Global Research

Along with protecting China’s national security, its legitimate right, the new law aims to counter months of US orchestrated violence and vandalism in Hong Kong.

They were and continue to be led by 5th column elements that rocked the city last year, a scheme by US dark forces to destabilize and weaken China by attacking its soft underbelly.

From 1841 to 1997, Hong Kong was exploited as a British colony. The city is now Chinese territory.

Governed by Chinese laws, it enjoys a degree of local autonomy.

Britain and the US have no more say over how Hong Kong is governed than does Beijing have over how New York, London, or any other foreign cities are run.

They’re sovereign territory of their respective countries. China respects what the US and West reject.

Notably the US seeks control over all parts of the world not its own, what its global empire of bases is all about, platforms for endless preemptive wars of aggression.

US foreign policy reflects what the scourge of imperialism is all about — an unparalleled menace to everyone everywhere under both right wings of the its war party.

After being drafted last month during Beijing’s annual Central People’s Political Consultative Conference (CPPCC), adopted by the National People’s Congress (NPC), and sent to a Standing Committee for preparation in final form, details of the new law were released on Saturday.

As reported by Xinhua, it contains 66 articles in six chapters for safeguarding the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region (HKSAR).

The law “requires the HKSAR to establish a commission of safeguarding national security which shall be supervised by and accountable to the Central People’s Government.”

It “establish(es) an office of safeguarding national security in the HKSAR.”

It covers duties of the HKSAR to safeguard national security with jurisdiction over related issues, and enforcement of the law’s provisions under continuation of a “one country, two systems” arrangement.

The Central People’s Government in Beijing has authority for national security overall, similar to how Western nations operate.

The US 10th Amendment states that “powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people” — local autonomy that doesn’t conflict with federal powers.

UK devolution law grants powers to the parliaments of London, Scotland, Wales, and Northern Ireland, the central government having oversight authority.

Under China’s new national security law, “(t)he Central People’s Government shoulders the fundamental responsibility for national security affairs related to the HKSAR, while the HKSAR bears the constitutional responsibility of safeguarding national security,” Xinhua explained, adding:

“The executive organs, legislature and judiciary of the HKSAR shall, in accordance with relevant laws, effectively prevent, stop and punish acts and activities that endanger national security.”

“Safeguarding China’s sovereignty, unity and territorial integrity is the common obligation of all Chinese people, including Hong Kong.”

The HKSAR is responsible for acting against activities in the city that jeopardize national security.

Four categories of crimes are designated as national security threats: secession, subversion of state power, terrorist activities, and collusion with foreign or external forces.

The  HKSAR has jurisdiction over combatting them. A central government office charged with safeguarding national security throughout China is authorized to supervise and coordinate its activities with the HKSAR.

In some cases that threaten national security, what the law calls specific circumstances, central authorities in Beijing may exercise jurisdiction over crimes committed in Hong Kong or anywhere else in China.

If differences between the new national security law and local laws administered by the HKSAR, the NPC Standing Committee has final say.

China’s Global Times (GT) said the new national security law aims “to fix national security loopholes in Hong Kong, rather than depriving the city of its high degree of autonomy.”

Most, perhaps all nations, have laws to protect national security from internal and external threats.

Given Washington aim to transform China into a vassal state, wanting its development curbed, Beijing and the nation’s people are very much threatened.

The main responsibility of all ruling authorities is to protect the state from threats to its sovereignty.

The US poses an enormous threat to all countries unwilling to subordinate their rights to its interests.

China’s national security law is one more way for Beijing to protect the nation’s sovereign rights from foreign threats, notably by the US.

Overall, “(t)he central government’s direct jurisdiction over national security cases in (Hong Kong) will be very limited,” GT reported, adding:

“The protection of human rights and presumption of innocence before judicial conviction will be upheld.”

“The national security law for the HKSAR will not weaken the political rights of Hong Kong people, change the lives of local residents, or influence the implementation of Hong Kong’s common law.”

“It just clarifies the responsibility of the central government and the HKSAR over maintaining national security, drawing a bottom line that all Hongkongers should abide by in terms of national security while establishing a legal mechanism to carry out all these.”

“It is not meant to change operation of the city’s function, governance, or people’s way of work and life.”

It’s the responsibility of federal governments everywhere to enforce the rule of law nationwide.

US Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis called the rule of law “the noblest of human productions.”

Grandson of a slave Justice Thurgood Marshall had a different view, saying:

“Do what you think is right and let the law catch up.”

The law should be all about serving and protecting everyone, assuring equity and justice for all — not just the privileged few as in the US, West and most other countries.

China’s national security law was established to counter foreign interference in its internal affairs, prohibited under international law.

The measure does not “extinguish challenges to (Beijing’s) power,” as the NYT falsely reported.

Nor does it “dismantle (Hong Kong’s) legal autonomy, as the Wall Street Journal claimed.

Or is it “the worst nightmare come true,” as a local official hostile to Beijing maintains, or the “death knell” for Hong Kong, as loose cannon Pompeo roared.

The new law will become effective on an unspecified date, most likely ahead of September 6 Hong Kong Legislative Council elections.

*

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.

The system-wide challenges the United States faces with policing are entrenched and deeply rooted. When the historical and current practices of police are examined, it is evident police have been designed to uphold the status quo including racial injustice and class inequality. Whenever political movements develop to respond to racial and class unfairness, the police have undermined their politically-protected constitutional rights.

Police have used infiltration, surveillance, and violence against political movements seeking to end injustices throughout the history of the nation. It is the deeply embedded nature of these injustices and the structural problems in policing that are leading more people to conclude police must be completely transformed, if not abolished.

We advocate for democratic community control of the police as a starting point in addition to defunding the police and funding alternatives such as programs that provide mental health, public health, social work and conflict resolution services, and other nonviolent interventions. Funding is needed for the basic human needs of housing, education, employment, healthcare, and food especially in communities that have been neglected for years and whose low-wage labor has enriched the wealthy in this unequal society.

The Roots Of Policing Are Rotten

The needs of the wealthy have been the driving force for the creation of police. Policing developed to control workers, many who were Irish, Italian and other immigrants seeking fair wages in the North and African people who were enslaved in the South. Victor E. Kappeler, Ph.D writes in “A Brief History of Slavery and the Origins of American Policing” that “Slave patrols and Night Watches, which later became modern police departments, were both designed to control the behaviors of minorities.”

A. Southern Police Created to Protect Slavery

In the south, the driving force of the economy was slavery where people kidnapped in Africa were brought to the Americas as chattel slaves, workers who created wealth for their owners. The Trans-Atlantic Slave Trade Database lists 12.5 million Africans who were shipped to the Americas, 10.7 million of which survived the dreaded Middle Passage. Of that, 388,000 were brought to North America. African slaves were forced to reproduce for their owners and to sell.

From the start, African people revolted against slavery and fought to escape it. This 400 years legacy of racist injustice that helped form the United States is the history we must confront. The roots of policing in what became the Confederacy and later the sheriffs who enforced Jim Crow grew out of the containment of slaves, the most valuable ‘property’ in the nation.

Olivia Waxman describes this history writing that in the South, “the economics that drove the creation of police forces were centered . . . on the preservation of the slavery system.” She describes “slave patrols tasked with chasing down runaways and preventing slave revolts” as one of the primary police institutions.

Gary Potter writes in “The History of Policing in the United States,” that “Slave patrols had three primary functions: (1) to chase down, apprehend, and return to their owners, runaway slaves; (2) to provide a form of organized terror to deter slave revolts; and, (3) to maintain a form of discipline for slave-workers who were subject to summary justice, outside of the law, if they violated any plantation rules.” The purpose of slave patrols was to protect the wealth of the white people who owned slaves.

Potter writes, “the first formal slave patrol had been created in the Carolina colonies in 1704. During the Civil War, the military became the primary form of law enforcement in the South, but during Reconstruction, many local sheriffs functioned in a way analogous to the earlier slave patrols, enforcing segregation and the disenfranchisement of freed slaves.”

Hundreds of laws were passed in the South around slavery and its enforcement but laws were also passed in northern colonies including Connecticut, New York, and others to control slaves. The US Congress passed fugitive Slave Laws allowing the detention and return of escaped slaves, in 1793 and 1850. Racist police made up the “kidnap gang” in New York City in 1830 who would capture Africans and bring them to a rubber stamp court that would send them to the South as captured slaves – often before their families knew they were arrested. Throughout this history, there were people who fought police violence and abuse as is discussed in The Black New Yorker Who Led The Charge Against Police Violence In The 1830s.

The history of racist policing did not end with the abolition of slavery. Police forces were involved in enforcing the racist Black Code, the Convict-Lease System, and JimCrow segregation. The terrorism of white supremacist groups like the KKK, the burning of black schools and churches and lynching became the common realities of the south. White police often did not stop, or seriously investigate these crimes; some even participated. In the era of Civil Rights, southern police used violence against nonviolent protesters – beatings, fire hoses and dogs.

This also occurred in the north. For example, Minnesota was infamous for arresting indigenous people on charges like vagrancy and forcing them to work for no pay.  This spurred the formation of the American Indian Movement. Dennis Banks describes, “The cops concentrated on the Indian bars. They would bring their paddy wagons around behind a bar and open the back doors. Then they would go around to the front and chase everybody toward the rear. ” They would be taken to stadiums and convention centers and forced to work for no pay. The police did not do this at white bars, only bars where Native Americans gathered.

The War on Drugs became the new disguise for police violence against black people. “We could arrest their leaders, raid their homes, break up their meetings, and vilify them night after night on the evening news,” said President Nixon’s domestic policy chief John Ehrlichman to Harper’s Magazine. Mass incarceration of the 1980s, begun under President Reagan and continued under President Clinton with Joe Biden leading efforts in the Senate, disproportionately impacted black and brown people. Now slavery legally continues as prison labor.

AT&T workers on strike. From Socialist Worker.

B. Northern Police Protect Commercial Interests, Hold Down Wages

The history of policing in the northern colonies was also driven by economics. Commercial interests protected their property through an informal, private for-profit form of hiring people part-time. Towns relied on a “night-watch” to enforce laws. Boston started a night-watch in 1636, New York followed in 1658 and Philadelphia created one in 1700.

As cities become more populated, the night-watch system was ineffective. Commercial interests needed more regular policing and so they hired people to protect their property and goods as they were transported from ports to other areas. Boston, a large shipping commercial center, became the first city to form a police force when merchants convinced the government that police were needed for the “collective good” thereby transferring the cost of maintaining a police force to the citizens.

A driving force for police expansion was workers, who were often immigrants, seeking better pay and working conditions. Abolishing The Police: A Radical Idea That’s Been Around For Over A Century, describes how the first state police force was formed in 1905 in Pennsylvania to combat workers forming unions. According to a study in 1969 by the National Commission on the Causes and Prevention of Violence, the United States has the bloodiest and most violent labor history of any industrial nation in the world.

Sam Mitrani, author of The Rise of the Chicago Police Department: Class and Conflict, 1850-1894, writes in In These Times that “as Northern cities grew and filled with mostly immigrant wage workers who were physically and socially separated from the ruling class, the wealthy elite who ran the various municipal governments hired hundreds and then thousands of armed men to impose order on the new working-class neighborhoods. Class conflict roiled late-19th century American cities like Chicago, which experienced major strikes and riots in 1867, 1877, 1886, and 1894. In each of these upheavals, the police attacked strikers with extreme violence, even if in 1877 and 1894 the U.S. Army played a bigger role in ultimately repressing the working class.”

Martha Grevatt points out that “Throughout labor history, one finds innumerable accounts of cops engaging in anti-union violence. Police viciously attacked unarmed pickets during the 1994 Staley strike in Decatur, Ill., as well as the 1995 Detroit newspaper strike, to name a few examples. They arrested and harassed UAW members during last year’s strike against GM.”

This is not only a time of growing protest against police violence but also against the mistreatment of workers. Over the last two years, there has been a record number of strikers not seen in 35 years. PayDay Report counts more than 500 strikes in the last three weeks with a peak number on Juneteenth at “29 ports across the West Coast” and the UAW stopping production on all assembly lines “for 8 minutes and 46 seconds to honor George Floyd.”  They have tracked more than 800 strikes since March.

Historic Time Of Uprising And Unrest Rattles The Police And Power Structure

The rebellion by workers and anti-racism activists is unprecedented in the lives of most people alive today. There is a nationwide uprising in every state and in thousands of cities and towns.  Repression by the power structure with militarized police and the National Guard has failed to stop the protests. Democrats have failed to divert the movement of the energy into the elections, as Joe Biden and Nancy Pelosi have offered inadequate reforms such as more police training. Fundamental changes are needed.

Police will continue to make efforts to shut down the unrest. The FBI and local police have a long history of combatting movements. In addition to the violent response that has been well documented against the current rebellion, we should expect infiltration, surveillance, creation of internal divisions, and other tactics, even murder.

All of these acts against labor, civil rights, peace, environmental, and other movements have happened before and we should expect them again. Documents show a nationwide effort of police and the FBI to defeat the Occupy Movement that included entrapment of activists in crimes. There has also been aggressive police violence against people protesting pipelines and seeking climate justice.

Black activists continue to be a major focus of the FBI and law enforcement. Media Justice and the ACLU reported last week that one million pages of materials on FBI surveillance were discovered in a FOIA request showing widespread surveillance of black activists.

The small victories that have been won by the movement are already causing repercussions. Police are threatening to quit because they are being held accountable for violence, even though they remain protected by immunity from prosecution. A survey last week found 3 out of 4 Washington, DC police were ready to leave the force. CNN reported police in Minneapolis, Atlanta, South Florida, and Buffalo quitting. In Atlanta, police got the “flu” after felony murder charges were brought against the officer who killed Rayshard Brooks.

New York City police are planning a strike on the Fourth of July to show people what life would be like without police. However, this may backfire as during a 1997 slowdown and also during a 2014–2015 slowdown, crime did not spike, and may even have declined a bit. The nation’s top law enforcement official, Attorney General Bob Barr threatened in December 2019 that if some communities don’t begin showing more respect to law enforcement, then they could potentially not be protected by police officers.

To Transform The Police, The Economy Must Be Transformed

The US Constitution, written by slaveholders and businessmen who profited from slave products, puts property rights ahead of individual rights. The Bill of Rights was an afterthought. The result of treating people as property, Jim Crow laws, redlining, and other racially unfair economic practices has left Black Americans with a $13 trillion dollar wealth gap.

Max Rameau told us in a recent podcast, To Deal With Police, We Must Understand Why They Even Exist, that when we understand the purpose of police is to protect property, it becomes more evident why they cannot be reformed. Unless we confront neoliberal capitalism that creates inequality and a hyper-class-based society, the wealthy will always find someone to pay to protect them.

In fact, the call to defund the police can be easily thrown off course by getting activists fighting for small gains of cuts to police budgets, while the police are increasing their funding from private corporations. Already, as reported by Eyes on the Ties, “Police foundations across the country are partnering with corporations to raise money to supplement police budgets by funding programs and purchasing tech and weaponry for law enforcement with little public oversight.” Their report documents support to police from Wall Street and finance, retail and food industries, Big Tech, fossil fuel corporations, sports, and universities.

It is fantasy to believe police exist for public safety. As Justin Podur writes, “Society doesn’t need a large group with a license to kill.” Glen Ford of Black Agenda Report advocates for community control over police but he doesn’t stop there, writing “communities should control, not just the police, but much of the rest of their neighborhoods’ vital services and resources.”

As Richard Rubinstein writes in ThePolice May Pull the Trigger but it is the System That Kills, “Racism, police brutality, and economic injustice can be thought of as separate boxes, but they are part of one self-reinforcing system. And that system’s defining characteristic – the feature most resistant to change – is that it is based on the production of goods and services for profit, not to satisfy basic human needs.”

Like many conflicts in the United States, the problems of police violence comes down to corporate-capitalists vs. the people. Racial separation and inequality are ways the ownership class keeps people divided so the people can be controlled. This is the reality of the US political system and the reality of policing in the United States, but we can change that reality by continuing to organize, staying in the streets and building our power.

*

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.

Kevin Zeese and Margaret Flowers co-direct Popular Resistance where this article was originally published.

Featured image is from CODEPINK

In what potentially could be a radical change in Washington’s policy towards Venezuela, U.S. president Donald Trump confessed that he has had doubts about his decision to recognize opposition leader Juan Guaidó as president of the South American country. Trump revealed in an interview with Axios in the Oval Office what he thinks about the self-proclaimed wannabe president of Venezuela, Guaidó, and even confessed that he “would maybe think” of meeting personally with Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro, who has already publicly expressed his willingness to talk with the American president.

“Maduro would like to meet. And I’m never opposed to meetings — you know, rarely opposed to meetings. I always say, you lose very little with meetings. But at this moment, I’ve turned them down,” Trump said.

In a preview of the interview published by Axios, Trump revealed how little confidence he has in Guaidó because the politician failed to take control of the Venezuelan government despite the strong support provided by the U.S. and another 60 countries that recognize him as the legitimate president.

Asked by Axios whether he regretted his decision on backing Guaidó on the advice of John Bolton, his former National Security Advisor, Trump initially said “not particularly,” but then went on to say, “I could have lived with it or without it, but I was very firmly against what’s going on in Venezuela.”

In another part of the interview, Trump speaks directly of the moment when he decided to recognize the opposition leader as president: “Guaidó was elected. I think that I wasn’t necessarily in favor, but I said — some people that liked it, some people didn’t. I was OK with it. I don’t think it was — you know, I don’t think it was very meaningful one way or the other.”

Also, in the preview, Axios quoted a fragment of Bolton’s upcoming book The Room Where It Happened, where he reveals some behind the scenes diplomacy of the Trump Administration and the private feelings the president has about Guaidó. Bolton says that Trump “thought Guaidó was ‘weak,’ as opposed to Maduro, who was ‘strong’” and that “Trump was calling Guaidó the ‘Beto O’Rourke of Venezuela,’ hardly the sort of compliment an ally of the United States should expect.” O’Rourke, who was a Democratic Presidential Candidate and is one of Trump’s biggest critics, was called a “poor bastard” who “quit like a dog” by the American president, a demonstration of just how low Trump thinks of Guaidó.

Trump in the interview described Bolton as a “nutjob” who may be the “dumbest human being on Earth.” Trump could perhaps seek to slowly normalize relations with Maduro and move away from Guaidó, while placing the blame entirely on Bolton for the escalation of hostilities between Washington and Caracas.

In 2019, shocking events were triggered when Guaidó proclaimed himself president. An attempt to forcibly enter a shipment of “solidarity aid” into Venezuela from Colombia that likely had weapons was made; Venezuela suddenly was without electricity after a cyberattack; there was another coup attempt; and, many attacks on military barracks. Yet, Maduro survived the intense pressures from the U.S. and sixty of its allies.

The American President is known to admire authoritarianism and/or strong leaders. Despite sanctions, coup attempts and threats of military invasion, Maduro has not only survived the U.S.-led destabilization, but cemented his positions as leader of Venezuela. Although they may be adversaries, it would not be a wild claim to say that Trump admires Maduro’s strength and determination, especially as Guaidó utterly failed when he had every advantage afforded to him.

If someone had said in 2019 that just a year later Venezuela would not only be more stable than the U.S. when we consider the Black Lives Matter uprising in the aftermath of the George Floyd murder, but would also achieve a seat in the UN Human Rights commission, no one would have believed it.

The U.S. could not allow 2019 to confirm the decline of its dominance over Latin America. With the defeat it suffered in Venezuela, the return of Cristina Kirchner in Argentina and the breakdown of neoliberal governments in the region, Washington had to resort to coups to protect its interests, as seen in Bolivia.

Venezuela now has a fragmented opposition to Maduro that is immersed in an internal war. At this point, Guaidó is not guaranteed to be re-elected as president of the National Assembly. For the U.S. however, it does not matter who occupies that position so long as they are serving Washington’s agenda. The so-called Deep State in the U.S. remains pitifully unchanged in their policy to destroy the existence of sovereign governments in the region. However, is Trump attempting to break free of such war hawks by expressing an openness to speak with Maduro? Although Trump may have individual opinions on not wanting to challenge Venezuela, despite public rhetoric, he will be restricted by the main power structures that exist in the U.S. and push for complete dominance no matter the administration in power and what they want to achieve.

*

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.

On June 1, in the midst of the turmoil created by the coronavirus pandemic and the death of George Floyd in Minneapolis, California Gov. Gavin Newsom’s administration quietly issued 12 fracking permits to Aera Energy, a joint venture owned by ExxonMobil and Shell.

Oil drilling in California has faced criticism for its disproportionately negative health impacts on Latino communities and other people of color. The 12 new permits will be for fracking in the Lost Hills Oil Field. The Kern County town of Lost Hills is more than 97 percent Latino, according to 2010 U.S. Census data.

The fracking permits are the latest example of California’s oil industry benefiting from regulatory or deregulatory action during the COVID-19 pandemic and came just months after the Newsom administration said it supported taking actions to “manage the decline of oil production and consumption in the state.” Aera, which also received 24 permits from the California Geologic Energy Management Division (CalGEM) on April 3 during the early days of COVID-19, has well-connected lobbyists in its corner who work for the firm Axiom Advisors.

One of them, Jason Kinney, headed up Newsom’s 2018 transition team and formerly served as a senior advisor to Newsom while he was lieutenant governor. He is also a senior advisor to California’s Senate Democrats. The other, Kevin Schmidt, previously served as policy director for Newsom when the latter was lieutenant governor. Aera paid Axiom $110,000 for its lobbying work in 2019 and, so far in 2020, has paid $30,000, lobbying reports reveal.

Axiom’s lobbying disclosure records show both Kinney and Schmidt listed as lobbyists and Aera as one of the firm’s clients. Kinney’s wife, Mary Gonsalvez Kinney, was also the stylist for Newsom’s wife–Jennifer Siebel Newsom–dating back to their time spent living in the San Francisco Bay Area. Kinney and Schmidt did not respond to repeated requests for comment for this article.

Calling the situation “unseemly,” Jamie Court, president for the Los Angeles-based group Consumer Watchdog, wrote via email that “Aera should not be able to buy the influence it apparently has over state oil and gas policy.” Last November, prior to the 24 permits issued in April, Newsom had declared a statewide fracking permit moratorium in response to a scandal involving a regulator for the California Division of Oil, Gas, and Geothermal Resources (DOGGR). The regulator, who had been tasked with heading oversight issues on issuing permits, was revealed to have stock investments valued up to $100,000 in Aera Energy’s parent company, ExxonMobil. Newsom fired the head of DOGGR at the time, Ken Harris, and eventually renamed the agency CalGEM.

Kinney and Schmidt are not the only two with Newsom ties. Aera CEO Christina Sistrunk sits on the governor’s Task Force on Business and Jobs Recovery, created to craft an economic recovery plan in response to the ongoing COVID-19 economic fallout.

Aera is one of the state’s top drillers and accounts for nearly 25 percent of California’s production, its website claims. Aera landed 490 drilling permits from CalGEM in the first quarter of 2020, according to data collected by FracTracker, and 651 permits in 2019.

Lost Hills

The town of Lost Hills has a population of about 2,500 people and its field ranks sixth in oil produced in the state. The field sits in close proximity to a residential neighborhood just west of Interstate Highway 5, close to both a middle school and public park.

Infrared camera footage from 2014, taken by the advocacy group Earthworks and the Clear Water Fund for a 2015 report they published, showed that the Lost Hills field emits prolific amounts of toxic chemicals into the air, including methane, acetone, dichlorodifluoromethane and acetaldehydes. High levels of isoprene and acetaldehydes can cause cancer, while the other substances can result in serious health damage, including heartbeat irregularities, headaches, nausea, vomiting, throat irritation, coughing and wheezing.

In a survey done for that same report of Lost Hills residents, respondents reported having “thyroid problems (7 percent), diabetes (7 percent), asthma (11 percent) and sinus infections (19 percent).”

“Of all respondents, 92.3 percent reported identifying odors in their homes and community,” it further detailed. “Odors were described as petroleum, burning oil, rotten eggs, chemicals, chlorine or bleach, a sweet smell, sewage, and ammonia. Participants reported that when odors were detected in the air, symptoms included headache (63 percent), nausea/dizziness (37 percent), burning or watery eyes (37 percent), and throat and nose irritation (18.5 percent).”

Methane is a climate change-causing greenhouse gas 84 times more potent than carbon dioxide during its first 20 years in the atmosphere, according to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. A 20-year window falls within the 2030 deadline established by IPCC climate scientists in a 2018 report that concluded that, if bold action is not taken steadily until then, the world could face some of the most severe and irreversible impacts of climate change.

Setbacks

The new Lost Hills permits came as CalGEM completed its pre-rulemaking public hearings, on June 2, for regulations pertaining to distancing setbacks of oil wells from homes, schools, health clinics and public parks.

The rulemaking process also came as a direct result of the Newsom administration’s November fracking moratorium announcement, found within that same directive.

Last January, two months after the directive, new CalGEM head Uduak-Joe Ntuk, Newsom’s legislative affairs secretary Anthony Williams and Department of Conservation director David Shabazian all attended and spoke at a pro-industry hearing convened by the Kern County Board of Supervisors. They held the hearing in direct response to Newsom’s November announcement. Aera CEO Sistrunk spoke at that hearing and the company promoted it on its website.

The lobbying disclosure records also show Kinney and Schmidt’s firm represents Marathon Petroleum, which advocated against legislation that would mandate CalGEM to implement a setbacks rule by July 1, 2022. That bill, AB 345, had previously mandated that a setback rule be put into place by 2020.

But after receiving lobbying pressure from the Common Ground Alliance— which has united major labor groups with the oil industry, and which was incorporated by an attorney whose clients include Chevron, ExxonMobil, BP America and Western States Petroleum Association—Assembly Appropriations Chairwoman Lorena Gonzalez (D-San Diego) made it a two-year bill during the 2019 legislative session. The “two-year” option for state legislators extends the lifeline of a bill for potential amendments and passage into the second year of every two-year legislative session. Gonzalez told Capital & Main the bill received two-year status due to its high implementation cost.

Aera’s parent company, ExxonMobil, has given Gonzalez $5,500 in campaign contributions since her first run for the Assembly in 2013. Aera also gave a $35,000 contribution to the California Latino Legislative Caucus Foundation during the first quarter of 2020, its lobbying disclosure form shows. Gonzalez is the chairwoman of the California Legislative Latino Caucus and the foundation is its nonprofit wing. And both Aera and the Common Ground Alliance share the same attorney, Steven Lucas, incorporation documents and disclosure forms show.

“The Governor has been clear about the need to strengthen oversight of oil and gas extraction in California and to update regulations to protect public health and safety for communities near oil and gas operations,” Vicky Waters, Newsom’s press secretary, told Capital & Main in an emailed statement. “CalGEM has launched a rulemaking process to develop stronger regulations and will consider the best available science and data to inform new protective requirements.”

Waters did not respond to questions about Axiom Advisors and its personnel ties to Gov. Newsom.

“An Afterthought”

The permits handed to Aera coincide with the Newsom administration granting the industry a suite of regulatory relaxation measures during the COVID-19 era. These include a delay in implementing management plans for idle oil wells and cutting the hiring of 128 analysts, engineers and geologists to bolster the state’s regulatory efforts on oil wells—even though the industry was legally obligated to pay for it.

These measures came after San Francisco public radio station KQED reported that the oil industry’s top trade associations, the Western States Petroleum Association (WSPA) and California Independent Petroleum Association (CIPA), requested that CalGEM take such actions.

Aera’s general counsel, Lynne Carrithers, sits on the board for CIPA, while the company is also a WSPA dues-paying member.

In response to a question about the cancellation of hiring of 128 regulators, Teresa Schilling, a spokeswoman for the Department of Conservation—which oversees CalGEM—said by email that the “Administration had to revisit many proposals in the January budget as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic and the fiscal challenges it created.”

“Significantly expanding a fee-based program in this time of belt-tightening would not be appropriate,” Schilling continued, speaking to the oil industry’s current financial travails. “However, CalGEM is committed to continuing its critical core enforcement and regulatory work with its current resources. Furthermore, all regulations remain in effect and operators are still accountable for meeting them.”

Schilling added that, with regards to the connections with Axiom Advisors, the administration works with “a variety of stakeholders on policy issues and budget decisions,” calling the latest budget proposal “consistent with Administration priorities.”

But Cesar Aguirre, a community organizer with the Central California Environmental Justice Network who lives near Lost Hills in Bakersfield, sees the situation differently.

“The Lost Hills community is already surrounded by extraction and the Newsom administration and CalGEM continue to show that they intend to put the environment and frontline communities as an afterthought,” he said, advocating for the passage of AB 345. “These actions show us that Californians can’t depend on empty political promises to protect public health.”

*

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 Capital & Main

Politico’s scandalous “report” alleging that Putin secretly supported and even possibly organized the left-wing terrorist activities of the “Baader-Meinhof Group” during his time with the KGB in East Germany is pure propaganda which is intended to serve the purpose of implying that Trump’s attempt to clinch a “New Detente” with his Russian counterpart over the past few years is akin to him hypocritically “colluding” with the man who’s now being portrayed as the “godfather” of his hated Antifa nemeses.

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:

*     *     *

US Economic Embargo​​​​​​​ on Syria Is ‘Crime Against Humanity’

By Mark Taliano and Press TV, June 22, 2020

The new sanctions came into effect under the so-called Caesar Syria Civilian Protection Act on June 17, targeting almost all Syrian economic and trade activities as well as the country’s government and business officials loyal to Damascus.

The restrictive measures, signed by US President Donald Trump last December, penalized 39 companies and individuals, including Syrian President Bashar al-Assad and his wife Asma — the first time she has been hit by US sanctions.

The US “Caesar’s Law” Sanctions Regime against Syria. How It Will Affect Lebanon: Israel Will be Targeted

By Elijah J. Magnier, June 19, 2020

The enactment of “Caesar’s Law” – the new US sanctions designed to “pursue individuals, groups, companies, and countries that deal with the Damascus government” – is apparently directed against Syria but in reality aims to subdue Lebanon and its population to accommodate Israel’s conditions. Lebanon’s “Axis of the Resistance” member, Hezbollah, has an open conflict with Israel.  Israel has a list of imposing demands: close off the flow of weapons via the Lebanese borders with Syria, disarm Hezbollah, impose its own terms on land and maritime borders, and push Lebanon to join other Middle Eastern countries in signing a peace deal- with Israel. But Hezbollah naturally has other plans- to enforce a new Rule of Engagement and take the attack initiative rather than opt for the defence response. This is similar to the Gaza deterrence policy of Hamas, another member of the “Axis of the Resistance”, that has been to hit targets in Israel if (and when) economic sanctions are imposed.

Why Is the US Still Sanctioning Syria? Beijing Pressures Washington

By Tony Cartalucci, June 19, 2020

China’s attempts to aid Syria economically and challenge American sanctions aimed at Damascus follows Russia’s open opposition to the US-led proxy war against the Syrian government which included Moscow’s direct military involvement in the conflict and Russia’s leading role in liquidating US-armed militant groups across the country.

“Main Victim of Caesar Act Is the Syrian Citizen.” Ambassador Bashar Al-Ja’fari

By Dr. Bachar al-Jaafari and The Syria Times, June 18, 2020

The unilateral coercive economic measures, mistakenly called sanctions, are based on a shared unethical principle by governments that impose such blockades, based on belief that whoever possesses economic, military and political influence is capable of imposing his own will, decisions and policies on any country in the world by just trapping them commercially, economically and impeding their banking system, while totally ignoring and condoning the fact that these measures are illegal according to international law and the Charter of the United Nations. With regard to the so-called “Caesar’s Act”, let me say that Syria has been subject to US sanctions for decades since 1979 under the pretext of supporting terrorism and threatening the security of Israel, but since the terrorist war on Syria began, the US government has issued eight executive orders to impose or tighten economic, commercial and banking unilateral measures on Syria. These punitive measures, which were accompanied by similar European ones, had and still have clear impact on the Syrian economy and on the Syrian citizen.

The US Admits They Are to Blame for Hunger in Syria

By Steven Sahiounie, June 12, 2020

United States Special Envoy to Syria, James Jeffrey, announced on Sunday that Washington had offered Syria a proposal to end the US sanctions. The Foreign and Expatriates Ministry in Damascus said that the statements by James Jeffrey constitute a clear admission by the Trump administration of it being directly responsible for the suffering of Syrians. The Syrians see the increasing sanctions as economic-warfare after the US failure to bring about ‘regime change’, by using terrorists supported by the CIA. Damascus declares the sanctions violate human rights and international law as they affect the Syrian population.

Video: Hearing Is Not Like Seeing: NATO’s Terrorists Burning Syrian Wheat Crops

By Arabi Souri, June 12, 2020

A video clip shared by local farmers from Ras Al-Ayn showing an inferno burning their livelihood before their eyes, hundreds of acres of wheat on fire just as the crop is due to harvest.

We’ve been reporting about these fires in areas of operation of the NATO’s Turkish (Orwellian-named) ‘Spring of Peace’ military operation in northern, and especially in northeastern Syria regions as well as in areas where remnants and sleeper cells of NATO-sponsored terrorists of ISIS and its affiliates are active in the south of the country.

The US Supports New Kurdish Unity to Destabilize the Middle East

By Steven Sahiounie, June 20, 2020

The Kurdish National Unity Parties (PYNK), a newly-established umbrella group consisting of 25 parties, was formed on May 20 to support the Kurdish unity talks, which have resulted in a “common political vision” on governance and partnership following a series of US-backed talks.  The statement released on June 17 by all parties is the culmination of talks which first began in October 2019, and are based on the 2014 Duhok Agreement, in which the parties reached a power-sharing compromise, but the agreement was never implemented. Talks will continue until a final agreement on matters related to finance, administration, and the military is reached.

*

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 media is churning out countless alarmist stories each day about the threat of COVID-19 and the dangers of societal reopening. “Risk of new lockdown rises with fear of second COVID-19 wave,” writes Reuters, as one example of the genre.

These stories generally incite, rather than inform. They cherry-pick facts and lack context. Only when the COVID picture is viewed in perspective are people able to make wise decisions about their actions. It should be safe for society to continue broadly reopening while directing resources to specific at-risk populations, such as nursing homes and prisons, which are more vulnerable.

The media has focused on increasing numbers of positive tests and hospitalizations in parts of the country to imply reopening is reckless. “Confirmed coronavirus cases have risen by double-digit percentages in 16 U.S. states that have gradually loosened restrictions since Memorial Day,” says Marketwatch.

Yet this perspective omits several essential facts. First, testing capacity has dramatically increased. The U.S. has tested 3.4 million people over the last week — about 40% more than the weekly numbers one month ago. It’s no surprise that positive cases have increased in some areas along with testing, especially since numerous antibody studies suggest that the disease is far more widespread than initially thought. We are witnessing a new infectious disease, and these case count ebbs and flows are to be expected.

