have to the American people? To keep on his fight to become FDR’s successor! If he withdraws from it, then surely America is heading into a massive economic crash which will result (under a President Biden) in martial law, and, then, an extremely bloody revolution, the outcome from which can’t be predicted (but one can only hope that enough troops will quit or even mutiny against their commanders).

Consequently, only a private commitment from Biden can explain this.

In a dictatorship such as the United States is, a politician’s commitments made to the public, such as Barack Obama’s back in 2007 and 2008, that he would have a “public option” in his healthcare plan, are lies, which they have no intention to fulfill (and Obama dropped his “public option” virtually the day after he beat John McCain for the Presidency in November 2008). However, a politician’s private commitments to the billionaires who funded his career are kept and honored. As a general rule, also the private commitments that are made to other politicians — such as to Sanders — are kept.

We just don’t know what those commitments are.

*

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.

20 Dictators Currently Supported by the US

July 17th, 2020 by Phil Armstrong

What nations say they stand for and what the evidence suggests they stand for can be – and frequently are – two entirely different things. This highly thought-provoking book puts the world’s most powerful nation in the spotlight and compares the US government’s stated aims with its actual behaviour. The US government projects an image of itself as the global guardian of freedom and democracy; as ever watchful and as prepared, reluctantly, to intervene in the politics of other nations if, and only if, freedom and democracy are under threat. However, in contrast to opposing tyranny in all its forms, the author notes how, in reality, the US government actually funds, arms and trains a wide range of oppressive governments, including dictatorships, if such support is regarded as being in US interests, irrespective of the track records (with respect to democracy and human rights) of the governments themselves.

Supporting dictatorship

In the introductory sections, David Swanson considers the wide range of oppressive governments backed by the US and then specifically focusses on dictatorships, since they are the regimes that the US government regularly claims to oppose. He shows how the majority of the world’s ‘unfree’ states (as defined by Rich Whitney [2017] who, in turn bases his approach on the taxonomy provided by ‘Freedom House’, an organisation funded by the US government – ‘free’, ‘partly free’ and ‘unfree’) are supported militarily by the US. He shows also that, contrary to the contention that US military intervention is always on the side of ‘democracy’, the US commonly sells weapons to both sides involved in numerous conflicts around the world. The author both highlights the longevity of this approach: that it is in no way merely to be viewed as a feature of the Trump presidency and contends that the US position of support for oppressive governments follows from the powerful alliance between the US government and US arms producers (the so-called ‘military industrial complex’).

In the following sections, Swanson looks at the great majority of the world’s current dictatorships and shows how they are supported by the US, particularly militarily. He does so by providing twenty current case-studies of dictatorships from around the world, all of whom are backed by the US. We argue that, in so doing, the author provides compelling evidence to refute the view that the US stands in opposition to dictators and the nations they control. The author notes the value of providing corroboratory evidence in the form of lists. It is always very difficult to shift opinion from its established position. A weight of evidence is usually required, especially when the strength of vested interests is extremely high.

In the concluding sections, the author highlights the US government’s highly unconventional behaviour in arming and training overseas militaries. He provides strong statistical evidence for his claim that the US is, by far, the leading international supplier of weapons, responsible for widespread war-related deaths across the globe and the operator of 95% of the world’s military bases located outside their controlling nation.

The author discusses how the so-called ‘Arab Spring’ of 2011 highlighted the contradictory stance of US; it publicly claimed to support the forces pushing for increased democracy but, in reality, its actions had provided important props for the regimes led by the dictators attacked by the protest movements. He develops the line of argument in a highly convincing manner by pointing to the fact that the US has a track record of supporting dictatorships for long periods – most often militarily – and then turning against them once it feels its interests have changed. He points to US support of Saddam Hussein, Noriega and Assad by way of examples and goes on to provide numerous other instances, such as Rafael Trujillo, Francisco Franco, Francoise Duvalier, Jean-Claude Duvalier, Anastasio Somoza Debayle, Fulgencio Batista, and the Shah of Iran.

Rhetoric vs reality

We argue that Swanson hits the nail on the head when he notes:

‘If U.S. support for dictators seems to be at odds with U.S. rhetoric about spreading democracy, part of the explanation for that may lie in the use of “democracy” as a code word for “our side” regardless of any connection to actual democracy or representative government or respect for human rights’ (p.88).

He then argues that if the enemy is not actually,

‘tyranny but rather the Soviet Union or Communism or Terrorism or Islam or Socialism or China or Iran or Russia, and if anything done in the name of defeating the enemy is labelled “pro-democracy,” then plenty of so-called democracy spreading can involve supporting dictatorships and all kinds of other equally oppressive governments’ (p.88).

In his conclusion to this part of the work, the author also stresses the importance of finance, again backed up by numerous examples, in particular, the significant extent of foreign funding of the think tanks which are highly influential on the shaping of US policy.

The final section of the book deals with the pressing and challenging issue of how US support for dictatorships might be ended. Swanson points to ‘The Stop Arming Human Rights Abusers Act, H.R. 5880, 140’, introduced by Congresswoman Ilhan Omar. Swanson notes that if the bill became law it would prevent the US government from providing a wide range of support to the world’s most oppressive governments. It is hard to disagree with the sentiment expressed by author at the end of his book:

‘The world desperately needs to take control of its governments away from tyrants and executioners. The United States desperately needs to shift its own priorities from out-of-control militarism and weapons dealing to peaceful enterprises. Such a move would be superior morally, environmentally, economically, and in terms of the impact on prospects for human survival’ (p.91).

The author produces a highly convincing falsification of the argument that the US always fights on the side of democracy, arguing instead that whether a state (or leader) is viewed as pro-US or anti-US is the key question (a viewpoint that can, and frequently does, change). The nature of the foreign government itself is not the driver of intervention.

As abroad, so at home

Swanson thus highlights the deeply contradictory approach to foreign policy and looking deeper, we argue that contrasts are equally apparent in domestic policy. According to popular (American) opinion, freedom is the foundation on which the USA is built. But in the application of this supposedly fundamental principle the American government is worryingly selective – in domestic as well as foreign policy. American citizens’ First Amendment freedom of speech and peaceful assembly have in many cases been ignored by their own government when inconvenient to the latter’s interests.

Rarely has this been more apparent than in the response to ongoing Black Lives Matter protests following the murder of George Floyd. Despite clear First Amendment protection, many peaceful protests have been repressed by force. One June 1stincident is emblematic, in which police used tear gas, rubber bullets and flash-bang grenades to clear Lafayette Square of peaceful protestors to allow President Trump a photo-op outside St John’s church (Parker et al 2020). Meanwhile in a White House speech, the president proclaimed himself an ‘ally of all peaceful protesters’ – an ally, it seems, who condones the use of entirely non-peaceful methods to shut down free speech.

Interestingly, similar repression of protest has been unequivocally condemned when another country is the perpetrator. In a May 2020 tweet, Trump urged the Iranian government not to use violence against protestors and to ‘let reporters roam free’. Such a principled defence of the importance of a free press has not, however, led the president to acknowledge or condemn the numerous police attacks on journalists covering the Black Lives Matter protests in the USA (according to U.S Press Freedom Tracker, as of June 15, physical attacks on journalists by police officers number at 57). The root of this inconsistency is not difficult to explain.

Nor, unfortunately, is the disregard for First Amendment freedoms exclusive to the tumultuous Trump presidency, or even to those of Republicans. The Obama administration, for example, saw the 2016 Standing Rock protests against the construction of the Dakota Access Pipeline on Native American land – to which police responded with tear gas, concussion grenades and water cannons in freezing temperatures. President Obama failed to condemn this rampant police violence against peaceful protestors (Colson 2016), a clear case of free speech being repressed by force.

Whilst this current climate of repression is extreme, it is not entirely unprecedented. The US government’s selective approach to the importance of freedom is apparent in its treatment of its own citizens, especially in the realm of protest (Price et al 2020). Ultimately, constitutional rights mean little in practice if they are ignored or outright violated by the government which is supposed to uphold them, and instead decides to enact policy which flies in the face of democracy.

At the beginning of the work the author notes,

‘The purpose of this short book is to make people aware that U.S. militarism supports dictatorships, toward the end of opening up minds to the possibility of questioning militarism’ (p.11).

We argue that he is surely successful in achieving this goal. Importantly, he does so whilst highlighting the deep contradictions involved in US foreign policy; contradictions which we argue above are also apparent in domestic policy. US policy is thus ‘consistently inconsistent’. It is presented as being fundamentally based upon the defence of freedom and democracy whereas, in practice, it is founded upon following the interests of the US government and the powerful pressure groups behind the US establishment.

We believe that Swanson’s book makes a significant contribution to the debate; he backs up all his arguments with highly persuasive evidence; evidence that we argue should be enough to convince the open-minded reader of the validity of his analysis. We heartily recommend this work to all those interested in understanding the driving forces that lie behind the conduct of US foreign policy.

*

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.

Sources

Colson, N., ‘Obama’s Cowardly Silence on Standing Rock’, Socialist Worker December 1, 2016.

Freedom House, ‘Countries and Territories’.

Parker, A., Dawsey, J. and Tan, R., ‘Inside the push to tear-gas protesters ahead of a Trump photo op’, Washington Post June 2, 2020.

Price, M., Smoot, H., Clasen-Kelly, F. and Deppen, L. (2020), ‘“None of us can be proud.” Mayor slams CMPD. SBI to review chemical agent use at protest,’ Charlotte Observer June 3.

Whitney, R., ‘US Provides Military Assistance to 73 Percent of World’s Dictatorships,’ Truthout, September 23, 2017.

The unspoken truth is that the novel coronavirus provides a pretext to powerful financial interests and corrupt politicians to trigger the entire World into a spiral of  mass unemployment, bankruptcy, extreme poverty and despair. 

Michel Chossudovsky interviews Economist and Geopolitical analyst Peter Koenig on the Global Research Report.

“Imagine, you are living in a world that you are told is a democracy – and you may even believe it – but in fact your life and fate is in the hands of a few ultra-rich, ultra-powerful and ultra-inhuman oligarchs. They may be called Deep State, or simply the Beast, or anything else obscure or untraceable – it doesn’t matter. They are less than the 0.0001%.” (Peter Koenig, July 2020)

The COVID-19 Lockdown. Economic and Social Impacts

 

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Video: The COVID-19 Lockdown: Economic and Social Impacts

In June 2019, the small landlocked nation of Moldova found itself in a life or death struggle between two opposing futures: Oligarchs like the notorious Vladimir Plahotniuc had worked diligently for years to bring this nation into the hull of the collapsing NATO-EU Titanic while nationalists sought to re-align Moldova’s future with the new emerging Multipolar Alliance led by China and Russia.

The greatest moment of decision (until now) occurred in June 2019 when elections resulted in a three-way split between a pro-Russian Socialist Party, the pro-EU ACUM and another pro-western Democratic Party run by the arch Moldavian kleptocrat Vladimir Plahotniuc.

Vlad Plahotniuc: Deep State Tool and Force of Regime Change

A renowned oligarch whom by all accounts is known as the richest man in Moldova, Plahotniuc was not only a media and advertising mogul controlling the vast majority of the news, and entertainment of the small nation, but was also a power in Moldova’s banking, hotel and services industry who, with the support of Victoria Nuland, took charge of the pro-EU Democratic Party from December 2016. Although his highest political office was Deputy Speaker of Parliament, it was known by all, that Plahotniuc was the hidden hand controlling the state and aspired to make that power official by becoming Prime Minister.

During the dark days of the Obama era, Plahotniuc interfaced closely with Asif Chaudhry (U.S. Ambassador to Moldova from 2008-2011) who acted as power broker and mediator during the tumultuous period of change that saw the elimination of the pro-Russian Communist Party and the rise of the pro-Euro Integration movement under the Democratic Party in the wake of the 2009 “Twitter Revolution” (sometimes called the “revolution of Twits”). This crisis saw a near color revolution as 30 000 Jacobin youth in Chisinau aspired to overthrow the government by declaring the recent elections to be fraudulent. The slogans shouted by the mob included “we want Europe”, “we are Romanians” and “down with Communism”. Romania had joined NATO in 2004 and the movement to absorb Moldova into Romania was supported by many in the west wishing to see NATO’s unabated growth.

Beginning in April 7, 2009, these mobs took over (and set fire to) government buildings and replaced Moldovan flags with Romanian and European Union flags. While this effort was quashed by crackdowns by police, a taste of the potential for regime change was felt by all and then-President Vladimir Voronin called it a “coup d’etat”.

In hindsight, we can observe the growth of the media empire under the control of Plahotniuc and the vast investments into “democracy building” by the National Endowment of Democracy to get a sense of the causal hand behind these events, though at the time the culprits never came to light.

One thing is clear: The American State Department’s hand pervaded this story as Ambassador Chaudhry (connected closely to Victoria Nuland according to Wikileaks emails), was a major power broker and brags that his work in carrying out Moldovan democracy reforms during this time was the most rewarding experience of his career.

In the wake of this attempted coup, three pro-western opposition parties created the Alliance for European Integration winning 53 seats and pushing out the Communist Party from power.

By 2014, the long-sought for EU association agreements were signed by Moldova, Georgia and Ukraine with NATO’s bureaucrats salivating at the prospect of assimilating all three. At this time, Ukraine’s pro-Russian government had just fallen to its own color revolution and the new regime of Yatseniuk was calling for speedy NATO entry. Even though its 1994 Constitution prevented it, Moldova was already a part of the NATO Partnership for Peace Program and had participated in NATO’s Kosovo Force since 2014. A change in Constitution to permit for NATO entry by way of Euro integration (or total regime change) was not a huge stretch of the imagination at this point.

During this time high level Obama-era regime change agents like Joe Biden and John McCain made stops in Moldova and encouraged speedy western integration, meeting with kleptocrats like Plahotniuc and celebrating the new age of western “liberalism” that would transform the eastern bloc.

With such a powerful machine supporting them, Plahotniuc and other local Moldovan kleptocrats had every reason to feel as though they had the power of gods. The lords of high finance of London and Wall Street had ensured their unchallenged success for years, and with Moldova’s full integration into the NATO/EU cage nothing would hold them back… but with this hubris came a fair dose of sloppiness.

“The Theft of the Century” and Its Aftermath

Working closely with Israeli-Moldovan businessman Ilan Shor and fellow oligarchs Vyacheslav Platon and Vlad Filat, Plahotniuc carried out a blatant “theft of the century” to the tune of $1 billion stolen from Moldova (representing 1/8th of the nation’s GDP) between 2011-2014. The model was simple and based on the use of offshore shell companies which laundered money and received fraudulent loans issued by the Moldovan Central Bank. That bank had itself taken over three major financial institutions (the Banca de Economii, Unibank and Banca Sociala) which extended fraudulent loans and businesses controlled by Ilan Shor and others within Plahotniuc’s network to the tune of $1 billion. $100 million were used directly by Plahotniuc to purchase, banks, businesses, hotels and other luxury real estate around Europe and Moldova.

Even though the facts of this fraud could not long be kept secret, Plahotniuc’s control on the levers of justice (especially the Constitutional Court which is packed with his partisans) ensured that little could be done to bring the oligarch to justice.

Vlad Filat was sacrificed by his former partner in 2016 and given 3 years in prison for bribes and participation in the heist while Ilan Shor was charged with laundering and embezzlement in abstentia though never saw a jail cell. In April 2017, Vyacheslav Platon was found guilty and given 18 years in prison but Plahotniuc never faced a single charge in Moldova. Things were a bit different elsewhere however and in 2017, Moscow’s Basmanny Court found the oligarch guilty of attempted murder.

In 2019, a Moscow court found Plahotniuc guilty of drug trafficking and money laundering and he was also charged with 28 counts of smuggling and sales of drugs (mostly hashish from North Africa)- and to these charges Plahotniuc obviously cried “Russian fantasies and fake news”.

During the hot phase of blowback during 2016, Plahotniuc was a guest of the pro-NATO Atlantic Council in Washington where he met with Victoria Nuland and other members of the Obama regime change party. The ‘Atlantic Council Moldova Program’ was also advancing a steady stream of pro-NATO propaganda funded by Jashi’s Trans Oil Group (on whose board sat former U.S. Ambassador Chaudhry).

Upon his return from America, Plahotniuc speedily moved to take full control of the Democratic Party.

In spite of his control of mass media, news of this “theft of the century” spread widely, and in an impoverished nation ranked lowest on the European Union poverty index where nearly 50% of the male population lives and works abroad as cheap labor, public tolerance for Plahotniuc’s sank to new lows with a 96% disapproval rating. The Democratic Party machine fell from favor and the pro-Russian Socialist Party again took power under Igor Dodon.

President Dodon wasted no time accelerating Moldova’s observer status in the Eurasian Economic Union which was made official on March 14, 2018 when Dodon called for a pro-Europe and pro-Russia policy (a blasphemy for some technocrats). At this time, Putin laid out the philosophy of EU-EAEU cooperation saying: “The Eurasian Union will be built on universal integration principles as an integral part of a harmonious community of economies from Lisbon to Vladivostok.”

In a February 2020 interview, Dodon echoed this orientation stating: “I believe in a big Europe, from Lisbon to Vladivostok. It was Charles de Gaulle who came up with this idea and its repeated often by various world leaders. I think this is the only solution to make Europe stronger.”

This had to be stopped.

From 2017-2019, the Plahotniuk apparatus licked its wounds, regrouped, and waited for the right moment to strike… and on June 7, 2019 that moment came.

Plahotniuc Attacks and Trips

Three months had passed since the February 2019 elections and a government had not yet formed. The three opposing parties that each won over 20% of the votes included Plahotniuc Democratic Party, the pro-EU ACUM party of PM Maia Sandu and the Socialist Party of Igor Dodon. Sandu’s role as a former World Bank executive didn’t bode well, but luckily her recognition that an alliance with Plahotniuc was political suicide kept her from making a devils pact and at the last minute chose to form a coalition government with Dodon in defense of the nation’s true interests where both parties united in the common cause to flush the swamp of oligarchs.

This alliance was arranged at the same moment that Plahotniuc’s Constitutional Court deemed the February elections invalid (party leaders have 3 months to shape a new government after elections). The court demanded that Dodon be deposed as President (for failing to call new elections), and the new coalition government declared null and void. Former PM Pavel Filip refused to recognize the new government calling it illegal and demanding a new election while Plahotniuc waited with bated breath for his moment to take over.

From June 7-15th a dual power struggle erupted and with the highest court in the land backing regime change, it wasn’t looking good. The Democrats staged demonstrations and blocked state buildings for days. Everything was in place for a coup.

The only missing ingredient was the expected American support that had always been there for Plahotniuk and the Trans Oil Machine which ran Moldova for decades.

Then something unexpected happened.

On June 15, 2019 Moldova’s Democratic Party officially announced that their leader had left the country to visit family “for a couple of days”. Over a year later, the oligarch still has not returned knowing that to do so could mean decades in a Moldovan (and possibly even Russian) prison.

Although there are many facets to this plot twist that are still hidden from public view, TASS’s coverage on June 15 made clear that the Democratic Party “leaders had never stopped to hope for Washington’s support in the confrontation with the President, parliament and Sandhu cabinet, but received none.”

U.S. Ambassador Horgan revealed in December 2019 that Plahotniuc’s departure was the result of his news that the USA would not help him.

Without this support, all hope was lost.

Within a month PM Sandu described the anti-corruption crackdown underway saying: “We are in the process of liberating this captured state. The servants of the Plahotniuc regime are leaving, one after the other.” Although Plahotniuc may have been a corrupt beast, he was no dummy and recognized the Transparency International report published in June 2019 outlining his sordid role in the $1 billion bank theft was not going to disappear.

By August 2019, a Russian arrest warrant was unveiled after Plahotniuc was tried in abstentia in Moscow for “creating and participating in criminal groups” and “carrying out illegal transactions in foreign currencies and rubles using fake documents”- referring to $569 million scheme that turned Moldova into a laundromat using the oligarch’s offshore shell companies. It was at this time that the oligarch applied officially for asylum in the USA.

As Sandu was replaced by PM Igor Chicu in November 2019, the cleaning of the swamp continued in full force with the new Prosecutor General Alexandru Stoianoglo tasked with bringing Plahotniuc to justice. In May 2020, Moldovan prosecutors charged Plahotniuc again and sought extradition from the USA where he has been holed up illegally in Florida.

Why do I say “illegally”?

Because on January 9, 2020, the USA State Department annulled his (and his family’s) VISA, with Pompeo declaring in a public statement four days later:

 “Today, I am designating former Moldovan official and oligarch Vladimir Plahotniuc due to his involvement in significant corruption. In his official capacity, Plahotniuc was involved in corrupt acts that undermined the rule of law and severely compromised the independence of democratic institutions in Moldova… Once the Secretary of State designates officials of foreign governments for their involvement, directly or indirectly, in significant corruption, those individuals and their immediate family members are ineligible for visas to the United States.”

The fearful oligarch has taken the unprecedented decision to launch a last Hail Mary effort to save his skin by suing the U.S. State Department on June 11 2020 saying “this action arises out of an unlawful and unjustified designation as ‘undesirable’ entered against Vladimir Plahotniuk and his immediate family members by the State Department” adding without a shred of evidence that Putin even attempted to kill him using Albanian hitmen on several occasions.

The question now remains:

Who is protecting Plahotniuc?

It is obvious that the Obama-era deep state that ran Moldova’s 2009-2016 EU/NATO integration insanity is no longer the sole force driving U.S. foreign policy and a fight between this apparatus and the Trump presidency has been waging for four years. Plahotniuc’s current status in Florida, in spite of an undesirable status and with no VISA indicates powerful forces are protecting him. Both in America and abroad alike.

The fact that within the same Florida luxury complex that Plahotniuc has been seen living in, also contains a $2.2 million condo owned by Trans Oil executive Dmitriy Kurilo should be taken seriously. The fact that Kurilo’s purchase was carried out by Trans Oil president Vaja Jhashi to whom Kurilo gave powers of attorney should also be considered. The connection of these figures to former U.S. Ambassador Asif Chaudhry who sits on Trans Oil’s board of directors and last served as the architect of Obama’s “Asia Pivot” while serving as advisor to the Chief of the NAVY in the Pentagon from 2011-2014 should also not be ignored. Lastly the fact that the Trans Oil group’s monopoly over Moldovan agriculture was made possible by multimillion-dollar U.S. government loans granted to the company while Chaudhry was the American Ambassador to Moldova is worth holding in mind.

We already know there are many two faced figures within the Trump presidency who project one patriotic face publicly yet who have actively worked against Trump’s oft-stated desires to have “good relations with Russia and China”, rebuild American manufacturing and end the “forever wars”. Bolton and Bannon were two of them, but Pompeo himself is another. Even former director of National Intelligence Richard Grenell had worked for Plahotniuc on various occasions.

Then there is the matter of international deep state support. For example, France’s Interpol has stalled repeatedly from issuing an international arrest warrant even though both Russian and Moldovan governments have made legitimate requests. Why this resistance? Even the European Parliament has passed a resolution in 2018 calling Moldova “a state captured by oligarchic interests”- making Interpol’s resistance ever more odd.

So where does Moldova go from here?

Regardless of whether or not Plahotniuc is extradited sooner or later, the game is most certainly up, and beginning in late 2019, Moldova began to reclaim its ancient heritage as a keystone in China’s East-West Silk Road as two major infrastructure deals worth $400 million were signed with China, including two major highways: One encircling Chisinau and the other connecting to Ukraine.

President Dodon beautifully expressed his understanding of this process in March 2020 saying:

“We should acknowledge that this pandemic has shown ‘who is who,’ who is a real friend and who will be always by our side in need, even if they also face hard times… I will cite as an example Russia and China here because these were the first countries that responded to our request.”

“We enjoy strategic partnership and strategic dialogue at the levels of presidents, prime ministers, and parliament speakers… I think one of the major achievements is that we have got rid of the oligarch regime,” he said. “An important result is that we started carrying out a balanced foreign policy. Even against the background of those deals signed with the European Union, we managed to obtain an observer status in the Eurasian Economic Union.”

*

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

Matthew J.L. Ehret is a journalist, lecturer and founder of the Canadian Patriot Review.

Featured image is from SCF

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on The Fall of Oligarch Vlad. Plahotniuc. New Hope for Moldova? Towards a Multipolar Alliance with Russia and China?
  • Tags: ,

Israel just bombed Iran. And no one noticed.

On July 2, 2020, two explosions erupted in Iran, and both seem to have been ignited by Israel. Neither explosion attracted much reporting, and what reporting there has been remains thin and confused.

The first report came out on the afternoon of July 3. The Jerusalem Post picked up a story from Kuwait’s Al-Jarida, reporting that a fire had broken out at Iran’s civilian Natanz nuclear enrichment site. The Kuwaiti report says that an unnamed senior source informed them that the fire was caused by an Israeli cyber attack. They suggest that Iran will need about two months to recover from the attack. Iranian officials have since confirmed that, though none of the underground centrifuges were damaged, the above ground damage is extensive, and that their centrifuge program has been substantially set back.

The second attack exploded near Parchin, at a site claimed to be a missile production facility. Citing the same Kuwaiti paper, The Times of Israel attributed the Parchin explosion to missiles dropped by Israeli F-35 stealth fighters.

The Parchin story has drawn little further attention and remains undeveloped, but the Natanz story has confusingly evolved. Though unnamed Iranian officials seemed at first to side with the cyber attack theory, some experts sided with a different theory: that the Natanz explosion was not a cyber attack but an actual, bolder physical attack. In a rare piece of mainstream reporting, The New York Timesseems to confirm the physical attack theory. Relying on a “Middle Eastern intelligence official with knowledge of the episode,” the Times reports that the Natanz nuclear complex was not hit by a cyber attack, as it has been previously, but by a “powerful bomb.” The intelligence official added that “Israel was responsible for the attack.” The Times report supports the intelligence source by adding that a “member of the Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps who was briefed on the matter also said an explosive was used.” According to the Revolutionary Guards source, it is likely that someone carried the bomb into the building.

Satellite images of Natanz nuclear plant. Pics: Google (before) and Iran International (after) (Images via Sky News)

SATELLITE IMAGES OF NATANZ NUCLEAR PLANT. PICS: GOOGLE (BEFORE) AND IRAN INTERNATIONAL (AFTER) (IMAGES VIA SKY NEWS)

These two attacks seem to add dropping missiles from the sky and walking bombs in on the ground to Israel’s resume of acts of war on Iran. And the resume is long.

Cyber Attacks

Though Israel did not hit the Natanz facility with a cyber attack this time, it has hit it with a serious cyber attack in the past. In the past operation, Israel partnered with the United States, specifically Israel’s secret military unit 8200 partnered with the American CIA and NSA.

When a massive virus called Flame was injected into Iranian computers, it mapped and monitored the system of Iranian computers and sent intelligence back that was used to prepare for cyber war campaigns against Iran. Officials have confirmed that Flame is one part of a joint project of the CIA, NSA and unit 8200.

One of the cyber wars that Flame prepared the way for is the now famous Stuxnet. Stuxnet was a computer virus that infected Iran’s centrifuges and sent them spinning wildly out of control before playing back previously recorded tapes of normal operations that plant operators watched unsuspectingly while the centrifuges spun faster and faster until they literally tore themselves apart. The New York Times says that, according to intelligence and military experts, the Dimona nuclear complex in Israel was the testing ground for the virus. There are nuclear centrifuges in Dimona that are virtually identical to Iran’s, making it a perfect model to test the effectiveness of the virus. Stuxnet seems to have wiped out about 20% of Iran’s nuclear centrifuges.

So that puts missile attacks, bomb attacks and cyber attacks on the Israeli resume of acts of war on Iran. And the cyber attack was an act of war. A NATO study has admitted that Stuxnet qualified as an “illegal act of force.” According to Stephen Cohen, after the U.S. accused Russia of hacking computers, NATO issued a statement saying that “hacking a member state might now be regarded as war against the entire military alliance, requiring military retaliation.”

Assassinations

But the resume is nowhere near exhausted. It also includes assassination, multiple assassinations. On January 12, 2010, Massoud Ali-Mohammadi was killed when a remote-control bomb planted on a motorcycle detonated next to his car. The investigation undertaken by Iranian security forces led to the arrest of ten Iranians who were accused of working for the Israeli Mossad. One of them, Jamali Fashi, who had a computer and cell phones that tied him both to Mossad in general and to the assassinations specifically, confessed to being recruited and trained by Mossad to assassinate Ali-Mohammadi.

In November 2010, Majid Shahriyari, was killed when motorcycle riders attached a magnetized bomb to his car. On the same day, assassins tried to kill Fereydoun Abbasi-Davani in the same way but failed when he noticed the suspicious motorcyclists and jumped out of his car. Also a scientist, Abbasi-Davani was named head of Iran’s Atomic Energy Association a few months later. He says that British spies shadowed him to gather information ahead of the failed assassination attempt.

The Iranian physicist and nuclear scientist Darioush Rezainejad was killed when two gunmen on motorcycles opened fire on him while he was entering his garage. His wife was also wounded. This was the fourth consecutive assassination or attempted assassination employing motorcyclists. According to the IAEA, Rezainejad played a key role in Iran’s nuclear program. Iran has blamed the United States, Britain and Israel for his assassination. And “a source in Israel’s intelligence community” told Germany’s Der Spiegal that Mossad was behind the assassination of Rezainejad.

In January 11, 2012, Mostafa Ahmadi Roshan, a scientist involved in purchasing equipment for Iran’s nuclear program, was assassinated when a motorcycle placed a magnetized bomb on the roof of his moving car. Thirteen people found to be working for an Israeli spy ring were arrested.

