Global Research

Prior to and since the June 2016 referendum, the politics of Brexit has been accompanied by two recurrent (and seemingly contradictory) narratives: first, the narrative of Brexit as ‘taking back control’ for those voters ‘left behind’ by the twin forces of globalisation and multiculturalism; and second, the narrative of ‘Global Britain’ – that is, Brexit as an opportunity for the UK to reclaim its historical role as a champion of global free trade, unencumbered by the EU’s supposedly inward-looking, protectionist leanings. In this blog, Tony Heron explores some of the tensions and contradictions between these two themes through the prism of food and agriculture – arguably the sector most defined by EU membership – in the midst of the COVID-19 pandemic. Simply put, what impact, if any, will the current crisis have on the political choices the government will be forced to confront in its trade negotiations with the EU and US.  

COVID-19 and the resilience of the UK food system

In 2008, the sight of Northern Rock customers queuing to withdraw their savings from the stricken high street bank became one of the first and – most enduring – images of the global financial crisis. Today, in the midst of the COVID-19 pandemic, the analogous imagery is provided not by banks but supermarkets with incidents of panic buying and hoarding by consumers worried about impending food shortages.  Yet, unlike in 2008 with the banks, the food retail sector has shown itself to be surprisingly resilient in the face of the COVID-19 shock with supermarket shelves, for the most part, remaining well-stocked.

The resilience shown by the UK food system in face of COVID-19 is both testament to the efficiency of global supply chains and a timely reminder of our dependence on the EU. Approximately 52% of the food consumed in the UK is produced domestically, but of the remaining 48% that is met by imports, 29% is sourced from the EU compared to just 4% each from the regions of Asia, Africa and the Americas. The UK’s reliance on the EU is especially acute in the horticulture sector, with approximately 40% of vegetables and 37% of fruit sold in the UK imported from the EU countries.

Brexit and the politics of food

Parallels are often made between Brexit and two other seismic episodes in British political history: the repeal of the Corn Laws (1846) and the Tariff Reform debate (1903-6). Like Brexit, these prior episodes are noted for the ways in which they divided the ruling Conservative Party between its nationalist-protectionist and metropolitan-liberal wings, ultimately leading to a formal rupture of the party in the first case and landslide electoral defeat in the second. These historical comparisons are also relevant for the ways in which each episode involved the politicisation of food. In an election poster from 1905, for instance, the strapline read: ‘we plead for the women and children, which will you have? Free trade or protection?’ The two choices were represented in the poster as two loaves of bread, a large ‘free trade’ loaf and a considerably smaller ‘protection’ loaf. In other words, the humble loaf was designed to cut through the technical details of trade and comparative advantage to appeal directly to working-class voters as ‘citizen-consumers’.

In the present setting, the idea of a ‘Brexit dividend’ in the form of cheap food has been a constant theme of the pro-leave prospectus. It is notable, however, that relatively few in government have been willing to make the case for ‘cheap food’ explicitly. The possible exception to this is Liam Fox during his time at the Department for International Trade (DIT), though his pronouncements were usually oblique and highly coded. For instance, when in government, Fox was fond of saying that ‘there will be no lowering of UK food standards’, while also remarking that US food standards are not ‘lower’ than those of the EU, just ‘different’.

Outside of government, the case for cheap food has largely fallen to right-wing think tanks like the Legatum Institute. Other voices, such as Tim Wetherspoon, the maverick chairman of the Wetherspoons pub chain, MP Jacob Rees Mogg and John Longworth, the former head of the British Chambers of Commerce and director of the Leave Means Leave lobby group, have reiterated the same message: that ‘Brexit means cheaper food’.

Although few of these voices have made the point explicit (though see Bottle et al. 2018), the implication of the ‘cheap food’ policy, if implemented, is that it would have hugely disruptive effects on British farming, which currently meet around half of the country’s food needs. As noted by Michael Gove while he was Environment Secretary, British farming is noted, not primarily for its international competitiveness but for its high standards and commitments to animal welfare. Pointedly, the speeches and pronouncements which Gove made during his tenure at DEFRA rarely, if ever, mentioned ‘cheap food’.

In a speech to the National Farmers Union (NFU) in November 2018, Gove spoke positively of increasing public scrutiny of the circumstances in which food is produced and the need to make healthy food choices. ‘This scrutiny’, Gove said, ‘only strengthens the hand of British farmers. A demand for higher standards, for more sustainable production, for high standards in animal welfare and more nutritious choices can only mean a demand for more high-quality British produce rather than the alternative’. Although Gove did not go on to elaborate on what the ‘alternative’ referred to precisely, we can infer he meant cheaper imported food, presumably produced to lower standards and with less concern for animal welfare or the environment.

What’s on the menu?

The government’s steadfast refusal to countenance an extension to the Brexit transition period, coupled with the relaunch of free trade talks with the US, is fueling speculation that Boris Johnson’s government is intent on radically transforming the UK’s model of political economy. Applying this logic to food and agriculture, Brexit provides an opportunity to leave the EU’s regulatory orbit, including the Common Agricultural Policy, so as to reclaim and re-design a UK food policy from scratch. Yet, COVID-19 is a stark reminder of just how deeply the nation’s food security is dependent on the EU.

More significantly than this, Boris Johnson’s government seems reluctant to actually make the argument explicitly for the radical shake-up of the agricultural sector, even though this implicit in the ‘Global Britain’ prospectus. Indeed, if anything, protecting the UK’s farmers seems to be hardening into something close to a negotiating ‘red line’ – to the obvious disappointment of some Brexiteers. Of course, a more tumultuous outcome cannot be ruled out, especially given the (quite high) prospects of a disorderly Brexit in which the UK’s relatively weak bargaining position vis-a-vis the US and other potential trade partners would be further exposed. But, for now, it is perhaps best to follow the old adage: never order the cheapest dish on the menu.

*

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 Heron is Professor of International Political Economy, Department of Politics, University of York.

Featured image is from Philafrenzy, Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International

The US under both right wings of its war party represents an unparalleled threat to world peace, stability, democratic values, and the rule of law.

As long as the world community fails to uphold UN Charter principles and other core international law, global war 3.0 might be just a matter of time.

In the thermonuclear age, the threat of potential armageddon looms large.

On Wednesday, Pompeo lashed out against Iran and China, his latest outburst against both countries.

When the Trump regime abandoned the JCPOA two years ago, breaching international law, the US unilaterally reimposed illegal sanctions on Iran — ignoring the unanimous International Court of Justice (ICJ) order against reimposition.

At the same time, the Trump regime granted waivers to several countries, including Iraq to import gas, electricity, and food products from Iran — as long as not bought with US dollars.

On Wednesday, Pompeo announced “the end of the sanctions waiver covering all remaining JCPOA-originating nuclear projects in Iran (sic).”

Iran’s “nuclear projects” have no military component, a reality well known to the world community, including the US.

Countries involved with Iran commercially have 60 days to wind down their activities, according to Pompeo.

He announced sanctions on two Iranian officials connected to its legitimate nuclear program, falsely accusing them of “engaging or attempting to engage in activities that have materially contributed to, or pose a risk of materially contributing to, the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction (sic).”

No such activities exist. In its annual assessment of potential global threats, the US intelligence community refutes the notion of an Iranian nuclear weapons program.

Often it uses language to the effect that it doesn’t know for sure that one doesn’t exist, while stating that no evidence suggests it.

Without credible proof, claims otherwise are groundless. Virtually all Trump regime accusations against Iran and other nations on the US target list for regime change have no basis in fact.

Charges against them are invented, not real.

Pompeo also announced a separate 90-day waiver for Iran’s Bushehr nuclear power plant “to ensure safety of (its) operations.”

His latest outburst is all about wanting a stake driven through the JCPOA’s heart by the Trump regime, wanting the landmark agreement eliminated — pre-JCPOA sanctions reimposed by the Security Council, an arms embargo on Iran maintained.

Russia and China strongly oppose the diabolical Trump regime aim.

Separately, Pompeo escalated Trump regime war on China by other means.

He told Congress that “Hong Kong does not continue to warrant treatment under United States laws in the same manner as US laws were applied to Hong Kong before July 1997,” adding:

The Trump regime “stands with the people of Hong Kong (sic) as they struggle against (Beijing’s) denial of the autonomy that they were promise (sic).”

Under the 1992 US-Hong Kong Policy Act, the city is treated separately from mainland China on matters relating to trade — its status likely to be revoked by the Trump regime on the phony pretext of Beijing’s new national security law.

Heading for enactment in June, the measure is all about protecting China against threats to its national security that include secession, sedition, treason, and other subversive activities, as well as foreign interference and terrorism.

The measure’s purpose is similar to legislation enacted by other countries, including the US.

Under the House and Senate unanimously adopted 2019 Hong Kong Human Rights and Democracy Act (sic), signed into law by Trump, the US breached the UN Charter by illegally meddling in China’s internal affairs.

At the time, China’s Global Times called the measure the “Support KH Violence Act,” siding with thuggish rioters against the rule of law and rights of all city residents, opposing efforts by Hong Kong authorities to restore order, adding:

The bill “trampl(es) (on) the basic norms of international law and international relations,” escalating US “cold war with China,” what Beijing won’t tolerate.

Its authorities may respond to the measure by “sanction(ing) (US officials who proposed the bill), restrict their entry into China, and investigate their interests in China.”

Beijing may also “enact a ‘blocking statute,’ warning US authorities not to abuse or enforce the bill.”

According to the measure, the White House must decide annually whether Hong Kong deserves special status separate from mainland China.

Pompeo’s Wednesday announcement suggests likely harsh Trump regime actions ahead against Hong Kong, similar to its war on mainland China by other means.

The country’s GDP today is around 40-fold greater than Hong Kong’s, the city far less important economically than when returned to Beijing control in 1997 as a special administrative region under a one-country, two systems arrangement.

China’s new national security law leaves its local autonomy unchanged, the measure aimed at protecting the entire country’s sovereignty and territorial integrity from internal and external jeopardizing actions — the latter notably by the US.

China’s Washington embassy issued a statement, saying the following:

The new national security law “targets a very narrow category of acts.”

It will have “no impact on Hong Kong’s high degree of autonomy, the rights and freedoms of Hong Kong residents, or the legitimate rights and interests of foreign investors.”

“Hong Kong affairs are China’s internal affairs and allow no external interference.”

“As for foreign meddling in Hong Kong affairs, we will take necessary countermeasures in response.”

Illegal Trump regime sanctions on Hong Kong and its authorities are likely coming, along with the threat of secondary sanctions against nations, entities, and individuals not abiding by what no one should accept.

If Trump regime war on Hong Kong by other means occurs in response to China’s national security law, Beijing will likely shift city financial operations to Shanghai and encourage enterprises operating in the city to follow suit.

On Wednesday, China’s official People’s Daily broadsheet stressed that new national security legislation is “a matter of national sovereignty that allows no external interference.”

The principle is supported by the UN Charter and other international law — what the US throughout the post-WW II period breached time and again.

Note: On Thursday, China’s National People’s Congress (NPC) adopted the new national security law.

The measure heads to a Standing Committee to prepare its actual details, a process likely to be completed in June.

A Final Comment

Far and away, the US is the world’s leading human rights abuser at home and abroad — by its preemptive hot wars, illegal sanctions wars, state terrorism, homeland police state laws, its world’s largest global gulag prison system, along with killings and brutality against Black youths and other people of color by militarized state and local cops.

Yet on Wednesday, based on the phony US concern for human rights, congressionally approved legislation that calls for (unilaterally imposed illegal) US sanctions on China was sent to the White House for enactment into law.

The so-called Uighur Human Rights Act by a nation at war on Islam in multiple theaters, as well as immigrants of the wrong color or nationality, passed the House Wednesday with one dissenting vote.

In mid-May, it passed the Senate unanimously without a roll-call vote.

China’s People’s Daily slammed the measure, saying it “exposed the evil intention of the US…by distorting the facts (to contain) the development of China under the disguise of religion and human rights protection” the US doesn’t give a hoot about.

“Such malicious attack on Chinese government’s Xinjiang policies and the unethical practices of distorting facts seriously violates international law and basic norms governing international relations, and grossly interferes in China’s internal affairs.”

“Xinjiang-related issues are not about human rights, ethnicity or religion, but about fighting violence, terrorism and separatism.”

The US invents pretexts to target nations it doesn’t control, China clearly in the eye of its generated storm.

Bilateral relations are likely to worsen ahead, increasing the possibility of confrontation between two nuclear powers.

Canada is a virtual appendage of US foreign policy. On Wednesday, a Canadian judge ruled in favor of extraditing Chinese tech giant Huawei’s chief financial officer Sabrina Meng Wanzhou to the US — despite baseless Trump regime charges against her and the company.

Bowing to its pressure, Canadian authorities unlawfully arrested and detained her in December 2018 on phony charges.

After release from detention, she’s been confined under house arrest, pending whether Canada would or would not extradite her to stand kangaroo court trial in the US — a guilt by accusation system against targeted individuals

The action against her and Huawei is all about wanting China’s technological development undermined by the US, Canada allying with its agenda.

If Meng is unlawfully extradited to the US and prosecuted for the crime of successfully competing with US firms, China will no doubt retaliate in its own way at a time of its choosing.

*

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.

On Wednesday, Trump tweeted the following:

“We have informed both India and China that the United States is ready, willing and able to mediate or arbitrate their now raging border dispute.” 

He ignored longstanding US efforts to drive a stake through China/India relations, aiming to transform both countries into mortal enemies.

The US is no mediator. Hegemons seek conflicts and instability to advance their agenda.

Peace, stability, and cooperative relations among nations defeat their imperial agenda.

Since the US recognized Israel in May 1948, established on stolen Palestinian land, it’s involvement in “mediating” the conflict between them one-sidedly supported Jewish state interests at the expense of fundamental Palestinian rights.

To this day, notably under Trump, the US winks, nods or approves of continued Israeli land theft.

It’s in DJT’s no-peace/peace plan, showing his disdain for long-suffering Palestinians, the same true for his predecessors.

The US and Israel partner in each other’s wars of aggression against non-threatening states, including three wars on Gaza since December 2008.

Whenever undertaken, so-called US “mediation” is all about serving its imperial interests at the expense of victimized nations, their people, democratic values, and the rule of law.

For decades, China and India disagreed about a line of control that separates one country from the other.

In 1962, both countries fought a month-long war over the border dispute, what neither one wants repeated.

The earlier conflict followed border incidents in the wake of the CIA backed Tibetan uprising after which India granted asylum to the Dalai Lama.

China and India share one of the world’s longest borders (2,167 miles), referred to as the Line of Actual Control (LAC).

Parts of it are disputed, notably at Aksai Chin and India’s Arunachal Pradesh state.

In 2013, a three-week standoff between forces of both countries ended when they signed a border defense cooperation agreement.

In 2016, Obama regime consul general in Kolkata (Calcutta) Craig Hall supported India’s claim for territory China claims as its own.

At the time, Hall called for US/India joint infrastructure development, along with increased bilateral trade at China’s expense.

His remarks supported Obama’s Asia pivot, a diabolical scheme to advance Washington’s military footprint in a part of the world not its own — part of US policy to weaken, contain and isolate China in the Indo/Pacific and worldwide.

Supporting India’s territorial claim in its dispute with China is part of the US plot, wanting the Indo/US relationship strengthened as a counterweight to Beijing’s growing political, economic, industrial, technological, and military prominence on the world stage — a major challenge to US hegemonic aims.

At the time, Beijing slammed US interference in its dispute with India, a Foreign Ministry statement saying:

“The boundary question between China and India bears on China’s territorial sovereignty and Chinese people’s sentiment.”

“All third parties must respect the history and reality concerning the boundary question, respect efforts by China and India to solve territorial disputes through negotiations, not get involved in the disputes or take sides on issues relating to the ownership of disputed territory.”

“Sound negotiations between China and India on the boundary question as well as peace and tranquility in the border areas over recent years have created favorable conditions for the growth of bilateral relations and their respective development.”

The US under Trump has gone all-out to undermine China’s development.

A new Cold War threatens to rupture relations. It risks direct confrontation between two nuclear powers if Washington pushes things too far.

Last July, Indian President Narendra Modi dismissed Trump’s offer to mediate on the Kashmir issue, saying he never asked the US president for help.

India rejects third-party involvement in one of the world’s most intractable issues.

On Wednesday, China’s envoy to India Sun Weidong said that the situation along the disputed border with India is “stable and controllable,” adding:

“China and India pose no threats to each other. We need to see each other’s developments in a correct way and enhance strategic mutual trusts.”

“We need to correctly view our differences and never let differences shadow overall situation of bilateral cooperation.”

Both countries “should be good neighbors of harmonious coexistence and good partners to move forward hand in hand.”

China’s Foreign Ministry spokesman Zhao Lijian said

“(w)e have been following the important consensus reached by the two leaders (about) strictly observing the agreements between the two countries.”

His remark referred to two President Xi Jinping/Modi discussions, both leaders agreeing to pursue more confidence building measures to maintain peace and stability along their border.

At the same time, both countries reinforced their military positions along the LAC.

Despite their longstanding border dispute, neither nation seeks military confrontation with the other.

The US is hostile toward all countries it doesn’t control, notably China because of its growing prominence on the world stage.

Confrontation between Beijing and New Delhi would serve its interests.

Trump’s mediation offer is a smokescreen fooling no one, notably not China.

It rejects unacceptable US interference in its internal affairs, what Trump’s so-called offer is all about.

*

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 following tables provide links to important medical/health studies which are indicated in the Right column.

To access the original article at swprs.org click here

1) Covid-19 infection fatality rates (IFR) based on antibody studies

Population-based antibody seroprevalence studies.

.

1) The adjusted IFR is 0.278% (see page 9 of study). Note: Some of these studies are preprints.

2) Covid-19 infection fatality rates based on controlled PCR studies

Controlled PCR studies in population subgroups.

.

1) Age-adjusted IFR based on US population.

3) Covid-19 infection fatality rates based on models

Covid-19 IFR based on epidemiological models or predictions. These values are often somewhat higher than the actual values based on serological antibody studies (see above).

.

1) 0.4% symptomatic CFR and 35% asymptomatic cases; 2) Based on 29% prevalence and 50,000 deaths; 3) The IFR is 0.50 excluding nursing homes.

4) Additional antibody and PCR studies

These studies determine the actual prevalence of recent or current Covid-19 infections in a population or region. In most cases, they find that Covid-19 is much more widespread than previously assumed, with most people showing no or only mild symptoms.

.

5) Median age of Covid-19 deaths per country

Half of all deaths were below, half were above the median age.

7) Hospitalization rate

Initial estimates based on Chinese data assumed a very high 20% hospitalization rate, which led to the strategy of ‘flattening the curve’ to avoid overburdening hospitals. However, population-based antibody studies (see above) have since shown that actual hospitalization rates are close to 1%, which is within the range of hospitalization rates for influenza (1 to 2%).

The US CDC found that Covid-19 hospitalization rates for people aged 65 and over are “within ranges of influenza hospitalization rates”, with rates slightly higher for people aged 18 to 64 and “much lower” (compared to influenza) for people under 18.

In local hotspots like New York City, the overall hospitalization rate based on antibody studies is about 2.5% (19.9% or 1.7 million people with antibodies and 43,000 hospitalizations by May 2).

The much lower than expected hospitalization rate may explain why most Covid-19 ‘field hospitals’ even in hard-hit countries like the US, the UK and China remained largely empty.

.

8) Percentage of Covid-19 deaths in care homes per country

In many countries, deaths in care homes account for 30 to 60% of all additional deaths. In Canadaand some US states, care homes account for up to 80% of all “Covid19-related” deaths.

Source: Mortality associated with COVID-19 outbreaks in care homes (LTC Covid, May 3, 2020)

Source: The Covid-19 Nursing Home Crisis by The Numbers (Freopp, May 12, 2020)

9) Development of the epidemic

Even in countries without a lockdown, the epidemic reached its peak within a few weeks of the outbreak. However, many media showed cumulative deaths per day of report (left) instead of dailydeaths per day of death (right), falsely implying an ever escalating situation.

See also

• Additional Covid-19 Antibody Serological Studies (Dr. Henrik Jarlov)
• Global Covid-19 Case Fatality Rates (Oxford Center for Evidence-Based Medicine)
• Rate of positive Covid-19 tests per country over time (SPR)

Main article: Facts on Covid-19

–

Cumulative deaths per day of report vs. daily deaths per day of death. (OWD/FOHM; April 24)

*

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.

US President Donald Trump is much taken with the bombastic and the exaggerated.  In an interview with the Associated Press in April 2017, he spoke of his infamous if somewhat less than successful wall project on the US-Mexican border.  Ever happy to stretch the record on costs, he took issue with those “opponents talking $25 billion for the wall. It’s not going to cost anywhere near that.”  Resembling that noisy relative who boasts about getting a cheaper deal for you on anything from car insurance to white goods, the president was confident: “I think $10 billion or less.  And if I do a super-duper, higher, better, better security, everything else, maybe it goes a little bit more.” 

In the year of an election, things are not looking rosy at the White House, neither super, let alone duper, but that is hardly an excuse not to embark on ego trips of extravagant optimism.  Amidst the rising death toll in the United States due to coronavirus, military matters still have to be tended to.  The signing of the 2020 Armed Forces Day Proclamation provided a chance for the Trump administration to reveal the flag for the US Space Force.  “We’ve worked very hard on this and it’s so important from a defensive standpoint, from an offensive standpoint, from every standpoint there is.”

For the White House, the deep blue and sharp white colours of the flag represented the “vast recesses of outer space”.  It was unfurled and ready, raised against those dastardly adversaries who, according to Secretary of Defence Mark Esper, had “weaponized space” and “made it a war fighting domain.”   

The flag had caused a tittle of offence with its approval in January this year.  New York Times reporter Sopan Deb lost his bearings on Twitter, shouting about its resemblance to the Starfleet logo of Star Trek.  Actors such as George Takei, who featured in the original show run, saw little merit in the flattery of such theme-pinching inspiration. “Is nothing sacred?”  (He promptly turned his thespian head to more earthly matters: royalties might be in order.)

The president also claimed during the ceremony that the United States was developing an exhilarating, novel weapon.  “I call it the ‘super-duper missile’. And I heard the other night, 17 times faster than what they have right now.”  Not exactly solid on his avionics, the president observed that Russia “has five times, and China is working on five or six times”. (What times?  Sound?) 

In February, Trump was also very much enchanted by the speedy missile theme. “We have the super-fast missiles,” he explainedto governors visiting the White House, “tremendous number of the super-fast.  We call them ‘super-fast,’ where they’re four, five, six and even seven times faster than an ordinary missile.  We need that because, again, Russia has some.  I won’t tell you how they got it.”  Not being able to restrain himself, Trump continued to explain. “They got it, supposedly, from plans from the Obama administration when we weren’t doing it.  And that’s too bad.” 

Trump might not have been briefed by the more specific advances made by the Russian military in this field.  In December 2018, Russia supposedly tested the Avangard hypersonic vehicle, which claimed to go to speeds up to 27 times the speed of sound.  “The Avangard,” Russian President Vladimir Putin boasted, “is invulnerable to intercept by any existing and prospective weapon defence means of the potential adversary.”  The Kinzhal design, with a speed greater than Mach 10, is said to be even more agile. 

Trump loathes the burdens of the technical, preferring the simplified language of the MBA (mediocre-but-ambitious) set.  Such missiles are better known as hypersonic weapons, which have been preoccupying US officials for some time.  “Our goal is, simply,” in the frank observation of Mark Lewis, the Pentagon’s director of defense and research engineering for modernization, “to dominate future battlefields.”  The Pentagon’s budget for the 2021 financial year for all research related to hypersonic weaponry is $3.2 billion, with $206.8 million specifically dedicated to hypersonic defence programs.

The line between sensible defence and testosterone strutting is a hard to discern in military matters.  New weapons are often developed to reassure the tribal establishment of their necessity.  Others have them and so must we.  The ego’s urges must be pacified.  “We have no choice,” contends Trump.  “We have to do it – with the adversaries we have out there.” 

The hypersonic weapon tickles the tribe in various ways: it is ferociously fast and highly manoeuvrable.  Being hard to detect, such vehicles are a challenge to destroy.  Vice Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and former Commander of US Strategic Command General John Hyten sees their value in enabling “responsive, long-range, strike options against distant, defended, and/or time-critical threats [such as road-mobile missiles] when other forces are unavailable, denied access, or not preferred.”

The critics, who tend to be muffled in their assessments of such programs, suggest that having such weapons is an expensive exercise in futility.  In the words of a Congressional Research Service report, they “lack defined mission requirements, contribute little to US military capability, and are unnecessary for deterrence.”