In a country as vast and varied as the U.S., there will likely be COVID hotspots somewhere. Yet focusing on these in national news gives the impression that the country, or even individual states, are in far more danger than in reality. Even with a significant increase in testing, the number of new positive tests nationally has remained flattened as society has reopened.

Numerous news outlets are featuring rising COVID hospitalizations in some states to indicate a second wave. Admittedly, hospital admissions are a more objective measure of disease severity than positive tests. Often left unsaid, however, is that hospitalizations are falling in most states. Wouldn’t it be more helpful to cite these statistics in context?

Even in the states with rising hospitalizations, media stories about percentage increases often exaggerate the threat when increases occur from low baseline figures. For instance, numerous stories highlight how Arkansas’s COVID hospital admissions have increased by 121% since Memorial Day. Sounds bad, until you look at the raw numbers, which reveal that this increase only amounts to 111 patients.

Likely for political reasons, the media has identified Florida as the leading edge of a second wave. “Floridians flattened the COVID curve. Then, amid upbeat talk, the numbers began to rise,” reads a Miami Herald headline. Yet the data shows that new positive cases in Florida have tracked the increase in testing. Over the last month, hospitalizations have increased by about 50%, or just over 4,300 patients (in a state of 22 million people). Yet, the number of daily COVID deaths in the state has fallen considerably, by about one-third from May 10, using a seven-day rolling average.

This rise and fall in cases, hospitalizations, and deaths is precisely what one expects with a new infectious disease as we learn more and adjust. It’s part of “the dance” that we all knew was coming after the curve was flattened. It shouldn’t be used to justify pausing societal reopening, so long as appropriate precautions are encouraged and taken.

Reopening remains a success, with the positive case rate flattened, hospitalizations falling in most of the country, and deaths significantly reduced. That’s the positive story that the media should tell. Even if it won’t get as many clicks.

*

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.

Thomas Price M.D. is the former HHS Secretary and a senior healthcare fellow at the Job Creators Network.

C.L. Gray M.D. is the president and founder of Physicians for Reform and a partner of the Job Creators Network.

Featured image is from RealClearPolitics

This article was originally published in December 2015.

For the past 69 years, many of the most notorious U.S.-backed South American dictators, along with their secret police and torturers, have learned their dark arts from a secretive American training facility.

Located in Fort Benning, Georgia, the facility changed its name from “School of the Americas” to “Western Hemisphere Institute for Security Cooperation” in 2001. Human rights advocates say the change was purely cosmetic, a result of the increasing pressure the facility faced from activists and other critics. In November, thousands protested outside Fort Benning in what has become an annual occurrence.

Originally founded in 1946 and based in Panama, it was expelled from the nation in 1984 under the terms of the Panama Canal Treaty. According to SOA Watch, a nonprofit which seeks the closure of the torture school, hundreds of thousands of Latin Americans have been tortured, raped, murdered or “disappeared” through the work of its 64,000 graduates.

It first became a target for activists over three decades ago, after repeated atrocities in El Salvador were linked to graduates of the school. In December of 1980, three Catholic nuns, Dorothy Kazel, Maura Clarke, and Ita Ford, along with a Catholic lay missionary, Jean Donovan, were kidnapped by El Salvadoran soldiers who proceeded to torture, rape, and murder the four women under orders from the country’s military dictatorship in retaliation for their advocacy for the impoverished.

Protesters march to the School of the Americas/Western Hemisphere Institute for Security Cooperation (SOA/WHINSEC).

Roy Bourgeois, a Vietnam veteran-turned-Catholic priest and a friend of two of the victims, discovered their killers had graduated from SOA, leading him to found SOA Watch and become a major organizer of the massive protests at the gates of Fort Benning.

In a Dec. 7 appearance on “The Empire Files,” journalist Abby Martin’s weekly news program that tackles American imperialism on Telesur, Bourgeois said his time in El Salvador was more terrifying than anything he saw in Vietnam.

“I’ve never seen such abuse of power, such brutality by the military,” he told Martin, adding:

“How could they rape and kill nuns who were working with the poor? How could they assassinate a bishop in church who’s talking about the poor?”   

In March of 1980, Óscar Romero, a Catholic bishop, was shot by a sniper in the pulpit, moments after he finished a sermon in which he demanded better human rights for El Salvadorans. Soldiers attacked his funeral with sniper rifles and bombs as well, killing dozens in attendance. The deeper Bourgeois investigated the atrocities in the country, the more ties he found between the soldiers spreading chaos and death and the SOA training.

But that’s far from the only massacre linked to SOA graduates, and it’s not even the largest. On Dec. 11, 1981, the El Salvadoran army wiped out the village of El Mozote, killing 800 civilians — but only after systematically raping, torturing, and beating the men, women and children in groups. According to Martin’s report, of the 12 officers cited in the war crime by the United Nations, 10 were SOA graduates.

These photos from the U.S. backed dirty war in El Mozote, El Salvador were taken from the book “El Salvador: Work of Thirty Photographers (1983)

Freelance journalist Ramona Wadi, writing for MintPress News in April, noted that the torture school has trained thousands of soldiers for countries from Chile to Guatemala in the past 20 years, and it continues to be linked to serious human rights violations. She noted a 2014 analysis by the Fellowship of Reconciliation and Colombia-Europe-U.S. Human Rights Observatory, which found that “out of 25 Colombian graduates from 2001 to 2003, 12 had either been charged with ‘a serious crime or commanded units whose members had reportedly committed multiple extrajudicial killings.’”

Although the school touts an eight-hour course in human rights that’s now mandatory for students, Wadi noted that despite years of protest and “beyond the cosmetic reforms” adopted by the government, it’s still supplying the torturers and killers that support U.S. imperialism in Latin America.

Watch “The U.S. School That Trains Dictators & Death Squads” from “The Empire Files with Abby Martin”:

*

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

Featured image: A guest instructor debriefs students from the Western Hemisphere Institute for Security Cooperation and Naval Small Craft Instruction and Technical Training School after a field training exercise. (U.S. Navy photo)

American diplomatic and military support for Taiwan has grown dramatically during the Trump years. The administration has taken steps to boost that support, but Congress also has pushed its own initiatives. One key measure was the passage of the Taiwan Travel Act in 2018, which not only authorized but encouraged high-level defense and foreign policy officials to interact with their Taiwanese counterparts. 

That was a dramatic change from the policy adopted when the United States shifted diplomatic relations from the Republic of China (Taiwan) to the People’s Republic of China (PRC) in 1979. U.S. policy thereafter had confined all contacts to low-level officials only. More recent congressional measures have sought to emphasize that the United States is firmly in Taiwan’s camp. The trend is not merely a matter of academic interest, since under the 1979 Taiwan Relations Act (TRA), the United States is obligated to regard any attempt by Beijing to coerce Taiwan as a “grave breach of the peace” in East Asia.

The U.S. determination to resist China’s attempts to exert its power in the Western Pacific has grown still stronger after Beijing imposed a new national security law on Hong Kong in May, greatly diluting (if not negating) that territory’s guaranteed political autonomy. The Trump administration, with bipartisan congressional support, rescinded Hong Kong’s special trade status and adopted other punitive measures.

U.S. leaders also sought solidarity from America’s allies in both Europe and East Asia for a joint statement of condemnation and the imposition of sanctions in response to the PRC’s erosion of Hong Kong’s autonomy. The lack of support from European capitals creates serious doubts about how much assistance Washington could expect if a showdown with China emerges at some point over Taiwan’s de facto independence. Allied backing on the Hong Kong issue was tepid and grudging, at best.

Among the European powers, only Britain (Hong Kong’s former colonial ruler) joined the United States in embracing a hardline approach. Receptivity to a confrontational policy was noticeably lacking among Washington’s other European allies. The German government’s reaction was typical. German Foreign Minister Heiko Maas contended that the best way for the European Union to influence China on the Hong Kong dispute was merely to maintain a dialogue with Beijing. That stance fell far short of being an endorsement of the U.S. strategy.

France appeared to be even less eager to join Washington in trying to pressure Beijing. The South China Morning Post reported that in a telephone call to PRC Foreign Minister Wang Yi, Emmanuel Bonne, diplomatic counselor to French President Emmanuel Macron, stressed that France respected China’s national sovereignty and had no intention to interfere in its internal affairs about Hong Kong.

The European Union itself adopted an anemic response to the PRC’s passage of the national security law. Anxious not to become entangled in America’s escalating rivalry with China, EU foreign ministers on May 29 echoed Germany’s preference and emphasized the need for dialogue about Hong Kong. After a videoconference among the bloc’s 27 foreign ministers, EU foreign-policy chief Josep Borrell said that only one country bothered to raise the subject of sanctions. Borrell added that the EU was not planning even to cancel or postpone diplomatic meetings with China in the coming months. So much for Washington’s goal of a common diplomatic front by the Western allies against Beijing’s actions in Hong Kong.

Washington did receive one apparent endorsement of its effort to gain allied cooperation for a stronger stance against the PRC. In early June, NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg insisted that alliance members needed to adopt a more global approach to security issues, unlike the Europe- and North America-centric tack that he contended had usually shaped the alliance’s agenda. With an implicit reference to China, Stoltenberg stated that “as we look to 2030, we need to work even more closely with like-minded countries, like Australia, Japan, New Zealand and [South] Korea, to defend the global rules and institutions that have kept us safe for decades.” Highlighting those nations for special mention was hardly coincidental. And in an unsubtle slap at Beijing, he contended that the greater cooperation with the noncommunist Pacific nations aimed to create an international environment based on “freedom and democracy, not on bullying and coercion.”

Stoltenberg is swimming upstream, given the strong indications from leaders of the EU and such key EU powers as France, Germany, and Italy that they have no wish to adopt a confrontational policy toward China. And even Stoltenberg emphasized that NATO cooperation with China’s East Asian neighbors would not be primarily military in nature. However, nonmilitary support will be of small comfort to the United States if a showdown over Taiwan materializes.

The reaction of key Asian allies to Beijing’s new restrictions on Hong Kong was not measurably better than the level of support Washington received from its European allies. Japan’s response likely disappointed Washington the most. After more than a week of internal debate, Prime Minister Shinzo Abe’s government declined to join the United States, Britain, Australia, and Canada in issuing a statement condemning the PRC’s actions in Hong Kong. Press reports indicated that the decision “dismayed” U.S. leaders. South Korea seemed even more determined than Japan to avoid taking sides in the dispute between the United States and China.

The bottom line was that with the exception of Australia, the United States could not count on its East Asian allies for even diplomatic and economic support against the PRC in response to its actions regarding Hong Kong. Such an outcome does not bode well if Washington seeks stronger backing—especially military backing—in the event of PRC aggression against Taiwan.

Unfortunately, the prospect of such aggression is increasing rapidly. Beijing has explicitly removed the word “peaceful” from its stated goal of inducing Taiwan to accept unification with the mainland. Equally troubling, PRC military exercises in and near the Taiwan Strait are becoming ever more numerous and menacing. On June 9, Chinese fighter planes once again violated Taiwan’s airspace, causing Taipei to send its own planes to intercept the intruders. The overall level of animosity and tension between Beijing and Taipei is at its worst level in decades.

Washington faces the prospect of being called upon to fulfill its implicit commitment under the TRA to defend Taiwan’s security. The trigger could come in the form of a PRC attack on some of Taipei’s small, outlying island holdings directly off of the mainland or in the South China Sea. Even a frontal assault on Taiwan itself cannot be ruled out. Such developments would immediately test the seriousness and credibility of the U.S. defense commitment.

Worse, the United States might well be waging the military struggle alone. The European allies almost certainly would not embroil themselves in a U.S.-China war. The reaction of Australia, South Korea, and Japan is somewhat less certain. PRC coercion against Taiwan would constitute a far more serious disruption of East Asia’s security environment than Beijing’s decision to tighten its grip on Hong Kong. All three countries would face an agonizing dilemma. If they joined a U.S.-led military defense of Taiwan, they would face severe retaliation. However, if they left the United States hanging, U.S. leaders, enraged at such a betrayal, would likely terminate Washington’s security alliances with those countries.

In any case, the United States cannot count on military support from its allies in a showdown with the PRC over Taiwan. It is yet another risk factor that Washington needs to take into account as it does a badly needed, long overdue, risk-benefit calculation regarding America’s commitment to Taiwan’s defense.

*

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.

Ted Galen Carpenter, a senior fellow in security studies at the Cato Institute and a contributing editor at The American Conservative, is the author of 12 books and more than 850 articles on international affairs. 

Featured image is from hyotographics/Shutterstock

The US economic embargo against Syria which doesn’t have the approval of the UN Security Council is a “crime against humanity,” a Canadian political commentator has said. 

***

Mark Taliano added that the United States and its allies are supporting the harsh sanctions against the Arab country which are “cancer to the world.”

The new sanctions came into effect under the so-called Caesar Syria Civilian Protection Act on June 17, targeting almost all Syrian economic and trade activities as well as the country’s government and business officials loyal to Damascus.

The restrictive measures, signed by US President Donald Trump last December, penalized 39 companies and individuals, including Syrian President Bashar al-Assad and his wife Asma — the first time she has been hit by US sanctions.

The US and European Union had already imposed sanctions on Syria, freezing the assets of the state and hundreds of firms and individuals.

But the new measures can freeze the assets of anyone dealing with the Syrian government, regardless of nationality, and target many more sectors.

“I don’t even call them sanctions because they’re entirely criminal. It’s an economic embargo. It doesn’t have the Security Council approval. These are high crimes. It’s collective punishment, crimes against humanity,” Taliano told Press TV in a phone interview on Friday.

“The US and its allies, including Canada, are rogue states. They are collectively punishing countries that insist on the rule of international law and nation-state sovereignty and self-determination. They are cancer to the world,” he added.

“They’re targeting everyday civilians and they are not targeting, in fact, they’re supporting al-Qaeda and ISIS as they have been doing for the last 10 years in Syria. It’s entirely diabolical.”

Taliano went on to say that the US and its allies are “guilty” of international war crimes and that their acts of invasion under the guise of humanitarian purposes enjoy support from the US intelligence agencies.

“What the mainstream doesn’t say is that the West is entirely guilty of supreme international war crimes, daily really. The entire regime-change wars have no basis in international law. They claim that it’s about humanitarianism but of course there’s nothing humanitarian about it,” the Canadian analyst said.

“The West does not now and never did wage wars for humanitarian purposes. The West is criminally occupying, looting petroleum resources… There’s nothing humanitarian about this,” Taliano added.

“The West supports all the terrorists and so I mean those of us who are aware of what’s going on are just totally disgusted at the criminality of our government, and the duplicity of our politicians, who do not represent us, and we denounce the censorship of the truth, and the negation of any and all forms of International Justice,” he underlined.

US Ambassador to the UN Kelly Craft said at a Security Council meeting on Tuesday that the sanctions are aimed to prevent Damascus from achieving victory in the fight against foreign-backed militants.

Syria has been gripped by foreign-backed militancy since March 2011. The Syrian government says the Israeli regime and its Western and regional allies are aiding the Takfiri terrorist groups that are wreaking havoc in the country.

The government forces have already managed to undo militant gains across the country and bring back almost all of Syrian soil under government control.

The government gains in Syria have enraged the US, which has long been collaborating with anti-Damascus militants and stealing Syria’s crude resources.

*

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 video featuring Prof. Michel Chossudovsky was first released on April 20, 2020

Scroll down

***

Millions of people have lost their jobs, and their lifelong savings. In developing countries, poverty and despair prevail. 

While the lockdown is presented to public opinion as  the sole means to resolving a global public health crisis, its devastating economic and social impacts are casually ignored.

What we are experiencing is a process of global impoverishment. The closure of the economy in a large number of countries has led to a dramatic loss of life. 

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

This is the true picture of what is happening. Poverty is Worldwide. 

The crisis has redefined the structure of the World economy.

It  precipitates entire sectors of the global economy including air travel, tourism, retail trade, manufacturing, etc. into bankruptcy.  The lockdown creates famine in developing countries. It has geopolitical implications.

This engineered crisis is unprecedented in world history. It is an act of war.

Curtailing economic activity Worldwide undermines the “reproduction of real life”. 

This not only pertains to the actual production of the “necessities of life” (food, health, education, housing) it also pertains to the “reproduction” of  social relations, political institutions, culture, the arts, sports events, national identity.

At the time of writing (early May 2020): Impossible to estimate or evaluate. Approximately half the global economy has been disrupted or is at a standstill?

The lockdown triggers a process of disengagement of human and material resources from the productive process.

The real economy in many sectors is brought to a standstill.

Billionaires, powerful banking and financial institutions (which are creditors of both governments and corporations) are waging an undeclared war against the real economy. Whereas the Big Money financial and banking establishment are “creditors”, the  corporate entities of the real economy which are being destabilized and driven into bankruptcy are “debtors”.

This diabolical process is not limited to wiping out small and medium sized enterprises. Big Money is also the creditor of  large corporations (including airlines, hotel chains, hi tech labs, retailers, import-export firms, etc.) which are now on the verge of bankruptcy.

In the US, numerous retailers, airlines, restaurant and hotel chains filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy in February. But this is just the beginning. The big gush of bankruptcies will occur in the wake of the lockdown (“The New Normal”). And at the time of writing (May 2020), the financial establishment is relentlessly pressuring (corrupt) national governments to postpone the lifting of the lockdown. And the governments are telling us that this is to “protect people against the virus”.

What these reports fail to mention are the unspoken causes: a fear campaign on behalf of the creditors, instructions by corrupt governments to close down the economy, allegedly to “save lives”, which is a big lie. Lives are not being saved, and they know it.

The coronavirus crisis “has ground U.S. business to a halt”. National economies are destabilized. The objective of Big Money is to weaken their competitors, “pick up the pieces” and eventually buy out or eliminate bankrupt corporations. And there are many to choose from.

Let’s be clear. This is an imperial agenda. What do the global financial elites want?

The tendency is towards the centralization and concentration of economic power.

Heavily indebted national governments are instruments of Big Money. They are proxies. Key political appointments are controlled by lobby groups representing Wall Street, The Military Industrial Complex, Big Pharma, Big Oil, the Corporate Media and the Digital Communications Giants, etc.

Big Money in America and Europe (through Washington Lobby groups) seek to control national governments.

In what direction are we going? What is the future of humanity?

Related articles

In the Wake of the COVID-19 Pandemic: Towards A New World Order? The Global Debt Crisis and the Privatization of the State

By Prof Michel Chossudovsky, June 12, 2020

Global Capitalism, “World Government” and the Corona Crisis

By Prof Michel Chossudovsky, June 18, 2020

The Corona “Global False Alarm”, the Campaign against Racism and Neoliberalism

By Prof Michel Chossudovsky, June 10, 2020

The following is my opinion based on more than a decade and a half of research into ruling elites. Please be aware this sort of commentary is now considered domestic terrorism by the FBI, the national security state, and its propaganda media. 

I have decided to post my thoughts on the destruction of America (and Europe) before the election. If current polling is any indication, Donald Trump will not be re-elected. Joe Biden will be the establishment’s teleprompter reader. The Senate will swing over to Democrat control. Democrats and their “progressive” (corporate-financed) allies will go after anyone to the right or left of the establishment, with the exception of groups like Black Lives Matter, which now receive millions of dollars from the likes of Citibank and the Ford Foundation, the latter long known to be a front operation controlled by the CIA. 

“The Ford Foundation and Borealis Philanthropy recently announced the formation of the Black-Led Movement Fund [BLMF], a six-year pooled donor campaign aimed at raising $100 million for the Movement for Black Lives coalition,” reports The Washington Times. 

The COVID virus is a biological weapon deliberately released in China and from there spread to much of the rest of the world. It did not escape from the Wuhan lab. It was released by the US military while participating in an athletic event in Wuhan. However, it is believed the virus was circulating in November of 2019, possibly earlier. 

In April, a study published in the peer-reviewed journal Antiviral Research (Vol. 16, April 2020) concluded the COVID virus contains features not present in other viruses. Moreover, the paper argued the virus has no known ancestry and contains elements present in MERS, which the authors say “was not observed in the lineage b of betacoronaviruses.” In other words, the virus is an engineered bioweapon and not a freak of nature. 

However, this military-industrial lab-created disease was not designed to kill millions and become the 21st century’s version of the Black Death. It is far more useful as a fear-inducing mechanism. 

Here is the game plan as I see it:   

1) bring down teetering fiat money and toxic asset driven economy and blame it on the virus.

2) destroy Main Street business in competition with corporate behemoths (recall John D. Rockefeller—his operating maxim was that competition is a sin). 

3) create massive and sustained unemployment.

4) normalize the idea of house arrest and the negation of core constitutional rights.

5) enhance already intrusive and unconstitutional surveillance with “contact tracing” via smartphone and Bluetooth technology (check out this article which details how Michigan authorities used contact tracing against anti-lockdown protesters). 

6) foment unrest and exacerbate social ills as a diversion from the planned globalist reformulation of the world economy and society (i.e., “global governance,” aka New World Order). 

7) direct the corporate propaganda media to obsessively dwell on irrational race- and gender-based ideology and conflict, thus widening an engineered political divide, creating social chaos and violence, and thus diverting and reducing the threat posed to the elite and the national security state apparatus. 

8) keep the narrative focused on Donald Trump; downplay the evolving economic depression, distract attention, and debate away from the elite’s endless wars and neoliberal predation (this was accomplished during the Obama regime). 

9) continue to manufacture foreign enemies—Russia, China, North Korea, Venezuela, Syria—and crackdown on “domestic terrorists” and “conspiracy theorists” now conflated with ISIS.

After Democrats take back Congress and the White House, this last point will kick into overdrive. MAGA, already maligned as Nazis and white supremacists, will be investigated and supporters will be prosecuted and imprisoned. Ditto folks on the left, or those not associated and bankrolled by elite foundations and corporations. 

I am convinced the ruling and financial elite consider most of us useless eaters, cattle to be exploited. They have spent the last decade accruing vast wealth at the expense of the so-called 99%. They are responsible for endless wars—now largely irrelevant to the average American—and are responsible for the murder of millions of innocent civilians and igniting social and sectarian violence in the smoldering ruins left in their “creative destruction” wake. 

Finally, I sincerely doubt the American people are capable of confronting the elite and returning the nation to a sanity that has been missing for decades. First and foremost, they are unable to break free of the voodoo spell of relentless narrative propaganda. Millions view the left-right paradigm not as a cynically crafted ploy to divert them from the real problem—the theft of the future and present by psychopathic and misanthropic rulers, condemning billions of misery and privation—but rather as a political reality. 

*

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.

Kurt Nimmo writes on his blog, Another Day in the Empire, where this article was originally published. He is a frequent contributor to Global Research. 

Medium has just introduced Momentum, a Medium blog about the fight against anti-Black racism. Medium’s announcement says,

Momentum is a blog that captures and reflects the moment we find ourselves in, one where rampant anti-Black racism is leading to violence, trauma, protest, reflection, sorrow, and more. This blog is a source for news about policies, activism, and personal perspectives in the fight against systemic racism from across Medium and beyond.

I have no quarrel with the idea of such a blog, and, indeed, applaud it. But, as a Palestinian with a Medium blog of my own called Palestinian and Righteously Angry, where I mostly post about the iniquities of Zionism, I have a question for the editors of Medium:

Do you consider Zionism a form of “racism and racial discrimination”, as adopted by the United Nations General Assembly Resolution 3379 on 10 November 1975?

If so, and given that Palestinians are also in a historic moment currently — what with Israel’s plan of annexing parts of the West Bank — when will the time come for Medium editors to introduce a blog in support of the fight against the systemic apartheid of Zionism?

If not, if you do not consider Zionism a form of racism and racial discrimination, would you kindly explain to me why not?

Is it because the 1975 UNGA resolution in that regard was revoked at the end of 1991 as a result of pressure from the US and its allies, who continue to consider the supremacist Zionist national movement as a noble endeavor?

If so, I beg you to read Ben Norton’s article of 2015 titled “US and Israel rewrite history of UN resolution that declared Zionism is racism.” In it he concludes, “while UN GA Res. 3379 was repealed, the truth cannot be revoked. Zionism was and remains an unequivocally racist movement — just like any other hyper-nationalist and ethnocratic movement.”

Norton goes on:

None other than the founding father of Zionism, Theodor Herzl, recognized this elementary fact. In a 1902 letter to Cecil Rhodes — a diamond magnate and white supremacist British colonialist with oceans of African blood on his hands — Herzl, writing of “the idea of Zionism, which is a colonial idea,” requested help colonizing historic Palestine.

“It doesn’t involve Africa, but a piece of Asia Minor, not Englishmen but Jews… How, then, do I happen to turn to you since this is an out-of-the-way matter for you? How indeed? Because it is something colonial,” Herzl wrote. “I want you to… put the stamp of your authority on the Zionist plan.” [Italics mine]

Two kindred spirits — the white supremacist colonialist and the Jewish supremacist colonialist, the latter already obliterating Palestine and referring to her indiscriminately as “a piece of Asia Minor”.

Cecil Rhodes’ statue at Oxford University will reportedly fall: “We have seen and felt the legacy of Rhodes’s crimes,” said postdoctoral researcher Sizwe Mpofu Walsh, who campaigned to remove the statue.

When will the statue of Theodor Herzl fall — in Israel and at Medium? It is time to amplify Palestinian voices, not censor them as Facebook is doing. It is time to stand against Zionism and help the world to learn how to advance justice in Palestine. Zionism is racism.

*

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

Rima Najjar is a Palestinian whose father’s side of the family comes from the forcibly depopulated village of Lifta on the western outskirts of Jerusalem and whose mother’s side of the family is from Ijzim, south of Haifa. She is an activist, researcher and retired professor of English literature, Al-Quds University, occupied West Bank. She is a frequent contributor to Global Research.

Featured image: Statue of the founder of Zionism Theodor Herzl, unveiled in 2012 at the Mikveh Israel synagogue in Tel Aviv. It is called “Herzl meets Emperor Wilhelm II” (Source: author)

At my Quaker Meeting, occasionally someone will say, “Could we have some silence please?” especially during a business meeting, which we call Meeting for Worship with a Concern for Business. Someone may request silence when the discussion becomes too contentious, and we are not progressing towards resolution.  We wait and listen.

What are we listening for? As corny and old-fashioned as it may sound, we are waiting for guidance from god.  I have been attending the Quaker Meeting for many years now and have felt increasing awe and reverence for this process by which Quakers conduct business. No shouting. No interrupting. Even the most timid, the most outlying or awkward person may be given time to gather her thoughts, to breathe and to speak, perhaps falteringly, even if she has to pause before continuing. People wait. It is quite amazing. I had never seen anything like it.

Quakers do not vote on issues but discuss, sometimes a lot, and tiringly. Members direct comments to the clerk. At its best, there is time for each person who wants to speak to be heard during the meeting. Instead of voting, we try to discern the “sense of the Meeting” before acting. We are trying to discern god’s will. And even one person can change the movement of the group as he or she feels led to speak. One voice can be the one to heed even if the whole group is going another way – because we believe that all have direct access to god’s guidance, no one person more than another. If the group has not gathered a sense of unity, then the meeting may decide to postpone action. We wait and listen more — and try again at another meeting.

As I have sat it these business meetings, I have noted what a miracle they are to have survived in this form for hundreds of years of Quaker history, women as well as men, speaking and following leadings.

In this contentious time of lockdowns, isolations, staggering losses of livelihoods and social supports, then violence, snarling faces, flying opinions and accusations, burning buildings, crashing glass, and dizzying confusion of language and numbers and messages changing every day,  I have longed to hear someone say those words: “Could we have some silence please?” This signals a pause for us to collect our thoughts and feelings.

Apart from monthly business meetings, our meetings for worship are filled with mostly silence while we wait and listen for god. As led, someone may stand to share what we call vocal ministry, which is usually brief.  After the message is shared, the Meeting then settles into silence once again, so the message has time to live in the air among us.  It is also during our Meetings for Worship that we gather strength to act in the world.

At Meeting, all kinds of people gather in silence, old people, couples, single people, families. We haven’t been able to meet in person for months now, and I do not participate in computer meetings because they usually make me queasy.

Flashing Internet images and slogans on social media and other web sites also make me queasy.  Anyone can create in seconds a poster with short texts or an image with a caption, and can immediately broadcast it to thousands, even millions. These patched-together messages blink and flash and multiply. I don’t use Twitter, don’t really understand it, but it sounds to me like something a 13-year old boy made up. Yet, we see public figures use haphazard phrases — tweets (which sounds silly) that instantly become headlines in national newspapers. This cannot be good for our clear thinking or our culture. We can’t even open our email programs without seeing the lowest forms of speech elevated to look like relevant news. We drown in cacophony and mayhem.

Many at protests and riots hold up their devices, filming, and those films and images fill screens and minds. It becomes very hard to think clearly about anything. The Internet has changed our brains, as Nicholas Carr describes in his book, The Shallows. He describes how our attention spans have been shattered by clicking through short texts and flashing images as we are increasingly challenged to sustain even the concentration required to sit and read a whole book, for instance. Carr summarizes the findings of early computer scientist Joseph Weizenbuam, who notes the danger as we become more intimately involved with our computers and “experience more of our lives through the disembodied symbols flickering across our screens  — is that we’ll begin to lose our humanness, to sacrifice the very qualities that separate us from machines” (p. 207). Weizenbaum says that to avoid that fate we must “have the self-awareness and courage to refuse to delegate to computers the most human of our mental activities and intellectual pursuits, particularly ‘tasks that demand wisdom’” (p. 208).

Images, language, repetitions flash too quickly for adequate processing and wise decisions. They repeat across TV stations that call themselves news but work more like advertising.  For instance, inanimate objects like face masks, become imbued with values and feelings like care, protection, altruism, even membership in a community, regardless of conflicting information on their effectiveness to prevent the spread of a virus.Similarly, Coke can come to represent fun and belonging through repetition, language, and images; a cigarette brand can endow someone masculine strength; Campbell’s soup can represent nurturing. Advertising is also used to pressure us into conformity, for instance, wear this brand of athletic shoes, and you will exude status and success. Now, advertising strategies become mixed with daily bombarding messages, and it becomes very hard to think independently. Once advertising works, it does not matter what the facts may be.

Could we have some silence please?

Lately, I find myself longing for a Ticonderoga number two pencil, soft lead, rustling steadily over nubby white paper. I am reminded of one of my poetry teachers describing how long it can take to craft a good poem or to compose a whole poetry manuscript. “You know what it’s like,” he said. “It’s like carving a chair.” I remember how long it takes to learn to play the violin, to learn to draw.  These slower, more methodical activities strengthen our brains for concentration; they build pathways for creativity, for problem-solving, ultimately for more careful thinking, for judgement and wisdom, which we seem to be increasingly lacking now.

Shouts and crashes, burning and shooting reverberate through Chicago, Illinois where there were 18 murders in 24 hours this past weekend, according to The Chicago Sun Times. “The most violent weekend in the city’s modern history,” the paper reported. Eighty-five people were shot and 24 killed in just one weekend.  “And no police were anywhere,” the story stated. On May 31, there were 65 thousand 911 calls, which was 50 thousand more than a usual day, the paper reported, while just a couple of weeks ago, the mayor of that city, as well as other governors and mayors around the county, threatened to jail or fine people who were out anywhere, even small groups.

Young people have been out in massive gatherings now all over the country with small and large businesses looted and destroyed, fires raging in buildings and churches, car windshields smashed and car bodies burned, belying mainstream media reports that the protests were mostly “peaceful.” We can’t lockdown whole societies for months, rip down whole social fabrics without dire consequences. Young people had no school, no graduations to attend, no sports activities or clubs; they lost part-time jobs pieced together at restaurants or coffee shops; they have had no grandmothers making them go to church youth group or funerals or family picnics because there have been none of these.  Just weeks and weeks inside with video games and cell phones and what else? There is a deep breakdown of trust in our institutions and the means by which we get information. Forty million people are unemployed, a quarter of the U.S. population. A black man is killed by a policeman, almost three months into lockdown. What tinderbox is inside – the killer, the victim, and everyone else?

Can we have some silence please?

We hear cries to defund the police, but I remember that an average police officer makes about as much as a public-school teacher. The African American police chief in Seattle may disagree with this proposal to defund the police as her entire department has been disbanded with the building taken over by protesters and rioters. Instead of defunding local police departments, we may consider starting by defunding a fighter jet or two. One of them costs about 89.2 million dollars, according to Lockheed Martin’s web site. Or, perhaps cutting a nuclear submarine or two. Twelve of them will cost 128 billion dollars, according to an April 8, 2019 Time magazine story. How many literacy programs for children, teens, and young adults in Chicago would some of that money fund? How many small business loans for black business owners would it provide?

A kid may call the police when his father is beating up his mother. He would want the police to be there. Police get called when someone is suicidal, wielding a knife, maybe high on meth or Fentanyl. Police have to deal with assaultive mentally ill people shouting in their face; they have to deal with protestors with clubs – and try to contain violence, protect themselves and others, and not get anyone hurt or killed. It is a very hard job, my cop friends have described to me. One of my friends teased me, saying that maybe I should join him on the right-wing side of politics. I reminded him that I am not on anyone’s wing. In fact, I believe the wings, right and left, have outlived their meanings and their usefulness and think they should lift on the wind and fly off, making room for more independent thinking and more options.

“It’s the responsibility of the alternative media to hit the pause button, to take a breath and not be swept away along with the emotional current,” writes an editor of Off-Guardian magazine, a site developed by writers and thinkers who had been banned from making comments on the Open Comments section of the mainstream U.K paper, The Guardian. We are in treacherous times when independent thinkers and writers, who question dominant narratives, may be banned from speaking or writing – or worse, lose friends or family members or jobs. This development is deeply sad and worrisome.

Could we have some silence please?

Seeing computer images of riots, massive looting, a black woman crying over her destroyed business, a black man, D.C. city employee, in required mask and gloves, outside in the heat, cleaning graffiti from the Lincoln Memorial, I long for one of our elder members, Tim Hall, to stand up and say what I imagine he might after we have sat in a long silence. He may share a message about god’s surrounding love for all of us, no matter who we are. He might remind us, in his corny, old-fashioned way that I have often found comforting, that in spite of its challenges, this is a mostly good world that god has given us to care for.

*

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.

Christine E. Black‘s work has been published in The American Journal of Poetry, New Millennium Writings, Nimrod International, The Virginia Journal of Education, Friends Journal, Sojourners Magazine, English Journal, Amethyst Review, and other publications. Her poetry has been nominated for a Pushcart Prize and the Pablo Neruda Prize.

Featured image: Copyright Historic England Archive, James O. Davies

Mexico’s oligarchs and establishment political parties have united in a secret alliance to try to remove left-wing President López Obrador from power, with help from the media, Washington, and Wall Street. Leaked documents lay out their devious strategy.

***

Some of the most powerful forces in Mexico are uniting in a campaign to try to topple the country’s first left-wing president in decades, Andrés Manuel López Obrador. And they apparently have support in Washington and on Wall Street.