A fifth important player in the Iranian nuclear game was killed in November when a massive explosion at the military arms depot that houses Iran’s long-range Shahab missiles killed seventeen and wounded fifteen more. Included in the dead was Major General Hassan Moqqadam, a pioneer in Iranian missile development. An earlier explosion occurred at a Shahab missile base in October of 2010. Time Magazine revealed in November 2011 that a western intelligence source says that Mossad is behind the explosion.

Two senior officials in the Obama administration revealed to NBC news that the assassinations were carried out by the Mujahideen-e-Khalq (MEK), an Iranian opposition group that spent many years on America’s terrorist list. They also confirm that the MEK was being financed, armed and trained by the Israeli Mossad and that the assassinations were carried out with the awareness of the Obama administration. The Americans, too, have secretly trained and supported the MEK.

Qassem Suleimani

The American assassination of Iranian general Qassem Suleimani drew tons of media attention. But Israel’s role in the assassination did not. According to an “Israeli army officer with knowledge of Israeli military assessments,” the assassination of Suleimani “did not come as a surprise” because, according to Israeli military and diplomatic analysts, “Israel had advance notice of the U.S. plan.” Channel 13’s Barak Ravid reported that “the United States informed Israel about this operation in Iraq, apparently a few days ago.” Netanyahu was the only American ally to know about the operation, having been informed by Secretary of State Mike Pompeo.

But Israel did more than know about it. Israel participated in it. “Israeli intelligence was instrumental” in the assassination. Suleimani was killed in Baghdad when his vehicle was struck by American hellfire missiles. Israeli intelligence “confirmed and verified” informants’ information tipping the U.S. off to which plane Suleimani was on.

In a report published on July 7, 2020, U.N. expert on extrajudicial killings, Agnes Callamard, concluded that the assassination was “unlawful” and that it was an “arbitrary killing” that was in violation of the U.N. charter.

That adds assassinations and political assassinations to the resume.

Economic Warfare and Isolation

The New York Times article that reports that the Natanz attack was actually a bomb adds that the sneaking of the bomb into the enrichment facility would not be the first time Israel has been able “to strike in the heart of Iran.” They add Mossad’s 2018 breaking into a secret nuclear archive in Tehran to the list of Israeli attacks in Iran. That would add another violation of Iranian territory and act of aggression to the Israeli resume if it were true. But, it’s not true.

Though Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu claimed that the stolen archival documentation proved that “Iran lied, big time, after signing the nuclear deal in 2015,” it was Netanyahu who was lying.  Olli Heinonen, the chief inspector of the IAEA at the time of the JCPOA negotiations – and not someone who was in any way soft on Iran – said that the IAEA first saw the “significant new” evidence that Netanyahu revealed thirteen years earlier in 2005. Watching Netanyahu’s revelation, Heinonen could only say, “I just saw a lot of pictures I had seen before.” Those old pictures had been carefully discredited by many experts, including Gareth Porter in Manufactured Crisis. The IAEA was finished with them by December of 2015. The day after Netanyahu’s revelation, the IAEA said that there was “no credible indications” of Iran working on a nuclear weapons program for several years before the JCPOA. As Gareth Porter has shown in many places, including The CIA Insider’s Guide to the Iran Crisis, the archival documents were contaminated by inaccuracies that clearly revealed that they were fabrications.

Nonetheless, when Donald Trump illegally withdrew from the JCPOA Iranian nuclear agreement, he boasted that Netanyahu’s revelation “showed that I’ve been 100 percent right.” And, citing only Netanyahu’s presentation as evidence, he pulled out of the agreement, locked Iran back into isolation and put it under economic siege: an act of economic warfare.

Though Israel did not really physically attack Iran by breaking into the Tehran warehouse, the fabrication and sleight of hand propaganda war epitomized Israel’s crucial role in massaging and pushing Trump into a maximum pressure economic war on Iran.

So, although The New York Times was wrong, it was right. The illusory event did not add another physical act of war to Israel’s resume. It added another new kind of war to the resume: missile attacks, bomb attacks, cyber attacks, assassinations, political assassinations and, now, economic warfare. How many different ways can Israel wage war on Iran before it is transparent that Israel is waging war 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.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on How Many Ways Can Israel Wage War on Iran Before the Media Reports Israel Is Waging War on Iran?
  • Tags: ,

A human being is by nature a social being, related to the community of fellow human beings, and has a natural inclination for the good. According to Thomas Aquinas this is “written in his heart” by the eternal law (lex aeterna). It helps him to better recognize what is right in nature. A human being is also autonomous and thus able to see himself as a being of freedom and to act from this freedom. This enables him to refuse obedience to “authorities”. The free human being has the power to refuse (Adorno).

Equipped with these natural abilities, we humans should be able to stand up to a small group of ultra-rich and ultra-inhuman cerberus. They want to sell us the planned New World Order (NWO), which is in reality a satanic one, euphemistically as technical progress and “4th Industrial Revolution”. In the past, these irresponsible psychopaths have instructed the governments of the world to let us citizens look briefly into the abyss by means of gigantic crimes. Since they revealed their diabolical agenda, we were able to get to know them – and are not afraid of them (anymore).

“They’re not robbing a bank, they’re going to be bank president”

If you comb through the biographies of the so-called elite of this world from politics, economy, military and partly also from science and art, this reads in places like pure “psychopathology”, the doctrine of pathological changes in the life of the soul. The Canadian criminal psychologist and university professor emeritus Robert D. Hare lists a total of 20 criteria in his Psychopathology Checklist (PCL-R). Here is a small selection:

Tricky eloquent dazzlers with superficial charm, considerably exaggerated self-esteem, pathological lying, fraudulent manipulative behavior, lack of remorse or guilt, emotional coldness, lack of empathy, unwillingness and ability to take responsibility for one’s own actions, parasitic lifestyle, etc., etc. (1)

According to Wikipedia, people with this personality disorder are not only overrepresented among criminals and in prisons, but also in higher hierarchical levels, about six times in leadership positions. For this reason, the founder of psychopathology research said: “They’re not robbing a bank, they’re going to be bank president.” (2)

“Strength does not come from physical ability. It comes from an indomitable will.”

The Indian lawyer, moral teacher and pacifist Mahatma Gandhi, from whom the quote originates, was able to show the world in the last century what a person with an unbending will can achieve. The Indian independence movement, of which he was the spiritual and political leader, took up his ideas of non-violent action and civil disobedience and in August 1947 reached the end of British colonial rule over India. Why should we, the citizens of today, not succeed in this?

On the role of the individual in a situation perceived as hopeless, the writer and philosopher Albert Camus wrote in a “Letter to a Desperate Man” shortly after the outbreak of the Second World War:

“Every human being has a more or less large sphere of influence. (…). You can convince ten, twenty, thirty people that this war was not and is not inevitable, that not all means have been tried to stop it, that one must say it, write it if possible, shout it out if necessary! These ten or thirty people will pass it on to ten others, who in turn will pass it on. If you are held back by inertia, well, start again with others.“ 3)

So we have something in hand. A few months ago, when the WHO declared a worldwide epidemic (pandemic), most people initially became very afraid and reacted with a reflex of obedience, especially since this feeling of fear was stirred up by totalitarian governments from outside (“The diabolical “game” with fear as an instrument of domination”) (4). But in the meantime the cerberus of the New World Order (NWO) have revealed their diabolical agenda. Thus, what is going on in the world right now is no longer an indefinite threat, but quite obviously the agenda of nefarious psychopaths.

This means that we citizens no longer have to be afraid, but can do everything we can to ensure that these human parasites will not succeed with their planned “scientific dictatorship” (Huxley) and their “Green New Deal”, this so-called ecological turn of industrial society or 4th Industrial Revolution.

It is a great joy to observe how relatives, good friends and other fellow citizens are becoming more and more sensitive and are waking up more and more, because they want to look their children and their children’s children openly and without shame in the eyes, when one day they will ask them what role they played in these difficult and obscure times.

*

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 NRhZ-ONLINE.

Dr. Rudolf Hänsel is a graduate psychologist and educationalist.

Notes

(1) https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_D._Hare

(2) https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychopathie

(3) Marin, L. (ed.) (2013). Albert Camus – Libertarian writings (1948-1960). Hamburg, p. 273

(4) http://www.nrhz.de/flyer/beitrag.php?id=26792&css and https://www.globalresearch.ca/diabolical-game-fear-instrument-domination/5712556

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on The Ultra-Rich Elites of the New World Order and Their Diabolical Agenda

Belarus blamed Russia last month for stoking Color Revolution unrest ahead of its presidential election in early August, but even though this accusation is completely false, it still risks being instrumentalized as part of a perception management plot to convince its largely Russophilic population to accept the country’s accelerated pivot towards the West (deceptively disguised as a “balancing” act) in the predictable event that President Lukashenko wins another term in office.

The Moment Of Truth Has Arrived

Belarus is getting ready to accelerate its ongoing pivot towards the West in the predictable event that President Lukashenko wins another term in office following the presidential election in early August, but it understands the necessity of crafting the proper pretext for “justifying” this to its largely Russophilic population. Therein lies the significance of President Lukashenko’s latestclaims last month that Russia is stoking Color Revolution unrest in the country despite officially being its trusted CSTO, Eurasian Union, and “Union State” partner. The background behind this unprecedented accusation is the observable deterioration of bilateral ties over the past year, most immediately triggered by an energy pricing dispute but originally traced back to Belarus’ “balancing” act between Russia and the West over the last half-decade. The author examined its genesis and gradual evolution to the present crisis in his February analysis titled “Russian-Belarusian Relations: The Moment Of Truth Has Arrived“, which hyperlinked to nearly a dozen of his previous pieces collectively proving that this politically intense situation shouldn’t have been surprising for objective observers.

Is Lukashenko The New Yanukovich?

For those readers who’d appreciate a concise summary, Belarus basically came to believe — whether rightly or wrongly — that it can best advance its national interests as it understands them to be by “balancing” between Russia and the West, hoping to derive ever-increasing benefits from both sides by playing them off against one another in the New Cold War. This extremely risky strategy is based on the assumption (key word) that neither of them can afford to destabilize this pivot state between them as doing so would undermine their respective regional interests, hence why Lukashenko thought that he could pull off what neither Gaddafi nor Yanukovich were able to do. The hubris involved in such a calculation is jaw-dropping since history proves that comparatively few small- and medium-sized states were able to successfully implement such a policy, with Old Cold War-era Yugoslavia being the most well-known exception. For whatever his reasons may be, whether related to his own personal decision and/or perhaps under pressure from speculative US Hybrid War blackmail, Lukashenko ultimately decided to use his “balancing” act as a cover for tacitly pivoting towards America.

Perception Management

He knows very well that his mostly Russophilic population wouldn’t accept him dumping Russia as Belarus’ primary strategic partner without any “reasonable” explanation, nor have his delusions of geopolitical grandeur blinded him to the fact that his country literally can’t survive without preferential access to the Russian marketplace (including its energy sector), hence the need to manufacture “convincing” provocations to “justify” this unstated but obvious enough grand strategic reorientation that he’d ideally hope to “responsibly” implement as part of a phased process. That explains the serious energy pricing dispute that set the backdrop for the author’s February analysis, as well as the low-level Color Revolution taking place in his country right now. To be fair, Lukashenko also blamed Poland for these domestic political disruptions, but it seems like he’s just trying deceive Russia into thinking that Belarus really isn’t pivoting away from it by blaming its historic regional rival as well even though Warsaw has no such interests in doing anything of the sort anymore ever since Minsk began noticeably improving its relations with Washington over the past few years.

The Fake Color Revolution

It can’t be known for sure, but it might very well be the case that the US and Belarus are colluding with one another to manufacture the optics of a Polish-Russian Color Revolution plot against Lukashenko in order to manipulate the electorate. The mostly Russophilic population would be prompted into supporting his re-election for patriotic reasons in the face of what they’ve been misled into thinking is Polish-led Hybrid War aggression despite possibly disliking his de-facto pivot towards the US. The opposition, meanwhile, might also vote for him in order to defend their increasingly Western-friendly leader from what they’ve been misled into thinking is Russian-led Hybrid War aggression. In reality, no genuine Color Revolution threat exists, at least not at this point, since Lukashenko is purposely allowing the disturbances to fester in order to electorally exploit these complementary narratives of a so-called “foreign threat” to his leadership. Upon winning re-election like most observers predict will happen, he can then crack down on Russian-friendly individuals and organizations for “national security reasons” while simultaneously pivoting more openly towards the US.

Hybrid War Blowback

This is an extremely risky strategy that could very easily backfire in the interim prior to the election but also especially in its aftermath. If Lukashenko gets “cold feet” for whatever reason and begins seriously reconsidering the “wisdom” of pivoting towards the US, then America might fully unleash its Hybrid War wrath against him after the national leader dangerously allowed it to grow to its present point for the self-interested political reasons that were already explained. The opposite side of this same scenario coin is that the mostly Russophilic population might become politically radicalized by Lukashenko’s expected full-on pivot towards the US and impending crackdown against them and their representatives, which could generate a self-sustaining cycle of grassroots Color Revolution unrest. The only credible alternative to that possibility transpiring is if Lukashenko becomes the dictator that the West previously fearmongered that he already was, albeit a pro-Western dictator like many in the “Global South” whose gross human rights abuses against their people are largely ignored by the Mainstream Media because they’re implementing pro-American policies of some sort.

Concluding Thoughts

It was an act of unprecedented hostility for Lukashenko to accuse Russia of supporting the nascent Color Revolution against him ahead of the presidential election in August, but this drama is entirely manufactured by him and his new American patron in order to craft the pretext for “justifying” Belarus’ accelerated pivot towards the US in the aftermath of his expected electoral victory. Grassroots Color Revolution sentiment is objectively present in the country from both the pro-Western and pro-Russian sides of the political spectrum, but neither poses any credible threat to Lukashenko’s leadership at the moment. Rather, he’s allowing the first-mentioned and much more visibly active faction of anti-government forces to attract enormous attention so that he can then spin everything around and blame it all on Russia for the sake of “political convenience” in “legitimizing” what seems likely to be a forthcoming crackdown against actual Russian-friendly individuals and organizations during his next likely term in office. By playing with such dangerous political dynamics, however, Lukashenko might be setting himself up for seemingly inevitable blowback sooner rather than later.

*

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

This article was originally published on OneWorld.

Andrew Korybko is an American Moscow-based political analyst specializing in the relationship between the US strategy in Afro-Eurasia, China’s One Belt One Road global vision of New Silk Road connectivity, and Hybrid Warfare. He is a frequent contributor to Global Research.

Featured image is from OneWorld

The Syrian government seems to be deploying Pantsir-S1 air defense systems to Libya to assist forces of Field Marshal Khalifa Haftar in their battle against the Turkish-controlled Government of National Accord.

An unusual Pantisr-S1 air defense system was for the first time spotted in Libya last week, when local activists released a video of a Libyan National Army convoy moving towards the port city of Sirte besieged by Turkish-led forces.

A spokesman for the GNA forces in the region, Brig. Abdul Hadi Draa, also said that the Pantsir-S1 systems and other weapons were deployed at the Sirte airport on July 11. One of the convoys moving towards the airport included the Pantsir-S1 system on the unusual KAMAZ-6560 8×8 chassis. Previously, all the Pantsir-S1 systems operated by the LNA were based on the German MAN SX 45 8×8 chassis. This variant was supplied by Russia to the UAE, which later supplied systems to the LNA.

Other discriminant marks of the filmed Pantsir-S1 were a desert yellow paint and the older passive electronically scanned array search radar. The only country in the Middle East that operates Pantsir-S1 systems with such specifications and supports the Libyan National Army is Syria.

Earlier in 2020, Syria officially established diplomatic ties with the House of Representatives, a democratically elected body that supports the Libyan National Army and manages the daily social and economic life in the territories controlled by it.

Damascus also sees the Libyan National Army and the House of Representatives as a natural ally because they also fight against the occupation of their country by Turkey.

In the last few weeks, Syrian Il-76 cargo planes made several unusual flights between Damascus International Airport and the al-Khadim Air Base in northeast Libya. The base is known to be hosting service members of the UAE that are involved in the assist and advice mission to support Haftar’s forces. The Pantsir-S1 system spotted on the road to Sirte may have been shipped from Syria to Libya during one of these flights.

At the same time, the Syrian government currently have good relations with Egypt, the UAE – the main backers of the Libyan National Army, and obviously with Russia – the producer of Pantsir-S1 systems and the country that provides background diplomatic support to the UAE-Egypt bloc in the conflict.

The Syrian Air Defense Forces operate dozens of Pantsir-S1 systems. Most of the Syrian systems are equipped with the advanced active electronically scanned array search radar. Therefore, Damascus may have opted to sell a part of its older systems to Haftar.

If this is confirmed, this move will likely allow Syria to improve its relations with the Libyan National Army, the UAE and Egypt, complicate Turkish plans to capture Srite, and last but not least strengthen the Syrian regional positions, which were significantly undermined by the ongoing war inside the country.

*

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

SUPPORT SOUTHFRONT: 

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

For the past several years, the war between Ukraine and the breakaway and still-unrecognized Donetsk People’s Republic and Lugansk People’s Republic has settled into a tense routine of attritional trench warfare, punctuated by sniping, clashes between patrols, small-scale raids, offensive minelaying, and ambushes using anti-tank guided missiles. There have been few operations by units larger than company. The front line has remained almost entirely unchanged. At the same time, both sides have been preparing for the possible next round of high-intensity warfare. What would happen if the fighting were to break out again?

That particular prediction is made more difficult by the very fact of the long lull in high-intensity fighting during which both sides have undergone a certain degree of transformation which remains relatively unknown to the other party. Both sides have seen certain material improvements, though apparently nothing dramatic.

Ukraine’s armored vehicle fleet still relies on the same, but now even more worn out vehicles it went to war with in 2014. The planned re-equipment with the Oplot MBT never took place, and even the upgraded T-64BU Bulat was found to be flawed. Therefore the elderly T-64BV remains the main tank of Ukraine’s forces. Light armored vehicle fleet has seen some improvement thanks to domestic production and deliveries from former Warsaw Pact member states. If there is one area where Ukraine’s military may have made a major step forward, it is the artillery, using the large store of inactive weapons for Soviet-era reserve forces. However, artillery munition production continues to be a problem.

While the number of Ukraine’s brigades has grown, the military experiences major problems with recruitment and retention, meaning that many of these brigades have the strength of a reinforced combined arms battalion.

On Novorossia’s side the situation is hardly different. DPR and LPR units continue to use the same types of equipment they used during the campaigns of five years ago. The numeric strength does not appear to have changed much, either, and here too recruitment and retention remains a problem.

The other factor making predictions difficult is the level of morale of these two forces that have been bogged down in an apparently endless war that is beyond their power to finish. The combination of trench warfare boredom and terror means it is debilitating to the units’ morale and proficiency if they are forced to remain in the trenches for too long. While the most offensive-capable forces are kept out of the trenches as mobile reserves, they too can only maintain their state of alert for so long before losing their edge.

Paradoxically, this state of affairs give an advantage to the side that intends to go on the offensive, because the preparations for the attack and associated training would imbue the troops with the hope that, after the next big push, the war will finally be over. At the same time, both sides know such an offensive would be an exceedingly risky proposition, because if it fails, it will grind down the attacking side’s most effective units and render the army vulnerable to a counteroffensive to which it would not be able to respond.

Therefore the likelihood of renewed fighting also heavily depends on who actually makes the decision. While local leaders may be cautious enough, foreign ones in distant capitals may have different considerations in mind.

A big unknown hanging over the future of the Donbass is the position of Joe Biden, the Democratic Party nominee and the potential winner of the November elections. Biden has already played a highly destructive role in the politics of Ukraine and the US-Russia relations. It is Biden that blackmailed Poroshenko into firing the Chief Prosecutor Shokin due to his interest in the corrupt dealings of the Burisma energy company which infamously had Joe’s son Hunter on its board of directors. It is also Biden who held a lengthy, 30-45 minute telephone conversation with Poroshenko on the day MH17 was shot down and promptly came out blaming Russia for it, even as the wreckage was still smoking where it fell. Biden identified himself as a Russia foe much earlier, during the 2012 vice-presidential debates where he positioned himself as being “hard on Putin”, which in retrospect proved to be an early indicator of where the second-term Obama administration foreign policy would go. It also goes without saying Biden is an ardent promoter of the “RussiaGate” effort to paint Donald Trump as a Russian agent/stooge/fellow traveler/useful idiot.

At the same time, Biden’s line against China has hardened as well, which may have implications for US-Russia relations during the probable Biden presidency. As late as May 2019, Biden would describe People’s Republic of China as “they are not bad folks”, adding that “they are not competition to us”, comments that may yet come to haunt him on the campaign trail. However, once the COVID-19 broke out of control in the United States, Biden sought to out-do Trump in his accusations the high US death toll was due to China misleading the United States on the nature of the virus and not allowing US public health officials access to Wuhan and China’s epidemiology labs. Even before that, Hunter Biden resigned from boards of directors of China-based firms. While that might have been motivated by his, and his dad’s, desire to keep a low profile due to the scrutiny Hunter’s business dealings have attracted during Donald Trump’s impeachment proceedings, it may also have been preparation for Joe Biden’s anti-China pivot.

The emergence of PRC as Biden’s perceived number one international adversary may mean a desire to improve relations with Russia in the way that Trump, compromised from the start by RussiaGate and without a history of own anti-Russia rhetoric to fall back on, could never deliver. Biden, however, is in the same position as Nixon was in the late 1960s. His earlier anti-Russian rhetoric and actions now make him nearly immune from the same sort of accusations which, even though false, nevertheless effectively stuck to Trump. Nixon’s own enthusiastic participation in McCarthyite witch hunts made it possible for him to do what his Democratic Party predecessor Lyndon Johnson could not: end Vietnam War, engage in arms control treaties with USSR and “go to China” in order to exploit the growing divide between the two main Communist powers. Biden has the political capital necessary to repeat the process: end the war in Afghanistan (something he had proposed already as vice president), enter into arms control treaties with China and…go to Moscow, which is currently seen in Washington in the same way that Beijing was in the 1970s, namely the secondary challenger which needs to be peeled away from the primary one. Moreover, just as in the early 1970s, United States of the 2020s is wracked by a massive internal crisis requiring international retrenchment in order to focus on internal reforms.

But that optimistic scenario remains less likely than the prospect of renewed escalation. Nixon-era United States was not suffering from the hubris of American Exceptionalism. On the contrary, it was a country full of self-doubt and under no illusion concerning the limits of its power. It entered into arms control treaties because it did not feel it could win them. Disasters abroad and at home notwithstanding, the US elite still has not been shaken out of its complacency, and it does appear to sincerely believe it can win a strategic and conventional arms race against both China and Russia. We have not seen any indications so far that Biden intends any moderation in the area of foreign policy or returning to a policy of cooperation with Russia. One should expect that, in the event of Biden victory, Ukraine will launch an offensive against the Donbass shortly after the inauguration, in other words, in February or March of 2020. This offensive would accomplish two objectives for Biden. One, it would establish his hawkish, “patriotic” bona fides, make him look “presidential” in the eyes of the mainstream media and the national security establishment. Secondly, it would allow the US to exert even more pressure on Germany and other EU member states concerning North Stream and other areas of cooperation with Russia.

In order to achieve these goals, particularly the second one, the offensive would not need to overrun the Donbass, in fact, that would not be the aim at all. Rather, the goal would be to force Russian forces to intervene directly in support of the Lugansk and Donetsk republics to justify depicting Russia as the aggressor in the matter. And even if the republics’ militaries can cope with the UAF assault on their own, the sheer level of violence will still make enough headlines to satisfy Biden’s requirements. Whether Zelensky wants that kind of escalation for his country is almost irrelevant. Both he and Biden know very well what the balance of power in that relationship is. Ukraine is a failing state seriously dependent on foreign financial assistance in the form of continual IMF loans, debt rescheduling, favorable trade deals, etc. Biden knew how to use these levers to achieve an important change in Ukraine’s politics that benefited him personally, he will not hesitate to use them again.

Moreover, even if Biden were driven by the Nixonian motives described above, it’s doubtful the foreign policy Deep State would allow him to do that. Biden’s own conversations with Poroshenko no doubt contain great many embarrassing moments whose release would instantly embroil him in a massive scandal. The fact that Donald Trump was impeached solely due to the desire of national security apparatchiks to continue their pet war in Ukraine is indicative of their power to make foreign policy quite independently of their supposed civilian bosses.

The situation is further complicated by the widening rift between the Western neo-liberal world and conservative societies of eastern European countries. This includes a large part of the Ukrainian population which is committed to traditional values. The rapidly deteriorating social and economic situation in Ukraine contributes to a further antagonism of this part of the society towards the forcefully imposed Western ideology and its local agents. Another point of tensions is the existing contradictions between the Orthodox Church (Moscow Patriarchy) and the artificially assembled pseudo-church organizations in Ukraine. The Moscow Patriarchy is returning to its former position among the Ukrainian faithful. In the event of a further dissatisfaction of the society by the declared pseudo-Western way of development, positions of Russia and the Moscow Patriarchy will strengthen even more.

While a Ukrainian offensive is relatively unlikely in 2020, its probability increases considerably in 2021, particularly in the event of a Biden victory. The conflict in Ukraine has lasted this long mainly because Ukraine’s current sponsors in the West are not interested in ending it, irrespective of what the will of the Ukrainian people might be. The situation will get even worse should the US presidency be taken over by someone with a well-established hostility toward Russia who believes his aims would be better served by another bloody campaign on the Donbass.

The next US administration will employ every option that it has in order to prevent the return of Russian influence in the country. Besides furthering the conflict in eastern Ukraine, it will expand efforts against it in the ideological sphere as well, likely including direct provocations.

*

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

SUPPORT SOUTHFRONT: 

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

The Pandemic of Racism in America

July 16th, 2020 by Prof. Alon Ben-Meir

The rage, desperation, and determination which continue to bring tens of thousands of Americans to the streets in protest against racism and injustice hopefully will be just the beginning. They are sick and tired of systemic racism against Black people, of bigotry at the top, crude discrimination, police brutality, a prejudiced criminal justice system, economic disparity, and society’s robbing black people of experiencing real freedom and equality. Hypocritically, white people blame the victims of racism for their own plight, claiming that Black people would do better in life if they were only willing to work harder.

We are now reaping the harvest of the seeds of racism and discrimination—the devaluation of black life. The whole socio-economic and cultural system is lopsided, as it lacks the fundamentals of justice and equality. The pandemic provided the wakeup call that pointed out the ugly tradition of subjugation of the Black community, which sadly did not stop with the end of slavery, but continued in the wanton indifference to their pain and agony, our uncanny negligence, and our failure to understand what they are really experiencing.

Ingrained Racism

The fact that Black people were slaves, and the carefully cultivated myth that slaves were always obedient and happily served their white masters, left an indelible imprint on white people that has lasted generations. They maintain that African Americans were born to servitude and hence they do not qualify for equal treatment, equal opportunity, and equal status.

Films such as D.W. Griffith’s immensely influential Birth of a Nation (1915), which helped to reestablish the Ku Klux Klan, also reinforced the racist stereotype that Black men are unintelligent and an inherent danger to the white community—specifically white women. When on May 25 (the same day George Floyd was killed) a white woman, Amy Cooper, called the cops on a Black man, Christian Cooper, who was birdwatching in Central Park, she was tapping into the long history of that racist trope. To put it plainly, Black lives are simply not valued the way white lives are, as white people consciously or subconsciously view Black man as both sub- and supra-human, threatening, and expendable.

Thus, due to this entrenched prejudice, any activity, however innocent, in which a Black man is engaged in invites suspicion, alarm, and often puts the life of Black men in danger – such as 25-year-old Ahmaud Arbery, who was shot and killed by white residents of the suburban Georgia neighborhood he was jogging in. The mayor of Minneapolis bluntly said “Being black in America should not be a death sentence.” Racism, to be sure, is so ingrained it flows in the veins of many Americans without notice.

The insidious, learned biases pitting white against Black Americans directly leads to the treating of Black Americans as second-class citizens and suppression by white Americans—a necessary ingredient that satisfies their ego and elevates their self-worth. Although the majority of white Americans may not be white supremacists, they certainly hold onto their privileges in all walks of life as they view their relation with Black people (and other people of color) as a zero-sum game, as if a Black man’s gain invariably chips away at a white man’s privileges.

Wanton discrimination

Racial prejudice in America takes a heavy toll on African Americans, which translates to discrimination in all walks of life, including education, job opportunities, professional advancements, and medical treatment, especially maternal health. Black workers receive 22 percent less in salary than whites with the same education and experience; Black women receive even less—34.2 percent. According to a University of Chicago/Duke 2016 study, when factoring in all African American and white men (inclusive of those incarcerated or otherwise out of the workforce), the racial wage gap is the same as it was in the 1950s. Even where racial discrimination should not occur, in medical treatment, when Black patients access medical care, doctors regularly prescribe fewer pain medications and believe Black patients feel less pain than white patients, even among veterans seeking care.

Whereas Black men have served in the military and fought and died alongside white soldiers in every war since the Revolutionary War (when 5,000-8,000 Black soldiers fought against the British), they had to face the revulsion of discrimination and segregation while still serving in the military, hardly recognized for acts of bravery. Indeed, until 1948—after the end of WWII—the US military was entirely segregated. While the top brass of the military, who are mostly white, like to claim that military institutions are ‘colorblind’, the reality is that “racism and discrimination remain extensive problems even in the U.S. military”.

Police brutality

Although police brutality against Black men in particular, which instigated the current protests, is a known phenomenon, police killings of Black men continue unabated. It can and has taken different forms historically – including harassment and intimidation, assault and battery, torture and murder, and even complicity with the KKK. Often, police officers approach any situation connected to a Black man with apprehension and fear. White police officers see threats where they do not exist; they are too quick to draw and as quick to fire to kill.