Certain military obsessives feel that Trump is on to a good thing.  Ryan P. Burke of the US Air Force Academy has snootily dismissed the mockers and the knockers. “Between the Twitter jokes and the media’s fixation on missile development and soundbites, the public narrative is missing the point: The super duper missile is a super duper necessity to deal with the super duper Russian threat in the Arctic.” 

To develop such weapons is, according to Burke, “important for a country in third place in the hypersonic race.”  He leaves us with no reason why that should be so, other than the fact they have it.  As with any such analysis, the feeling of being second, let alone third, is monstrously unedifying.  It reduces strategists to panic attacks and prolonged periods of sobbing anxiety.  Inadequacies must be underlined to increase budgets for the needless.  Burke proceeds to earn his keep at the academy by opening the door to binges on weapons acquisition or, as he puts it, the attainment of “weapons parity”.  Despite accepting the premise that conventional deterrence is questionable as a principle in an age of mutually assured destruction, he draws from the 2018 National Defense Strategy as a justification.  Super-duper stupidity will get you far in this game.

*

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

Dr. Binoy Kampmark was a Commonwealth Scholar at Selwyn College, Cambridge.  He lectures at RMIT University, Melbourne. He is a frequent contributor to Global Research and Asia-Pacific Research. Email: [email protected]

Every year in the U.S. more than 1,000 poor working people of all races and ethnicities are killed by police.

While President Trump and GOP encourage and glorify police brutality, the Democratic establishment and their functionaries with their racialist politics, distract working people from the actual problem: class oppression.

Today, the United States is politically charged with waves of social unrest and at the same time new organizations and alignments among the subjugated and oppressed working people are forming.

During this time of Corona crisis, the only way that working people can end police brutality is to organize themselves in their communities independent of all capitalist parties.

By the author

*

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 Covid-19 pandemic has brought out many disturbing features of our society. Misinformation, or perhaps more accurately, disinformation, abounds in the service of agendas ranging from those who interpret the virus as a useful ploy for the construction of a police state, to Big Pharma and its allies who are moving us toward mass vaccinations, to the narcissistic views of those who would sacrifice the elderly and ill rather than to be inconvenienced by being denied access to bars and beaches. 

Every aspect of the pandemic, including Trump’s own use of HCQ, is being used against the President of the United States.

Despite proof of reinfections, some bleat on and on about how the “lockdown” prevented “herd immunity” and made us less safe.  Others make the false claim that Sweden with no lockdown fared no worse than others. In fact Sweden’s economy was de facto locked down by the nonparticipation of Swedes who on their own used the same measures as in other countries, and Sweden still has a higher mortality rate, for which the government has apologized to the elderly. Still others dispute that the lockdown reduced the infection rate, while others claim any reduction in Covid deaths was offset by higher suicides caused by “lockdown depression.”  

To put these claims in perspective: two months ago the US had 100 known Covid cases; today the US has 1.5 million.  The difference is not accounted for by an increase in testing.  The US has 100,000 deaths blamed on the virus—twice the deaths of US soldiers in the long Vietnam war.  Some claim that the deaths were caused by preconditions, not by the virus—but the people didn’t die until they got the virus. Others point out that economic incentives cause an over-reporting of Covid deaths.  There is little doubt about that, but over-reporting does not account for 100,000 deaths. It remains to be seen whether the reopening will result in a jump in infections and deaths.

At a time when accurate information is essential, the waters are instead muddied by disinformation in the service of political, ideological, and profit agendas.  The irresponsibility of those putting their self-interests first is extraordinary.  It indicates that the social bond between people that made America a country has been dissolved by greed, multiculturalism, and Identity Politics.  America has become a country without a common interest. It is a narcissistic state.

This article is limited to the campaign against HCQ.  HCQ—hydroxychloroquine—has been in use for 65 years for the prevention or treatment of malaria, lupus, and rheumatoid arthritis.  It is officially labeled a safe drug.  Many doctors treating Covid patients have found and reported HCQ, when used early enough together with zinc and the antibiotic azithromycin to be an effective and safe treatment.

I have reported and made available many of the reports of HCQ’s efficacy and safety.  See for example, this, this, this, this and this. 

Despite 65 years of safe use, HCQ is alleged to be dangerous and to cause heart attacks.  Its use is officially approved only for “adolescent and adult patients hospitalized with COVID-19.” Generally, by the time a patient is hospitalized the virus has progressed to a later stage in which treatment is less successful.  Studies of HCQ’s effectiveness, such as the VA one and apparently the more recent one reported in The Lancet, are limited to later stage hospitalized patients and seem to exclude the essential zinc component of the HCQ treatment.  In other words, the studies seem to be designed to exclude from official approval the treatment that doctors have found most effective. It is not easy for a layperson to know what the studies actually say as the media report the studies in an anti-Trump manner.  For the media, what is most important is criticism of Trump, not the effectiveness of a treatment.

In contrast, the untested investigational antiviral drug, Remdesivir, which has no record of safe use and is extraordinarily expensive compared to HCQ, has been given the same clearence for use. The media is not interested in the effectiveness and safety, or lack of, of this new and untested drug. Trump isn’t taking it, and it is a potential profit-maker for Big Pharma. If Remdesivir fails, the failure will be used to dispose of the hope for cures and to focus on vaccination.

It is difficult to avoid the conclusion that HCQ/zinc is being sidelined in order to clear the way for a profitable vaccine and a vaccination mandate.  But the vaccines are not panning out. The Moderna vax touted by Bill Gates and Dr. Fauci caused severe illnesses in one-fifth of the test recipients. 

The other fast-tracked vaccine developed by the Oxford Vaccine Group proved ineffective. The vaccine produced insufficient antibodies to prevent Covid-19 infection. See this. 

It will be instructive to see what reopening brings.  Bay county (Panama City Beach) and Walton county (Seaside, Rosemary Beach) quickly closed spring break and the beaches, restaurants, bars, vacation rental houses and condos, and non-essential businesses.  Consequently, the two Florida counties had hardly any Covid cases. People were able to go about without masks as if there were no pandemic.

These two counties are blessed with “America’s most beautiful beaches,” and host millions of visitors.  Panama City Beach has 13,975 permanent residents and 17 million annual visitors. See this.

With the reopening, tourists will be coming in from infected locations.  If they bring the virus with them, the counties will find that the Covid-19 virus is real after all. Other locations spared by the lockdowns might find reopening brings the virus.

If so, and there is a second closedown, we will be led by fear and be vaccinated regardless of the vaccine’s safety and effectiveness against the virus.  Did those protesting the closedown think about this?

*

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

Dr. Paul Craig Roberts writes on his blog site, PCR Institute for Political Economy, where this article was originally published. He is a frequent contributor to Global Research.

Memories are like those fireflies that sparkle your vision on a deep hot summer night. They entice you with their sudden appearance and just as sudden departure. So it is with this baby boomer’s mind, transversed back so many decades until… 50 years appear as if it was today. This brings tears to your tired eyes within this pandemic hibernation.

As I write this piece I have the Animals’ great song ‘ Sky Pilot’ sung by the irrepressible Eric Burden, that little tiny giant of blues rock. Suddenly I am transported back in time to the summer of ’70, the greatest summer of this writer’s life. My cousin Mick and I were staying in Virginia Beach, Virginia for the summer. This was the first time we two twenty year olds had ventured away from our parents’ homes for any lengthy period of time. We were your normal college kids who were happy as shit to not be drafted, thanks to our student deferments. Recently I had just been baptized into anti war activism when myself and a herd of fellow students closed down the Brooklyn College campus two months earlier.

The Kent State massacre of four students by National Guard troops  the same age as them, coupled with Nixon’s illegal and immoral ( aren’t they all?) bombing of Cambodia, shut down many college campuses.

We all played songs like ‘ For What it’s Worth’ by Buffalo Springfield ( With Stephen Stills and Neil Young) , ‘ Eve of Destruction’ by Barry McGuire and Edwin Starr’s ‘ War, What is it Good For?’ Getting high on good pot and hashish was our ticket to any repose from the insanity of Vietnam, or ‘ The Shit’ as returning veterans referred to it.

So, here I was, having the greatest time of my life down in Virginia Beach. We rented an apartment and each found part time jobs. We had brought down a nice stash of white opiate hash, which lasted us for two weeks, instead of for the whole summer, it was too easy to enjoy. We both worked in the evenings, Mick as a short order cook, me as a barker at the basketball shooting game by the arcade. We slept late each morning, ate big breakfasts of bacon and eggs and then off to the beautiful beach. Running by the shore barefoot, and throwing around the football each day got the two of us in probably the best shape we had ever been in. Of course, the girl chasing was our primary goal each day. As I eluded to, this was the best summer I ever had, up until then and up till NOW! Let us leave it at that.

One day I ran into this guy who called himself Huck, who was just out of the Army and of course Nam. He still had the Army style haircut, which he was quickly growing, along with the moustache you saw so many military guys wearing. I think he said he was from Ohio and had rented a whole house not too far from the beach ( we lived much further away, paying less rent ). Huck told me that he let this ‘ Hippie Dippy ‘ bunch, as he put it , crash at his place. ” Lots of good looking chicks along with the guys. Safe bunch. All they wanna do is listen to music and get high.” He then informed me that they all had gotten onto their ‘ Hippie van’ and went to Atlanta for a Johnny Winter concert. ” Why don’t you come by. I got some really far out shit we can smoke.”

As Mick and I had used up all our stash, and were paranoid of buying anything down in Virginia, I said I’d be by later that afternoon. It was Sunday, my day off, so I had plenty of time. My cousin was at work, so I hustled over to Huck’s place. I can never forget just sitting in his living room, smoking his really top shelf weed with him. Huck put on this Animals LP and ‘ Sky Pilot ‘ came on. He said the guys back in Vietnam just played this song over and over. I sat there, mesmerized by the lyrics and the pot. It was as if I was right under the plane from the song, as it roared above the troops on its way to dealing death and destruction on the Vietnamese. Huck told me some of the experiences he had in the bush, and how it never really escaped him. After a bit, I invited him over to my place for some steaks that Mick and I liberated from the supermarket. He took down my address and we planned to meet up in two hours.

Huck never showed up. I walked by his house the next day, but no one was there. OK, I thought, the guy just came back from the ‘ Shit’ so I cut him some slack. A  few weeks went by and I finally met up with Huck one afternoon near the main drag. ” Man, you must have stepped in shit ” he said. ” Not more than twenty minutes after you left, the hippy dippy van pulled up. My pad crashers had just returned from Atlanta. Within a few minutes the whole house was surrounded by a ton of cops! They arrested all of us for drug possession, and those hippies had a shit load too!” He then told me that with the new laws in Virginia, he was forced to stay there for at least a year on probation. Some of his guests had to go to trial for drug dealing, facing stiff prison sentences. ” Man, you sure stepped in shit! Those cops were out there in the woods by my house when you visited. They were waiting for those hippies to return.” It turns out that Virginia did have really draconian laws on the books then, even for simply marijuana. I would have been stuck there for at least a year too.

That summer of ‘ 70 was my epiphany as an anti war /anti empire thinker. Each time I hear that Animals’ song, or any of the other songs of that Vietnam era, I cry.

This article was originally published on Counter Currents

Philip A Farruggio is a contributing editor for The Greanville Post. He is also frequently posted on Global Research, Nation of Change, Countercurrents.org, and Off Guardian sites. He is the son and grandson of Brooklyn NYC longshoremen and a graduate of Brooklyn College, class of 1974. Since the 2000 election debacle Philip has written over 400 columns on the Military Industrial Empire and other facets of life in an upside down America. He is also host of the ‘ It’s the Empire… Stupid ‘ radio show, co produced by Chuck Gregory. Philip can be reached at [email protected]

French Foreign Minister Jean-Yves Le Drian and German Foreign Minister Heiko Maas in a joint statement on the weekend said that EU-led dialogue between Serbia and Kosovo must restart as soon as possible and that shortcuts and quick fixes are excluded from the European plan towards a final deal. The sudden weekend request from France and Germany for the immediate continuation of dialogue between Kosovo and Serbia, under the leadership of the EU, was euphorically welcomed in Pristina, because, unlike the U.S. one, it offers no dead line for a solution. The EU does not want a repeat of the Dayton Agreement for Kosovo as it has been a catastrophic failure for Bosnia and the EU was only a passive observer when Bosnia was divided.

For Belgrade, there are several elements that it has to face. First of all, the battle between the EU and the U.S. for supremacy in leading the Kosovo process is underway. In that, the joint letter from Paris and Berlin requests dialogue between Belgrade and Pristina to begin as soon as possible but for the dialogue to be patient, while Washington is also on a diplomatic offensive with the aim to end the process as soon as possible.

The EU has been silent on this issue for a long while, which the U.S. used to activate and engage in dialogue in the absence of European influence. Knowing the traditional position of Washington on the Kosovo issue, Belgrade should prevent the U.S. from taking a lead position in any negotiations because they have always been on the side of a Kosovo independent of Serbia.

With Berlin and Paris, as the leading members of the EU, showing greater interest in resolving the issue between Serbia and Kosovo, they are showing their return to the process in a demonstration of their increased influence in the region. It is important for the Europeans to indicate in some way that they are still interested in having the main influence in the dialogue. If we observe this from Serbia’s side, this could be in its favour as the EU still has member states that do not recognize an independent Kosovo and will defend this position.

However, Pristina is also looking forward to European mediation in the process and it is not only due to the fact that they are beginning to give up on the U.S., but for the fact the Europeans are not putting pressure for the negotiations to end by a certain time frame. The U.S. wants a quick solution, while Germany and France, although they are looking for an efficient dialogue, are more inclined to a slower pace for reaching a solution and do not set deadlines. This suits Pristina at the moment because of the political crisis and disagreements between Albanian leaders on this issue. So, they need to put their own house in order before being pressured to making agreements with Serbia.

One of Belgrade’s obligations in the accession negotiations with the EU is a final solution to the Kosovo issue under the auspices of the EU. This goal of EU accession however is mostly at the behest of the Serbian political class and does not necessarily reflect the opinions of the people. None-the-less, Berlin and Paris want to say that they will not be just observers as the EU continually seeks ways to become more sovereign and independent of U.S. foreign policy.

Although Germany is rigid, it will not want a change of borders in Kosovo. However, the EU is not only Germany, as much as it wishes it to be. Europe is to formally provide a service and to serve as a mediator between Belgrade and Pristina in order to reach a legally binding agreement between Belgrade and Pristina. It would be completely normal for Europe to solve this problem, because it is on the European continent and not the North American one. However, the fact is that at this moment we actually have two negotiating parties that provide various potential solutions. Therefore, there is no doubt that the EU is seeking to take over negotiations between Serbia and Kosovo from the U.S., and it appears that both parties are happy for this to occur.

Featured image courtesy of Infobrics

The head of the Governmental Coalition in Israel, Mickey Zohar, revealed that the measures to legislate the process of imposing Israeli sovereignty on all Jewish residential communities in the West Bank will begin in early July.

The Likud MP said in a radio interview today, that the government will approve the draft law on this, and then it will be submitted to the Knesset for approval, expecting that these measures will continue for only a few weeks.

Representative Zohar announced that the concerned authorities are currently working on mapping in order to reach understandings with the American administration about the areas that Israel will impose their sovereignty over in the West Bank.

In response to a question about whether the White House would insist on the establishment of a Palestinian state in exchange for the annexation, the head of the government coalition said: “He opposes this demand, expressing his conviction that Israel will not give up the annexation in any case.”

He stressed that the government would also not agree to freezing construction work in isolated residential compounds in the occupied West Bank, but was ready to freeze construction in places not close to those that would be imposed on Israeli sovereignty.

The Palestinian leadership has already rejected this planned annexation, as the President of the Palestinian Authority, Mahmoud Abbas, withdrew from all agreements with the U.S. and Israel over this contingency.

Featured image courtesy of Almasdar News: Houses are seen in the West Bank Jewish settlement of Karmel, near Hebron May 24, 2016.

The U.S. assassination of Qassem Soleimani in January touched off a new wave of disinformation about the top Iranian major general, with Trump administration allies branding him a global terrorist while painting Iran as the world’s worst state sponsor of terrorism. Much of the propaganda about Soleimani related to his alleged responsibility for the killing of American troops in Iraq, along with Iran’s role in Syria, Lebanon, and Yemen.

But a second theme in the disinformation campaign, which has been picked up by mainstream outlets like the Wall Street Journal and National Public Radio, was the claim that Soleimani deliberately unleashed al-Qaeda terrorist Abu Musab al-Zarqawi’s campaign to kill Shiites in Iraq. That element of the propaganda offensive was the result of the 2017 publication of “The Exile,” a book by British journalists Adrian Levy and Cathy Scott-Clark, which spun a new version of the familiar U.S. propaganda line of a supposed Iranian terror alliance with al-Qaeda.

Levy and Scott-Clark introduced the theme of secret collusion between the two open adversaries with an article in the The Sunday Times in early 2018, dramatically entitled “Tehran in devil’s pact to rebuild al‑Qaeda.” Soleimani, they claimed, “first offered sanctuary to bin Laden’s family and al-Qaeda military leaders,” then proceeded to “build them a residential compound at the heart of a military training center in Tehran.”

But those two sentences represented a grotesque distortion of Iran’s policy toward the al-Qaeda personnel fleeing from Afghanistan into Iran. Virtually every piece of concrete evidence, including an internal al-Qaeda document written in 2007, showed that Iran agreed to take in a group of al-Qaeda refugees with legal passports that included members of bin Laden’s family and some fighters and middle- and lower-ranking military cadres – but not Zarqawi and other al-Qaeda military leaders — and only temporarily and under strict rules forbidding political activity.

The crucial fact that Levy and Scott-Clark conveniently failed to mention, moreover, was that Iranian officials were well aware that al-Qaeda’s leadership figures, including military commanders and with their troops, were also slipping into Iran from Afghanistan, but Iranian security forces had not yet located them.

Keeping the legal arrivals under closer surveillance and watching for any contacts with those illegally in the country, therefore, was a prudent policy for Iranian security under the circumstances.

In addition, having bin Laden’s family and other al-Qaeda cadres under their surveillance gave Iran potential bargaining chips it could use to counter hostile actions by both al-Qaeda and the United States.

Al-Qaeda documents undermine narrative of cooperation with Iran

Careful study of the enormous cache of internal al-Qaeda documents released by the U.S. government in 2017 further discredited the tall tale of Iranian facilitation of al-Qaeda terrorism.

Nelly Lahoud, a senior fellow at the New American Foundation and former senior research associate at the West Point Combating Terrorism Center, translated and analyzed 303 of the newly available documents and found nothing indicating Iranian cooperation with, or even knowledge about the whereabouts of Zarqawi or other al-Qaeda military leaders prior to their detentions of April 2003.

Lahoud explained in a September 2018 lecture that all actions by al-Qaeda operatives in Iran had been “conducted in a clandestine manner.” She even discovered from one of the documents that al-Qaeda had considered the clandestine presence of those officials and fighters so dangerous that they had been instructed on how to commit suicide if they were caught by the Iranians.

Adrian Levy and Cathy Scott-Clark were well aware that those al-Qaeda operatives living in Tehran’s military training center were under severe constraints, akin to a prison.  Meanwhile, senior figures like Zarqawi and Saif al-Adel, the head of the al-Qaeda shura council, were far away from Tehran, planning new operations in the region amid friendly Sunni contacts. These plans included Zarqawi’s campaign Iraq, which he began organizing in early 2002.

Nevertheless the authors declared, “From [the Iranian training center], al-Qaeda organized, trained and established funding networks with the help of Iran, co-ordinated multiple terrorist atrocities and supported the bloodbath against Shi’ites by al-Qaeda in Iraq….”

Anti-Iran think tanker Sadjadpour jumps on the conspiracy bandwagon

Karim Sadjadpour of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, a reliable fount of anti-Iran spin, responded within days of the Soleimani assassination with an article in the Wall Street Journal’s right-wing editorial section that reinforced the budding disinformation campaign.

Entitled “The Sinister Genius of Qassem Soleimani,” Sadjadpour’s op-ed argued that in March 2003, before the U.S. invasion of Iraq, “Soleimani’s Quds Force freed many Sunni jihadists that Iran had been holding captive, unleashing them against the U.S.” He cited “The Exile” as his source.

Levy and Scott-Clark did indeed spin a tale in the book of Zarqawi’s troops — and Zarqawi himself — being rounded up and locked to the same prison as those al-Qaeda members who entered with passports in March 2003. The authors claimed they were released within days. But the only sources they cite to support their claims were two people they interviewed in Amman, Jordan in 2016.

So who were these insider sources? The only identifying characteristics Levy and Scott-Clark offer is that they were “in Zarqawi’s group at the time.” Furthermore, neither of these sources is quoted to substantiate the claim that Zarqawi was arrested and then released from prison, and they are mentioned only in a footnote on the number of Zarqawi’s troops that had been sent to the prison.

Sadjadpour offered his own explanation — without the slightest suggestion of any evidence to support it — of why Soleimani would support an anti-Shiite jihadist to kill his own Iraqi Shiite allies. “By targeting Shiite shrines and civilians, killing thousands of Iran’s fellow Shiites,” he wrote, “Zarqawi helped to radicalize Iraq’s Shiite majority and pushed them closer to Iran—and to Soleimani, who could offer them protection.”

In late January, on National Public Radio’s weekly program “Throughline,” Sadjadpour pushed his dubiously sourced argument, opining that Soleimani had figured out how to “use the al Qaeda jihadists of Zarqawi … to simply unleash them into Iraq with the understanding that you guys do what you do.”

The BBC promotes “The Exile” as the book’s narrative crumbles

In a BBC radio documentary broadcasted in late April, titled “Iran’s Long Game” (an allusion to Iran’s alleged long-term plan for domination of the entire Middle East), Cathy Scott-Clark told a story intended to clinch the case that Iran had helped Zarqawi: Other prisoners “heard conversations in the corridors” in which Iranian authorities allegedly assured Zarqawi, “You can do whatever you want to do … in Iraq.”

That story does not appear in her book, however. Instead, Adrian Levy and Scott-Clark related a comment by Abu Hafs al-Mauritani, a spiritual adviser to bin Laden, on hearing about the arrest and subsequent release of Zarqawi from another prisoner who eavesdropped by tapping the pipes leading into his room.

That narrative had already been definitively contradicted long before, however, in an account provided by Saif al-Adl, the most senior member of the al-Qaeda top leadership in Iran. Al-Adl had fled with Zarqawi from Afghanistan across the border into Iran illegally in late 2001 or early 2002 and was apprehended in April 2003 — weeks after the alleged events portrayed in al-Mauritani’s story.

In a memoir smuggled out of Iran to Jordanian journalist Fouad Hussein, which Husayn published in 2005 in an Arabic-language book (but available online in an English-language translation), Saif al-Adl described an Iranian crackdown in March 2003 that captured 80 percent of Zarqawi’s fighters and “confused us and aborted 75 percent of our plan”.

Because of that round-up, al-Adl wrote, “[T]here was a need for the departure of Abu-Mus’ab and the brothers who remained free.” Al-Adl described his final meeting with Zarqawi before his departure, confirming that Zarqawi had not been caught prior to his own apprehension on April 23, 2003.

Levy and Scott-Clark cited Saif al-Adl’s memoir on other matters in “The Exile,” but when this writer queried Scott-Clark about al-Adl’s testimony – which contradicted the narrative that underpinned her book – Scott-Clark responded, “I know Fuad Hussein well. Most of his information is third hand and not well sourced.”

She did not address the substance of al-Adl’s recollections about Zarqawi, however. When asked in a follow-up email whether she challenged the authenticity of Saif al-Adl’s testimony, Scott-Clark did not respond.

Months of violence and vandalism in Hong Kong last year were orchestrated. 

Any pretext will do for the US to wage wars on other nations by hot and/or other means — directly by terror-bombing and/or use of proxies, financed and trained to do Washington’s bidding.

Last August during US orchestrated violence and vandalism in Hong Kong, commander of the People’s Liberation Army’s Hong Kong garrison, Chen Daoxiang, warned that PLA forces in the city are prepared to protect and defend it against hostile actions that threaten its stability.

At the time, he noted “a series of extremely violent incidents happening in Hong Kong” — US dirty hands all over them, my comment, not his, adding:

“This has damaged the prosperity and stability of the city, and challenged the rule of law and social order.”

“The incidents have seriously threatened the life and safety of Hong Kong citizens, and violated the bottom line of ‘one country, two systems.’ ”

“This should not be tolerated and we express our strong condemnation.”