Known popularly as AMLO, the Mexican leader is a progressive nationalist who campaigned on the promise to “end the dark night of neoliberalism.” He has since implemented a revolutionary vision he calls the “Fourth Transformation,” vowing to fight poverty, corruption, and drug violence — and has increasingly butted heads with his nation’s wealthy elites.

López Obrador has also posed a challenge to the US foreign-policy consensus. His government provided refuge to Bolivia’s elected socialist President Evo Morales and to members of Evo’s political party who were exiled after a Trump administration-backed military coup.

AMLO also held a historic meeting with Cuba’s President Miguel Díaz-Canel, and even stated Mexico would be willing to break the unilateral US blockade of Venezuela and sell the besieged Chavista government gasoline.

These policies have earned AMLO the wrath of oligarchs both inside and outside of his country. On June 18, the US government ratcheted up its pressure on Mexico, targeting companies and individuals with sanctions for allegedly providing water to Venezuela, as part of an oil-for-food humanitarian agreement.

The value of the Mexican peso immediately dropped by 2 percent following the Trump administration’s imposition of sanctions.

These opening salvos of Washington’s economic war on its southern neighbor came just days after López Obrador delivered a bombshell press conference, in which he revealed that the political parties that had dominated Mexican politics for the decades before him have secretly unified in a plot to try to oust the president, years before his democratic mandate ends in 2024.

The forces trying to remove AMLO from power include major media networks, massive corporations, sitting governors and mayors, former presidents, and influential business leaders. According to a leaked document, they call themselves the Broad Opposition Block (Bloque Opositor Amplio, or BOA).

And they say they have lobbyists in Washington, financial investors on Wall Street, and major news publications and journalists from both domestic and foreign media outlets on their team.

El pdte. @lopezobrador_ difundió un documento llegado a Palacio (cuyo origen y autenticidad desconocemos) que propone la conformación de un bloque opositor para arrebatar la presidencia en el 2021, en el que participan partidos, empresarios, medios, intelectuales, periodistas. pic.twitter.com/zfXSlGdUYP

— Jesús Ramírez Cuevas (@JesusRCuevas) June 9, 2020

‘Broad Opposition Block’ BOA plot to demonize AMLO with media propaganda

In a press conference on June 9, the Mexican government published a leaked strategy document purportedly drafted by the Broad Opposition Block, titled “Let’s Rescue Mexico” (Rescatemos a México). The AMLO administration said it did not know the origin of the leak.

These pages consist of an executive summary of “Project BOA,” outlining what it calls a “plan of action” – a blueprint of concrete steps the opposition alliance will take to unseat AMLO.

One of the key points in the plan is the following: “Lobbying by the BOA in Washington (White House and Capital Hill) to stress the damage that the government of the [Fourth Transformation] is doing to North American investors.”

The lobbying strategy depends heavily on turning the US against AMLO: “More than comparing it with Venezuela,” the document reads, “BOA should highlight the very high mass migration of Mexicans toward the United States if the crisis of unemployment and insecurity gets worse.”

Then the BOA adds: “Repeat this narrative in the US and European media.”

The section of the BOA plan on lobbying in Washington and using the media to push anti-AMLO messaging

The leaked pages say that BOA has the “international press (USA and Europe)” on its side, along with “foreign correspondents in Mexico.”

The document even names specific media outlets, along with individual journalists and social media influencers, who could help spread their anti-AMLO propaganda. On the list are some of the top news publications in Mexico: Nexos, Proceso, Reforma, El Universal, Milenio, El Financiero, and El Economista.

The list of sympathetic anti-AMLO media outlets and journalists in the BOA document

The “plan of action” makes it clear that this powerful opposition alliance seeks to use its extensive control over the media to obsessively blame AMLO for “unemployment, poverty, insecurity, and corruption” in Mexico.

BOA even states unambiguously in its plan that it will use “groups of social media networks, influencers, and analysts to insist on the destruction of the economy, of the democratic institutions, and the political authoritarianism of the government of the 4T” (using an acronym for the Fourth Transformation process).

This makes it especially ironic that the BOA document reluctantly acknowledges that the López Obrador “government has managed to mitigate the economic impact of the health crisis of coronavirus by giving large amounts of public money to the affected, through social programs.”

The leaked pages likewise admit that AMLO has an approval rating of more than 50 percent — lower than his peak at 86 percent support in the beginning of 2019 or his 72 percent at the end of the year, but still impressive for a region where US-backed leaders like Chile’s Sebastián Piñera or Colombia’s Iván Duque have routinely enjoyed approval ratings of 6 percent and 24 percent, respectively.

#ConferenciaPresidente. Presentan un documento confidencial de un presunto Bloque Opositor Amplio (BOA) para desplazar a Morena y al gobierno actual en las elecciones del 2021. pic.twitter.com/ffoGXoWuVH

— Jenaro Villamil (@jenarovillamil) June 9, 2020

Mexico’s establishment political parties and former presidents unite to oust AMLO

With backing from the US government and utter dominance of media narratives, the Broad Opposition Block plan is to unite all of Mexico’s establishment political parties.

Together, these parties could potentially run candidates under the BOA umbrella, according to the document. Their goal would be, in the 2021 legislative elections, to end the majority that AMLO’s left-wing party Morena won in Mexico’s Chamber of Deputies.

After that, BOA states clearly that it plans to block reforms in the Mexican legislature, and ultimately impeach President López Obrador by 2022 — at least two years before his term ends.

Quite revealing is that the “Let’s Rescue Mexico” document does not mention anything about average working-class Mexicans and their participation in the political process. Nor does it acknowledge the existence of labor unions or grassroots activist organizations, which make up the base of AMLO’s movement and his Morena party.

This is not surprising, considering the BOA alliance lists some of the most powerful figures in the Mexican ruling class.

All the major political parties are included: the right-wing National Action Party (Partido Acción Nacional, or PAN), the center-right Institutional Revolutionary Party (Partido Revolucionario Institucional, or PRI), the centrist Citizens’ Movement (Movimiento Ciudadano, or MC), and even AMLO’s former Party of the Democratic Revolution (Partido de la Revolución Democrática, or PRD).

The list of political parties included in the BOA document

BOA also includes the new political party México Libre, a vehicle for former right-wing President Felipe Calderón, a major ally of George W. Bush who declared a catastrophic “war on drugs” in Mexico, leading to tens of thousands of deaths.

Along with Calderón, BOA lists former President Vicente Fox, another right-wing US ally, as a coalition ally. Fox worked closely with the Bush administration during his term as president to isolate the leftist governments in Latin America, and even tried to undemocratically remove AMLO as mayor of Mexico City and ban him from running for president.

BOA also says it has support from the governors of 14 states in Mexico, along with opposition lawmakers in both the Senate and Chamber of Deputies, judges from the Electoral Tribunal of the Federal Judiciary (TEPJF), and officials from the National Electoral Institute (INE).

Wall Street investors and Mexican oligarchs back anti-AMLO alliance

Joining the entire Mexican political establishment in the Broad Opposition Block is a powerful financial oligarchy, both domestic and foreign.

Along with its “anti-4T lobbyists in Washington,” the leaked document says BOA has “Wall Street investment funds” behind it.

BOA adds that it is supported by “corporations linked to T-MEC,” using the Spanish acronym for the new “United States–Mexico–Canada Agreement” free-trade deal, known popularly as NAFTA 2.0.

The powerful business groups and corporations listed in the BOA document

Some of the richest capitalists in Mexico are associated with BOA. Named in the leaked document is the Mexican corporate behemoth FEMSA and oligarchs from its associated Monterrey Group, which the New York Times once described as a “a tightly knit family of wealthy and conservative businessmen.”

The BOA pages also point to Mexico’s powerful Business Coordinating Council (Consejo Coordinador Empresarial) and Employers Confederation of the Mexican Republic (Coparmex) as allies.

Opposition denies involvement in BOA, while turning up heat on AMLO

In the days after López Obrador’s press conference exposing the Broad Opposition Block, some of the prominent figures implicated in the alliance, such Felipe Calderón, denied involvement.

Some of these political and economic elites even claimed BOA doesn’t exist, seeking to cast doubt on the president’s scandalous revelation and accusing him of fabricating the scandal.

But their efforts are clearly part of a larger campaign by Mexican opposition groups to remove President Andrés Manuel López Obrador from power. As AMLO’s Fourth Transformation moves forward, their destabilization tactics have grown increasingly extreme.

López Obrador himself has warned of the radicalization of the right-wing opposition. As The Grayzone previously reported, the president made an ominous reference to the threat of a potential coup in November 2019.

Referencing Mexico’s former President Francisco Madero, a leader of the Mexican Revolution and fellow left-winger who was assassinated in 1913, AMLO tweeted, “How wrong the conservatives and their hawks are… Now is different… Another coup d’état won’t be allowed.”

Ahora es distinto. Aunque son otras realidades y no debe caerse en la simplicidad de las comparaciones, la transformación que encabezo cuenta con el respaldo de una mayoría libre y consciente, justa y amante de la legalidad y de la paz, que no permitiría otro golpe de Estado.

— Andrés Manuel (@lopezobrador_) November 2, 2019

The next part in this investigative series by The Grayzone will show how far-right forces in Mexico are pushing for a coup against AMLO.

*

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

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

At least 6 soldiers were killed and 9 others were injured in an ISIS attack on a Syrian Army checkpoint near the town of Ithriyah, located on the Hama-Aleppo road. According to pro-government sources, at least 5 ISIS members were killed in the clashes.

Regular ISIS attacks in desert areas in central Syria are a serious problem for Syrian government forces. During the past few weeks, the army and its allies completed a series of combing operations against ISIS cells in eastern Homs, southern Raqqa and western Deir Ezzor. It seems that these efforts forced the terrorist group to shift its focus towards eastern Hama.

Nonetheless, there is little doubt that as soon as the Syrian military sends units hunting down ISIS cells along the Palmyra-Deir Ezzor road to the Itriyah area, ISIS attacks in the Deir Ezzor countryside will resume once again.

The Damascus government will likely continue lacking resources to clear the entire desert of ISIS cells as long as it needs to keep large forces on the contact line with the Turkish Army and its proxies in Greater Idlib, near the region of Afrin and in northeastern Syria.

Idlib militant groups are not only waging a never-ending propaganda war against the Damascus government, but also find time for regular infighting.

On June 17, Hayat Tahrir al-Sham arrested Abu Salah al-Uzbeki, the founder and former leader of the Katibat al Tawhid wal Jihad terrorist group, which consists mostly of ethnic Uzbeks. Al-Uzbeki and two of his bodyguards were captured by Hayat Tahrir al-Sham forces near the city of Idlib on June 17. The reason for tensions is that Katibat al Tawhid wal Jihad recently distanced itself from Hayat Tahrir al-Sham and signed a pact with Ansar al-Din, another al-Qaeda-linked group. Earlier this month, Ansar al-Din and several other medium and small groups created a new coalition – Fa Ithbatu. Hayat Tahrir al-Sham may have considered this move as an attempt to challenge its dominant position among the so-called moderate opposition.

Usbat al-Tha’ireen, an Iraqi pro-Iranian group formed earlier in 2020, released a new video claiming responsibility for a series of attacks on US forces and facilities across Iraq.

In the video entitled “Victory Comes With Patience” it claimed that:

• On June 8, it shelled Camp Taji damaging a C-130 military transport aircraft of the US Air Force;
• On June 11, it launched rockets at the US embassy in Baghdad’s Green Zone;
• On June 16, it launched rockets at the US-operated military section of Baghdad International Airport.

Usbat al-Tha’ireen is the group that killed 3 US-led coalition personnel with a rocket strike on Camp Taji on March 11. Nonetheless, its claims about the damaging of the C-130 aircraft belonging to US military can hardly been verified.

*

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 South Front in its endeavors. If you’re able, and if you like our content and approach, please support the project. Our work wouldn’t be possible without your help: PayPal: [email protected] or via: http://southfront.org/donate/ or via: https://www.patreon.com/southfront

From inception, “America the beautiful” was and remains pure fantasy.

Throughout US history, its “lamp beside the golden door (alone welcomed) huddled masses yearning to breathe free” of the “right” race, ethnicity, and religion.

The welcome mat for people of color, the “wrong” nationality, and “wrong” religion was never out — other than for indentured servitude to corporate America and its privileged class.

That said, Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) immigration policy (2012) lets undocumented immigrants entering America as minors receive renewable deferred action from deportation, along with work permit eligibility.

So-called “Dreamers” were earlier estimated to number around 1.7 million, undocumented immigrants entering America before age-16 prior to June 2007.

Today the number is around 700,000.

Eligibility to stay in the US requires they be in school, have graduated from high school, or received an honorable discharge from the military.

Anyone convicted of a felony or serious misdemeanor is ineligible. So are individuals considered a threat to national security.

DACA excludes a path to citizenship and eligibility for federal welfare or student aid.

In September 2017, Trump rescinded DACA immigration policy.

Federal District Court Judge William Alsup ruled against his move.

Lawyers for DACA’s continuation argued that ending the program would cause “serious, irreparable harm” to affected individuals, adding:

“DACA covers a class of immigrants whose presence, seemingly all agree, pose the least, if any, threat and allows them to sign up for honest labor on the condition of continued good behavior.”

“This has become an important program for DACA recipients and their families, for the employers who hire them, for our tax treasuries, and for our economy.”

Throughout his tenure, Trump’s immigration policy has been and remains all about keeping individuals from the “wrong” countries out of the US.

He wants Dreamers and their family members deported, tougher asylum and refugee status standards, expedited deportations, sanctuary cities made ineligible for federal funds, visa overstays ended, limiting green cards for spouses and minor children of legal immigrants, and other policies that close the “golden door” to unwanted immigrants.

In October 2017, the ACLU sued “to hold the (Trump regime accountable to earlier) promises it made and ensure that DACA provides protection from deportation for however long the program exists, adding:

No one should “be stripped of a benefit as important as DACA without basic due process protections.”

“The Trump (regime’s) arbitrary decision to end the program makes it clear that we cannot leave these young people’s fate to whoever happens to be sitting in the White House.”

On Thursday, the US Supreme Court ruled by a 5 – 4 majority against Trump’s intention to end DACA.

Writing for the majority, Chief Justice John Roberts said the Trump regime’s policy to end the program violated the federal Administrative Procedure Act (APA, 1946).

It’s “(a)n Act to improve the administration of justice by prescribing fair administrative procedure(s)” — granting federal courts oversight over government agency actions.

Majority justices also included  Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer, Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan.

Dissenting justices included Neil Gorsuch, Samuel Alito, Brett Kavanaugh, and Clarence Thomas.

Writing for the dissenters, Thomas called the ruling political, not legal.

Trump lashed out at the ruling in typical Trumpian fashion, tweeting:

“These horrible & politically charged decisions coming out of the Supreme Court are shotgun blasts into the face of people that are proud to call themselves Republicans or Conservatives (sic).”

“We need more Justices or we will lose our 2nd. Amendment & everything else.”

“Do you get the impression that the Supreme Court doesn’t like me?”

“(W)e need NEW JUSTICES of the Supreme Court.”

Specifically, Roberts said the following in ruling against Trump on DACA:

The Trump regime “failed to consider the conspicuous issues of whether to retain forbearance and what if anything to do about the hardship to DACA recipients,” adding:

“That…failure raises doubts about whether (it) appreciated the scope of its discretion or exercised that discretion in a reasonable manner.”

“We (Court justices) do not decide whether DACA or its rescission are sound policies.”

“The wisdom of those decisions is none of our concern.”

“Here we address only whether the (Trump regime) complied with (APA) procedural requirements that insist on ‘a reasoned explanation for its action.’ ”

Sweepingly declaring “Dreamers” illegal constitutes “an open-ended circumvention of immigration laws…an unconstitutional exercise of authority by the executive branch.”

The decision to end DACA was “arbitrary and capricious.”

At the same time, all nine justices agreed that the executive branch has authority to rescind DACA on its own — as long as no federal law is breached.

Thursday’s Supreme Court ruling by no means resolves this issue.

DACA remains potentially jeopardized by revised White House policy that complies with APA.

It’s unlikely in an election year at a time of Trump’s declining popularity, economic collapse, increasing COVID-19 outbreaks in many states, and unprecedented unemployment.

From now to November, he’ll no doubt focus mainly on improving his reelection chances.

According to immigration law expert/Law Professor Stephen Yale-Loehr, “(i)t’s not remotely possible (for Trump to challenge Thursday’s Supreme Court ruling) before the election.”

“But if (he’s) reelected, he almost certainly will try again” to abolish DACA.

Ahead of Thursday’s ruling, around 200 major US corporations filed amicus briefs in support of DACA — with no altruistic motives in mind, concerned only about the availability of cheap labor sources to exploit.

A Final Comment

In response to Thursday’s ruling, California Attorney General Xavier Becerra said the following:

“Ending DACA would have been cruel to the hundreds of thousands of Dreamers who call America home, and it would have been bad for our nation’s health.”

“The highest court in our land saw through the Trump (regime’s) illegal, baseless excuses.”

Separately, an amicus brief by attorneys in support of Dreamers explained that 27,000 of their numbers are vitally needed healthcare workers.

Another 200 are practicing physicians, medical residents and students.

Terminating DACA would be “catastrophic” to efforts involved in containing and treating outbreaks, they argued.

*

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.

The Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO), founded in 2001 by the Shanghai Five (China, Russia, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan) and to which Uzbekistan, India and Pakistan were later added would be the ALBA and Iran countries hard core of resistance to world hegemony of the United States and Great Britain. Consequently, the avowed objective of the United States would be to dynamite this organization, having Balochistan, Kashmir and Xinjiang as scenarios for its destabilizing operations.

China and the diversification of its energy sources

Russia and China sealed a stratospheric oil contract that becomes one of the largest in the history of the energy industry for which the Russian company Rosneft, (the country’s largest oil company), will supply oil to the Asian giant for 25 years worth of 270,000 million dollars (about 205,000 million euros). This, coupled with the gas mega-contract signed by the Russian Gazprom and the Chinese CNPC, through which Russia will supply the Asian country with 38,000 million cubic meters of natural gas for an approximate amount of $ 400,000 million and with a validity of 30 years through The Sila Sibiri pipeline (The Force of Siberia), would lay the economic foundations of the Euro-Asian Union that began its journey on January 1, 2015 as an economic and military alternative to the US project to create a Trans-Pacific Association (TPP for short) English).

However, in an attempt to avoid Russian energy dependence, China would have taken on the challenge of building a new canal in Nicaragua (Grand Interoceanic Canal) similar to the Kra Isthmus canal that it has projected between Thailand and Burma to bypass the Malacca Strait, converted “de facto” into a saturated seaway affected by pirate attacks and inaugurated in 2010 the gas pipeline that connects China with Turkmenistan and that surrounds Russia to avoid its total Russian energy dependence while diversifying its purchases.

In addition, China would be building an extensive port network, which would include ports, bases and observation stations in Sri Lanka, Bangladesh and Burma and of which the strategic port in Pakistan, Gwadar, (the “gorge” of the Persian Gulf), would be a paradigm, to 72 kilometers from the border with Iran and about 400 kilometers from the most important oil transportation corridor and very close to the strategic Strait of Hormuz. The port was built and financed by China and is operated by the state-owned China Overseas Port Holding Company (COPHC), as the region around the port of Gwadar contains two thirds of the world’s oil reserves and 30 percent passes through it of the world’s oil and 80 percent of that received by China and is on the shortest route to Asia (Silk Road).

Pakistan and India: Two irreconcilable neighbors

Pakistan’s dangerous rapprochement with China would have accelerated the Pentagon’s doctrine of achieving the balkanization of Pakistan and its weakening as a state with Baluchistan as the insurgency’s field of operations. Thus, the US announced the suppression of military aid to Pakistan in the amount of $ 300 million while promoting the independence movement in the province of Balochistan where the strategic port of Gwadar is located with the avowed objective of making the star project unfeasible. of China, the “Initiative of the Belt and the Silk Road” and later the CIA will resort to the endemic contentious Kashmir that will be a new local episode between a Pakistan allied with China and an India supported by Russia, with the aggravating circumstance of having both nuclear ballistic missile countries.

Russia would be a strategic ally of India as it is the largest arms supplier to an India that has maintained an arms race for years with its rival and neighboring Pakistan with the unequivocal objective of preparing for a new armed confrontation. India would have the latest generation Agni V nuclear missile that can carry a nuclear warhead over a distance of 5,000 kilometers, while Pakistan would have the Hatf IV ballistic missile, developed with the help of China and capable of carrying a nuclear warhead and reaching 900 kilometers. . Thus, in the event of a new Indo-Pakistani armed confrontation, we would attend the first Russia-China military pulse in the form of a nuclear collision restricted to the Indian-Pakistani geographical area, the subsequent extension of “constructive chaos” to Chinese territory not being ruled out.

The explosive cocktail of Kashmir

Kashmir would be the perfect paradigm for the implementation of Brzezinski’s theory of “constructive chaos” in the region, a concept that would be based on the maxim attributed to the Roman emperor Julius Caesar “divide et impera”, to achieve the establishment of a field of instability and violence (balkanization) and create chaos that would spread from Lebanon, Palestine and Syria to Iraq and from Iran and Afghanistan to Pakistan, Kashmir and Anatolia (Asia Minor).

Kashmir would have become an explosive cocktail by combining ingredients as unstable as the Hindu-Muslim religious dispute, the territorial dispute and the icing on the cake of Kashmiri independence fighters supported by ex-jihadist fighters from Sudan, Pakistan and Afghanistan, traditionally oppressed by an Indian Army that it would have about 500,000 soldiers deployed in Kashmir (1 soldier for every 9 inhabitants) and the nationalist government of Modi would have revoked the special status of Kashmir, which in practice results in the sine die detention of local politicians in Kashmir and the strict control of Internet service.

On the other hand, in 1962 a confrontation broke out between India and China over the Chinese disagreement with the border line established in 1914 (McMahon Line), after which China gained control of the Aksai Chin plateau in addition to the Siachen Glacier, (territories which India continues to claim as its own.) China it aspires to store the water from the sources of rivers such as the Brahmaputra to supply Chinese cities in the east of the country, which would have set off alarms in the Modi government, which fears a notable reduction in the flow of available drinking water, so they do not rule out bombard Chinese hydraulic facilities. The recent armed incident in which several Indian soldiers were killed would have increased tension between the two countries, a circumstance that will be used by the United States to destabilize the border shared by both countries known as the Current Control Line (LAC).

Towards the destabilization of Xinjiang

Regarding eastern Turkestan or Xinjiang (“New Frontier”), it was incorporated into the Chinese empire in the 18th century and represents 17% of the country’s land area and 2% of its population) and the Xinjiang Uighur ethnic group (of origin Turkish-Mongolian and with a total of 8.5 million inhabitants), it preserves ethnic and Islamic characteristics that would place them very close to their relatives in Central Asia and Turkey, making it the ideal breeding ground to implement the Brzezinski style strategy of the “shock of civilizations ”.

*

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.

With the Netanyahu regime of Israel on the cusp of violating international law once again, this time by annexing large parts of Palestine, the United States is not only not opposing, but actually encouraging this crime. Of course, the U.S. is no fan of international law, as demonstrated in just the last few years by its withdrawal from the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA); sanctions against Iran and Venezuela; financing of anti-government terrorists in Syria; supporting Saudi Arabia’s genocidal war against Yemen, and moving the U.S. embassy to Israel from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem, to name just a few.. And it isn’t just international law that the government disdains: U.S. law decrees that, for a nation to receive aid from the U.S., it must adhere to basic human-rights requirements. Israel doesn’t even come close, but gets $4 billion from the U.S. annually.

Pundits advise us that Trump’s chances of reelection shrink by the day. After all, he mishandled the coronavirus pandemic which has now killed over 115,000 U.S. citizens, and he watched the economy crash due to the pandemic. His early, rosy proclamations about how he was not worried about it, that it would ‘miraculously’ go away in the spring, etc., have all proven to be false.

Additionally, with civil unrest in the U.S. reaching levels not seen in decades, the result of deeply embedded racism within the police departments across the nation and in what passes for the U.S. justice system, he has only made things worse.

From quoting racists from the era of the 1960s (“when the looting starts, the shooting starts”), calling demonstrators “thugs” and saying local police should “dominate” them, to using tear gas to disperse peaceful demonstrators in front of the historic St. John’s Episcopal Church, so he could stand in front of it and wave a bible aloft, he has done nothing to address the anger and pain that people are experiencing all over the country.

So with the bumbling Trump so much out of step with much of the country, enter Joe Biden. It remains a mystery to this writer how he won the nomination over Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders, but he has now earned enough votes to ensure that he will be the nominee. And what would a Biden presidency mean for Palestine?

Nothing positive, unfortunately. Biden has stated that, while he disagrees with the move of the embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem, he would not change it. And although he says he opposes the annexation of the West Bank, he would not, as president,  withhold financial aid to Israel as leverage to bring that country into compliance with international law. This is not without precedent.

In 1988, then Secretary of State George Schultz proposed a plan to help solve the Palestine-Israel issues. It included an international conference, a six-month period to bring about Palestinian self-determination, and scheduling talks at the end of that year to finally resolve the entire conflict. This proposal was immediately and entirely rejected by then Prime Minister Yizhak Shamir.

The U.S., in response, issued a new memorandum, emphasizing economic and security agreements with Israel, and accelerating the delivery of seventy-five F-16 fighter jets. It was hoped, apparently, that this would induce Israel to accept Schultz’s plan. If that was the hope, it failed completely.  “Instead, as an Israeli journalist commented, the message received was: ‘One may say no to America and still get a bonus.’”

So violation of international law in the context of Palestine will be as meaningless to a President Biden as it has been to President Trump and was to Presidents Obama, Bush, Clinton, etc. This may seem puzzling, considering that U.S. government spokespeople are forever proclaiming the U.S. to be a model of freedom and democracy, one that supports the human-rights struggles and self-determination of peoples around the world. One wonders if that fairy tale is believed even by those who mouth it, considering all the evidence that belies it.

We will look at just a few of those facts; time and space prevent a more in-depth study:

• Ottoman Empire: In 1918, President Woodrow Wilson said this: “The Turkish portion of the present Ottoman Empire should be assured a secure sovereignty, but the other nationalities which are now under Turkish rule should be assured an undoubted security of life and an absolutely unmolested opportunity of autonomous development….”  Very pretty words, indeed, but without any substance. They troubled his Secretary of State, Robert Lansing. In his private notes, Lansing wrote the following: “Will not the Mohammedans of Syria and Palestine and possibly of Morocco and Tripoli rely on it? How can it be harmonized with Zionism, to which the President is practically committed?”
• Chile: In 1970, Salvador Allende was elected president of Chile in elections that international observers agreed were fair and democratic. But Allende was a socialist, so the U.S. fomented unrest, and after three years, Allende was overthrown, replaced by the brutal dictator, General Augusto Pinochet. His reign of terror lasted sixteen years, during which thousands of Chileans disappeared or were tortured, and all political parties were banned.
• Libya: in 2011, Italian journalist Yvonne Devito said this about Libya, prior to the U.S. invasion: “Libya is considered to be the Switzerland of the African continent and is very rich, and schools are free for the people. Hospitals are free for the people. And the conditions for women are much better than in other Arab countries.” Yet the U.S. decided to invade, at least partly because of Muammar Qaddafi’s uncompromising support for Palestine. Today, thanks to U.S. intervention, Libya is a failed state, its people living in fear and poverty.

It must be remembered that Biden has been in office every year since 1969, with the exception of the last four. So he has been a part of every U.S. international debacle in forty-seven of the last fifty-one years. This includes his support of the invasion of Iraq to rid that nation of weapons it didn’t have.

Biden’s apparent prejudice against the Palestinians is in keeping with his general racism. He strongly opposed desegregation in the early part of his career, and he co-wrote the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994. This bill increased the number of police officers and prisons, brought longer prison sentences and, perhaps worst of all, introduced financial incentives to lengthen those sentences.

And now he has proclaimed that a Biden presidency will mean business-as-usual for the U.S. in its relations with Israel (giving it everything it wants), and Palestine (continuing to finance and foster its brutal oppression). One must wonder if the $785,732.00 that he has received from pro-Israeli lobbies for his presidential run has influenced him in any way.

This is the United States of America: not the ‘land of the free and the home of the brave’, but the land of racism, oppression, police brutality and brutality abroad. It is a government that runs amok on the world stage; it is estimated to have killed at least 20,000,000 people just since the end of World War II. And the killing continues to this day.

The 2020 election, regardless of who wins the presidency, will not change this ugly and bloody record of domestic and international violence. Suffering around the world, and certainly in Palestine, will only increase.

*

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 Peacedata.

The US ruling class bears full responsibility for the economy’s unprecedented dysfunctional state. What was unimaginable long ago is reality today, redefining what house of cards economic conditions are all about.

It’s an unsustainable situation certain to implode ahead with longterm devastating consequences for ordinary Americans — paying the price so privileged ones can benefit.

Since March, unprecedented numbers of US workers applied for unemployment benefits, around 46 million so far, according to Labor Department data.

It’s an undercount as applications of many filers haven’t been processed, more coming as layoff announcements continue.

According to Bloomberg News, about one-third of Americans who applied for unemployment benefits received nothing so far.

A Bloomberg analysis showed that unemployed US workers should have received $214 billion in benefits through May.

As of early June, they’ve only gotten $146 billion — benefits for recipients to expire at end of July if not renewed, what’s likely because of GOP leadership opposition to continue them.

An earlier McKinsey research analysis said up to one-third of US workers could be unemployed by 2030 because robots are replacing humans, adding:

Around “60 percent of occupations have at least 30 percent of constituent work activities that could be automated.”

Who’ll buy what industry produces if mass unemployment as the new normal greatly reduces personal income overall?

The extraordinary disconnect between equity prices and economic reality in the US is unprecedented.

According to economist David Rosenberg, “(w)hat we have now is nothing short of market manipulation.”

“Reducing the cost of overnight funds is one thing.”

“Extending the intervention to Treasuries or high-quality securities is something we became accustomed to in the aftermath of the last Great Recession.”

“That’s when the (Wall Street owned) Fed became a duration bond manager.”

“But the central bank is now becoming a hedge fund.”

“Adding low-quality corporate credits to its balance sheet is a whole different game.”

Fed market manipulation is “keeping zombie companies alive, rendering fundamental analysis and price discovery obsolete, and leading to a complete misallocation of resources.”

“Capitalism has taken a semi-permanent vacation. AWOL.”

“And what it means for the future of society, to be running such reckless and feckless fiscal and monetary policies, is troublesome to say the least.”

“There is zero chance this ends well…The market is rigged pure and simple.”

“(R)emember that (earlier) bubble(s) came crashing down, and there was nothing the Fed could do about it.”

“Societies that run their policies on such guilt truly are doomed, and that is what historians will be writing about in the future.”

By going all out to benefit corporate favorites and investors through unprecedented and reckless casino capitalism, US policymakers and the Fed sacrificed the economy and ordinary Americans.

A Thursday Wall Street Journal article reflected a key aspect of the US economy’s dismal state, saying:

“Americans have skipped payments on more than 100 million student loans, auto loans and other forms of debt since the coronavirus hit the US, the latest sign of the toll the pandemic is taking on people’s finances,” adding:

“The surge in missed payments suggests that the flood of layoffs related to the coronavirus has left many Americans without the means to keep up with their debts.”

“Many people have used up their stimulus checks, and unemployment benefits in high-cost areas aren’t enough to replace paychecks or to help debt-laden borrowers pay down their bills.”

An unfolding situation in Kentucky is happening elsewhere nationwide.

Numbers filing for unemployment benefits are so large and backed up that state police said individuals at the end of a Frankfort queue will wait up to eight hours to speak to a representative to get their claim processed.

A queue at the Kentucky Career Center had people waiting 10 hours for unemployment claim help.

All of the above is on top of growing US food insecurity, hunger, and homelessness in the world’s richest nation.

Its ruling class under both right wings of the one-party state proved it’s dismissive of public health and welfare even during unprecedented hard times, likely to be protracted.

There’s no economic recovery in prospect, only the illusion of improvement at a time of unprecedented widespread deprivation and continuing layoffs.

Increasing numbers of COVID-19 outbreaks in many US states are part of the first wave.

A second, potentially much larger, one may come this fall and winter, making economic collapse worse if happens.

It’s why self-protection caution is essential to maintain, what’s likely to be the case for some time.

Economic collapse caused far greater harm to millions of Americans than coronavirus outbreaks.

Manufactured main street Depression begun in 2008 was deepened this year by its ruling class.

It’s all about the greatest ever wealth transfer from ordinary people to privileged US interests, along with enabling corporate favorites to reduce competition.

Ordinary Americans are paying the price, exploited so privileged ones can benefit.

That’s the disturbing reality of today’s new normal.

Manufactured current conditions made the US more unsafe and unfit to live in than at any previous time in modern memory — with no end of harder than ever hard times for ordinary Americans in prospect.

*

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

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

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

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

Visit his blog site at sjlendman.blogspot.com.

Tensions in the skies. RT presented a news story of the United States intercepting a fleet of Russian bombers off the Alaskan coast. Four Russian Tu-95 bombers, accompanied by Su-35 and MiG-31 fighters jets, flew from Siberia toward Alaska where they were shadowed by US F-22 fighters.

The US and NORAD admitted that the Russian planes stayed in international airspace and did not enter American sovereign airspace.

Siberia and Alaska are close. At its narrowest point the Bering Strait separates Russia and the US by only 88.5 km (55 mi), so it wouldn’t take long upon leaving one coastline to approach the other country’s coastline.

As for the tensions, they were attributed to the Russian bombers and fighter jets being “too close for comfort.”

Siberia and Alaska are very close, but the South China Sea is quite distant from the continental US and US Pacific territories. Nonetheless, the US sends its warships into the South China Sea — this to the consternation of China.

If China were to send its warships through the Straits of Florida would the US reaction be muted?

The provocations have their impetus in former president Barack Obama’s Pivot to Asia, which has been an abysmal failure, as it has failed to prevent the rise of China.

Another failed US foreign policy objective was to prevent the Democratic Republic of Korea from becoming a nuclear state. US belligerence toward the government in the north of the Korean peninsula has not been effective in causing the North Koreans to cower. While US president Donald Trump has taken steps to engage North Korea, it has been mixed with hyperbolic threats and bombast.

The US, with South Korea, practices decapitation exercises targeting the leadership of the nearby DPRK — a country that is also distant from the continental US.

The examples of the US being too close for the comfort of other nations are myriad.

Russia is one country indignant at America provocations near its borders. Back during the Ronald Reagan administration, Soviet president Mikhail Gorbachev received a promise that NATO would not advance “one inch to the East.” The US reneged on its promise and has expanded ever closer to Russia, placing missiles and basing soldiers nearby.

Presently, in Syria the US is not just nearby; it is physically ensconced on the sovereign territory of Syria. There the uninvited and unwelcome US troops are helping to plunder Syrian oil.

US troops are also unwelcome in Iraq, which told the US troops to leave the country. Trump responded by threatening to impose sanctions against Iraq. However, the COVID-19 pandemic and resistance to the US troop presence has caused the evacuation of some US bases in Iraq.