Here are just a few glaring examples: a Black man taking a nap in a car in a parking lot was shot dead. Another pulled over in a traffic stop was shot and killed in front of his girlfriend and her daughter. A Black man sitting in his home eating ice cream was shot dead by his neighbor, an off-duty white police officer. A Black woman playing video games with her nephew was shot and killed through her window. A Black woman (and EMT) sleeping in her home was shot eight times when officers entered her apartment executing a no-knock warrant.

It is rare for a prosecutor to decide to charge a police officer, especially because they often know each other and have developed close working relationships. Even Internal Affairs divisions of police departments, which ostensibly exist to investigate and report misconduct among officers, have widely conducted sub-standard investigations and failed to identify problem officers who commit wanton abuse.

This cultural pattern enables police officers like Derek Chauvin, Daniel Pantaleo, and Nathan Woodyard to commit the heinous crime of slowly squeezing the life out of George Floyd (MN), Eric Garner (NY), and Elijah McClain (CO). As troubling is the fact that police officers have been known to give false testimony in court, whether to avoid punishment for their own criminal and/or unconstitutional actions, to ensure a conviction, or for other reasons.

Disproportionate incarceration

Although the US judiciary is considered to be just and impartial, in most court hearings race is present albeit it is not spelled out. It is as though Black men inherently have no equal rights and to this day, 230 years since the constitution was written, injustices still exist in both federal and state courts.

Blacks are incarcerated at more than five times the rate of whites—while they are 13 percent of the total US population, they constitute 40 percent of the total male prison population. The mass incarceration of African Americans in this country has created what sociologist Becky Pettit, citing the novelist Ralph Ellison, calls “invisible men”—the millions of black men in the American penal system. Prison inmates are not included in most data-collecting national surveys, so these men are effectively invisible to social institutions, lawmakers, and most social science research. It is almost as if they do not exist, they do not count; their reality is ignored, neglected, and brushed aside.

A staggering 75 percent of young Black men will be imprisoned at some point in their lives. These statistics can only begin to convey the enormity of the injustice that is being compounded day after day. Pettit’s book reveals that “penal expansion has generated a class of citizens systematically excluded from accounts of the American populace. This exclusion raises doubt about the validity of even the most basic social facts and questions the utility of the data gathered for the design and evaluation of public policy and the data commonly used in social science research. As a consequence, we have lost sight of the full range of the American experience.”

Economic disparity

Economic disparity between white and Black Americans is glaring, and reverberates through generations of Black families. Economic exclusion is the source of inequality. It is caused by a confluence of factors, beginning with nearly 250 years of chattel slavery (during which Black families were torn apart, let alone able to accumulate wealth), to sharecropping and unrestrained lynchings, to 90 years of Jim Crow laws, to redlining neighborhoods on demographic lines. All of these factors are manifested today in hiring decisions, property valuation, mortgage applications, interest charges, and even how credit scores are tabulated. The average white family’s net worth is more than ten times greater than a Black family. Economic disparity, to be sure, is the “mother of all evil” in the lives of Black people.

A poor Black man cannot pay for decent housing, cannot pay for health care, and cannot afford to send his kids to higher education, which directly impacts his social standing and professional competency. Thus, he has to settle for menial jobs, low wages, and little or no prospect of ever climbing out of the vicious cycle. The saddest thing of all is that he is blamed for his own dilemma, as if the conditions and lack of opportunities in which he lives has nothing to do with his sorry state of affairs.

The bigotry of the leadership

During the past four years, racism in America has been on the rise and in no small measure Trump, the Racist-in-Chief, has made race a campaign issue from the very start. He began his political campaign by branding Hispanics as rapists; in his presidency he banned Muslims from entering the US, cruelly separated children from their parents at the borders, described white supremacists in Charlottesville as “very fine people”, and celebrated this 4th of July by defending Confederate statues.

Trump’s racism against Blacks in particular is nothing new. It was there in 1973 when Trump Management Inc. was sued by the Department of Justice for housing discrimination against African-American renters. We could see it in 1989, when he took out a full-page advertisement in four New York City newspapers calling for the reinstatement of the death penalty over the Central Park Five, who were wrongfully convicted and sent to prison. Trump refuses to apologize for that, even though, as Innocence Project founder Barry Scheck said, “…by calling for the reinstitution of the death penalty, it contributed to an atmosphere that deprived these men of a fair trial.” He also refused to apologize for his persistent perpetuation of the ‘birther’ lie that Obama was not born in the US.

Trump’s Independence Day speech at Mount Rushmore was laden with racially divisive and partisan rhetoric, but that makes no difference to many conservative Republican leaders and his misguided supporters who follow him blindly. They wrap themselves with the flag as a sign of American patriotism, when in fact their patriotism is defined by their racism and intolerance of people of color.

Although some Republican leaders disagree with him on race, they are fearful of his anger to say anything publicly, lest they risk losing their power or position. Sadly, their silence suggests consent, which only reinforces Trump’s racism. With Trump, as with much of the country, racism is deeply ingrained, something he refuses to admit.

Although racism did not start when Trump came to power – as it is imbued into America’s history and culture – and it will not end with his departure from office, his overt racism brought to focus racism in America. The persistent protests reveal the deep sense of frustration with a president who fans the flame of racism, who sees the country as his own enterprise, who does whatever he wants to serve his own interests. He is cruel, cunning, and careless about the pain and suffering of Black America; he cannot count on their political support and hence completely rejects their outcry.

Unlike any other protests in the past against racism, this year’s protests have had a greater impact in part due to the spread of the coronavirus and its disproportionate impact on Black people, who are being infected and dying at higher rates than whites. That, and in conjunction with a presidential election, provides a rare opportunity to start a process of mitigating racism in earnest. What will be necessary, however, is for the protests to persist through Election Day in the hopes that the Racist-in-Chief will be ousted. Only then we stand a better chance that a new day will dawn and a new administration will commit to relentlessly addressing the plight of Black people for the sake of all Americans, especially because the day when America will have a majority of people of color is fast approaching.

Although there are scores of measures that must be taken and many years and huge financial resources to make a discernible change for the better in the life of Black Americans, we have no choice but to start, regardless of how insurmountable the obstacles and the culture of resistance to change. It will take the collective efforts, determination, and consistency of local, state, and federal authorities to begin this process if we ever want to reach a modicum of equality.

The work to change the culture of innate racism in America will be long and hard, but we must not shy away from it. As a small start, the immediate focus should be on educating students about Black history, changing the police culture and training, investing in housing in black neighborhoods, offering educational support for young Black boys and girls starting at elementary age, up to providing free education for them to attend college or professional schools, and providing job opportunities and equal pay to give them the chance to climb up over time the social ladder.

The continuing demonstrations throughout the country suggest not only the obvious—that Black lives matter—but that racism is consuming America from within, that injustice affects the perpetrators just as much as the victims, that enough is enough.

*

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

Dr. Alon Ben-Meir is a professor of international relations at the Center for Global Affairs at NYU. He teaches courses on international negotiation and Middle Eastern studies. He is a frequent contributor to Global Research.

US War on Russia’s Natural Gas

July 16th, 2020 by Stephen Lendman

According to US Energy Information Agency data, America, Russia, and Iran are the world’s leading natural gas producers, in that order — followed by Qatar, Canada and China.

US shale oil and gas development made it the world’s leading producer of both energy sources.

According to data compiled by Forbes magazine, published in early July, the US has a “23.1% share of global natural gas production” — ahead of Russia’s 17% and 17.4% for Middle East countries combined.

In 2019, the world’s top 10 natural gas producing nations accounted for around 70% of global supply.

The US has a 40% market share of global liquified natural gas (LNG) — what it’s pressuring and bullying EU countries to buy in lieu of much cheaper and readily available natural gas from neighboring Russia.

When completed, Moscow’s 745-mile-long Nord Stream 2 gas pipeline beneath the Baltic Sea will deliver 55 billion cubic meters of natural gas annually to Germany and other EU countries.

Together with Nord Stream 1, both pipelines will deliver 110 billion cubic feet of natural gas to Western Europe.

Nord Stream 2 gas will come through exclusive economic zone territorial waters of five countries: Russia, Finland, Sweden, Denmark and Germany.

Russian natural gas is around 30% cheaper than US liquified natural gas (LNG), why Western Europe highly values it.

Trump regime hardliners are going all-out to block completion of the project — projected to be operational by yearend or early 2021.

On July 15, the State Department  “updated…guidance for Section 232 of the Countering America’s Adversaries Through Sanctions Act (CAATSA)” that imposed unlawful US sanctions on Russia, Iran and North Korea.

The measure signed into law by Trump on August 2, 2017 flagrantly breached the UN Charter and other international law.

At the time, CAATSA was congressionally adopted with only 2 Senate and 3 House profile in courage members voting against the illegitimate measure.

Nations complying with it are complicit in US lawlessness against three nonbelligerent UN member-states threatening no one.

The State Department updated its so-called “guidance” to include threatened lawless sanctions on “investments or other activities related to a broader scope of Russian energy export pipelines, including Nord Stream 2 and the second line of TurkStream (a joint project with Turkey to go through Bulgaria, Serbia and Hungary to Vienna),” adding:

“Persons making such investments or engaging in such activities, including but not limited to financing partners, as well as pipe-laying vessels and related engineering service providers engaging in the deployment of the pipelines, may be subject to (lawless) sanctions pursuant to Section 232.”

Both right wings of the US war party consider legitimate actions by Russia, China, Iran, and other nations on its target list for regime change “threats to US national security and foreign policy interests” — including completion of Nord Stream 2.

Defying reality, the Trump regime’s State Department falsely claimed that Nord Stream 2 and Turkstream “strengthen Russia’s ability to use its energy resources to coerce our European partners and allies (sic),” adding:

“The projects would hinder the process of European energy diversification (sic).”

“These projects could also severely limit gas transit through Ukraine, depriving the Ukrainian government of significant transit revenues and reducing a large deterrent against further Russian aggression against Ukraine (sic).”

Last December, Moscow and Kiev agreed on delivering 65 billion cubic meters of Russian natural gas to and through Ukraine in 2020, another 40 billion cubic meters from 2021 – 2024 at a discounted price – on condition that the recipient country enables deliveries to Western Europe.

The State Department “encourage(d)” nations and entities “to reassess their participation in Russian energy export pipelines subject to Section 232” — threatening sanctions on noncompliars with its unacceptable demands.

In response to the above threats, Russia’s Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Maria Zakharova slammed what she called a textbook example of politicized “unfair competition,” adding:

It shows “weakness of the American system…Except for raw power, (Trump regime hardliners) don’t have any effective tools.”

Pompeo warned participants in Russia’s Nord Stream 2 project to “(g)et out now or risk the consequences.”

A Final Comment

According to Germany’s Die Welt,  Gazprom’s Akademik Cherskiy pipe-laying vessel is completing Nord Stream 2, overcoming US aims to block the pipeline from becoming operational.

Russian Energy Minister Alexander Novak explained that the “project has already been completed in terms of investment and economic viability.”

“All possible technical means are used for the purely physical completion of construction work.”

Vladimir Putin said Nord Stream 2 will be completed and become operational no later than early 2021, two Russian pipe-laying vessels finishing its construction.

*

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

Covid-19: Phase 1 of the “Permanent Crisis”?

July 16th, 2020 by Mike Whitney

Let’s assume that the events of the last five months are neither random nor unexpected.

Let’s say they’re part of an ingenious plan to transform American democracy into a lockdown police state controlled by criminal elites and their puppet governors.

And let’s say the media’s role is to fan the flames of mass hysteria by sensationalizing every gory detail, every ominous prediction and every slightest uptick in the death toll in order to exert greater control over the population.

And let’s say the media used their power to craft a message of terror they’d repeat over and over again until finally, there was just one frightening storyline ringing-out from every soapbox and bullhorn, one group of governors from the same political party implementing the same destructive policies, and one small group of infectious disease experts –all incestuously related– issuing edicts in the form of “professional advice.”

Could such a thing happen in America?

What’s most astonishing about the Covid-19 operation is the manner in which the elected government was circumvented by public health experts (connected to a power-mad billionaire activist.) That was a stroke of genius. Most people regard the US as a fairly stable democracy and yet, the first sign of infection triggered the rapid transfer of power from the president to unelected “professionals” whose conflicts of interest are too vast to list.

Equally fascinating is the fact that the lockdowns were not the brainchild of Donald Trump but the mainly Democrat governors who shrugged-off any Constitutional limits to their power and arbitrarily ordered people to stay in their homes, wear masks and avoid close physical contact with other humans.

All of this was done in the name of “science” and condoned under “emergency powers” despite the fact that mass quarantines of healthy people have no historical precedent or scientific basis. No matter, this was never about science or logic anyway, and it certainly wasn’t about saving lives. It was always about power, pure, unalloyed political power. The power to push the economy into freefall destroying millions of jobs and businesses. The power to bail out Wall Street while diverting attention to a fairly-mild infection that kills roughly 1 in every 500 people. The power to create a permanent underclass willing to work for table scraps or less. And the power to fundamentally restructure human relations so that normal intimacies like handshakes, hugs or social gatherings are entirely banned. This, of course, was the most ambitious part of the project, the basic changes to human interaction that date back thousands of years, and which are now seen as an obstacle to a new order in which the individual must be isolated, desensitized and kept in a constant state of fear to be more easily controlled and manipulated.

On top of that, all of this is taking place in plain sight where anyone with even minimal critical thinking skills should be able to see what is happening, but very few do. Why is that?

Fear. Fear has gripped the population and is preventing typically intelligent, perceptive people from seeing something that’s right beneath their noses. Check out this clip from an article titled “When Will the Madness End?”:

“What’s happening now is a spread of this serious medical condition to the whole population… The public is adopting a personality disorder … paranoid delusions, and irrational fear. … It can happen with anything but here we see a primal fear of disease turning into mass panic….

…. Once fear reaches a certain threshold, normalcy, rationality, morality, and decency fade and are replaced by shocking stupidity and cruelty.…..We find that whole communities suddenly fix their minds upon one object, and go mad in its pursuit; that millions of people become simultaneously impressed with one delusion, and run after it, till their attention is caught by some new folly more captivating than the first. ..…

…This is made far worse by politics, which has only fed the beast of fear. This is the most politicized disease in history, and doing so has done nothing to help manage it and much to make it all vastly worse.” (“When Will the Madness End?“, AIER)

We’re not saying that Covid doesn’t kill people, and we’re not suggesting that Covid is a bioweapon released on the public for nefarious purposes. (although that’s certainly a possibility.) What we’re saying is that scheming elites and their allies in the media and politics see every crisis as an opportunity to advance their own authoritarian agenda.

In fact, the restructuring of basic democratic institutions can only take place within the confines of a major crisis. That’s why the CIA, the giant corporations, the WHO and the Gates Posse gathered for meetings that anticipated an event just like the Covid outbreak. They needed a crisis of that magnitude to achieve their ultimate objective; total control. That’s what they mean when they say there will be “no return to normal”, they mean they’re replacing representative government with a new totalitarian model in which the levers of state power will be controlled by them. So while the virus outbreak might be coincidental, the management of the crisis certainly is not. This is from an article by Gary Barnett:

“We are in the midst of an attempt by the oligarchs to eliminate the human spirit, and if this attempt is successful, the singular majesty of the human experience will have been abolished, and only a technocratic black hole of emptiness and despair will remain. This is the essence of a failed society brought about by the destruction of human intellect by state education, mass propaganda, and the planned control of individuals through physical and psychological manipulation due to fear.”(“Pandemic Madness: The State’s Plan Rests on the Destruction of the Human Spirit“, Gary Barnett, Lew Rockwell)

Is the author exaggerating?

I don’t think so. Our species has withstood myriad epidemics in the past without ever resorting to the extremist measures we have taken during this latest outbreak. Take the state of Oregon, for example, whose Democratic governor Kate Brown just signed another executive order extending a state of emergency through Sept. 4. The move comes months after the peak in deaths was reached in mid-April. As of Tuesday, Oregon’s death toll is a meager 240 nearly 90% of who are over 65 with underlying health conditions. That means that Brown shut down a $226 billion per year economy, put tens of thousands of people out of work, destroyed countless small and medium-sized businesses and plunged the state deep into debt, to save roughly 24 or 25 people under 65 with no underlying health conditions. That’s not the reaction of an intelligent, responsible political leader acting in the best interests of the people. That is the reaction of someone who is either criminally insane or doing someone else’s bidding. So which is it?

Like many of the other mainly Democrat governors, Brown also issued a “mask” mandate, punishable by a fine. The new executive order was neither approved by the House or by any other democratic body. It’s just Brown testing the limits of her new emergency powers. Interestingly, the mask mandate comes a full three months after the state reached its peak in fatalities which means that it has less to do with controlling the infection than it does with using the virus to usurp tyrannical powers. Does that mean Brown or the other Democrat governors are closet tyrants?

Probably not. But it does suggest that the people who fund Brown’s campaigns and pull her strings want to see how far they can push things before the public fights back. Here’s a comment by Carlo Caduff in the Medical Anthropology Quarterly that helps to put these developments into perspective:

“Across the world, the pandemic unleashed authoritarian longings in democratic societies allowing governments to seize the opportunity, create states of exception and push political agendas. Commentators have presented the pandemic as a chance for the West to learn authoritarianism from the East. This pandemic risks teaching people to love power and call for its meticulous application.” (“What Went Wrong: Corona and the World After the Full Stop“ Academia.edu)

Once again, we are not denying that Covid kills people. All we’re saying is that powerful elites are using crisis management to advance their own narrow political agenda.

It should be no surprise that states governed by Democrats are doing considerably worse than those run by Republicans. Watching the eagerness with which the Dems impose their economy-crushing measures, one can only wonder how the states will ever dig out of the current mess and regain solvency. Of course, maybe that’s the goal, to generate so much red ink that essential social services will have to be slashed, the poor will be left to starve, and the big money guys will buy-up public assets for pennies on the dollar. Indeed, that must be the plan, “shock therapy for the proles while the Democrat governors act as a battering ram to open the state to the plunder and looting of their Wall Street crony friends and others in the parasite class. Here’s how Israel Shamir summed it up in a recent article at the Unz Review:

“There are people who think we have it too good. They think we did nothing to deserve our high civilization. They think we shouldn’t be able to afford food, the roof above our heads and other goodies. This is the view of some very wealthy people. They are annoyed at seeing Tom, Dick and Harry going to Acapulco and eating in a restaurant, instead of being at their beck and call. They want to lower our income and raise the cost of living. They are willing to fund anyone who calls for more austerity.

Now they support lockdowns, claiming that it is the best way to fight disease. Yesterday they were calling on us to shut down industry in order to save the climate. Today these same people are still trying to reduce us to poverty, this time for the sake of Covid” (“Unmasking Freedom, The Unz review)

Shamir is right of course, the justifications are forever changing while the ultimate goal remains the same, wreak havoc the economy, divide the people into warring camps, and clear the way for the new streamlined system of authoritarian government, the glorious NWO. And the speed at which we are moving towards this new order is truly breathtaking. Take a look at this sampling of articles I’ve compiled which illustrates the catastrophic damage that is being done to the economy but swept under the rug by the media. In short, Covid is the diversion that keeps the American people from realizing that the system that keeps them employed, pays the mortgage and puts food on the table is being decimated by voracious oligarchs who want to start fresh. Check out these articles:

Anyway, you get the picture, the situation is dire. But as severe as the economic carnage may be, the psychic damage is that much worse. Many readers probably already know that suicides, divorces, child abuse, alcoholism, drug abuse and domestic violence have all risen sharply in the last 5 months. The impact of the lockdowns on people suffering from chronic depression or other mental health conditions has also increased dramatically. As Doctor Waqar Rashid opines in an article at The Spectator:

“Many people are… still terrified.,… afraid of venturing back into the outside world…. Masks are everywhere, and are compulsory on public transport. The result is a reminder that this ‘new normal’ is utterly unlike what we are used to. Even to those who don’t suffer from mental health problems it’s a depressing and dispiriting sight. And I fear this ongoing state of stress and anxiety is doing profound damage to people’s psychological wellbeing...

It was widely acknowledged before the pandemic struck that mental health problems were not only increasing in number but also being seen more frequently in younger people. As a neurologist, the people I see are especially at risk from suffering from mental health problems. It’s a sad fact that in my line of work, we can cure very little. But we can try to control and mitigate the illnesses we seek to treat. Much of this relies on the patient remaining hopeful and optimistic about their prospects. But now, surrounded as we are by this ‘invisible enemy’, all too often hope has been substituted for fear, even terror.” (“What’s the true cost of lockdown?”, The Spectator)

Covid-19; Phase 1 of the “Permanent Crisis”

It all boils down to this: Ruling class elites are using a public health crisis to wage a full-scale war on the American people and their system of representative government. The Democrat-CIA-Media Axis has been instrumental in prosecuting the conflict, as they were in the Russiagate fiasco. These are the shock troops who execute the battleplan of economic strangulation, covert skulduggery, and relentless disinformation. By the time the American people figure out what’s going on, the political landscape will have changed completely.

*

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 Shutterstock

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Covid-19: Phase 1 of the “Permanent Crisis”?
  • Tags:

Israeli Proxies Profit from U.S. Coronavirus Funding

By Philip Giraldi, July 16, 2020

Recipients included 600 mostly large equity and asset management firms that were actually ineligible because of their involvement in “investment or speculation.” Cash rich law firms also benefited with more than 45 of top firms receiving at least $210 million in PPP loans while companies owned in whole or part by nine congressmen also received funds. A business partially owned by Paul Pelosi, husband of Speaker Nancy Pelosi, obtained a loan as did a real estate project run by the family of Jared Kushner.

Chaos in UK Health Care. NHS Staff Are Being Silenced Over COVID-19. “Lose Their Jobs if They Speak Out”

By The Bernician, July 16, 2020

The trust has been running empty ambulances during lockdown and is still doing it now. By this I mean ambulances are driving around, with their emergency alert systems active (sirens & / or lights) with no job to go to. This I believe has been to give the impression to the public that there is more demand for ambulances than there actually is. Staff only wear face coverings/ masks & social distance when public facing, as soon as they are out of public view, the masks come off and social distancing is not observed. Indeed jokes are made about the measures, and I have heard staff express amazement that despite warnings on packets and at point of sales, telling people masks are totally ineffective and dangerous , the public still buy them, because a politician has told them too.

Top Amazon Deforestation Satellite Researcher Sacked by Bolsonaro

By Jenny Gonzales, July 16, 2020

National Institute of Space Research (INPE) researcher Lubia Vinhas, the general coordinator for INPE’s Earth Observation Agency (CGOBT) was dismissed Monday. Vinhas was responsible for overseeing the missions of the DETER and PRODES satellite systems that measure the nation’s monthly and annual deforestation respectively — both pathfinding systems long hailed as the gold standard for deforestation monitoring.

Towards a Totalitarian Regime? European Commission Adopts GMO Vaccine to Combat Non Existent Covid-19 Virus

By Julian Rose, July 16, 2020

In a decision which will shock many, the European Commission has taken a big step towards its ambition to subject its citizens to a totalitarian regime in which DNA altering technology forms the centre piece of mass control and unapologetic rule by despotism. 

Under the chairmanship of the German Minister of Health, Jens Spahn, The Commission has adopted a new ruling which calls for ‘the swift development of a GMO vaccine against Covid-19’.

The Battle for Pandemic Sanity: Hydroxychloroquine Efficacy vs. Its Suppression

By Elizabeth Woodworth, July 16, 2020

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.

Britain Caves to US, Bans Huawei from 5G Network Build-Out, More US Anti-China Sanctions Coming

By Stephen Lendman, July 16, 2020

Britain is on an “irreversible path” to eliminate what he called “high-risk vendors (sic).”

So-called Chinese “risk” has nothing to do with security issues, everything to do with US war on China by other means and trillions of dollars of market potential that 5G technology represents.

Exporting Toxic Chemical Waste to Poor Countries Must End, Says UN

By Alan MacLeod, July 16, 2020

The practice of dumping banned, toxic chemical waste on poorer societies by big corporations in rich countries must end, say experts at the United Nations Human Rights Council. “In nearly every case there is no legitimate public interest justification,” said Baskut Tuncak, a Turkish-American UN special rapporteur on the environment and the disposal of toxic waste.


Can you help us keep up the work we do? Namely, bring you the important news overlooked or censored by the mainstream media and fight the corporate and government propaganda, the purpose of which is, more than ever, to “fabricate consent” and advocate war for profit.

We thank all the readers who have contributed to our work by making donations or becoming members.

If you have the means to make a small or substantial donation to contribute to our fight for truth, peace and justice around the world, your gesture would be much appreciated.

  • Posted in NO READ MORE LINK
  • Comments Off on Selected Articles: Health Staff Are Being Silenced Over COVID-19

Today, the Trump administration has announced a major weakening of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). This rollback would increase the risk of environmental damages from major development projects, and limit the power of the communities to weigh in on such projects, according to the Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS).

Below is a statement by Dr. Kathleen Rest, executive director of UCS.

“With this decision, the administration has chosen to accept permanent damage to our communities and ecosystems in exchange for short-term gains for politically connected industries. The administration is now using the COVID-19-driven economic crisis as an excuse for this rollback, undermining public health protections in the midst of one of the worst public health crises this country has ever faced.

“These changes weaken the ability of communities—especially communities of color—to weigh in on projects that could impact their own lives for a very long time. The administration would leave communities with less information and less power to challenge corporations, and enable development to proceed without consideration of the long-term impacts. And the rollback specifically reduces the federal government and communities’ ability to consider the impacts of climate change.

“At a time when we need to be prioritizing health, justice and the long-term well-being of our communities, the Trump administration is speeding in the opposite direction—prioritizing short-term industry gains rather than addressing racial inequity and environmental damage. This rollback is short-sighted, insulting, cynical and dangerous.”

UCS experts have written about the administration’s efforts to undermine NEPA. Dr. Rest examined the proposed changes in detail. Adrienne Hollis, senior climate justice and health scientist for the Climate and Energy Program at UCS, interviewed environmental justice leader Dr. Mildred McClain about the impacts and dangers of rolling back NEPA. Senior fellow Derrick Jackson wrote on the racially discriminatory effects of weakening NEPA. And Karen Perry Stillerman, senior analyst and senior strategist for the Food and Environment Program at UCS, wrote about the history and importance of NEPA.

*

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. Kathleen Rest is the Executive Director of the Union of Concerned Scientists.

Featured image is from FAIR

Israeli Proxies Profit from U.S. Coronavirus Funding

July 16th, 2020 by Philip Giraldi

Washington D.C. is surely one of the most corrupt places on earth. Money talks and nearly everyone into the game sometimes referred to as politics has his or her hand out and expects to end up a millionaire. Given that, it should surprise no one to learn that a large chunk of the CARES Business Assistance Program’s trillions of dollars recently doled out for coronavirus relief, sold to the public as intended to help small businesses survive, has instead gone to those who are politically connected through lobbyists and other special interests.

A recent Time magazine article describes what it calls “a familiar lobbying bonanza.” To be sure, the details regarding who got the cash makes for depressing reading, though there is a familiar smell to it in light of the many boondoggled programs to make America “safe” over the past twenty years. The Paycheck Protection Program (PPP) has provided no less than 663,000 loans over $150,000, but much of the money has gone to “billionaires, country clubs, lobbyists, political allies, Wall Street, and big business,” all of which have better access to government than does the small business owner.

Recipients included 600 mostly large equity and asset management firms that were actually ineligible because of their involvement in “investment or speculation.” Cash rich law firms also benefited with more than 45 of top firms receiving at least $210 million in PPP loans while companies owned in whole or part by nine congressmen also received funds. A business partially owned by Paul Pelosi, husband of Speaker Nancy Pelosi, obtained a loan as did a real estate project run by the family of Jared Kushner.

Other decidedly questionable recipients include Planned Parenthood, the Church of Scientology, and rapper Kanye West, up until recently a Trump favorite, who, with his wife Kim Kardashian, owns a shoe and clothing company worth an estimated $3 billion.

Given the apparent fact that obtaining a loan was largely a matter of who you know, it is perhaps not surprising that the state of Israel and its myriad supporting entities in the United States were in front of the line when the money was passed out.

I recently wrote about the apparent holocaust scam run out of Israel whereby gullible foreigners have been receiving emails and seeing media solicitations regarding how Jewish survivors of World War 2 currently in Israel are living in squalor and starving due to the impact of the coronavirus. Readers commented that there are similar ads running on television in the U.S. soliciting money from “Christians and Jews” to help relieve the suffering. There have recently been allegations of fraud regarding the millions of dollars that have been raised by Christian groups in the United States. As Israel is a wealthy, socialist state with world class medical and social services systems in part paid for by the U.S. taxpayer, as well as pensions provided mostly by Germany for all survivors, the entire business definitely has a bad smell to it.

If so-called holocaust survivors are actually suffering, the fault should be firmly placed where it belongs: the Jewish “charitable” organizations and the state of Israel itself, which are custodians for the money coming from Europe and elsewhere. Professor Norman Finkelstein has demonstrated in his book The Holocaust Industry: Reflections on the Exploitation of Jewish Suffering how all the billions of dollars extorted by Israel and Jewish groups has been diverted and rarely reaches those who might actually have suffered.

A review of the Finkelstein book notes

“…that very little of the recently extracted ‘compensation’ has reached its nominal beneficiaries. Instead, the industry’s concern today lies with winning compensation for law firms, consultants, politicians, Holocaust organizations, and industry elites. ‘When Jewish elites rob Jewish survivors no ethical issues arise; it’s just about the money…’”

In the current economic and healthcare crisis, some of these groups including Israeli start-up companies and proxy groups that lobby in the United States are eligible to received PPP under the multi-trillion dollar CARES Business Assistance Program as long as they have some salaried U.S. employees. The loans can be up to two and a half times the cost of wages actually paid to employees up to a total of $10 million and are issued at 1% interest that is repayable within two years, with a six-month grace period before payments are due. The loan would be converted into a grant if the company can demonstrate that the money was actually spent on salaries that prevented terminating employees.