“We resolutely support the action to maintain Hong Kong’s rule of law by the people who love the nation and the city, and we are determined to protect national sovereignty, security, stability and the prosperity of Hong Kong.”

If PLA intervention is needed to restore order, actions taken will adhere to the city’s Basic Law and Hong Kong Garrison Law, Chen stressed.

China won’t let the city be transformed into a US nerve center for undermining the mainland.

In response to China’s announced new national security law, Chen expressed support for the measure, saying:

It “will contribute to containing and punishing any attempt to sabotage the national unity or split the country…”

It will “help deter all kinds of secessionist forces and foreign forces attempting to interfere (in China’s internal affairs), and demonstrates our resolute will in safeguarding national sovereignty and territorial integrity.”

A statement by China’s Liaison Office in Hong Kong warned that elements engaged in violence and vandalism, along with dark forces from abroad backing them, “not to underestimate the central government’s rock-firm determination to uphold national sovereignty, security and development interests and to safeguard Hong Kong’s prosperity and stability and Hong Kong compatriots’ fundamental interests.”

Without changing China’s one country, two systems policy, its new national security law aims to prevent pro-US 5th column elements from controlling Hong Kong and using the city as a platform for undermining mainland development and aims.

US war on China by other means rages, a country the Trump regime considers a “strategic competitor using predatory economics to intimidate its neighbors while militarizing features in the South China Sea (sic).”

Beijing is responding to its hostile agenda. The South China Morning Post (SCMP) said President Xi Jinping is focusing more on domestic over export-led growth.

His “strategic shift” includes preparing for a “worst case scenario.”

Xinhua quoted him saying “(f)or  the future, we must treat domestic demand as the starting point and foothold as we accelerate the building of a complete domestic consumption system, and greatly promote innovation in science, technology and other areas.”

According to economist Hu Xingdou, he’s preparing for possible “decoupling with the United States and even the whole Western world” if East-West hostility reaches boils over.

China seeks self-sufficiency in a changing world, triggered by COVID-19, economic collapse, disrupted international trade and investments, and hostile US actions that aim to undermine its development.

By no means will Beijing close itself off from the outside world it’s a major part of for its imports and exports.

It seeks multilateralism, “openness and inclusiveness,” said Xi.

Economist Raymond Yeung believes his strategic shift is over concern that export demand won’t recover for several years.

According to China’s official People’s Daily broadsheet, Beijing will counter Trump regime sanctions when imposed, including because of its new national security law.

A statement by China’s Foreign Ministry said

“(i)f the US insists on hurting China’s interests, China will definitely take all necessary measures to firmly fight back.”

Last weekend, White House national security advisor Robert O’Brien said the US will likely impose sanctions on China if it enacts its national security law.

Foreign Ministry spokesperson Zhao Lijian stressed that “Hong Kong is China’s Hong Kong.”

“Hong Kong affairs are purely China’s internal affairs. What legislation the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region makes, and how and when (it’s implemented) are entirely within China’s sovereignty.”

“The US has no qualification to point fingers and interfere.”

Under core UN Charter and other international law that’s also US constitutional law, no nation may interfere in the internal affairs of others for any reasons other than self-defense if attacked.

Even then, the Security Council has sole authority over this issue — not nations on their own, their leadership, legislators or courts.

It’s unclear how far the Trump regime may go to challenge China’s authority over its own territory.

It’s increasingly likely that Beijing will respond appropriately to hostile US actions if and when they occur.

A Final Comment

According to an SCMP article published by Global Research.ca, the US “slapped sanctions on 33 Chinese companies and institutions, putting them on two so-called entity lists as it dials up the hostility during the lowest point in US-China relations in decades.”

Clearly, China will respond in its own way at a time of its choosing.

All nations should refuse to tolerate what the scourge of US imperialism is all about.

*

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

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

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

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

Visit his blog site at sjlendman.blogspot.com.

Featured image is from Global Times

根据该计划，”大流行病控制委员会 “还被授权建立一个 “大流行病反应军团”：一支特种部队（像海军陆战队那样被称为 “军团 “并不奇怪，因为它有10万到30万的人员组成。

他们将从和平队和美国志愿者（美国政府为 “帮助发展中国家 “而正式成立的 “和平队 “和美军志愿者中招募，并从国民警卫队的军事人员中招募。”大流行病应对机构 “的成员将获得平均每年4万美元的毛工资，预计国家每年为其支出40-120亿美元。

这支 “大流行病应对机构 “的任务首先是在工作和学习场所、居民区、公共场所和出行时，通过数字化的跟踪和识别系统，用类似于军队的技术控制人口。洛克菲勒基金会回顾说，这类系统—-由苹果、谷歌和Facebook等公司制造。

**

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

USA Plan: Militarized Control of Population. The “National Covid-19 Testing Action Plan”

A news website created by Tibetan exiles in India, Phayul, has featured an article on a bill (H.R. 6948) introduced in the House of Representatives by United States Congressman Scott Perry (R-PA) that promotes Tibetan separation from China.

The bill would “authorize the President to recognize the Tibet Autonomous Region of the People’s Republic of China as a separate, independent country, and for other purposes.”

Other purposes? That the US was running geopolitical intrigues in Asia (and throughout the world) is well known. That the US CIA was running schemes in Xinjiang and Tibet was written about by Thomas Laird in his Into Tibet: The CIA’s First Atomic Spy and His Secret Expedition to Lhasa.

It is farcical for Americans to push for purported liberation of lands for other peoples. Why? Because if one grouping of people is entitled to country status in a delimited territory, then that same principle must apply to all peoples in similar circumstances. The US would have to recognize Palestinian statehood in historical Palestine. The same would apply to the Kurds, the Kashmiris, the Basques in France and Spain, the Catalans in Spain, etc. National liberation can not be seriously considered as just a pick-and-choose principle among peoples seeking liberation in a homeland.

Even worse, not only is it farcical, it is hypocritical for Americans. If Americans (and let’s be specific to certain Americans because here we are mainly discussing Americans derived from European migrants) are to be regarded as earnest and sincere in advocating the liberation of peoples elsewhere, then one should first look in one’s own backyard before calling for an overhaul of a neighbor’s backyard. To express fidelity with H.R. 6948, the US would have to turn over Puerto Rico to Puerto Ricans, Guam to the Chamorros, the Chagos archipelago to the Chagossians (yes, Britain lays claim, but the Chagossians were expelled at the request of the US military), and others.

The fact is that the entirety of the US landmass is a landmass stolen from the Original Peoples. [1] The occupation continues to this very day.

Nonetheless, that the US would endorse and practice the subjugation of a people would not mitigate China’s alleged subjugation of Tibetans nor usurping control over the Tibetan plateau. Given the CIA’s penchant for instigating coups and installing governments kindly disposed to the US, and given US manipulation of the Tibetan opposition to gain influence into Tibet, and given the key role that the “Roof of the World” has for the security of the Chinese state and its peoples, encompassing Tibet under the wing of the Chinese dragon is understandable. And contrary to propaganda that alleges China has been oppressing Tibetans, debasing their culture, language, and religion, China has been a boon for the Tibetan economy and ways of life. Newsweek even saw fit to chime in a 2012 headline that “China Is Good for Tibet.”

Now suppose what the American reaction would be if the Standing Committee of the National People’s Congress were to promote a law whereby the government of China would recognize the colonized state of Hawai’i as a separate, independent country, and for other purposes.

*

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.

Note

1. See e.g., Roxanne Dunbar-Ortiz, An Indigenous Peoples’ History of the United States, review and David E. Stannard, American Holocaust: The Conquest of the New World.

Most Americans will be blindsided by what’s about to happen…

But not those who learn the critical steps necessary to protect yourself and your family from what’s coming next.

Click the image or click here to watch the video.

*

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.

We hope that by publishing diverse view points, submitted by journalists and experts dotted all over the world, the website can serve as a reminder that no matter what narrative we are presented with, things are rarely as cut and dry as they seem.

If Global Research has been a resource which has offered you some solace over the past few months, we ask you to make a financial contribution to our running costs so that we may keep this important project alive and well! We thank you for your support!

Click to donate:

*     *     *

Washington Keeps Accusing China of Orchestrating Border Clashes with India

By Paul Antonopoulos, May 26, 2020

In a conversation with Richard Verma, who served as the U.S. ambassador to India for the 2014-2017 term, she pointed out the similarities between growing skirmishes in the Himalayas and Chinese actions in the South China Sea. Alice Wells called China’s activities on the border with India and in the South China Sea an ongoing effort to change the rules and the status quo. The U.S. diplomat spoke out against China’s actions, both in the South China Sea and on the border with India, as well as in the Indian Ocean. Wells said that China’s growing military presence on the border with India, where clashes were not uncommon, had become a cause of concern for New Delhi. According to her, the problem is becoming more serious as China strives to shirk responsibility and spread false information.

US Slaps Sanctions on 33 Chinese Companies and Institutions, Dialling Up the Tension Amid the Lowest Point in US-China Relations

By Cheryl Arcibal, May 26, 2020

Washington’s latest initiative is likely to anger Beijing at a time when relations between the world’s two largest economies are already fraught with tensions over the US-China trade war, and now the anything but certain Chinese legislation that will outlaw secessionist and subversive activities as well as foreign interference and terrorism in Hong Kong.

The US Is Trying to Dismember China by Promoting Separatism in Its Regions

By Dr. Dennis Etler and Eurasia Diary, May 21, 2020

The US Senate, on 14 May passed bill on the mistreatment of Uyghur minority in China. The bill demands President Donald Trump to sanction Chinese officials who partake in the violating rights and freedoms of Uyghur community in the northwestern region of China.  Some American experts accused the US of conducting ethnic and nationalist separatism in other countries.

Corporate Media Setting Stage for “New Cold War” with China

By Gregory Shupak, May 18, 2020

The idea that China is a threat to Americans’ security is baseless: China hasn’t threatened to attack America, while the US has a massive military presence in the Asia/Pacific region. The Pentagon, with bipartisan support, wants to engorge that menace with a $20 billion budget increase, and with offensive weaponry such as land-based Tomahawk cruise missiles that had been banned by the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty until the US abrogated the deal. China, meanwhile, has no military installations anywhere close to the United States.

Trump Tightens Restrictions on Huawei, China Threatens Retaliation

By Stephen Lendman, May 18, 2020

Last May, the Trump regime blacklisted Chinese tech giant Huawei and its 70 affiliates from the US market on the phony pretext of preventing the company from “potentially undermin(ing) US national security.”

At stake is the race to roll out 5G technology in Western and world markets, Huawei way ahead of competitors.

Chinese Ridicule Trump’s China ‘Cut-Off’ Threat

By Global Times, May 17, 2020

In the past two months, instead of focusing on handling the COVID-19 pandemic, Trump and his team have insisted on blaming China by using all kinds of excuses – from hyping conspiracies of the virus’ origin, to accusing China of covering up the virus.

China Declares the U.S. an Enemy: Sea-Change in World Affairs

By Eric Sommer, May 17, 2020

For a long period the Chinese regime has vacillated between seeking accommodation with the U.S.-led imperialist forces to ‘do business’ with the western world, and defending itself against the attempted economic, political, and military encirclement and strangulation of China by those same imperialist forces.

On Memorial Day yesterday, Americans were called upon to remember the American soldiers who have been killed in America’s many foreign wars. U.S. interventionists should have also used the day to apologize not only to the families of those veterans but also to the families who lost loved ones as a consequence of U.S. interventionism in their countries.

Let’s begin with the obvious. Ever since interventionists turned America toward empire and foreign control and domination in the Spanish American War in 1898, there has been no nation-state that has invaded the United States. There is a simple reason for that: No nation-state in Europe, Africa, and Asia has the money, armaments, personnel, equipment, supplies, or even the interest in crossing the ocean and invading the United States. Moreover, at the risk of belaboring the obvious, the same holds true for Canada and Latin American countries.

While U.S. interventionism includes Latin America, America’s deadliest foreign wars have been waged “over there” — in countries thousands of miles away from American shores. Since none of them involved an invasion of the United States, none of them can be said to be have been waged in “self-defense.” They were all based on foreign interventionism.

What about the much-ballyhooed World War II, the big one waged by the so-called greatest generation?

Oh sure, Japan attacked U.S. battleships at Pearl Harbor, Hawaii, and U.S. troops in the Philippines, but let’s put things into context, something that interventionists are loathe to do.

Japan had no interest in going to war against the United States. What would have been the point in doing so? Japanese military forces had invaded China and had their hands filled attempting to subjugate that giant country. Why would Japan want to fight a two-front war, especially against a nation as powerful as the United States? Just for the fun of it?

Of course not. Japan attacked those battleships at Pearl because President Franklin Roosevelt maneuvered and cornered them into doing so. Even though Roosevelt had assured the American people, who were overwhelmingly opposed to entered World War II after the horrific debacle of World War I, that he would never send American boys into another foreign war, the fact is that he was lying. In fact, he was doing everything he could to get the United States into the conflict.

This was a time, however, when U.S. presidents were still complying with the Constitution’s declaration of war requirement. FDR knew that owing to the overwhelming opposition among the American people to getting involved in another foreign war, he had no chance of securing a congressional declaration of war, unless he could get Germany or Japan to fire the first shot, in which he could say, “We’ve been attacked! We are shocked by this act of infamy! Now, give me my declaration of war.”

After failing to get Germany to take the bait, FDR shifted his focus to the Pacific, figuring that if he could get Japan to fire the first shot, that could give him his entry into the European war. Even though Japan and the U.S. were not at war, FDR initiated an oil embargo on Japan that proved remarkable effective in threatening Japan with insufficient oil supplies to sustain its military occupation in China. At the same time, FDR illegally froze Japanese bank accounts in the United States. When Japan tried to settle differences with the U.S. without war, FDR issued settlement terms that he knew would be highly humiliating to Japanese officials.

Moreover, FDR’s code-breakers had broken the Japan’s diplomatic codes and possibly also its military codes, which enabled him to read Japan’s secret preparations for war. While FDR craftily removed U.S. aircraft carriers from Pearl, he left the battleships there. He did the same with U.S. troops in the Philippines, a nation 5,000 miles away from the continental United States that the U.S. government had acquired by conquest in the Spanish American War.

When Japan attacked Pearl and the Philippines, it was not with the aim of invading the United States. It was with the limited aim of knocking out the U.S. Pacific fleet so that it could not interfere with Japan’s acquisition of oil in the Dutch East Indies. Thus, if FDR had never engaged in his interventionist antics, Japan would never have attacked those battleships and those U.S. troops in the Philippines because there would have been no reason to do so.

Following World War II, the U.S. government was converted into a national-security state, a totalitarian form of government structure consisting of the Pentagon, the military-industrial complex, the CIA, and the NSA. The justification for abandoning America’s founding governmental system of a limited-government republic was that the U.S. could now wage a decades-long “cold war” against America’s World War II partner and ally, the Soviet Union and its “godless” communism.

Combining a national-security state with an interventionist foreign policy proved to be a disaster for the American people in terms of a never-ending series of foreign wars — wars that had nothing to do with defending the United States from an invading power.

The Korean War. The Vietnam War. The Grenada War. The Panama War. The Iraq War. The Afghanistan War. The Somalia War. And more. All with the consequence of placing American soldiers, who were made to believe that they were “defending” America, in a position of killing foreigners or being killed by them.

At the same time, the CIA engaged in a never-ending series of regime-change operations, many of which were based on state-sponsored assassinations of foreign leaders. Iran. Guatemala. Cuba. Chile. Brazil. Congo. Nicaragua. Iraq. And more.

It’s worth mentioning that all that interventionism in faraway lands ended up destroying the liberty and privacy of the American people, especially with the perpetual “war on terrorism” that interventionism has produced.

Okay, let’s keep Memorial Day as a way to honor those veterans. But how about adding Apology  Day the day after Memorial Day, when all U.S. interventionists would be asked to fall down on their knees, apologize to all the American and foreign families to whom they have brought death and suffering through foreign interventionism, and seek forgiveness from them?

Turkey’s President Recep Tayyip Erdogan warned in his Eid al-Fitr address that his country would not allow Israel’s new government go ahead with its planned annexation of West Bank territory.

On the eve of a holiday weekend and during a global pandemic, the Trump administration last week approved a new oil well and pipeline in Carrizo Plain National Monument. It would be the first well drilled in the monument since it was established in 2001.

The Bureau of Land Management originally approved the well and pipeline two years ago but withdrew that approval in July 2019 after Los Padres ForestWatch and Center for Biological Diversity filed objections. The conservation groups cited the well’s potential harm to wildlife, views and the climate.

“While many of us are worried about basic needs during a time of crisis, the Trump administration is busy catering to the oil industry at the expense of people and the planet,” said ForestWatch Executive Director Jeff Kuyper. “The Carrizo Plain National Monument is one of our region’s most precious wild places and deserves better than this.”

The oil well and pipeline would harm threatened and endangered wildlife and mar scenic views. This fossil fuel development would violate several laws, including the Endangered Species Act and National Environmental Policy Act, as well as the monument’s resource-management plan.

The proposed well site is located at the base of the Caliente Mountains, inside the western boundary of Carrizo Plain National Monument. The area is home to several protected species, including threatened San Joaquin antelope squirrels, endangered San Joaquin kit foxes and a threatened flowering plant called the Kern mallow. Endangered California condors also visit this area with increasing frequency as they continue to expand into their historic range.

“The Trump administration’s irrational decision to approve oil drilling in this spectacular place ignores climate change, imperils rare wildlife, and contradicts the monument’s conservation purpose,” said Lisa Belenky, a senior attorney at the Center for Biological Diversity. “Instead of expanding oil and gas drilling, we need to keep dirty fossil fuels in the ground and turn to renewable energy sources.”

The oil well would be drilled on an existing oil pad that hasn’t produced oil since the 1950s. In 2016 the BLM approved the oil company’s request to formally abandon the pad and remove an old well, pipelines and other equipment from the site. The company also pledged to recontour and reseed the pad and a half-mile access road leading to it, restoring the area to natural conditions. The work was never done, and now the BLM is attempting to backtrack on these abandonment plans by approving further development.

The new well is located on an existing oil lease that was “grandfathered” in under the monument proclamation signed by President Bill Clinton in 2001, but new development is supposed to comply with more stringent standards.

The well would be drilled in the Russell Ranch Oil Field, which covers approximately 1,500 acres of the monument and adjacent private land. In 2018 the field produced only 128 barrels of oil per day ― 0.03% of the state’s total oil production and one of the lowest-producing oilfields in the state. The field is reportedly nearing the end of its useful life.

When the California BLM withdrew its original approval of the well last year, it directed its Bakersfield Field Office to substantially revise its environmental assessment and consult with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. But the BLM’s new decision continues to disregard significant environmental impacts and potential harm to the conservation values of the monument.

About the Carrizo Plain

Carrizo Plain National Monument is a vast expanse of golden grasslands and stark ridges known for their springtime wildflower displays. Often referred to as “California’s Serengeti,” it is one of the last undeveloped remnants of the southern San Joaquin Valley ecosystem.

The Carrizo Plain is critical for the long-term conservation of this dwindling ecosystem, linking these lands to other high-value habitat areas like the Los Padres National Forest, Salinas Valley, Cuyama Valley and Bitter Creek National Wildlife Refuge in western Kern County.

Honoring the area’s high biodiversity, limited human impacts and rare geological and cultural features, the Carrizo Plain was declared a national monument in 2001. It includes more than 206,000 acres of public lands ― perhaps the largest native grassland remaining in all of California.

*

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: Inside the western boundary of Carrizo Plain National Monument, in the area where the Bureau of Land Management has approved an oil well and pipeline. Photo credit: Los Padres ForestWatch.

The US’ planned withdrawal from the Open Skies Treaty represents yet another rubbishing of the international arms control regimes that helped maintain strategic stability after the end of the Old Cold War, with this dramatic move and the others like it being part of the Trump Administration’s risky renegotiating gamble intended to get Russia to bring China on board a broader system of replacement regimes in the New Cold War.

“The fundamental political question is why do people obey a government. The answer is that they tend to enslave themselves, to let themselves be governed by tyrants. Freedom from servitude comes not from violent action, but from the refusal to serve. Tyrants fall when the people withdraw their support.”—Étienne De La Boétie, The Politics Of Obedience

Don’t pity this year’s crop of graduates because this COVID-19 pandemic caused them to miss out on the antics of their senior year and the pomp and circumstance of graduation.

Pity them because they have spent their entire lives in a state of emergency.

They were born in the wake of the 9/11 attacks; raised without any expectation of privacy in a technologically-driven, mass surveillance state; educated in schools that teach conformity and compliance; saddled with a debt-ridden economy on the brink of implosion; made vulnerable by the blowback from a military empire constantly waging war against shadowy enemies; policed by government agents armed to the teeth ready and able to lock down the country at a moment’s notice; and forced to march in lockstep with a government that no longer exists to serve the people but which demands they be obedient slaves or suffer the consequences.

It’s a dismal start to life, isn’t it?

Unfortunately, we who should have known better failed to maintain our freedoms or provide our young people with the tools necessary to survive, let alone succeed, in the impersonal jungle that is modern America.

We brought them into homes fractured by divorce, distracted by mindless entertainment, and obsessed with the pursuit of materialism. We institutionalized them in daycares and afterschool programs, substituting time with teachers and childcare workers for parental involvement. We turned them into test-takers instead of thinkers and automatons instead of activists.

We allowed them to languish in schools which not only look like prisons but function like prisons, as well—where conformity is the rule and freedom is the exception. We made them easy prey for our corporate overlords, while instilling in them the values of a celebrity-obsessed, technology-driven culture devoid of any true spirituality. And we taught them to believe that the pursuit of their own personal happiness trumped all other virtues, including any empathy whatsoever for their fellow human beings

No, we haven’t done this generation any favors.

Given the current political climate and nationwide lockdown, things could only get worse.

For those coming of age today (and for the rest of us who are muddling along through this dystopian nightmare), here are a few bits of advice that will hopefully help as we navigate the perils ahead.

Be an individual. For all of its claims to champion the individual, American culture advocates a stark conformity which, as John F. Kennedy warned, is “the jailer of freedom, and the enemy of growth.” Worry less about fitting in with the rest of the world and instead, as Henry David Thoreau urged, become “a Columbus to whole new continents and worlds within you, opening new channels, not of trade, but of thought.”

Learn your rights. We’re losing our freedoms for one simple reason: most of us don’t know anything about our freedoms. At a minimum, anyone who has graduated from high school, let alone college, should know the Bill of Rights backwards and forwards. However, the average young person, let alone citizen, has very little knowledge of their rights for the simple reason that the schools no longer teach them. So grab a copy of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, and study them at home. And when the time comes, stand up for your rights before it’s too late.

Speak truth to power. Don’t be naive about those in positions of authority. As James Madison, who wrote our Bill of Rights, observed, “All men having power ought to be distrusted.” We must learn the lessons of history. People in power, more often than not, abuse that power. To maintain our freedoms, this will mean challenging government officials whenever they exceed the bounds of their office.

Resist all things that numb you. Don’t measure your worth by what you own or earn. Likewise, don’t become mindless consumers unaware of the world around you. Resist all things that numb you, put you to sleep or help you “cope” with so-called reality. Those who establish the rules and laws that govern society’s actions desire compliant subjects. However, as George Orwell warned, “Until they become conscious, they will never rebel, and until after they rebelled, they cannot become conscious.” It is these conscious individuals who change the world for the better.

Don’t let technology turn you into zombies. Technology anesthetizes us to the all-too-real tragedies that surround us. Techno-gadgets are merely distractions from what’s really going on in America and around the world. As a result, we’ve begun mimicking the inhuman technology that surrounds us and have lost our humanity. We’ve become sleepwalkers. If you’re going to make a difference in the world, you’re going to have to pull the earbuds out, turn off the cell phones and spend much less time viewing screens.

Help others. We all have a calling in life. And I believe it boils down to one thing: You are here on this planet to help other people. In fact, none of us can exist very long without help from others. If we’re going to see any positive change for freedom, then we must change our view of what it means to be human and regain a sense of what it means to love and help one another. That will mean gaining the courage to stand up for the oppressed.

Refuse to remain silent in the face of evil. Throughout history, individuals or groups of individuals have risen up to challenge the injustices of their age. Nazi Germany had its Dietrich Bonhoeffer. The gulags of the Soviet Union were challenged by Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn. America had its color-coded system of racial segregation and warmongering called out for what it was, blatant discrimination and profiteering, by Martin Luther King Jr. And then there was Jesus Christ, an itinerant preacher and revolutionary activist, who not only died challenging the police state of his day—namely, the Roman Empire—but provided a blueprint for civil disobedience that would be followed by those, religious and otherwise, who came after him. What we lack today and so desperately need are those with moral courage who will risk their freedoms and lives in order to speak out against evil in its many forms.