Following 9-11, the US invaded Afghanistan when it failed to turn over the accused mastermind Osama bin Laden. The Taliban said they would consider surrendering bin Laden to the US if the US provided evidence of bin Laden’s guilt. However, the US refused to provide evidence, and subsequently the US finds itself militarily mired in Afghanistan approaching 20 years onward, and at a cost approaching $1 trillion dollars.

From Asia to Africa. The US meddling in the backyards of other countries is spread far and wide. No matter that Africa is another continent across the Atlantic from the US. US forces are involved in the fighting in Somalia, Kenya, Niger, and other African countries.

From Africa to South America. Trump has deployed US warships to the waters near Venezuela. Then, in early May of this year, there was a bizarre attempt to overthrow the elected government in Venezuela and capture president Nicolás Maduro. The coup attempt ended in utter ignominy for the would-be coupists, which included two former US special forces soldiers. US secretary of state Mike Pompeo, a self-confessed and proud liar, stated, “There was no US government direct involvement in this operation.” [italics added] Makes one wonder exactly what the indirect US government involvement was.

Later in May, Trump warned Iran and Venezuela to not engage in trade with each other. Nonetheless, both countries, already under US sanctions, ignored the threats and Iran dispatched five tankers loaded with gasoline to help Venezuela. Despite the thousands of kilometers that Iran is from the US, it still has to contend with the presence of US warships in the Persian Gulf.

In Closing

Hypocrisy is defined as “the practice of claiming to have moral standards or beliefs to which one’s own behavior does not conform.”

Given the fact that the US reacts aggressively to the presence of foreign militaries that it considers too close for comfort, how ought one view the juxtaposition of the US military to countries that do not appreciate the presence of the US military?

*

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

Kim Petersen is a former co-editor of the Dissident Voice newsletter. He can be reached at: [email protected]. Twitter: @kimpetersen.

This video featuring Prof. Michel Chossudovsky is part of a Global Research series on the corona virus crisis. First released on April 10, 2020

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. 

This is the true picture of what is happening.

“Planet Lockdown” is an encroachment on civil liberties and the “Right to Life”.

Entire national economies are in jeopardy. In some countries martial law has been declared.

Small and medium sized capital are slated to be eliminated. Big capital prevails.

A massive concentration of corporate wealth is ongoing. 

Its a diabolical “New World Order” in the making. The most serious global crisis in modern history.

More details in:

Towards A New World Order? The Global Debt Crisis and the Privatization of the State

By Prof Michel Chossudovsky, April 17, 2020

***

Video: The Complexities of COVID-19

Registered nurse, Erin Olszewski, spent a month at the epicenter of the epicenter, Elmhurst Hospital in NY.

After witnessing the same malpractice matching testimonies of other outspoken nurses in the U.S., she decided to wear a hidden camera to prove to the world there is a bigger threat than Coronavirus taking place in this hospital.

Del sat down with Erin for an emotional interview on The HighWire.

(To watch the entire exposé from Journeyman Pictures, click here https://bit.ly/37lZtAS ).

“These people are not dying from Covid”

.

Video

Apart from the deaths, there are the wounded, who very often find themselves crippled for life – some experts calculate that for every person killed in war, ten others are wounded. This means that the number of people wounded by US wars should be counted in the hundreds of millions.

To this estimation in the study we must add a non-quantified number of dead, probably hundreds of millions, which have been caused, from 1945 until today, by the indirect effects of  wars – famine, epidemics, forced migrations, slavery and exploitation, environmental damage, subtraction of resources from vital needs in order to cover military expenditure.

The study documents the wars and coups d’État executed by the United States in 30 Asian, African, European and Latin-American countries. It reveals that US military forces are directly responsible for between 10 and 15 million deaths, caused by the major wars – those against Korea and Vietnam and the two wars against Iraq. Between 10 and 14 million other deaths have been caused by the proxy wars waged by the allied armed forces trained and commanded by the USA in Afghanistan, Angola, Congo, Sudan, Guatemala and other countries.

The Vietnam War, which spread to Cambodia and Laos, caused a number of deaths estimated at 7.8 million (plus a huge number of wounded, and genetic damage affecting generations due to the dioxin sprayed by US aircraft).

The proxy war of the 1980’s in Afghanistan was organised by the CIA, which trained and armed – with the collaboration of Osama bin Laden and Pakistan – more than 100,000 mujahideen to fight the Soviet troops who had fallen into the “Afghan trap” (as it was later described by Zbigniew Brzezinski, specifying that the training of the mujahideen had begun in July 1979, five months before the Soviet intervention in Afghanistan).

The bloodiest coup d’État was organised in 1965 in Indonesia by the CIA – it handed over the list of the first 5,000 Communists and others marked for death to the Indonesian murder squads. The number of people assassinated is estimated at between 500,000 and 3 million.

That is the “free and open international order” that the United States, independently of the White House, persist in pursuing in order to “safeguard the people from aggression and coercion”.

*

Note to readers: please click the share buttons above. 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.

Translated by Pete Kimberley

Manlio Dinucci is a Research Associate of the Centre for Research on Globalization.

Featured image is from NEO

First published June 3, 2020

Governments have used psychological warfare throughout history to manipulate public opinion, gain political advantage, and generate profits. Western governments have engaged in such tactics in the war on terrorism as well as in its predecessor, the war on communism. In both cases, state-sponsored terrorism and propaganda were used to distort the public’s perception of the threats, leading to increased governmental control of society and huge financial benefits for corporations. It appears that the same kinds of effects are being seen as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic.

Many of the features and outcomes seen in the war on terrorism and the war on communism are evident in this new “war on death.” Therefore, it’s reasonable to wonder if the extreme response to COVID-19, and its associated virus SARS-COV-2, could be another psychological operation against the public. Considering facts about the disease and the disproportionate response emphasizes the possibility.

If COVID-19 has been co-opted for manipulation of the public, through hyping the threat and pushing exploitive solutions, who is behind it and who benefits?

Let’s first review what features and outcomes the “coronavirus scare’ shares in common with the “red scare” that drove the perceived threat of communism and the “Muslim scare” behind the perceived threat of terrorism. Here are a dozen characteristics that these perceived threats share.

1. Fear-based and globally directed
2. Media saturation with bias toward fear
3. Data manipulation and propaganda
4. Censorship of opposing views
5. Intelligence agency control of information
6. Preceded by exercises mimicking the threat
7. Series of claims made that are later proven false
8. Response threatens democracy
9. Large increase in wealth and power for a few; increase in social inequality
10. Increased government control of the public and reduced individual freedoms
11. Response kills far more than the original threat
12. Evidence for manufactured events (see below)

There are also differences between the COVID-19 pandemic response and the “wars” on communism and terrorism. One difference is that, for the virus, agencies dedicated to public health have taken the lead. Although the central characters that hyped the communism threat and the terrorism threat were sometimes the same people, they tended to represent military, diplomatic, or intelligence agencies.

The primary actors driving the coronavirus lockdowns and associated control mechanisms are political leaders. However, the directives being acted upon come from the World Health Organization (WHO), an agency of the United Nations ostensibly responsible for international public health. Others controlling the coronavirus scare are national health agencies, most notably the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and the United Kingdom’s National Health Service (NHS).

Are these agencies acting solely in the interest of public health?

The WHO

The common impression is that the entire matter began in reaction to events in China but even that is not clear. For example, the virus is said to have originated in the city of Wuhan and the first, limited, lockdown occurred in that area from January to March. China has since said that it warned the WHO about the virus during the first week of January. However, it is known that U.S. intelligence agencies were aware of the potential outbreak even before that, in November 2019. A Chinese spokesman later suggested that the U.S. military might have brought the virus to Wuhan during the military games held there in October.

The first instance of an entire country being locked down for the coronavirus was in Italy. This occurred on March 9^th based on advice from the Italian government’s coronavirus adviser Walter Ricciardi, who said,

“The situation risks going out of control and these measures are necessary to keep the spread at bay.”

Ricciardi, a WHO committee member, later admitted that Italy had inflated the death counts from the virus, stating,

“The way in which we code deaths in our country is very generous in the sense that all the people who die in hospitals with the coronavirus are deemed to be dying of the coronavirus.”

Many have noted the inordinate influence of billionaire Bill Gates on the activities and direction of the WHO. As of 2017, this influence was seen as troubling, with health advocates fearing that, “because the Gates Foundation’s money comes from investments in big business, it could serve as a Trojan horse for corporate interests to undermine WHO’s role in setting standards and shaping health policies.”

Gates has been called a ruthless schemer by his Microsoft co-founder Paul Allen and Allen is not alone in that assessment.

Despite engaging in a costly “public charm offensive,” Gates is seen by many as a predatory and monopolistic opportunist hiding behind a false front of philanthropy. With regard to the coronavirus scare and Gates’ stated goal of vaccinating the entire world population, however, people should be most concerned that he has worked diligently on mechanisms of population control.

Of course, no one person controls the world yet so who is supposed to be running WHO, apart from Bill Gates? The face of the WHO is Dr. Tedros Adhanom, the director-general of the organization. Tedros has a poor history of ethics in leadership, with many accusations having been made against him including that he covered-up epidemics in the past.

Alarms about Tedros began to go off immediately after his appointment in 2017, when he named Robert Mugabe, the former dictator of Zimbabwe, as a goodwill ambassador to the WHO. Mugabe’s rule over Zimbabwe was dominated by “murder, bloodshed, torture, persecution of political opponents, intimidation and vote-rigging on a grand scale.” This appointment indicated that Tedros’ judgment of goodwill was dubious at best.

A letter from a group of American doctors that same year described why Tedros has become known as “Dr. Cover Up.” They wrote,

“Your silence about what is clearly a massive cholera epidemic in Sudan daily becomes more reprehensible. The inevitable history that will be written of this cholera epidemic will surely cast you in an unforgiving light.” They added that Tedros was “fully complicit in the terrible suffering and dying that continues to spread in East Africa.”

Problems at WHO didn’t start with Tedros, however. After the H1N1 pandemic of 2009, evidence came to light that the WHO had exaggerated the danger and had spread fear and confusion rather than helpful information. It was later learned that “Italy, Germany, France and the U.K. made secret agreements with pharmaceutical companies” that “obliged the countries to buy vaccinations only if the WHO raised the pandemic to a level 6.” The WHO then proceeded to change its guidelines for defining a pandemic in order to accommodate those contracts, thereby increasing the public’s fear despite the fact that the pandemic never became a serious threat.

Although WHO has been praised for its work to reduce some illnesses like polio, it has also been found that drugs and vaccines recommended by WHO have been “found to be harmful and without significant clinical effect.”

A comprehensive view suggests that the WHO is more of a corporate interest agency than an organization committed to preserving public health. That’s not surprising due to the fact that 80% of WHO’s funding comes from “voluntary contributions” provided by private donors including pharmaceutical companies and industry groups like Bill Gates’ Global Alliance for Vaccines and Immunization (GAVI). And since the worldwide response to COVID-19 has been directed and coordinated by an organization that works on behalf of multi-national corporations that stand to benefit, the idea that the coronavirus scare could be a psychological operation seems plausible.

The CDC

In the U.S, the CDC is also heavily influenced by corporate and political interests. This became clear when, in 2016, a group of senior scientists within the CDC filed an ethics complaint against the agency making that exact claim. They wrote, “It appears that our mission is being influenced and shaped by outside parties and rogue interests.” The scientists noted that, in order to pursue political objectives, “definitions were changed and data cooked” at CDC, even to the point of misrepresenting data to Congress.

Like the WHO, the CDC has a history of pushing harmful vaccines. An example was covered in a 60 Minutes episode exposing the harm done by the Swine Flu vaccine in 1976 and CDC’s urging that all Americans be injected with that harmful vaccine. The report revealed that the illness was hyped based on very questionable data and the vaccine caused neurological damage.

The current Director of CDC is retired U.S. Army doctor Robert Redfield, who is known for having led the Pentagon’s disastrous response to HIV-AIDS in the 1980s. “A devout catholic, Redfield saw AIDS as the product of an immoral society. For many years, he championed a much-hyped remedy that was discredited in tests. That debacle led to his removal from the job in 1994.” Public health reporter Laurie Garrett remarked, “Redfield is about the worst person you could think of to be heading the CDC at this time. He lets his prejudices interfere with the science, which you cannot afford during a pandemic.”

The CDC is an agency within the department of Health and Human Services (HHS). Alex Azar, a lawyer and former pharmaceutical company executive, was appointed as Secretary of HHS in 2017. Azar has deep connections to the pharmaceutical industry and is known for having engaged in price gouging with his former employer.

Azar is also known for leading the HHS response to the anthrax scare of 2001, the first known bioterrorism attack on the United States. The anthrax attacks were targeted against members of Congress and the media that were dissenting voices in the national discussion about the Patriot Act, the oppressive legislation introduced immediately after the 9/11 attacks. Although Muslims were first blamed through highly questionable evidence, it was ultimately found that the weaponized anthrax came from U.S. military laboratories.

Azar was instrumental in defining the National Biodefense Strategy in 2018, working closely with John Bolton, Trump’s National Security Advisor. Bolton, a neocon and member of the Project for a New American Century (PNAC), has a long history of pushing authoritarian policies and war.

In the U.S. the person most visibly in charge of the COVID-19 response is Anthony Fauci, who is the long-time director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID). Like Redfield, Dr. Fauci is a Catholic and has said that values he learned in his Jesuit education continue to guide him.

After weeks of Fauci having led the coronavirus response in the U.S., it was learned that his NIAID had funded “gain of function” research at the Wuhan laboratory where the SARS-COV-2 virus is suspected of having originated. Fauci’s response to questions about that inexplicable coincidence was simply to denounce “conspiracy theories” rather than addressing the questions directly, much as others did when questioned about 9/11 foreknowledge.

Whether SARS-COV-2 was genetically engineered in a laboratory, like the NIAID-funded Wuhan lab, is a subject that has become of interest to many scientists. The Wuhan laboratory is not the only place the U.S. supports work like this, however, as the Pentagon funds such labs in 25 countries across the world. Located in places such as Eastern Europe, the Middle East, South East Asia, and Africa, these labs isolate and manipulate viruses like the bat coronaviruses from which SARS-COV-2 originated. This bat-research program is further coordinated by a group called EcoHealth Alliance.

The manipulation of viruses for gain of function at U.S. funded labs is, like the origin of the weaponized anthrax at U.S. labs, evidence that bioterrorism and pandemics can be manufactured events. This is another way in which the coronavirus scare could reflect the war on terrorism and war on communism, both of which were driven by manufactured terrorist events.

It is remarkable that Fauci funded work to manipulate coronaviruses then became the voice of the coronavirus pandemic response while also working closely with Bill Gates’ GAVI initiative. Fauci has boasted that NIAID and GAVI work together to push vaccines with “outright collaboration between us in setting the standard of what is needed.” This makes it easier to see that a new pattern of hyped pandemics resulting in increased population control and global vaccinations is not only possible but would be a very lucrative business model.

The NHS and Corporate Nations

By now it’s well known that the initial projections for deaths due to COVID-19 were massively overestimated and one academic paper was responsible for the panic. The lead author of that paper, Neil Ferguson of Imperial College, has since resigned in disgrace from his government advisory position. Much like the U.S. government’s explanation for destruction of the World Trade Center buildings, his estimates were based on computer models that cannot be shared with the public.

As in the U.S., U.K. intelligence agencies have taken a leading role in managing the coronavirus scare. The terrorism expert who is expected to be the next chief of MI6 was selected to lead a new “biosecurity centre” to evaluate the coronavirus threat and “enable rapid intervention.” Additionally, the U.K. intelligence agency known as Government Communication Headquarters (GCHQ) was granted powers over the NHS’s computer systems. GCHQ is known for engaging in illegal activities related to population control mechanisms such as mass surveillance.

Totalitarian outcomes are further enabled with billionaire Peter Thiel’s CIA-initiated company Palantir managing the databases used by both the CDC and UK’s NHS that drive COVID-19 decision making. For perspective, in 2009, Thiel said, “I no longer believe that freedom and democracy are compatible,” providing another clue that public health and awareness are not the main priorities behind the coronavirus scare.

The data behind the COVID-19 pandemic was never reliable, with test kits being inaccurate, government policies inflating the death counts, and the media focusing solely on fear-based predictions that are repeatedly proven false. Recently, scientists and government leaders from other countries, including Russia, Germany and Denmark, have begun speaking out about how the coronavirus threat has been exaggerated.

The outcomes of the coronavirus scare have included huge windfalls for billionaires, financial institutions, and corporations. Legislation being passed in response to COVID-19 is largely beneficial to corporate interests. The outcomes for everyone else have been fear, unemployment, poverty, loss of freedoms, grave risks to democracy, and death.

How this is possible is related to the fact that governments, and the nations they represent, are no longer what they were. In many ways, corporations have replaced governments as the drivers of public policy and, as with Peter Thiel’s Palantir, the public’s interest is not their concern. Meanwhile, over two dozen companies have become larger and more powerful than many national governments. As a result, governments are now false fronts for corporations and the decisions they make, for example to lockdown citizens and remake their economies, are driven by profit-based strategies indifferent to public interests.

In summary, the features and outcomes of the coronavirus scare reflect those of previous psychological operations including the war on terrorism and its predecessor, the war on communism. The people and agencies driving the coronavirus scare have a history of unethical behaviors, including hyping pandemics to push vaccines, and appear to seek long-term profits through implementation of a highly controlled society. Therefore, the response to COVID-19, if not the virus itself, can be seen as a psychological operation used to drive those outcomes.

*

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.

Kevin Ryan writes on Dig Within where this article was originally published.

Featured image is from The Unz Review

First published by GR on April 9, 2020

What will be next? Is a question on many people’s minds. Very likely the world will never be the same again. That might be good, or not so good, depending on how we look at this disastrous, “pandemic” which by all serious accounts does not deserve the term “pandemic”, that was unwittingly attributed to the SARS-2-CoV, or 2019-nCoV, renamed by WHO as COVID-19.

On March 11, Dr. Tedros, WHO’s Director General called it a pandemic. This decision was already taken by the WEF (World Economic Forum) in Davos, from 20 -24 January 2020, when the total COVID19 cases outside of China were recorded by WHO as 150. On  January  30, the WHO Director General determines that the outbreak outside of Mainland China constituted a Public Health Emergency of International Concern (PHEIC). This was a first indication that there was something not quite right, that there is another agenda behind the “outbreak” of the COVID-19 disease.

On March 26, in a peer-reviewed article in the highly reputed New England Journal of Medicine (NEJM), Dr. Anthony Fauci, Director of NIAID (National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, one of the 27 institutes and centers that make up the US National Institutes of Health – NIH), likened COVID19 to a stronger than usual common flu:

If one assumes that the number of asymptomatic or minimally symptomatic cases is several times as high as the number of reported cases, the case fatality rate may be considerably less than 1%. This suggests that the overall clinical consequences of Covid-19 may ultimately be more akin to those of a severe seasonal influenza (which has a case fatality rate of approximately 0.1%) or a pandemic influenza (similar to those in 1957 and 1968) rather than a disease similar to SARS or MERS, which have had case fatality rates of 9 to 10% and 36%, respectively.  nejm.org

This scientific assessment in the New England Journal of Medicine has not prevented Dr. Fauci from saying exactly the opposite, when interviewed by the mainstream media: see below.

In the meantime, other high-ranking scientists, microbiologists and medical doctors from all over the world, are questioning the draconian worldwide shutdown because of the corona virus. They all say, these draconian measures are not necessary to contain a pandemic with a relatively low fatality rate.

Even in Italy, if the counting and accounting was done more carefully, more according to true statistical norms, the fatality rate would be perhaps 1%, or less. On March 23, Italy’s civil protection chief Angelo Borrelli, told La Repubblica newspaper, it was credible that for every officially reported case, there may be at least 10 infected cases not reported, asymptomatic cases, not requiring a doctor’s visit. If this were true, the actual mortality rate would in a stroke become one percent instead of ten percent.

What the world is experiencing, resembles a well-planned worldwide declaration and implementation of Martial Law with socio-economically disastrous consequences, far worse than the disease itself. Nobody moves. The economy comes to an almost standstill.

This begs the question, what is behind it, and what comes next?

Let’s first look at a not-so-good scenario.

Al-Jazeera reports on 2 April that Global Coronavirus cases top 1 million with 50,000 deaths. Politico said on April 2 that only two weeks into the corona lockdown almost 10 million workers in the US are without a job.

“The total job losses in just two weeks — almost 10 million Americans — amounts to a staggering, sudden blow to American workers never seen before in the U.S. economy. The labor market in the coming weeks could blow past the 15 million jobs lost at the peak of the 18-month Great Recession from 2007 to 2009.”

Goldman Sachs – GS (on 20 March 2020)

“sees unprecedented stop in economic activity, with 2nd quarter GDP contracting 24% Goldman Sachs economists forecast a historically sharp and swift recession, with second-quarter GDP sinking a stunning 24% after a 6% decline in the first quarter.” GS economist predict a further GDP decline of 5% in the second quarter 

“Home lenders brace for up to 15 million US mortgage defaults.” So, says Bloomberg (April 2), adding that “Mortgage Defaults Could Pile Up at Pace That Dwarfs 2008”. Mortgage lenders are preparing for the biggest wave of delinquency in history

All of this is already happening. These figures cover only the United States, and do not yet account for Europe and the rest of the world. Such figures for Europe are not yet available, but predictions are that they may be similarly grim.

Looking at Asia, except for China, Africa and Latin America, they have a large informal sector which is difficult to control, but which most certainly is slipping through any flimsy social safety net countries may have.

Reliable statistics are not available. But “guestimates” have it, for example in Peru, that in good times, the informal sector may amount to as much as one third of the economy. In hard times, like now, possibly up to 50%, or even higher.

The picture of a coming mega-depression, that never existed in recent history, may continue as many of the bankrupt small and medium size enterprises – including airlines, tourist industries – et al, will be bought up by huge monopolies, that already exist, (e.g.Google, Amazon, AliBaba and more). Mergers of gigantic proportions may take place. It may be the last shift of capital from the bottom to the top in our era of civilization as we know it.

5G and Artificial Intelligence

In the meantime, G5 and soon to come, 6G will be rolled out to drive Artificial Intelligent (AI) which may push ahead the development of these colossal corporations, their production, distribution and ultimately the peoples’ consumption around the world.

Telecom companies are already flooding the world with electromagnetic fields (EMF), so poisonous that many people will be affected. The plan is to increase its intensity by tens of thousands of satellites to cover by 2030 every centimeter of the planet. But get this, none of the health impacts of 5G have been officially studied. Not in the US, not in Europe and not in China. The impact may be disastrous on human life, and on life on Mother Earth in general.

Numerous scientists have written about it, warned governments of the potentially disastrous effects on life – and have launched petitions to stop the launch of 5G, or to put a moratorium on 5G until serious studies have been carried out. See EU 5G Appeal – Scientists warn of potential serious health effects of 5G . The organization in charge of health and of prevention of health damage, is the UN-agency, World Health Organization (WHO). Yes, the same that has declared COVID-19 a global health emergency, in early February 2020, when there were less than 200 official “confirmed cases” worldwide, outside of China.

As of this day, WHO has strangely kept silence on the issues related to 5G. Why? – There are unproven suspicions voiced, including from some renown scientists that the severity of COVID-19 may, at least in some cases, have to do with 5G.

5G has already been rolled out in Northern Italy, Rome and Napoli – and in New York City

A Parenthesis. Contradictory Report

According to the WHO, COV-19 is akin to influenza.

In this regard, New York Dr. Cameron Kyle-Sidell, suggests that his assessments do not correspond to the normal pattern of COV-19 as defined by the WHO.

Dr. Kyle Sidell is an emergency medicine physician based in Brooklyn,  New York, affiliated with the Maimonides Medical Center. According to Dr. Kyle Sidell, COVID-19  is an “Oxygen Deprivation Disease” dissimilar from Pneumonia. All locations report severe cases of respiratory blockages that cannot be resolved with the common respirators. In fact, they are made worse by respirators. – What are the underlying causes.

(https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jjKLVH3z82o&feature=youtu.be&app=desktop).

Back to the economic calamity that is already upon the world’s population.

It is even worse for the people of the informal sector. They have no firm employment, they depend on day-to-day labor, or even hourly work. They live from one day to the next, they have no savings. Their sheer survival depends on these sporadic jobs and meek incomes – incomes way below the minimum wage that allow them barely to survive- and often not.

They suffer famine, disease – as they have no fixed homes, no money to pay rent – they may die of famine or sheer despair.

Delinquency and crime may also increase exponentially. Hungry people have nothing to lose. They may raid supermarkets and drug stores. It has also been reported that bodies were found in the streets of large cities in Latin America.

They could have died from all sorts of reasons related to the economic shut-down: hunger, diseases, desolation, suicide. Is their infection (or death) ascribed to COVID-19?  What this would result in is a process of inflation of  the estimates pertaining to those people who have allegedly died from the virus, thereby contributing to more fear and more panic.

Is that the goal? Make everybody afraid. People in fear and panic can easily be manipulated.

People will ask for police protection from an invisible enemy. The size of the COVID-19 virus is 70 to 90 billionth of a meter, or nano meter- nm (one nm = 0.000000001 m). Scary. You don’t see it, but people could transmit it – invisibly too. They could be deadly – in the case of COVID-19, their lethality is relatively low. Depending on how you measure the infection and death rate (see paras. 2 and 3, above). But the fear factor may be more important than the virus itself.

This doomsday scenario is not a fiction, its real. Its already happening now.

And what we see, might be just a tiny tip of the iceberg.

We may be looking at a complete collapse of our western economy, and growing misery- for the masses. –

What will happen to these people, without jobs, without incomes, many of them may also lose their homes, as they will not be able to pay their mortgages or rents?

Reduction of Population 

In 1974, under the Nixon administration, Secretary of State Henry Kissinger was entrusted –under the auspices of the National Security Council– to outline the contours of a “depopulation program” largely targeting  Third World countries. A Document entitled NSC Study Memorandum 200 was drafted.

The Depopulation Agenda has remained an integral part of US foreign policy. It was also endorsed by several corporate charities and foundations.  In this regard, the Bill and Melinda Gates and the Rockefeller foundations  have addressed the relationship between extreme poverty and depopulation.

Is population reduction part of this ongoing pandemic exercise which may be followed by a compulsory vaccination program?

Bill Gates in a 2010 TED show talked about a 10% to 15% population reduction (circa 1 billion people) through global vaccination, health care, etc.

According to William Engdahl:

“Gates made his remarks to the invitation-only Long Beach, California TED2010 Conference, in a speech titled, “Innovating to Zero!.” Along with the scientifically absurd proposition of reducing manmade CO2 emissions worldwide to zero by 2050, approximately four and a half minutes into the talk, Gates declares, “First we got population. The world today has 6.8 billion people. That’s headed up to about 9 billion. Now if we do a really great job on new vaccines, health care, reproductive health services, we lower that by perhaps 10 or 15 percent.” (Ref. Bill Gates, “Innovating to Zero!, speech to the TED2010 annual conference, Long Beach, California, February 18, 2010).

Click link to view the Bill Gates Video (3′.55″ – 4’30”)

Vaccination

The Gates Foundation has for the last 20 years carried out intensive children vaccination programs in Africa.

In 2014 and 2015 Kenya carried out a massive tetanus vaccination program, sponsored by WHO and UNICEF. The Government administered a vaccine of tetanus toxoid impregnated with beta human chorionic gonadotropin (BhCG) that causes permanent infertility among girls and women, to about 500,000 girls and women between the ages 14 and 49.

An organization called GAVI (Global Alliance for Vaccines and Immunization) is a public-private partnership; the public part being WHO and UNICEF; the private partners are a series of pharma-giants. GAVI is handing out free vaccines to poor countries, like Kenya.

If a vaccine can be implanted with a sterilization agent, any other health or DNA affecting molecule or protein can be put into a vaccination cocktail. (See these references Kenya: Thousands infertile after govt-sponsored vaccination and “Mass Sterilization”: Kenyan Doctors Find Anti-fertility Agent in UN Tetanus Vaccine?

Event 201. The Pandemic Simulation Exercise

There is another important factor which may all be linked the COVID-19 outbreak, curiously right at the beginning of the decade 2020, and only a few weeks after Event 201 on October 18, in NYC, sponsored by – you guessed it, Bill Gates, The Johns Hopkins University Health Institute (founded by the Rockefeller Foundation), and  the WEF (World Economic Forum), that meets every year in January in Davos Switzerland).

One of the agenda items of Event 201, was a simulation of a pandemic – curiously called 2019-nCoV – the current corona virus pandemic. The simulation results were after 18 months 65 million deaths, a stock market crash of at least 30%, massive bankruptcies and massive unemployment – in short, an economic collapse which the world has never experienced in recent history. That was the simulation. – Is this the direction we are headed for now?

Agenda ID2020

Strangely in order to carry out and monitor these various components of a larger game plan or picture, there is this little-heared-of Agenda ID2020 – also a creation of the Gates Foundation. One of the Cabal’s ideas is to have every citizen of the world equipped with an electronic identity, so he can be followed and his words and actions monitored everywhere. This is one of the Agenda ID2020 tasks, to be first tested – currently ongoing – in Bangladesh.

The idea is, in due time (whenever the program is ready) – to use the vaccination program, possibly forced, to inject along with the vaccine also a nano-chip, that can be injected along with the vaccination program. It could be done without the person’s knowledge and later remotely uploaded with personal data, from health records, to criminal records, to bank accounts. In fact, the Gates Foundation, together with GAVI has already developed a tattoo-like chip which would be used for both, vaccination and electronic ID.

See the following references:

Coronavirus – No Vaccine Is Needed to Cure It

Coronavirus Is More Than a Health Disaster – It’s a Human Calamity

To implement, monitor and control these multiple-purpose programs strong electromagnetic waves are needed.

That’s why 5G – totally unstudied, untested – in uncharted waters is necessary. No time to be lost in testing. Because the target for this program to be completed is 2030, the same as the target for the UN-declared Sustainable Development Goals. (SDG)

In fact. Agenda 2020 is intimately linked to the SDG’s, specifically to SDG 16 which is basically promoting the rule of law.

During a special Summit in May 2016 in New York, inspired by the Gates Foundation, the United Nations Office for Partnership (UNOFP), the SDG 16.9 was created, fitting the purpose of Agenda ID2020:

“Provide legal identity to all, including birth registration, by 2030 …. harnessing Digital Identity for the Global Community…. Around one-fifth of the world’s population (1.8 billion people) is without legal identity, which deprives them of access to healthcare, schools, shelter.”

See also Coronavirus – No Vaccine Is Needed to Cure It  

This is  a scenario on  which we must reflect.

Now let’s look at a good scenario, one that we the people have the power to make good.

First, no complex projection of the type described before can ever be modeled and implemented over time, because dynamics take over. The world is alive. Anything that is alive cannot be directed by linearism (modelling is linear), but is subject to the laws of dynamics.

Second, we have the power to reverse this nefarious game plan which threaten Humanity and Mother Earth. It’s a question of waking up. And many people start seeing the light -perhaps in part because of this absurdity, this worldwide lockdown, this insanity of an endless thirst and greed for power and money by a few. Mother Earth is sick and tired of this abuse of the upper crust of society. She is stronger than the 0.01%. We, the people, can join Mother Earth, be on her side, and be safe.

People start seeing the thought of utter destruction behind this fake epidemic, or according to WHO’s highly questionable leadership, a pandemic – a fear-mongering pandemic. We might as well call the corona virus, Virus “F” – for Fear. And yes, people can die of fear. WHO is dancing to the tune of the powerful, of Bill Gates, the Rockefellers, the pharma giants – and the behind-the-door (invisible) WEF-politicians and bankers. All this, under the pretext of saving the world from the invisible corona virus, from a pandemic that isn’t.

As this neoliberal corrupt system comes crashing down, there will be many victims, sadly, many may not survive – a lot of misery, desolation and suffering. We, as a society should act in solidarity and do whatever we can to help the victims, to reduce the damage, to the extend our hands, arms and souls with all our positive spirits and actions. And the will-power of solidarity is enormous, almost endless.

The World Bank and the IMF have already offered help with large low-cost loans and even some grants for the poorest of the poor countries. Initial figures of the WB were US$ 12 billion and by the IMF US$ 50 billion for corona damage-alleviating lines of credits. In the meantime, both have upped the ante. In the case of the IMF, they are talking of up to a trillion dollars. Some IMF Board members have called for a Special SDR (Special Drawing Rights) Fund of up to 4 trillion SDRs. This shows how much the ruling elite doesn’t want to lose their handle on globalization. More than 60 countries have apparently already applied for “help” (sic) from the IMF.

These governments are committing their countries’ and their peoples’ soul to enslavement, to the ever-bolder elite economic and monetary tyranny. These loans are conditional, similar to what was earlier called  “structural adjustments” – privatization of social services and infrastructure – what’s left of it – and concession to foreign corporations to exploit their natural resources oil, gas, minerals…. What ever the west covets to forge forwards towards full domination of planet earth.

My advice to all countries and peoples who want to use this economic holocaust to restructure their economy, to regain their financial and monetary sovereignty, stay away from the IMF, the World Bank and all the regional development banks, even the various UN funding mechanisms.

Become self-sufficient, autonomous to the extent possible, applying the simple principle of – Local production for local consumption with local money and local public banks that work for the development of the local economy. Use local money, and local debt for your economic development. No outsider will be able to claim repayment of your local internal debt. That you will manage internally at YOUR own terms and conditions.

China and other nations have applied this principle. This is what makes countries immune against predatory financing. You may enter into solidarity pacts with like-minded countries, for example, à la ALBA (Bolivarian Alliance for the Peoples of Our America), an alliance of Latin American and Caribbean countries based on the idea of social, political and economic integration.

Conclusion

We have enormous spiritual powers within us which we can mobilize to stem against the propaganda stream. In fact, the reason we are exposed to this type of ferocious propaganda, is precisely because the masters know about that strength of the human mind. And the way to immobilize it is through fear. That’s what’s happening.

The longer this pathetic and oppressive Martial Law situation lasts (yes, in many countries, even Europe, Martial Law has become the state of the affair), the more this inner power and conviction of Self, of us, Sovereign Selves that we are, will resurface in humanity and displace the fear – to become a force to stand up against the evil forces, stand up for justice and for human equality, for human dignity – and ultimately for solidarity and love.

Love is what makes us overcome this diabolical plan.

That is the scenario of hope and love. Endless hope is hoping and creating to the end, then the end will never come. And as we hope and create endlessly, avoiding conflict, we see the light emerging from the dark – a harmonious flow of peaceful creation.

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; RT; Sputnik; PressTV; The 21st Century; Greanville Post; Defend Democracy Press, TeleSUR; The Saker Blog, the New Eastern Outlook (NEO); 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.
Peter Koenig is a Research Associate of the Centre for Research on Globalization.