Predictably, Israeli connected law firms in the U.S. were immediately out of the starting gates.

“’In this program, it’s all about being first to the prize,’ said Attorney Oz Halabi, a partner and head of the U.S. taxation department at the New York office of law firm Pearl Cohen Zedek Latzer Baratz and a former senior official at the Israel Tax Authority. ‘It is very important to submit applications as soon as possible and to understand that the program is relevant to 99% of Israeli startups.’”

Because Israeli companies are well wired into political and financial power brokers in Washington and New York, they inevitably have had insider help applying early and obtaining immediate approvals for loans that struggling American small businesses will not receive. Reportedly 1,000 Jewish and Israel linked groups have already received $500 million but then proceeded to lay off employees anyway after they received their money. There has been, of course, no reciprocity of tax breaks or loans for U.S. companies operating in Israel.

The full measure of PPP spending has yet to be appreciated, but Grant Smith at the Institute for Research: Middle East Policy (IRMEP) has described a C-Span interview that reveals the extent to which Israel has taken advantage of CARES. Smith reports that “Israel lobby organizations such as the Zionist Organization of America ($2-5 million), Friends of the IDF ($2-5 million) and the Israeli American Council ($1-2 million) are grabbing huge loans from the CARES Act PPP program. According to SBA data, Israel’s Bank Leumi has doled out a quarter to a half billion dollars under the program, despite being called out for operating in the occupied West Bank. It has given sweetheart deals to the Israeli company Oran Safety Glass (which defrauded the U.S. Army on bulletproof glass contracts) and Energix, which operates power plants in the occupied Golan Heights and West Bank.”

Grant has also identified PPP money going to the Jewish Institute for National Security of America (JINSA), which inter alia arranges “terrorism” training for American police; the Jewish National Fund, which supports Israel’s illegal settlements; and the Israel on Campus Coalition, which has harassed students critical of the Jewish state on American campuses. Several of the organizations being supported with American taxpayer money are little more than front organizations promoting Israeli interests in the U.S. They should be required to be registered under the Foreign Agents Registration Act (FARA) of 1938 but the Justice Department never does anything about Israeli government fronts active in the United States.

Note that an Israeli bank has somehow been able to grant as much as a half billion dollars of U.S. taxpayer money under the program, all of it apparently going to Israeli businesses and other Israel-linked entities. One wonder what the screening process was like, if there even was one. And note that the Zionist Organization of America is essentially an Israeli lobbying group. It too gets the cash, as does the similar Israeli America Bank. Oran Safety Glass, which “won” a Pentagon contract for bulletproof glass for U.S. Army vehicles even though it could not produce the glass, also gets money.

But the most outrageous grant is to the Friends of the Israel Defense Forces (FIDF), an organization that raises money in the U.S. for the Israeli military. It held a gala event in Hollywood in 2017 that raised $53.8 million while one in New York City in the same year promoted as a “A Night of Heroes” raised $35 million, so it clearly does not need the money but took it anyway. Donations to FIDF are tax deductible as the organization is registered with the U.S. Treasury as a 501(c)3 educational and charitable non-profit foundation. One might well ask how it is possible that the American taxpayer should subsidize a foreign military organization that is regularly accused of war crimes in its ongoing brutal and genocidal occupation of the Palestinian West Bank and East Jerusalem? Where are the screams of outrage from Congress and the media, which are silent even as an estimated 100,000 American small businesses meanwhile go bust?

The multitude of gifts to Israel come at a time when the cover provided by the coronavirus and the BLM disruption have hidden from sight the expansion of the Israeli-American national security state. Writing at MintPress in an article entitled “The Merging of US and Israeli National Security States is Accelerating Amid COVID-19,” Raul Diego reports that:

A two-pronged initiative by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and the Department of Homeland Security is set to substantially increase Israel’s already significant role in America’s digital health, artificial intelligence (AI), critical health infrastructure, as well as law enforcement, public and border protection and other key sectors. Citing ‘health challenges’ posed by COVID-19, the U.S.-Israel Business Initiative (USIBI), a venture of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, is advancing a new eight-point policy framework to facilitate a ‘more robust bilateral collaboration’ between Israeli and American companies to realize the ‘potential’ of technologies emerging out of Israel relating to telehealth, robotic diagnostics and AI-powered applications in healthcare.”

Diego also observes how “In a recent article, investigative reporter Whitney Webb uncovered the deep Israeli military roots of virtually every ‘health’ tech startup to emerge in the wake of the COVID-19 pandemic and their extensive relationships with the U.S. government at both the federal and state level. Regarding the policy framework, Webb stated that it was likely ‘part of a broader effort aimed at using the coronavirus crisis to facilitate the integration of Israeli tech companies, particularly in the “digital health” sector, into the U.S. technology ecosystem. Many, if not the vast majority, of these companies’, she continued, ‘were either founded by ex-members of Israeli intelligence or military intelligence, but also serve as contractors to Israel’s government or its military.’”

Inevitably, the rape of America and its remaining resources by Israel will accelerate with hardly a peep out of politicians or the media. The U.S. Chamber of Commerce U.S.-Israel Business Initiative only works in one direction, delivering money and jobs to Israel as it simultaneously makes Americans poorer and unemployed. The joint projects also enable the stealing of U.S. technology to advance the Jewish state’s own high-tech sector at no cost. There will also be major national security implications as the Israelis will be able to access every telephone to confront “health challenges” while monitoring the movement of Americans as they also record classified conversations to send the “take” back to Jerusalem.

And it all starts with the presumption that Israel is some kind of friend, which it is not. Fake charities and various schemes to otherwise defraud and impoverish the U.S. taxpayer is the name of the game and Israel goes on from there to become a “business arrangement” and “health initiative partner” plus “national security asset.” When will it ever end? Ask your congressman. He or she will not reply. Or write a letter to the Washington Post or New York Times. They will not print it.

*

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

This article was originally published on The Unz Review.

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 TUR

Gates, Bezos-backed Firm Searching for Cobalt in Canada

July 16th, 2020 by Cecilia Jamasmie

KoBold Metals, a start-up backed by a coalition of billionaires led by Bill Gates, plans to scour for cobalt in Canada using advanced mapping technology and it’s targeting northern Quebec, just south of Glencore’s Raglan nickel mine.

The company, founded in 2018, has acquired rights to an area of about 1,000 square kilometres (386 sq. miles), where it plans to begin collecting geophysical data before the end of the year.

KoBold’s backers include big names such as Venture capital firm Andreessen Horowitz and Breakthrough Energy Ventures. The latter is financed by well-known billionaires including Jeff Bezos, Ray Dalio, Michael Bloomberg, Richard Branson and Gates.

KoBold aims to create a “Google Maps” of the Earth’s crust, with a special focus on finding cobalt deposits. It collects and analyzes multiple streams of data — from old drilling results to satellite imagery — to better understand where new deposits might be found.

Algorithms applied to the data collected determine the geological patterns that indicate a potential deposit of cobalt, which occurs naturally alongside nickel and copper.

Chief executive officer Kurt House believes the company’s exploration activities at the site in Quebec could help prove the value of its approach.

“The subtleties in the geophysical signals are really only evident when you have all of the data and can evaluate it in a systematic, statistically rigorous way,” House told Bloomberg on Tuesday. “It’s just too much for the human brain to handle.”

KoBold’s boss noted the company was likely to begin collecting geophysical data in the next three to six months. Drilling, House said, could start in a couple of years.

The California-based firm also expects to bring in other investors, potentially including its current backers, on a deposit-by-deposit basis. It will also seek mining-savvy partners once it has identified an interesting project.

Not a miner

KoBold, as House has stated multiple times, does not intend to be a mine operator “ever.”

This is not the first time the American start-up eyes Canada. Public records show that Faith in Gravity Holdings Inc., which is registered in British Columbia, staked last year claims in the northeast corner of Saskatchewan.

The holding company’s directors, according to The Star Phoenix, are Kobold Metals’ top three executives.

Currently, about 65% of the world’s cobalt is mined in the Democratic Republic of Congo, much of it by hand and employing children and young men.

New cobalt mines outside the DCR could become the preferred source of ethically-mined cobalt in the medium-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.

Featured image: KoBold Metals has acquired rights to an area in northern Quebec, just south of Glencore’s nickel mine. (Image: Raglan nickel mine. Courtesy of Glencore.)

The conflict between Azerbaijan and Armenia has become increasingly serious. Both countries claim the territory of Nagorno-Karabakh and between the late 1980s and early 1990s there was a war between them to decide the control of the region. Tens of thousands of people died in the conflict, which ended in 1994 with a ceasefire agreement, without a winner. The agreement places the Nagorno-Karabakh region as a de facto autonomous republic, remaining de jure as part of Azerbaijan. This agreement gave a break in the massacres but did not prevent the continuation of the territorial disputes between both countries, which until today claim the region, and the situation has worsened even more recently.

On July 12, there was an armed clash in the region, with an uncertain number of victims. Azerbaijani forces accuse Armenia of violating territorial limits. In contrast, the Armenian government blames the opposing country for such violations. Since then, according to Armenian observers, bombings on the border have been reported every 15 to 20 minutes. Data on the dead or injured people remain uncertain.

Armenian Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan accuses Azerbaijan of initiating hostilities and says that no violence will go unpunished, promising to react to every move by the enemy country. Data from the Armenian Ministry of Defense points to records of artillery attacks against Armenian territory in the early hours of July 12, when the fighting was recorded. According to the Armenian government, Armenian troops only retaliated against the attacks received. Pashinyan accuses not only Azerbaijan, but also Turkey of involvement in the attacks.

The charges are not unfounded. Turkey has shown support for Azerbaijan in the dispute, encouraging annexation and not a peaceful resolution of the impasse. The day after the clashes at the border, the Turkish foreign minister, Mevlut Cavusoglu, spoke in defense of Azerbaijan, saying that this country “is not alone” in the conflict. The statement becomes controversial and dangerous amid an escalation of violence, as it connotes not only support from Ankara, but also an interest in intervening in the conflict. Armenia reacted with severe criticism, blaming Ankara for the return of the violence. According to the Armenian government, Turkey has an interest in destabilizing peace in the region to gain greater control and influence over neighboring territories.

In return, the European Union issued a public note calling on both parties to reduce violence and to avoid the use of force. Likewise, the US State Department classified violence in the region as unacceptable and urged both parties to seek a peaceful solution to the dispute. In the same vein, the Russian government has called on both countries for a peaceful resolution, without showing support for either party. Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov urged Armenia and Azerbaijan to an immediate ceasefire and to comply with the terms of the Minsk Group, a committee created in 1992 to manage peace in the region. Since both countries are former Soviet republics, the role of Russian diplomacy in managing the conflict is essential, due to the weight of its influence in the region.

It is important to note the difference in the approach of the Russians, Americans and Europeans to the Turkish stance to the crisis. Demonstrating open support for any party in the current phase of the conflict can be crucial to intensify disputes and encourage an increase in violence. Being Turkey a military potency, the declared support in a conflict in its early stages may encourage the progress of hostilities. In this sense, it is likely that Azerbaijan, with the support of Ankara and possible Turkish intervention, will continue the bombing, assuming strategic advantage and superiority over its opponent. This is the great danger behind the Turkish pronouncement.

The situation, however, must be analyzed in a complete context. Turkey has shown interest in increasing its regional and international geopolitical relevance and, for this purpose, it has called for bold and provocative acts, such as, for example, its role in the Syrian War and the recent conversion of Hagia Sophia into a mosque, which provoked outcries all over the world for being an unnecessary attack on the memory of Greek Christianity, provoking the resurgence of religious tensions in the region that had not existed for a long time.

In fact, Erdogan has clear plans to constitute a neo-Ottoman geopolitical projection, regaining power and influence at a regional level throughout the territory where the Ottoman Empire, predecessor of the modern Turkish state, operated in the past. Relations between Turks and Armenians, in this sense, do not have a good record and are alive in Armenian memory with the ethnic-religious genocide perpetrated against Christian Armenians in the early 20th century.

In this sense, Turkish interest in creating an area of ​​instability that favors its regional influence can be costly. Russia, as the regional power with the greatest historical influence in the Caucasus, must counterbalance Turkish advances through diplomacy, while Erdogan must be internationally pressured to avoid any intervention in the dispute between neighboring countries.

*

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

This article was originally published on InfoBrics.

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

Featured image is from InfoBrics

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Instability in the Caucasus: Turkey Supports Azerbaijan in Nagorno-Karabakh Dispute with Armenia
  • Tags: ,

Russia is conducting “military intimidation” in the Mediterranean according to RAND in a newly published article titled “Russia Is Eyeing the Mediterranean. The U.S. and NATO Must Be Prepared.” The authors claim that “As part of its great power exertions Russia seeks more access and freedom of movement in the Mediterranean region, and is bolstering its military footprint to achieve this objective.” The authors also urge the U.S. and NATO to meet “this rising challenge” by developing “a more robust southern strategy with a reinforced air and naval presence.”

RAND is considered the U.S. Air Force’s think tank as it was established by General H. H. “Hap” Arnold, Chief of Staff of the Air Force, and by aeronautical engineer Theodore von Kármán. The bulk of its funding in its early formation was from the Air Force. Therefore, when reading RAND reports it must be noted that articles are written through the eyes of US unilateralism and unipolarity.

The authors argue that “By upgrading its military posture in the region, Russia seems to believe it can be more successful in projecting power and minimizing the influence of the United States and NATO.” However, this would imply that NATO has a unified policy in the Mediterranean when in actual fact the Alliance has never been so divided over its so-called southern flank. The article claims that Russia is in direct conflict with NATO and their interests in the Mediterranean, but ignores that the Alliance is deeply divided in Libya, Syria and the Aegean.

It is especially in Libya where NATO’s division is observed, with Turkey supporting the Muslim Brotherhood Government of National Accord (GNA) based in Tripoli, and Greece and France backing Libya’s House of Representatives based in Tobruk. RAND’s position on Libya is clearly in favor of the Muslim Brotherhood government by claiming it is “United Nations–backed” but omits the GNA’s mandate from the UN to rule was for a two-year period that expired in December 2017. The authors then describe Field Marshal Khalifa Belqasim Haftar as a “warlord” despite being appointed as commander of the Libyan National Army by the Libyan House of Representatives, the only institution that has been elected by the Libyan people. By falsely claiming that the Muslim Brotherhood government is UN-backed and describing Haftar as a warlord demonstrates the very division in NATO as RAND also completely omits that the GNA is attempting to steal maritime space from NATO-member Greece.

Russia is on the side of Haftar, and it is here that RAND is willing to gloss over the fact that the Turkish-backed militias fighting for the GNA are overwhelmingly jihadist and include former ISIS fighters. It is also for this reason that RAND ignores that Haftar was appointed by the only elected body in Libya and has the support of NATO members Greece and France. Therefore, RAND is not dealing with the realities occurring in the Mediterranean and rather expects all NATO members to fall into line and ignore their own strategic and security interests in the Mediterranean for the sake of opposing greater Russian influence in the region.

This expectation led RAND to write that “A greater U.S. and NATO presence might also reassure allies in the Mediterranean, which could help by buttressing their own southern-facing postures.” Greece and France do not need to be “reassured” that Russia is not a threat in the Mediterranean, but rather that Turkey’s plan to steal Greek maritime space is thwarted and the jihadists it arms and trains to fight in Libya do not enter Europe. It appears that RAND is trying to unite NATO under the guise of opposing Russia in the Mediterranean, something that is not a major concern for the Mediterranean NATO members, with the exception of Turkey. A unified front in opposing Russia in the Mediterranean is only in the interests of the US and Turkey and not the entire Alliance. Therefore, RAND is effectively admitting that NATO is just a tool used to strengthen Washington’s influence and demands with no interest of other members’ security concerns.

As RAND is one of the most influential think tanks in the US today, sidelining NATO’s deep divisions on the idea that the alliance will unite to oppose Russian influence in the Mediterranean shows how it is divorced from the realities on the ground and demonstrates why Washington is having little influence over events in Syria and Libya, and has a disinterest in de-escalating Turkey’s aggression against Greece in the Aegean. It is for this reason that French President Emmanuel Macron correctly and continually asserts that NATO is experiencing a “brain death” and is open to the idea of Europe restoring relations with Russia.

The disillusionment of RAND is summed up in its conclusion: “Western priorities could change. The United States and NATO might give more thought to a strategy that could better deter potential Kremlin risk-taking in the Mediterranean.”

This is an unlikely scenario since Greece and France are not only on the same side as Russia in Libya, but Greece has fully restored relations with what RAND calls the “Assad regime” in Syria, while France is slowly beginning to thaw its relations with Damascus. Although RAND wants a re-energized and united NATO to oppose Russia in the Mediterranean, its dismissal of the realities and power games in the region will only lead to more misguided foreign policy decisions in Washington that not only weakens their position in region, but helps strengthen Moscow’s as it finds mutual cooperation with Mediterranean countries like France, Greece, Libya, Syria, Egypt, Cyprus and others to oppose Turkish ambitions.

*

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

Just days after the publication of data showing that deforestation in the Brazilian Amazon has reached destructive levels not seen since the mid-2000s, the administration of President Jair Bolsonaro sacked the top scientist responsible for tracking and analyzing the data.

National Institute of Space Research (INPE) researcher Lubia Vinhas, the general coordinator for INPE’s Earth Observation Agency (CGOBT) was dismissed Monday. Vinhas was responsible for overseeing the missions of the DETER and PRODES satellite systems that measure the nation’s monthly and annual deforestation respectively — both pathfinding systems long hailed as the gold standard for deforestation monitoring.

INPE’s satellite-based deforestation alert system detected 1,034 square kilometers of forest clearing during June 2020, bringing the twelve-month total to 9,564 square kilometers, 89% higher than just a year ago. The extent of deforestation over the past year is the highest recorded since INPE started releasing monthly numbers in 2007.

June 2020 represents the 15th consecutive month of increasing forest loss; Bolsonaro took office in January 2019, roughly 18 months ago. According to DETER, which gathers daily deforestation alerts through satellite images, deforestation grew by 25% from January to June 2020 compared to the same period in 2019.

Word of Vinhas’ dismissal was published in the Official Gazette of the Union (DOU) and signed by the Minister of Science and Technology Marcos Pontes. No justification was given for the removal.

Contacted by Mongabay on Monday, the Ministry of Science press office sent an email response concerning the sacking:

“The Ministry of Science, Technology and Innovations (MCTI) clarifies that the dismissal of Dr. Lubia Vinhas published in the Official Gazette of the Union is part of her reallocation from the position of General Coordinator of the CGOBT to the position of Chief of the Strategic Project Division, to be created as part of the restructuring of the National Institute for Space Research (INPE)….

“The INPE restructuring, which will be announced at a press conference [today] at the MCTI headquarters, aims to seek synergies and optimize the institute’s human and infrastructure resources for a more efficient functioning. Dr. Lubia Vinhas has participated in this process and is in agreement with the changes, which were foreseen and have no relation to the production and dissemination of deforestation data, which will continue to follow the same procedures with quality and transparency.”

Lubia Vinhas, PhD in applied computing (far left), who was removed from her general coordinator position at INPE Monday. She stands alongside Ricardo Galvão, former INPE director, fired last year by the Bolsonaro government. Image courtesy of INPE.

Yesterday, Vinhas told the O Estado de S.Paulo newspaper that she only learned of her dismissal when she read the DOU and that it would be up to INPE Director Darcton Policarpo Damião to explain the reason.

Later that same day, the former coordinator seemed to have gained new information, saying that

“I believe that my departure [as general coordinator] is directly related to the restructuring process of INPE that has been proposed by the current management, and not in direct response to figures related to monitoring.”

Marcio Astrini, executive secretary of the Climate Observatory — a network formed in 2002, composed of 50 non-governmental organizations and social movements — questioned the Science ministry’s response:

“The justification that the government brings does not make sense, because the CGOBT general coordinator was removed from her role with the promise of taking over a department that does not even exist. Her withdrawal causes a problem with no plausible explanation, since, at a critical moment in the Amazon, when fires are starting and deforestation numbers are being finalized, she would be removed from [her position] and going nowhere.”

Planet image showing fire on recently deforested land near Itaúba in the State of Mato Grosso, Brazil on June 29, 2020. Fire identified by MAAP. Image courtesy of Planet.

Indeed, Vinhas’ removal after the release of Amazon deforestation statistics upsetting to the administration does have precedent. It was just last year that Bolsonaro questioned the reliability of INPE’s data which similarly reflected a rapidly rising Amazon deforestation rate. He even voiced suspicion that Ricardo Galvão, then director of the institute, was manipulating the data in “the service of some NGOs.” Bolsonaro and Ricardo Salles, Minister of the Environment, also went so far as to say that the INPE data were false. Shortly after, in August 2019, Bolsonaro fired Galvão.

Suely Araújo, former president of IBAMA, Brazil’s environmental agency, and a senior public policy specialist at the Climate Observatory, responded critically to the firing of Vinhas, telling Mongabay that “Changes in the INPE team during a period of… intensification of [DETER] analysis is very worrying. In this critical phase, changes in coordination tend to lead to demobilization in work and less transparency. If that is the intention, the [Bolsonaro] government will not be successful. Research institutes and civil society organizations will monitor what is happening in terms of [Amazon] deforestation and fires and demand the necessary measures.” Annual deforestation data for the PRODES system is still scheduled to be released in November.

Araújo is especially concerned that the dismissal comes as the Amazon fire season is beginning, a critical period for monthly satellite monitoring. The Administration last week decreed a 120-day ban on fires in the Amazon and has already deployed the army to the region to try to rein in burning. But fires are already well underway despite it being early in the dry season, according to analysis of satellite data by Amazon Conservation’s MAAP project.

Brazilian Amazon deforestation is occurring at the highest rate since 2007. Image by Fábio Nascimento / Mongabay.

Araújo concluded:

“INPE is an organization with highly specialized and internationally respected technicians. I sincerely hope that the government knows this and does not intend to restructure the institute.”

Astrini is also concerned that the news of Vinhas’ dismissal could be an indicator of Bolsonaro’s future plans for INPE.

“It is no secret that since last year the government has desired to intervene in INPE. Ricardo Galvão’s noisy resignation prevented this, but the dismissal of Lubia Vinhas may be an indication that the plan was never abandoned,” Astrini said. “That this happens in [the midst of the] full acceleration of deforestation, when the government needs to contain threats of [economic] disinvestments, is a sign that Bolsonaro seems to be addressing the concerns of agribusiness and investors as he addresses the concerns of Brazilians terrified by the Coronavirus.”

At present, Bolsonaro is enduring intensifying pressure from major international and Brazilian businesses and investors who are threatening action if Brazil doesn’t curb deforestation, along with warnings from European Union nations who say they may not ratify the $19 trillion dollar EU-Mercusor trade agreement unless Brazil improves its record on the environment, especially Amazon deforestation and climate change.

*

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: Besides large-scale farming and logging, many Amazonian rainforests are being slowly fragmented for rural electrification and other activities

Vietnam’s Success Against COVID-19

July 16th, 2020 by Do Thi Thu Huong

While other countries are still lifting quarantine or planning to re-open public activities, Vietnam – a small, developing country that has about 1,400 km of land, river and stream and borders with China – has been opened up for more than a month. Until now, Vietnam has recorded only just over 300 cases on its soil and not a single death as of 15th June. What “magic” did the country that has a population of 97 million people use to prevent the coronavirus spread? How is Vietnamese people’s daily life after quarantine time? Is it true that Vietnam successfully controlled the pandemic?

“Vietnam has responded well to the COVID-19 epidemic from the very outset, preventing its spread”, the World Health Organization (WHO) says. WHO has indicated one of the most crucial measures that made Vietnam win its “war” on coronavirus: Vietnam prepared for the outbreak before it recorded its first case; a wise decision that many countries did not make. The World Health Organization said in a statement Saturday that the first days of the outbreak, when China had detected just 27 cases of the acute respiratory disease, COVID-19, in Wuhan City, Vietnam’s Health Ministry had already issued prevention guidelines, including close monitoring of border areas and steps to prevent possible infections among people. Vietnam enacted measures that other countries would take months to move on.

Vietnam recorded its first cases on January 23 in Ho Chi Minh City, two days before the Lunar New Year holidays. Two Chinese men from Wuhan had arrived in Vietnam on January 13 and traveled throughout the country before being hospitalized on January 23. Immediately, the Vietnamese government ramped up its response by organizing the National Steering Committee on Epidemic Prevention on January 30, the same day the World Health Organization (WHO) declared the outbreak to be a Public Health Emergency of International ConcernOn February 1, when the country had only recorded six confirmed cases, Vietnamese Prime Minister Nguyen Xuan Phuc signed a decision declaring a national epidemic of what was then known only as the novel coronavirus (nCoV). The Vietnamese government recognized that the medical system would soon become overwhelmed, even by a mild spread of the virus, so they instead chose to focus on prevention early, and on a massive scale.

By mid-March, Vietnam was sending everyone who entered the country – and anyone within the country who’d had contact with a confirmed case – to quarantine centers for 14 days. At the beginning of March, Hanoi recorded the first case in the city. A section of Truc Bach Street, Ba Dinh District, Hanoi City, where the COVID-19 patient lived after traveling to some European countries, was put under quarantine. 61 households with 191 residents were forced to stay at home for 14 days, even though the patient declared that she had not contacted with any neighbors. It may be considered extreme and an over-reaction but it was cost-effective.

This was how the country named the best COVID-19 fighter globally by Politico responded to the pandemic.

On March 16, Prime Minister Nguyen Xuan Phuc said “Vietnam is now at the “golden stage” of COVID-19 prevention and control”. During the 15-day social distancing period from April 1st to 15th, residents had to stay at home and could only go outside for “essential needs,” such as food, medicines, urgent medical services or to go to work at companies that were permitted by the government to remain open. Gatherings of more than two people in public areas other than hospitals or workplaces were banned. People had to keep a distance of at least two meters between each other. Schools were closed for the Lunar New Year holiday at the end of January and remained closed until mid-May. Travel from virus-hit areas to other cities and provinces was banned, except for essential reasons, such as the delivery of food or transportation of workers and materials for production. The government directed many businesses across the country, from restaurants to gyms, to shut down and restricted international and domestic flights. As Vietnam saw only a modest increase in coronavirus cases, which went up to 268, with all but 44 recovered and no fatalities, the country eased its coronavirus lockdown. Vietnam successfully took advantage of the “golden stage” to effectively contain the spread of the disease.

As well as the swift government response, another key that made Vietnam’s fight against COVID- 19 successful was cooperation. Social media did a great job of raising citizens’ awareness about the pandemic by the news, dramas, advertisement, and music videos… People had no choice but receive the COVID- 19 information. Vietnamese people understood the seriousness of the pandemic, and knew basic steps to protect themselves and others from the virus. And they voluntarily filled in health declaration forms (nearly 6,5 million NCOVI app downloads within one month). There was a survey conducted by Singapore’s leading social research agency, Blackbox Research and ITWP Group’s Toluna Company, aiming to assess the level of satisfaction of people in 23 countries and territories for their government’s efforts in COVID-19 prevention and control. With 77 points, Vietnam ranks second in the world and ranks first in Southeast Asia in terms of people’s satisfaction with government measures in the prevention and control of COVID-19. The success of Vietnam was not only up to the drastic actions of the government but also the cooperation and trust of the citizens.

More than two months have passed since the country’s last community transmission and it has already returned to a more normal status that aims to increase economic growth and protect people from COVID-19 effectively. The Prime Minister allowed the reopening of the border gate with China, Cambodia, Laos, and so on. Students and workers now go to schools, offices, and factories without wearing masks. Businesses across the countries operate normally. On May 23, the first official football match took place in Thien Truong Stadium with thousands of spectators. It was also the first football match in the world that allowed thousands of spectators to enter after the COVID-19 pandemic. Preventing COVID-19 is not the most urgent issue of the government at this stage. This small country is looking for solutions to recover the economy and stimulate domestic tourism after the effects of the pandemic. Vietnamese people feel safe and live normally. Additionally, the citizens are grateful to their government for protecting them by drastic and immediate actions. Sometimes, they even forget that COVID-19 is still causing problems in many countries around the world.

In short, Vietnam’s success is thanks to both the government and the citizens. The government responded well to the pandemic since most countries disregarded or knew little about it. The country’s leaders also took many correct and timely actions: giving information, instructing people on how to prevent COVID-19 on a massive scale, putting people under quarantine… Vietnamese people’s awareness about COVID-19 and their cooperation with the government are significant. These are the lessons that several developed countries would benefit from learning.

*

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 Maurice Koop via Global Comment

These easily discernible strategic chain reactions were regrettably missed by many experts owing either to unfamiliarity with the guiding motivations of each related party and/or pressure to comply with the so-called “political correctness” being pushed by some of the players whereby it was previously considered “taboo” to criticize Indian-Iranian relations or rely upon factual evidence to forecast their inevitable weakening.

The Chabahar Surprise

Lots of folks in South Asia and the Mideast are discussing the real reason why Iran just dropped India from the much-touted and objectively over-hyped Chabahar rail project. This development is being presented against the backdrop of Iran and China negotiating the details of their strategic partnership over the next quarter-century. This has led to speculation that Beijing might have played a role in encouraging Tehran to make this decision so as to squeeze China’s Indian rival out of the geostrategic Central Asian space.

Iran Dumped India Or Did India Dump Iran First?

For however much some might want to believe that narrative, whether to promote the perception of a so-called “China threat” or to present China as being clever enough to ruin some of its rival’s most precious plans without firing a shot, that’s actually not the most accurate way to assess the situation. In reality, India dumped Iran way earlier than the reverse, and this move was a long time coming considering just how much India consistently disrespected Iran over the past two years.