Cultivate spirituality, reject materialism and put people first. When the things that matter most have been subordinated to materialism, we have lost our moral compass. We must change our values to reflect something more meaningful than technology, materialism and politics. Standing at the pulpit of the Riverside Church in New York City in April 1967, Martin Luther King Jr. urged his listeners:

[W]e as a nation must undergo a radical revolution of values. We must rapidly begin the shift from a “thing-oriented” society to a “person-oriented” society. When machines and computers, profit motive and property rights are considered more important than people, the giant triplets of racism, materialism, and militarism are incapable of being conquered.

Pitch in and do your part to make the world a better place. Don’t rely on someone else to do the heavy lifting for you. Don’t wait around for someone else to fix what ails you, your community or nation. As Mahatma Gandhi urged: “Be the change you wish to see in the world.”

Stop waiting for political saviors to fix what is wrong with this country. Stop waiting for some political savior to swoop in and fix all that’s wrong with this country. Stop allowing yourselves to be drawn into divisive party politics. Stop thinking of yourselves as members of a particular political party, as opposed to citizens of the United States. Most of all, stop looking away from the injustices and cruelties and endless acts of tyranny that have become hallmarks of American police state. Be vigilant and do your part to recalibrate the balance of power in favor of “we the people.”

Say no to war. Addressing the graduates at Binghampton Central High School in 1968, at a time when the country was waging war “on different fields, on different levels, and with different weapons,” Twilight Zonecreator Rod Serling declared:

Too many wars are fought almost as if by rote. Too many wars are fought out of sloganry, out of battle hymns, out of aged, musty appeals to patriotism that went out with knighthood and moats. Love your country because it is eminently worthy of your affection. Respect it because it deserves your respect. Be loyal to it because it cannot survive without your loyalty. But do not accept the shedding of blood as a natural function or a prescribed way of history—even if history points this up by its repetition. That men die for causes does not necessarily sanctify that cause. And that men are maimed and torn to pieces every fifteen and twenty years does not immortalize or deify the act of war… find another means that does not come with the killing of your fellow-man.

Finally, prepare yourselves for what lies ahead. The demons of our age—some of whom disguise themselves as politicians—delight in fomenting violence, sowing distrust and prejudice, and persuading the public to support tyranny disguised as patriotism. Overcoming the evils of our age will require more than intellect and activism. It will require decency, morality, goodness, truth and toughness. As Serling concluded in his remarks to the graduating class of 1968:

“Toughness is the singular quality most required of you… we have left you a world far more botched than the one that was left to us… Part of your challenge is to seek out truth, to come up with a point of view not dictated to you by anyone, be he a congressman, even a minister… Are you tough enough to take the divisiveness of this land of ours, the fact that everything is polarized, black and white, this or that, absolutely right or absolutely wrong. This is one of the challenges. Be prepared to seek out the middle ground … that wondrous and very difficult-to-find Valhalla where man can look to both sides and see the errant truths that exist on both sides. If you must swing left or you must swing right—respect the other side. Honor the motives that come from the other side. Argue, debate, rebut—but don’t close those wondrous minds of yours to opposition. In their eyes, you’re the opposition. And ultimately … ultimately—you end divisiveness by compromise. And so long as men walk and breathe—there must be compromise…

Are you tough enough to face one of the uglier stains upon the fabric of our democracy—prejudice? It’s the basic root of most evil. It’s a part of the sickness of man. And it’s a part of man’s admission, his constant sick admission, that to exist he must find a scapegoat. To explain away his own deficiencies—he must try to find someone who he believes more deficient… Make your judgment of your fellow-man on what he says and what he believes and the way he acts. Be tough enough, please, to live with prejudice and give battle to it. It warps, it poisons, it distorts and it is self-destructive. It has fallout worse than a bomb … and worst of all it cheapens and demeans anyone who permits himself the luxury of hating.”

The only way we’ll ever achieve change in this country is for people to finally say “enough is enough” and fight for the things that truly matter.

It doesn’t matter how old you are or what your political ideology is: wake up, stand up, speak up, and make your citizenship count for something more than just voting.

Pandemic or not, don’t allow your freedoms to be curtailed and your voice to be muzzled.

It’s our civic duty to make the government hear us—and heed us—using every nonviolent means available to us: picket, protest, march, boycott, speak up, sound off and reclaim control over the narrative about what is really going on in this country.

Mind you, the government doesn’t want to hear us. It doesn’t even want us to speak. In fact, as I make clear in my book Battlefield America: The War on the American People, the government has done a diabolically good job of establishing roadblocks to prevent us from exercising our First Amendment right to speech and assembly and protest.

Still we must persist.

So get active, get outraged, and get going: there’s work to be done.

*

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

This article was originally published on The Rutherford Institute.

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

We bring to the attention of our readers this important article by author William Walter Kay. The article raises two fundamental issues:

The first pertains to the deplorable heath care conditions (and the lack of personnel) affecting patients in Quebec’s nursing homes and geriatric wards which inevitably have an incidence on mortality. And that mortality has nothing to do with COVID-19.

The second relates to the outright manipulation of the statistics pertaining to the causes of death in the Province of Quebec. Patients are  either diagnosed by a medical doctor, and/or “tested” for COV-19 with the standard antibody test plus respiratory tract specimen. Neither of these procedures prove unequivocally the incidence of COVID-19. Moreover, in many cases patients are arbitrarily categorized as COV-19 without a test or diagnosis.

Once the patient is categorized as COVID-19 (“presumed”, with or without tests) COVID-19 will be included as “a cause of death” (on the death certificate) irrespective of the actual health condition of the elderly patient who has passed away in the nursing home.

And then this mortality data (based on COVID-19 as a cause of death) will be tabulated and entered into the COVID-19 data banks of the Province of Quebec and Canada. And these data are then transmitted to the WHO, which will then integrate them into the global COVID-19 data bank.

In all probability, the majority of the terminally ill patients in the nursing homes did not die of COVID-19.

These recorded death statistics (arbitrarily assigned to COVID-19) will then be used to sustain the illusion that the coronavirus in Quebec is increasing at an alarming rate, thereby providing a justification to maintaining the lockdown and social distancing.

It’s a big lie. And the medical personnel and Quebec politicians know it. Yet it is not being reported by the media.

Michel Chossudovsky, Global Research, Montreal, Qc, May 19, 2020

***

Quebec’s 8.5 million residents constitute 22.6% of Canada’s population (37.6 million).

Quebec’s 3,483 COVID-19 deaths constitute 62.5% of the Canadian total (5,595).

Ontario, population 14.6 million, reports 1,858 COVID-19 deaths.

The rest of Canada (pop 14.5 million) reports 345 deaths.

In terms of COVID-19 deaths-per-million citizens: Quebec registers 409; Ontario registers 127; and the rest of Canada: 24.

Four million Quebecers reside in Greater Montreal. Another 2 million reside within a 100-kilometre radius of Montreal. This combined area witnessed 90% of Quebec’s C-19 fatalities partly because this area hosts most of Quebec’s 2,600 long-term care facilities (“nursing homes”). Said facilities are run both by the provincial government as well a private health companies.

Officially, 75% (2,601) of Quebec’s COVID-19 fatalities occurred inside nursing homes. There is clear evidence of under-counting of nursing home fatalities. Nursing home plus geriatric ward fatalities exceed 90% of all fatalities.

Official figures do transpose nicely upon reported ages of COV-19 fatalities. Almost 40% of fatalities were aged 80 to 90. A third were over 90.

Quebec reported its first C-19 death on March 18. Six of Quebec’s first 9 fatalities happened in nursing homes. By March 27 nursing homes were obvious biohazards.

On April 1 officials revealed that 519 nursing homes harboured at least one COVID-19 case.

On April 8 news broke that 115 of 250 residents of a Laval nursing home were COVID-19 positive. Thirteen residents there had perished.

On April 10 ambulance crews discovered residents malnourished, dehydrated and covered with feces at Dorval’s Residence Herron. Crews found corpses Herron’s staff were unaware of. A dispute erupted between provincial health officials and the ambulance service over how many body-bags had been dragged from Herron and over how many of those bags contained COVID-19 fatalities. Herron, which averages 4 deaths per month, had 31 deaths in 14 days. One hundred-fifty residents and staff tested positive.

On April 13 authorities noted a government-run home in Lasalle had 26 COVID-19 fatalities and 351 cases.

At an April 14 presser Quebec’s Director of Public Health stated that he had originally operated on the assumption that asymptomatic C-19 carriers were not contagious. This derriere covering arrived just as news outlets dropped bombs like:

“…as in Italy and Spain, Quebec focussed on freeing up hospital and ICU capacity, and in some cases preventatively transferred seniors out of hospitals into care facilities. At the same time, it established recommendations to those care facilities restricting the transfer of residents back to hospitals should they fall ill. The result has been a humanitarian disaster of still undetermined proportions…”

Health authorities knew intimately where they were sending and confining these patients. Problems at Quebec nursing homes have been studied ad nauseam. Many homes have crowded communal dining rooms and narrow hallways. Many have wards with multiple beds per room and shared toilets. Most have residents incapable of following elementary hygiene protocols meandering about the building. Staff often work at more than one home and continued to do so during the pandemic.

Also amidst the pandemic, nursing home staff earning little more than minimum wage were expected to buy their own personal protective gear. By April’s end thousands of nursing home staff had contracted C-19 or had walked off the job. One home had 2 staff attending to 60 bedridden patients.

On April 30 the government reported 6,603 C-19 cases among nursing home residents.

Quebec’s elderly C-19 sufferers were sent to and/or confined in circumstances approaching the opposite of quarantine. The contagious were not isolated and well-tended. They were herded into cloistered proximity with the most vulnerable, then abandoned.

Quebec has 9,280 C-19 cases aged over 70. Quebec is only treating 1,763 COVID-19 sufferers in hospital (many of whom caught COVID-19 whilst in geriatric wards). Hence, thousands of C-19 patients continue to languish inside bio chambers alongside tens of thousands of elderly neighbors.

*

See Also
https://www.quebec.ca/en/health/health-system-and-services/end-of-life-care/medical-aid-in-dying/

https://cdn-contenu.quebec.ca/cdn-contenu/sante/documents/Problemes_de_sante/covid-19/Graphique-deces-milieux-anglais.pdf?1589304907

https://www.theglobeandmail.com/opinion/editorials/article-canadas-pandemic-record-is-good-but-we-failed-when-it-came-to/

Many factors behind COVID-19 outbreaks hitting Quebec’s long-term care homes

https://montreal.ctvnews.ca/covid-19-all-2-600-seniors-residences-in-quebec-will-be-inspected-premier-legault-says-1.4893917

https://www.cihi.ca/en/infographic-canadas-seniors-population-outlook-uncharted-territory

*

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: The private Herron nursing home in a Montreal suburb lost 31 patients to COVID-19 after their caregivers fled the premises (Photo by Eric THOMAS/AFP)

Alarming COVID-19 death statistics from seniors’ facilities continue to be in the spotlight in Ontario and elsewhere.

However, all is not as it seems in the mainstream-media reports of those statistics.

Procedures that came into effect in Ontario one month ago for dealing with deaths in long-term-care homes (LTCHs) and hospitals are contributing to exaggeration of the numbers of COVID-19 deaths — and preventing the true causes of many of those deaths from ever being uncovered.

This makes it an opportune time to cast an objective eye on procedures that came into effect in Ontario one month ago for dealing with deaths in long-term-care homes (LTCHs) and hospitals. They differ drastically from both Ontario’s previous regulations and other jurisdictions’ procedures.

In the name of efficiency and safety during the COVID-19 epidemic, the Office of the Chief Coroner for Ontario (OCC) and members of the province’s funeral-home industry established  the new rules and implemented them on April 9. The rules apply to almost every death in the province, not just those attributed to COVID-19.

The new approach is focused on speeding up transfer of the deceased from where they died to a funeral home and then to the place of burial or cremation.   The stated goal is to prevent overburdening of medical staff and overfilling of hospital morgues and body-storage areas in long-term-care homes (LTCHs) if there’s a surge in deaths from COVID-19.

However, there are highly problematic parts to this. For example, the new ‘expedited death response’ takes the critical and sensitive task of completing the Medical Certificates of Death (MCODs) out of the hands of the people who know and care for the residents and patients.

Instead, the chief coroner and his staff now have the exclusive right to complete MCODs for people who die in LTCHs. The new rules also give the OCC the power to complete hospital patients’ MCODs. This is despite the members of the OCC very rarely seeing the bodies of LTCH residents and hospital patients, much less meeting them before they die.

“Seeing the body doesn’t actually tell you a lot about the cause of death,” the Chief Coroner for Ontario, Dr. Dirk Huyer, said in an April 20 telephone interview when questioned about this.

Other aspects of the new procedures contribute to the well-documented inflation of the number of COVID-19-linked deaths and they also prevent autopsies from ever being performed on virtually all people designated as having died from COVID-19 (see below).

This author contacted the offices of chief coroners and chief medical examiners for most other Canadian provinces and several American states, and found none have revamped their death-handling processes for LTCH residents or for hospital patients the way Ontario has.

The new Ontario procedures were disseminated April 10 through April 12 via webinars to staff and administrators of LTCHs, hospitals and funeral homes.

According to the OCC’s Q&As for LTCHs and hospitals, the new rules “allow front-line staff to rapidly resume direct patient care.” Also, having the OCC complete the MCODs reduces the number of people who touch the bodies and therefore lowers the potential for virus transmission, the documents assert.

The procedures are based on the supposition that a surge in coronavirus infections and deaths could quickly overwhelm the province’s healthcare capacity.

“We’re really contemplating making sure that we transfer people into funeral-service care by providing some changes that will add – and these words are terrible because this is about people… who have died and families who are suffering … – but it’s [shortening] the timelines, so it’s making things happen quicker. And it’s also increasing efficiencies in the process,” Dr. Huyer said during the April 20 interview.

However, there are no hard data that point to an imminent surge in Ontario. Only the mathematical modelling based on broad assumptions and released on April 3 did so. (Indeed, new modelling released on April 20 showed that cases had peaked.)

The new procedures are not official directives from the chief coroner of Ontario or from the registrar of the Bereavement Authority of Ontario (BAO), which regulates the funeral-home business in Ontario. The OCC website, which is a sub-section of the Ontario Ministry of the Solicitor General’s website, has no information about the procedures. Nor do the websites of the Ontario Coroners Association, the Ontario Hospital Association, the Ontario Medical Association, the Ontario Nurses Association or the Ontario Long Term Care Association. The new rules appear to be housed only on the BAO website; they are in website’s coroner’s documents section.

There are many other sweeping changes enshrined in the new rules in addition to the ones outlined above.

For example, those closest to the deceased must contact a funeral home within one hour of the death if it took place in a hospital, and within three hours of a death in an LTCH. No one but staff are allowed to be with the person when they die or touch their bodies in the LTCH or hospital.

The remains then are removed very rapidly. To ensure this happens, funeral homes have quickly hired more staff and now can pick up bodies any time 24/7. Also, staff from the LTCH or hospital put the bodies in body bags and bring them to the waiting funeral-home vehicles. This is the only aspect of the new rules that has received considerable media coverage.

Burial or cremation follows as soon as possible. The BAO reportedly is recommending cremation over embalming.

The new rules also adhere to the World Health Organization’s guidelines. Thus all deaths of people who had previously tested positive for the novel coronavirus are recorded as having been caused by COVID-19. Also deaths are attributed to the novel coronavirus of people who were never tested for the virus but were assumed to be infected because either they had some symptoms suggestive of COVID-19, or others in the LTCH or hospital where they died had tested positive. This significantly inflates the numbers of COVID-19 deaths.

Furthermore, the new Ontario procedures deem all COVID-19-related deaths to be natural deaths. Therefore no autopsies are conducted for these deaths — even though they could reveal whether the people in fact died from COVID-19 or from another cause. The rules also appear to preclude the opportunity for removal of tissue or fluid samples for potential future examination.

Much of this runs contrary to recommendations released just nine months ago as part of the formal report on the Public Inquiry into the Safety and Security of Residents in the Long-term Care Homes System.

Colloquially known as the Wettlaufer inquiry, the high-profile probe focused on causes of foul play and potential preventive measures after registered nurse Elizabeth Wettlaufer was given a life sentence for murdering eight people, attempting to kill several others and committing aggravated assault against another two. All but two of her victims were LTCH residents. The incidents took place in southwestern Ontario between 2007 and 2016 and only came to light when Wettlaufer disclosed them, unprompted, to a psychiatrist in September 2016.

Among the report’s recommendations relevant to carefully documenting the circumstances of death are 50 to 61. These call among other things for the replacement of the standard one-page, 10-question (‘Yes’/‘No’) Institutional Patient Death Record (IPDR) with an evidence-based resident death record. These would be filled out by the staff member who provided the most care to residents just before they died. Physicians, nurses and personal support workers who cared for the person would have input, as would family members.

Then the LTCH’s medical director, director of nursing and pharmacist, and the resident’s treating physician(s) or nurse practitioner all would receive a copy of the completed death record. They would be required to review it as soon as possible and bring any concerns they may have with death or the accuracy of the death record to the OCC and/or the Ontario Forensic Pathology Service.

The inquiry report also recommended the OCC consult with the deceased’s family or with the person who had decision-making power for the deceased before he or she passed.

Eighteen of the recommendations were implemented by February.

Instead, the new COVID-19 procedures keep the original one-page IPDR and add a two-page form called the Managing Resident Deaths Report (MRDR). [A jarring acronym.]

A MRD Team at the care home fills out both forms within a few hours of the death. The team members often are not present either at the time of death or during the previous day or days leading up to the death.

A member of the team electronically submits the IPDR and MRDR to the OCC, which immediately transcribes that information onto an electronic MCOD. The OCC then transmits it to the funeral home. The OCC does not share the MCOD with the care home.

(Ontario’s Vital Statistics Act was altered sometime before April 6 to allow death-registration documents to be transmitted via fax or a ‘secure electronic method’ by coroners, funeral directors and division registrars [municipal clerks]. The Ontario Ministry of Government and Consumer Services and the OCC then created electronic versions of the MCOD and the burial permit.)

This option is also available for hospitals. According to the Q&A written by the OCC on the new rules for dealing with hospital deaths, the first-line approach is for the physician who treated the patient to fill out the MCOD within one hour of death.

If that physician is not available, the pre-designated Expedited Death Response Team (EDRT) [also jarring, since this could be read as referring to an expedited death rather than an expedited response to the death] at the hospital fills out an Expedited Death Report. This document is almost identical to the MRDR, except the title is different and ‘Hospital where death occurred’ replaces ‘Long-Term Care Facility where death occurred.’

The EDRT electronically transmits the report to the OCC. This should be done “within minutes, not hours,” according to the hospital Q&A.

When the OCC receives the MRDR and IPDR from an LTCH, or an Expedited Death Report from a hospital, the OCC staff use this information to complete the MCOD. They then transmit it to the funeral home. They do not send the death certificate to the hospital or LTCH.

Next, someone at the funeral home completes the Statement of Death. This is a one-page form that includes the name, age and former occupation of the deceased, the name of the person who pronounced the death, the name and address of the ‘proposed cemetery, crematorium or place of disposition’ and some other basic information. It does not list the cause of death.

The funeral home quickly sends via encrypted email or fax the completed Statement of Death and the MCOD to the local municipality, which then issues a burial permit. The burial or cremation or other disposition of the body then can proceed.

There is no information on the publicly accessible portions the BAO’s website about how much, if anything, the funeral homes are allowed to bill the provincial government and/or the estate of the deceased for each of these steps.

Approximately one week later the local municipality electronically transmits the MCOD to the Office of the Registrar General of Ontario.

Harry Malhi, a media-relations person for the Registrar General’s office, said in an emailed response to several questions that “generally, it takes approximately 6-8 weeks for the Office of the Registrar General to register a death once the registration documents [MCOD and Statement of Death] have been received.” Malhi also stated that “death registration and specifically cause of death information is considered personal information related to the deceased and is not available publicly.”

The Registrar General shares the information on each death with Ontario’s and Canada’s vital statistics offices. Aggregated death data and statistics are not available until at least one year later.

Over the Easter weekend, from April 10 to 12, Dr. Huyer and Carey Smith, who is the BAO’s CEO and Registrar, explained the new procedures via eight webinars to more than 1,000 people from the LTCH, hospital and funeral-home sectors.

Smith’s presentation emphasized the need to “accelerate the disposition of the deceased and to minimize storage between death and disposition.”

This “moves decedents from [the] healthcare [sector] to [the] funeral sector without delay to place them into care of people best-trained and equipped to handle them,” his presentation states. The new approach also “relieves [the] burden on healthcare – [allowing staff to] devote their attention to the living.”

Smith observed (as seen in screenshot of slide 24, below) that the goal is managing “the surge.”

Dr. Huyer similarly highlighted the spectre of a fresh spike in morbidity and mortality, as shown in this screenshot from slide 7 of his presentation.

However, the vast majority of Ontario’s healthcare system has never been over-burdened by COVID-19-related deaths, nor has this been a likelihood.

Virtually all elective cases were cancelled or postponed by mid-March. This resulted in most hospitals being far less busy than normal, as documented in many media reports. The Financial Accountability Office of Ontario corroborated this in an April 28 report. And on May 8 the Ontario premier and minister of health announced the province is preparing to resume elective hospital procedures and surgeries.

There also has been no indication that more than a small handful of LTCHs in the province have ever had such rapid rates of resident deaths during a COVID-19 outbreak that the facilities’ overnight storage space was at risk of becoming over-filled.

There are additional facets of the new procedures that raise red flags.

One example is on the second page of the Q&A about the new rules for the LTCH sector. There, it states bodies must be removed from the LTCH even if the death requires a coroner investigation.

“Regardless of whether a death requires a coroner investigation, the movement of the resident to the funeral home by the funeral service provider will proceed.”

Thus there is no opportunity for an objective examination of the physical setting of the death.

Yet Dr. Huyer seems to see only upsides to the new rules.

“All of these things are added during this period of time to allow not only a timely approach but also an efficient approach to be able to ensure that people proceed to burial or cremation in a timely way without requiring additional storage space,” he said in the telephone interview.

*

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.

Rosemary Frei has an MSc in molecular biology from a faculty of medicine and was a freelance medical writer and journalist for 22 years. She is now an independent investigative journalist in Toronto, Ontario. You can find her earlier article on The Seven Steps from Pandemic to Totalitarianism for Off-Guardian here,  watch and listen to an interview she gave on COVID19 and follow her on Twitter.

As far as pharmaceutical giants pining to roll out the world’s first COVID-19 vaccine is concerned, the race is very much on.  The SARS-CoV-2 continues to be lauded as the most time-sensitive crisis of our modern era, and CEOs of various drug companies are not hiding the fact that they are putting safety to the back-burner of their production schedule. If anything, they even appear to be praising such a risky practice, and ultimately seem to be gleaning some notable rewards for doing so. 

Johnson & Johnson’s chief scientist Paul Stoffels has revealed that the company will be spending $500 million to research and develop a vaccine (which, incidentally, is part of a $1 billion partnership with the US government). Stoffels announced that his company aims to begin production within the next few weeks “before the vaccine has gone through clinical trials or been approved by the FDA.”  The reasoning behind this rush for manufacturing, as Stoffels explains, is to ensure that there are sizeable quantities ready for consumption – assuming they ultimately get approved.  While admitting that this is a generally unorthodox approach to vaccine development, Stoffels justifies this unprecedented reverse-order for the reason that “the crisis is so big that we have to organize ourselves differently and get going…(Forbes, March 30).”

Stoffels also denies any profit-based ambitions in this blatant push for vaccine development.  He claims that J&J are developing a vaccine that is essentially not for profit so that it is “more affordable and available on a global scale as quickly as possible.”  He further stresses that this is “not about competition,” and that there essentially has to be “more trains on the rails to success here than just one vaccine.”

While Johnson and Johnson’s seemingly altruistic stance has been clearly articulated in relation to its commitment to battling the coronavirus, it should nevertheless be pointed out that the company’s stock value rose by 7.5% immediately after the announcement was made (Forbes, March 30).

Indeed, some analysts have warned that the US stock market might be experiencing a premature (and ultimately superficial) recovery due to the infusion of optimism over the news of a vaccine product becoming available in the near future. This optimism has been hyped even further by an announcement made by Matt Hancock (Secretary of State for Health and Social Care in the UK) that the University of Oxford’s Jenner Institute may in fact have a drug ready for distribution as early as September. Human trials evidently already began in late April (The Telegraph, May 13).