The Corona crisis is marked by “Obedience to higher authority” despite the lies and fabrications. The lie is sustained by a fear campaign.

“Milgram (1963) was interested in researching how far people would go in obeying an instruction if it involved harming another person.”

What is happening today is a Lockdown of national economies worldwide imposed by national governments, which are obeying orders from higher authority.

Unemployment, poverty and despair  worldwide. Those are the consequences. The harm to millions of people is self-evident, yet both the governments and the people abide. They accept the Lie.

Michel Chossudovsky, June 2020

***

One of the most famous studies of obedience in psychology was carried out by Stanley Milgram, a psychologist at Yale University. He conducted an experiment focusing on the conflict between obedience to authority and personal conscience.

Milgram (1963) examined justifications for acts of genocide offered by those accused at the World War II, Nuremberg War Criminal trials. Their defense often was based on “obedience” – that they were just following orders from their superiors.

The experiments began in July 1961, a year after the trial of Adolf Eichmann in Jerusalem. Milgram devised the experiment to answer the question:

Could it be that Eichmann and his million accomplices in the Holocaust were just following orders? Could we call them all accomplices?” (Milgram, 1974).

Milgram (1963) wanted to investigate whether Germans were particularly obedient to authority figures as this was a common explanation for the Nazi killings in World War II.

Milgram selected participants for his experiment by newspaper advertising for male participants to take part in a study of learning at Yale University.

The procedure was that the participant was paired with another person and they drew lots to find out who would be the ‘learner’ and who would be the ‘teacher.’  The draw was fixed so that the participant was always the teacher, and the learner was one of Milgram’s confederates (pretending to be a real participant).

The learner (a confederate called Mr. Wallace) was taken into a room and had electrodes attached to his arms, and the teacher and researcher went into a room next door that contained an electric shock generator and a row of switches marked from 15 volts (Slight Shock) to 375 volts (Danger: Severe Shock) to 450 volts (XXX).

Milgram’s Experiment:

Aim:

Milgram (1963) was interested in researching how far people would go in obeying an instruction if it involved harming another person.

Stanley Milgram was interested in how easily ordinary people could be influenced into committing atrocities, for example, Germans in WWII.

Procedure:

Volunteers were recruited for a controlled experiment investigating “learning” (re: ethics: deception).  Participants were 40 males, aged between 20 and 50, whose jobs ranged from unskilled to professional, from the New Haven area. They were paid $4.50 for just turning up.

At the beginning of the experiment, they were introduced to another participant, who was a confederate of the experimenter (Milgram).

They drew straws to determine their roles – learner or teacher – although this was fixed and the confederate was always the learner. There was also an “experimenter” dressed in a gray lab coat, played by an actor (not Milgram).

Two rooms in the Yale Interaction Laboratory were used – one for the learner (with an electric chair) and another for the teacher and experimenter with an electric shock generator.

The “learner” (Mr. Wallace) was strapped to a chair with electrodes. After he has learned a list of word pairs given him to learn, the “teacher” tests him by naming a word and asking the learner to recall its partner/pair from a list of four possible choices.

The teacher is told to administer an electric shock every time the learner makes a mistake, increasing the level of shock each time. There were 30 switches on the shock generator marked from 15 volts (slight shock) to 450 (danger – severe shock).

The learner gave mainly wrong answers (on purpose), and for each of these, the teacher gave him an electric shock. When the teacher refused to administer a shock, the experimenter was to give a series of orders/prods to ensure they continued.

There were four prods and if one was not obeyed, then the experimenter (Mr. Williams) read out the next prod, and so on.

Prod 1: Please continue.

Prod 2: The experiment requires you to continue.

Prod 3: It is absolutely essential that you continue.

Prod 4: You have no other choice but to continue.

Results:

65% (two-thirds) of participants (i.e., teachers) continued to the highest level of 450 volts. All the participants continued to 300 volts.

Milgram did more than one experiment – he carried out 18 variations of his study.  All he did was alter the situation (IV) to see how this affected obedience (DV).

Conclusion:

Ordinary people are likely to follow orders given by an authority figure, even to the extent of killing an innocent human being.  Obedience to authority is ingrained in us all from the way we are brought up.

People tend to obey orders from other people if they recognize their authority as morally right and/or legally based. This response to legitimate authority is learned in a variety of situations, for example in the family, school, and workplace.

Milgram summed up in the article “The Perils of Obedience” (Milgram 1974), writing:

‘The legal and philosophic aspects of obedience are of enormous import, but they say very little about how most people behave in concrete situations.

I set up a simple experiment at Yale University to test how much pain an ordinary citizen would inflict on another person simply because he was ordered to by an experimental scientist.

Stark authority was pitted against the subjects’ [participants’] strongest moral imperatives against hurting others, and, with the subjects’ [participants’] ears ringing with the screams of the victims, authority won more often than not.

The extreme willingness of adults to go to almost any lengths on the command of an authority constitutes the chief finding of the study and the fact most urgently demanding explanation.’

Milgrams’ Agency Theory

Milgram (1974) explained the behavior of his participants by suggesting that people have two states of behavior when they are in a social situation:

• • The autonomous state – people direct their own actions, and they take responsibility for the results of those actions.

• The agentic state – people allow others to direct their actions and then pass off the responsibility for the consequences to the person giving the orders. In other words, they act as agents for another person’s will.

Milgram suggested that two things must be in place for a person to enter the agentic state:

1. The person giving the orders is perceived as being qualified to direct other people’s behavior. That is, they are seen as legitimate.
2. The person being ordered about is able to believe that the authority will accept responsibility for what happens.

Agency theory says that people will obey an authority when they believe that the authority will take responsibility for the consequences of their actions. This is supported by some aspects of Milgram’s evidence.

For example, when participants were reminded that they had responsibility for their own actions, almost none of them were prepared to obey. In contrast, many participants who were refusing to go on did so if the experimenter said that he would take responsibility.

Milgram Experiment Variations

The Milgram experiment was carried out many times whereby Milgram (1965) varied the basic procedure (changed the IV).  By doing this Milgram could identify which factors affected obedience (the DV).

Obedience was measured by how many participants shocked to the maximum 450 volts (65% in the original study). In total 636 participants have been tested in 18 different variation studies.

Critical Evaluation

The Milgram studies were conducted in laboratory type conditions, and we must ask if this tells us much about real-life situations. We obey in a variety of real-life situations that are far more subtle than instructions to give people electric shocks, and it would be interesting to see what factors operate in everyday obedience. The sort of situation Milgram investigated would be more suited to a military context.

Orne and Holland (1968) accused Milgram’s study of lacking ‘experimental realism,’’ i.e.,’ participants might not have believed the experimental set-up they found themselves in and knew the learner wasn’t receiving electric shocks.

Milgram’s sample was biased:

• The participants in Milgram’s study were all male. Do the findings transfer to females?
• Milgram’s study cannot be seen as representative of the American population as his sample was self-selected. This is because they became participants only by electing to respond to a newspaper advertisement (selecting themselves). They may also have a typical “volunteer personality” – not all the newspaper readers responded so perhaps it takes this personality type to do so.Yet a total of 636 participants were tested in 18 separate experiments across the New Haven area, which was seen as being reasonably representative of a typical American town.

Milgram’s findings have been replicated in a variety of cultures and most lead to the same conclusions as Milgram’s original study and in some cases see higher obedience rates.

However, Smith and Bond (1998) point out that with the exception of Jordan (Shanab & Yahya, 1978), the majority of these studies have been conducted in industrialized Western cultures and we should be cautious before we conclude that a universal trait of social behavior has been identified.

Ethical Issues

• • Deception – the participants actually believed they were shocking a real person and were unaware the learner was a confederate of Milgram’s.However, Milgram argued that “illusion is used when necessary in order to set the stage for the revelation of certain difficult-to-get-at-truths.”Milgram also interviewed participants afterward to find out the effect of the deception. Apparently, 83.7% said that they were “glad to be in the experiment,” and 1.3% said that they wished they had not been involved.
  • Protection of participants – Participants were exposed to extremely stressful situations that may have the potential to cause psychological harm. Many of the participants were visibly distressed.Signs of tension included trembling, sweating, stuttering, laughing nervously, biting lips and digging fingernails into palms of hands. Three participants had uncontrollable seizures, and many pleaded to be allowed to stop the experiment.In his defense, Milgram argued that these effects were only short-term. Once the participants were debriefed (and could see the confederate was OK) their stress levels decreased. Milgram also interviewed the participants one year after the event and concluded that most were happy that they had taken part.
  • However, Milgram did debrief the participants fully after the experiment and also followed up after a period of time to ensure that they came to no harm.

Milgram debriefed all his participants straight after the experiment and disclosed the true nature of the experiment. Participants were assured that their behavior was common and Milgram also followed the sample up a year later and found that there were no signs of any long-term psychological harm. In fact, the majority of the participants (83.7%) said that they were pleased that they had participated.

• • Right to Withdrawal – The BPS states that researchers should make it plain to participants that they are free to withdraw at any time (regardless of payment).

Did Milgram give participants an opportunity to withdraw? The experimenter gave four verbal prods which mostly discouraged withdrawal from the experiment:

• • 1. 1. Please continue.
       2. The experiment requires that you continue.
       3. It is absolutely essential that you continue.
       4. You have no other choice, you must go on.

Milgram argued that they are justified as the study was about obedience so orders were necessary. Milgram pointed out that although the right to withdraw was made partially difficult, it was possible as 35% of participants had chosen to withdraw.

Milgram (1963) Audio Clips 

Below you can also hear some of the audio clips taken from the video that was made of the experiment. Just click on the clips below.

You will be asked to decide if you want to open the files from their current location or save them to disk.  Choose to open them from their current location. Then press play and sit back and listen!

Clip 1: This is a long audio clip of the 3rd participant administering shocks to the confederate. You can hear the confederate’s pleas to be released and the experimenter’s instructions to continue.

Clip 2: A short clip of the confederate refusing to continue with the experiment.

Clip 3: The confederate begins to complain of heart trouble.

Clip 4: Listen to the confederate get a shock: “Let me out of here. Let me out, let me out, let me out” And so on!

Clip 5: The experimenter tells the participant that they must continue.

Notes:

Milgram, S. (1963). Behavioral study of obedience. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 67, 371-378.

Milgram, S. (1965). Some conditions of obedience and disobedience to authority. Human relations, 18(1), 57-76.

Milgram, S. (1974). Obedience to authority: An experimental view. Harpercollins.

Orne, M. T., & Holland, C. H. (1968). On the ecological validity of laboratory deceptions. International Journal of Psychiatry, 6(4), 282-293.

Shanab, M. E., & Yahya, K. A. (1978). A cross-cultural study of obedience. Bulletin of the Psychonomic Society.

Smith, P. B., & Bond, M. H. (1998). Social psychology across cultures (2nd Edition). Prentice Hall.

Do you value the reporting and in-depth analysis provided by Global Research on a daily basis?

Click to donate or click here to become a member of Global Research.

*     *     *

Wikipedia’s Culture of Editorial Chaos and Malice

By Richard Gale and Dr. Gary Null, June 19, 2020

Under Wikipedia’s editorial rules, “tendentious editing” is forbidden. This is editing that is blatantly partisan, biased and malicious that violates the principles of a neutral point of view (NPOV). Other examples of tendentious editing include editorial warfare and vandalism, gaming the system, abusive language and behavior, misuse and distortion of content and references, unwarranted censorship and banning of editors who make efforts to appeal to neutral point of view rules. Since the encyclopedia’s parent organization the Wikimedia Foundation does not conduct direct oversight on the content that eventually reaches the site’s pages, Wikipedia has turned into an ochlocracy, a form of governance and majoritism that adheres to the chaos of mob rule. Senior editorial administration roles are not based upon any intellectual acumen or expertise in a subject; instead it has degenerated into a merit-based aristocracy that is determined by the number of entries contributed and successful edits.

US to Form Icebreaker Fleet for the Arctic. “Polar Security Cutter”

By Lucas Leiroz de Almeida, June 19, 2020

On June 9, Donald Trump announced that he plans to create a fleet of icebreakers by 2029, according to a statement made to several departments. The fleet would be used in the Arctic and Antarctica. The project already has a name: Polar Security Cutter. The goal is to replace the only two American icebreakers, USCGC Polar Star and USCGC Healy, with a new, more modern and equipped fleet, capable of meeting the new objectives of the American strategy for the poles.

Nixon-Trump vs. the Strategy of Tension

By Pepe Escobar, June 19, 2020

Trump’s MAGA woes have been compounded by a shoddy geopolitical move in tandem with Law and Order: his re-election campaign will be under the sign of “China, China, China.” When in trouble, blame a foreign enemy.

That comes from serially failed opportunist Steve Bannon and his Chinese billionaire sidekick Guo Wengui, or Miles Guo. Here they are in Statue of Liberty mode announcing their no holds barred infowar campaign to demonize the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) to Kingdom Come and “free the Chinese people”.

Colonial History, Gunboat Diplomacy and China Bashing

By Nora Fernandez, June 19, 2020

European powers approached America, Africa and Asia with gunboat diplomacy and colonialism, trafficking people, assaulting and pillaging the world, and using whatever means to ensure profit and domination. Non-Europeans have faced a common historical thread of subjugation, slavery, racism, misery, abuse and death, even if they are not always aware. Original peoples were driven to extinction in many places by mere contact with old world germs, but the ones who survived suffered and succumbed to European abuse. European victors wrote history ignoring truth, but modern revision shows victors total disregard for human life, truth and limits. I guess colonizing minds pay no attention to feelings distracting from empire building and wealth accumulation. Still, in fairness to Europeans, hunger for more seems to be a dominant human flaw, a construct that imperialism and capitalism express with total brutality. Sadly for us, both persists and dominate the world today, implemented by descendants of our colonial-neocolonial ancestors, like the US.

Dark Clouds of Military Tension Over the Korean Peninsula, North Korea Waited, Disappointed and Now Angry

By Prof. Joseph H. Chung, June 19, 2020

In the period, from April 9 to May 31, 2020, a radical right-wing group of North Korean refugees sent by air and sea more than 10,000 propaganda leaflets with a bag of rice, one-dollar bill and a lot of dirty insulting words against Kim Jong-un and North Korea.

There are about 30,000 North Korean refugees most of whom are now South Korean citizens.

Canada Loses UN Security Council Seat Bid

By Jim Miles, June 19, 2020

With only one round of voting, Canada lost its bid to secure a Security Council (UNSC) seat at the UN. (Wednesday, June 17, 2020).  The result is what many domestic critics had hoped for, but in both foreign policy and domestic affairs it changes little – obviously, Canada remains off the UNSC and will continue with its usual policies for the future.

Trump Signed a Bill Calling for Sanctions Against China’s So-called “Treatment of Uighurs”

By Paul Antonopoulos, June 19, 2020

Leaked excerpts from the upcoming memoir The Room Where It Happened has made stunning allegations against U.S. President Donald Trump. Former U.S. National Security Advisor, John Bolton,  claims in his book that Trump attempted to interfere in a criminal investigation into Turkey’s Halkbank for the largest sanctions violation scheme in U.S. history as a favor to Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan; accuses Trump of withholding military aid to the Ukraine; and, that Trump fully approved of the alleged “concentration camps” for the Uighur minority in China’s Xinjiang province. Whether these claims are true or not, this memoir is set to cause massive disruptions and uproar in the White House.

Leaked excerpts from the upcoming memoir The Room Where It Happened has made stunning allegations against U.S. President Donald Trump. Former U.S. National Security Advisor, John Bolton,  claims in his book that Trump attempted to interfere in a criminal investigation into Turkey’s Halkbank for the largest sanctions violation scheme in U.S. history as a favor to Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan; accuses Trump of withholding military aid to the Ukraine; and, that Trump fully approved of the alleged “concentration camps” for the Uighur minority in China’s Xinjiang province. Whether these claims are true or not, this memoir is set to cause massive disruptions and uproar in the White House.

Bolton claims that in a one-on-one meeting between Trump and Chinese President Xi Jinping at the 2019 Group of 20 summit in Japan, the American President gave full support to these alleged concentration camps that Xi described as “Vocational Education and Training Centers” to combat Islamic extremism. The Uighurs as a minority of only 25 million people in a country of 1.4 billion are overwhelmingly Muslim. A minority are extremists and were responsible for the 1992 Ürümqi bombings, the 1997 Ürümqi bus bombings, the 2010 Aksu bombing, the 2011 Hotan attack, 2011 Kashgar attacks, the 2014 Ürümqi attack and the 2014 Kunming attack, among many.

In addition, there are about 10,000 Uighur terrorists and their families that belong to the Al-Qaeda affiliated Turkistan Islamic Party who have colonized areas of Syria’s Idlib province. These terrorists have been responsible for executions, the demolition of Christian churches and train child soldiers. China fears that if there are 10,000 Uighur’s with this ideology 4,500km away in Syria, the actual number adhering to an extremist interpretation of Islam in Xinjiang would be in the hundreds of thousands, if not millions.

“According to our interpreter,” Bolton writes of the meeting, “Trump said that Xi should go ahead with building the camps, which Trump thought was exactly the right thing to do.”

However, within only hours of Bolton’s allegations against Trump, The New York Times, The Washington Post and the Wall Street Journal, reported that Trump had signed a bill calling for sanctions against China’s so-called treatment of the Uighurs. Trump said in a statement that the Uighur Human Rights Policy Act of 2020 legislation “holds accountable perpetrators of human rights violations and abuses such as the systematic use of indoctrination camps, forced labor, and intrusive surveillance to eradicate the ethnic identity and religious beliefs of Uighurs and other minorities in China.” According to Al-Jazeera, Trump did not hold a ceremony to mark the signing of the bill.

However, this calls into question just how likely Trump is going to enforce the provisions of the bill in light of Bolton’s allegations, especially as the American president has avoided making these accusations against China, unlike Vice President Mike Pence and Secretary of State Mike Pompeo. On the other hand, it is also unlikely that the bill was drafted and signed in only a matter of hours after Bolton’s allegations, and not only because of practicality reasons. Bolton’s allegations against Trump also relate to his dealings with Turkey, North Korea, Ukraine, Venezuela, Saudi Arabia and elsewhere, and in comparison to allegations about Trump backing Erdoğan in circumventing sanctions, his alleged comments about supporting concentration camps in Xinjiang is minor and not a matter of immediate concern. It is more likely that the revelations by Bolton were coincidentally released just hours before Trump’s signing of the bill.

Whatever the case may be, China did not hold back its denunciations of the latest diplomatic aggression made by the U.S.

“We again urge the U.S. side to immediately correct its mistakes and stop using this Xinjiang-related law to harm China’s interests and interfere in China’s internal affairs,” China’s Foreign Ministry said in a statement on Thursday. “Otherwise, China will resolutely take countermeasures, and all the consequences arising from there must be fully borne by the United States.”

The signing of the bill came more of a shock to China as it was signed when Pompeo was meeting with China’s top diplomat, Yang Jiechi, in Hawaii.

Yang told Pompeo “both sides stand to gain from cooperation and will lose from confrontation” but that Washington needed to respect Beijing’s positions on Hong Kong, Taiwan and Xinjiang, according to the Chinese Foreign Ministry. “Cooperation is the only correct choice for both sides. It is hoped that the U.S. and China will go hand-in-hand.”

Beijing would have been infuriated that a bill like this was signed so soon after Yang met with Pompeo, especially as there could be truth to Bolton’s allegations that Trump supports China’s so-called concentration camps.

It calls to question why the Justice Department has filed a lawsuit to delay Tuesday’s scheduled release of the book, along with an emergency application to temporarily stop publication. This comes as Trump said Bolton could face criminal charges for publishing classified information, but also tweeted the book was “made up of lies & fake stories” and Bolton was a “disgruntled boring fool.” If the allegations made in the book are not true, why is there such a heavy-handed response from the Justice Department and even threats of criminal charges made by Trump?

*

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

This article was originally published on InfoBrics.

Paul Antonopoulos is an independent geopolitical analyst.

Featured image is from InfoBrics

Perhaps the greatest farce in the modern history of technology is the perception of Wikipedia as a legitimate encyclopedia. It has none of the qualifications as such but has all of the characteristics of a compromised propaganda machine disguised as an encyclopedia.

An authentic encyclopedia is transparent. Users can review the qualifications and expertise of its contributors. There is no personal animus or bias. If anything, these are people who are acutely conscious of the facts regarding any given subject. There is no whitewashing, no recasting or repurposing of negative content into positive opinions or vice versa. If an error is detected, it can be quickly corrected.

Now compare that with Wikipedia where there are over 100,000 editors who are mostly anonymous. Expertise in the field that any of these anonymous contributors are editing is not required.  The hypothesis that through Wikipedia’s backdoor platforms that discussion, debate and argument can eventually reach a consensus that reflects the facts and truth on a subject is not only unrealistically idealist but notably naive. This is conspicuously true for one subject that dwarfs all others — health and medicine — where content is radically recast as either acceptable, refutable, or worse assailed and slandered. Content that represents the medical orthodoxy and based upon the pharmaceutical paradigm is acceptable. Everything else is rejected and degraded under sarcastic terms as pseudoscience, quackery or lunatic charlatanry.

Under Wikipedia’s editorial rules. “tendentious editing” is forbidden. This is editing that is blatantly partisan, biased and malicious that violates the principles of a neutral point of view (NPOV). Other examples of tendentious editing include editorial warfare and vandalism, gaming the system, abusive language and behavior, misuse and distortion of content and references, unwarranted censorship and banning of editors who make efforts to appeal to neutral point of view rules. Since the encyclopedia’s parent organization the Wikimedia Foundation does not conduct direct oversight on the content that eventually reaches the site’s pages, Wikipedia has turned into an ochlocracy, a form of governance and majoritism that adheres to the chaos of mob rule. Senior editorial administration roles are not based upon any intellectual acumen or expertise in a subject; instead it has degenerated into a merit-based aristocracy that is determined by the number of entries contributed and successful edits.

Evidently, the encyclopedia’s culture of editorial hostility, malignity, harassment and toxic behavior has over-powered the Foundation’s capacity to rein it in.  In May, it was announced that new rules and a code of conduct would be drafted to curtail harassment. Unfortunately, these new rules will apply more strictly against harassment and psychological molestation towards women and members of the LBGQ community. Equally, pathological behavior against political persuasions, current events, various ideological beliefs and medicine demands similar deterrents and strict measures to ban editors who violate decent conduct that is expected of a legitimate encyclopedia.

We live in a time when the health of Americans is declining exponentially. Life expectancy has reversed. Moreover, never before have more people died from medical error, misdiagnosis and the over prescribing of medications. Daily, 4,000 Americans experience a serious adverse drug reaction (ADE) that requires hospitalization, and an additional 770,000 people suffer from ADEs during their hospital stays. In 2016, the CDC very conservatively estimated that over 70,000 deaths were directly associated with prescription complications and overdoses, more than US soldiers killed in the Vietnam War and far greater than deaths due to influenza and pneumonia, alcoholic liver disease, firearms and motor vehicle accidents. Prescription deaths also outnumber illegal drug overdoses. Newer medications, according to Harvard University’s Edmond Safra Center for Ethics, are becoming more deadly. The Center’s paper states,

“Few know that systematic reviews of hospital charts found that even properly prescribed drugs (aside from misprescribing, overdosing, or self-prescribing) cause about 1.9 million hospitalizations a year. Another 840,000 hospitalized patients are given drugs that cause serious adverse reactions for a total of 2.74 million serious adverse drug reactions. About 128,000 people die from drugs prescribed to them.”

Our documentation of the US’ epidemic of medicine’s casualties is far greater, closer to the mortality rates due to heart disease and cancer; this was based upon a five year study and documented in our earlier book Death by Medicine. Besides prescription opioids, antidepressants, amphetamines, anticoagulants, anabolic steroids, ADHD stimulants and antibacterials rank high among iatrogenic deaths. And this ignores the many millions of injuries due to unnecessary prescriptions, clinical infections, surgeries and hospitalizations ordered for enormous profits. Don’t expect to find these facts mentioned properly on Wikipedia. Conventional drug-based criterion for practicing medicine is the only course of treatment Wikipedia advocates while safer alternatives are disparaged and defined as quackery.

One glaring example of Wikipedia’s disdain and hatred towards alternative medicine is its inaccurate treatment of Traditional Chinese Medicine (TCM), which has been successfully practiced for thousands of years.  The same is true for Indian Ayurvedic medicine. Recently the Chinese health authorities have drafted legislation that would ban any person or organization who criticizes or ridicules TCM. This comes on the heels of TCM being used alongside conventional medicine for treating CoV19 cases, with far more success than in the US.  Nationwide, over 92 percent of Chinese CoV patients have been treated with TCM formulas, either alone or in combination with Western therapies.  Unlike conventional pharmaceutical-based medicine, TCM and Ayurveda focus on diagnosing the underlying cause of an illness and symptoms, a method that Western science has yet to fully understand and implement. Nevertheless, the empirical evidence supporting these ancient medical modalities is substantial. A recent paper in the Review of Molecular Medicine by the China Academy of Chinese Medical Sciences and the prestigious National University of Singapore concluded that TCM “represents a vast and untapped resource for modern medicine.” This is a medical system that catalogues over 13,000 different medicinal ingredients and over 100,000 unique decoctions and recipes.

Yet you would never learn anything about the benefits of TCM, Ayurveda and a multitude of other non-drug based and natural therapies including Chiropractic, homeopathy, naturopathy, energy medicine, and faith-based practices if you were to rely on Wikipedia.  Its TCM page promulgates unfounded lies that “there is no high quality clinical evidence that TCM is safe and effective for treating any disease.” The page’s editors are determined that TCM be portrayed as a pseudoscience.  This is despite the several hundred thousand peer-reviewed articles cataloged in the National Institutes of Health’s Library of Medicine that deal with TCM, acupuncture and medicinal plants — a voluminous collection that Wikipedia editors cherry pick and select to advocate their anti-TCM prejudices. It even fails to mention that the 2015 Nobel Prize in Medicine was awarded to the first Chinese woman scientist Tu-You for discovering TCM’s remedy artemisia as a basis for the development of an anti-malarial drug.  Efforts to bring balance on the TCM and other alternative health pages are futile. We believe there is very good reason, as we have reported previously, that Wikipedia’s co-founder Jimmy Wales and the Foundation seemingly support libelous and malicious attacks on complementary and alternative medicine.

It may require a concerted legal campaign to hold the Wikimedia Foundation accountable with a furor of lawsuits charging the organization for castigating and destroying the careers of tens of thousands of health practitioners, systemic censorship and serving as an operation for social media propaganda rather than hiding behind the ruse of being a reliable encyclopedia. For years, it was the official policy of the American Medical Association that Chiropractic was an unscientific cult and made every effort to destroy the profession. Nevertheless chiropractors succeeded in winning a lawsuit against the AMA and ten other medical groups for participating in a conspiracy in violation of the Sherman Antitrust Act. The court consequently ruled that Chiropractic was a legitimate therapeutic science.

Today the mainstream media voices agreement with Wikipedia in denying or ignoring complementary and alternative medicine altogether. Perhaps the media is too lazy to do any research or simply lacks common sense and reason. Or perhaps more realistic, it is tied to the corporatization of all things: pharmaceutical drugs, private insurance, GMOs, vaccines and the roll out of 5G technology. As the media is grossly biased and compromised by private interests, so do we believe is Wikipedia. We do not need to travel far to discover an army of expert medical voices and health professionals articulating their disapproval of the pharmaceutical industry’s control over federal healthcare policies, the crookedness in peer reviewed medical journals to push unsafe or ineffective drugs, and the FDA’s review process. The title of the former head of the Danish Cochrane Collaboration and a world respected professor of medicine Peter Gotzsche’s book Deadly Medicines and Organized Crime: How Big Pharma has Corrupted Healthcare tells the whole story. It is a tale about medical induced injury and death when only dealing with pharmaceutical drugs and unnecessary medical procedures at a time when prevention and non-pharmaceutical therapies are voiceless in the nation’s healthcare discussions.

Despite Wikipedia’s failure to be accurate and neutral about subjects that have an immediate impact on the lives and well being of its users, it has been a successful tool for the deep state and special corporate interests. In similar ways it serves as a public relations operation for the drug industry just as the Hill and Knowlton PR firm did for the tobacco industry in the 1950s, except under the cloak of being an authentic encyclopedia. The Foundation has condoned it being used as a weapon to silence and lessen the impact of people such as Robert Kennedy Jr, Deepak Chopra, Craig Murray, John Pilger, Rupert Sheldrake and Nobel laureate Luc Montagnier by characterizing them in derogatory language. Any agent provocateur, sock puppet or astro turf group who succeeds in climbing the editorial ladder can sabotage and control the pages of important decent and ethical people in order to promote ulterior and highly prejudiced agendas. There might be dozens of such editors standing at the gates of a page with their personal agendas to libel and make efforts to destroy the lives of others who they happen to disagree with.  Now after almost fifteen years of neglect and incompetence the Foundation is making a minor effort to deal with the epidemic of editors’ harassment and malice; however, in so doing it is also acknowledging that its entire system and modus operandi is rotten to the core, a repository of chaos and editorial mismanagement. It is also running massively convoluted games.

If you doubt any of this, ask any of the many thousands of individuals who Wikipedia has slandered and libeled. Wikipedia’s argument is that if your character has been assassinated by any of its editors then simply follow the editorial protocol to correct the errors. But for thousands of people this has repeatedly been proven to be a futile exercise. Since the entire Wikipedia model is fraudulent, such efforts are a sham. No one in the alternative health profession is capable of correcting their biographies. Wikipedia Skeptics are the judge, jury and executioner. And the Wikimedia Foundation likes it that way.

*

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.

Richard Gale and Dr. Gary Null co-direct Progressive Radio Network. They are frequent contributor to Global Research.

Featured image is from The Grayzone

The Syrian Army and the National Defense Forces are amassing their troops and equipment near the town of Ayn Issa in northern Raqqah. This town, located near the crossroad of the M4 highway and the Sanliurfa-Raqqah road, has been the target of Turkish expansionist efforts for a long while. Nonetheless, the Turkish Army and its proxies failed to capture it during the active phase of their Operation Peace Spring on October 9-22, 2019. Since then, they have been drawing up plans on how to push back the Syrian Army from Ayn Issa and to seize control of at least a part of the M4 highway there. Another such high priority target for Turkey is the town of Tell Tamr located on the road to Al-Hasakah.

Over the past week, the Turkish Army and Turkish-backed groups have significantly strengthened their strike force north of Ayn Issa. This move was made simultaneously with the start of Turkey’s Operation Claw-Tiger against rebels from the Kurdistan Workers’ Party (PKK) in northern Iraq. Syrian sources expect that Turkey may use the recent escalation of its war on the PKK to make another attempt to expand its control zone in northeastern Syria under some pretext or other.

ISIS cells continue their attacks on the eastern bank of the Euphrates. Late on June 17, an IED explosion destroyed a vehicle of the Kurdish-led Syrian Democratic Forces near the village of Ruwaishid killing at least one person. Another ISIS attack reportedly took place near as Suwayr, when ISIS gunmen shelled an SDF checkpoint.

The military situation in southern Idlib remains relatively calm despite provocations from radical militant groups. Fa Ithbatu, a new al-Qaeda-linked coalition formed by Turkish-protected militants, is yet to take any real action against the Syrian Army despite loud statements.

Wa-Harid al-Mu’minin, which preceded Fa Ithbatu, claimed that it had carried out at least 547 attacks on government forces killing at least 950 government fighters over the past 20 months. However, these claims are hardly consistent with reality.

Meanwhile, Turkey has continued to send its proxies from groups deployed in Idlib and Afrin to Libya in order to support the Tripoli-based Government of National Accord. According to reports, the total number of militants deployed or trained for the deployment has reached 14,000. At least 400 of these have already died in fighting against the Libyan National Army. This factor would also undermine the offensive capabilities of Idlib groups in the event of a new confrontation with the Syrian Army.

*

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 South Front in its endeavors. If you’re able, and if you like our content and approach, please support the project. Our work wouldn’t be possible without your help: PayPal: [email protected] or via: http://southfront.org/donate/ or via: https://www.patreon.com/southfront

On Wednesday, Pompeo met with China’s Yang Jiechi.

He holds several high-level positions in Beijing, including CPC Central Committee Foreign Affairs Commission director.

Both officials met in Hawaii, the meeting requested by Pompeo at at a time of dismal bilateral relations that risk rupture or possible confrontation.

Still, bilateral communications are better than cutting them off altogether despite no chance of resolving major bilateral differences.

For the US, they’re all about China’s unstoppable development, heading toward becoming the world’s leading economy, already a prominent nation on the world stage.’’

It’s why the vast majority of nations want normalized ties, including most European ones.

The problem of dealing with the US diplomatically is that it doesn’t negotiate. It demands, wanting other countries to bend to its will, even when harming their own interests.

Nations unwilling to accept what’s clearly unacceptable face unrelenting US pressure and bullying that time and again leads to war by hot and/or other means — what the scourge of US imperialism is all about, an unparalleled threat to humanity.

A brief statement by Pompeo’s spokesperson following Wednesday’s meeting with Yang ignored a relationship near its breaking point, the US bearing full responsibility.

According to China’s Foreign Ministry spokesman Zhao Lijan,

“Yang pointed out that he hoped China and the US would be accommodative to each other…pushing their bilateral relations to the track of coordination, cooperation and stability” — knowing full well the prospect for normalization is virtually nil.

Hegemons don’t operate cooperatively with other nations, especially rival independent ones like China.

On internal issues, including Hong Kong and China’s new national security law, Zhou stressed Beijing’s position, saying:

“China’s determination to push for a national security law in Hong Kong is unshakeable. China resolutely opposes US interference in Hong Kong affairs and the G7 foreign ministers releasing a statement on” the city that’s part of the country’s sovereign territory.

He noted that Yang stressed China’s one country, two systems policy on Taiwan, along with expressing great displeasure about unacceptable US anti-China legislation.

Diplomatic language aside, including Xinhua reporting that Yang and Pompeo “agreed to take action to seriously implement the consensus reached by their leaders, and to continue communication,” the breach between both countries remains wide, deep, and unreconcilable on major issues vital to China’s development.

According to international relations expert Shi Yinhong, “(i)t is unlikely to see either side make significant compromises on (major) issues to enable substantial easing in tensions for a long enough period of time,” adding:

“Maintaining (diplomatic) contact by itself cannot ensure any meaningful improvement in bilateral relations.”

Both countries have had diplomatic relations for decades. Yet current bilateral relations are more dismal than at any time throughout the post-WW II period.

Time and again, diplomatic outreach to the US by sovereign independent nations like China accomplish nothing.

Even when agreement is reached on major issues, the US side usually breaches what it pledged, why both right wings of its one-party rule can never be trusted.

It’s why diplomacy with the US most often accomplishes little or nothing. The only language its ruling class understands is toughness.

Nothing else gets its attention, and like all bullies, it shies away from belligerent confrontation with nations able to hit back hard.