Not only did the South Asian state discontinue purchasing natural resources from what had at one time been among its top suppliers as a result of America’s “secondary sanctions” pressure, but it even started strengthening its military-strategic partnership with Iran’s hated “Israeli” foes at the same time too. The author briefly discussed this and the blowback that India gave Iran from its Hybrid War on CPEC in his piece last year about “The Three Humiliating Ways That India Made A Fool Out Of Iran“.

The CPEC Factor

It was for this reason why the Iranian Ambassador to India publicly disclosed last September that his country “is now discussing an LNG pipeline to China along the China-Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC), as India is not expected to retain its prior interest in LNG imports from Iran.” The author analyzed the game-changing implications of such a move in two related analyses at the time about how “Iran’s CPEC-Parallel Pipeline Plans (E-CPEC+) Could Ruin India’s Regional Vision” and “Iran’s Interest In CPEC Strengthens Regional Integration“.

Iran, though, still remained reluctant to dump India because some of its leadership seemed to have fallen for the infowar ruse that their South Asian partner was just “balancing” (“multi-aligning” in New Delhi’s preferred political parlance) between countries and that so-called “civilizational ties” will always lead to it remaining “loyal” to Tehran’s foreign policy interests. This was a disastrous mistake for its strategists to make since their country lost valuable time that could have otherwise been invested in more successful foreign outreaches.

The “Trans-Arabian” Turning Point

Nevertheless, the turning point in correcting the Iranian leadership’s perceptions about the self-interested nature of Indian foreign policy appears to have been reached last December after “Israel” revealed that it’s actively courting India to participate in a so-called “Trans-Arabian Corridor” (TAC) with itself and Iran’s other hated foes in the GCC. The author also analyzed this developed in his piece at the time about how “The Indo-‘Israeli’ Trans-Arabian Corridor Will Push Russia Closer To Pakistan“.

In a nutshell, it was concluded that India no longer retains any serious interest in the North-South Transport Corridor (NSTC) nor its eastern branch of the Chabahar Corridor into Afghanistan and Central Asia. New Delhi has much closer commercial trading ties with Europe that naturally necessitate it more directly reaching that desired market through the TAC instead of the roundabout NSTC via increasingly internationally isolated Iran and similarly somewhat “isolated” Russia.

In response, Russia would gravitate closer to the global pivot state of Pakistan because of the potential for connecting with the latter via post-war Afghanistan through what the author previously described as N-CPEC+ (the northern vector of CPEC) or RuPak. He also elaborated on this possibility at length in his academic article about “Pakistan’s Role In Russia’s Greater Eurasian Partnership“, which was republished by the Russian International Affairs Council (RIAC), one of the country’s top think tanks.

So Obvious In Hindsight

These easily discernible strategic chain reactions were regrettably missed by many experts owing either to unfamiliarity with the guiding motivations of each related party and/or pressure to comply with the so-called “political correctness” being pushed by some of the players whereby it was previously considered “taboo” to criticize Indian-Iranian relations or rely upon factual evidence to forecast their inevitable weakening. Whatever the case may be, there’s no longer any question that ties between those two aren’t as close as they once were.

India has nobody to blame for this other than itself, but truth be told, it probably isn’t all that worried since it consciously brought this upon itself after so terribly humiliating the proud Iranian nation over the past two years and pioneering the TAC alternative to the NTSC. Still, India isn’t passing up the important perception management opportunity to imply that this development is all part of a shadowy Chinese plot to “contain” it even though the South Asian state is the one that’s actively seeking to “contain” China and not the reverse.

The American Angle

The US had previously granted India a sanctions waiver for its involvement in developing the Chabahar Corridor as a means of indirectly maintaining American economic influence in the region by proxy of its new South Asian ally following its eventual withdrawal from Afghanistan, but its new geostrategic calculations seem to be related to investing in N-CPEC+ for this purpose instead. The author elaborated on this earlier in the year when analyzing how “The US’ Central Asian Strategy Isn’t Sinister, But That Doesn’t Mean It’ll Succeed“.

The point in bringing this is up is to raise awareness of the fact that neither India nor its new American ally are really all that bothered by this development since both have already prepared alternatives far in advance of this predictable scenario. India will now rely more on the TAC to reach Europe while the US will do the same with N-CPEC+ to reach Afghanistan and Central Asia. Neither of them have any further purpose for promoting the NSTC charade which was only employed in hindsight as a means of strategically disarming Iran by wasting its time.

Concluding Thoughts

Due to these developments, a few observations can be made. The first is that the new Multipolar Trilateral between China, Pakistan, and Russia in the Eurasian Heartland will strengthen in parallel with the US-Indian Rimland one. Barring a Sino-Russo split and despite Iran’s uneasiness with Moscow’s support of its “Israeli” ally’s regular bombing raids against the IRGC and Hezbollah in Syria, Iran’s movement towards China serves the Russian grand strategic objective of eventually creating the “Golden Ring” between all four of them and Turkey.

*

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

This article was originally published on OneWorld.

Andrew Korybko is an American Moscow-based political analyst specializing in the relationship between the US strategy in Afro-Eurasia, China’s One Belt One Road global vision of New Silk Road connectivity, and Hybrid Warfare. He is a frequent contributor to Global Research.

Featured image is from OneWorld

The Ravages of Lithium Extraction in Chile

July 16th, 2020 by Yanis Iqbal

In Chile, the Covid-19 pandemic is raging with an unprecedented speed. There are more than 300,000 confirmed cases with one of the highest per capita infection rates of 13,000 cases for every 1 million people. The economy is severely experiencing the repercussions of Coronavirus-caused restrictions and the historically high national unemployment rate of 11.2% is an indicator of such damage. Chileans have took to the street to protest against the malfunctioning right-wing government of the billionaire president Sebastian Pinera and the police force has responded aggressively by shooting dead a young agitator.

Amid this Coronavirus chaos, the Chilean lithium sector is poised to economically expand itself due to an anticipated increase in demand. Albemarle, a North Carolina-based corporation and one of the two companies extracting lithium from the Chilean salt plain Salar de Atacama with Sociedad Química y Minera (SQM) or Chemical and Mining Society, said that “the current slump in prices is belying a looming supply shortfall, especially as expansion projects are delayed by the crisis”. TDK, a Japanese multinational electronics companies and battery giant, predicts that the global market is going to witness a surge in demand for lithium. Shigenao Ishiguro, the CEO of the company, told in an interview that “Digital transformation is a huge opportunity for us and I have no doubt that the coronavirus will push the world to go that direction at a faster pace,”.

In spite of Covid-19 pandemic, the battery market is expected to grow “at a compound annual growth rate of about 7% during 2019-2024. The market in cathode for lithium ion batteries, the most common rechargeable car battery, is expected to jump to $58.8 billion by 2024 from $7 billion in 2018”. According to Bloomberg, the pandemic can prove to be an opportunity for the lithium market “with at least some governments, including those of Germany and France, using virus recovery funds to help accelerate a transition from internal combustion engines to battery-powered alternatives. France will offer about 8 billion euros ($9 billion) to its auto sector to bolster support for electric vehicles; Germany’s stimulus package includes about 5.6 billion euros for the sector and will require gas stations to install charging units.”

A likely intensification of lithium exploitation in Chile does not bode well for the working class and the myriad indigenous communities such as the Atacameños, Licanantay, Colla, Aymara and Quechua living in the Atacama desert. The most recent manifestation of the exploitative practices of lithium mining companies has been the maintenance of “operational continuity” to achieve a minimal impact on output. This basically translates into a policy of profit maximization, brutally indifferent towards the existential conditions of workers. In the lithium mining region of Antofagasta, the Coronavirus positivity rate was a stupendous 46.1%. Along with this sheer infliction of necropolitical violence upon the working class, the indigenous people are also reeling under the pressures of lithium extraction in the form of a water crisis. While singular focus has been placed on the issues of water scarcity in urban areas, it is important to remember that indigenous communities living in Salar de Atacama too are coping with an acute water scarcity, artificially caused by lithium operations. In the aforementioned mining region, 65% of water has been consumed by lithium activities. This is one among the many environmental injuries sustained by the ecosystem of the Atacama desert due to the unhindered workings of lithium imperialism.

Instead of seeing the ongoing suppressive squeezing of the working class and indigenous communities in Chile as a one-off phenomenon, it is necessary that it be contextualized in the global structure of lithium imperialism. Lithium imperialism came to be installed as a fraction of global capital and primary commodity production due to two major developments – planetary mine and green extractivism. Firstly, planetary mine, as said by Martin Arboleda, “designates a convoluted terrain where fences, walls, and militarized borders coexist with sprawling supply chains and complex infrastructures of connectivity.” This denotes the establishment of an extractive economic exoskeleton on a planetary scale through the simultaneous use of violent and militarized techniques of oppression and policing.

Secondly, green extractivism refers to “the subordination of human rights and ecosystems to endless extraction in the name of “solving” climate change.” Lithium serves as an important modality for substituting fossil fuel extractivism with green extractivism and consistently maintaining a relentless system of commodification. Instead of “tackling the systemic bloating of northern economies and the excessive demands this places on the world’s resources.”, green lithium extractivism allows capitalists to stabilize the unequal imperialist architecture of core-peripheral countries. Tesla, for examples, uses the discourse of electronic vehicles to cloak its capitalistic carnage of Latin America with the cosmetic coverings of climate change.

Lithium imperialism indicates the cohesive amalgamation of planetary mining with a climate change-covered discourse of extractivism. The fusion of these two distinct strategies initiates a reign of hyper-exploitation, extraction, violence and dispossession in the name of climate change. But this oppressive underside of lithium business is sordidly shadowed by the propagandist puffery of an energy transition which actually feeds upon the body of oppressed workers of Global South. Lithium imperialism, therefore, involves the perpetuation of core-periphery relations under the discursive regime of climate change.

Chile is a victim of contemporary lithium imperialism due to the vast lithium reserves which it has. The country has 48% of the total lithium reserves in the world which amounts to 7.5 million tonnes of lithium, of which 6 million tonnes is found in Salar de Atacama. Chile is part of the lithium-rich area christened and commodified by the bourgeoisie as the “Lithium Triangle”. It is formed by northern Chile, northern Argentina and south Bolivia and has 70%of the world’s lithium brine deposits. Apart from the abundance of lithium, Chile is also attractive for lithium neo-conquistadors “because it costs about $2,000 to $3,800 a ton to extract lithium from brine, compared with $4,000 to $6,000 a ton in Australia, where lithium is mined from rock.” Capital cost for exploration and construction is lower in brine extraction than hard rock extraction due to the different locations of brine lakes and hard rock lithium reserves: “A hard rock project in a remote mountain location with limited access to transportation and energy infrastructure is going to require a lot more money in the exploration budget than a salar in flat terrain…with well-established mining roads and a line to the electrical grid.” In terms of quality, Salar de Atacama “has the best quality reserves of lithium in terms of lithium to potassium concentration as well as low magnesium to lithium ratio.”

The low-cost and high-grade lithium brine deposits have spelled doom for the indigenous people living in the Atacama Salt Flats (AFSs). While lithium brine extraction is economically viable for capitalists, it has deleterious effects on water availability and is therefore, injurious to the social metabolism of indigenous communities. In lithium brine extraction, “up to 95 per cent of the extracted brine water is lost to evaporation and not recovered”. Furthermore, to extract a ton of lithium from brine, 500,000 gallons of water is required. The two companies, Albemarle and SQM, operating in Salar de Atacama have been given “licences to extract almost 2,000 litres of brine per second.” Besides brine water, mining companies “need the fresh water to clean machinery and pipes, and also to produce an auxiliary product from the brine – potash – which is used as a fertiliser.” The use of fresh water by mining companies is indicated by the fact that between 2000 and 2015, the amount of water that was extracted from Atacama was 21% greater than the flow of water to that area.

According to a report produced by the Observatory of Mining Conflicts of Latin America (translated from Spanish), “The greatest socio-environmental impact of lithium mining lies in the indiscriminate expenditure of water for the evaporation of brines and the production of the necessary tasks. Considering that the Atacama salt flat is located in one of the most arid regions in the world, the Atacama desert, the large-scale extraction of water and the basic processing of lithium brines generates severe damage to the fragile ecosystems that depend on those sources.” In the same report, it is written that “the communities originating from the high Andean salt flats suffer serious environmental damage due to the indiscriminate and poorly controlled extraction from the hydro-saline deposits of the salt flats, thus reinforcing their historic place of marginalization, exploitation and subordination.”

This indicates that water scarcity is not a localized phenomenon, restricted to a mere depletion in water levels. Rather, water scarcity contributes to a generalized impoverishment of indigenous people and drastically degrades their everyday living. Degeneration of existential conditions happens, inter alia, through the degradation of soil and vegetation covers. In the Atacama region, indigenous collectivities grow quinoa and look after llamas. For the growth of quinoa plants, an evenly moist soil is required and for herding llamas, it is necessary that there be an adequate vegetation cover on which they can feed. But lithium operations have undermined both these prerequisites and School of Sustainability at Arizona State University reportsthat “An expansion of lithium brine mining area of one square kilometre was found to correspond to a significant decrease in the average level of vegetation and in soil moisture.”

Through the deliberate disorganization of traditional occupational configurations, lithium companies are able to culturally colonize and proletarianize the spiritual and agro-pastoral practices of communal indigeneity. In the international value chains of lithium, the utter subjugation of indigenous people to the deformed logics of e-mobility is cruelly concealed and as said by the Plurinational Observatory of Andean Salares (translated from Spanish), “The incessant production of disposable electronic devices and the growing market for electric cars for the energy transition of countries in the global north…is becoming today the main threat to the subsistence of any form of life in the basins that host these [lithium] mining deposits”.

Chilean indigenous people have not acquiesced to the economically destructive and culturally catastrophic operations of mining corporations and have reacted strongly to lithium imperialism. In 2019, indigenous people protested against the water-intensive mechanisms of lithium brine extraction and the state, in response, paradoxically charged some communities for “water robbery”. The protests were initially triggered by the underhand dealings of SQM in which “the Chilean economic development agency CORFO signed a contract with SQM that enabled the company to triple its lithium extraction over the coming years and extended its mining access to the Atacama until 2030.” The tripling of lithium extraction till 2030 raised SQM’s lithium extraction quota to 350,000 tons. It is not entirely coincidental that a month after the agreement, Eduardo Bitran, head of CORFO, met with Tesla to propose “a project to Tesla in which SQM would provide brine, the raw material from which lithium is produced, to the carmaker for refining into battery component lithium hydroxide in Chile.”

It was in opposition to this intricate complex of lithium imperialism that indigenous people protested. These protests smoothly synchronized with the larger anti-neoliberal protests occurring in Chile and bolstered the indigenous-working class alliance. But this working class-indigenous movement was soon suppressed by the Chilean state which, in order to stabilize neoliberalism and lithium imperialism, cracked down on protests through rapid detentions, declaration of a state of emergency and the deployment of more than 9,000 soldiers. Because of the protection provided by the state, Ricardo Ramos, the CEO of SQM, was able to say that the protests won’t “be a strong issue in our business goals in the medium and long term.” He further added that “We are going to deliver our products to our customers according to our previous forecast despite the situation in Chile,”. From Ramos’s statement, we discern that there exists a structural arrangement for the cementing of lithium imperialism: companies like SQM economically exploit and culturally hegemonize lithium-rich areas; indigenous people combatively confront the predatory mechanisms of these companies; the Chilean state ultimately intervenes in order to regularize mining operations through the violent deactivation of protests.

While it may seem that the 2019 protest against lithium extraction was a spontaneous eruption of anger, it is necessary that we briefly examine the historical background against which it took place. Apart from signing a shady deal without any consultation, SQM “has been investigated for several cases of tax evasion, money laundering and illegal campaign-funding. In a major public scandal in 2014, politicians from across the spectrum were found to have received major sums of money to look after the company’s interests.” SQM also has a dubious distinction of causing major conflicts and in 2007, for example, there was a skirmish between the company and the Toconao community. Increased extraction of water from unauthorized wells and the contamination of water sources by sewage discharge were the contributory causes behind the SQM-Toconao conflict. Albemarle too has been progressing in its march towards class struggle-free lithium imperialism and in 2017 CORFO amended the corporation’s agreement through which Albemarle got “sufficient lithium to produce over 80,000 MT annually of technical and battery grade lithium salts over the next 27 years at its expanding battery grade manufacturing facilities in La Negra, Antofagasta.”

The rapid ramping up of lithium production by two companies in Chile has successfully benefitted major electronic companies such as Samsung, Apple and Panasonic. In the automobile sector, Toyota, General Motors, Tesla, Volkswagen and BMW are some of the companies reaping economic advantages of the lithium sources of Chile. Figure 1 and 2 depict the multiplex and labyrinthine circuit of lithium in the international market. To satiate the vampire-like thirst of different companies for lithium, there has been a global increase in production and the role of Chile in catering to the lithium hunger of “white gold rush” is indicated by the contemporaneous expansion of Chilean lithium output with world lithium output: “The value of Chile’s lithium carbonate production rose to US$200 million by 2007, to US$500 million by 2012 and to more than US$800 million by 2017. It exceeded US$1 billion in 2018. There was a parallel surge in the value of world first-stage lithium output— reaching US$484 million in 2007, US$998 million by 2013 and US$2865 million in 2017.”

Figure 1, Source: Washington Post, “Indigenous people are left poor as tech world takes lithium from under their feet

Figure 2, Source: Danwatch, “There’s probably Chilean lithium behind the screen you’re reading this on

With the demand for lithium expected to grow in the global market, indigenous people and the working class would start encountering greater difficulties in sustaining themselves as indigenous ecosystems are efficiently eradicated and labor productivity is ruthlessly increased. During the Fastmarkets’ 11th Lithium Supply and Markets Conference in Santiago, “Producers Albemarle, SQM and Tianqi [which has a 23.77% stake in SQM]… agreed that flexibility in production remains vital for addressing diverse industrial and technological challenges.” This was a colloquial way of saying that workers need to be ready to be exploited, discarded and denigrated as mere commodities. For the indigenous people in Chile, life would be wrung economically dry as energy transition occurs in the Global North and magnificent Tesla vehicles silently operate on their blood-stained lithium batteries.

We need to remember that this dystopia of EVs parasitically procuring lithium from the open veins of Chile is avoidable and as said by Thea Riofrancos, “A world buzzing with hundreds of millions of Teslas (or worse, e-Escalades), made with materials rapaciously extracted without the consent of local communities, manufactured under a repressive labor regime in polluting factories — in other words, a world not unlike our own, but powered by wind and sun — is not an inevitability.” To move away from such lithium imperialism, we need to listen to the smothered voices of the Global South. An economic-ecological model based upon the anti-imperialist foundations of the Global South is radically different from capitalist models of extraction. Instead of conceptualizing a “development alternative”, the oppressed masses of the Global South imagine an “alternative to development”. In the interstices of this “alternative to development”, one can locate the seeds of resistance to lithium imperialism.

*

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.

Yanis Iqbal is a student and freelance writer based in Aligarh, India. Read other articles by Yanis.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on The Ravages of Lithium Extraction in Chile
  • Tags: ,

Trump regime hardliners are pushing a diabolical full-court press to weaken and isolate China on the world stage — wanting its economic, industrial and technological development undermined.

I stressed these points in earlier articles, stressing as well the risk that US war on China by other means could turn hot by accident or design.

What’s manufactured in the US and escalating is the stuff wars are made of.

Possible global war 3.0 should terrify everyone.

What’s unthinkable in the nuclear age is an ominous possibility because Washington is hellbent to rule the world unchallenged by whatever it takes to achieve its objectives.

Two major developments occurred Tuesday. Britain bent to the will of US hardliners as expected.

After initially working with Chinese tech giant Huawei to build out its 5G network, the Boris Johnson government reversed itself.

Culture secretary Oliver Dowden said no new (state-of-the-art) Huawei 5G equipment can be bought after December 31, adding:

Britain is on an “irreversible path” to eliminate what he called “high-risk vendors (sic).”

So-called Chinese “risk” has nothing to do with security issues, everything to do with US war on China by other means and trillions of dollars of market potential that 5G technology represents.

Bipartisan US hardliners want China shut out from what they want to be a sales and profit bonanza for corporate America.

They want other nations to buy American, ignoring Huawei’s 5G technological superiority over what US and other Western firms can offer.

Former Tory leader Iain Duncan Smith called for banning Huawei “altogether,” meaning its 2, 3, and 4G networks in the country.

Britain’s Huawei 5G ban will mean a delay to roll out this technology of two to three years and cost up to two billion pounds, Dowden explained — a high price for bending to Washington’s will, likely to be passed on to UK consumers.

Until the policy shift, Britain agreed to let Huawei supply around 35% of its 5G equipment.

No longer. In deference to Washington, harming UK interests, Johnson ignored Beijing’s threat of “consequences” by treating China as a “hostile partner.”

According to the Johnson regime ruling, UK firms now using Huawei equipment must remove it all by 2027.

They’ll incur a significant economic cost by the ruling, along with political fallout for Britain to bear for unacceptably bending to Washington’s will.

The US wants Huawei and other Chinese tech firms shut out of the US market and from using US high-tech products.

Responding to Britain’s action, Huawei’s UK spokesman Edward Brewster said the following:

“We remain confident that the new US restrictions would not have affected the resilience or security of the products we supply to the UK,” adding:

“Regrettably our future in the UK has become politicized. This is about US trade policy and not security.”

“We will conduct a detailed review of what today’s announcement means for our business here.”

From last year to June this year, the Johnson regime shifted from relying on Huawei’s superior technology to banning it.

What clearly was an unacceptable politicized decision, Johnson acted against the interests of UK telecom firms that urged him not to ban Huawei.

According to Singapore-based geopolitical analyst Greg Austin, Britain was “forced into a corner by (months of) stepped-up US pressure,” adding:

Banning Huawei from the UK is “entirely political and based on exaggeration of the intelligence value to China of Huawei’s 5G.”

The move is a “big blow” to its operations in the country. “Many jobs (will) be lost, and business relationships torn up.”

“China will (no longer) trust the UK as a business partner.” Beijing will likely take appropriate retaliatory action in its own way at a time of its choosing.

Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesman Zhao Lijian said Beijing “will closely watch (Britain’s) decision.”

He warned that what happened suggests that Britain may not be safe for Chinese investments.

It’s unclear whether other European countries will bend to US pressure and exclude or limit Huawei’s involvement in building out their 5G networks.

Separately, Trump signed the so-called Hong Kong Autonomy Act (HKAA) into law.

Unanimously adopted by Congress, not a single profile of courage in either house opposed the unacceptable politicized measure with no legitimacy.

China’s new national security law was the convenient pretext — legitimate legislation to protect its sovereign territory (including Hong Kong) from hostile and/or intrusive actions by foreign powers.

The unacceptable HKAA was adopted as part of Washington’s war on China by other means.

The measure imposes unlawful sanctions on entities the US claims “violate China’s obligations to Hong Kong,” along with secondary sanctions on banks doing business with these entities.

Ignored by the HKAA is that the city is sovereign Chinese territory. Under the UN Charter and other international law, nations are forbidden from meddling in the internal affairs of others — what never deters the US and its imperial partners from doing as they please extrajudicially.

In response to Trump’s signing the measure into US law — that contravenes international and US constitutional law — a statement by China’s Foreign Ministry said the following:

The US law…maliciously denigrates Hong Kong’s national security legislation, threatens to impose sanctions on China, and seriously violates international law and basic rules of international relations,” adding:

“It is gross interference in Hong Kong affairs and China’s internal affairs.”

Separately, Trump signed an executive order that ends US preferential treatment and special trade arrangements for the city.

Defying reality, he falsely claimed China’s national security law “extinguish(es) Hong Kong’s freedom (sic).”

His remarks included a litany of misinformation, disinformation, and mass deception about China.

Threatening no one, Beijing seeks cooperative relations with other countries in contrast to US sought global dominance by pressure, bullying, bribing, and smashing other nations if other tactics don’t accomplish its aims.

It’s a prescription for endless wars on humanity by hot and/or other means.

Considered US public enemy No. 1 for its growing prominence on the world stage, bipartisan Chinaphobes in Washington risk hot war with a nation able to hit back hard if preemptively attacked.

*

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 The Bullet

A constitutional claim against Canadian government actors for their actions in COVID-19 has just been filed at the Superior Court in Toronto, Canada.

A lawsuit against the Trudeau Government for its handling of the COVID-19 Crisis has been launched.

What is at stake is the violation of the fundamental rights of Canadians.

“The mass and indiscriminate containment of citizens, the restriction of access to parliament, the courts, medical and educational services, the destruction of local economies and livelihoods, and the requirement to physically distance, along with the forced use of non-medical masking are extraordinary measures that have never before been imposed on the citizens of Canada.”

The Lawsuit against the Federal and Ontario governments is now in the Ontario Superior Court. Listen to Constitutional Lawyer Rocco Galati

Canadians should support this legal initiative, which has barely been acknowledged by the mainstream media. In fact there is a total media blackout.

The legal action against the Trudeau government is not an object of media attention.

Let us not be under illusions. The lockdown, the fear campaign, social engineering not to mention “corrupt science” and “fake data” constitute a criminal undertaking which has resulted in mass unemployment, poverty, famine, and despair. And much more.

Things are not going to “go back normal” unless people across the land, nationally and internationally confront the architects of this diabolical project (including the governments, the financial elites as well as the WHO).

 

Watch Constitutional Lawyer Rocco Galati Files Claims against Trudeau Government

 

 

Remember the 2009 H1N1 Pandemic. It turned out to be Fake. Lots of people in Canada fell sick after receiving the H1N1 ArepanrixTD vaccine.

And that vaccine killed a little girl called Amina Abu, which then led to a ten year lawsuit against GSK. That legal procedure is still ongoing.

It was a criminal undertaking on behalf of Big Pharma. There was ample evidence of corruption at the WHO and at the highest levels of government.

Today’s COVID-19 pandemic is far more serious. Governments are using the virus as pretext to close down a large part of the global economy, with devastating economic and social consequences.

Politicians are either stupid or totally corrupt. They believe in their own lies. And the lie has become the truth.

Michel Chossudovsky, July 16, 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.

The steadfast city of Al Sqeilbiyyeh responds strongly to the move of neo-Ottoman would-be-Emperor, Erdogan, to convert the historic church of Hagia Sophia from a secular, inclusive museum into a Mosque.

According to Turkish media (Hurriyet) changes will be applied immediately to the 1500 year old World Heritage building. The holy Christian icons and mosaics may be covered to make way for Muslim prayer, the first will be on Friday 24th July.

The legendary icons include a mosaic made in the 9th or 10th century featuring a seated Jesus holding a book with the words “Peace be with you. I am the light of the world.” There is also a mosaic of Jesus dating back to 1261.

“In 1934, under the rule of the founder of modern Turkey, Kemal Ataturk, Hagia Sophia became a museum. Since Ataturk’s conversion of the building it has been a symbol of secular Turkey and religious coexistence.”

The Syrian Christian Orthodox city of Al Sqeilbiyyeh in northern Hama is responding with resistance against this attack on the secular co-existence that is now threatened by Erdogan’s neo-Ottoman ambitions.

Image on the right: Nabel Alabdalla. (Photo: Vanessa Beeley)

The city of Al Sqeilbiyyeh resisted the sectarian extremism that attempted to wipe Christianity from the map of Syria and the region, for ten long years. All members of this resilient community have upheld the pluralist culture of their nation and of their President Bashar Al Assad and they will not allow the same sectarian supremacist agenda to destabilise the region any further.

Nabel Alabdalla, the commander of the National Defence Forces is proposing an initiative to build a symbolic scaled down version of the church in defiance of Erdogan’s decision and to name it after Hagia Sophia. The cornerstone for the church will be laid in Sqeilbiyyeh with the blessings of the Bishop of Hama, Nicola Baalbaki.

Erdogan and his extremist proxies in Syria and throughout the region threaten Christianity with extinction in the Middle East. Syria is the birthplace of Christianity and Nabel has taken this decision because of his profound love for his President, his homeland, its history and its diverse, multi-faith tapestry which must be defended and protected at all costs. The sacrifices of the martyrs and those injured fighting for justice should not be in vain.

Al Sqeilbiyyeh June 2020 (Photo: Vanessa Beeley)

Syria. The cradle of Humanity and the heart of resistance.

*

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 the author unless otherwise stated

Last year, at least 30 rich countries exported locally-banned toxic substances to poorer ones, allowing corporations to write off their costly waste and transferring the costs to some of the poorest people on earth.

***

The practice of dumping banned, toxic chemical waste on poorer societies by big corporations in rich countries must end, say experts at the United Nations Human Rights Council. “In nearly every case there is no legitimate public interest justification,” said Baskut Tuncak, a Turkish-American UN special rapporteur on the environment and the disposal of toxic waste.

“These loopholes are a political concession to industry, allowing their chemical manufacturers to profit from inevitably poisoned workers and communities abroad, all the while importing cheaper products through global supply chains and fueling unsustainable consumption and production patterns. It is long-overdue that States stop this exploitation.”

While stricter regulations apply regarding dumping in regions like Europe and North America, they are often virtually non-existent in African, Asian or Latin American countries. Last year, at least 30 rich countries exported locally-banned toxic substances to poorer states, primarily to save money and resources, allowing corporations to write off their costly waste as an externality, transferring the costs on to some of the poorest people on earth.

“The ability to manufacture and export toxic substances banned from use domestically is one, albeit large, element of how states have institutionalized externalities through discriminatory national laws and an outdated system of global governance for chemicals and wastes,” added Tuncak.