Geoffrey Porges, Director of Therapeutics Research and a Senior Research Analyst at SVB Leerink (a specialized investment bank focusing on the healthcare sector), has warned that these types of announcements carry the risk of creating predetermined expectations among the public, to the point where “having a vaccine and having one in this timeframe seem a foregone conclusion.”  Porges adds that “such a conclusion then distorts policymakers,’ investors’ and developers’ decisions and expectations.”

The implication is that these types of expectations have led to the dramatic surging of drug companies’ stocks, and that the very act of drug-prophesying itself appears to be enough to conjure up share value.  Meanwhile, ambitions to push a vaccine development as quickly as possible “comes at the risk of safety or efficacy liabilities down the road,” according to Porges.  He also points out the concern that “epidemiologists as well as economists appear to be planning for a vaccine coming down the pipeline in as little as six months, (while a more broadly) used vaccine is likely to take two to three years in (Porges’) ‘most optimistic’ estimation.”

Coincidentally, Porges’ advisory came just after a 20% spike in the S&P 500 Index after some notable March lows (Bloomberg, Apr. 22).

At the time of this writing there are currently more than 70 vaccines in development, with companies like Moderna and Johnson & Johnson being earmarked for faster development.    Additionally, experimental vaccines developed by Pfizer have already been rolled out in the US.

But there is far from unilateral agreement among the scientific community when it comes to the ethics of such speed-brewing in the vaccine industry.  Writing in a recent edition of Nature, Dr. Shibo Jiang (professor of virology in New York and Shanghai, and also one of the original developers of the SARS vaccine) wrote that:

“…in the United States, the biotechnology company Moderna in Norwood, Massachusetts, has shipped an experimental vaccine based on messenger RNA to the US National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID) in Bethesda, Maryland, for testing in a clinical trial. The mRNA-based platform for delivering vaccines has been shown to be safe in humans, but this COVID-19 vaccine has not. The NIAID argues that the risk of delaying the advancement of vaccines is much higher than the risk of causing illness in healthy volunteers, but I worry that vaccine developers will rush in too hastily if standards are lowered”(Nature, March 16/20).

Despite serious concern as this coming from a veteran virologist such as Jiang back in March (which, in our current COVID culture, might as well be a hundred years ago), it does appear that the die has now been cast in terms of pharmaceutical companies’ expectations about when a vaccine could appear on the market – never mind asking the question of whether it even should appear in the first place.  The expectation is official and companies want to deliver it yesterday.

Pfizer CEO Albert Bourla announced that “the short, less than four-month time frame in which we’ve been able to move from preclinical studies to human testing is extraordinary.”  Bloomberg reports that, across the board, “drugmakers have been working with regulators to compress development times to stop the spread of the virus…”

Incidentally, Pfizer’s shares were seen to rise by 2.2% shortly after releasing their news about potential early vaccination options.

Bloomberg warns, however, that “given what has happened with the development of other vaccines in the past, there is a risk that the new inoculation could actually make patients more susceptible to severe illness.”  As for specific time-frame, Pfizer has projected the fall of 2020 as an intended target period for emergency use of their vaccine. Currently, the company is working on four different potential products – each of which are based on a “new type of RNA technology.”

Specifically, upon injection into the body, the RNA (ribonucleic acid) inserts itself into human cells, which results in the formation of viral proteins that ultimately trigger the development of protective antibodies.

The only problem with this technology is that it has not actually been approved yet.

NYU Langone Vaccine Center director Mark Mulligan has pointed out that this type of vaccine technology that Pfizer is using is actually more of a “mimic of what happens with a natural immune response to an invader,” and that there are some definite advantages to such a vaccine product “in terms of the speed with which they can be produced and this idea that this is a natural type of vaccination” (Bloomberg, May 5).

Alternatively, the Saturday Evening Post recently revealed a major push towards a vaccine that is built specifically upon synthetic biology – the advantage being that such a product can be rolled out in mass quantities much sooner.  “To create new vaccines, researchers are using computers to design nanoparticles that self-assemble from protein building-blocks, LEGO-like, and attach viral molecules that trigger a strong immune response” (Saturday Evening Post, June 2020, Vol. 292).

An additional (so-called) benefit of this alternative brand of vaccine technology is that, once developed, it will not require refrigeration.  Naturally, this has considerable implications for wide-spread use in third world countries.  Unsurprisingly, funding for this emerging variation of vaccine technology is coming from the NIH as well as the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation.

It goes without saying that pharmaceutical companies have become so infused into our globalized wellness infrastructure to the point that we don’t even see them anymore. They have become pervasively entrenched into the background of our social fabric, and are considered as mundanely-important and essential as the plumbing in our houses and our cities. This widespread habituation has ultimately numbed our sense of collective concern to the point where we aren’t as alarmed by how their products are conceived, nor by who is ultimately funding their research and development.  Their deeper, inner-workings are not a part of our personal lives, so why should we care?

When paired with the official COVID-19 narrative itself and the insidious scare-tactics that are being paraded by ill-informed public servants and the mainstream media, it is safe to say that we have officially entered into an age of radicalized and globalized med-seeking.  The intended consumers are those who don’t question the risks, the side-effects, or the injuries that are possible under such sped-up industrialized conditions; it is for those who simply want the promise of a cure for something which they blindly perceive to be a biological monstrosity.

The frightening thing about it is that so many citizens are just going along with it, no questions asked.  And if you do ask questions about it, then be prepared to be instantly dismissed as having no valid perspective, and your perspectives chalked up to the ramblings of a ‘tinfoil hat-wearing’ conspiracy theorist.

But my overall urge is to consider that this unusual and fascinating event in our history can actually serve as a very poignant stimulant in turning our attention back to the critical issue of freedom. 

After all, this really is the most important things that we can share as a global society.  Without it, I would argue that we ultimately don’t even have a society.

With this in mind, we can actually look to the blatantly-admitted foregoing of safety policies that are being employed by our drug providers, and do our fellow neighbours a true public service by simply not being okay with such irresponsible standards.

Furthermore, our collective resistance to such sociopathic medicating should ultimately serve as the newstandard – in contrast with what we are endlessly being offered as the “new normal.”  Otherwise, by silently and willingly accepting the desperate, profit-driven standards behind such ramped-up vaccine developments in the world today, we are telling the developers and funders behind such things that our bodies (along with our intellectual integrity for that matter) are essentially for sale.

*

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.

Brett Jordan, BSW, MSW, RSW, is a Registered Social Worker who works in a hospital ER in Metro Vancouver.  He writes predominantly on issues of spiritual, emotional and social phenomena.

Dear Readers,

We have witnessed of late how a global medical issue can be flipped on its head and used to further divide and isolate the people. Our intention is to provide a digital forum of ideas as an antidote to this isolation.

We hope that by publishing diverse view points, submitted by journalists and experts dotted all over the world, the website can serve as a reminder that no matter what narrative we are presented with, things are rarely as cut and dry as they seem.

If Global Research has been a resource which has offered you some solace over the past few months, we ask you to make a financial contribution to our running costs so that we may keep this important project alive and well! We thank you for your support!

Click to donate:

Click to make a one-time or a recurring donation

Click to become a member (receive free books!):

Click to view our membership plans

Most people are more likely to wind up six feet under because of almost anything else under the sun other than COVID-19.

The CDC just came out with a report that should be earth-shattering to the narrative of the political class, yet it will go into the thick pile of vital data and information about the virus that is not getting out to the public. For the first time, the CDC has attempted to offer a real estimate of the overall death rate for COVID-19, and under its most likely scenario, the number is 0.26%. Officials estimate a 0.4% fatality rate among those who are symptomatic and project a 35% rate of asymptomatic cases among those infected, which drops the overall infection fatality rate (IFR) to just 0.26% — almost exactly where Stanford researchers pegged it a month ago.

'Nuff Said….. pic.twitter.com/0nZsydNHNb

— Ethical Skeptic ☀ (@EthicalSkeptic) May 22, 2020

Until now, we have been ridiculed for thinking the death rate was that low, as opposed to the 3.4% estimate of the World Health Organization, which helped drive the panic and the lockdowns. Now the CDC is agreeing to the lower rate in plain ink.

Plus, ultimately we might find out that the IFR is even lower because numerous studies and hard counts of confined populations have shown a much higher percentage of asymptomatic cases. Simply adjusting for a 50% asymptomatic rate would drop their fatality rate to 0.2% – exactly the rate of fatality Dr. John Ionnidis of Stanford University projected.

More importantly, as I mentioned before, the overall death rate is meaningless because the numbers are so lopsided. Given that at least half of the deaths were in nursing homes, a back-of-the-envelope estimate would show that the infection fatality rate for non-nursing home residents would only be 0.1% or 1 in 1,000. And that includes people of all ages and all health statuses outside of nursing homes. Since nearly all of the deaths are those with comorbidities.

The CDC estimates the death rate from COVID-19 for those under 50 is 1 in 5,000 for those with symptoms, which would be 1 in 6,725 overall, but again, almost all those who die have specific comorbidities or underlying conditions. Those without them are more likely to die in a car accident. And schoolchildren, whose lives, mental health, and education we are destroying, are more likely to get struck by lightning.

To put this in perspective, one Twitter commentator juxtaposed the age-separated infection fatality rates in Spain to the average yearly probability of dying of anything for the same age groups, based on data from the Social Security Administration. He used Spain because we don’t have a detailed infection fatality rate estimate for each age group from any survey in the U.S. However, we know that Spain fared worse than almost every other country. This data is actually working with a top-line IFR of 1%, roughly four times what the CDC estimates for the U.S., so if anything, the corresponding numbers for the U.S. will be lower.

Being alive means there is a risk that you will die in every year of your life. Normally we don't think about this because the probability is very small.

It turns out that even if you are infected with COVID, your increased risk to die vs normal is not very large at all. pic.twitter.com/lrQnTuHYRS

— Gummi Bear (@gummibear737) May 20, 2020

As you can see, even in Spain, the death rates from COVID-19 for younger people are very low and are well below the annual death rate for any age group in a given year. For children, despite their young age, they are 10-30 times more likely to die from other causes in any given year.

While obviously yearly death rates factor in myriad of causes of death and COVID-19 is just one virus, it still provides much-needed perspective to a public policy response that is completely divorced from the risk for all but the oldest and sickest people in the country.

Also, keep in mind, these numbers represent your chance of dying once you have already contracted the virus, aka the infection fatality rate. Once you couple the chance of contracting the virus in the first place together with the chance of dying from it, many younger people have a higher chance of dying from a lightning strike.

Four infectious disease doctors in Canada estimate that the individual rate of death from COVID-19 for people under 65 years of age is six per million people, or 0.0006 per cent – 1 in 166,666, which is “roughly equivalent to the risk of dying from a motor vehicle accident during the same time period.” These numbers are for Canada, which did have fewer deaths per capita than the U.S.; however, if you take New York City and its surrounding counties out of the equation, the two countries are pretty much the same. Also, remember, so much of the death is associated with the suicidal political decisions of certain states and countries to place COVID-19 patients in nursing homes. An astounding 62 percent of all COVID-19 deaths were in the six states confirmed to have done this, even though they only compose 18 percent of the national population.

We destroyed our entire country and suspended democracy all for a lie, and these people perpetrated the unscientific degree of panic. Will they ever admit the grave consequences of their error?

*

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.

Daniel Horowitz is a senior editor of Conservative Review. Follow him on Twitter.

First published in May 2020

European Union foreign affairs chief Josep Borrell told a gathering of German ambassadors on Monday that “analysts have long talked about the end of an American-led system and the arrival of an Asian century. This is now happening in front of our eyes.” He said that the coronavirus pandemic could be the catalyst to shift power from West to East and that “pressure to choose sides is growing”  for the EU, before adding that the 27-nation bloc “should follow our own interests and values and avoid being instrumentalised by one or the other.”

Borrell said “we only have a chance if we deal with China with collective discipline,” noting that an upcoming EU-China summit this autumn could be an opportunity to do so. “We need a more robust strategy for China, which also requires better relations with the rest of democratic Asia.”

As China, India, Japan, Indonesia and Russia will become some of the world’s biggest economies by 2030, according to Standard Chartered Plc, the 21st century is known as the “Asian Century.”  So, the EU has a serious decision to make on whether to continue its hostile approach towards Russia if it wishes to have more straight forward trade access to Asia. Putin has made incentives for colonists to populate the Far East of Russia to boost its small population of under seven million people who live close to China to fully and better engage in the “Asian Century.”

European trade with Asia could be done through the Russian Far East port of Vladivostok and the Trans-Siberian transportation routes, and this would also bypass China’s Belt and Road Initiative. Macron last year made a Facebook post where he said “progress on many political and economic issues is evident, for we’re trying to develop Franco-Russian relations. I’m convinced that, in this multilateral restructuring, we must develop a security and trust architecture between the European Union and Russia.” With Macron emphasizing a European-Russian rapprochement, he then expanded on General de Gaulle’s famous quote that Europe stretches “from Lisbon to the Urals,” by saying that Europe reaches Vladivostok which is near the Chinese and North Korean border.

According to experts China’s foreign investment in the advanced development zone accounts for about 59.1% of all foreign investments in the region. The Russian Far East has a huge investment potential, especially with materials, natural resources, fisheries, and tourism, and China aims to take advantage of the mostly underdeveloped region. The region is not only resource rich, but is strategically located as it borders China, Mongolia and North Korea, and has a maritime border with Japan.

With France’s recognition of Vladivostok and Borrell now acknowledging that the power centers of the world are shifting to the East, the EU has little choice but to make a rapprochement with Russia and end its sanctions regime. In addition, it would be in the EU’s interests not to engage in anti-China actions on behalf of the U.S.

China’s handling of the coronavirus pandemic has meant that it has not only recovered and restarted its economy, but that it engages in large-scale soft power projections by delivering tons upon tons of medical aid to every region in the world and has sent doctors and nurses to the most affected countries. This comes as the U.S. is approaching 2 million cases of coronavirus and over 100,000 deaths. Earlier this month, the unemployment rate in the U.S. reached 14.7% with the Federal Reserve estimating it could reach a high of 25%. Pre-coronavirus data found that 29.9% of Americans live close to poverty while 5.3% of the population live in deep poverty and 11.1% of American households, were food insecure, meaning they had difficulty providing enough food for all people within the house. Despite the growing social and domestic problems in the U.S., it is unlikely that Washington will give up its global hegemony so easily.

But Borrell seems to have little confidence that the U.S. will maintain its global leadership and is now eyeing China and the East as the EU’s new main trading partner. Effectively, as the Anglo World attempts to maintain the Atlanticist dominance, the EU is recognizing that its future lies with Eurasia.

*

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

This article was originally published on InfoBrics.

Paul Antonopoulos is an independent geopolitical analyst.

Featured image is from InfoBrics

We bring to the attention of Global Research readers selected excerpts from a carefully researched article published by the Atlantic, which documents the manipulation of  CDC data pertaining to the corona-virus. Of significance: the recorded COVID data set guidelines for the reopening of  State economies. 

This is an important study. It corroborates several other reports including articles by medical doctors published by Global Research. 

***

The government’s disease-fighting agency is conflating viral and antibody tests, compromising a few crucial metrics that governors depend on to reopen their economies. Pennsylvania, Georgia, Texas, and other states are doing the same.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention is conflating the results of two different types of coronavirus tests, distorting several important metrics and providing the country with an inaccurate picture of the state of the pandemic. We’ve learned that the CDC is making, at best, a debilitating mistake: combining test results that diagnose current coronavirus infections with test results that measure whether someone has ever had the virus. The upshot is that the government’s disease-fighting agency is overstating the country’s ability to test people who are sick with COVID-19. The agency confirmed to The Atlantic on Wednesday that it is mixing the results of viral and antibody tests, even though the two tests reveal different information and are used for different reasons.

This is not merely a technical error. States have set quantitative guidelines for reopening their economies based on these flawed data points.

Several states—including Pennsylvania, the site of one of the country’s largest outbreaks, as well as Texas, Georgia, and Vermont—are blending the data in the same way. Virginia likewise mixed viral and antibody test results until last week, but it reversed course and the governor apologized for the practice after it was covered by the Richmond Times-Dispatch and The Atlantic. Maine similarly separated its data on Wednesday; Vermont authorities claimed they didn’t even know they were doing this.

The widespread use of the practice means that it remains difficult to know exactly how much the country’s ability to test people who are actively sick with COVID-19 has improved.

“You’ve got to be kidding me,” Ashish Jha, the K. T. Li Professor of Global Health at Harvard and the director of the Harvard Global Health Institute, told us when we described what the CDC was doing. “How could the CDC make that mistake? This is a mess.”

Our thanks to The Atlantic and the authors of this article

To read complete article, click here

*

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

Iranian tankers were 2200 km from the US coast when the Iranian-flagged “Fortune”, followed by “Forest”, entered Venezuelan waters, challenging the US embargo and the US’s threats. The Islamic Republic was broadcasting loud and clear a strong message.

The first message was dispatched to the US administration after Gulf and Arab Leaders conveyed a direct message to the Iranian leaders: “Washington is determined to stop the Iranian tankers sailing to Venezuela”. Iran responded to all messages received that “its five tankers will sail to Venezuela and if any of these tankers is intercepted, Iran will respond in the Straits of Hormuz, the Gulf of Oman or anywhere else it sees fit.”

“These five tankers – the Clavel, Fortune, Petunia, Forest and Faxul- are only the beginning of the supply to Venezuela. Iran has the right to send any of its tankers anywhere in the world and any US interception will be considered an act of piracy and will trigger a direct response,” said an Iranian decision-maker who revealed the Iranian response to the US administration via message-carriers.

“Iran had decided to avoid the horn of Africa because the plan was for the first tanker to reach the Venezuelan waters on the first day of Eid el-Fitr. The aim was to share an important day of the Islamic Republic’s defiance to the US in its backyard and to break the sanctions imposed on one of Iran’s main allies. It is a message for the “Axis of the Resistance” that Iran will not abandon its friends and allies anywhere in the world whatever the challenges. It is directly confronting the US by imposing a new rule of engagement”, said the source.

Iran shut its ears to all threatening messages from the US menace and instructed its five tankers to go not round the horn of Africa but through the Gulf of Aden via Bab al-Mandab strait, the Suez Canal and Gibraltar into the Atlantic Ocean- where the US has a strong presence and influence. This shortens the distance and it tested the intentions of the American Navy. Simultaneously, Iran informed its allies of its readiness to confront the US if ever an escalation should loom on the horizon so that these allies within the “Axis of the Resistance” are ready for a wider confrontation if needed.

The first Iranian tanker, “Fortune”, reached the Caribbean Sea on the first day of Eid al-Fitr, on Sunday 24^th of May, with US Navy ships in the vicinity. The tankers are carrying over 10 million barrels of oil but also Alkylate and spare parts to start repairing any of the eight “out of order” refineries, to enable oil-rich Venezuela to be self-sufficient in the future. The US sanctions on Venezuela had paralysed Venezuelan refineries and caused gasoline shortages, with the aim of overthrowing the legitimately elected President, Nicolas Maduro.

Iran is challenging the US administration and considers it a victory that its first tanker went through without being intercepted. Tehran considers this challenge to US authority much more significant than the downing of the US’s most sophisticated drone or the bombing of the US’s largest military base in Ayn al-Assad, Iraq.

“Our allies used to wonder why Iran was not confronting the US dominance face-to-face. In fact, we were preparing for this day, and what helps us the most is the US sanctions that force this country to be autonomous on many levels. Today, Iran and its allies are all equipped with strong ideology and motivation to face down US hegemony, with sufficiently advanced military and financial support to stand up to the US and its allies, both in the Middle East and outside the Middle East. Since World War II the US has not faced a challenge to its hegemony similar to the one Iran is representing, particularly when the main enemy, the US, believes that 40 years of sanctions and maximum pressure have crippled Iran’s capabilities. Imam Khamenei informed all our allies that the military and financial support to all of them will increase and will meet all their needs in Palestine, Lebanon, Syria, Iraq and Yemen. The Axis of the Resistance is now ready and united as one front”, said the source.

Venezuela had asked President Vladimir Putin for help. Russia said clearly it was not willing to send ships close to the US coast because that might support President Trump by triggering a false threat which could lead to unifying the national feeling behind him. This is why Putin had to refuse Venezuela’s request. Iran came forward at the first demand and was grateful for the opportunity to challenge the US and to pay back the support Venezuela offered in the year 2008 when Iran was in need and under heavy US sanctions that forbid technology transfer to build or repair its own refineries. Since then, Iran has built 11 refineries (and 3 more in Pars, Anahita and Bahman Geno which are still under construction) and is considered the third most important country in the world to have developed Gas to Liquid technology (GTL).

Since the US assassinated Brigadier General Qassem Soleimani at Baghdad’s airport, Iran has imposed new rules of engagement on the US. Its message consists in the inevitability of a response against its enemies if they hit Iran, and the threat that no attack will go unanswered. It seems Iran is no longer ready to turn the other cheek and has decided to take special measures to respond to any attack against its troops or interests, including in Syria (more details will be provided in another article). Also, Iran and its allies have raised the level of readiness to maximum in case the US administration decides to attack any aspect of Iran’s interests, particularly the flotilla heading to Venezuela.

Iran is not facing the US directly, and is not asking its allies to do the job on its behalf. The “Persian rug weaver” waited through 40 years of sanctions for this day, until its capability and preparations were completed. This means that now Iran will be tougher and harder, and that is manifest in the election of the new parliament and the new government. President Trump has abused and exhausted all the avenues used by President Hassan Rouhani. Therefore, any new negotiation between Iran and the US will be very difficult: there is a total lack of trust in any document signed by the US.

Whether a Republican or a Democrat reaches the White House at the end of 2020, they will be waiting by the phone for many long years if they imagine that Iran will take the initiative and call the US for a meeting. It will now be up to the US to prove to Iran that it is worth holding any negotiations at all.

Iran has planted robust roots in Afghanistan, Palestine, Lebanon, Syria, Iraq and Yemen. It is now spreading towards Venezuela and will support President Maduro, a strategic rather than ideological ally, to stand against US hegemony and sanctions. More tankers are expected to follow in the very near future. Iran is eager to confront President Trump and tempt him into a confrontation only months before the elections. The Coronavirus mismanagement, the US’s rebuttal of its deals with Russia, Trump’s aggressive position towards China and the World Health Organisation, and his rejection of the Iranian nuclear deal (JCPOA): all these are striking possibilities for a challenge to his re-election. This is why Iran is preparing more surprises for Trump- to show that his Middle Eastern policy is jeopardising the safety and security of the US and its allies both in Europe and the Middle East, and indeed global world security.

*

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

All images in this article are from the author unless otherwise stated

The debate today is whether Dominic Cummings, Boris Johnson’s Chief Advisor, should resign, or not. Whether he broke the lockdown rules, or even the law. Whether his trip was justified or if there was some perfidiousness behind it.

Mostly, they miss the vitally important point.

The same was true when Neil Ferguson – main author of the Imperial Model, and consequently the lockdown – was found to be breaking lockdown with his married girlfriend.

The press divided between the lockdown enthusiasts defending him, or the anti-lockdowners eagerly calling him a hypocrite.

Both, again, were missing the point.

Yes, it’s satisfying to cast people down for being hypocrites. Yes, it’s easy to conduct witchhunts based on shallow issues against people whose politics we disagree with. But to take part in the free-for-all is to endorse a distraction that actually reinforces the narrative, and misses the fundamentally more important issue at the root of it.

We’re all meant to be “sheltering in place” and “protecting the NHS” and “saving lives” because there is a “deadly virus”. We’re being told this is for our own safety. Because the virus is allegedly dangerous.

When the people giving us these orders do not follow them themselves, they are not showing themselves to be “hypocrites”. They are showing themselves to be liars. They are admitting they don’t really believe what they’re saying.

The best example is actually from the other side of the pond – Chris Cuomo, CNN anchor, brother of one New York governor and son of another.

When Cuomo was meant to be “self-isolating”, after allegedly getting infected, he was spotted by a cyclist socialising on the site where his new house is being built. (Days later, Cuomo made a big deal out of emerging from his basement as if he hadn’t seen his family in two weeks).

You don’t invite your married girlfriend round to your house, then send her back to her husband and children, if you really believe there’s a dangerous virus.

You don’t drive to Durham in the middle of a “national emergency” if you really believe we could all get infected and die.