Loose cannon Pompeo is a diplomat in name only, a figure abhorrent of cooperative relations with other nations — belligerence and other hostile actions his favored options.

Treating China as an adversary assures continued widening of the bilateral breach that could lead to confrontation by accident or design.

Beijing will cooperate with the US and other nations as long as its sovereign rights are respected — clearly not the case in dealings with Washington.

It’s why Yang’s Wednesday meeting with Pompeo, that reportedly lasted about seven hours, achieved nothing.

Nor will further bilateral discussions do better as long as the US side makes unacceptable demands, offers nothing but deceit in return, and continues waging war on China by other means.

As the country grows more prominent on the world stage at a time of US decline, bilateral relations are likely to get more irreconcilable than cooperative.

Beijing fully understands what it’s up against in dealings with the US.

It’s a hostile power seeking dominance over all other nations, even-handed cooperative relations with none.

It’s a prescription for bilateral discord that risks possible confrontation if the US pushes too far.

*

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.

The enactment of “Caesar’s Law” – the new US sanctions designed to “pursue individuals, groups, companies, and countries that deal with the Damascus government” – is apparently directed against Syria but in reality aims to subdue Lebanon and its population to accommodate Israel’s conditions. Lebanon’s “Axis of the Resistance” member, Hezbollah, has an open conflict with Israel.  Israel has a list of imposing demands: close off the flow of weapons via the Lebanese borders with Syria, disarm Hezbollah, impose its own terms on land and maritime borders, and push Lebanon to join other Middle Eastern countries in signing a peace deal- with Israel. But Hezbollah naturally has other plans- to enforce a new Rule of Engagement and take the attack initiative rather than opt for the defence response. This is similar to the Gaza deterrence policy of Hamas, another member of the “Axis of the Resistance”, that has been to hit targets in Israel if (and when) economic sanctions are imposed. 

As Israel fears, a forthcoming Middle East war would certainly have multiple united fronts, involving the “Axis of the Resistance” members all together simultaneously. It is not surprising that members of the “Axis of the Resistance” (including Syria, Lebanon, Gaza and Iraq) synchronise and rehearse; they have been working on the intensive coordination of war scenarios for over a year. It cannot be ruled out that Israel, noticing the reaction of the “Axis of the Resistance” to the imminent sanctions, will ask the US to agree to stand down, to avoid all-out war. The “Axis of the Resistance” has prepared several scenarios, all on track for implementation, and, without exception, all are very painful for Israel.

The “Axis of the Resistance” understands the motivation behind the US’s “Caesar Act” approach and will have to respond to Israel first since it is the major influence on US decisions in the Levant. There is no lack of options and some of the obvious responses would be to mimic Hamas and hit Israel, as follows:

The first scenario: Lebanon claims the return of the Shebaa Farms and the seven Lebanese villages (Terbikha, Saliha, Malkiyah, Nabi Yusha, Kades, Hunin and IbliQamh) occupied by Israel. Therefore, any Hezbollah attack against the Israeli forces in these villages, by crossing the Israeli boundary fence or bombing objectives in these Lebanese villages, would be considered a legitimate act recognised by the Lebanese government.

The ball is in the US court and there is little doubt that this US administration will make sure many Lebanese politicians, Christians and Muslims, are on its list of terrorists before October 2020, to embarrass any future administration and prevent it from lifting the sanctions easily. Of course, because the US is not acting according to its own chosen agenda and national interests, its understanding of what should or should not be done is defective, or at best limited.

At a certain point, when Hezbollah’s reaction becomes obvious, Israel may consider “inspiring” Washington to cease its pressure on Lebanon, as it did with Gaza, so as to avoid suffering the consequences.

But Israel could also think War is an option because its actions may not have been thoroughly thought out! Israel has killed Hezbollah leaders, Iranian scientists, Hamas commanders, Iraqi commanders: and in consequence the “Axis of the Resistance” became stronger. Learning from History has never been a strong point, neither for Israel nor for the USA.

Washington may not want to push Hezbollah to react and will have to rely on its allies in Lebanon. Therefore, through the International Monetary Fund, may supply Lebanon with a couple of billions of dollars per year so the option of war against Israel and the commercial and energy supply form Iran may be disregarded by the Lebanese government.

All possibilities are on the table. As far as the Gulf is concerned, its recognition and support for Israel makes no difference and changes nothing in the “probabilities of war” equation, because in every single Israeli war against Hezbollah, the Gulf countries were the first to stand behind Israel and yet their support did not tip the outcome in Israel’s favour. There is little doubt that the months that lie ahead before the end of 2020 will be critical for the Middle East.

*

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

In the past few months, the United States has tightened its policies in the Arctic, as several measures show. For decades, Washington has not been concerned with strengthening its military presence at the poles, giving greater focus to other regions of the planet, such as the Middle East. Due to this lack of attention to the Arctic, the US does not yet have a fleet of icebreaker ships, far behind its rivals such as Russia and China. Now, the American government intends to change this attitude.

On June 9, Donald Trump announced that he plans to create a fleet of icebreakers by 2029, according to a statement made to several departments. The fleet would be used in the Arctic and Antarctica. The project already has a name: Polar Security Cutter. The goal is to replace the only two American icebreakers, USCGC Polar Star and USCGC Healy, with a new, more modern and equipped fleet, capable of meeting the new objectives of the American strategy for the poles.

The main US ally in this project is Canada. The neighboring country, despite being militarily much inferior to the USA, already has a very capable icebreaker fleet, with more than 10 operational ships and three others under construction, in addition to planning to build another 4 in the near future. Together, the USA and Canada intend to face the growth of the Russian and Chinese fleets. China, even without direct access to the Arctic, has a small fleet of four icebreakers and plans to build two more ships soon. The Russians, however, are the most equipped. The Russian fleet consists of 53 ships, with another 6 under construction and another 12 scheduled to be built soon.

The American program is the result of a partnership of the US Coast Guard with the company VT Halter Marine Inc., signed in the amount of US $ 746 million. The contract was signed in April 2019, although the details of the cooperation have only been made public recently. There are interests beyond national defense involved in the project. Among the objectives of the program there is the use of the Coast Guard for the safety of commercial ships in the polar zones.

An important point is that the project also aims to replace diesel-powered ships with nuclear powered ships. Diesel-powered propulsion ships are less powerful and less efficient in breaking ice, but currently only Russia has nuclear powered icebreakers, which makes the dispute fiercer. In fact, the United States has all the necessary resources to build nuclear icebreakers, but this will certainly start a “nuclear era” in the Arctic, with the beginning of a new industrial-military race for the modernization of ships.

However, whether or not building nuclear icebreakers, the US will not reach the capacity of the Russian fleet anytime soon. For this reason, the project seems to make it clear that the initial objective, from a realistic perspective, is to undermine Chinese growth. The Chinese presence in the Arctic is the initial target of the cooperation between the USA and Canada, with Russia being a “further step” – and, perhaps, unattainable, considering the immense superiority of the Russian military presence in the Arctic.

It is likely, however, that the project’s slowness will hinder the US government’s claims. The estimated nine-year period for completing the project is long and in this time many things can happen on the international stage and in the Arctic in particular. Russia and China may further increase or modernize their fleets in that time and the United States will remain far behind its “targets” in this dispute. It is unlikely that Washington will be able to assemble a fleet of icebreakers strong enough to face Russia in the near future. The Americans’ dispute will continue to be with China – which already has a big advantage.

To compensate for its weakness in the Arctic, the United States is likely to begin a series of increasingly aggressive and provocative military training aimed at disguising its weakness with a smoke screen. The most strategic, viable and acceptable attitude for Washington would be to stop investing in projects of militarization of the Arctic and start more elaborate national recovery plans for the end of the pandemic, which affects the country drastically. Freezing military spending, withdrawing troops scattered around the world in regional conflicts and focusing on a policy for internal problems would be the best way to deal with the current American situation. However, Washington insists on maintaining a heavy-handed international policy and military presence in all areas of the planet.

*

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

This article was first published prior to the June 17 vote on non-permanent membership of the UN Security Council.

Canada lost the vote of June 17 to Ireland and Norway.

Norway secured 130 votes, Ireland got 128 and Canada 108.

**

Elections for the two non-permanent seats on the United Nations Security Council (UNSC) for the group Western Europe and Others is taking place on June 17. Canada is facing off against Norway and Ireland. However, an open democratic and critical discussion of Canada’s colonial heritage and its treatment of First Nations peoples, along with and Ottawa’s Trump-aligned foreign policy, has been as difficult to start as a can of pickles with hands generously scrubbed with sanitizer.

In the last Canadian pre-electoral and actual election period in the fall of 2019, Trudeau had to deal with a few challenges from the grassroots. In a sadly mocking and insulting manner, he fended off interruptions from Indigenous complainants suffering from mercury poisoning. He skated around peace activists questioning him and then Foreign Minister Chrystia Freeland about their double standards. For example, on the one hand recognizing the fraudulent election of Bolsonaro in Brazil (after the judiciary imprisoned front runner Lula da Silva on spurious charges), while refusing to recognize constitutionally elected Venezuelan president Nicolás Maduro on the other. Trudeau and his cabinet also faced protests by activists opposing Canada’s weapons sales to notorious human rights violator Saudi Arabia and Ottawa’s unconditional support for Israel at the expense of Palestine. While corporate media had no choice but to show these disruptions, as they appeared live on TV, it soon went back to business as usual by obediently keeping all these critical issues away from public scrutiny.

Nevertheless, starting on May 19, 2020, this media blackout was forced to change to a certain extent. That day, an open letter was published in the daily Toronto Star signed by hundreds of international, Canadian, Québécois and Indigenous personalities. The document highlighted the whole gamut of issues from the Trudeau government’s forced encroachment onto Indigenous territory to push through new oil and gas pipelines, its heavily U.S.-oriented foreign policy on Venezuela, Haiti, Bolivia and other countries in the Latin American/Caribbean region, its pro-war NATO membership, ambitions toward Africa, utter contempt for Palestinian rights and so much more.

Furthermore, on May 19 when the petition was published in the Star, Trudeau was asked during his daily COVID-19 presser about the seeming existence of divided public opinion concerning his UNSC bid. Instead of discussing the issue, Trudeau arrogantly dismissed it as if it did not exist, saying there was no division whatsoever, and then taking a snipe at Maduro to distract attention from the question.

However, that authoritarian rejection was easier said than done. Against the background of Trudeau’s domestic and foreign policy, Canada’s UNSC bid did not only remain under scrutiny from that day on, but the doubts are actually increasing and picking up steam as the weeks go by.

For example, the Canadian organization, Just Peace Advocates, published a well-documented open letter on Palestine, which was sent to all 193 UN Ambassadors and signed by 100 organizations and dozens of prominent individuals. It immediately impacted the Canadian political scene to the extent that the Canadian Ambassador to the UN, Marc-André Blanchard, was forced to write a reply to all UN Ambassadors, defending Canada’s one-sided Israel policy. This obviously desperate move did not go unnoticed, even by mainstream media, fueling further doubts about the credibility of Canada’s UNSC bid.

National and international corporate media is increasingly covering the debate in Canada. The issues of First Nations’ rights, Venezuela, Palestine and NATO are among the most cited examples of the contradictions being demonstrated by the growing national and international #NoUNSC4Canada forces, and the Trudeau government.

Perhaps the clearest indication that Canada’s “colonialism at home, imperialism abroad” policy is increasingly under national and international scrutiny is the last-minute trip by Canadian Foreign Minister Champagne to the UN in New York, only a few days before the vote. Add to this the crescendo of last-minute phone calls by Trudeau and Champagne. They have called dozens of world leaders, ostensibly to talk about “combating COVID-19.” However, a careful examination of the tweets indicates that in reality, Canada is cynically seeking whatever additional UNSC votes it can, with its supposed concern over COVID-19 serving as a pretext.

In contrast, we do not see Norway or Ireland acting in a similar sycophantic manner. This flagrant difference alone should convince any country to firmly reject Canada and vote for the far more civilized Norway and Ireland.

So far, emphasis in this article has been placed on the debate being opened up in national and international corporate media. However, one should not underestimate the work being done at the grassroots level by thousands of people and organizations in Canada, supported by the progressive international community. Yet, the work of one grass roots activist stands out. The revolutionary artist Roger Waters of Pink Floyd fame, tweeted the following on June 13:

“A note to their Excellencies, the Members of the General Assembly of the UN:

An Irishman, a Norwegian and a Canadian go to a party for a game of Musical Chairs.

There are two vacant chairs on the UN Security Council at the party.

When the music stops, let’s make sure the Irishman and the Norwegian are seated at the table where they belong.

And the Canadian kid is left a wallflower until such time as he learns what human rights are…”

Here is the one-minute YouTube video created by 25 year-old Palestinian artist and activist @Lin244 that Waters posted. It had over 20,000 visits in the first 24 hours. It deals with both Canada’s colonialism at home against First Nations peoples as well as its imperialism abroad with the example of supporting Israel/U.S. in its attempt to deny Palestinian human rights.

View the YouTube here:

VIDEO: Palestinian artist Lina Abojaradeh illustrates why she opposes Canada’s bid for the UN Security Council. Listen to her powerful statement and watch the artistic journey here. #NoUNSC4Canada #UNSCelections pic.twitter.com/esMbAyELNQ

— Canadian Foreign Policy Institute (@ForeignPoli_C) June 13, 2020

Keep in mind that we are up against imperial Canada, with enormous funds being spent on the UNSC bid, with its strong international connections in both the British Commonwealth and the Francophonie, plus NATO and other such exclusive international clubs. Nor can one overlook the support by the U.S. in the corridors of power since Washington surely prefers as faithful an ally as Trudeau. The Canadian PM has gone out of his way to demonstrate his sycophancy toward Trump on all international issues since he was first elected in 2015. However, his deference to Trump on even the most  obvious of issues, such as Trump’s handling of racism and his infamous 20-second silence when asked to call out Trump, has left many in Canada wondering if we have an independent foreign policy at all. There is no doubt that slavishly following Trump, especially on the Security Council, will not serve Canadians’ best interests.

*

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 Orinoco Tribune.

Arnold August is a Canadian journalist and lecturer, the author of Democracy in Cuba and the 1997–98 Elections, Cuba and Its Neighbours: Democracy in Motion and Cuba–U.S. Relations: Obama and Beyond. As a journalist, he collaborates with many websites in Latin America, Europe, North America and the Middle East. He is a contributor to Orinoco Tribune. His website: www.arnoldaugust.com

Featured image is from Orinoco Tribune

Nixon 68 is back with a vengeance, with President Trump placing himself as the guarantor/enforcer of Law & Order.

That slogan guaranteed Nixon’s election, and was coined by Kevin Phillips, then an expert in “ethnic voting patterns”.

Philips makes for a very interesting case. In 1999, he became the author of a seminal book: The Cousins’ Wars: Religion, Politics, and the Triumph of Anglo-America, where he tracks how a “small Tudor kingdom” ended up establishing global hegemony.

The division of the English-speaking community into two great powers – “one aristocratic, ‘chosen’ and imperial; and one democratic, ‘chosen’ and manifest destiny-driven”, as Philips correctly establishes – was accomplished by, what else, a war triptych: the English Civil War, the American revolution and the U.S. Civil War.

Now, we may be at the threshold of a fourth war – with unpredictable and unforeseen consequences.

As it stands, what we have is a do-or-die clash of models: MAGA against an exclusivist Fed/Wall Street/Silicon Valley-controlled system.

MAGA – which is a rehash of the American dream – simply cannot happen when society is viciously polarized; vast sectors of the middle class are being completely erased; and mass immigration is coming from the Global South.

In contrast, the Fed as a Wall Street hedge fund meets Silicon Valley model, a supremely elitist 0.001% concoction, has ample margins to thrive.

The model is based on even more rigid corporate monopoly; the preeminence of capital markets, where a Wall Street boom is guaranteed by government debt-buybacks of its own debt; and life itself regulated by algorithms and Big Data.

This is the Brave New World dreamed by the techno-financial Masters of the Universe.

Trump’s MAGA woes have been compounded by a shoddy geopolitical move in tandem with Law and Order: his re-election campaign will be under the sign of “China, China, China.” When in trouble, blame a foreign enemy.

That comes from serially failed opportunist Steve Bannon and his Chinese billionaire sidekick Guo Wengui, or Miles Guo. Here they are in Statue of Liberty mode announcing their no holds barred infowar campaign to demonize the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) to Kingdom Come and “free the Chinese people”.

Bannon’s preferred talking point is that if his infowar fails, there will be “kinetic war”. That is nonsense. Beijing’s priorities are elsewhere. Only a few neo-conned Dr. Strangeloves would envisage “kinetic war”- as in a pre-emptive nuclear strike against Chinese territory.

Alastair Crooke has masterfully shown how the geoeconomic game, as Trump sees it, is above all to preserve the power of the U.S. dollar: “His particular concern would be to see a Europe that was umbilically linked to the financial and technological heavyweight that is China. This, in itself, effectively would presage a different world financial governance.”

But then there’s The Leopard syndrome: “If we want things to stay as they are, things will have to change”. Enter Covid-19 as a particle accelerator, used by the Masters of the Universe to tweak “things” a bit so they not only stay as they are but the Master grip on the world tightens.

The problem is Covid-19 behaves as a set of – uncontrollable – free electrons. That means nobody, even the Masters of the Universe, is able to really weigh the full consequences of a runaway, compounded financial/social crisis.

Deconstructing Nixon-Trump

Russiagate, now totally debunked, has unfolded in effect as a running coup: a color non-revolution metastasizing into Ukrainegate and the impeachment fiasco. In this poorly scripted and evidence-free morality play with shades of Watergate, Trump was cast by the Democrats as Nixon.

Big mistake. Watergate had nothing to do with a Hollywood-celebrated couple of daring reporters. Watergate represented the industrial-military-security-media complex going after Nixon. Deep Throat and other sources came from inside the Deep State. And it was not by accident that they were steering the Washington Post – which, among other roles, plays the part of CIA mouthpiece to perfection.

Trump is a completely different matter. The Deep State keeps him under control. One just needs to look at the record: more funds for the Pentagon, $1 trillion in brand new nuclear weapons, perennial sanctions on Russia, non-stop threats to Russia’s western borders, (failed) efforts to derail Nord Stream 2. And this is only a partial list.

So, from a Deep State point of view, the geopolitical front – containment of Russia-China – is assured. Domestically, it’s much more complicated.

As much as Black Lives Matter does not threaten the system even remotely like the Black Panthers in the 60s, Trump believes his own Law & Order, like Nixon, will once again prevail. The key will be to attract the white women suburban vote. Republican pollsters are extremely optimistic and even talking about a “landslide”.

Yet the behavior of an extra crucial vector must be understood: what corporate America wants.

When we look at who’s supporting Black Lives Matter – and Antifa – we find, among others, Adidas, Amazon, Airbnb, American Express, Bank of America, BMW, Burger King, Citigroup, Coca Cola, DHL, Disney, eBay, General Motors, Goldman Sachs, Google, IBM, Mastercard, McDonald’s, Microsoft, Netflix, Nike, Pfizer, Procter & Gamble, Sony, Starbucks, Twitter, Verizon, WalMart, Warner Brothers and YouTube.

This who’s who would suggest a completely isolated Trump. But then we have to look at what really matters; the class war dynamics in what is in fact a caste system, as Laurence Brahm argues.

Black Lives Matter, the organization and its ramifications, is essentially being instrumentalized by selected corporate interests to accelerate their own priority: to crush the U.S. working classes into a state of perpetual anomie, as a new automated economy rises.

That may always happen under Trump. But it will be faster without Trump.

What’s fascinating is how this current strategy of tension scenario is being developed as a classic CIA/NED playbook color revolution.

An undisputed, genuine grievance – over police brutality and systemic racism – has been completely manipulated, showered with lavish funds, infiltrated, and even weaponized against “the regime”.

Just to control Trump is not enough for the Deep State – due to the maximum instability and unreliability of his Demented Narcissus persona. Thus, in yet another priceless historical irony, “Assad must go” metastasized into “Trump must go”.

The cadaver in the basement

One must never lose track of the fundamental objectives of those who firmly control that assembly of bought and paid for patsies in Capitol Hill: to always privilege Divide and Rule – on class, race, identity politics.

After all, the majority of the population is considered expendable. It helps that the instrumentalized are playing their part to perfection, totally legitimized by mainstream media. No one will hear lavishly funded Black Lives Matter addressing the real heart of the matter: the reset of the predatory Restored Neoliberalism project, barely purged of its veneer of Hybrid Neofascism. The blueprint is the Great Reset to be launched by the World Economic Forum in January 2021.

It will be fascinating to watch how Trump deals with this “Summer of Love” remake of Maidan transposed to the Seattle commune. The hint from Team Trump circles is that he will do nothing: a coalition of white supremacists and motorcycle gangs might take care of the “problem” on the Fourth of July.

None of this sweetens the fact that Trump is at the heart of a crossfire hurricane: his disastrous response to Covid-19; the upcoming, devastating effects of the New Great Depression; and his intimations pointing to what could turn into martial law.

Still, the legendary Hollywood maxim – “no one knows anything” – rules. Even running with a semi-cadaver in a basement, the Democrats may win in November just by doing nothing. Yet Teflon Trump should never be underestimated. The Deep State may even realize he’s more useful than they think.

*

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

Pepe Escobar is a frequent contributor to Global Research.

Featured image is from Windover Way Photography

I remember a sociology professor that was Maoist, a girl who belonged to a Maoist group and another one who studied Mandarin. A colorful magazine from China sold everywhere, picturing in glossy paper, clean, good looking youth of both sexes dressed Mao style waving gigantic red flags in squares with traditional Chinese buildings. Since then we all witnessed huge changes in the world and in China. At some point in the 1980s China adopted a form of capitalism managed by its Communist Party; the model, open to western corporations eager to produce goods at low cost, expanded over the years. Low salaries and having no unionized labour is the holy grail of money making in manufacturing, Western powers loved it. Soon China moved with the world into the realm of “Neoliberalism” –a push by the very rich to return to their “gilded age” -to obnoxious wealth made ignoring people’s rights and ecological limits. More recently China’s ongoing growth lowered its pace, it was expected, but China plans to move up the capitalist ladder and planned for changes. In many ways China remains elusive and contradictory; but now, China is no longer a friend of the West.

Breaking the Celestial Empire…

European powers approached America, Africa and Asia with gunboat diplomacy and colonialism, trafficking people, assaulting and pillaging the world, and using whatever means to ensure profit and domination. Non-Europeans have faced a common historical thread of subjugation, slavery, racism, misery, abuse and death, even if they are not always aware. Original peoples were driven to extinction in many places by mere contact with old world germs, but the ones who survived suffered and succumbed to European abuse. European victors wrote history ignoring truth, but modern revision shows victors total disregard for human life, truth and limits. I guess colonizing minds pay no attention to feelings distracting from empire building and wealth accumulation. Still, in fairness to Europeans, hunger for more seems to be a dominant human flaw, a construct that imperialism and capitalism express with total brutality. Sadly for us, both persists and dominate the world today, implemented by descendants of our colonial-neocolonial ancestors, like the US.

In 1793 the British Empire encountered China at the height of its development, by then the British had colonized India in Asia. China was a prosperous empire with silk, tea, porcelain, gunpowder, kites and it showed no interest in commerce with Britain. The Chinese Emperor Qianlong expressed his views in a letter to King George:

…As your Ambassador can see for himself, we possess all things. I set no value on objects strange or ingenious, and have no use for your country’s manufactures…Our Celestial Empire possesses all things in prolific abundance and lacks no product within its own borders. There was therefore no need to import the manufactures of outside barbarians in exchange for our own produce. But as the tea, silk and porcelain which the Celestial Empire produces, are absolute necessities to European nations and to yourselves, we have permitted, as a signal mark of favour, that foreign hongs [merchant firms] should be established at Canton, so that your wants might be supplied and your country thus participate in our beneficence (1).

Eager to access China, the British accepted buying Chinese goods as they were valued in Europe and easy to sell, but soon, they found themselves in a trade imbalance. Gold and silver went to China paying for imports but did not return to Europe as China wanted nothing. It does sounds familiar, doesn’t it? For years the British studied ways to “penetrate the Chinese market” until they found a wedge in opium. The Chinese knew opium as a medicine, but had no idea of the effects of addiction. The British produced cheap opium in India and sold it in China as a recreational drug. The East Indian Company (EIC) the first corporation ever was behind this. The EIC started in the 1600s “created by men who controlled capital to finance voyages for colonization;”a colonization tool causing much damage (2).

Vandana Shiva, discussing the emergence of corporations, explains how the East Indian Company controlled India and used it as a base to move into China. In the 1600 India produced rice, wheat, sugar and raw cotton for Asia and for the world, she says, but when in 1717 the EIC obtained a grant from Emperor Farrkhsujar in Delhi to trade custom-free throughout imperial territories, India’s flourishing ended. Bengal itself collapsed by 1757. By then the EIC traders were no longer simple merchants in India, they were its rulers. Some argue this was due to technology, but it was tariffs and prohibitions what led to the industrial growth of England and to India’s industrial demise. England produced no cotton at all in 1771 but by 1845 it dominated the textile trade, while India had disappeared from production. It is what many call now “free trade and globalization,” says Shiva, but she calls it differently, for her the practice is the “ultimate enclosure” of the commons. Any protective measure a country takes against such penetration, she argues, becomes an issue and can be understood as a declaration of war and followed by sanctions, and even indirect or direct war. (2)

The East Indian Company introduced opium into China in 1825; soon after the Chinese addiction to opium expanded (to 4-12 million people). The Emperor prohibited its use, possession and trade. But, prohibition did not work. Profits were huge and tempting so a strong illegal trade developed. In 1839, desperate, the Emperor sent Commissioner Lin Tse-Hsu to put an end to the opium trade. Lin, aware of the British involvement, wrote to Queen Victoria hoping for her support:

We have heard that in your own country opium is prohibited with the utmost strictness and severity: this is a strong proof that you know full well how hurtful it is to mankind. Since then you do not permit it to injure your own country, you ought not to have the injurious drug transferred to another country…Of the products which China exports to your foreign countries, there is not one which is not beneficial to mankind in some shape or other. There are those which serve for food, those which are useful, and those which are calculated for re-sale; but all are beneficial. Has China (we should like to ask) ever yet sent forth a noxious article from its soil?

The Queen did not respond. Lin implemented his Emperor’s command and destroyed a large supply of opium stored on Chinese soil. Outraged, the British started the first Opium War and easily defeated China with British industrial weaponry. China had to accept a settlement of war which forced the Emperor to agree to open up new ports for trade, surrender the island of Hong Kong and pay millions in compensation for the opium destroyed. Later, in 1856, wanting more concessions, the British launched a second Opium War. China was humiliated, forced to stop holding foreigners accountable under Chinese law for crimes committed in China; it lost its ability to control trade and foreign nationals within its own borders (1).

The East Indian Company is a front runner of global capitalism, an agent of Empire. Corporations and CEOs ensure capital accumulation without any accountability for unethical conduct. A crucial picture of an agent of globalization emerges from Frank Holt’s writings about Alexander the Great, the West “greatest conqueror” and most beloved empire builder. It is normal for most scholars today to acknowledge Alexander the Great as a “reckless alcoholic, a vicious psychopath and a destructive barbarian” Holtz says. And still, some praise in him “an economist who knew what he was aiming at” arguing that Alexander’s way of dealing with the booty he seized from Persia (turning it into coined money) “stimulated markets and created a sound and lasting monetary policy.” Some even say Alexander was a“rare genius” who introduced capitalism into Asia overnight. (3)

Steve Forbes, editor-in-chief of Forbes magazine, imagine Alexander as a (Neoliberal) Chief Executive Officer of today, one relentlessly pushing capitalism forward. This is what he says:

“As a CEO, Alexander would have been effective, successful and comfortable in today’s multinational business world. He would have been sure to make headlines in business journals, dazzle Wall Street with his hostile takeovers, and instill a combination of admiration and fear in the heads of his investors, managers, allies, and adversaries with his tolerance to risk and in-your-face management style.” (3)

The cat that catches mice…

China, after moving through its first revolutionary war (1925-1927) and its second revolutionary war (1949) was facing challenges. After the great famine of the 1950s, and the Cultural Revolution of the 60-70s, China changed direction (1970s-1990s) under the influence of Deng Xiaoping. Considered a pragmatic, he argued in favor of what “worked” and was not fully convinced of the benefits of egalitarianism. He convinced Chinese people of his approach using an interesting image: it doesn’t matter whether a cat is white or black, he argued, as long as it catches mice. He started by imposing admission exams to school and favoring the brightest. China’s transformation continued from there, eventually joining the global economy and the dominant focus on industrialization and growth. The capitalist world had room for China; and, Chinese government gambled on their capacity to control capitalism and use it to China’s advantage. (4)

China the “powerhouse” created wealth but it did not distributed it in an egalitarian manner. By 2014 the top 1% of China’s population owned 1/3 of the country’s wealth.  Today, in the world, the top 1% owns 45% of global wealth while the top 10% owns 82% of it. According to the Forbes List (2020) China has five billionaires among the top 40 billionaires of the world 1% (with fortunes of USD 20 to 38 billions). The first of the Chinese five is Jack Ma, in e-commerce. China also has almost 100 million members of the global 10% and 4.4 million millionaires. In terms of ultra-high net worth individuals China is second only to the US. (5)

Manufacturing continues to be in China’s mind the key to prosperity. China, aware that its manufacturing base is large but not strong, has gaps, faces challenges, wants to make changes. With this in mind China launched in 2015 “Made in China 2025” (MIC 2025). The goal is independence through leadership in innovation, advanced technology and industrial systems in specific areas (aerospace, AI, pharmaceuticals, telecommunications…). China has leading companies in the areas selected; Huawei is one of them. The US, aware of China’s strategy and concerned about its own hegemony worked at blocking China and soon accusations about China’s disloyalty and “suspect” motives invaded the media.

Friend or Foe?

In truth, China is merely following its development path. Its goal to advance from producing low-cost machinery and equipment to higher quality, more advanced products of recognized brands is to be expected in a capitalist world.  But, for China it may mean war with the US and its allies. The vitriol against China is loud and ongoing and although this may not be an “ideological war” (although nasty references to “Communists” are made) US threats of “decoupling” with China cannot be trifled with. Like all wars, market wars are about power. A relentless propaganda machine keeps dressing China as enemy number one. Attacks are diverse and, probably because of Huawei’s ready to go 5G technology, Huawei is a target. The 5 eyes’ intelligence (Australia, Canada, New Zealand, UK, US) met in Nova Scotia to brief Canada’s Prime Minister and plan on Huawei’s CEO extradition to the US. Meng Wanzhou, who at some point even had Canadian landed status, owns two properties and lives with her family in Vancouver, was taken. Her case is in Court. Canada’s good relations with China are at risk but China cannot be surprised.

Animosity against China is also clear in the case of Hong Kong, site of ongoing and violent protest waiving British flags, asking for a return to its colonial master (the British seized it during the First Opium War), waving pictures of President Trump asking him for intervention. It sounded obviously staged from outside. But as a result of these and other attacks China approved a new national security law that includes Hong Kong. As a response the US decides removing Hong Kong’s preferential status –it can no longer see it as a separate trade jurisdiction. Tariffs could apply to Hong Kong, passports and visas be affected and there may even be sanctions. Australia, Canada, UK may follow the US in this. Hong Kong manufacturing could be affected, trade can favor Shanghai and Shenzhen’s  rise, foreign investors may decide to invest in Singapore (6).

COVID-19 complicates matters too. The Trump Administration made loud and public accusations against China and the World Health Organization for “conspiring” to harm the US. Such climate favoured non-sense lawsuits and much talk. The truth is obvious, Western countries have been challenged by the COVID-19 pandemic, in particular the US. China, however, has managed it quiet effectively. Numbers talk: China had 4624 deaths while the US has reached 120 000 and counting (see this).

The ongoing cold war climate has to be clear to China because it is recommending to functionaries and journalists at home to keep quiet about MIC 2025 and avoid further wrath. But, can the West stop or are we beyond sanity.

Do unto others…

Fentanyl, a synthetic opiate made by illegal labs, in China and other places, is damaging the Western world. In Canada there were 2946 deaths in 2016 because of Fentanyl overdose, it is easy to OD with a drug so powerful than a few grains of it can stop your breathing. In the US Fentanyl is epidemic killing 30 000 in 2018, its Atlantic coast particularly vulnerable. Like opium, in the past, Fentanyl today is proving difficult to stop. It is easy to make in illegal labs and cheap -a kilogram of pure Fentanyl sells for US $ 2000 while the same amount and potency of heroin costs 50 times more. (7)

Katherine Pfaff, spokesperson for the US Drug Enforcement Agency, told BBC in 2017 that interceptions from the US postal system, information from people on the ground, and tracking cyber footprints, lead them to believe a significant amount of Fentanyl comes from China. A European drug monitoring agency agreed that most shipments of new Fentanyl into Europe originated in China but some illegal production was from labs in Europe. China acknowledged the issue, its fast growing pharmaceutical industry is challenging to regulate, but China promised to work towards ending illegal traffic by increasing control over materials required in the illegal production of Fentanyl. (8) China did not behave like Britain did after prying open the Chinese market with opium. Britain care nothing about destroying Chinese society, or about the pain of millions of lives ruined.

Safety, Equality, Income: the why of the Revolution

In Alberta, a Chinese state-owned company (SSEC Canada Ltd.) was ordered to pay $ 1.5 million after pleading guilty to three workplace safety charges that caused the death of two Chinese temporary foreign workers in 2007. It happened at the Canadian Natural Resources’ Horizon project near Fort McMurray (Canada). SSEC, a subsidiary of Sinopec Shanghai Engineering Company Ltd., tendered a contract including 132 Mandarin-speaking Chinese workers recruited by Canada to work on tanks built while they were inside them. SSEC obtained this contract undermining the price of unionized companies. Two workers were crushed by falling steel and five more were injured. SSEC was rushing workers who did not speak English and had limited safety training. Canadian workers witnessing the incident were shocked by SSEC lack of concern for its workers safety, particularly because SSEC is state-owned. (9)

Industrialization in China created a marked urban/rural divide as policies favoured cities and the reduction of rural investment to finance industrialization. The rural population suffered limited access to services and benefits. Inequality has increased nearly everywhere in the world but it increased particularly in North America, China, India and Russia. It is the end of post war egalitarian policies in many countries. In places like the Middle East, Sub-Saharan Africa and Brazil, however, inequality remained stable mainly because such policies never existed there: they are the “inequality frontier.” In countries that were highly regulated before, like India or China and Russia inequality increased. In Russia it increased abruptly, in China more moderately and in India gradually. The balance between private and public wealth changed, this balance is a crucial determinant of inequality. China and Russia had an unusual increase in private wealth since the 1980s, in both public wealth decreased from 60-70% to 20-30% which affected government capacity to regulate the economy, redistribute income and mitigate rising inequality (10).