The Agbogbloshie dump in Ghana is a prime example of the relationship between rich and poor nations. 10,000 workers shift through millions of tons of Western electronic waste that pollutes the air, land and water for miles around, burning plastics and melting metals, hoping to find small amounts of valuable minerals, drastically reducing their own life expectancies.

“When I was a small boy, I used to be a footballer — but not anymore,” said 28-year-old Abdullah Boubacar, who makes a living burning plastic insulation off wires to salvage copper. “[Now] I have stomach ulcers and I run out of energy very easily.”

There are usually far fewer regulations against harmful substances in poorer countries, often because their governments have been deposed by Western ones, with institutions like the World Bank imposing extreme forms of neoliberalism governance on them, forcing them to deregulate and privatize their economies. The U.S. government made glue manufacturer H.B. Fuller remove a dangerous and addictive additive in one of its adhesives. However, the company continued to sell the same product across Latin America, despite knowing that tens of millions of children were sniffing it to alleviate pain or hunger, leading to terrible health consequences, including death.

When multinational corporations pollute in rich countries, governments have the power to stand up to and punish them. But this is usually not the case with poorer states in the global south. After the Deepwater Horizon oil spill, the Department of Justice imposed a fine of over $4.5 billion on petrochemical giant BP. Yet when Ecuador attempted to punish Chevron-Texaco for the massive destruction of its Amazon jungle — spilling 80 times the amount of oil BP dumped in the Gulf of Mexico, they simply refused to pay. Furthermore, Chevron-Texaco has managed to get a New York court to prosecute Steven Donziger, the lawyer representing over 30,000 poisoned Ecuadorians. Since then he has had his accounts frozen and has been under house arrest for successfully standing up to the corporation. The court’s decision was condemned by 29 Nobel laureates.

The UN position strongly clashes with that of the World Bank. In 1991, the Bank’s Chief Economist, Larry Summers, argued that his organization should be “encouraging more migration” of pollution to the poorest countries. “I’ve always thought that under-populated countries in Africa are vastly UNDER-polluted,” he wrote, adding that, in his opinion, “the economic logic behind dumping a load of toxic waste in the lowest wage country is impeccable and we should face up to that.” Summers also bemoaned the fact that the United States and Europe could not export their transport emissions. Summers is now a key advisor to Democratic presidential candidate Joe Biden. Activist groups such as Greenpeace and the Working Families Party are attempting to convince Biden to remove him from his position, citing his abysmal record on economics, the environment, and on gender.

On the issue of toxic dumping, some progress is being made. France recently prohibited the export of domestically-produced toxic chemicals, while 25 African countries made it illegal to export to them any substances forbidden from use in their country of manufacture. These laws, however, should not be necessary, according to the experts, who noted that exporting banned chemicals is already illegal under international law. “Failing to address this longstanding exploitation is discrimination, pure and simple,” they 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.

Alan MacLeod is a Staff Writer for MintPress News. After completing his PhD in 2017 he published two books: Bad News From Venezuela: Twenty Years of Fake News and Misreporting and Propaganda in the Information Age: Still Manufacturing Consent. He has also contributed to Fairness and Accuracy in ReportingThe GuardianSalonThe GrayzoneJacobin MagazineCommon Dreams the American Herald Tribune and The Canary.

Featured image: Young men burning electrical wires to recover copper at Agbogbloshie, Accra, Ghana. Sept 02, 2019. Photo | Muntaka Chasant | CC

On July 14th and 15th, Syrian Army artillery units and warplanes of the Russian Aerospace Forces conducted extensive strikes on positions of Hayat Tahrir al-Sham, the Turkistan Islamic Party and other radical groups in northern Lattakia and southern Idlib. The main strikes hit fortified positions, weapon depots and gatherings of fighters and equipment near Kbana, Sifouhn, al-Muzarra, Ain al-Aruz, Kansafra, Kafr Uwayd, Mawzrah and Humaymat. According to pro-government sources, over a dozen militants were killed and injured, and 2 weapon depots were destroyed.

These strikes came in response to a suicide vehicle-borne improvised explosive device attack on a joint Turkish-Russian patrol on the M4 highway in southern Idlib on July 14. The explosion hit the patrol near Ariha. According to the Russian Defense Ministry, 3 Russian soldiers and some Turkish troops were injured. The Turkish Defense Ministry added that nobody was killed, but 2 vehicles of the convoy were damaged. A photo of the damaged BTR-82A is also circulating online.

A previously unknown group, Kataib Hattab ash-Shishani, claimed responsibility for the attack saying that the suicide bomber was one of theirs. Nonetheless, there is no such group active in Idlib. Most likely, this is a fake brand used to draw attention away from the real attackers. The main suspect would be the coalition of al-Qaeda-linked groups Fa Ithbatu, which recently lost a conflict for money and power to its elder brother Hayat Tahrir al-Sham, which used to be the official branch of al-Qaeda in Syria. The Fa Ithbatu leadership sees the current ceasefire in Idlib as a threat to its interests because Hayat Tahrir al-Sham is using it to solidify its control over the few Idlib areas where its influence is still limited. The new round of clashes between the Syrian Army and Turkish-led forces in Idlib is the only thing that can help it to keep its independence and its access to resources for a significant period of time.

The Turkish military reacted to the situation by sending additional troops and equipment, including trucks with concrete blocks, to Idlib city. Instead of fighting terrorists, Ankara seems to be planning to create more fortifications to protect them from a possible offensive by the Syrian Army or its allies.

Meanwhile, the Syrian Army detained 3 members of the US-backed militant group Maghawir al-Thawra near Palmyra. The militants were tasked with collecting data about Russian, Iranian and Syrian military targets in central Syria. Earlier, Russia warned that the US-led coalition is training groups of militants in al-Tanf  to conduct sabotage operations against civilian and military infrastructure in the government-controlled part of Syria.

*

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

SUPPORT SOUTHFRONT: 

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

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Video: Turkish Proxies in Syria Went Out of Control, Attack Joint Turkish-Russian Patrol
  • Tags: , ,

We must make clear that it is imperialism that degrades and destroys the earth, makes water a commodity, food a luxury, education an impossibility, and health care a distant dream.

The following is excerpted from a presentation by Ajamu Baraka to a national webinar Electoral School of the Black Is Back Coalition for Social Justice, Peace and Reparations, June 13 and 14.

***

The Context of Struggle:

The great African revolutionary, Amilcar Cabral, reminded us that without revolutionary theory there can be no revolution.

His reminder was not a call for abstract theorizing, quite the contrary. What he meant was that one cannot  advance in practice unless that practice is guided by the most advanced understanding of the material and ideological conditions that revolutionary forces face.

Over the next two days we will ground ourselves in our particular realities as they relate to our strategic and tactical engagement with bourgeois electoral system in the United States.

Let’s begin:

The ongoing and current capitalist crisis has created the most serious crisis of legitimacy since the collapse of the capitalist economy during the years referred to as the Great Depression.

The economic collapse comes on the heels of the deep crisis of the economy that occurred in 2007-8. With the economic instability and the increasing economic competition among capitalist states, divisions have emerged among the nations that those of us in BAP refer to as the U.S./EU/NATO Axis of Domination.

The U.S. has responded by moving toward a more confrontational posture, not only with its allies in Europe. It has also elevated China and Russia as national security threats.

Domestically, the African working class never recovered from the collapse of 2007-8. The continued restructuring of the U.S. economy to a low-wage economy has resulted in the African working class being relegated to the lower rungs of the labor force joining undocumented migrants, immigrants, and other colonized workers.

We are now seeing with the economy the genocidal implications of economic conditions, in which young Black workers have more value as human generators of profit locked up in prisons than as participants in the economy as low-wage workers. This reality is one of the factors driving the obscene phenomenon of Black and Brown mass incarceration in the largest prison system on the planet.

Astronomical youth unemployment, millions of Africans without health care, poisoned environments, and crumbling schools reflect the objective conditions that, with COVID-19, are ravaging the Black communities.

This is the colonial/capitalist system in its neoliberal stage. And that was before the coronavirus pandemic!

The Pandemic pulled the ideological curtain from the system and exposed the brutal realities of a rapacious system of greed, human exploitation and degradation, social insecurity, corruption, and the normalization of coercive state violence.

Bipartisan support for neoliberal capitalist policies over last four decades revealed the devastating impacts of neoliberal policies – the closing of public healthcare facilities, including hospitals as giant for-profit hospital chains consolidated; millions, disproportionately Africans, living precarious lives at the bottom of the labor markets and as gig workers with no benefits, no sick leave, no vacation, no security when ordered to shutter in place by capitalist state because the privatization of healthcare resulted in a healthcare system unable to respond to a national healthcare crisis.

Hundreds of Africans are dying unnecessarily from the virus because of conditions of colonial oppression, which amounts to state-sanctioned murder!

So, the murders of Floyd, Breonna Taylor, Ahmaud Aubrey and the phenomenon of vicious killer cops are just the tip of the iceberg

But because there was no video of grandma, alone and shoveled into a corner of the hospital taking her last breath on a ventilator, along with all of the other thousands of Africans who are unnecessarily dying from COVID-19, it took the video of George Floyd to bring the people out of their houses and into the streets.

This is context for the current Black is Back election school as we approach the next round of bourgeois elections. This context informs the ideological, political, and economic issues of the bourgeois electoral arena, and how we see and approach the electoral system.

The Context Determines the Strategy: 

Let me share a few points that I believe must inform how we see and engage the electoral arena in a way that develops and advances our forces.

1. There can be no ideological confusion – we must be clear in language that cannot be co-opted or commodified by the state or its associated institutions like liberal funders. So, we must state in unequivocal language that it is the Western colonial/capitalist imperialist system, now led by the U.S., that is responsible for the billions of human beings living in poverty. It is imperialism that degrades and destroys the earth, that makes water a commodity, food a luxury, education an impossibility, and health care a distant dream. It is the rapacious greed and absolute disregard for human life by imperialism that drives the arms trade, turns human incarceration into a profitable enterprise, and transforms millions into migrants and refugees because of war and economic plunder. This parasitic imperialist domination would be impossible without imperialism’s core instrument of enforcement and control – state violence. Beginning with the European invasion of the Americas’ in 1492 to this very moment, previously unimaginable brutality and systematic violence was used to enslave, commit genocide, steal lands, despoil cultures and assault the earth, all in the service of what became the Pan-European colonial/capitalist white supremacist patriarchal project. When you start from that foundation, not only are you clear but everyone that you engage with will be clear where you stand.

2. The struggle is for power not reform. We make demands against the state and the system, but it is clear that those demands are in context of a program for winning power. Demands are strategic – participation in electoral system must be seen as an aspect of the process of building dual and contending power. The BIB 19-point program  represents a useful roadmap for building and shifting power to the people.

3. The entry point for participating in electoral process must be through organization. Reject candidate centered politics. Engagement with electoral system by progressive forces must be informed by a collective power-building strategy that is part of a broader strategy for building independent popular power. Individualistic, candidate-centered politics lacks accountability and is inherently corruptible.

Issue selection – focus on issues that if won will reflect a significant shift in power to the people. Defund the police – questionable, but if linked to community control of the police, stopping Israeli training of police, cutting the military budget and transferring money to the people; and electoral proportional representation represent demands that can’t be easily co-opted by the state.

4. Focus on local races – county commissions, city councils, school board, mayors. The emphasis on the local is connected to what I see as the inevitable disintegration of the U.S. state. As a settler colonial state, the U.S. is, and has always been, a fragile and inauthentic state. That is precisely why a civil war was fought just 70 years after its inception as a constitutional republic in 1791.

We remember the importance of having some degree of local control with the Katrina crisis, where the surrounding white municipalities used their local power to prevent Black people, escaping from the hurricane, to enter their communities. And we watched how regional coalitions were formed during COVID-19 crisis as the Federal Government failed to provide national leadership.

As national and state power become increasingly unable to hold on to a centralized power and there is generalized descent into chaos, having some degree of local control of the state apparatus will be especially important.

In closing.

We are facing some difficult times, but we have faced difficult times before. As we ground ourselves over these next two days during our electoral school, we acknowledge that we are an African people and we are at war! We did not ask for this war – and it has been a one-sided war so far – but we do not intent for that situation to last that long because we do not intend to lose. We understand that we must win this war – for ourselves and for global humanity!

All Power to the People

No Compromise, No Retreat!

Uhuru!

*

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 Black Agenda Report.

Ajamu Baraka is the national organizer of the Black Alliance for Peace and was the 2016 candidate for vice president on the Green Party ticket. Baraka serves on the Executive Committee of the U.S. Peace Council and leadership body of the United National Anti-War Coalition (UNAC). He is an editor and contributing columnist for the Black Agenda Report and contributing columnist for Counterpunch. He was recently awarded the US Peace Memorial 2019 Peace Prize and the Serena Shirm award for uncompromised integrity in journalism.

Featured image is from The Unz Review

In a decision which will shock many, the European Commission has taken a big step towards its ambition to subject its citizens to a totalitarian regime in which DNA altering technology forms the centre piece of mass control and unapologetic rule by despotism. 

Under the chairmanship of the German Minister of Health, Jens Spahn, The Commission has adopted a new ruling which calls for ‘the swift development of a GMO vaccine against Covid-19’.

Overturning its own earlier regulatory position, the Commission issued a press release on 14 July 2020, stating that this new act provides a ‘temporary derogation’ of clinical trials for a vaccine under what it cites as ‘the contained use of genetically modified organisms.’

The press release goes on to say

“The regulation will apply only as long as Covid-19 is regarded as a pandemic by the World Health Organisation, or as long as an implementing act by which the Commission recognises a situation of public health emergency due to Covid-19 applies.”

The text goes on to state

“The derogation provides that most operations related to the conduct of clinical trials will not require a prior environmental risk assessment or consent.”

Jens Spahn is quoted as saying

“A vaccine against Covid-19 is urgently needed. This regulation will ensure that clinical trials in the EU can start without delay and that no precious time is lost. The act adopted today shows that the EU is ready to take the lead in the global effort to secure the development of a safe and efficient vaccine.”

The European Commission, in need of a further ‘fear factor’ to exacerbate worry about a ‘second wave’, has clearly adopted the deeply flawed and widely disproven WHO position, that Covid-19 is a ‘public health emergency’. More than this, it has decided that only a GMO Vaccine can eradicate that which is supposedly the cause of this emergency.

One could hardly ask for a more blatant example of the New World Order centralised control system – being pressed into service at the hands of unelected technocrats, Big Pharma and  vaccination moguls whose names we are already all too familiar with. 

This calls for a large scale act of international resistance and a reversal of the deeply arrogant rule by despotism which is attempting to wrest control of the planet.

The URL for the Commission’s Press Release and details of the regulation here.

Full text below


Annex

Vaccine against COVID-19: Council adopts measures to facilitate swift development

Today, the Council adopted a regulation which aims to speed up the development and the deployment of a vaccine against COVID-19 in the EU. The act provides for a temporary derogation for clinical trials with such vaccines from the prior environmental risk assessment required in the EU legislation on the deliberate release in the environment and the contained use of genetically modified organisms (GMOs). In addition, it clarifies that this temporary derogation also applies when member states allow medicinal products containing or consisting of GMOs intended to treat or prevent COVID-19 to be used in certain exceptional and urgent situations defined in the pharmaceuticals legislation. The environmental impact of medicinal products (including vaccines) containing or consisting of GMOs intended to treat or prevent COVID-19 will remain part of the marketing authorisation process, respecting the environmental safety requirements set out in the GMO legislation.

The regulation will apply only as long as COVID-19 is regarded as a pandemic by the World Health Organisation (WHO) or as long as an implementing act by which the Commission recognises a situation of public health emergency due to COVID-19 applies.

A vaccine against COVID-19 is urgently needed. This regulation will ensure that clinical trials in the EU can start without delay and that no precious time is lost. The act adopted today shows that the EU is ready to take the lead in the global effort to secure the development of a safe and efficient vaccine.

Jens Spahn, Federal minister of Health of Germany

The regulation provides for a derogation from certain provisions of Directive 2001/18/EC on the deliberate release into the environment of genetically modified organisms and Directive 2009/41/EC on the contained use of genetically modified micro-organisms. The derogation provides that most operations related to the conduct of clinical trials will not require a prior environmental risk assessment or consent. These operations include packaging and labelling, storage, transport, destruction, disposal, distribution, supply, administration or use of investigational medicinal products for human use containing or consisting of GMOs intended to treat or prevent COVID-19. The manufacturing of such products will however still be subject to all provisions in those directives.

The regulation also clarifies that certain provisions of Directives 2001/18/EC and 2009/41/EC are not applicable when member states grant access to medicinal products containing or consisting of GMOs in certain exceptional and urgent situations. These cases are defined in Directive 2001/83/EC on the Community code relating to medicinal products for human use and Regulation (EC) No 726/2004 laying down Union procedures for the authorisation and supervision of medicinal products for human and veterinary use.

The regulation was adopted by written procedure.

Background and next steps

The Commission adopted its proposal on 17 June 2020. The European Parliament voted in favor of the proposed regulation on 10 July 2020. The regulation will be published in the Official Journal of the European Union on 17 July and enter into force on the following day.

*

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

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

The Sino-Venezuelan agreement by which the Chinese state petrochemical company Sinopec will invest 14,000 million dollars to achieve daily oil production of 200,000 barrels per day of crude in the Orinoco Oil Belt, (considered the most abundant oil field in the world ), would be a missile on the waterline of the US global geopolitics (whose unequivocal objective would be to dry up China’s energy sources), so the US swore to achieve the defenestration of Maduro.

Likewise, Maduro’s decision to confiscate the General Motors plant was seen by the Trump Administration as an attack against the interests of American multinationals, a scenario that was seized by the US Secretary of State, Rex Tillerson, (President and CEO of Exxon Mobil when it was nationalized in 2007 by Hugo Chávez), to try a hand coup against Maduro. Exxon Mobil would be part of the Fourth Branch of the US Government, a true shadow power that makes decisions on foreign policy and at the request of Tillerson, the Chavista revolution was already declared a “dangerous enemy of the US”.

Tillerson affirmed that “We are evaluating our political options, reviewing what we can do to create a change of conditions from which, Maduro decides that he has no future and decides to leave power on his own or that we can return the constitutional processes to its Constitution ”, a whole declaration of intent that was reflected in the implementation of sanctions against Venezuela of the countries that surround it to turn it into “territory besieged and ready to be engulfed”.

After a systematic and intense destabilizing campaign based on the selective shortage of basic necessities, obscene speculation, the amplification in the media of the growing citizen insecurity, the taking of the streets by the opposition and the application of sanctions to Venezuelan crude for cause the default or cessation of payments and the fiasco of Guaidó, we would be attending the final phase of the plot to achieve the defenestration of Maduro, for which Putin’s approval seems inevitable.

Trump and Putin would have had a recent telephone conversation in which Putin would have confirmed to Trump their unequivocal will to “not militarily support Maduro” and in this context, we attended the presentation by the US Attorney General, William Barr of charges against the Chavista summit that they accuse of “plotting a conspiracy with the FARC to flood the United States with drugs.” They also offer a million dollar reward that ranges between 10 and 15 million for “providing information that allows the arrest and prosecution of the Chavista summit,” including Maduro, Cabello Diosdado, retired generals Carvajal Barrios and Clíver Alcalá as well as the Minister of Industry, Tareck el Aissami.

Thus, Mike Pence announced the implementation of new measures against two companies that transport Venezuelan crude oil to Cuba, as well as against the 34 ships that PDVSA uses for such a task, together with a possible naval blockade with the avowed objective of causing the “energy suffocation of Cuba. ”Through the amputation of the umbilical cord that unites Venezuela and Cuba with what the Island would be doomed to an energy suffocation of unpredictable results.

Given that the Trump Administration would have amortized Juan Guaidó and that Maduro plans to appoint a tailor-made National Electoral Council for the next legislative elections, the United States will move its pieces to force exile to Cuba from the Chavista leadership and the subsequent formation of a Transitional Government made up of consensus figures from both the opposition and Chavismo that must prepare new Legislative and Presidential Elections for 2021 on the post-mature stage, Cuba in passing getting the US to suspend the energy blockade on the Island.

*

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

Cuba in the Last Stretch of the Pandemic

July 15th, 2020 by Fernando Ravsberg

Introduction

The following article by Fernando Ravsberg appeared in the Salvadorian digital daily news site ContraPunto on June 24. The translation from the Spanish, which includes a few explanatory additions, is by The Bullet.

It is worth mentioning some of the significant developments that have occurred in the two weeks since Ravsberg’s article appeared.

  • Cuba’s efforts against the virus continue to show remarkable results. July 7 marked the 11th consecutive day without a single death attributable to Covid-19. As of that date, the country had seen only 2,399 confirmed cases of infection by the virus, and of these, 2,242 of those infected have recovered. The death toll is only 86.
  • Significantly, given the experience of wealthy countries in North America and Western Europe, not a single Cuban health worker, whether a doctor or a floor cleaner, has succumbed to the virus.
  • The country is not lowering its guard. The goal is to prevent the virus from taking root anywhere in the country. The aggressive pursuit of the virus that Ravsberg describes continues. The difference is that now that the virus is in retreat, the strategy is even more effective. Nevertheless, the virus is proving to be most tenacious in the province of Havana, and particularly in the capital city. The province accounts for some 57 per cent of all confirmed cases on the island, and half of those killed by the virus lived in the capital city.
  • Recovery of social and economic life is proceeding cautiously, through a three-stage process based on objective criteria. Provinces and localities advance through the stages according to their progress in fighting the epidemic. Thirteen of the 15 provinces officially entered the first phase of recovery on June 18, followed by Matanzas a few days later. On July 3 Havana entered phase one, and all the other provinces except Matanzas entered phase two.
  • Interprovincial passenger transportation remains suspended, but public transportation within cities has been restored. Restoring urban transportation in the vast city of Havana, essential for economic activity and social life, is presenting some difficult challenges. Transport capacity is limited, so special efforts must be made to avoid overcrowding, to enforce social distancing and mask wearing on the buses and at bus stops, and, most of all, to convince people to behave responsibly.
  • The country has begun to welcome international tourists, along the lines explained by Ravsberg.
  • Cuba’s medical internationalism, demonstrated so powerfully during the pandemic, has gained a good deal of attention and admiration internationally. An international campaign to nominateCuba’s Henry Reeves brigades for the Nobel Peace Prize is now under way. Initial signatories of the petition include Nobel Peace Prize winner Adolfo Pérez Esquivel; former president of Ecuador, Rafael Correa; actors Danny Glover and Mark Ruffalo; writers Alice Walker, Noam Chomsky and Nancy Morejón; filmmakers Oliver Stone and Petra Costa; and Cuban singer-songwriter Silvio Rodríguez. Meanwhile, the fund appeal of the Canadian Network on Cuba has, to date, raised $45,000 to support the work of the Cuban international brigades fighting the pandemic.

***

Cuba is only a few days away from ending its coronavirus quarantine. Except for Havana, all the other provinces are free of the contagion and have begun moving toward a new normality. The capital will have to wait a couple of weeks more because it still averages between one and ten new infections per day and has about a hundred people suffering from Covid-19.

The measures adopted by the Cuban government have been extremely successful. The archipelago is emerging from the crisis with a total of just 2,319 people who were infected with the virus, 2,130 of which have recovered, while 85 have died. [The remainder, approximately 100 people, are still undergoing treatment…eds.] The Cuban public health system was prepared for massive casualties, but the truth is that in the worst moments of the crisis less than 60 per cent of its hospital resources were needed.

Currently, local and interprovincial transport is moving again, except in Havana, and hotels have begun opening their doors to Cuban vacationers. International tourism is slated to begin on July 1, but only on the adjacent islands [the Cays], which have their own airports. All tourists who arrive at these resorts will be tested for Covid-19, as will the staff who work there. Tourists and hotel staff will not be allowed to leave the cays or come into contact with the neighbouring populations.

The Cuban Strategy

Cuba’s quarantine-based process to deal with the pandemic developed gradually. Initially, some Cubans criticized the delay in closing the country’s borders or suspending school. However, once the full lockdown went into effect, international travel ended completely. The only passenger planes that landed on the island during this period were those provided by countries that had requested emergency medical aid from Cuba. These flights carried Cuban medical teams back to those countries. More generally, the authorities established a deadline, after which no one was allowed to leave the country. Some 7,000 Cubans resident in other countries who were visiting the island at the time and about 5,000 foreigners chose to stay and ride out the pandemic in Cuba.

The government suspended all interprovincial and urban transportation. All vehicles were used exclusively to transport health workers or other essential services personnel. The police controlled the streets, enforcing the mandatory use of face masks, dispersing gatherings and maintaining the necessary distance between people lined up outside the stores. These lineups to buy food became one of the main health dangers. [Severe shortages of basic foodstuffs are common in Cuba, as are long lines once supplies do arrive in the shops…eds.]

The troops of the Armed Forces, prepared for chemical or bacteriological warfare, sprayed the streets with chlorine, using their tank trucks and motorized pumps. To prevent the spread of the virus, thousands of soldiers stopped people from leaving heavily infected areas. People coming from areas with very few positive cases were allowed only limited access to infected areas. [The local quarantines were adjusted frequently, in accordance with the severity of the outbreak in the area. They were lifted as the threat receded…eds.]

Payment of taxes, electricity, water, gas, telephone, and internet bills was postponed, as were the installments on bank loans. The state – owner of 90 per cent of the companies – covered the wages of those laid off because of the pandemic. Social workers brought food to the elderly who lived alone, so that they would not have to venture out into the street. Restaurants sold food for consumption at home.

Whenever the public health authorities identified an individual carrying the virus, they investigated who might have been the source of the infection, and who the infected person might have been in contact with after they were infected. All of the people identified in that way became suspects. Some were transferred to quarantine centers for special treatment; others were quarantined at home for 14 days, watched over by their neighbors. Doctors visited them every day. At the slightest symptom, they were transferred to the hospital and tested for the virus. Even today, some 2,000 tests are still being performed every day. This system allows many asymptomatic people, the most dangerous category, to be detected.

At the same time, a country-wide investigation was rolled out, going from house to house across the whole island. Doctors, nurses and students of medicine, nursing and stomatologists knocked on every door to inquire whether or not anyone in the family had any symptoms. [Stomatology is the branch of medicine or dentistry concerned with the structures, functions, and diseases of the mouth…eds.] This very morning a student stopped by my house to ask: “Is everyone all right, does anyone have a cough or fever?” The Minister of Health, Dr. José Ángel Portal, has explained the strategy this way: “It is to not wait for the virus to appear, but to go out and look for it.”

Paradoxically, information – one of the major deficiencies in this country – has been available like never before. Every morning at nine am, the chief of Public Health Epidemiology, Dr. Francisco Durán, presents a report on national TV to share the statistics of the previous day. Cubans then find out how many people remain under observation, how many tests were performed, how many infections have been detected, how many patients are in serious or critical condition, and how many have died during the previous 24 hours.

Crises Are in the Cuban DNA

In spite of Cuba’s small size and population, and its lack of material resources, it has been one of the most successful countries in the world in dealing with the pandemic.

One of Cuba’s secrets is that it has spent 60 years preparing and training for a US attack. Cubans are accustomed to living in a state of crisis. Three-quarters of them have lived their whole lives suffering the effects of the US economic blockade. The Cuban system includes mechanisms, such as a ration book, that enable it to distribute products equitably. The Cuban Civil Defense system can mobilize hundreds of thousands of people in a few hours.

In Cuba, both the rulers and the governed operate more quickly and efficiently in critical times, when centralized decisions must be taken and all the material and human resources of the country must be mobilized to overcome the crisis. The country goes on a war footing. No one questions the orders. Citizen controls are activated, and suspects are watched carefully. During the Covid crisis, additional health measures included tracking down the contacts of those found to be carrying the virus, quarantining towns or neighborhoods when necessary, mandatory treatment in special residential centers for some of the infected population, and overall vigilance of the health situation, block by block.

Above all, Cuba can count on a health system that serves all citizens without exception, with 85,000 nurses and 95,000 doctors for 11 million inhabitants, three times more physicians per capita than Spain. In total, the Cuban system employs more than half a million health professionals, including health technicians and stomatologists (since dental care is also free). The practice of private medicine is prohibited, so all hospitals, polyclinics, family doctors’ houses in the community, and all human and material medical resources belong to the government.

Well-Trained Doctors

Cuban doctors have a lot of experience in combating epidemics. Cuban international health brigades stationed on the island have faced all kinds of diseases in a variety of countries. Some of these medical missions, such as the ones sent to fight Ebola in Africa or the 8,000 doctors who worked in Brazil, coordinated their efforts with the World Health Organization (WHO), with which Cuba maintains close collaboration.

Weeks before the first infected persons were detected on the island, specialists from Cuba were already receiving training from the WHO on how to fight the coronavirus. In January, the first Cuban doctors arrived in China to study the situation. More than 20 Cuban health brigades, with some 2,500 members, have responded to requests for help from other countries. They are now active fighting Covid-19 in Africa, Latin America, the Caribbean, Italy, and Andorra.

Cuba’s task has been made especially difficult because even during the pandemic the Trump Administration has increased pressure on companies to prevent them from trading with the island. The US has even prevented donations of health supplies and equipment from reaching Cuba. For example, Washington threatened to impose financial sanctions on the Colombian airline, Avianca, thereby forcing it to cancel its contract to transport medical equipment and face masks from China to Havana. The supplies had been donated by Chinese businessmen. Washington has also intervened to prevent companies from selling ventilators to Cuba.

The White House is working hard to dissuade countries from calling on Cuba for medical services. It is preparing new legislation that will allow it to impose sanctions on countries that do so. It understands that this is a strategic sector of the Cuban economy, since the sale of medical services represents 75 per cent of Cuba’s foreign exchange earnings. Despite the US pressure, Cuba’s health brigades are present in more than 60 nations, and that number continues to grow. For example, the United Arab Emirates has just requested permanent healthcare assistance from Cuba.