You don’t break your self-isolation early to have a barbecue with your neighbours if you truly think you have a terrible disease that could make your family sick.

If I tell you you shouldn’t eat chocolate, because it will make your head explode, then I take your chocolate off you and eat it – you wouldn’t think “You hypocrite! You fool! That could make your head explode!”, would you?

You’d be far more likely to think “Hey, he lied to me so he could steal my chocolate.”

(To fully complete the metaphor there needs to be a third person there, saying “but chocolate never made our heads explode before”, and being roundly insulted by the other two as a “Chocolate Denier”, who “just wants people’s heads to explode!”)

Whether it’s Neil Ferguson or Dom Cummings or Chris Cuomo the message is the same. They are telling us they do not really believe there is any danger.

More than that, the press covering it obviously don’t really believe it either.

Look at the crush of reporters and cameramen swarm over Dom Cummings outside his home this morning:

No adherence to #SocialDistancing rules by the hypocritical #FakeNews media as they ambush Dominic Cummings at his family home.

This is a Witch Hunt, plain and simple.pic.twitter.com/rF20OO4rsp

— Darren of Plymouth 🇬🇧 (@DarrenPlymouth) May 24, 2020

Remember: Cummings alleged crime is “breaking social distancing rules”.

Are any of those people social distancing? Are they all wearing masks? Are they acting – in any way whatsoever – as if there is a genuinely “deadly virus” out there?

No, they’re not. Because they don’t really believe it.

The same is true of the police, who will happily man-handle someone for not wearing a mask, despite not wearing masks themselves:

German police attack a man for not wearing mask in supermarket.

Is this LAW in Germany, or just ‘recommend’?….. either way, these police officers don’t bother wearing masks themselves!

This is BRUTAL treatment of citizens!#MartialLaw #NWO pic.twitter.com/So4u9dawIo

— BeachMilk (@BeachMilk) May 15, 2020

Or, without any sense of irony, mob protesters for not “social distancing”:

Whether this is true Orwellian double-think or just old-fashioned dishonesty is not for us to judge (that’s between them, their consciences and maybe their therapists). The internal complexities are as unknowable as they are irrelevant.

The point is: The police, the press, the scientists, the politicians – everyone spouting the need to follow the lockdown rules is perfectly happy to break them.

Because they know what they’re really for, and it’s not to protect us from a virus.

*

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 OffGuardian

Italian authorities, ecclesiastic representatives, and social organizations acknowledged on May 23 Cuban efforts to face COVID across the country.

The Secretary of Health and Welfare of the government of the Lombardy region, Giulio Gallera, and the president of the National Association of Italian-Cuban Friendship (Anaic), Irma Dioli, attended the homage rally to support the Cuban doctors. Cuban ambassador in Italy, Jose Carlos Rodríguez, and the general consul in Milan, Llanio Gonzalez also joined the tribute in Duomo Square.

Soddisfatti del dovere di solidarietà che hanno adempiuto nella battaglia per la vita vs. #COVID19, i #MediciCubani avanzano per le strade di #Crema. #23maggio 2020. L'applauso dei cittadini li abbraccia, gli infiniti ringraziamenti del popolo #italiano. https://t.co/XJOyemBAjy pic.twitter.com/yRpqLUuXLX

— JoséCarlosRRuiz (@JoseCarlosRRuiz) May 24, 2020

“Satisfied with the duty of solidarity they have fulfilled in the battle for life vs. COVID-19, the Cuban Doctors advance through the streets of Crema. The applause of the citizens embraces them and the infinite thanks of the Italian people.”

“When you came here you said that your homeland is the world, so from now on you will always be our compatriots, in this vast world, often mistreated by the absence of the supreme value of solidarity,” the Mayor of Crema, Stefania Bonaldi, said.  Local news media exalted the commotion and thankfulness of Crema citizens who expressed their thankfulness to Cuban health professionals.

Alternative Student Opposition (OSA), Noi Restiamo, Communist Network (RdC), and other social organizations in Turin also recognized the Cuban medical brigade solidarity and requested the Nobel Peace Prize for the Caribbean Island doctors. The organization’s representatives revealed a wall painting in Parco Dora with Cuban doctors, the July 26 Movement, and Fidel Castro representations.

“It recalls the opposition to the economic blockade imposed on Cuba by the USA and supports the appeal promoted in Italy for the award of the Nobel Peace Prize to the Henry Reeve Brigade, operating in our country during the Covid-19 emergency, as requested by more and more international realities” the organizers explained.

Cuban doctors held over five thousand consultations in Italy and discharged 210 Covid-19 patients after the virus outbreak in March.​​​​​​​

*

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: Homage to Cuban doctors in Plaza Duomo, Crema, Italy. May 23rd, 2020. | Photo: Twitter/@BrunoRguezP

Regular visitors to this site will be aware that I frequently write about the massive propaganda campaign being run by supporters of Israel to conceal the damage done by the Jewish state to actual United States’ interests. One of the more interesting aspects of that effort is the bowdlerization of language to extirpate some words that might have anti-Semitic overtones and to twist the meaning of others in such a fashion as to deprive them of any meaning. Providing loans at usurious rates of interest used to be regularly referred to “Shylocking” even in legal circles, named after the Shakespearean character in the Merchant of Venice. It is an obvious word just waiting around to be censored and has consequently disappeared from use.

Recently, those obvious expressions denoting ethnicity have been joined by a whole lot of words condemned by the American Jewish Committee that are a lot more subtle like “clannish,” “cosmopolitan” and “globalist.” The AJC defines the alleged anti-Semitic expression “dual loyalty” as

“…a bigoted trope used to cast Jews as the ‘other.’ For example, it becomes antisemitic when an American Jew’s connection to Israel is scrutinized to the point of questioning his or her trustworthiness or loyalty to the United States. By accusing Jews of being disloyal citizens whose true allegiance is to Israel or a hidden Jewish agenda (see globalist), anti-Semites sow distrust and spread harmful ideas—like the belief that Jews are a traitorous ‘fifth column’ undermining our country.”

The AJC’s definition of “dual loyalty” would perhaps bemuse President George Washington whose Farewell Address included

“…nothing is more essential than that permanent, inveterate antipathies against particular nations, and passionate attachments for others, should be excluded; and that, in place of them, just and amicable feelings towards all should be cultivated. The nation which indulges towards another a habitual hatred or a habitual fondness is in some degree a slave. It is a slave to its animosity or to its affection, either of which is sufficient to lead it astray from its duty and its interest… So likewise, a passionate attachment of one nation for another produces a variety of evils. Sympathy for the favorite nation, facilitating the illusion of an imaginary common interest in cases where no real common interest exists, and infusing into one the enmities of the other, betrays the former into a participation in the quarrels and wars of the latter without adequate inducement or justification. It leads also to concessions to the favorite nation of privileges denied to others which is apt doubly to injure the nation making the concessions; by unnecessarily parting with what ought to have been retained, and by exciting jealousy, ill-will, and a disposition to retaliate, in the parties from whom equal privileges are withheld. And it gives to ambitious, corrupted, or deluded citizens (who devote themselves to the favorite nation), facility to betray or sacrifice the interests of their own country, without odium, sometimes even with popularity; gilding, with the appearances of a virtuous sense of obligation, a commendable deference for public opinion, or a laudable zeal for public good, the base or foolish compliances of ambition, corruption, or infatuation.”

If it seems that the First President was predicting the current subservient condition of the United States vis-à-vis Israel, I will leave that judgement up to the reader. More recently, Jewish pressure groups who seek to benefit Israel exclusively have been aided and abetted by the so-called U.S. Ambassador to Israel David Friedman to suppress the use of words that cast Israel in a bad light. Most contentious is the elimination of the word “occupation” in State Department reporting to describe the wholesale illegal Israeli seizure of land in Palestine. The “occupied territories” held by Israel for over fifty years are now described as “disputed” while Jewish settlements on Palestinian land once routinely described as illegal are now legal. Friedman has expressed his approval of those “disputed” bits being scheduled for “annexation” after July 1^st. Perhaps he will come up with a new word to replace annex, possibly something like “restore” or “reunite.” Or “fulfilling biblical prophecy.”

Words are important because how they are used and their context shapes the understanding of the reader or listener. In the United States there has been a concerted effort to equate any criticism of Israel with anti-Semitism while simultaneously making anti-Semitism a hate crime and thereby converting what one might perceive as exercise of a First Amendment right into a felony. This is largely being done as part of the plan to create a legal basis to suppress the growing Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions movement (BDS). Twenty-seven states have now passed laws criminalizing or otherwise punishing criticism of Israel, to include requirements to sign documents declaring opposition to boycotts of the Jewish state if one wants a government job or other benefits. Donald Trump has also signed an executive order to combat what he calls discrimination against Jews and Israel at universities and there are several bills working their way through Congress that can criminalize BDS in particular, incorporating prison time and punitive fines.

But when it comes to protecting Israel in speech and in writing, no one outdoes the totally cowed Europeans. It is a criminal offense to challenge the many shaky details of the standard holocaust narrative in France, Germany and Britain and now the wordsmiths are hard at work to broaden what is unacceptable in speaking or writing.

A truly bizarre story comes from England, once upon a time the mother of parliamentary democracy and a model for those who cherished free speech. One recalls that recently Labour Party leader Jeremy Corbyn was ousted after a sustained effort headed by the country’s Chief Rabbi marshalling what one might reasonably call Britain’s “Israel Lobby.” It was claimed that Corbyn was an anti-Semite because he believed in the human rights of the Palestinian people and had also attended several pro-Palestinian events. Since the departure of Corbyn, there has been a major effort by the totally subdued Labourites to purge the party of all traces of anti-Semitism to include criticism of Israel and any expressions of sympathy for the Palestinians.

The new Labour leader Sir Keir Starmer has apparently learned how to behave from the Corbyn experience. He has been crawling on his belly to Jewish interests ever since he took over and has even submitted to the counseling provided by the government’s “Independent Adviser on Antisemitism,” a special interests office not too dissimilar to the abomination at the U.S. State Department where Elan Carr is the Special Envoy for Monitoring and Combating anti-Semitism.

The adviser, Lord Mann, who like Carr is of course Jewish, has now insisted to Starmer that the use of words like ‘’Zionist’’ or ‘’Zionism’’ in a critical context must be regarded as anti-Semitism if Starmer wants to establish what he refers to as “comprehensive anti-racism” within the Labour Party. Mann wants to confront what he refers to as “anti-Jewish racism” in Britain, saying that “the thing Keir Starmer has to do is stick with the clear definition of antisemitism, and not waver from that. The second thing he should do if he wants to really imbed comprehensive anti-racism including antisemitism across the Labour Party – then the use of the words Zionist or Zionism as a term of hatred, abuse, of contempt, as a negative term – that should outlawed in the party.”

Perhaps not surprisingly Lord Mann’s comments came during an online discussion with the Antisemitism Policy Trust’s director Danny Stone, one of the major components of Israel’s powerful U.K. Jewish/Zionist Lobby. A majority of British Members of Parliament of both parties are registered supporters of “Friends of Israel” associations, another indication of how Jewish power is manifest in Britain and of how spineless the country’s politicians have become.

Mann added:

“If he does that, it gives him [Starmer] the tools to clear out those who choose to be antisemitic, rather than those who do so purely through their ignorance as opposed to their calculated behavior. I think he is seeing tackling antisemitism as one of those things that will be shown to mark that he is a leader.”

So, in Britain you are still presumably free to criticize Zionism, but not Israelis, as long as you do not use the word itself. If you do use it in a critical way you will be one of those presumably who will be “cleared out [of the Labour Party] for choosing to be antisemitic.” Do not be alarmed if similar nonsense takes hold in the United States, where already criticism of Israel, such as it is, eschews the word Jewish in any context. Fearful of retribution that can include loss of employment as happened to Rick Sanchez at CNN, the few who are bold enough to criticize Israel regularly employ generic euphemisms like the “Israel Lobby” or “Zionism,” ignoring the fact that what drives the process is ethno- or religious based. However one chooses to obfuscate it, the power of Israel in the United States is undeniably based on Jewish money, media control and easy access to politicians. When the friends of Israel in America follow the British lead and figure out that the word Zionist has become pejorative they too will no doubt move to make it unacceptable in polite discourse in the media and elsewhere. Then many critics of the Jewish state will have no vocabulary left to use, nowhere to go, as in Britain, and that is surely the intention.

*

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

This article was originally published on The Unz Review.

Philip M. Giraldi, Ph.D., is Executive Director of the Council for the National Interest, a 501(c)3 tax deductible educational foundation (Federal ID Number #52-1739023) that seeks a more interests-based U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East. Website is https://councilforthenationalinterest.org, address is P.O. Box 2157, Purcellville VA 20134 and its email is [email protected]. He is a frequent contributor to Global Research.

Featured image is from TUR

Former Vice President and current Democrat front-runner Joe Biden embodied everything that’s wrong with the Democrats on Friday morning during an interview with a popular New York City radio host. In response to Charlamagne Tha God’s request for another interview with the candidate because he had more questions for him after they ran out of time, Biden laughed and said that “If you have a problem figuring out whether you’re for me or Trump, then you ain’t black.”

He’s since apologized for his “cavalier” approach and being a “wise guy”, but the damage is already done. African-Americans have looked to the Democrats for decades as the defenders of their hard-earned freedoms, though Republicans have since pointed out in recent years that their political opponents have been taking this minority group’s support for granted. Aware of the growing popularity of this narrative, Biden was quick to claim that he never behaved that way and that no one should vote for a party based on their race.

Still, his apology was unconvincing when compared to what would have been expected of a Republican had one dared to say such a thing on air. The Democrats would have demanded that individual’s resignation, partisan “hacktivists” would probably have doxxed them and their family, and the mainstream media would endlessly talk about this story, especially if Trump was the one who did that. Instead, there’s been scarcely any condemnation, and Biden’s apology was accepted without any questions.

These double standards as a problem, however, and embody everything that’s wrong with the Democrats. It’s neither here nor there how the appropriate way for people to respond to such a possibly racist incident may be, but simply to state that Democrats are definitely treated differently than Republicans in this respect, especially by members of their own party and their media surrogates. This strongly suggests that offensive comments about race are a big deal if Republicans utter them but are deliberately downplayed if a Democrat is involved.

Extrapolating on this objective observation of American political reality, it naturally follows that the Republicans are onto something when they claim that the Democrats take African-Americans for granted. If the present opposition party truly supported this minority group’s interests like they claim to, then there wouldn’t be any selective standards in condemning racially charged comments as offensive and demanding more than just a half-hearted apology, especially when their presidential front-runner is at the center of such a scandal.

More and more, it begins to seem like the Democrats are only interested in calling out racism whenever it makes the Republicans look bad, choosing instead to distract African-Americans’ attention whenever one of their members is arguably guilty of this. They’re apparently operating under the assumption that this group will continue to “vote blue no matter who”, as the popular slogan goes, which is the very definition of taking their support for granted.

African-Americans aren’t anyone’s political pawns so their interests should be treated with the same respect by both parties without any partisan-influenced double standards. The very fact that this wasn’t the case with Biden’s comments speaks to the Democrats’ arrogant and condescending attitude towards them. That will have to change if the party hopes to ensure enough of their support to beat Trump in key battleground states this November, unlike what happened last election when African-American voter turnout surprisingly dropped.

The Center for American Progress concluded in their report about “Voter Trends in 2016” that “If black turnout and support rates in 2016 had matched 2012 levels, Democrats would have held Florida, Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin and flipped North Carolina, for a 323 to 215 Electoral College victory.” The consequences of losing those states literally changed the world, and it was all due to the Democrats taking African-American support for granted. Judging by Biden’s scandal, however, they have yet to learn their lesson.

*

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

This article was originally published on OneWorld.

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

Featured image is from OneWorld

On Thursday, May 21, American President Donald Trump announced the decision to withdraw the United States from the Treaty on Open Skies, signed with Russia and ratified by 35 other countries in 1992. Trump says the reason for withdrawing from the agreement is the alleged violation of the terms of the treaty by the Russian Federation. In Trump’s words: “Russia did not adhere to the treaty. (…) Until they adhere, we will pull out”.

This is the third international arms control treaty from which Donald Trump has withdrawn since the beginning of his government. Two years ago, the United States withdrew from the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), commonly known as a nuclear agreement or Iranian agreement. Last year, the United States left the Intermediate Range Nuclear Forces (INF). Now, US withdraws the Treaty on Open Skies after accusing Russia of violating the treaty.

The Treaty on Open Skies was signed with the clear intention of contributing to world peace and a balance in the power game between nations, allowing signatories to freely fly their non-military and unarmed aircraft over the spaces of other member states. The agreement aims, above all, to improve mutual trust between nations through collection of information from each other during unarmed flights.

Despite Trump’s claims that the U.S. is withdrawing from the deal because of its violation by Russia, the evidence points to an entirely different response. American strategists have for years criticized the agreement and its strategic importance for the United States, stating that Washington gains greater advantage from the use of modern satellite systems, and does not need to comply with the rules and conditions of an international treaty for the safe collection of information. This means that the reason for leaving may be that Washington, not Moscow, has a much greater capacity to violate the treaty in many different ways.

The allegations against Russia – which relate to major recent events in regions of dispute and tension, especially on the border with Ukraine – are unfounded and somewhat distorted, clearly manipulated in order to justify a unilateral decision by the Trump administration. However, this is not the merit of the issue. The most worrying fact is how much the risks of world war increase with this US exit – which, in practice, means the end of this treaty that in recent years represented a great step in the history of diplomacy between Washington and Moscow.

Upon leaving the agreement, the US no longer has international rules concerning the use of aircraft – mainly espionage – in any country in the world, including the signatories to the treaty. In addition, there is the issue of spy satellites, which are not under discussion at the moment and are permitted under international space law. Thus, the risks of creating tensions with intelligence activities and unregulated collection of information are high, generating a global atmosphere of constant uncertainty, resuming the typical scenario of the Cold War years.

Still, the biggest losers from Trump’s decision will be his European allies, considering that these countries do not have the same military and intelligence capabilities as Washington, needing the Treaty completely to obtain information on Russian activities. If Russia comes out of the agreement, Europe will be completely vulnerable and once again American and European interests will be in deep shock.

It is also curious how tensions of this nature are created in the midst of a period of global emergency and collective concern about the advancement of the pandemic of the novel coronavirus. International organizations try to create the myth of the “union” of states and of global cooperation for the victory over the virus, which, as can be seen, is a big lie, especially when we take into account the American praxis.

The United States recently financed the invasion of Venezuela by Colombian mercenaries in an unsuccessful attempt to overthrow the government of Nicolás Maduro; subsequently, they sent warships to the Caribbean Sea to surround Iranian ships reaching the Venezuelan coast; the American government has repeatedly accused China of creating and spreading the virus; now, unilaterally, the country withdraws from one of the most important treaties of military balance and peacekeeping, “justifying” its departure with alarmist accusations against Russia. After all, what is the American role in the current world power game? What is the interest behind so many aggressive maneuvers on the international stage while the world is distracted fighting the pandemic?

In fact, the stance of American foreign policy during the pandemic is being more aggressive than it was before the virus. It remains to be seen what the intention behind all these violent actions is. As for the Treaty, Washington is not leaving it for “Russian violations”, but because it no longer needs it.

*

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

This article was originally published on InfoBrics.

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

Featured image is from InfoBrics

.

Facts Vs. Fake. A Worldwide Lockdown of Everything

By Peter Koenig, May 26, 2020

The universal Covid-lockdown has also caused a meltdown of productive assets, which now become easy prey to be bought by large corporations – unemployment soaring to heights never experienced before by modern humanity, currently at 40 million Americans out of a job. This does not account for those having given up looking for a job or claiming unemployment.

US Slaps Sanctions on 33 Chinese Companies and Institutions, Dialling Up the Tension Amid the Lowest Point in US-China Relations

By Cheryl Arcibal, May 26, 2020

The Institute of Forensic Science under the Chinese Ministry of Public Security, and eight companies were added to a second list with restricted access to US technology because they are “complicit in human rights violations and abuses … against Uygurs, ethnic Kazakhs, and other members of Muslim minority groups in the Xinjiang Uygur Autonomous Region,” according to a second statement by the Commerce Department’s Bureau of Industry and Security (BIS). This second list of nine supplements the bureau’s October 2019 sanctions on 28 entities for the same charge.

Telephone Calls Between Biden and Poroshenko Reveal Kiev’s Submission to Washington

By Lucas Leiroz de Almeida, May 26, 2020

Recently, several phone calls made four years ago between former Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko and current Democratic presidential candidate Joe Biden were revealed. The content of the talks is profound and controversial and reveals the high degree of American influence in the coordination of Ukrainian domestic politics, showing the advanced state of submission of Kiev to Washington.

US “Woke” Community Wages Pointless War Against Huawei

By Tony Cartalucci, May 26, 2020

As many others have pointed out and as is becoming increasingly self-evident – COVID-19 isn’t breaking America – America is already broken. COVID-19 is simply amplifying and accelerating problems long rotting the foundation of American society. Those like Van Jones and CNN are committed to maintaining a status quo allowing this rot to continue and organizations like the NABJ find themselves subjected to irresistible pressure to likewise ignore the rot and focus attention elsewhere.

Covid-19 and The Plight of New York State’s Nursing Homes

By William Walter Kay, May 26, 2020

The pretext for the hospital-to-NH transfers was a ginned-up shortage of hospital space. In any event, sending Covid-19 patients away from hospitals to free-up hospital space for Covid-19 patients is illogical. Moreover, planting contagious patients into crowded seniors’ homes could only sow a bumper crop of Covid-19 cases. The statement’s authors conclude that the March 25 Advisory: “will only add to the surge in Covid-19 patients that require hospital care.”

The ‘Science’ Behind Social Distancing. Shutting Down National Economy Based on Flawed Computer Models

By Jeff Harris, May 26, 2020

Now we learn the whole social distancing lockdown that has paralyzed the nation comes from a very surprising source. A May 2nd article in the Albuquerque Journal reveals social distancing hysteria is NOT based on scientific evidence or clinical medical trials for that matter.

Passing Behind Our Backs.”Everyone’s Life has a Shape, as if it Were a Drawing or Story or Song”

By Edward Curtin, May 24, 2020

No one wants to end, to fade away. To not be recognized. To die and be forgotten. To fail to make their mark. Not Dylan, Cousy, Maravich, me, nor you.  We all wish to become who we feel we were meant to be. To fulfill the creative dreams we had when young and not to waste our lives in trivial pursuits.

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

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

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

The Iranian oil tanker Fortune arrived in Venezuela yesterday, the first in a flotilla of five, Forest, Petunia, Faxon, and Clavel, carrying gasoline from Bandar Abbas to Puerto Cabello.  The second ship, Forest, has entered Venezuelan waters today. Venezuela has the world’s largest oil reserves but must import gasoline because the refining infrastructure has deteriorated over the last two decades. Venezuela has provided citizens subsidized gasoline for less than a penny a tank, but due to US sanctions and other factors, the local refinery stopped production. 

Iranian President Hassan Rouhani warned the US to not interfere with the shipment of oil bound for Venezuela, and that Iran would “by no means” be the one to initiate conflict.

“If our tankers in the Caribbean or anywhere in the world face any problems caused by the Americans, they will face problems as well,” he added. “We hope the Americans will not make a mistake.”  Interference by the US could escalate, with possible retaliation in the Arab Gulf region where US ships are venerable.

The Trump administration regards Iran and Venezuela as “repressive regimes”, and accuses Iran of propping up President Nicolas Maduro, who the US regards as having illegitimately won a 2018 election.

Maduro has the support of Venezuela’s military and his international allies include Cuba, Russia, and China. The US accuses those nations of “malign activities and meddling” around the world. “We will not abide by their support of the illegitimate and tyrannical regime of Nicolas Maduro,” the Trump administration said in a statement, citing its “maximum pressure” campaign against the socialist leader.

Professor Mohammad Marandi, of the University of Tehran said,

“What is important is that these are trade ties between two sovereign countries, and the regime in Washington is in no position to dictate terms to the international community. Iran is not a weak country like countries within the EU that bow down to the United States when it makes it mad. Sending five ships is a big message – it wasn’t just one or two – so the Iranians did that both to give support to the Venezuelan people to prevent them from suffering, and also in an act of defiance to US hegemony.”