In 1988, Wang Jian from China Society of Macroeconomics, stated that China should take advantage of its cheap labour force to become a global manufacturing hub. Today, he thinks otherwise:  “It is time to expand at home, on domestic markets,” he argues. Since Washington is pushing to fully decouple from China, China should accept this and focus on turning country’s rural and migrant worker population into urban consumers:  “From globalization-driven to domestic-led economy, self reliance and economic security…securing overseas resources rather than increasing sales.”  He is also concerned about the gap between the nation’s well off and the rest of its 1.4 billion people. (11)

Industrialization and growth has been China’s motto -now encouraging innovation, better use of resources, new -environment friendly- energy, and full digitalization. China could question the Western model with its focus on unending growth which inevitably leads to the destruction of Nature. Besides growth has limits; in a planet with limited resources the effects of our activities are visibly killing our ecosystem. Innovation, substitution and efficiency, says Richard Heinberg, will not keep economies growing because absolute growth ended and we now have only competition and relative growth in a “finite world.”  For the Chinese economy to grow some other economy must shrink. Heinberg, who encourages us to abandon the futile pursuit of growth in consumption, wants us to focus instead on improving quality of life and achieving balance with Nature. (12)

China is aware of its ecological challenges but does China consider the possibility that its advanced development dream may be unattainable? Earth, a living system, may be huge but still finite, complex and interconnected. Is there room for China development of its aerospace industry, its internet of “things” a step towards its internet of “industry”, its robotics? We will have to see. The cat that catches mice may have been “too efficient” exterminating them all. Maybe from this point on there are no more mice to catch.

*

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

Notes

(1) Opium: The Downfall of Imperial China. http://www.historywiz.com/downfall.htm:

(2) Earth Democracy, Justice, sustainability and peace (2005). Vandana Shiva, South End Press, Cambridge, Massachussetts.

(3) The Treasures of Alexander the Great. How a San’s Wealth shaped the World. (2016) Frank L. Holt, Oxford University Press.

(4) Deng Xiaoping,  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deng_Xiaoping

(5) Global Wealth Report 2019, Credit Suisse

https://www.credit-suisse.com/about-us/en/reports-research/global-wealth-report.html

(6) The US position on Hong Kong’s special status

https://www.china-briefing.com/news/us-position-hong-kong-special-status-possible-implications/

(7) Fentanyl: The Most Dangerous Illegal Drug in America (2020), RAND Corporation, https://www.rand.org/blog/rand-review/2020/01/fentanyl-the-most-dangerous-illegal-drug-in-america.html

(8) Fentanyl crisis: Is China a major source of illegal drugs? Reality Check Team, BBC News. https://www.bbc.com/news/world-45564744

(9) Firm linked to China ordered to pay $ 1.5 million in deaths of workers in Alberta, (2013)https://business.financialpost.com/commodities/energy/china-linked-firm-to-pay-1-5m-in-death

(10) Income Inequality Report UNESCO 2018

https://en.unesco.org/inclusivepolicylab/sites/default/files/publication/document/2018/7/wir2018-full-report-english.pdf

(11) China’s globalization pioneer says it is now time to look closer to home amid US decoupling move. Frank Tang, June 2020, South China Morning Post.  https://www.scmp.com/economy/china-economy/article/3088060/chinas-globalisation-pioneer-says-it-now-time-look-closer

(12) The End of Growth: Adapting to Our New Economic Reality (2011) Richard Heinberg, New Society, Canada.

A federal lawsuit filed today says President Trump’s June 5 executive order allowing commercial fishing in the Northeast Canyons and Seamounts Marine National Monument was illegal. The lawsuit notes that the Antiquities Act allows presidents to create national monuments to protect objects of historic or scientific interest, but not to revoke protections.

The lawsuit was filed in federal district court in Washington, D.C. by the Conservation Law Foundation, Natural Resources Defense Council, Center for Biological Diversity and Zack Klyver from Maine.

“Trump’s order was illegal because he can’t just declare commercial fishing is allowed in a protected marine monument,” said Kristen Monsell, an attorney at the Center for Biological Diversity. “The Seamounts monument was created to permanently safeguard this amazing ecosystem and vulnerable species like the endangered sperm whale. Presidents can’t be allowed to gut protections by decree as a favor to commercial fishermen.”

President Obama created the Northeast Canyons and Seamounts Marine National Monument in 2016 to protect 5,000 square miles of sensitive deep-sea coral reefs and the vulnerable marine life they support. Among those species is the critically endangered North Atlantic right whale, whose declining population of about 400 is threatened by entanglement in commercial lobster gear.

Commercial fishing organizations challenged the monument’s designation and ban on fishing, but a federal district court rejected those claims in 2018. That decision was upheld in December by the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit.

“I spend lots of time on the water so I know how important it is to protect this marine monument. My business depends on a healthy ocean,” said Zack Klyver, co-founder of Blue Planet Strategies. “Trump’s attack on New England’s prized marine monument is one I take personally. We need to protect our oceans and their abundance of marine life for future generations to experience”

The Trump administration has been trying to roll back protections of national monuments since early 2017 and open them up to mining, fossil fuel, commercial fishing and other extractive industries. Among the targets in that effort were the Northeast Canyons and Seamounts Marine National Monument and the Pacific Remote Islands and Rose Atoll Marine National Monuments in the South Pacific.

The Northeast Canyons and Seamounts Marine National Monument is home to unique and incredibly important undersea features and creates an ecologically rich marine environment in which numerous species of marine mammals, sea turtles and fish congregate. It’s also home to cold-water coral species that are thousands of years old, along with other marine species found nowhere else in the world.

*

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

In 2012, a young man educated in the West took over the power in Pyongyang; he has decided to transform North Korea into an ordinary country where people can live decent life.

His name is Kim Jong-un. He has given everything to achieve his objectives. He met three times Moon Jae-in, president of South Korea and three times Donald Trump, president of the U.S.

He made a several-thousand-km train trip in February 2019 to Hanoi filled with the hope for peace; he was betrayed by Trump.

Yet, he has not given up the hope; he still trusted Moon Jae-in; he waited, he was disappointed.

Then, a group of North Korean refugees in South Korea has not stopped sending balloons of anti-Kim Jong-un propaganda leaflets insulting the dignity of the supreme leader.

Now he is angry. His sister, Kim Yo-jong has been making violent statements against Moon Jae-in and South Korea; she even promised to blow up the Joint Liaison Office Building in the city of Gaesung, the symbol of the North-South peace dialogue.

The Building was blown up at 14:49 on June 16.

And, the danger of military confrontation on the Korean peninsula is not impossible.

North Korea might send back some army units including long-distance artillery units to Gaesung city and Geumgan-san area thus threatening South Korea, in particular, the Seoul metropolitan area where 50% of South Koreans live.

This paper begins with the episode of propaganda leaflets followed by the analysis of the hidden reasons for violent reaction of North Korea through Kim Yo-jong. Then, it discusses the North-South economic cooperation which is the only way to overcome the present security crisis.

Propaganda Leaflets Incidence

In the period, from April 9 to May 31, 2020, a radical right-wing group of North Korean refugees sent by air and sea more than 10,000 propaganda leaflets with a bag of rice, one-dollar bill and a lot of dirty insulting words against Kim Jong-un and North Korea.

There are about 30,000 North Korean refugees most of whom are now South Korean citizens.

Some of them earn money by reporting to intelligence agencies in the U.S. and South Korea under conservative government fabricated stories of abuse of power and violation of human rights in the North.

A few radical group work for some American NGOs which fund the operation of sending the leaflets; this operation violates some existing South Korean laws and, in particular, the Panmunjom Declaration of April 2018 and the Joint Pyongyang Declaration of September, 2018.

Kim Yo-jong (image on the right; source is Reuters), vice-director of the United Front Department of the Workers’ Party of Korea (WPK) who is now considered to be second in command in Pyongyang lashed out in public blaming South Korea for allowing the launching of leaflets of anti-Pyongyang propaganda.

However, her statements cover much more than her anger about the propaganda leaflets; they reflect cumulated frustration of North Korea about the inactions of Seoul and Washington.

Her accusation was unusual in several aspects.

First, the tone was very aggressive treating South Korea as enemy; she would cut all the direct communication channels including the military lines. In addition, she has asked the military to take appropriate actions against South Korea.

Second, her statements are reported for several days in Ro-Dong Sinmun, official paper of the Workers’ Party. This means that the whole population of North Korea is informed about the issues.

Third, there have been street demonstrations by citizens for days. Even the chef of the most famous restaurant in Pyongyang has made a harsh statement against South Korea.

This means that the whole population of North Korea is allowed to join the South Korea bashing campaign.

Some of Kim Yo-jong’s declarations show how the North Koreans feel about South Korea and the U.S.

“Getting stronger every day are unanimous voices of all our people demanding for surely settling account with the riff-raff who dare the absolute prestige of our Supreme leader representing our country and its great dignity and flied rubbish to inviolable territory of our side with those who connived at such hooliganism, whatever many happen” (see this)

What seem to have hurt the feeling of Kim Yo-jong is those expressions found in the leaflets which are hurting the dignity and prestige of Kim Jong-un, whose absolute authority is essential to rule the country. Moreover, these leaflets messages are also hurting the prestige of Kim’s family.

In the past, there were many anti-North Korea propaganda leaflets, but they have seldom attacked directly the leader and his family.

Kim Yo-jong is blaming Moon Jae-in for more serious reasons.

“If the South Korean authorities have now the capacity and courage to carry out at once the things they have failed to do for the last two years, why are the North-South relations still in stalemate like now?” (see this)

What she is saying here is that South Korea should have implemented what was promised in the Joint Pyongyang Declaration, in particular, North-South economic cooperation.

This statement shows how deeply North Korea has been relying on the courage of Moon Jae-in to materialize his promise despite the objection of Washington.

There was also a statement of North Korean Foreign Minister, Ri Son-gon.

“The question is whether there will be a need to keep holding hands shaken in Singapore as we see that there is nothing of factual improvement to be made in the DPRK-U.S. relations simply by maintaining personal relations between our supreme leadership and the U.S. president. Never again will we provide the U.S. chief executive with another package to be used for achievement without receiving any return.” (see this)

In this statement, we can see how much North Korea has been disappointed with the inactions of Washington despite sincere actions taken by Pyongyang. But at the same time, we see that Pyongyang is still ready to talk to Washington.

Real Reasons behind the violent Reaction of Kim Yo-jong

The incidence of leaflet launching is one reason. But, the more important reason behind the Kim Yo-jong’s lashing out is something deeper; the real reason is the cumulated frustration caused by the failure of the peace dialogue.

The last Kim-Trump meeting along with Moon took place on June 30, 2019 at DMZ. But no significant results come out of the meeting.

Seeing the lack of Washington’s willingness to continue the  peace dialogue, Kim Jong-un made it clear at the three day meeting of the Workers’ Party of Korea (WPK), at the end of 2019, that North Korea should go its own way of securing peace and economic development without relying on the external help.

Kim Jong-un said this.

“We might even find ourselves in a situation where we have no choice but find our way for defending the sovereignty of the country and the supreme interests of the state and for achieving peace and stability of the Korean peninsula.” (see this)

In fact, since 2019, the main activities of Kim Jong-un have been the promotion of the production of goods and services with domestic inputs so that the North Korean economy be more self sufficient.

Actually, North Korea has been doing it best to be more autonomous; Kim Jong-un was relying on the development of the Wonsan-Kalma Tourist Development Zone in which Kim jong-un was pouring most of the available resources. Kim Jong-un spent a lot of time there to speed up the project.

But, the success of Kim Jung-un’s “My Way” depended much on the North-South economic cooperation as stipulated in the 9.19 Pyongyang Declaration signed by Kim Jong-un and Moon Jae-in on 19th of September, 2018

The 9.19 Pyongyang Declaration is the synthesis of three preceding declarations: the 6.15 Declaration (June 15, 2000), signed by Kim Dae-jung and Kim Jong-il, the 10.4 Declaration (October 4, 2007) signed by Rho Moo-hyun and Kim Jong-il and the 4.27 Panmunjom Declaration (April 27, 2018) signed by Kim Jong-un and Moon Jae-il.

The Pyongyang Declaration includes six sections.

• Cessation of hostile military activities in DMZ and constant high level-communication.
• Sustained economic cooperation, especially the re-opening of the Gaesung Industrial Complex (GIC), and the Geumgang Tourist Resort development (GTR). The agreement also includes the cooperation for epidemics and public health.
• Humanitarian cooperation including, in particular, the reunion of the separated families. It is interesting to notice that the agreement includes also internet facilities allowing video family reunion.
• Reconciliation and cooperation for the reunification of Koreas including cultural and sports exchanges
• Denuclearization of the peninsula including the dismantlement of the Dongchang-ri missile engine test sites and launch platform under the observation of foreign experts in addition to the permanent dismantlement of nuclear facilities in Yongbyon in exchange of corresponding U.S. actions.
• Seoul visit of Kim Jong-un

What Kim Jong-un was desperately hoping to get from Washington was the guarantee of the American non-aggression and the relief of sanctions.

But, since the betrayal of Trump in Hanoi, North Korea knows that it can no longer trust Washington.

However, Kim Jong-un thought that he could trust Mon Jae-in. After all, without such trust, the three Moon-Kim summits and the three Kim-Trump summits would not have taken place.

Besides, Kim Jong-un went to Singapore on June 12, 2018, because Mon Jae-in would have told him that it was worthwhile to meet Trump.

So, since the Hanoi deception, Kim Jong-un has been expecting that Moon would open the Gaesung Industrial Complex (GIC) and the Geumgang Tourist Resorts (GTR) along with the connection of railways.

In particular, the GIC and GTR are not subject to UN sanctions; they were closed by the conservative government of Lee Myong-bak and Park Geun-hye

Unfortunately, Moon has failed.

The question is then why Moon has failed to materialize these projects. To find the answer, we have to begin with identifying unseen forces which prevented Moon from doing so.

When Moon took over the government in 2017, he gave himself two missions. One was the establishment of peace on the Korean peninsula and the reunification of the country. The other was the purification of the 70-year old corruption culture created by the pro-Japan conservatives.

To do this, the progressive government had to keep power as long as possible, possibly 20 years. However, the conservative forces in South Korea are still active and they can take over the power, if the progressives take prematurely pro-North policies.

Before the election of April 15, 2020, the DP had no majority in the National Assembly and all efforts to promote North-South economic cooperation were blocked by the conservatives including the conservative civil servants.

Furthermore, the conservatives in South Korea have been supported by both Shinzo Abe of Japan and the deep-state force in Washington.

Under this situation, if Moon goes a little too far in the North-South dialogue, he would not be able to win the April election; his plan for peace and the fight against the conservatives’ corruption could have been compromised

Fortunately, Moon’s party, the DP, has won the April 15 election of 2020 and commands almost two-third of the seats in the National Assembly. Now, Moon can move to do what was promised.

North-South Cooperation as Means of Overcoming the Present Security Crisis 

The following is the North-South cooperation which has been planned by Moon Jae-in and which is now in doubt because of the current security and corona virus crisis.

What North Korea wants and what South Korea can do are the following.

• Law prohibiting the launching of anti-North Korea propaganda leaflets.
• Reopening of the Gaesung Industrial Complex (GIC)
• Reopening of the Geumgang Tourists Resorts (GTR)
• North-South Railway Connection
• Cooperation for the anti-corona-virus war.

Already, the Democratic Party has prepared a law prohibiting the launching of the anti-North Korea propaganda leaflets. The bill will be passed in a month.

The Gaesung industrial Complex has been the best model of North-South economic cooperation in which the South provides the capital and technology, while the North offers land and highly trained cheap labour.

More than 100 South Korea firms were making huge profit and a large sum of money went to the North Korean treasury. The GIC model will be the basic frame of future North-South economic cooperation.

The Geumgang Tourist Complex has been one of the important sources of income for North Korea. The Hyundai Asan is the key investor. It will be integrated into the new colossal Wonsan-Kalma Tourist Resort Zone which would become one of the major global tourist attractions. For this, Kim Jong-un needs South Korea money and technology.

The North-South railway connections on the west coast and east coast are of strategic importance, for it is beginning of the integration of the Korea peninsula into the China’s BRI (one-belt-one -road initiative) and cross-Siberia railways.

In other words, the project has the function of integrating the Korean economy into the Eurasia and EU economy.

One of the reasons for the unusually harsh reaction of North Korea is the corona virus crisis. In fact, North Korea has closed completely in January the cross-border traffic of people and goods, which led to the desperate economic situation. North Korea has no public health system to cope with the crisis. North Korea needs South Korea to fight the corona virus.

The corona virus crisis combined with the non-action on the part of Moon Jae-in and the stupid gesture of some North Korea refugees have led to the violent gesture of Kim Yo-jong.

President Moon Jae-in has reacted to North Korea’s unusually hostile behaviour. He made the following statement on 15th of June, which happened to be the 20th anniversary of the 6.15 Declaration signed, in 2000, by Kim Dae-jung, South Korean president and Kim Jong-il, North Korean supreme leader.

“The April 27 Panmunjom Declaration and the September 19 Joint Declaration in Pyongyang are solemn promise that both the South and the North must faithfully carry out. This is a firm principle that cannot be swayed by any change in circumstances.”

“Our government will make ceaseless efforts to implement the agreements we have made. We will keep up our hard-earned achievements. The North and the South should stop its attempt to cut off communication, raise tension and return to an era of confrontation. We hope that the uncomfortable and difficult problems facing two sides will be solved through communication and cooperation.” (see this)

These statements of President Moon make it clear that he will keep the agreements through communication and cooperation.

He has been trying to implement the agreement, but he has not been able to do so, partly because of the internal political constraints and partly due to Washington’s lack of cooperation.

Now, as we saw above, the internal political constraints are attenuated owing the crushing victory of his Democratic Party at the last April general election. Moon Jae-in will do what was promised.

But, it is not clear how far Washington would cooperate with Moon, given the confusing political and social disturbance in the U.S.

It may be difficult to have Trump’s support, but Moon should be able to convince Trump not to interfere in the North-South economic cooperation as long as such cooperation does not violate the sanctions.

It is time for South Korea to have more saying in North-South relations, which are much more important to Koreans than to Americans.

To sum up, I would like to add one word for Kim Jong-un and Kim Yo-jong.

Most of South Koreans understand North Korea’s frustration. But, let us not forget that owing to the peace dialogue initiated by Moon Jae-in and enforced by Kim Jong-un and Donald Trump, the international status of the Kim Jong-un has been assured and the image of North Korea has greatly been improved.

Moreover, the peace has been established since 2018 in the Korean peninsula.

As for the North-South economic cooperation, one can allow some optimism, given the firm determination of the Moon’s government to implement the Joint Pyongyang Declaration.

Moreover, the domination of the National Assembly by the progressive Democratic Party can facilitate Moon’s policy of inter-Korea cooperation.

Finally, North Korea should not forget that North Koreans and South Koreans are the same race which had been united for more than 4,000 years but separated for 75 years.

They have different flags, but the blood is the same. The only way to solve the problems is the united efforts of the North and the South with international cooperation.

*

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

Professor Joseph H. Chung is professor of economics and co-director of the Observatoire de l’Asie de l’Est (OAE) of the Centre d’Études sur l’Intégration et la Mondialisation (CEIM), Université du Québec à Montréal (UQAM). He is Research Associate of the Center of Research on Globalisation (CRG).

Featured image is from The Intercept

Millions of white people glorify mass murderers because their sense of identity and place in society is deeply tied to white supremacy.

“It is important to name and shame the mass murderers.”

The perpetrators of crimes against humanity are often elevated to positions of respect and admiration. It all depends on who did the killing, and who was killed. Now the murderers are being called to account. The new movement in the United States against police and other state violence has inspired this welcome change taking place all over the world. The criminals are being exposed decades and even centuries after their atrocities took place. There is no statute of limitations for murder nor should there be for calling out people who have the blood of millions on their hands.

Statues of Belgium’s King Leopold have been defaced and even removed. Leopold held the Congo as his personal fiefdom, the Congo Free State, where he killed as many as 15 million people who were forced to work on rubber plantations. The cruelty of murder and mutilation was exposed after a more than 20-year reign of terror. George Washington Williams, a black American journalist, played a key role in bringing the genocide to public attention.

Instead of Adolf Hitler being the only European who comes to mind when genocide is mentioned, the name Leopold ought to have the same effect. But Hitler killed Europeans and Leopold killed Africans. The crimes of one are widely known while the other escapes condemnation because his crimes were erased.

“King Leopold killed as many as 15 million people who were forced to work on rubber plantations.”

The same can be said of Winston Churchill. During World War II he presided over a famine  in colonial India caused by the theft of rice and wheat which supplied Britain’s armies. An estimated 3 million people died but starvation in Bengal province was not his first opportunity to commit mass murder. After World War I he advocated gassing Iraqis  who rebelled against British rule. “I am strongly in favor of using poison gas against uncivilized tribes.”  He had already ordered chemical weapons attacks against the Russian Bolsheviks in 1918.

Now Churchill’s statue in London’s parliament square is covered in a large box to protect it from protesters. A group scrawled graffiti which correctly labeled as a racist the man who said that his Indian victims “breed like rabbits.”

The taboos are falling just like the statues that honored slave traders and Indian killers in this country. Robert E. Lee’s monument in Richmond, Virginia is now covered in graffiti and a likeness of George Floyd, whose murder at the hands of police motivated people to denounce the killers whose crimes are covered up. Too many historians choose to affirm corrupt systems rather than tell the truth. But the people are ignoring entreaties from all the elites and are taking matters into their own hands.

“Churchill said that his Indian victims ‘breed like rabbits.’” 

Christopher Columbus is among those being exposed. His voyages on behalf of the Spanish crown were followed by other European invasions which brought disease and bloody conquest against indigenous populations from the tip of South America all the way to Alaska. This genocide was the precursor to the trans-Atlantic slave trade which brought Africans to suffer as chattel throughout North and South America..

But there is a reaction to every action and when the question of removing the Columbus statue in New York City was raised, governor Andrew Cuomo demurred, “But the statue has come to represent and signify appreciation for the Italian-American contribution to New York.” Columbus was born Cristoforo Colombo in Genoa. This need for Cuomo and others to hang on to the criminal is obvious. Columbus puts Italians at the center of the settler colonial state. They are not the southern European catholic immigrants who were often looked down upon when they first arrived. Columbus makes them white Americans and they cling to him lest they lose that imprimatur.

Everyone should work mightily to remove the stain of mass murderers who even define how we identify ourselves. The name Columbus came to mean America itself. We are left with a South American nation, Colombia, named after him. The U.S. capital is the District of Columbia, while Canada’s far western province is doubly colonized with the name British Columbia and cities like Columbus, Ohio and institutions like Columbia University abound. The indigenous who suffered because of his invasion now have their culture labeled pre and post Columbian. The crimes continue as millions of people are forcibly linked to the genocidaire.

“Columbus puts Italians at the center of the settler colonial state.”

New York’s governor is not alone in trying to stem the tide of truth telling. A group of white men armed with guns and other weapons felt the need to protect a statue of Columbus in Philadelphia. This intransigence tells us why it is so important to name and shame the mass murderers. Their credibility must be destroyed if white supremacy is ever to become a thing of the past. The statues must go and so must excuse making for atrocities if whites are the perpetrators and non-whites are the victims.

The hand wringing over monument removal is not just connected to reverence for these individuals. While millions of people want change, millions more do not and they hold on to Columbus or Leopold or Churchill or Robert E. Lee because their identity and place in society is firmly tied to white supremacy. If a Columbus statue comes down so might a small portion of white entitlement and its privileges.

The monuments to genocide must come down. The discomfort caused to the elites is of no concern to anyone who wants to strike at the heart of racism as practiced around the world. Good-bye and good riddance to Churchill, Columbus, Leopold and all of their ilk.

*

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.

Margaret Kimberley’s Freedom Rider column appears weekly in BAR, and is widely reprinted elsewhere. She maintains a frequently updated blog as well at patreon.com/margaretkimberley and she regularly posts on Twitter @freedomrideblog. Ms. Kimberley lives in New York City, and can be reached via e-Mail at Margaret.Kimberley(at)BlackAgendaReport.com.

Featured image is from BAR

Chinese media highlighted a recent plea by Beijing to the US to lift sanctions against Syria.

China’s CGTN in an article titled, “Chinese envoy asks U.S. to lift unilateral sanctions on Syria,” would report:

A Chinese envoy on Tuesday asked the United States to immediately lift unilateral sanctions against Syria.

Years of economic blockade have caused tremendous hardships to the Syrian people, in particular women and children. The sufferings caused by the devaluation of the Syrian currency and soaring commodities prices, including food prices, fall heavily on civilians across the country, said Zhang Jun, China’s permanent representative to the United Nations.

China’s attempts to aid Syria economically and challenge American sanctions aimed at Damascus follows Russia’s open opposition to the US-led proxy war against the Syrian government which included Moscow’s direct military involvement in the conflict and Russia’s leading role in liquidating US-armed militant groups across the country.

US sanctions against Syria have long since outlived the alleged motivation for America’s involvement in the conflict – claims of supporting the democratic aspirations of the Syrian people and opposing alleged human rights violations by the Syrian government.

It has been indisputably revealed that the US deliberately engineered the conflict – from organizing protests before 2011 to arming and deploying militants to the country to shift 2011 street protests into a destructive proxy war. It has also long been revealed that so-called “freedom fighters” were in fact extremists drawn from various terrorist organizations including Al Qaeda and its many franchises.

Since Syria’s security operations were in response to what is now revealed to have been US aggression-by-proxy and eventually direct US military aggression against the Syrian government – the sanctions themselves are revealed to be merely an economic component to US attempts to decimate the Syrian nation – not in any way aid or assist the Syrian people.

And of course US sanctions against Syria have complicated the lives of all Syrians – from the vast majority who remained in support of the Syrian government and lived in government-controlled areas of Syria throughout the conflict to even US-backed militants who eventually turn in their arms and surrender to government forces – they all collectively face economic hardship and a difficult road ahead in rebuilding their nation.

Thus the altruistic excuses the US used to first impose sanctions on Syria and its increasingly feeble excuses used to continue justifying them now are revealed as little more than propaganda and should be taken into consideration when questioning why the US has imposed sanctions on other nations.

The US engineered and executed what was a humanitarian catastrophe in Syria – one that it is still actively attempting to perpetuate for as long as possible and one now admittedly perpetuated to “make it a quagmire for the Russians.” Not only is Washington’s “humanitarian” justification for placing sanctions on Syria revealed as empty, but it is Washington itself who is guilty of trampling human rights in Syria.

China – and many others for that matter – have asked for these sanctions to be lifted. Washington – to no one’s surprise refuses – but the inability of so-called “international” institutions to hold Washington accountable or to alleviate Syria’s current crisis reveals that the “international order” these institutions serve is dysfunctional and that alternatives desperately need to be found.

China’s economic aid and efforts to reconstruct Syria will eventually be realized – it is only a matter of time and how China will get around US sanctions.

This will be done either by directly opposing them or creating global systems that are entirely independent of and insulated from American interference. Either way – if Washington insists on maintaining its current policies – a global system independent of and insulated from America is one in which America finds itself cutoff and withering – a prospect that benefits neither the American people nor even America’s ruling special interests.

*

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.

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

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

Voices from Syria 

ISBN: 978-0-9879389-1-6

Author: Mark Taliano

Year: 2017

Pages: 128 (Expanded edition: 1 new chapter)

List Price: $17.95

Special Price: $9.95 

Click to order

Relevant to the present crisis, this article was first published on GR on December 18, 2014

Can a person actually be “too smart” to be a cop in America?  “Considering all the police brutality and officer-involved shootings in the news these days, here’s a rhetorical question for you: how well does this hiring practice bode for cops actually being able to follow the Constitution or use proper discretion while “protecting and serving” America? A federal court’s decision back in 2000 suggests that, yes, you actually can be”. 

Robert Jordan, a 49-year-old college graduate, scored a 33 on an intelligence test he took as part of the application process to become a police officer in the town of New London, Connecticut. The score meant Jordan had an IQ of 125.

The average score for police officers was a 21-22, or an IQ of 104. New London would only interview candidates who scored between 20 and 27.

Jordan sued the city alleging discrimination, but the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in New York upheld that it wasn’t discrimination. “Why?” you might ask. Because New London Police Department applied the same standard to everyone who applied to be a cop there.

And the theory behind it?

“Those who scored too high could get bored with police work and leave soon after undergoing costly training,” ABC News reported back then. While at least acknowledging the basic fact that such a policy might be “unwise,” the court deemed it had a “rational basis” because it was put in place to lower cop turnover.

The police department went on to continue automatically disqualifying anyone whose IQ was “too high.” Jordan went on to become a prison guard instead.

And there you have it.

Considering all the police brutality and officer-involved shootings in the news these days, here’s a rhetorical question for you: how well does this hiring practice bode for cops actually being able to follow the Constitution or use proper discretion while “protecting and serving” America?

Does this snapshot from the past at least partially help explain how we got to where we are as a nation today — a total police state? Wow, and the Pentagon has been giving these guys tanksstraight off the battlefields in the Middle East to drive down American streets, too.

Recent public opinion polls, just by the way, show trust in police is pretty abysmal; 65% feel that our police departments do a poor job of holding officers accountable for misconduct.

Well America’s local law enforcement agencies — of which there are 18,000-plus, more than any other country in the world — aren’t exactly encouraging geniuses to apply to be officers here; in fact, geniuses don’t stand a chance even if they wanted to (which, I guess if they are geniuses, they probably don’t).

Melissa Melton is a writer, researcher, and analyst for The Daily Sheeple, where this first appeared, and a co-creator of Truthstream Media with Aaron Dykes, a site that offers teleprompter-free, unscripted analysis of The Matrix we find ourselves living in. Melissa also co-founded Nutritional Anarchy with Daisy Luther of The Organic Prepper, a site focused on resistance through food self-sufficiency. Wake the flock up!

This article was first published in The Ecologist in 2011

In the first of a major new series following on from the ground breaking Behind the Label, Peter Salisbury takes a look at one of the biggest brands in the world – McDonald’s – and asks: has the burger giant done enough to clean-up its act?

Chances are that you have had a McDonald’s meal in the past or if not, you certainly know a lot of people who have. It’s the biggest fast food chain in the world, with 32,000 outlets in 117 countries. The clown-fronted burger outfit employs a staggering 1.7 million people, and in the first three months of 2011 alone it made $1.2bn in profits on the back of revenues of $6.1bn. The company has come in for huge amounts of criticism over the past 20 years, for the impact it has on the diets of people worldwide, its labour practices and the impact its business has had on the environment. From Fast Food Nation to Supersize Me by the way of the McLibel trials of the 1990s, plenty has been written and broadcast to tarnish the golden arches’ shine.

Declining sales in the early 2000s, which saw franchises being shut for the first time in the company’s history, caused a major rethink of the way McDonald’s operates, and its recent rhetoric has been that of a firm with a newly discovered zeal for ethical end eco-friendly practices, garnering praise from champions as unlikely as Greenpeace and the Carbon Trust. But is this just marketing hype or has McDonald’s had a genuine change of heart?

The answer is yes and no. First of all, because of the way the company is run, it’s hard to generalise. Around 80 per cent of McDonald’s outlets are run by franchisees who have to meet standards set by the company, but who can – and do – go above and beyond them. Further, McDonald’s branches are run by country and regional offices, each of which are subject to domestic standards. The production of much of the raw products which go into McDonald’s meals, from burger patties to sauces, is subcontracted to different suppliers, making it impossible to assess the company in terms of a single golden standard. Its sole global supplier (for soft drinks) is Coca-Cola.

The UK branch of the company has certainly made great strides since the 1990s, when it became embroiled in the 1997 McLibel court case, in which McDonald’s Corporation and McDonald’s Restaurants Limited sued Helen Steel and Dave Morris, a former gardener and a postman, for libel after they published a series of leaflets denouncing the company.

Exploitation

The judge overseeing the case decided that, although the pair could not prove some of their accusations – that McDonald’s destroyed rainforests, caused starvation in the third world or disease and cancer in developed countries – it could be agreed that the company exploited children, falsely advertised their food as nutritious, indirectly sponsored cruelty to animals and paid their workers low wages: a major blow to the brand in an age of increasing consumer-consciousness.

Since then, the UK branch has committed to a number of initiatives to improve its image, running an aggressive marketing campaign at the same time to portray itself as an ethical employer which is both farmer and eco-friendly. It has also moved to become more transparent, putting ingredients lists for all of its products on its website and setting up another website, Make Up Your Own Mind, inviting customers to voice concerns and publishing accounts of critics’ visits to its production sites.

All of this should be taken with a grain of salt however. It’s not surprising that a multibillion-dollar corporation, which has been hurt in the past by concerns over its practices, will do its utmost to sell itself as a reformed character. And it’s suspicious that any web search of the company brings up a hit list of sites almost exclusively maintained by the company.

Yet research conducted by the Ecologist shows that in many areas the company has improved its record of ethical and environmental awareness over the last decade. The company’s burgers, for example, are now 100 per cent beef, and contain no preservatives or added flavours whatsoever. All of McDonald’s UK’s burgers are provided by Germany’s Esca Food Solutions, which claims to maintain rigorous standards at its abattoirs and production plants, and which works closely with 16,000 independent farmers in the UK and Ireland to maintain high standards.

‘No GM’

Since the early 2000s, McDonald’s UK has maintained that none of its beef, bacon or chicken is fed genetically modified grain. Farmers working for McDonald’s have independently confirmed to the Ecologist and Esca that they have a ‘decent’ working relationship with the company.

In 2007, Esca won the UK Food Manufacturing Excellence Awards for its burgers, and in 2010 McDonald’s announced that it was launching a three-year study into reducing the carbon emissions caused by the cattle used in its burgers (cattle account for four per cent of the UK’s emissions). Meanwhile, all of the fish used in Filet-O-Fish and Fish Finger meals in Europe are sourced from sustainable fisheries certified by the Marine Stewardship Council. Fries are largely sourced from McCain’s, the world’s biggest potato supplier, and McDonald’s claims that the vast majority are produced in the UK, again by independent farmers. The fries are prepared in-store and are cooked in vegetable oil containing no hydrogenated fats. At the beginning of the potato-growing season, dextrose – a form of glucose – is added as a sweetener, and salt is added after cooking (the company claims to have reduced the amount of salt used by 23 per cent since 2008).

The bread for McDonald’s buns and muffins is sourced from a single unnamed supplier based in Heywood, Manchester, and Banbury, Oxfordshire. McDonald’s would not comment on where it sources the grain for the bakeries but says once more that it does not buy genetically modified crops. Meanwhile, the company has been working with its suppliers and franchise-holders to make sure that they are as energy efficient as possible. In 2010, The Carbon Trust awarded McDonald’s its Carbon Trust Standard for reducing its overall carbon emissions by 4.5 per cent between 2007 and 2009. The company is currently experimenting with a series of energy initiatives based around turning its waste, from packaging – which is 80 per cent recycled – to vegetable oil into energy.