*

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.

Born in Uruguay, Fernando Ravsberg spent 22 years as an international correspondent for the BBC’s Latin American service. He lives in Havana with his Cuban-born wife and children. He is active on Facebook.

Featured image: Cubans can once again enjoy their favourite flavours at the Coppelia open-air ice cream parlour in downtown Havana (Source: The Bullet)

If you look to Global Research as a resource for information and understanding, to stay current on world events, or to experience honesty and transparency in your news coverage, please consider making a donation or becoming a member. Your donations are essential in enabling us to meet our costs and keep the website up and running. Click below to become a member or to make a donation to Global Research now!

Click to donate:

*     *     *

The Tests: Covid-19 and the Benign Common Cold Coronavirus. Can They be Distinguished?

By Dr. Christian Drosten and Dr. Gary G. Kohls, July 15,

Some virologists are now saying that there are people who have become immune to Covid-19, and that this “unnoticed” immunity is attributable to the (comparatively harmless) coronavirus related to the common cold, which they have had in the past.

Warnings of Possible Cover-Up in Progress as Trump Orders Hospitals to Stop Sending Coronavirus Data to CDC

By Jake Johnson, July 15, 2020

Public health experts are warning that coronavirus statistics will soon be newly vulnerable to political manipulation after the Trump administration ordered hospitals to send Covid-19 patient data directly to a Department of Health and Human Services system rather than the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, which usually receives the information and releases it to the public.

US Sanctions Are Part of a Multi-front War on Syria, and Its Long-suffering Civilians Are the Main Target

By Eva Bartlett, July 15, 2020

On June 17, the US implemented the Caesar Act, America’s latest round of draconian sanctions against the Syrian people, to “protect” them, America claims. This, after years of bombing civilians and providing support to anti-government militants, leading to the proliferation of terrorists who kidnap, imprison, torture, maim, and murder the same Syrian civilians.

Profit Driven “Military Contracting” Camouflages Military Costs, Exacerbates Inequality

By Heidi Peltier, July 15, 2020

Military contracting was sold to the American people as a way to reduce the cost of military operations, yet the result has been quite the opposite. Recent research of mine has shown that rather than reduce costs, military contracting — or what I call the “Camo Economy” because it camouflages human and financial costs — has resulted in higher costs to taxpayers. It has also distorted labor markets and contributed to rising inequality, as military contractors earn excessive profits that enable them to pay their employees and particularly their top executives much more than their counterparts in the public sector and most other private sector jobs.

America, You’ve Been Blacklisted: McCarthyism Refashioned for a New Age

By John W. Whitehead, July 15, 2020

For those old enough to have lived through the McCarthy era, there is a whiff of something in the air that reeks of the heightened paranoia, finger-pointing, fear-mongering, totalitarian tactics that were hallmarks of the 1950s.

Back then, it was the government—spearheaded by Senator Joseph McCarthy and the House Un-American Activities Committee—working in tandem with private corporations and individuals to blacklist Americans suspected of being communist sympathizers.

US-Mexico Relations: The Outcome of the Trump-AMLO Meeting in Washington?

By Nino Pagliccia, July 14, 2020

Mexican President Andres Manuel Lopez Obrador (AMLO) has ended his trip to Washington that was intended to celebrate with the signing of a joint declaration pertaining to the new United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement (USMCA) that took effect last July 1. Canada’s Prime Minister Justin Trudeau was the only leader of the three who was absent.

Iran, Coronavirus and U.S. Sanctions

By Robert Fantina, July 14, 2020

In 2018, the United States, under the confused and confusing leadership of the bizarre Donald Trump, violated domestic and international law by withdrawing from the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action. This was an agreement made with Iran and China, France, Russia, the United Kingdom, the United States, Germany and the European Union that regulated Iran’s nuclear program in exchange for the lifting of sanctions against that country. Among the provisions of the agreement were regular inspections of Iranian nuclear development sites by the United Nations, and the U.S. Congress had to certify to the president, every six months, that Iran was in compliance.  On January 16, 2016, the agreement went into effect, and sanctions against Iran were lifted.

Lockdowns: Essential to the Master Plan

By Renee Parsons, July 14, 2020

In early 2020, Neil Ferguson of the UK’s Imperial College used a scare tactic to predict that 80% of Americans would be infected and that there would be 2.2 million American deaths – neither of which materialized.   Yet Ferguson’s extremism accomplished its intended purpose in establishing the basis for draconian Lockdown requirements.  Ferguson later retracted his earlier prediction down to 20,000 fatalities.

  • Posted in NO READ MORE LINK
  • Comments Off on Selected Articles: Covid-19 and the Benign Common Cold Coronavirus

Vaccine Choice Canada, a not-for-profit society founded by families who have suffered from vaccine reactions and injuries, is suing Trudeau’s Liberal Government along with Ford’s Government of Ontario to hold them “accountable” for their “overreach and the draconian and unjustifiable measures taken in response to COVID-19.”

“The mass and indiscriminate containment of citizens, the restriction of access to parliament, the courts, medical and educational services, the destruction of local economies and livelihoods, and the requirement to physically distance, along with the forced use of non-medical masking are extraordinary measures that have never before been imposed on the citizens of Canada,” the group stated in a press release.

“The impact of these aberrant measures on our physical, emotional, psychological, social and economic well-being is profoundly destructive and these actions are unsustainable, unwarranted, extreme and unconstitutional.”

In a press release sent out Thursday, Vaccine Choice Canada (VCC) announced that they filed legal action in the Ontario Superior Court against “multiple parties” for their actions “with respect to COVID-19 measures.” The parities also include, among others, the Municipality of Toronto, various public health officers, and the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation.

The VCC Statement of Claim lists the defendants as Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, Ontario Premier Doug Ford, Canada’s Chief Medical Officer Dr. Theresa Tam, Transport Minister Marc Garneau, Ontario Ministers Christine Elliot (Health) and Stephen Lecce (Education), Toronto Mayor John Tory, and Ontario’s Chief Medical Officer Dr. David Williams.

The lawsuit also lists as defendants Toronto’s chief medical officer Dr. Eileen De Villa, the County of Wellington-Dufferin-Guelph and their chief medical officer, and Windsor Essex County and their chief medical officer, and the state-funded Canadian broadcaster, the CBC.

The VCC suit lists multiple plaintiffs which include nurses and citizens who argue that the COVID-19 lockdown measures have negatively affected them in both mental and physical health.

In addition to seeking to be paid for the cost of the lawsuit, the VCC is seeking that the defendants do not force any mandatory COVID-19 vaccine on Canadians as it would violate one’s rights under the Canadian constitution.

The VCC is also asking for a declaration that face masks not be mandated, that social distancing measures be retracted as they are “extreme,” and that the closures of churches, schools, and playgrounds were unwarranted and “scientifically” not valid.

The VCC is also seeking $1 million in general and $10 million in punitive damages from the CBC for spreading “misinformation” and “false news” about COVID-19.

In their Statement of Claim summary, the VCC claims that the entire COVID-19 was a “pre-planned” and “false pandemic” perpetrated by the World Health Organization, Bill Gates, and other “Billionaire Oligarchs,” to install a “New World (Economic) Order” with the aim of control and putting wealth in the hands of a few.

They are also claiming that Trudeau’s shutting down of parliament and Ford’s declaration of provincial emergencies was not warranted. The VCC states that the lockdown measures put in place have no basis in scientific fact and therefore, contravene sections of the charter.

In their press release, the VCC states that “during times of emergency,” Canadians’ Constitutional rights “do not stop being important” but rather “become even more important.”

The VCC press release says that Toronto lawyer, Rocco Galati, will serve as their legal counsel.

LifeSiteNews reached out to Ted Kuntz, president of VCC, to ask him about the lawsuit.

Kuntz responded by saying that although they recognize governments can enact laws that limit constitutional rights, it’s up to them to prove that the limits are needed.

“We recognize that governments may enact laws and pursue policies that limit Constitutional rights and freedoms, but the onus is on the government to prove that the limit is minimal, necessary, finite, and demonstrably justifiable in a free and democratic society,” Kuntz told LifeSiteNews.

VCC held a press conference Thursday at their legal counsel’s office in Toronto. Kuntz told LifeSiteNews that it is “telling that none of the mainstream media attended the press conference.”

In their news release, VCC says that they have made “numerous formal requests of the Government of Canada and various provincial governments” to provide them with evidence that justifies the COVID-19 measures taken, but they have gone unanswered

“An over-hyped COVID-19 pandemic narrative is being utilized to create unnecessary panic and to justify the systemic violation of the rights and freedoms that form the basis of our society, including our Constitutional rights, sovereignty, privacy, rule of law, financial security, and even our very democracy,” states the VCC news release.

The VCC says that there are many “recognized global health and research experts” who have given a valid criticism of “government overreach and the draconian and unjustifiable measures taken in response to COVID-19.”

“The warning bells are being rung about the dire consequences of these unwarranted, irresponsible, and extreme actions that are in violation of the rights and freedoms well established in Canadian and international law. All this continues to fall on the deaf ears of governments,” states the VCC news release.

VCC has been a vocal opponent of government responses to the coronavirus crisis and has a page dedicated to the virus on their website

Recently, the VCC heavily opposed a controversial New Brunswick bill that would have mandated kids to be vaccinated to attend public schools.

The bill was defeated, as lawmakers rejected removing “non-medical” religious and philosophical vaccine exemptions from existing law.

In May, Kuntz told LifeSiteNews that any type of forced vaccination, including a COVID-19 vaccine, is “morally repugnant” and unconstitutional after being asked about Health Canada approving human trial testing of a coronavirus vaccine derived from an aborted fetal cell line.

“The decision by Health Canada to approve human trial testing for a SARS-CoV-2 vaccine should concern us all,” Kuntz told LifeSiteNews.

“Bypassing standard and prudent safety protocols and rushing a vaccine to market not only increases the risk of producing a product that will cause more harm than good, it has the very real potential to severely undermine trust in our health professionals, our health agencies, and in the entire vaccine paradigm.”

*

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

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Vaccine Group Sues Trudeau Government for ‘Draconian and Unjustifiable’ Response to COVID-19
  • Tags: , ,

As I have told my friends for many years, the International Monetary Fund (IMF) is incapable of helping nations grow their economies. I do not believe the IMF can point to any success story, where its policies led to improving the standard of living of the population. Their macro-monetarist ideology fails to understand the essential driver of real (not monetary) growth. Following IMF prescriptions usually results in more suffering for the victim nation.  For a more in depth analysis read my article from last year: Africa Needs Real Economic Growth, Not IMF Accountants.

The report cited by the ActionAid and Public Service International highlights the failure of the IMF:  IMF Told Countries Facing Critical Health Worker Shortages to Cut Public Sector Wages. The statistics are revealing, but should not be shocking to those of us who study physical economics. Throughout its history we have seen the IMF insist on cuts to meet to macro-economic goal at the expense of the population. This report clearly pinpoints the effects of tying loans to cuts back in healthcare. Africa was suffering from an acute shortage of healthcare workers before the COVID-19 pandemic. Sub-Saharan Africa has the fewest physicians per 1,000 population and the lowest number of hospital beds per 1,000 population.

It was pointed out by Ethiopian Prime Minister, Abiy Ahmed, earlier this year, that payments of debt service equaled or surpassed the amount of money nations spent on healthcare. He wrote “In 2019, 64 countries, nearly half of them in sub-Saharan Africa, spent more on servicing external debt than on health. Ethiopia spends twice as much on paying off external debt as on health.

African nations, or any country for that matter, should not be subjected to this kind of treatment. Human life is real and precious. Debt is merely a financial accounting mechanism. There is no equivalence.

The COVID-19 pandemic has revealed the failure of the world globalized financial system, which has been become decoupled from the real economy. Genuine economic growth uses credit to promote human life. President Franklin Roosevelt’s Bretton Woods system, in its perverted form, came to an end on August 15, 1971. For the last fifty years, the City of London-Wall Street centered financial system has become more corrupt each decade, serving the interest of a tiny few. Now is the time to launch a New Bretton Woods, dedicated to improve the conditions of life for all people of all nations. I will be writing more on this subject in the future.

Below are excerpts from the cited report:

“New analysis by ActionAid and Public Services International (PSI) reveals how International Monetary Fund (IMF) austerity policies restricted critical public employment in the lead up to the Covid-19 crisis. (emphassis added)

“The analysis, released to mark UN Public Service Day (23 June), shows that every single low income country which received IMF advice to cut or freeze public employment in the past three years had already been identified by the World Health Organisation (WHO) as facing a critical health worker shortage.

“Key findings include:

  • Of the 57 countries last identified by the WHO as facing critical health worker shortages, 24 received advice from the IMF to cut or freeze public sector wages.
  • When countries are told to contain wage bills – it means fewer doctors, nurses and frontline workers in countries already desperately short of medics.
  • All but one of the 18 low-income countries advised by the IMF to cut or freeze public sector employment funding, are currently below the WHO’s recommended nurse-to-population threshold of 30 per 10,000.
  • The WHO predicts that these countries will experience a collective shortage of at least 695,000 nurses by 2030.

“ActionAid’s 2020 report Who Cares for the Future: Finance Gender-responsive Public Services exposed the detrimental IMF loan conditions and austerity measures which have pushed 78% of low-income countries to plan for zero increase in public sector wages.

“When countries are told to contain wage bills it means fewer doctors, nurses and front line health workers in countries already desperately short of medics. This was a dangerous practice even before the Covid-19 pandemic and is unthinkable now.”

Read the full report: IMF Told Countries Facing Critical Health Worker Shortages to Cut Public Sector Wages

*

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, Africa and the World.

Lawrence Freeman is a Political-Economic Analyst for Africa, who has been involved in the economic development policy of Africa for 30 years. He is the creator of the blog: lawrencefreemanafricaandtheworld.com

Featured image is from Africa and the World

Public health experts are warning that coronavirus statistics will soon be newly vulnerable to political manipulation after the Trump administration ordered hospitals to send Covid-19 patient data directly to a Department of Health and Human Services system rather than the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, which usually receives the information and releases it to the public.

The New York Times reported Tuesday that the HHS database now positioned to collect daily Covid-19 information from hospitals “is not open to the public, which could affect the work of scores of researchers, modelers, and health officials who rely on CDC data to make projections and crucial decisions.”

“Health and Human Services said that going forward, hospitals should report detailed information on a daily basis directly to the new centralized system, which is managed by TeleTracking, a health data firm with headquarters in Pittsburgh,” the Times noted.

The administration’s new directive came in the form of a document (pdf) quietly posted online last week by HHS, an agency headed by former pharmaceutical executive and Trump appointee Alex Azar.

“As of July 15, 2020, hospitals should no longer report the Covid-19 information in this document to the National Healthcare Safety Network site,” the directive states, referring to the CDC’s data-gathering system.

Dr. Nicole Lurie, who served in former President Barack Obama’s HHS, told the Times that “centralizing control of all data under the umbrella of an inherently political apparatus is dangerous and breeds distrust.”

“It appears to cut off the ability of agencies like CDC to do its basic job,” said Lurie.

HHS spokesperson Michael Caputo confirmed in a statement to NBC News that the CDC will “no longer control” coronavirus data collection but said the agency will still participate in the process.

While administration officials portrayed the order as part of an attempt to streamline data-collection efforts, health experts were alarmed by the move given President Donald Trump‘s public attacks on the CDC and his complaints about how the recent surge in coronavirus cases “makes us look bad.”

“Speechless—Trump White House is now muzzling, bypassing, and kneecapping the CDC,” tweeted epidemiologist Dr. Eric Feigl-Ding. “No other ways to spin this.”

Dr. Leana Wen, a visiting professor at the Milken Institute School of Public Health at George Washington University, said in an interview on MSNBC late Tuesday that the decision to cut the CDC off from crucial Covid-19 patient data could undermine the U.S. response to the pandemic as infections surge across the nation.

“The CDC is supposed to analyze the data coming from different regions of the country,” said Wen. “I’m really deeply concerned about what we’ve seen with the attacks on science and public health in recent days, because public health hinges on public trust. And when politicians—including the top public official, the elected official of our country, President Trump—start attacking public health, it really undermines of all of local, state, and federal response to this pandemic.”

The administration’s order came just hours after four former CDC directors wrote in a Washington Post op-ed Tuesday that “no president ever politicized [the CDC’s] science the way Trump has.”

“Trying to fight this pandemic while subverting scientific expertise is like fighting blindfolded,” wrote Tom Frieden, Jeffrey Koplan, David Satcher, and Richard Besser. “It is not too late to give the CDC its proper role in guiding this response. But the clock is ticking.”

In a column for Esquire Tuesday, Charles Pierce urged hospitals to ignore the Trump administration’s directive and “send the data to the CDC anyway.”

“It’s time for hundreds of little rebellions,” Pierce wrote.

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

*

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

Featured image is from Morning Star

“Two ancient Asian cultures, two partners in the sectors of trade, economy, politics, culture and security with a similar outlook and many mutual bilateral and multilateral interests will consider one another strategic partners” – these were the opening words of an 18-page document that confirmed a multi-billion dollar deal between China and Iran that blatantly defies U.S. imposed sanctions against the Islamic Republic.

According to The New York Times, the agreement that Iran and China drafted is an economic and security partnership that would allow China to invest in Iran’s banking, telecommunications, ports, railways and dozens of other projects, “undercutting the Trump administration’s efforts to isolate the Iranian government because of its nuclear and military ambitions.”

In Tehran’s view, China and Iran are long-standing strategic partners who are now reinforcing their strategies on the international stage to oppose U.S. unilateralism. Both countries had already agreed on a strategic partnership in 2016, but this latest agreement allows Iran’s economy to have a semblance of normalcy with this flurry of desperately needed investments.

The New York Times claims that the military ties include “joint training and exercises, joint research and weapons development and intelligence sharing” to fight “the lopsided battle with terrorism, drug and human trafficking and cross-border crimes.”

Effectively, the agreement between the two countries “represents a major blow to the Trump administration’s aggressive policy toward Iran.” The agreement is expected to guarantee the supply of Iranian oil to China for the next 25 years, which undoubtedly benefits both parties as the U.S. intends to completely block Iranian crude exports to starve the country of foreign money.

The deal is a major win for China’s Belt and Road Initiative as Iran’s major new investments in transportation, rail, ports, energy, industry, commerce and services will improve China’s network in the region. Iran serves as a meeting point between South Asia, Central Asia, the Caucasus and the Middle East, making it one of the most important countries for the Belt and Road Initiative. The agreement secures the supply of oil and gas to China with an overland route that gives another option away from Southeast Asian waterways, especially at a time when hostilities between China and the U.S. in the South China Sea are increasing.

The deal will see $400 billion worth of Chinese investments into Iran’s infrastructure, including upgrades in the oil industry and the construction of a 900-kilometer railway between Tehran and Mashhad, the second city of Iran and a center of pilgrimage near the borders with Afghanistan and Turkmenistan. Not only will this railway line connect two of Iran’s most important cities, but as its on the doorstep of Central Asia, it will give both China and Iran greater access into Eurasia.

Zbigniew Brzezinski argued in his book The Grand Chessboard that Central Asia was the center of global power and that it was imperative that no power, indirectly referring to Russia and China, should arise that could challenge U.S. dominance in the region. If something like this happened, the global power of the U.S. would erode. Halford John Mackinder argued in his 1904 article, The Geographical Pivot of History, that whoever ruled the “Heartland,” ruled the world. He defined the Heartland as the great Eurasian expanse of Siberia and Central Asia.

Iran is certainly a major gateway into Central Asia, and China’s enormous investment into the Islamic Republic shows that it is making a strong push to control the region. In accordance to Brzezinski’s and Mackinder’s theories, by China being the major influencer in Central Asia, it is making a strong push to control the entire region and/or world. Although Russia is another major power with vast influence in Central Asia, their relationship with China in the region can be considered cooperative at best or friendly rivals at worst. However, both are making strong efforts to limit U.S. influence in the region.

Russia simply cannot economically challenge China in the region, but due to the long history of the Russian Empire and Soviet Union controlling the region, it still has large influence for historical reasons that also includes a significant Russian minority and Russian being the second language of Central Asia. Although Russia deals with Iran, it does not have the capabilities of investing hundreds of billions into the country, meaning that the Islamic Republic will certainly come under much stronger Chinese influence, and there is not much the U.S. can do to stop it.

“The United States will continue to impose costs on Chinese companies that aid Iran, the world’s largest state sponsor of terrorism,” a State Department spokeswoman wrote in response to questions about the draft agreement. “By allowing or encouraging Chinese companies to conduct sanctionable activities with the Iranian regime, the Chinese government is undermining its own stated goal of promoting stability and peace.”

It appears the U.S. will penalize Chinese companies dealing with Iran, but China would have anticipated this. How Beijing plans to deal with such penalizations that can unravel a worsening of already tense relations with the U.S. remains to be seen, but China certainly would have prepared for such a scenario. Despite some harsh words from the State Department, it is highly unlikely that Washington can respond to this immense deal that will give the beleaguered Iranian economy and currency a major lifeline. The deal will also encourage other states wary of U.S. sanctions to begin dealing with Iran again knowing that they can have Chinese support and backing.

*

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

The US is waging multiple fronts of war against Syria, including brutal sanctions, while claiming concern over the wellbeing of Syrian civilians – the vast majority of whom are suffering as a direct result of US policies.

On June 17, the US implemented the Caesar Act, America’s latest round of draconian sanctions against the Syrian people, to “protect” them, America claims. This, after years of bombing civilians and providing support to anti-government militants, leading to the proliferation of terrorists who kidnap, imprison, torture, maim, and murder the same Syrian civilians.

Just weeks after these barbaric sanctions were enforced, cue American crocodile tears about Syrian suffering, and claims that Moscow and Damascus are allegedly preventing the delivery of humanitarian aid. More hot air from American hypocritical talking heads who don’t actually care about Syrians’ wellbeing.

America trigger-happily sanctions many nations or entities that dare to stand up to its hegemonic dictates. The word “sanctions” sounds too soft – the reality is an all-out economic war against the people in targeted nations.

Sanctions have, as I wrote last December, impacted Syria’s ability to import medicines or the raw materials needed to manufacture them, medical equipment, and machines and materials needed to manufacture prosthetic limbs, among other things.

Syria reports that the latest sanctions are already preventing civilians from acquiring “imported drugs, especially antibiotics, as some companies have withdrawn their licenses granted to drug factories,” due to the sanctions.

In Damascus, pharmacies I’ve stopped into, when I ask what some of the most sought-after medications are, hypertension medications are at the top.

But sanctions have yet another brutal effect: they wreak havoc on the economy.

The destruction of Syria’s economy is something US envoy for Syria, James Jeffrey, boasted about, reportedly saying that the sanctions “contributed to the collapse of the value of the Syrian pound.”

The website Sanctions Killnotes:

“Currencies are devalued and inflated when sanctions are levied. Countries are pressured to stop doing business with targeted countries. Sanctions violate international law, the UN charter, Geneva and Nuremberg conventions because they target civilians by economic strangulation, creating famines, life-threatening shortages, and economic chaos.”

So you have Western hypocritical talking heads pretending they want to get aid to Syrian civilians while literally cutting them off from medicine and the ability to purchase food.

Resource theft and arson

But these crimes against humanity don’t suffice for America. The US occupation troops and their Kurdish proxy forces (the SDF) are plundering Syria’s oil resources to the tune of $30 million a month as of last October, according to Russian military estimates.

In early July, SANA reported another convoy leaving Syria to Iraq, loaded with oil thieved from areas under US occupation.

Terrorists and US proxy groups are also thieving Syria’s cotton, olives, wheat, and flour.

Further, Syria accuses the US of deliberately setting fire to crops using Apache-dropped thermal balloons.

Civilians from affected areas near Turkish occupation posts likewise blame Turkish forces for setting fires and firing live ammunition upon those who attempt to extinguish the fires, farmers literally watching their livelihoods go up in flames. The Hasakah Agriculture Directorate director likewise blames Turkey for arson of the crops.

Turkish occupation forces are also accused of cutting water supplies at Alouk water pump station, depriving one million people in the Hasakah region of drinking and agricultural water, with no condemnation from the Security Council.

The poverty and suffering Syrians are enduring these days is unbearable, with prices of basic goods doubled and tripled from just a few months ago, turning what were affordable items into luxuries, particularly for the 7.9 million food-insecure Syrians.

But alarmist Western media and representatives omit the context: the nearly 10 years of war on Syria; the deliberate targeting by terrorists and by US and Turkish occupation forces, and Israel, of Syria’s infrastructure; the looting of oil, wheat and cotton, even allegedly stealing parts of an Idlib power plant for scraps sale in Turkey.

Likewise, Aleppo’s heavy industry was thieved during the years when terrorists occupied the industrial zones of the city. Heavy machinery was reportedly trucked in broad daylight to Turkey.

With all of these factors, of course there is poverty and a chaotic economy.

A safe resolution rejected

Recently, the UNSC passed a resolution to maintain one humanitarian border crossing from Turkey into Syria, the Bab al-Hawa crossing.

Prior to that, Russia had proposed a resolution enabling the safe delivery of humanitarian aid from within Syria.

On July 11, Russia’s Permanent Mission to the UN issued a statement again noting the need to phase out cross-border deliveries, as the Syrian government has regained much of the territories previously occupied by terrorist factions, and deliveries must be made from within Syria.

The UNSC resolution that passed, however, continues the delivery of aid via Turkey, delivering to the hands of Al-Qaeda and other terrorist groups occupying Idlib. It is with these people the US aid ends up when delivered, from Turkey, not from Syrian territory.

Given that the US has supplied weapons to anti-government extremists in Syria before, it is not illogical to believe they hoped to funnel still more weapons in under the pretext of “aid” deliveries.

Russia’s statement also noted the lack of UN presence in the Idlib de-escalation zone, saying:

“It’s not a secret that the terrorist groups, listed as such by the UN Security Council, control certain areas of the de-escalation zone and use the UN humanitarian aid as a tool to exert pressure on [the civilian] population and openly make profit from such deliveries.”

This is what Russia and China opposed, not the delivery of aid.

Those are details which US Ambassador Kelly Craft slyly omitted when she spoke of callousness and dishonesty being an established pattern. Her verbal guns were aimed at Syria and Russia, but her choice of words perfectly describes US policy towards Syrians.

One only needs to look at US policy towards displaced Syrians in Rukban Camp to see that the US has actively worked to prevent aid deliveries there and prevent Syrians from being evacuated from there. Or the lack of US outcry at Turkey’s prevention of humanitarian convoys from reaching Idlib areas, which while scheduled for last April still hasn’t been successful.

On the other hand, on July 4 the WHO acknowledged the Syrian-Russian delivery of 85 tons of medicines and medical supplies from Damascus to Al Hasakah. On July 9, the Russian Reconciliation Center noted that 500 food packages (2,424 tons) were delivered to Idlib province and Deir-ez-Zor province.

I wonder how many tons of actual aid the US would send…

In case it isn’t yet clear, America is weaponizing and politicizing aid, as it tried to do in Venezuela last year. American representatives posture and bellow, and Russia and Syria quietly go about actually delivering aid to needy Syrians.

The Russian post-resolution statement also critically noted the brutal impact of sanctions on Syria, which, as detrimental to Syrians’ wellbeing as they are, somehow don’t merit the feigned concern of representatives like Craft.

The statement said:

“These coercive measures seriously undermine not only the socio-economic situation in Syria, but also impede activities of many humanitarian NGOs that are ready to help the population in territories controlled by Syrian official authorities.”

If America truly wanted to alleviate the suffering of Syrians, all sanctions against the country and people would be immediately lifted.

*

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

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

Featured image: A van which US officials say carried fighters not associated with IS who shot at US special forces, potentially thinking they could also be Turks or Russians (MEE/Mustafa Dahnon)

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on US Sanctions Are Part of a Multi-front War on Syria, and Its Long-suffering Civilians Are the Main Target
  • Tags: , ,

GlobalResearch.ca: Help Us Stay Afloat

July 15th, 2020 by The Global Research Team

Maintaining our projects, websites and operations involves some very real costs, and the fact that we are independent places us in a precarious position. Our recurring donors and members help us to be able to plan ahead and gain some financial stability. Becoming a member of GlobalResearch.ca essentially constitutes an endorsement of the Global Research website, and of the concept of truth in media.

With this in mind, we turn to you, our readers, to “help us stay afloat. We ask that you consider becoming a member of Global Research, or alternatively making a donation to help us cover our costs. We would not exist in our present form without the support of our readers. Your support truly is essential.

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

Click to view our recurring membership plans


Click to donate:

Click to make a one-time or a recurring donation


Already a member? Forward this e-mail to one of your friends!

Thank you for supporting independent media.

The Global Research Team

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on GlobalResearch.ca: Help Us Stay Afloat

The Mask as a Symbol of Subjugation

July 15th, 2020 by Prof. Bill Willers

We know that wearing a mask outside health care facilities offers little, if any, protection from infection. The New England Journal of Medicine, May 21, 2020

(T)hey told us exactly what was coming, and advised us to shut up and follow orders. Tragically, most people have done just that. CJ Hopkins, 2020

It’s difficult to imagine a crueler attack on the human family than the insidious prevention of person-to-person contact.

What amounts to house arrest, plus enforced wearing of masks, plus the order to stay a body length from others, has the stated aim of preventing contagion, but as philosopher Giogio Agamben put it recently, “It is political contagion, let it be understood”. He’s correct. The contagion that must be checked is not viral but political. The triad of official mandates hinders communication that cannot be monitored. If online, unauthorized political discourse and strategy can be recorded for the individual’s dossier. In the street not so, at least not yet.