China and the US are at risk of a new “Cold War” warns Chinese State Councillor Wang Yi, while citing the unresolved US-China trade tensions, the US support of Taiwan, and Trump administration accusations concerning the COVID-19 virus. The diplomat said to the French news agency,

“It has come to our attention that some political forces in the US are taking China-US relations hostage and pushing our two countries to the brink of a new Cold War,” while adding, “Aside from the devastation caused by the novel coronavirus, there is also a political virus spreading through the US,” Wang said. “This political virus is the use of every opportunity to attack and smear China. Some politicians completely disregard basic facts and have fabricated too many lies targeting China, and plotted too many conspiracies.” China vehemently denies that the virus was leaked from a Wuhan laboratory. “China is open to working with the international scientific community to look into the source of the virus,” Wang said. “Fairness means the process is free of political interference, respect the sovereignty of all countries, and oppose any presumption of guilt.”

Henry Kissinger warned several months ago that he sees the US and China as being “in the foothills of a Cold War.”  The South China Sea has almost half of the world’s international shipping passing through its waters.  While China claims most of it, the US and neighboring nations consider it as international waters, also referred to as the high seas, and the US Navy conducts missions sailing through the waters.  In response, the Chinese send their ships to challenge the US Navy or have Chinese jets fly over the US ships. This situation continues to be tense on both sides.

According to the editor-in-chief of the Global Times, Hu Xijin, the Trump administration is demonstrating the megalomaniac ‘Cold War’ thinking.  Xijin feels China does not pose a substantial challenge to the US but is a competitor.  The US has been involved in foreign wars, such as Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, Syria, and Yemen.  However, China has not had a military conflict with its neighbors in more than 30 years. China does not seek to impose its political ideology on other nations and prefers to go its own way without interfering in other countries’ systems.  He sees the Trump imposed ‘Trade War’ on China as a bully tactic, and the US as the aggressor with its “America First” doctrine.

In 2006, then-President of Venezuela, Hugo Chavez, visited Syrian President Bashar al-Assad in Damascus.

“We have decided to be free. We want to cooperate to build a new world where states’ and people’s self-determination are respected,” Chávez said, and added, “Imperialism’s concern is to control the world, but we will not let them despite the pressure and aggression.”

Chavez said Syria and Venezuela shared the same stance against US domination.

“We have the same political vision and we will resist together the American imperialist aggression,” he said, and the two countries signed 13 political and economic agreements.

The new world order is approaching according to Saad Rasool.  US domination has started to crumble, and China takes its place on the world stage, while Russia grows stronger.  The US failed in its ‘regime change’ plan in Syria, despite having the biggest and best military, according to Trump. American hubris, defined as overconfident pride combined with arrogance, has turned to blame China for the pandemic.

“When we talk about American democracy and American achievements, we recognize that this country has achieved a lot. But these achievements are at the expense of other countries. Everything in the world is changing, nothing lasts forever, and realizing this, the United States wants to maintain its dominating position, as before, by weakening other states,” said the Russian State Duma Speaker, Vyacheslav Volodin, on May 24.

Since the end of WW2, the US has been the dominating force in the world, and especially after the collapse of the Soviet Union. The US foreign policy against Russia, China, Iran, Syria, Venezuela, and other nations has caused them to ally to stop the US aggressions. The anti-imperialism coalition is giving birth to a new world order where the US is no longer the “King of the Hill”.

*

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

This article was originally published on Mideast Discourse.

Steven Sahiounie is an award-winning journalist. He is a frequent contributor to Global Research.

Featured image is from Mideast Discourse

On March 25, 2020 New York State’s Health Department issued the urgent Advisory: Hospital Discharges and Admissions to Nursing Homes. Nursing Home (NH) Administrators, Directors of Nursing, and Hospital Discharge Planners needed to “carefully review this guidance.”

To “clarify expectations” regarding nursing home acceptance of residents returning from hospital and nursing home acceptance of new admissions, the Advisory orders:

“…NHs must comply with the expedited receipt of residents from hospitals to NHs.”

Hospital Administrators are given discretion over assessing patient fitness for transit and over choosing which patients to send. Thereafter:

“No resident shall be denied re-admission or admission to the NH solely based on a confirmed or suspected diagnosis of Covid-19. NHs are prohibited from requiring a hospitalized resident who is determined medically stable to be tested for Covid-19 prior to admission or re-admission.”

Withering denunciations of this Advisory appeared instantly. A March 29, 2020 joint statement (Society for Post-Acute and Long-term Care Medicine; American Health Care Association; and National Center for Assisted Living) references the then ongoing Covid-19 outbreak at a Washington nursing home which killed 40 and sent half the residents to emergency wards.

The joint statement also relays CDC data indicating that, within geriatric facilities, Covid-19’s case-to-fatality rate exceeds 15%.

The statement further cites a March 27, 2020 CDC finding that 57% of Covid-19-positive nursing home residents remained asymptomatic for up to a week. During this incubatory period such residents: “have potential for substantial viral shedding.”

The authors rejected the re-purposing of New York’s nursing homes into frontline quarantines. New York nursing homes were already encountering critical shortages, or complete depletions, of personal protective equipment (PPE). Staffing shortages were exacerbated by Covid-19 outbreaks among workers and by school closures which threw many into childcare crises. Poorly trained workers were doing shifts at multiple homes.

NHs run out of old, crowded buildings with narrow corridors and antiquated ventilation are incapable of infection control. Having struggled financially for decades, many homes were in no position to suddenly become hospital overflow wards.

The pretext for the hospital-to-NH transfers was a ginned-up shortage of hospital space. In any event, sending Covid-19 patients away from hospitals to free-up hospital space for Covid-19 patients is illogical. Moreover, planting contagious patients into crowded seniors’ homes could only sow a bumper crop of Covid-19 cases. The statement’s authors conclude that the March 25 Advisory: “will only add to the surge in Covid-19 patients that require hospital care.”

The remedy these healthcare specialists proposed has been endorsed by China’s Xi and by America’s Commander-in-Chief, namely: large field hospitals.

On Trump’s order the Army set-up a 2,910-bed hospital in New York’s Javits Center. Trump also docked the 1,000-bed USNS Comfort in New York. Both facilities were operational late March to May 1. Both were shunned by NY Health. The Javits Center saw under 1,000 patients and never had more than 500 occupied beds. Comfort saw 182 patients.

Between March 25 and the Advisory’s May 10 reversal 4,500 New York Covid-19 cases were transferred from hospitals to nursing homes. Trump’s field hospital plan could have intercepted and quarantined all transfers.

Cuomo’s team fanned the myth of overwhelmed hospitals in late March; and they ghosted alternative quarantine venues throughout April. With eyes wide open they dispatched a hundred or so Covid-19 cases per day into nursing homes. During this 45-day process Covid-19-positive nursing home staff worked at multiple nursing homes without PPE.

The role of Howard Zucker

Once the highest ranking American in W.H.O., Zucker participated in emergency responses to SARS, anthrax, Aids, Ebola, Zika, measles, and legionella. Zucker’s sophistry-laden Tedx plea for government control of the internet references H1N1 and Norovirus. Regarding the latter he quips:

“The rapid spread of Norovirus on a cruise ship is a constant reminder of the dangers of being held captive to a virus.”

Zucker helped develop the Medical Reserve Corps. Zucker teaches Bio-Security Law at Georgetown U. As New York State’s Health Commissioner Zucker: “oversees the entire health care workforce as well as health care facilities, including hospitals, long-term care and nursing homes.”

When did Zucker start bio-bombing nursing homes? His Advisory’s “clarifyexpectations” phrase implies some nursing homes must have resisted Covid-19 transfers pre-March 25. Hospital-to-NH Covid-19 transfers likely began March 18ish; scaling-up post-March 25. (New York State’s Covid-19 death count rose from 46 on March 19 to 284 by March 24.)

Mid-April nursing home body-counts soared past expectations. Hitherto NY Health authorities inflated death tallies and kept mum on nursing homes. Now they scramble to shrink their nursing home body-count.

At 11:46 AM, April 15, all 613 New York nursing home operators received an email ordering them to phone into a 1 PM conference call with Zucker. No paper trail this time. (A 2-minute recording survives). Operators were told to scour their files and prepare separate lists of tested, and presumed, Covid-19 fatalities along with data regarding average fatalities. Operators were to exclude from their lists any deceased resident not physically in the nursing home at the time of death.

Under Zucker’s system a long-time nursing home resident could contract Covid-19 at that nursing home and die within hours of being rushed to hospital – and not be counted as a nursing home Covid-19 fatality. New York is the only jurisdiction resorting to such desperate legerdemain. Zucker’s team is also free to doctor earlier, untested nursing home deaths into something other than Covid-19 fatalities.

The official NY nursing home death tally of 5,900 is a naked fraud. Local journalists have given voice to nursing home staff who swear recent deaths in their homes are several times higher than what appears in government reports.

New York’s official nursing home death tally is 20% of New York’s total (29,009) Covid-19 death tally. This is the best nursing home fatality rate in the world. Imagine a place with a hundred individual nursing homes each reporting more Covid-19 deaths than the City of San Francisco turning out to be the paragon of geriatric hygiene.

In 14 US and several European jurisdictions nursing home residents make-up over 50% of Covid-19 fatalities. Several jurisdictions have NH-to-total fatality rates of 80% including entire countries, like Canada. In Quebec, which imposed policies similar to New York’s, almost 90% of Covid-19 fatalities are nursing home residents. When the truth comes out New York’s Covid-19 nursing home fatalities will settle at a believable 70-to-90% of total fatalities.

New York State’s nursing home body-count must already exceed 20,000.

On March 15, 2020 New York nursing homes housed 101,518 New Yorkers. Ten weeks later a fifth of those folk lay dead. There will be absolute hell to pay when the citizens of Gotham awaken to this crime.

*

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 US is supporting India towards a military confrontation with China on their land border and in the Indian Ocean.  The Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary of State, Bureau of South and Central Asian Affairs, who is about to retire from her State Department job at the end of May, has accused China of orchestrating border clashes with India to try and change the status quo. On May 20, Alice Wells, the leading U.S. diplomat in South Asia, spoke during an online discussion at the Atlantic Council, one of the largest U.S. research organizations, about the India-China border.

In a conversation with Richard Verma, who served as the U.S. ambassador to India for the 2014-2017 term, she pointed out the similarities between growing skirmishes in the Himalayas and Chinese actions in the South China Sea. Alice Wells called China’s activities on the border with India and in the South China Sea an ongoing effort to change the rules and the status quo. The U.S. diplomat spoke out against China’s actions, both in the South China Sea and on the border with India, as well as in the Indian Ocean. Wells said that China’s growing military presence on the border with India, where clashes were not uncommon, had become a cause of concern for New Delhi. According to her, the problem is becoming more serious as China strives to shirk responsibility and spread false information.

The U.S. has always advocated tensions between India and China. This is one of the tools to implement their Indo-Pacific Strategy, aimed at increasing influence in South Asia. Wells said China’s behaviour explains why “like-minded nations” are now “rallying” with each other under a handful of diplomatic groupings such as the ‘Trilateral’ (US, Japan and India) and the ‘Quadrilateral’ or ‘Quad’ (US, Japan, India and Australia).

Her statement is clearly in line with the current strategy of U.S. President Donald Trump’s administration to continue to discredit China’s reputation in the context of blaming it for the coronavirus pandemic. The U.S. is conducting an anti-China campaign and is trying to draw all their global allies into these efforts.

However, despite U.S. support for New Delhi in the border dispute with China, Washington has not been able to incite India to take unilateral actions. In the context of coronavirus issues, even the Indian military recognized that it is now necessary to focus on health issues and the economy, and not border skirmishes. They are willing to accept the fact that Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi is redistributing forces and assets in favor of the civil sector.

China’s restraint and ability to gain mutual understanding with India does not allow the U.S. to achieve its strategic goal for an Indo-China confrontation. India appreciates independence and New Delhi probably does not want the U.S. to use India as a means of restraining or confronting China.

The Indo-Pacific Strategy is one of the most important foreign policy means of the Trump administration to pressurize China. In June 2017 there was a minor conflict between China and India on the Doklam Plateau, and in November of the same year, the U.S. proposed the concept of the Indo-Pacific Strategy at the APEC Conference in Vietnam. The gap between these two events is only a few months. It is no coincidence that many analysts believe that the Sino-Indian confrontation has influenced Trump to shape this strategy. China for now has maintained its restraint, seeking to gain mutual understanding with India, so Washington was still unable to achieve its strategic goals. The Trump administration relies heavily on provoking disputes to worsen conflicts between different countries and China. In this way Washington makes these countries strategically dependent on the US. However, the problem is that the U.S. strategy often clashes with India’s national interests and cultural traditions. But New Delhi does not want the U.S. to use India as a tool.

Well’s statement is provocative and this is evident in the context of the complex situation in the border disputes between China and India. Well’s words are even seen as American support for India’s territorial claims against China, which could make the situation on the Sino-Indian border more explosive and riskier, especially at a time when only this month there were two encounters involving dozens of soldiers from both sides.

*

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

This article was originally published on InfoBrics.

Paul Antonopoulos is an independent geopolitical analyst.

Featured image is from InfoBrics

The world has been turned upside down with draconian government orders to “flatten the curve” with what is called Social Distancing. Schools have been closed for months, businesses have been involuntarily shut down and travel restrictions have idled 90 percent of the airlines. The net result is over 36 million American’s are unemployed and the number is rising.

Now we learn the whole social distancing lockdown that has paralyzed the nation comes from a very surprising source. A May 2nd article in the Albuquerque Journal reveals social distancing hysteria is NOT based on scientific evidence or clinical medical trials for that matter.

How would you feel if you learned your normal way of life had been completely upended based on a computer model created by a 15 year old Albuquerque New Mexico High School student named Laura Glass?

Glass, along with her Dad Robert (a government scientist then working at Sandia National Laboratories) cooked up a home brew computer model for a science and engineering fair in May, 2006. Robert Glass had been working on computer models for the National Infrastructure Simulation and Analysis Center at Sandia and often worked from home.

Part of his work entailed computer models showing how people come into contact with each other during everyday life. Laura Glass used that data to project how high school students could possibly transmit infectious diseases. Her “model” suggested high school students could easily infect huge swaths of a population so putting a stop to those contacts would hypothetically “save lives.”

Miss Glass appeared to have no understanding of the benefits of herd immunity. She didn’t seem to know that most healthy people with strong immune systems naturally fight off viruses and build up antibodies against future infections. According to a variety of medical experts herd immunity should be the primary tool to fight off viral infections and only the sick and elderly should be quarantined. But I digress . . .

A call from Homeland Security

Her efforts earned her third place in the Medicine and Health category of the science fair.

That would probably have been the end of it but for Robert Glasses government connections. While High School sophomore Laura Glass was creating her contagion computer model the George Bush administration was feverishly working on bio terrorism countermeasures.

Somehow news of Laura Glasses high school science project wound up in the hands of US Department of Homeland Security. You know those skilled airport security professionals highly trained in the art of patting down wheelchair bound grandmas and creepily fondling their victims’ genitals.

Glass received a call from Homeland Security requesting a brief for Secretary Michael Chertoff. The Bush White House was holding a cabinet level counter bio terrorism briefing and no idea was too loony to consider. Glass’ briefing suggested that whole segments of society should be shut down based on his daughter’s computer model.

The idea of locking down huge swaths of the nation in the event of a virus outbreak met with considerable push back. But ultimately the Centers for Disease Control made social distancing official policy in February 2007. They call it Non-Pharmaceutical Interventions (NPI) and this is the first time it’s been implemented but will definitely not be the last.

So shutting down the entire nation based on flawed computer models is now official government policy. Robert Glass is now retired and enjoying a generous government pension. He was interviewed for the article by phone while relaxing in his second home in northern Idaho.

Mr. Glass waxed philosophical about the carnage wrought by his and his daughter’s lock down computer model. “Anything new is difficult,” he said. “You have to train people to do this well, without freaking out and calling each other names. . .”

That’s easy to say when you’re pulling down a fat government pension every month. Enjoy a comprehensive health care package, all paid for by the little people freaking out and calling each other names as they struggle to feed their families. Odds are this lockdown is just the beginning of many more power grabs by our increasingly totalitarian overlords – IF we let them.

Contact tracing which is nothing more than constant real time monitoring of citizens every move by government stooges is being implemented right now. Untested, unproven, possibly deadly vaccines are being “warp-speeded” into production. President Trump has assured the nation that he will authorize the military to distribute the vaccine across the land quickly once it becomes available.

Constitutional Lawyer and Jeffrey Epstein guest (who assures us he kept his underwear on during massages on Lolita Island,) Alan Dershowitz, says that the state has full authority to vaccinate any person it deems necessary. This comes from a video interview by Jason Goodman released May 16th on Youtube.

Our inalienable rights of freedom and liberty are under assault by a totalitarian state like never before. The words of Thomas Jefferson come to mind.

When Government fears the people, there is liberty. When the people fear the government, there is tyranny.

Mr. Jefferson also said:

The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is its natural manure.

The political class has a choice to make. Either honor the oath they all took to uphold the Constitutional rights of the people or face the consequences. I pray they make the right choice for all our sakes.

*

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

Sources

Social Distancing born in ABQ teen’s science project, Albuquerque Journal May 2nd, 2020

Disease Mitigation Measures in the Control of Pandemic Influenza, Biosecurity and Bioterrorism: Biodefense strategy, Practice and Science. Vol. 4, Number 4 2006

The 2006 Origins Of The “Lockdown” Idea, Jeffrey Tucker via The American Institute for Economic Research May, 18, 2020

Featured image is from TRPIPP

My neighbor is a Vietnam vet suffering from the effects of Agent Orange. He is in his early 70s and looks at least 10 years older. In and out of hospitals with lapses in memory, the guy still maintains a ‘gung ho’ Amerikan exceptionalist mindset. Will he ever learn the truth about how his life and that of millions of others, military and civilian, was damaged or destroyed by our country? On Monday he will both display and salute our flag, the one that the Military Industrial Empire had hijacked long ago. With the exception of WW2, Memorial Day will be an endless bunch of hogwash celebrations and remembrances to honor men and women who dutifully followed orders while never questioning the evil ones who controlled them. Ignorance is most certainly bliss!

We already see that over 50% of our taxes goes down this rabbit hole of bloated, obscene and unnecessary military spending. Having nearly 1000 bases replete with advanced weapons systems, and of course those poor kids in uniform, in over 100 countries we should NOT be in, does not make us safer. Matter of fact, it has and will make us LESS safe! Too many afflicted people in the Middle East despise us for what we have done to them in recent years. All the honor guards and pomp and circumstance that this empire throws at us does not save the day. The con job of being in a ‘War with Terror’ tells only half the story. The other half is listing what we have done to terrorize the people in the Middle East! Dropping the ‘Mother of All Bombs’ or drone missile strikes only exacerbates things, doesn’t it?

I salute our young service people, not the ones who randomly or without just cause have murdered women, children, the elderly or innocent Arab men in places they should never have been sent to. During the Vietnam War era, we peace activists never pointed fingers at the overwhelming majority of our returning G.I.s. We only took issue with those who professed such animus for the Communist gooks they were so proud to have killed, tortured or burned alive. Many guys from our neighborhood signed up, hoping to ‘ fight the good fight’, only to return home in a box. These 18, 19 and 20 year old kids did not know what the hell this war was all about. They, including this writer, believed, in the early stages of it all, that we were doing a noble thing to help the South Vietnamese fend off the invading North Vietnamese communists. The 1962 Cuban Missile Crisis gave us the hype and spin that we were protecting our great nation from a possible Communist attack. The Russians, like the North Vietnamese and the Viet Cong, never played fair… only we did! That was the Kool- Aid that most of us drank at the time.

In this baby boomer’s lifetime I have never seen such a militaristic mindset amongst so many citizens. Too many car license plates have those military logos on them. Too many parents have those signs on the back of their cars “Proud Parent (Grandparent) of a Marine (Soldier)”. Every sporting event has to now have the honor guard with the flag before the National Anthem is sung. Football fields will have one giant flag cover the whole field! The fans stand there with their hands over their hearts, and faces down in reverence. It seems the Amerikan way of war is now the norm. This Military Industrial Empire has won over the hearts and minds of too many good people! If it doesn’t stop our nation will not only become bankrupt fiscally, but morally as well!

*

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 Information Clearing House in May 2017.

Philip A Farruggio is a contributing editor for The Greanville Post. He is also frequently posted on Global Research, Nation of Change, Countercurrents.org, and Off Guardian sites. He is the son and grandson of Brooklyn NYC longshoremen and a graduate of Brooklyn College, class of 1974. Since the 2000 election debacle Philip has written over 400 columns on the Military Industrial Empire and other facets of life in an upside down America. He is also host of the ‘It’s the Empire… Stupid‘ radio show, co produced by Chuck Gregory. Philip can be reached at [email protected].

Recently, several phone calls made four years ago between former Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko and current Democratic presidential candidate Joe Biden were revealed. The content of the talks is profound and controversial and reveals the high degree of American influence in the coordination of Ukrainian domestic politics, showing the advanced state of submission of Kiev to Washington.

According to the deputy of the Ukrainian Parliament (Supreme Rada), Andrei Derkach, the audio recordings were received from an anonymous investigative journalist. Derkach revealed the content of the recordings and declared full confidence in his informant.

On audio recordings, we can hear the former US Vice President Joe Biden and former Secretary of State John Kerry demanding that the leader of a formally independent state make decisions that are convenient for them, as well as a totally submissive posture by the part of Poroshenko, who is absolutely oblivious to Ukrainian national interests.

The demands made during the talks are diverse and impress by the American boldness to interfere so deeply in other states. In one of the recordings, dated from 2015, it is possible to hear John Kerry demanding the resignation of Ukrainian attorney general Viktor Shokin, for not meeting American expectations. In another record, Poroshenko communicates with Biden saying he has “good news for him”. In the recording, Poroshenko says that while there was no charge or complaint against Shokin, he managed to convince the attorney to resign. The interlocutor replies: “Excellent”. So, Poroshenko reports that the dismissal of the attorney general is yet another “step in fulfilling his obligations” to the US.

In another phone call, the topic of appointing a new attorney is discussed. After a conversation between Poroshenko and his American counterparts, Yuri Lutsenko is chosen to be appointed to the office. Washington’s interlocutors make it clear that Lutsenko’s appointment is an essential condition for Kiev’s receipt of a loan of one billion dollars. Totally submissive, Poroshenko agrees with the terms of the agreement and the fees imposed without any dispute, consolidating the “partnership”.

In Washington, assistants of the former Vice President and current candidate Joe Biden informed The Washington Post that the recordings have been edited and are being used improperly to put pressure on the parties involved in the talks. However, the veracity of the existence of such telephone conversations has not been contested, which in itself is enough to create an atmosphere of tension and distrust towards the figures involved.

The fact is that the matter is still far from over. Whether or not they were edited, the recordings are apparently real. And, although the content of the conversations is contested, in truth, one billion dollars were withdrawn from the American public coffers and handed over to the president of another country, without anything being informed to the American population. After all, what will be the reaction of the American people when they understand that this money comes from their taxes and, instead of being invested in improvements to the national infrastructure, it is being used in obscure political maneuvers with other countries?

This all tends to strengthen Donald Trump in the elections. The current American president until recently had an absolute majority of voting intentions and is now starting to weaken due to the way he has been dealing with the new coronavirus pandemic in the US – the global epicenter of the infection. Biden, although much less popular, progresses little by little and is already showing the ability to become a real opponent to Trump. However, as the scandals spread, it is likely that there will be a drop in the Biden’s voters or, at least, a greater atmosphere of collective distrust for him.

Still, Joe Biden’s reliability is not the main issue that comes up with the revelations of these recordings, but the level of American interference in the domestic politics of other national states. With these telephone records, Kiev proved to be a zone of foreign interference, where a president is coerced by members of the government of another country to make decisions that he would not like to make. This is not just an extremely demoralizing fact for Ukraine, but it also deeply destroys the myth of “Ukrainian nationalism”, so defended by the militias involved in the Euromaidan coup in 2014. However, more than that, the case may take Petro Poroshenko to the court. The recordings are sufficient evidence to accuse the former president of national treason. If formally accused and condemned, Poroshenko will have ended his political career in the worst possible way for a former president: being remembered as a traitor to his own country.

*

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

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

The Tripoli-based Government of National Accord (GNA) and Syrian militants supported by the Turkish military have achieved more gains in their battle against the Libyan National Army (LNA) led by Field Marshal Khalifa Haftar.

GNA forces have captured the areas of Asabiah and Mazdah from the LNA and besieged the town of Tarhuna. On May 23, pro-Turkish sources even claimed that alleged Russian private military contractors operating on the side of the LNA were withdrawn from Tarhuna to Bani Walid and then were evacuated from the country. arlier, the GNA claimed that a Russian military contractor was killed in the area of Salah ad-Din. On top of this, the LNA lost two Chinese-made Wing Loong II combat drones supplied by the UAE which crashed near Bani Walid and Qaryat. The total number of LNA fighters killed or injured in recent clashes in Libya’s northwest, according to pro-GNA sources, is over 100.