Certification

Since 2007, the company – which is one of the world’s biggest coffee retailers – has committed to selling only Rainforest Alliance certified coffee. Although the certification body has certainly been responsible for improving conditions and practices in many farming operations worldwide, it has been the subject of controversy – most recently after an undercover investigation by the Ecologist revealed allegations of sexual harassment and poor conditions for some workers at its certified Kericho tea plantation in Kenya which supplies the PG Tips brand.

Certification issues aside, McDonald’s has undoubtedly become considerably better at taking criticism. In 2006, Greenpeace activists stormed McDonald’s restaurants across the world dressed in chicken suits in protest at the destruction of the Amazon rainforest, which they attributed to greedy soy producers – who in turn were selling their produce to chicken farms, of whom McDonald’s was a major customer. They subsequently praised the fast food chain for leading a unified response among soy buyers, pressuring producers to adopt a ‘zero destruction’ approach to growing their crops. Despite praise from Greenpeace, the Carbon Trust and personalities such as Jamie Oliver who have praised the company for its ethical stance on meat and buying its produce locally, the firm is by no means perfect.

One of the biggest incongruencies in its newly discovered zeal for ethical practices comes from its seemingly differing approaches to the conditions chickens live in depending on whether they produce eggs or are used as meat in Chicken McNuggets and similar meals. The firm proudly trumpets that its UK branch only buys eggs from Lion-certified free-range producers, a laudable effort from a huge buyer of eggs, and that the meat in each nugget is 100 per cent chicken breast (the final product is around 65:35 meat and batter).

Factory farming

Yet by the same token, the company buys most of its chicken from two suppliers, Sun Valley in the UK and Moy Park in Northern Ireland, who are in turn owned by the controversial American firm, Cargill, and Brazil’s Marfrig. Sun Valley has been accused of using intensive chicken farming methods to produce their meat, which campaigners say can typically involve birds being cooped up in giant warehouses for much of their natural lives with barely any space to move. Sun Valley was embroiled in a scandal in 2008 when the activist group Compassion in World Farming secretly filmed poor conditions at its supplier Uphampton Farm near Leominster.

Furthermore, although McDonald’s is happy to advertise the provenance of its beef, dairy products and eggs, it is more circumspect about chicken meat. This may be because up to 90 per cent of the meat it uses in the UK is sourced from Cargill and Marfrag facilities in Thailand and Brazil, where regulations in the farming sector are perhaps less stringent than in the UK.

Meanwhile, the fact remains that despite attempts in recent years to cultivate a more healthy image, McDonald’s primary sales come from fast food in a time when there is increasing recognition that obesity has reached epidemic proportions in the UK and the US. Although the European, and in particular the UK arm of the company, have become increasingly ethically aware, the same cannot be said for the US arm, which uses livestock farmed using intensive methods and fed in some cases on GM crops. And by buying McDonald’s in the UK, you are still buying from the same clown.

Useful links:

McDonalds: www.mcdonalds.co.uk

Greenpeace: www.greenpeace.org.uk

Compassion in World Farming: www.ciwf.org.uk

The Carbon Trust: www.carbontrust.co.uk

In 1877, while laying out his agenda for the formation of a secret society to recapture Britain’s lost colony of America and the submission of “inferior” races (ie. non anglo-saxon) under the control of a renewed British Empire, Cecil Rhodes, wrote his Confessions of Faith in which the following explicit mission statement can be read:

“I contend that we are the finest race in the world and that the more of the world we inhabit the better it is for the human race. Just fancy those parts that are at present inhabited by the most despicable specimens of human beings what an alteration there would be if they were brought under Anglo-Saxon influence, look again at the extra employment a new country added to our dominions gives. I contend that every acre added to our territory means in the future birth to some more of the English race who otherwise would not be brought into existence… I look into history and I read the story of the Jesuits I see what they were able to do in a bad cause and I might say under bad leaders.

Why should we not form a secret society with but one object the furtherance of the British Empire and the bringing of the whole uncivilised world under British rule for the recovery of the United States for the making the Anglo-Saxon race but one Empire…

We know the size of the world we know the total extent. Africa is still lying ready for us it is our duty to take it.

It is our duty to seize every opportunity of acquiring more territory and we should keep this one idea steadily before our eyes that more territory simply means more of the Anglo-Saxon race more of the best the most human, most honourable race the world possesses. To forward such a scheme what a splendid help a secret society would be a society not openly acknowledged but who would work in secret for such an object.”

Rhodes’ agenda had manifested itself upon his death in 1902 with the creation of the Rhodes Scholarship Trust whose trustees included Lord Rothschild, and Lord Alfred Milner.

The Canadian imperialist George Parkin had even left his post as headmaster of Upper Canada College in Toronto, in order to serve as the 1st head of the Scholarship Trust from 1902-1922. Both Parkin and Milner went on to mentor a young Vincent Massey.

俄罗斯离实现北极地区全年通航又近了一步。一艘可装载冰块的油轮最早通过北海航线向中国运送液化天然气。

在过去的几年里，一支由15艘Arc7专用破冰液化天然气（LNG）运输船组成的船队，将天然气从俄罗斯亚马尔半岛的一家大型LNG工厂经北极运往亚洲各国。即使在北极海冰迅速融化的情况下，这些航程通常只能在7月至11月之间进行。

现在，经营亚马尔液化天然气设施的俄罗斯最大的私营天然气公司诺瓦泰克公司利用其旗舰、世界上第一艘破冰液化天然气运输船 “克里斯托夫-德-玛格丽特 “号进行了一次航行，以考察在5月份期间，在北方海路（NSR）上进行东向航行的可行性，比以往的此类航行提前了近两个月。该舰在一艘核破冰船的护航下，仅用了12天时间就完成了约2500海里的冰雪覆盖部分的行程，预计下周中旬将抵达中国。

**

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

The Arctic Northern Sea Route: Russia Conducts Record-Breaking Delivery of LNG to ChinaBy Malte Humpert, June 08, 2020

对于那些想知道在Covid19大流行病成功地使整个世界经济完全瘫痪，使1930年代以来最严重的萧条蔓延之后会发生什么的人，首要的全球化非政府组织达沃斯世界经济论坛的领导人刚刚公布了我们下一步可以期待的轮廓。这些人决定把这次危机当作一个机会。

6月3日通过他们的网站，达沃斯世界经济论坛（WEF）公布了他们即将于2021年1月举行的论坛的大纲。他们称之为 “大重置”。它需要利用冠状病毒的惊人影响来推进一个非常具体的议程。值得注意的是，这个议程与另一个具体议程，即2015年联合国2030年议程完美对接。世界上领先的大企业论坛，自20世纪90年代以来一直在推进企业全球化议程的论坛，现在却在接受他们所谓的可持续发展，这种讽刺意味是巨大的。这给了我们一个暗示，这个议程并不像世界经济论坛及其合作伙伴所声称的那样。

**

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

Now Comes the Davos Global Economy “Great Reset”. What Happens After the Covid-19 Pandemic? By F. William Engdahl, June 10, 2020

North Korea is one of countless numbers of nations that have been grievously attacked and otherwise harmed by the US.

Throughout its post-WW II history, it never attacked another country preemptively — not South Korea or any others, threatening none now except in self-defense if attacked, its legitimate right under international law.

Reinvented history claiming otherwise, along with endless Big Lies and mass deception, got most Americans to falsely believe that the DPRK threatens US security.

It’s never been the case throughout its history, clearly not now.

Yet anti-North Korea propaganda rages, the way the US and establishment media operate against all sovereign independent nations.

None threaten the US — not China, Russia, Iran, North Korea or any others.

Not according to the Voice of American propaganda, VoA on Thursday, falsely claiming:

“…North Korea (is) ramp(ing) up military pressure on South Korea (sic).”

Cutting off official communication channels with Seoul, blowing up the inter-Korean liaison office in its own territory, and perhaps holding war games are because of frustration over its rebuffed good faith efforts for rapprochement with the US and South Korea’s Moon Jae-in.

Pompeo, Bolton while around, and other Trump regime hardliners undermined two Kim Jong-un/DJT summits — making unacceptable demands in return for empty promises.

VoA turned truth on its head like countless times before on all geopolitical issues, saying:

“North Korea has a long history of periodically ramping up tensions in order to extract economic and other concessions from the South (sic).”

The pro-war/anti-peace, stability, and cooperative relations among all countries NYT falsely accused Kim of “turn(ing) hostile to South Korea (sic),” adding:

He’s “threaten(ing) to extinguish the fragile detente with a new cycle of bellicose actions and military provocations (sic).”

No detente with the US, West or Seoul existed throughout North Korean history — just the occasional illusion of improved relations, never sustained because of US duplicity.

The fault lies with Washington, the West, and US pressured South Korean governments, not Pyongyang.

A hostile Washington Post article claims that “(m)ore than 2.6 million people live under slavery in (North Korea), the vast majority of them forced to work by the state,” citing a dubious 2018 Global Slavery Index.

It’s prepared by the so-called Minderoo Foundation — headed Australian mining industry tycoon Andrew Forrest and his wife Nicola.

She’s the daughter of Tony Maurice, a key figure involved in the white supremacist Australian League of Rights organization.

The Forrests’ interest in North Korea is exploitive, how they operate domestically.

The so-called Global Slavery Index ignored tens of millions of US and other Western wage slaves, workers receiving poverty or sub-poverty pay — mostly in rotten part-time or temp jobs with few or no benefits.

The Wall Street Journal called North Korea a “provocative northern neighbor” to Seoul (sic) — ignoring nearly 75 years of unacceptable US hostility toward a nation threatening no one.

Fox News headlined: “North Korea likely to attack US presidential election in November,” citing the usual dubious sources.

The so-called Kim Koo-Korea Foundation wants the DPRK transformed into a US vassal state.

Its North Korea specialist Sung Yoon-lee was quoted, claiming that he “fully expect(s) North Korea to test its own capabilities to see what it can get away with by hacking into the US election system (sic)” — citing no corroboration evidence because none exists, adding:

“North Korea increases its psychological pressure, political pressure on its main adversary, the United States (sic).”

It’s “part of the growing escalatory strategic playbook which will be punctuated by a more serious provocation, like an ICBM or even nuclear test (sic).”

The so-called Washington-based Issue One group “produced a report called ‘Don’t Mess With US,’ falsely claiming foreign interference ‘puts our election at risk (sic).’ ”

It never did before in US history — in sharp contrast to scores of US attempts to manipulate foreign elections to assure pro-Western regimes run things.

What possible benefit could North Korea gain by trying to interfere with US elections — the same true about all other countries.

North Korea’s pledge to “build up a more reliable force to cope with longterm military threats from the US” is all about legitimate self-defense, not intended belligerence the way Washington and the West operate.

The US is a one-party state with two right wings. Policies of both are much the same on virtually all major domestic and geopolitical issues.

They include perpetual hostility toward all nations not controlled by the US, including North Korea.

No foreign threats to US national security exist, just invented ones to unjustifiably justify spending countless trillions of dollars on militarism and endless preemptive wars.

It comes at the expense of governance the way it should be and cooperative relations with other countries.

The American way is all about wanting dominance over allies and adversaries alike — demanding the world community of nations bend to its will.

It’s a prescription for endless militarism and belligerence over badly needed peace, equity, justice, and adherence to the rule of law.

*

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.

The Caesar Act comes at a time when the whole world is suffering not only in the health arena (Covid-19) but also in the financial one.

Syria specifically is suffering from great duress. Coming out of a ten year long war which has exhausted the country in all its sectors, Syria now faces more hardship.

Sanctions have long plagued Syria, European and American ones. Since the war started on Syria, the USA and the West have sanctioned Syria, starting with Syrian companies and Syrian individuals and ending with non Syrians that trade with Syria.

The transport of oil and gas to Syria’s ports was forbidden. This had adverse living conditions on the ordinary Syrian citizen. Many Syrians suffered from the cold due to lack of heating fuel and gas. Unable to even guarantee that they had enough gas to cook a simple meal, Syrians resorted to other alternatives like using wood or electricity when and if available.

Today Wednesday 17/6/2020 the Caesar Act comes into effect, punishing the Syrian civilian population in obtaining its most basic needs.

Syriatimes was lucky enough to exclusively interview Syria’s permanent representative to the UN and one of its most vociferous defenders Dr. Bashar Al-Ja’fari.

***

Syriatimes: “What does the implementation of the Caesar Act mean to the ordinary Syrian?”

Ambassador Ja’afari: The unilateral coercive economic measures, mistakenly called sanctions, are based on a shared unethical principle by governments that impose such blockades, based on belief that whoever possesses economic, military and political influence is capable of imposing his own will, decisions and policies on any country in the world by just trapping them commercially, economically and impeding their banking system, while totally ignoring and condoning the fact that these measures are illegal according to international law and the Charter of the United Nations. With regard to the so-called “Caesar’s Act”, let me say that Syria has been subject to US sanctions for decades since 1979 under the pretext of supporting terrorism and threatening the security of Israel, but since the terrorist war on Syria began, the US government has issued eight executive orders to impose or tighten economic, commercial and banking unilateral measures on Syria. These punitive measures, which were accompanied by similar European ones, had and still have clear impact on the Syrian economy and on the Syrian citizen.

The main idea behind drafting “Caesar’s Act” is to exercise political pressure and psychological warfare on Syria, because measures contained in this act are already imposed on the Syrian Arab Republic. The main new factor in the act is the practice of economic and financial terrorism on any government or foreign party that might consider doing business with Syria or to contribute to the process of reconstruction. On the other hand, this act focuses more on the status of the Syrian Central Bank, as it is responsible for controlling the exchange rate of foreign currencies, by trying to accuse it of practicing money laundry.

Allow me to point out here an important fact, which is that the Western ambassadors in the Security Council have always said publicly in all meetings of the Council regarding the political and humanitarian situation in Syria, that their governments will not contribute and will not allow the reconstruction process to be launched in Syria unless the Syrian government and its allies accept political concessions that these Western governments want. Meaning, they are taking Syria and its people hostages of their own schizophrenic policies. Needless to say, that the required concessions from Syria and its allies are totally incompatible with the national and security interests of Syria, and that they target Syria’s political independent choices and ultimately aim at achieving the mere interests of Westerners and Israel. In conclusion, the practical application of the US economic blockade imposed on Syria and other countries is to prevent any country that is subject to Unilateral Coercive Economic Measures from free and sustainable access to the global banking system and free trade without restrictions or obstacles. This is exactly what the US government and the European Union are doing against the Syrian Arab Republic. When the Syrian government and private banks are prevented from accessing the global banking system and benefiting from its facilities and transfers, this inevitably means that the ability of Syrian commercial institutions and entities is very limited in concluding deals and commercial partnerships and in carrying out import and export operations in a free and stable manner. Consequently, the main victim is the Syrian citizen, because restricting the free movement of trade and import means higher prices, less materials, and weakening the purchasing power of the Syrian citizen.

Syriatimes: “Will this act not hurt the very citizen it claims it wants to protect?”

Ambassador Ja’afari: It is well known that successive American administrations rely in their foreign policy on specific tools, foremost of which are military power and aggression, economic blockade, and destabilization in order to change legitimate governments. The claims of Americans and Europeans that they impose Unilateral Sanctions in order to protect citizens in some countries are false, and facts on the ground expose that. The Americans and Europeans claim that the sanctions target Syrian government institutions exclusively! Any sane man will ask a question about the role of the government in any country of the world, and the answer is that the government is responsible for providing services to citizens in various fields starting with medicine and food to providing water, electric power and basic services and needs for citizens. Therefore, if the State institutions have been targeted with punitive measures that subsequently means that their capability to perform their primary services role is targeted.

On the other hand, the unilateral measures that target countries such as Cuba, Iran, Venezuela, the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea and Syria, have been and will always be targeting citizens. These countries, among others such as Russia and China, are a target of these measures because of their political stances against the American and Western hegemony over the world. One of the biggest Western governments lies is that they are seeking to “protect democracy and human rights” in the world by imposing unilateral coercive measures. Everyone knows that the American government and the European Union are the allies of the most brutal dictatorial religious regimes in this world, just as they are the true allies of Israel, which occupies Arab lands to this day.

The Western political mindset knows well that economic embargoes are primarily harmful to citizens, but its political institutions continue to press ahead with punitive measures against people in order to create stifling social crises and push people to stand against their national governments and hold these governments accountable for their suffering.

Syriatimes: “The USA claims that the Caesar Act will not affect daily necessities like medicine-How true is that claim?”

Ambassador Ja’afari: Most of the illegal measures in the so-called “Caesar Act” are not new, and Syria has been subject to the last wave of unilateral US and European coercive measures since ten years ago until today, and they amount to war crimes and constitute economic and financial crimes of terrorism. These punitive measures cause great economic and social damages, and their profound impact is no less than the impact of the crimes committed by terrorist armed groups against Syria and its people during these years.

American and Western governments are so brazen. They openly declare that they will continue to impose an economic blockade on Syria until the Syrian state succumbs to their political, economic and military blackmail. They already know that this blockade directly affects health, banking and education sectors, as well as communications, transportation, electricity and basic services sectors, and every sector that relates directly to the daily details of the life of the Syrian citizen.

It is one of the ugliest forms of political hypocrisy embodiment in our world. The United Nations is subject to the pressure of these powers in order to limit the organization’s contribution in Syria to only providing humanitarian relief and refrains from launching projects to rehabilitate infrastructure and reconstruction. These Westerner governments do not find anything wrong with saying that they only allow the flow of humanitarian aid to Syria, but they will not allow the early recovery process that will directly affect the lives of Syrian citizens at home, and will provide the appropriate economic and social conditions for the return of Syrian refugees.

Syriatimes: “American and European sanctions have been implemented in Syria for some time now. How is this different?”

Ambassador Ja’afari: This new US Act seeks to impose a kind of territorial division on the Syrian state, by excluding the area controlled by the unpatriotic Kurdish separatist factions from the consequences of Caesar Act. The US administration wants to undermine the reconstruction efforts and seeks to deprive the Syrians of their natural resources, paralyze production mechanisms, close production gates, and stop import and export operations, in addition to impeding the normalization of relations with Syria and undermining the contribution of Syrian expatriates to reconstruction efforts.

The so-called “Caesar Act” seeks to stifle Syria politically and economically after Washington was unable to strangle it with terrorist war. What is new in this Act is that it extends to include Damascus’ main allies, such as Russia and Iran, which the Act mentions by name.

In order not to repeat myself, I would say that more than 95% of the punitive measures mentioned in this Act are already imposed on Syria, and what the Americans, along with the Europeans and the Turks want is to target public opinion in Syria, to create a state of uncertainty and weak confidence in the local currency and the ability to promote self-sufficiency and in the capability and credibility of Syria’s allies that fought terrorism with it over the past years and will not abandon it in the face of this economic blockade.

The most important element in this battle is to know the goals of your enemy. Today, we are fully aware that Americans and Europeans want to compensate for their defeat when they supported terrorism, by exerting economic and social pressure on the Syrian state and its allies and preventing them from proving their capability to recover damages caused to the Syrian economy and launch the reconstruction process. In sum, our battle with them is a battle of existence, settling old and new accounts, and targeting the Syrian nation and national identity. We have no option to retreat after we succeeded in our war on terrorism that was and still supported by same governments.

Syriatimes: “What can be done politically (in the UN arena) to alleviate the suffering of the Syrian people?’

Ambassador Ja’afari: We used to say within the diplomatic community of the United Nations, that this Organization is not a charity, and that what ultimately prevails in it is the logic of political and financial polarization. Needless to say that this does not lead us to despair, as much as, it pushes us to be realistic and to strive with our allies to confront as much as possible the attempt of Western domination of the frameworks of the United Nations by adhering to the provisions of the Charter and international law.

The main dilemma while addressing Unilateral Coercive Measures is that the United Nations periodically rejects and condemns them, but due to Western domination of the United Nations, this Organization has not been able, to date, to adopt clear legal and practical mechanisms or instruments to end these punitive measures or to mitigate their impact on the peoples of the targeted countries. Nevertheless, during the last period, especially with the spread of the Covid-19 pandemic, we were able to push the Secretary-General and relevant international organizations and bodies to issue statements and adopt positions that speak candidly about the profound inhumane impacts of this economic blockade on the peoples of the targeted countries and the ability of the United Nations to achieve global collective solidarity in confronting this health pandemic.

In recent years, the Syrian government has sent many letters and appeals to the Secretary-General and the President of the Security Council regarding the impact of Unilateral Coercive Economic Measures imposed on the Syrian people. We have succeeded during the past months in creating sufficient lobbying power within the United Nations that embarrassed and provoked the American and European representatives and their governments.

However, the final evaluation is that these Western governments will not abandon the policy of military intervention or the imposition of Unilateral Economic Measures on every country that politically disagrees with them, including friendly countries such as Russia, China and Iran.

Therefore, options and methods of addressing this challenge are mostly national, and should focus on developing economic and industrial strategies that deal with these punitive measures and provide local alternatives to meet basic needs, and build strong and sustainable economic, industrial and banking relationships with our real friends, especially in light of the fact that governments imposing the economic blockade also control international financial institutions such as the International Monetary Fund, and the World Bank Group, in order to define the course of the global economy.

Once again, our battle requires complete awareness of the goals of our enemies in the region and the world, and a clear definition of the limits of their capabilities and wills, so that we can address the main goals for which these Unilateral Coercive Measures were imposed, namely economic and social pressure on citizens and limit the state’s ability to secure the basic requirements for life.

*

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.

Before proposing solutions to demilitarize the police, decrease abuses by law enforcement, and increase accountability for law enforcement, it is imperative to understand how US law enforcement became an extension of the military.

Two weeks ago a senior Trump Administration official revealed that the president had decided to withdraw 9,500 American soldiers from Germany and that the administration would also be capping total U.S. military presence in that country at 25,000, which might involve more cuts depending what is included in the numbers. The move was welcomed in some circles and strongly criticized in others, but many observers were also bemused by the announcement, noting that Donald Trump had previously ordered a reduction in force in Afghanistan and a complete withdrawal from Syria, neither of which has actually been achieved. In Syria, troops were only moved from the northern part of the country to the oil producing region in the south to protect the fields from seizure by ISIS, while in Afghanistan the nineteen-year-long training mission and infrastructure reconstruction continue.

In a somewhat related development, the Iraqi parliament has called for the removal of U.S. troops from the country, a demand that has been rejected by Secretary of State Mike Pompeo. Put it all together and it suggests that any announcement coming from the White House on ending America’s useless wars should be regarded with some skepticism.

The United States has its nearly 35,000 military personnel remaining in Germany as its contribution to the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), founded in 1949 to counter Soviet forces in Eastern Europe in what was to become the Warsaw Pact. Both the Organization and Pact were ostensibly defensive alliances and the U.S. active participation was intended to demonstrate American resolve to come to the aid of Western Europe. Currently, 75 years after the end of World War II and thirty years after the fall of communist governments in Eastern Europe, NATO is an anachronism, kept going by the many statesmen and military establishments of the various countries that have a vested interest in maintaining the status quo. Since the demise of the European communist regimes, NATO has found work in bombing Serbia, destroying Libya and in helping in the unending task to train an Afghan army.

In spite of the clearly diminished threat in Europe, NATO has expanded to 30 members, including most of the former communist states that made up the Warsaw Pact. The most recent acquisition was Montenegro in 2016, which contributed 2,400 soldiers to the NATO force. That expansion was carried out in spite of assurances given to the post-Soviet Russian government that military encroachment would not take place. Currently, NATO continues to focus on the threat from Moscow as its own viable raison d’être, with its deployments and training exercises often taking place right up against Russia’s borders.

Few really believe that the Russia, which has a GDP only the size of Italy’s, intends or is even capable of reestablishing anything like the old Soviet Union. But a vulnerable Russia is nevertheless interested in maintaining an old-fashioned sphere of influence around its borders, which explains the concern over developments in Ukraine, Georgia and the Baltic States.

Given the diminished threat level in Europe, the withdrawal of 9,500 soldiers should be welcomed by all parties. Trump has been sending the not unreasonable message that if the Europeans want more defense, they should pay for it themselves, though he has wrapped his proposal in his usual insulting and derogatory language. A wealthy Germany currently spends 1.1% of GDP on its military, far less than the 2% that NATO has declared to be a target to meet alliance commitments. That compares with the nearly 5% that the U.S. has been spending globally, inclusive of intelligence and national security costs.

Fair enough for burden sharing, but the European concern is more focused on how Trump does what he does. For example, he announced the downsizing without informing America’s NATO partners. The Germans were surprised and pushed back immediately. Conservative politician Peter Beyer said “This is completely unacceptable, especially since nobody in Washington thought about informing its NATO ally Germany in advance,” and German Foreign Minister Heiko Maas regretted the planned withdrawal, describing Berlin’s relationship with the Washington as “complicated.” Chancellor Angela Merkel was reportedly shocked.

The timing of the decision has also been questioned, with many observers believing that Trump deliberately staged the announcement to punish Merkel for refusing to attend a planned G-7 Summit in the U.S. that the president had been trying to arrange. Merkel argued that dealing with the consequences of the coronavirus made it difficult for her to leave home at the present time and the G-7 planning never got off the ground, which angered Trump, who wanted to demonstrate his global leadership in an election year.

Trump’s behavior has real world consequences. The Canadians and Europeans regard him as a joke, but a dangerous joke due to his impulsive decision making. He cannot be trusted and when he says something he often contradicts himself on the next day. Arguably Donald Trump was elected president on the margin of difference provided by an anti-war vote after many Americans took seriously his pledge to end the burgeoning overseas wars and bring the soldiers home. It all may have been a lie even as he was saying it, but it was convincing at the time and a welcome antidote to Hillary the Hawk.

There will be costs associated with removing or relocating the troops in Germany, to include constructing new bases somewhere else, hopefully in the United States, but the realization that the soldiers are not really needed could lead to the downsizing of the U.S. military across the board. That would be strongly resisted by the Pentagon, the defense industries and Congress.

If Trump is serious about downsizing America’s overseas commitments, the reduction in the German force is a good first step, even if it was done for the wrong reasons. It would be even better if he would force NATO into discussions about ending the alliance now that it is no longer needed, which would mean that the remaining American soldiers in Europe could come home.

The U.S. mission of global dominance has meant huge budget deficits and a national debt of $26 trillion, which is likely unsustainable. Germany and other European nations, by way of contrast, balance their government budgets every year. South Korea, which hosts 30,000 American soldiers, is wealthy and far more powerful than its northern neighbor. The continued occupation of Japan with 50,000 troops makes no sense even considering an increase in China’s regional power. Overall, the United States continues to have 170,000 soldiers, sailors, airmen and Marines based overseas in 150 countries and its military budget exceeds one trillion dollars when everything is considered. The Iraq and Afghanistan Wars may have cost as much as seven trillion dollars given the fact that much of the money was borrowed and will have to be repaid with interest.

It is past time for Donald Trump to make a bold move because the Democrats won’t have the backbone to rattle the status quo. End the foreign wars, shut down the overseas bases and bring the soldiers home. Spend tax dollars to improve the lives of Americans, not to fight wars for Saudis and Israelis. A simple formula for change, but sometimes simple is best.

*

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.

Lebanon is the victim of its deeply entrenched political elite, which has refused to adopt and execute meaningful reforms since tens of thousands of Lebanese poured into the streets last October to demand an end to mismanagement, corruption and the country’s sectarian system of governance.

Instead of meeting protesters’ increasingly urgent demands, the politicians have stalled and squabbled among themselves while the poverty rate rose to the point that Lebanese families are facing hunger because they cannot afford rising cost of foodstuffs. Protests have become increasingly violent, particularly in the northern port city of Tripoli and its hinterland.

The current weak technocratic government has been negotiating with the International Monetary Fund (IMF) for $9 billion in financial support although the fund is infamous for reducing subsidies and programmes benefitting the poor as the price of aid. There is no safety net in Lebanon for people who lose their livelihoods. The Lebanese middle class is disappearing, either by slipping into poverty or emigrating.

Because of the politicians’ failure to develop and implement a comprehensive reform plan, international donors have refused to release $11 billion in loans and grants pledged at a meeting in Paris in 2018.

Last week, the Brussels-based International Crisis Group called for emergency aid and urgent reform to rescue hard-pressed Lebanese from catastrophe. “The economic crisis is without precedent in the country’s history,” the group said and urged Beirut to speed up negotiations with the IMF and international  donors in order to take delivery of funds to halt the precipitous downward slide. Until this happens, the think tank demanded humanitarian assistance to keep the wolf of hunger from the doors of Lebanese family homes.

Lebanon’s economy went into free fall last September, prompting the protests which paused for a few weeks during the country’s successful anti-coronavirus campaign involving strict lockdown, curfew and other restrictions. Lebanon had no choice but to clamp down hard as its health sector does not have the means to contain the virus with mass testing and tracing or to treat thousands of victims.

Meanwhile, the economic crisis continued. The country’s currency plunged in value from 1,507 to 4-5,000 the US dollar. Imports of food and other goods were cut, prices rose, businesses closed and tens of thousands had reductions in salaries or lost jobs. Lebanon defaulted for the first time ever a Eurobond loan payment.

Instead of using the brief respite from protests to cobble together a serious reform plan, the politicians bickered, procrastinated and prevaricated. An ex-minister told this correspondent that rather than Covid-19 they fear reform involving accountability for mismanagement and graft.

The Crisis Group argued there must be “structural change [that] will put an end to the political model in which corrupt and self-serving cliques appropriate and  redistribute state resources and public goods”. Rightly, the group questioned whether the politicians would “oversee a transition”, which would involve “‘pulling out the rug from their own feet’.” Indeed, this has been Lebanon’s problem all along.

Lebanon’s challenged Prime Minister Hassan Diab has announced the launch of a “war on corruption” in response to the demands of the street. He said the government would not be deterred by their “political, religious, sectarian, regional and familial covers”. But, few Lebanese believe the authorities can actually prosecute members of the elite and retrieve billions of dollars residing in foreign banks.

To make matters worse, largely peaceful protests which had involved Lebanese from all backgrounds and faiths have been increasingly disrupted by violent trouble makers defending the sectarian status quo which has inflicted two civil wars and continues to wreak so much damage on the country. Diab has accused these elements of mounting an “organised sabotage campaign”.

Lebanon’s crisis has spilled over into sanctioned and war-battered Syria. Last week, President Bashar Assad dismissed Prime Minister Imad Khamis after rare protests erupted in the government-controlled south. Water resources minister Hussein Arnous was appointed in his place to prepare for elections on July 19.

Ahead of fresh US sanctions targeting anyone dealing with Syria’s government, the Syrian pound plunged on the black market, trading at 3,000-5,000 to the US dollar rather than the official rate of 700. As in Lebanon, hunger has become a major issue for some 10 million Syrians.

The situation prompted the World Food Programme to send a convoy of 39 truckloads of food aid to Syria. Food has become more expensive than at any time during the country’s civil and proxy war.

Protests erupted in Sweida, the homeland of the traditionally loyal Druze minority, and spread to the neighbouring province of Deraa, where, in 2011, unrest launched nine years of strife. Both provinces are beset by lawlessness and attacks by Daesh and other takfiri factions as well as afflicted by economic melt-down.

While Damascus’ Druze supporters promptly retaliated by mounting their own rally, the potential defection of this minority would be a major blow to Damascus as Syria’s Druze, Alawite and Christian minorities have backed the  government from the outset of the troubles, while the Kurds have not joined its opponents. Residents of the Kurdish and takfiri controlled zones are also suffering from the currency’s collapse and high prices. In north-western Idlib province held by Al Qaeda-linked takfiris, the weak Turkish pound has replaced Syria’s currency.

*

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.

Since 1945, when the United States bombed the cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki with nuclear weapons, Japan has entered an era of total submission to Washington, demilitarizing and abdicating its own real sovereignty. Tokyo came under the umbrella of American military protection. For a long time, defense and security were not priority issues for the Japanese government, which relied on cooperation with the United States as a way of dealing with all its international problems and regional tensions. Likewise, in the last few decades, the US has achieved a status of global hegemony and has become the current world police, which allowed the American government to act freely on their military affairs in any of their allied countries on all continents.

As part of this great cooperation between Japan and the US, recently, both countries started a new project, consisting of the acquisition of the American missile systems Aegis Ashore and their installation on a Japanese platform. The aim of the project was to strengthen Japanese defense to face the tensions with North Korea and China. The project was approved by the Japanese government in December 2017 and forecasts were that by 2023 the systems would be fully operational in Japan, at the disposal of its armed forces. However, the development of the project was not so simple.

The installation of the missiles required complex work. The project intended to cover the entire Japanese territory under the Aegis Ashore systems, maintaining terrestrial protection for the entire country, in aid with the SM-3 System missiles, which provide naval security on board of several Japanese destroyers. The number of American troops in Japan increased significantly with the project, raising an atmosphere of concern on the part of Moscow, which, knowing Washington’s hostile policy towards Russia, came to see Japan as a potential regional threat. In addition, the project costs were estimated at more than 2 billion dollars.

High prices, the intensification of US military presence of Japanese soil, slowness in the development of the project and the increase of regional tensions – instead of more security – were factors that contributed to a marked decision by the Japanese government which chose to cancel the cooperation. According to the Japanese defense minister, Taro Kono, the project would be irrational with so many costs and with so much waiting time. Kono pointed out: “Due to considerations of cost and timing, we have stopped the process of introducing the Aegis Ashore system (…) For the time being, Japan will continue to counter (missile threats) with Aegis-equipped ships.” In the same vein, Toshimitsu Motegi, Japan’s foreign affairs minister, stressed the strategic and rational character of the decision and stated that it does not imply other military cooperation projects with the United States. These are his words: “My opinion is that this decision will not influence various forms of cooperation with the United States, a bell that we will maintain a strict cooperation with and will continue to enhance the allied capacities of response and dissuasion”.

It is understandable that members of the Japanese government try to reduce the causes of the project’s cancellation, claiming that it is only a “rational calculation” of time and money, but obviously, it is not just that. In fact, Japan realized that currently there is nothing strategic about filling its territory with hundreds of American soldiers and submitting the country even more to Washington’s might, hoping, in return, for “protection” against its regional rivals. With the increase of the American presence in Japan, regional rivalries will increase and, consequently, the country’s security will be more threatened, not guaranteed.

On the other hand, it is noteworthy how the decrease in American power is already being noticed in all parts of the world. Not only does Japan no longer trust the blind protection of Americans, it can also unilaterally halt the program and decide the direction of its defense projects – something that would have been unthinkable a few decades ago, where Washington’s imposing relationship with Tokyo was much clearer and more violent.

In fact, as American dominance gradually crumbles, its main allies are step by step moving away. Currently, we can see Europe becoming increasingly critical of NATO, Germany opting for alternative defense strategies instead of aligning completely with Washington as well as many other signs that, currently, American influence on global governance is diminishing. The cancellation of the Aegis Ashore project is the proof that it is not currently the United States that unilaterally decides where to deploy its missiles.

*

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