In 1933, Hitler suspended the Weimar Constitution following the Reichstag fire. Citizens rights under that Constitution were abolished and never reinstated.

A similar drama continues to play out in the United States since the 9/11 attack, which resulted in the Patriot Act (of ironic title) that trashes the U.S. Constitution, resulting in free rein for the nation’s intelligence organizations in concert with the social media giants. The First Amendment is being negated according to someone’s definition of “hate speech” or “community standards”, with entire sites of information and opinion being “deplatformed”. The Fourth Amendment is a hollow lie in that each citizen’s every act is recorded toward that planned-for day in which all activities are digitally recorded, and woe betide creative souls who offend the rules.

The lockdown was never really about a pandemic. Covid19 was just the pretext. Bill Gates himself admitted (in an unguarded moment?) that earlier SARS and MERS were more “fatal,” i.e., more lethal, than Covid19, yet they came and went without crashing the economy. But more than just the economy, it was day-to-day existence as we all live it that was a prime target of the lockdown. Ending the lockdown tomorrow would not counter the damage already done. We’ve been psychologically mauled, and there’s no end in sight. Warnings of “spikes” and of future waves come daily. Yes, countless jobs and businesses are being lost, but it is the devastating psychological impact that permeates society throughout that is inescapable. The emotional and spiritual damage will not be healing anytime soon. As intended, we are disoriented and will be for decades as the “conspiring internationalists”, so-called by David Rockefeller, prepare us for a life according to their globalist design.

The cloth masks seen everywhere now are symbolic. However useful in stopping airborne droplets, they do not hinder the passage of viruses, made clear by the warning on a box of the type of mask commonly seen. The media’s favorite expert, Anthony Fauci, stated flatly on CBS 60 Minutes in March that “There’s no reason to be walking around with a mask”. Two months later, as lockdown demands intensified, his stance shifted to the mask as “a symbol for people to see”. Review articles indicating that masks are ineffective, or even counterproductive, rarely make it to mainstream viewers, or they are simply disappeared. But symbol the mask certainly is — a symbol of subjugation.

Living fully and free carries a normal level of risk. In addition to assorted germs and parasites that are a part of nature, there are lightning strikes, auto collisions, falling down stairs and being victimized by criminals — primarily elements within our governing structures. We are being conned with a manufactured terror campaign by a power bloc that considers the bulk of ordinary society a herd to be manipulated. The many who understand this, but who nevertheless wear a mask simply to conform to what they assume to be majority agreement, are allowing themselves to become part of the con. Take the damned thing off! Breathe free!

*

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.

Bill Willers is an emeritus professor of biology, University of Wisconsin at Oshkosh. He is founder of the Superior Wilderness Action Network and editor of Learning to Listen to the Land, and Unmanaged Landscapes, both from Island Press. He can be contacted at [email protected]. Read other articles by Bill.

Military contracting was sold to the American people as a way to reduce the cost of military operations, yet the result has been quite the opposite. Recent research of mine has shown that rather than reduce costs, military contracting — or what I call the “Camo Economy” because it camouflages human and financial costs — has resulted in higher costs to taxpayers. It has also distorted labor markets and contributed to rising inequality, as military contractors earn excessive profits that enable them to pay their employees and particularly their top executives much more than their counterparts in the public sector and most other private sector jobs.

In 2019, $370 billion — more than half of all Department of Defense (DOD) spending — went to contractors. While contracting is sometimes called “privatization,” I think this is an inaccurate description, since military contracting serves a public purpose and uses public funds, while contractors earn profits at the taxpayer’s expense and are often not subject to the competitive pressures of private markets.

Many contractors operate more as monopolies than as competitive firms. Last year, 45 percent of DOD contracts were classified as “non-competitive.” And even among competitive contracts, many of these are “cost-type” contracts, which means that the firm will be reimbursed all its reasonable costs, and therefore has no incentive to reduce costs as competitive, non-monopolistic firms would. Additionally, firms such as Lockheed Martin have created monopolies for themselves by selling weapons systems (like the F-35 fighter aircraft) and other equipment to the DOD that come with “lifetime service agreements” in which only Lockheed can service the equipment.

Military contractors, then, act more as commercial monopolies than as competitive private firms. And using their monopoly powers they are able to earn excessive profits. In 2018, Lockheed Martin Corporation earned $8 billion in profits. About 85 percent of their business was government contracts.

High profits allow military contractors to pay high wages, which contributes to rising inequality. While the average wage across all occupations in the U.S. last year was about $53,000, at Lockheed Martin the average wage was about $115,000, over twice as much. KBR, a contractor that provides various services in the Middle East, had an average wage of $104,000, nearly twice the national average. The CEO of Lockheed earned nearly $2 million in base pay, well above the national average of $193,000 for CEOs; once we include stock options and other compensation, however, Lockheed’s CEO earnings shoot up to over $24 million.

The Camo Economy has made war more politically palatable by camouflaging its various costs. Contractors now outnumber troops in the Central Command (CENTCOM) region that includes Iraq and Afghanistan, 53,000 to 35,000. Deaths of U.S. contractors since September 2001 are approximately 8,000, compared to 7,000 troops. Yet contractors receive neither the public recognition nor the honor of serving abroad, despite the increased risks they face. The Camo Economy is politically useful, as the White House can claim troop reductions while at the same time increasing U.S. presence abroad by relying more heavily on contractors.

The financial costs of military contracting are also opaque. While we know some top-line numbers, we know very few details about where our tax dollars go once they are paid out to contractors. We do know that contracting is more expensive, as contractors have limited incentives to reduce costs and they build profits into their contract agreements. As contractors then use sub-contractors, who also build in profits, there can be multiple layers of guaranteed profits built into a contract between the sub-contractors performing the work and DOD paying the prime contractor. Add in the waste, fraud, and abuse in addition to the excessive profits, and the costs to government quickly balloon.

It will not be easy to reform the Camo Economy. Firms such as Lockheed Martin, Northrop Grumman, and Raytheon each spent about $13 million on lobbying last year. Political connections operate alongside high profits and paychecks to keep the Camo Economy entrenched and growing. But reforms can be made. Reducing the size of the military budget is a vital first step. The National Priorities Project at the Institute for Policy Studies has detailed various ways to do this.

Next, the portion of military spending that is paid to contractors should be reduced and some services should be brought back in-house, including those on and near the battlefield. And third, the contracting process itself should be reformed, so that more contracts are legitimately competitive and create incentives for firms to reduce costs.

*

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.

Heidi Peltier is Director of “20 Years of War,” a Costs of War initiative based at Boston University’s Pardee Center for the Study of the Longer-Range Future. She is also a board member of the Institute for Policy Studies.

Featured image: Credits:360b/Shutterstock By Fabian Res /Flickr; F-16 drops MK82 bombs (USAF photo); Child victim of attack in which MK82 bomb built by Lockheed Martin was dropped on his school bus Aug. 9, 2018. (VOA/Screengrab)

Saudi Arabia has become a hostage of its own military campaign in Yemen. The Kingdom suffers from both its own inability to achieve a military victory in the conflict and regular losses from the retaliatory actions of the Houthis. At the same time, the Saudi leadership has no opportunity to withdraw from the conflict and abandon its proxies there because this will undermine its already shaky position in the region and cause a wide-scale political crisis inside Saudi Arabia itself. The impact from such a crisis will be especially devastating.

Over the past years, the Kingdom has been passing through turbulent times due to the economy slowing down and the acute struggle for power within the Saudi elites. In 2020, with the global economic crisis and the COVID-19 outbreak, the situation inside Saudi Arabia became even more complicated.

On July 13, the Houthis announced that they had conducted a new combined missile and drone strike on targets inside the Kingdom. According to Brigadier General Yahya Sari, a spokesman for the Armed Forces of the Houthi government, the strikes hit the following targets:

  • positions of US-made Patriot missile systems, warplanes’ shelters and the housing complex for pilots at Khamis Mushait;
  • military sections of Abha, Jizan and Najran airports;
  • the oil infrastructure in Jizan.

Additionally, Brigadier General Sari said that missiles and drones hit the Saudi-operated Tadawin camp in the Yemeni province of Marib during the meeting between Saudi officers and leaders of Saudi-backed forces. Dozens of members of Saudi-led forces were killed and injured in the attack, according to Brigadier General Sari.

The Houthis warned that they will continue their strikes on Saudi Arabia utill the end of the Saudi-led blockade of Yemen. This is the second Houthi strike on targets inside the Kingdom in less than a month. On June 23, Houthi forces launched missiles and drones at military targets near the Saudi capital of Riyadh.

Commenting on the July 13 incident, the Saudi military claimed that it had intercepted 8 “booby-trapped” drones and four ballistic missiles launched towards Saudi Arabia. The coalition often denies any losses or casualties as a result of Houthi strikes and works to censor data appearing through social media networks. However, results of the previous Houthi strikes and the success rate of Patriot missile systems deployed in Saudi Arabia are a sign that this statement may be an ordinary attempt to cover yet another military failure.

On July 1, Saudi Arabia announced the start of a new air bombing campaign to neutralize and destroy the offensive capabilities of the Houthis, first of all its missile and drone arsenal. Since then, multiple Saudi airstrikes have hit the provinces of Saada, Ma’rib, al-Jawf, Hajjah, al-Bayda as well as on the Yemeni capital of Sanaa. Many of the hit targets were located in urban areas. The Saudi coalition provided few details regarding the targets destroyed.

On July 2, Col. Turki al-Maliki, a spokesman for the coalition, declared that the first round of airstrikes destroyed ballistic missile and drone storage facilities, assembly workshops and communication stations of the Houthis. On July 3, the coalition announced that its warplanes had destroyed two booby-trapped boats 6km south of Salif Port in the province of al-Hudaydah.

The Houthis slammed Saudi claims as propaganda claiming that most of the bombed targets were civilian ones. In particular, Brigadier General Sari said the July 3 strike hit fishing boats and a salt factory. The July 13 strike on Saudi Arabia contributes to the version that the Saudi coalition at least overestimated results of its bombing campaign.

At the same time, the Houthis continued successful offensive operations against Saudi-backed forces in the provinces of Marib and al-Bayda.

In the current conditions, the further development of the conflict creates a real threat that the Kingdom’s leadership will not only loose the campaign in Yemen, but will struggle to deal with a Houthi offensive in the south of Saudi Arabia. Such a scenario may eventually lead to the collapse of the current Saudi regime.

*

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

SUPPORT SOUTHFRONT: 

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

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Video: Saudi Regime on Brink of Collapse? Economic Crisis and Setbacks in Yemeni War
  • Tags: ,

Introductory Note by Dr. Gary Kohls

It has long been known that benign coronavirus species are capable of causing 15 – 30 % of common colds [influenza] (usual symptoms: runny nose, cough, sore throat).

This reality was recently mentioned by a renowned virologist from Germany, in an interview where he also admitted that laboratory confirmation of COVID-19 is next to impossible given the high incidence of both false-positive “COVID-19” PCR swab tests and false positive “COVID-19”  serum antibody tests.

Apparently, neither test seems to be able to distinguish between the benign coronaviruses that can cause common colds and the more serious coronavirus that actually causes COVID-19!

Dr Fauci’s ignorance of (or his ”conflict of interest-generated” failure to reveal) that fact justified his oft-repeated assertions in his endless media rounds and White House press conferences prior to the ill-fated economic shut-down:

I think we should be overly aggressive (even if we) get criticized for over-reacting. I think Americans should be prepared … to hunker down.”

Below is an interview with Dr Drosten made last month, in which he revealed that the benign coronavirus that causes the common cold cannot be differentiated by the COVID test kits, over 200 of which are currently in development by profiteering medical device companies.

Dr. Gary G. Kohls, July 14, 2020

***

Translation from German by Global Research

Good news: Some virologists are now saying that there are people who have become immune to Covid-19, and that this “unnoticed” immunity is attributable to the (comparatively harmless) coronavirus related to the common cold [influenza], which they have had in the past. In the NDR podcast “Coronavirus Update” Dr. Christian Drosten explains what this new theory is all about.

“What this refers to is that there may be an unnoticed background immunity – due to the [common] cold coronaviruses, because they are related to the SARS CoV-2 virus in a certain way,” said the expert on Thursday.

The scientist had already spoken about the corona [common] cold viruses [influenza] last week. At the time, he pointed out that 15 percent of the [common] colds [flu, influenza]were caused by well-known corona viruses. And these are so similar to the current virus that they can even cause false positive antibody tests.

Incidentally, previous corona viruses have no influence on the PCR test, which is routinely used to test for Sars-CoV-2.

The important question now is: do these well-known corona viruses also become immune to the new virus? This is possible, the virologist continues:

“It could be that some people who had a cold virus a year or two ago are protected in an unprecedented way.”

Drosten reports on a preprint study from China that has just been published and in which households with infected people have been under close observation. The so-called “day rate”, the number of people who contracted infection, was very low. “That is 12, 13 percent,” said the scientist. “How can it be that so many who were in the house do not become infected? Does something like background immunity play a role in this?”

The underling concept [idea] is extremely obvious to virologists, even if there is “residual uncertainty”, Drosten said. In our current situation, this is comforting, but the lockdown was still necessary, he says.

In conclusion, Drosten says:

“In the current phase, even if you include the background immunity in models, the medical system and intensive care unit capacity would still be overloaded and it is therefore right to have taken these measures at the moment . “

Sars-CoV-2 is a new form of corona virus – a type of virus that causes flu-like infections. In most cases in Germany, the infection with the coronavirus is symptom-free to mild: you could experience a slight fever, sore throat and fatigue.

After that, the disease usually subsides.

The virus can become really dangerous, especially if you belong to a risk group: older people or those with previous illnesses (such as cancer or lung diseases) should contact their doctor if they suspect an infection.

Dr. Christian Drosten is  a prominent German virologist, director of the Institute of Virology at Berlin’s Charité hospital.

Translation from German by Global Research.

Original German text

Virologe Drosten: Warum eine Erkältung immun gegen Corona machen könnte

Eine tolle Nachricht: Einige Virologen gehen inzwischen davon aus, dass es Menschen gibt, die unbemerkt immun gegen Covid-19 wurden, weil sie in der Vergangenheit eine (vergleichsweise harmlose) Corona-Erkältung durchlaufen haben. Im NDR-Podcast “Coronavirus-Update” erklärt Christian Drosten, was es mit dieser neuen Theorie auf sich hat.

“Es ist durchaus so, dass wir damit rechnen, dass es möglicherweise eine unbemerkte Hintergrunds-Immunität gibt – durch die Erkältungscoronaviren. Denn die sind auf eine gewisse Art und Weise verwandt mit dem Sars-CoV-2-Virus”, so der Experte am Donnerstag.

Über die Corona-Erkältungsviren hatte der Wissenschaftler schon vergangene Woche gesprochen. Damals wies er darauf hin, dass 15 Prozent der Erkältungen durch altbekannte Coronaviren hervorgerufen würden. Und diese ähneln dem jetzigen Virus so stark, dass sie sogar falsch positive Antikörpertests hervorrufen können. Auf den PCR-Test, der üblicherweise angewandt wird, um auf Sars-CoV-2 zu testen, haben bisherige Coronaviren übrigens keinen Einfluss.

Die wichtige Frage ist nun: Machen diese altbekannten Coronaviren auch immun gegen das neuartige Virus? Das ist möglich, so der Virologe weiter:

“Es könnte sein, dass gewisse Personen, die einen Erkältungsvirus vor ein bis zwei Jahren hatten, auf eine bisher unbemerkte Art und Weise geschützt sind.”

Drosten berichtet von einer Preprint-Studie aus China, die gerade erst publiziert worden sei und in der Haushalte mit Infizierten intensiv beobachtet wurden. Dabei sei die sogenannte “Tag-Rate”, die Anzahl der Menschen, die sich bei Infizierten ansteckten, sehr niedrig gewesen. “Die liegt bei 12, 13 Prozent”, so der Wissenschaftler. “Wie kann das sein, dass sich so viele nicht infizieren, die mit im Haus waren? Spielt dabei so etwas wie Hintergrundimmunität eine Rolle?”

Der Gedanke sei für Virologen extrem naheliegend, auch wenn eine “Restunsicherheit” bleibt, so Drosten. In unserer jetzigen Situation ist das zwar tröstlich, der Lockdown sei dennoch nötig gewesen, sagt er.

Drosten sagt abschließend:

“In der jetzigen Phase ist es so, dass – selbst wenn man die (Hintergrundimmunität) in Modelle reinrechnet – das Medizinsystem und die Intensivstation-Kapazität immer noch überlastet wäre und darum ist es im Moment richtig, diese Maßnahmen gemacht zu haben.”

Sars-CoV-2 ist eine neue Form des Coronavirus – einem Virus-Typ, der grippeähnliche Infekte auslöst. In den allermeisten Fällen in Deutschland verläuft eine Ansteckung mit dem Coronavirus symptomfrei bis milde: Du könntest leichtes Fieber, Halsweh und Abgeschlagenheit erleben.

Danach klingt die Krankheit meist wieder ab. Wirklich gefährlich kann das Virus vor allem dann werden, wenn du zu einer Risikogruppe gehörst: Ältere Menschen oder solche mit Vorerkrankungen (wie Krebs oder Lungenkrankheiten) sollten im Falle eines Infektionsverdachts ihren Arzt kontaktieren.

 

 

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on The Tests: Covid-19 and the Benign “Common Cold” Coronavirus Influenza. Can They be Distinguished?

“If we confuse dissent with disloyalty—if we deny the right of the individual to be wrong, unpopular, eccentric or unorthodox—if we deny the essence of racial equality then hundreds of millions in Asia and Africa who are shopping about for a new allegiance will conclude that we are concerned to defend a myth and our present privileged status. Every act that denies or limits the freedom of the individual in this country costs us the confidence of men and women who aspire to that freedom and independence of which we speak and for which our ancestors fought.”—Edward R. Murrow

For those old enough to have lived through the McCarthy era, there is a whiff of something in the air that reeks of the heightened paranoia, finger-pointing, fear-mongering, totalitarian tactics that were hallmarks of the 1950s.

Back then, it was the government—spearheaded by Senator Joseph McCarthy and the House Un-American Activities Committee—working in tandem with private corporations and individuals to blacklist Americans suspected of being communist sympathizers.

By the time the witch hunts carried out by federal and state investigative agencies drew to a close, thousands of individuals (the vast majority of them innocent any crime whatsoever) had been accused of communist ties, investigated, subpoenaed and blacklisted. Regarded as bad risks, the accused were blacklisted, and struggled to secure employment. The witch hunt ruined careers, resulting in suicides, and tightened immigration to exclude alleged subversives.

Seventy years later, the vitriol, fear-mongering and knee-jerk intolerance associated with McCarthy’s tactics are once again being deployed in a free-for-all attack by those on both the political Left and Right against anyone who, in daring to think for themselves, subscribes to ideas or beliefs that run counter to the government’s or mainstream thought.

It doesn’t even seem to matter what the issue is anymore (racism, Confederate monuments, Donald Trump, COVID-19, etc.): modern-day activists are busily tearing down monuments, demonizing historic figures, boycotting corporations for perceived political transgressions, and using their bully pulpit to terrorize the rest of the country into kowtowing to their demands.

All the while, the American police state continues to march inexorably forward.

This is how fascism, which silences all dissenting views, prevails.

The silence is becoming deafening.

Image on the right is from Bleacher Report

Washington Redskins: NFL Celebrates 80 Years of Disparagement ...

After years of fighting in and out of the courts to keep their 87-year-old name, the NFL’s Washington Redskins have bowed to public pressure and will change their name and team logo to avoid causing offense. The new name, not yet announced, aims to honor both the military and Native Americans.

Eleanor Holmes Norton, a delegate to the House of Representatives who supports the name change, believes the team’s move “reflects the present climate of intolerance to names, statues, figments of our past that are racist in nature or otherwise imply racism [and] are no longer tolerated.”

Present climate of intolerance, indeed.

Yet it wasn’t a heightened racial conscience that caused the Redskins to change their brand. It was the money. The team caved after its corporate sponsors including FedEx, PepsiCo, Nike and Bank of America threatened to pull their funding.

So much for that U.S. Supreme Court victory preventing the government from censoring trademarked names it considers distasteful or scandalous.

Who needs a government censor when the American people are already doing such a great job at censoring themselves and each other, right?

Now there’s a push underway to boycott Goya Foods after its CEO, Robert Unanue, praised President Trump during a press conference to announce Goya’s donation of a million cans of Goya chickpeas and a million other food products to American food banks as part of the president’s Hispanic Prosperity Initiative.

Mind you, Unanue—whose grandfather emigrated to the U.S. from Spain—also praised the Obamas when they were in office, but that kind of equanimity doesn’t carry much weight in this climate of intolerance.

Image below is from Britannica

To Kill a Mockingbird | Summary, Characters, Movie, & Facts ...

Not to be outdone, the censors are also taking aim at To Kill a Mockingbird, Harper Lee’s Pulitzer Prize-winning novel about Atticus Finch, a white lawyer in the Jim Crow South who defends a black man falsely accused of rape. Sixty years after its debut, the book remains a powerful testament to moral courage in the face of racial bigotry and systemic injustice, told from the point of view of a child growing up in the South, but that’s not enough for the censors. They want to axe the book—along with The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn—from school reading curriculums because of the presence of racial slurs that could make students feel “humiliated or marginalized.”

Never mind that the N-word makes a regular appearance in hip-hop songs. The prevailing attitude seems to be that it’s okay to use the N-word as long as the person saying the word is not white. Rapper Kendrick Lamar “would like white America to let black people exclusively have the word.”

Talk about a double standard.

This is also the overlooked part of how oppression becomes systemic: it comes about as a result of a combined effort between the populace, the corporations and the government.

McCarthyism worked the same way.

What started with Joseph McCarthy’s headline-grabbing scare tactics in the 1950s about Communist infiltrators of American society snowballed into a devastating witch hunt once corporations and the American people caught the fever.

McCarthyism was a contagion, like the plague, spreading like wildfire among people too fearful or weak or gullible or paranoid or greedy or ambitious to denounce it for what it was: an opportunistic scare tactic engineered to make the government more powerful.

McCarthy, a young Republican senator, grasped the opportunity to make a name for himself by capitalizing on the Cold War paranoia of the time. In a speech in February 1950, McCarthy claimed to have a list of over 200 members of the Communist Party “working and shaping the policy of the U.S. State Department.” The speech was picked up by the Associated Press, without substantiating the facts, and within a few days the hysteria began.

McCarthy specialized in sensational and unsubstantiated accusations about Communist infiltration of the American government, particularly the State Department. He also targeted well-known Hollywood actors and directors, trade unionists and teachers. Many others were brought before the inquisitional House Committee on Un-American Activities for questioning.

“McCarthyism” eventually smeared all the accused with the same broad brush, whether the evidence was good, bad or nonexistent.

The parallels to the present movement cannot be understated.

Even now, with modern-day McCarthyism sweeping the nation and America’s own history being blacklisted, I have to wonder what this sudden outrage and crisis of conscience is really all about.

Certainly, anyone who believes that the injustices, cruelties and vicious callousness of the U.S. government are unique to the Trump Administration has not been paying attention.

No matter what the team colors might be at any given moment, the playbook remains the same. The leopard has not changed its spots.

Scrape off the surface layers and you will find that the American police state that is continuing to wreak havoc on the rights of the people under the Trump Administration is the same police state that wreaked havoc on the rights of the people under every previous administration.

So please spare me the media hysterics and the outrage and the hypocritical double standards of those whose moral conscience appears to be largely dictated by their political loyalties.

While we squabble over which side is winning this losing battle, a tsunami approaches.

While the populace wages war over past injustices, injustice in the here and now continues to trample innocent lives underfoot. Certainly, little of significance is being done to stem the tide of institutional racism that has resulted in disproportionate numbers of black Americans who continue to be stopped, frisked, shot at, arrested and jailed.

I’ve had enough of the short- and long-term amnesia that allows political sycophants to conveniently forget the duplicity, complicity and mendacity of their own party while casting blame on everyone else.

When you drill right down to the core of things, the policies of a Trump Administration have been no different from an Obama Administration or a Bush Administration, at least not where it really counts.

In other words, Democrats by any other name have been Republicans, and vice versa.

War has continued. Surveillance has continued. Drone killings have continued. Police shootings have continued. Highway robbery meted out by government officials has continued. Corrupt government has continued. Profit-driven prisons have continued. Censorship and persecution of anyone who criticizes the government have continued. The militarization of the police has continued. The devastating SWAT team raids have continued. The government’s efforts to label dissidents as extremists and terrorists has continued.

The more things change, the more they have stayed the same.

We’ve been stuck in this political Groundhog’s Day for so long that minor deviations appear to be major developments while obscuring the fact that we’re stuck on repeat, unable to see the forest for the trees.

This is what is referred to as creeping normality, or a death by a thousand cuts.

It’s a concept invoked by Pulitzer Prize-winning scientist Jared Diamond to describe how major changes, if implemented slowly in small stages over time, can be accepted as normal without the shock and resistance that might greet a sudden upheaval.

Diamond’s concerns related to Easter Island’s now-vanished civilization and the societal decline and environmental degradation that contributed to it, but it’s a powerful analogy for the steady erosion of our freedoms and decline of our country right under our noses.

As Diamond explains,

“In just a few centuries, the people of Easter Island wiped out their forest, drove their plants and animals to extinction, and saw their complex society spiral into chaos and cannibalism… Why didn’t they look around, realize what they were doing, and stop before it was too late? What were they thinking when they cut down the last palm tree?”

His answer:

“I suspect that the disaster happened not with a bang but with a whimper.”

Much like America’s own colonists, Easter Island’s early colonists discovered a new world—“a pristine paradise”—teeming with life. Yet almost 2000 years after its first settlers arrived, Easter Island was reduced to a barren graveyard by a populace so focused on their immediate needs that they failed to preserve paradise for future generations.

The same could be said of the America today: it, too, is being reduced to a barren graveyard by a populace so focused on their immediate needs that they are failing to preserve freedom for future generations.

In Easter Island’s case, as Diamond speculates:

The forest…vanished slowly, over decades. Perhaps war interrupted the moving teams; perhaps by the time the carvers had finished their work, the last rope snapped. In the meantime, any islander who tried to warn about the dangers of progressive deforestation would have been overridden by vested interests of carvers, bureaucrats, and chiefs, whose jobs depended on continued deforestation… The changes in forest cover from year to year would have been hard to detect… Only older people, recollecting their childhoods decades earlier, could have recognized a difference.Gradually trees became fewer, smaller, and less important. By the time the last fruit-bearing adult palm tree was cut, palms had long since ceased to be of economic significance. That left only smaller and smaller palm saplings to clear each year, along with other bushes and treelets. No one would have noticed the felling of the last small palm.

Sound painfully familiar yet?

We’ve already torn down the rich forest of liberties established by our founders. It has vanished slowly, over the decades. Those who warned against the dangers posed by too many laws, invasive surveillance, militarized police, SWAT team raids and the like have been silenced and ignored. They stopped teaching about freedom in the schools. Few Americans know their history. And even fewer seem to care that their fellow Americans are being jailed, muzzled, shot, tasered, and treated as if they have no rights at all.

The erosion of our freedoms happened so incrementally, no one seemed to notice. Only the older generations, remembering what true freedom was like, recognized the difference. Gradually, the freedoms enjoyed by the citizenry became fewer, smaller and less important. By the time the last freedom falls, no one will know the difference.

This is how tyranny rises and freedom falls: with a thousand cuts, each one justified or ignored or shrugged over as inconsequential enough by itself to bother, but they add up.

Each cut, each attempt to undermine our freedoms, each loss of some critical right—to think freely, to assemble, to speak without fear of being shamed or censored, to raise our children as we see fit, to worship or not worship as our conscience dictates, to eat what we want and love who we want, to live as we want—they add up to an immeasurable failure on the part of each and every one of us to stop the descent down that slippery slope.

We are on that downward slope now.

The contagion of fear that McCarthy helped spread with the help of government agencies, corporations and the power elite is still poisoning the well, whitewashing our history, turning citizen against citizen, and stripping us of our rights.

Edward R. Murrow | American journalist | Britannica

What we desperately need is the kind of resolve embodied by Edward R. Murrow (image on the right from Britannica), the most-respected newsman of his day.

On March 9, 1954, Murrow dared to speak truth to power about the damage McCarthy was inflicting on the American people. His message remains a timely warning for our age.

We will not walk in fear, one of another. We will not be driven by fear into an age of unreason, if we dig deep in our history and our doctrine; and remember that we are not descended from fearful men. Not from men who feared to write, to speak, to associate, and to defend causes that were for the moment unpopular. This is no time for men who oppose Senator McCarthy’s methods to keep silent, or for those who approve. We can deny our heritage and our history, but we cannot escape responsibility for the result. There is no way for a citizen of a republic to abdicate his responsibilities. As a nation we have come into our full inheritance at a tender age. We proclaim ourselves, as indeed we are, the defenders of freedom, wherever it continues to exist in the world, but we cannot defend freedom abroad by deserting it at home. The actions of the junior Senator from Wisconsin have caused alarm and dismay amongst our allies abroad, and given considerable comfort to our enemies. And whose fault is that? Not really his. He didn’t create this situation of fear; he merely exploited it—and rather successfully. Cassius was right. ”The fault, dear Brutus, is not in our stars, but in ourselves.”

America is approaching another reckoning right now, one that will pit our commitment to freedom principles against a level of fear-mongering that is being used to wreak havoc on everything in its path.

The outcome rests, as always, with “we the people.” As Murrow said to his staff before the historic March 9 broadcast: “No one can terrorize a whole nation, unless we are all his accomplices.”

Take heed, America.

As I make clear in my book Battlefield America: The War on the American People, this may be your last warning.

*

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

This article was originally published on The Rutherford Institute.

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

Featured image is from Wikimedia Commons