However, clashes that erupted north of Tarhuna early on May 24 demonstrated that LNA forces are not going to surrender the town without a battle. Meanwhile, the number of Turkish-backed Syrian militants killed in Libya reportedly reached 311. Additionally, the LNA claimed that its forces had shot down 13 Turkish unmanned combat aerial vehicles during the last 3 days. According to the LNA spokesperson, Maj. Gen. Ahmed al-Mesmari, the army is now relocating its troops and preparing for a push to once again take an upper hand in the battle against Turkish-backed forces.

The LNA also shared a video documenting Turkish actions to supply military equipment and deploy members of Syrian militant groups in Tripoli. The scale of the Turkish military involvement in the conflict grows on a daily basis. Just recently, Ankara reportedly deployed a MIM-23 Hawk medium-range air defense system and military specialists in the city of Misrata.

Turkish military actions are a cornerstone of the recent GNA successes on the ground. At the same time, the very same approach is instigating instability in the region. Egypt and the UAE, which support the LNA, see the Turkish expansion and the strengthening of the GNA as a direct threat to its vital interests. Cairo is also concerned that, if radical militant groups operating under the brand of the GNA reach the Egyptian-Libyan border, they will become a constant source of the terrorist threat in Egypt itself.

*

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

When the National Association of Black Journalists (NABJ) withdrew from a Huawei-sponsored Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) webinar – the ethical grounds it allegedly did so on were ill-defined at best.

The NABJ seemed to hint it was actually pressure on it from various other groups to cancel the webinar that spurred the decision and not any concerns the NABJ itself had with Huawei.

Articles like the Washington Examiner’s, “‘Become a distraction’: National Association of Black Journalists cancels webinar sponsored by Huawei,” would report:

Huawei, a Chinese-based telecommunications firm that has been indicted for racketeering and conspiracy to steal trade secrets, was partnering with the NABJ on an event called “The Rise of Misinformation,” which was scheduled for Wednesday afternoon. After receiving pushback for the partnership, the NABJ released a statement on Tuesday announcing the webinar’s cancellation after it had “become a distraction.”

The article would also complain regarding Huawei that:

The Department of Justice has been wary of Huawei and has urged allies not to work with the company, which the United States alleges violated the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, or RICO. In its February indictment, the DOJ pointed to the company’s “long-running practice of using fraud and deception to misappropriate sophisticated technology” from US counterparts and revealed new details about Huawei’s deceptive efforts to evade US sanctions when doing business in North Korea and Iran.

Of course – besides being baseless – US accusations against Huawei stem from the fact the Chinese tech-giant is overtaking US corporations – outperforming them technologically and taking over market shares around the globe from once deeply entrenched US monopolies.

Another complaint is Huawei’s alleged violation of illegal sanctions the US has levelled against Iran as part of its attempts to trigger war against Tehran or overthrow the government residing there, triggering yet another endless and destructive – not to mention costly – war in the Middle East.

“Woke” Personalities Suspiciously Mindless, Racist Regarding China 

More confusing was political commentator and CNN contributor Van Jones chiming in – applauding the decision to cancel the webinar and insisting he would not have agreed to participate had he known Huawei was a sponsor.

Jones never explains why Huawei’s sponsorship was a problem.

For a man who works for a news network guilty of lying the American people into serial wars over the past three decades costing the lives of thousands of US soldiers, the lives of millions of innocent people from North Africa to Central Asia, and squandering trillions of  US tax dollars – political motivations rather than any sort of “ethical” concern likely spurred Jones’ stance.

Ultimately what the cancelled panel proves is that rather than actually discussing COVID-19 and the impact Washington’s mismanagement of it is having on communities around the United States – attention has been redirected to a “common enemy” overseas – with white and black Americans uniting in scapegoating China for their collective woes. It is something that can only be described as decidedly “un-woke.”

A nation with this sort of mindset – or at least a nation with media conglomerates promoting such a mindset – is a nation mired in the murkiest of swamps. The irony of US President Donald Trump promising to “drain the swamps” of US special interests only to see them at their thickest, deepest, and boggiest amid the COVID-19 outbreak speaks volumes as to why Huawei may have seen it necessary to support an event combating disinformation within the US and why it was ultimately cancelled.

Of course, foreign sponsors involving themselves in the internal affairs of any other given nation is problematic. But that was not the concern expressed regarding Huawei – nor is it a concern mentioned by people like Van Jones or CNN when the US likewise meddles abroad in a similar or much more intrusive manner.

As many others have pointed out and as is becoming increasingly self-evident – COVID-19 isn’t breaking America – America is already broken. COVID-19 is simply amplifying and accelerating problems long rotting the foundation of American society. Those like Van Jones and CNN are committed to maintaining a status quo allowing this rot to continue and organizations like the NABJ find themselves subjected to irresistible pressure to likewise ignore the rot and focus attention elsewhere.

The NABJ’s decision, the agenda of those that pressured it to make that decision, and Van Jones’ dishonesty will neither address the damage COVID-19 hysteria is having across America nor do anything at all to address the reality that China is overtaking the US economically and upon the global stage.

Until Americans are ready to have a real conversation about what needs to be done and until Americans are ready to do it – China’s rise and America’s decline will only continue – with crises like COVID-19 accelerating the process exponentially.

Finally, the “woke” movement in the US appears to be little more than another brand of mainstream corporate propaganda, simply repackaged to appeal to yet another target market. In this example, we see the “woke” movement dovetailing in with mainstream anti-Chinese sentiment based entirely preserving US hegemony and attacking anything at all that threatens it.

*

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

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.

Leaving crises to Prime Minister Boris Johnson’s management skills will never disappoint those who favour chaos and the attractions of vague direction.  The double standard is to be preferred to the equal one.  With the United Kingdom sundered by death and the effects of COVID-19 (the PM himself having had his battle with the virus), the population was hoping for some clarity.  When, for instance, would the lockdown measures be eased? 

On May 10, Johnson delivered an address from his comically staged desk which had the appearance of being trapped in the door during a bungled removal effort.  “We have been through the initial peak – but it is coming down the mountain that is often more dangerous,” he tried explaining.  “We have a route, and we have a plan, and everyone in government has the all-consuming pressure and challenge to save lives, restore livelihoods and gradually restore the freedoms that we have.”  Seeds of confusion were sowed with promise.  People would be allowed to do “unlimited amounts of outdoor exercise”, and the “Stay Home” message had changed to “stay alert, control the virus and save lives.”  The broader citizenry were puzzled.

Mixed messaging was not the only problem facing Johnson, whose preferable default during any emergency is the behaviour of the reasonable Briton, characterised by patience and common sense.  Within his own circles, abiding by the rules has been a lax affair.  His chief adviser, Dominic Cummings, has been defiant before the lockdown rulebook.

In a statement and press address, Cummings laid out his explanation for his recent bad behaviour.  The heart-tugging element was important.  So was the ignorance that he had done nothing to niggle the ethical.  Johnson had just been found out to have contracted COVID-19.  Arrangements of how to handle the emergency were discussed. Then came the urgent call from Cummings’ wife. “She’d vomited and felt like she might pass out.  And there’ll be nobody to look after our child.  None of our usual childcare options were available.” 

What followed that April, with most of the UK in mandated self-isolation, was travel – some 260 miles in all – that involved leaving his London home on a trip to County Durham, accompanied by his wife and child.  The decision had been made to stay in a cottage on the farm of Cummings’ father.  It was there that Cummings fell ill, as did his son, who spent a stint in hospital.  It subsequently surfaced that Johnson’s aide had also repaired to Barnard Castle, a visit reported to Durham police by Robin Lees, a retired chemistry teacher.  That visit raised eyebrows for falling within the category of non-essential travel.

The aide’s conclusion for breaching such rules were self-exculpatory, which cannot excite any surprise from those familiar with those behind the law and policy of the state apparatus.  The higher up the food chain of power, the more likely the powerful will misbehave and change the meals.  Andre Spicer puts it in a dull though accurate manner: “a large body of research […] shows that it is people in positions of power that are most likely to take excessive risks.”  Such risks are minimised, if not ignored altogether. The one who assumes, and presumes to be in a position of power, is likely to cheat, bend and break the order.

Cummings, in his reasoning, might have done unreasonable things in the past, but thought that what had transpired over those 14 days was reasonable.  “The regulations make clear, I believe the risks to the health of small children were an exceptional situation, and I had a way of dealing with this that minimised risk to others.”

Such a statement of behavioural latitude, in times when those in the United Kingdom, for the most part, have complied with the coronavirus lockdown, looks politically indulgent.  Johnson has added to that indulgence, claiming that Cummings merely “followed the instincts of every father and every parent, and I do not mark him down for that.”  The “right kind of childcare” was not available” at that time; both Cummings and his wife “were about to be incapacitated by coronavirus”.

Staying with Cummings is courting a grand risk.  And such risks compound when they are given the Johnson touch.  Professor Stephen Reicher of the Scientific Advisory Group on Emergencies (SAGE) furnishing Downing Street with advice on how the public might best respond to the lockdown measures, seethed on hearing about the prime ministerial defence. “I can say that in a few short minutes tonight, Boris Johnson had trashed all the advice we have given on how to build trust and secure adherence to the measures necessary to control Covid-19.”  Honesty had been “trashed”, as had respect for the public, equity, equal treatment, consistency and the message “we are all in Fthis together”. 

Even conservative commentary on the subject is wary of the prime minister’s loyalty to Cummings, showing that this is no ordinary row in the halls of Westminster.  Former Johnson adviser Tim Montgomerie expressed embarrassment for having “ever backed Boris Johnson for high office.”  Chair of the Northern Ireland select committee, Simon Hoare, was baffled.  “With the damage Mr Cummings is doing to the government’s reputation, he must consider his position.  Lockdown has had its challenges for everyone.”  The prime minister “is a populist who no longer understands the populace,” suggests Nick Cohen in The Spectator. “Dominic Cummings pretends to be an anti-elitist but cannot see how lethal the slogan ‘one rule for me and another for everyone else’ is to him and the elite her serves.”  That about sums it up.

*

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

Dr. Binoy Kampmark was a Commonwealth Scholar at Selwyn College, Cambridge.  He lectures at RMIT University, Melbourne. He is a frequent contributor to Global Research and Asia-Pacific Research. Email: [email protected]

The Bolivarian republic of Venezuela denounced through a communique the decision of the Delaware District Court, United States, which intends to carry out the procedures for the judicial sale of the shares of the Venezuelan state-owned company Citgo Petroleum belonging to PDV Holding, a company owned de Petróleos de Venezuela, SA (PDVSA).

It mentioned the existence of a plan by the US government to confiscate the assets of PDVSA in the United States, an action ordered by the deputy Juan Guaidó and his accomplices, so that from a fraudulent representation of the Republic and PDVSA, he acts to the detriment of the national interest, for the benefit of interventionist intentions.

#COMMUNIQUE Venezuela denounces the decision by a Delaware Court in the US to liquidate the shares of CITGO Corporation belonging to PDVSA in a modern piracy maneuver with no legitimacy. https://t.co/Yr288Zrprh

— Orinoco Tribune (@OrinocoTribune) May 24, 2020

It repudiates the judgment that intends to execute an award issued by the Arbitration Court of the International Center for Settlement of Investment Disputes (ICSID), for a value of 1.2 billion dollars, based on a claim made by the Canadian company Crystallex against the Bolivarian republic of Venezuela, even though neither PDVSA, Citgo, nor PDV Holding are debtors of Crystallex nor were they subject to the procedure before the ICSID Arbitration Tribunal.

Below, OTs translation of the communique:

The Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela denounces [the ruling] that on May 22, 2020, the District Court of Delaware, United States, issued, a decision by which it ordered the execution of procedures for the judicial sale of shares of the Venezuelan state company Citgo Petroleum belonging to PDV Holding, a company owned by Petróleos de Venezuela, SA (PDVSA).

With this ruling, the existence of a plan by the US government to confiscate PDVSA assets in the United States is clear. For such purposes, they have delegated to the deputy Juan Guaidó and his accomplices, the establishment of a fraudulent representation of the Republic and PDVSA, which is not only illegal, but acts to the detriment of the national interest, to the benefit of interventionist intentions.

The judgment seeks to execute an award issued by the Arbitration Tribunal of the International Center for Settlement of Investment Disputes (ICSID), for a value of 1.2 billion dollars, based on a claim made by the Canadian company Crystallex against the Bolivarian republic of Venezuela, even though neither PDVSA, Citgo, nor PDV Holding are debtors to Crystallex nor were they subject to the procedure before the ICSID Arbitration Tribunal.

The Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela once again warns that judicial representatives who have tried to act on behalf of the Republic and PDVSA in US courts lack any legitimacy. On the contrary, Venezuela has denounced the very serious fact that the lawyer who fraudulently pretends to represent the republic, has actually worked as a legal adviser to the Crystallex company, and is the one who has promoted the thesis according to which he intends to confuse as one the assets of the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela and the assets of PDVSA.

Faced with this act of arbitrariness and modern piracy, the international community, particularly those with investments in the United States, should remain very vigilant in this case, since it is indicative of the actions that the United States is willing to carry out, even against of the international and internal legal order, to assert their interests on strategic foreign investments.

The Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela, through its legitimate representatives, will continue to carry out the defense of the heritage of all Venezuelans, anywhere in the world, for which it reserves all actions that may take place at the international level and in the jurisdiction of the United States, to assert their sovereign rights.

Caracas, May 24, 2020

*

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

Featured image: Citgo gas station in the US. File photo

O Exército dos EUA na Europa, “após cuidadosa avaliação e planificação”, decidiu que efectuará na Polónia, de 5 a 19 de Junho, o exercício  Allied Spirit , no âmbito da grande manobra estratégica Defender-Europe 20 (Defensor da Europa 2020). Participarão 4.000 soldados americanos de unidades blindadas e de infantaria, apoiados por 2.000 polacos.

O exercício, que deveria ter acontecido em Maio, foi adiado porque, devido ao Covid-19, o Defender-Europe 20 foi parcialmente modificado. Mas, especifica o US Army Europe, quando em Março, foi suspenso o envio de forças dos Estados Unidos, “mais de 90% dos equipamentos destinados ao Defender-Europe 20 já estavam a bordo de aviões e navios com destino à Europa”.

No total, chegaram mais de 3.000 equipamentos, a começar por tanques, aos quais foram adicionados mais de 9.000 veículos blindados e outros veículos provenientes dos depósitos “pré-posicionados” que o Exército USA mantém na Alemanha. Dos Estados Unidos chegaram mais de 6.000 soldados, incorporados por milhares de outros estacionados na Europa.

Apesar do “ajuste devido ao Covid-19”, comunica o Exército o US Army, “muitos dos objectivos de prontidão estratégica foram ralizados”. Anuncia portanto, que, para compensar o tempo perdido, “o US Army Europe está a planear exercícios complementares nos próximos meses, baseados em muitos dos objectivos originais do Defender-Europe 20 para aumentar a prontidão e a interoperabilidade das forças USA e aliadas”.

O Allied Spirit   faz parte de uma série de exercícios nesse quadro estratégico de nítida função anti-russa. Não é por acaso que ocorre na Polónia. Segundo, o que se estabeleceu na Declaração Militar assinada pelo Presidente Trump e pelo Presidente Duda da Polónia, em Setembro passado – os Estados Unidos estão a aumentar fortemente a sua presença militar. O número de soldados que mantém em permanência, através de um sistema de rotação, foi acrescido de 4.500 para 5.500.

Em Poznan, o US Army instala um verdadeiro quartel general de divisões numa base avançada.

Em Drawsko Pomorskie, as forças armadas USA abrem um Centro de Treino de Combate.

Em Wrocław-Strachowice, a US Air Force constrói um grande aeroporto de desembarque.

Em Lask, a US Air Force transfere uma equipa de aviões pilotados remotamente, incluindo drones Reaper.

Em Powidz, uma brigada aérea de combate.

Tanto em Powidz como em Lubliniec, as Forças USA de Operações Especiais estabeleceram as suas bases.

Num localidade ainda a ser determinada, será destacada em permanência a equipa de combate de uma brigada blindada USA. Todo o equipamento já está armazenado em Bergen-Hohne, na Alemanha. O US Army Europe também comunica que a 173ª Brigada Aerotransportada, com sede em Vicenza, está a planear operações nos Balcãs e na região do Mar Negro, enquanto o 10º Comando de Defesa Aérea e de Mísseis participará em exercícios no Báltico.

A US Air Force comunica que os três tipos de bombardeiros estratégicos convencionais e nucleares de dupla capacidade USA – B-2 Spirit, B-1B Lancer e B-52H – realizaram em Maio, missões na Europa, a partir dos Estados Unidos. O que demonstrou que “a pandemia do Covid-19 não comprometeu a prontidão e o alcance dos bombardeiros estratégicos dos EUA”.

Estes factos, ignorados pelo principais meios de comunicação social que tinham anunciado o cancelamento do Defender-Europe 20 devido ao Covid-19, confirmam que os USA não cancelaram, mas remodelaram, apenas, a operação estratégica, prolongando-a.

Permanece o objectivo de Washington de aumentar a tensão com a Rússia, usando a Europa como primeira linha do confronto, o que permite aos Estados Unidos reforçar a sua liderança sobre os aliados europeus e orientar a política externa e militar da União Europeia, na qual 22 dos 27 membros pertencem à NATO, sob comando USA.

Manlio Dinucci

Artigo original em italiano :

L’esercito Usa riprende le grandi manovre in Europa

Tradutora: Maria Luísa de Vasconcellos

Lo US Army Europe (Esercito Usa in Europa), «dopo attenta valutazione e pianificazione», ha deciso che effettuerà in Polonia, dal 5 al 19 giugno, l’esercitazione Allied Spirit  nel quadro della grande manovra strategica Defender-Europe 20 (Difensore dell’Europa 2020). Vi parteciperanno 4.000 soldati Usa di unità corazzate e di fanteria, affiancati da 2.000 polacchi.

L’esercitazione, che avrebbe dovuto svolgersi in maggio, è stata posticipata poiché,  a causa del Covid-19, la Defender-Europe 20 è stata parzialmente modificata. Ma, precisa lo US Army Europe, quando in marzo è stato sospeso l’invio di forze dagli Stati uniti, «oltre il 90% degli equipaggiamenti destinati alla Defender-Europe 20 era già a bordo di aerei e navi diretti in Europa».

In totale sono arrivati oltre 3.000 pezzi di equipaggiamento, a partire dai carrarmati, cui si sono aggiunti oltre 9.000 mezzi corazzati e altri veicoli provenienti dai depositi «preposizionati» che l’Esercito Usa mantiene in Germania. Dagli Stati uniti sono arrivati oltre 6.000 soldati, integrati da altre migliaia di stanza in Europa.

Nonostante «l’aggiustamento dovuto al Covid-19», comunica lo US Army, «molti degli obiettivi di prontezza strategica sono stati realizzati». Annuncia quindi che, per recuperare il tempo perso, «lo US Army Europe sta pianificando esercitazioni aggiuntive nei prossimi mesi, basate su molti degli obiettivi originali della Defender-Europe 20 per accrescere la prontezza e interoperabilità delle forze Usa e alleate».

La Allied Spirit  è quindi la prima di una serie di esercitazioni nello stesso quadro strategico in chiara funzione anti-Russia. Non a caso si svolge in Polonia. Qui – secondo quanto stabilito nella Dichiarazione firmata dal presidente Trump con il presidente polacco Duda lo scorso settembre –  gli Stati uniti stanno fortemente aumentando la loro presenza militare. Il numero di soldati che vi  mantengono in permanenza, attraverso un sistema di rotazione, viene accresciuto da 4.500 a 5.500.

A  Poznan lo US Army installa un proprio quartier generale di divisione su base avanzata.

A Drawsko Pomorskie le forze armate Usa aprono un Centro di addestramento al combattimento.

A Wrocław-Strachowice la US Air Force realizza un grande scalo aeroportuale di sbarco.
A Lask la US Air Force disloca una squadra di aerei a pilotaggio remoto, compresi droni Reaper.

A Powidz, una brigata aerea da combattimento.

Sia a Powidz che a Lubliniec, le Forze Usa per le operazioni speciali costituiscono proprie basi.

In una località ancora da definire, verrà dislocata in permanenza la squadra da combattimento di una brigata corazzata Usa. L’intero equipaggiamento è già stoccato a Bergen-Hohne in Germania. Lo US Army Europe comunica inoltre che la 173^a Brigata aviotrasportata, di stanza a Vicenza, sta pianificando operazioni nei Balcani e nella regione del Mar Nero, mentre il 10° Comando di difesa aerea e missilistica parteciperà a esercitazioni nel Baltico.

La US Air Force comunica che tutti e tre i tipi di bombardieri strategici Usa a duplice capacità convenzionale e nucleare –  B-2 Spirit,  B-1B Lancer e B-52H – hanno compiuto in maggio, partendo dagli Stati uniti, missioni in Europa. Ciò ha dimostrato che «la pandemia del Covid-19 non ha compromesso la prontezza e la portata dei bombardieri strategici Usa».

Questi fatti, ignorati dai grandi media che avevano annunciato in marzo la cancellazione della Defender-Europe 20 a causa del Covid-19,  confermano che gli Usa non hanno cancellato ma solo rimodulato l’operazione strategica, prolungandola.

Scopo di Washington resta quello di accrescere la tensione con la Russia usando l’Europa quale prima linea del confronto. Ciò permette agli Stati uniti di rafforzare la loro leadership sugli alleati europei e di orientare la politica estera e militare dell’Unione europea, nella quale 22 dei 27 membri appartengono alla Nato sotto comando Usa.

Manlio Dinucci

Foto : ilmanifesto.it. Esercito tedesco in esercitazioni Nato© Stato Maggiore Difesa

First some facts about international maritime law.

No nation may interfere in the right of other states to engage in international trade.

No nation may enact legislation, regulations, or take other actions that contravene international agreements, treaties, or a body of customs that comprise the UN Convention on Law of the Sea (UNCLOS).

High seas interdiction of nonthreatening vessels is what piracy is all about. UNCLOS defines it as follows:

“(a) any illegal acts of violence or detention, or any act of depredation, committed for private ends by the crew or the passengers of a private ship or a private aircraft, and directed:

(i) on the high seas, against another ship or aircraft, or against persons or property on board such ship or aircraft;

(ii) against a ship, aircraft, persons or property in a place outside the jurisdiction of any State;

(b) any act of voluntary participation in the operation of a ship or of an aircraft with knowledge of facts making it a pirate ship or aircraft;

(c) any act of inciting or of intentionally facilitating an act described in subparagraph (a) or (b).”

Under UNCLOS, world community nations are obligated to act against pirate actions.

They have universal jurisdiction on the high seas to seize pirated vessels, arrest responsible parties, and detain them for prosecution.

On Sunday, the first of 5 Iranian tankers docked at the Venezuelan port city of El Palito.

In a series of tweets, Venezuela’s UN envoy Samuel Moncada reported the news, saying:

“Iranian gasoline reaching Venezuela is a landmark in the struggle for sovereignty, independence, and peace.”

“Trump and his minions are thinking of a military attack against the tankers amidst the pandemic. His experts advise(d) him otherwise.”

“A group of 14 (retired) experts of the US intelligence community sent an open letter to Trump alerting him against a military attack on Iranian tankers with gasoline en route to Venezuela. They argue that the act of war does not serve US interests.”

“It could trigger unpredictable responses in any part of the world; the language of “maximum pressure, all necessary means, and options are on the table.”

“(W)armongering generals & advisers in Washington are playing with fire in a dangerous situation and exploiting Venezuelan extremists.”

“They are seeking a war with Iran in the Middle East contrary to US interests.”

“They’ve have attempted this many times in the past.”

“Trump, Admiral Faller from the Southern Command, and the National Security Council are increasing tensions with threats that won’t weaken President Maduro.”

“(O)n the contrary, they will strengthen him while unifying the majority of Venezuelans against the aggressions.”

“In their long experience in defending the US, they do not understand how could attacking legal trade between two countries that do not pose a national threat serve their own interests.”

“Venezuelans, meanwhile, want no war either, but dialogue.”

“Trump’s policy thus far has been a failure and, even with the pandemic, it seems to have no chance of success in the near future.”

“Avoiding a war resulting from the wrong advice of adventurers in Washington and Venezuela is the best option for the US.”

The docked Iranian tanker carries a reported 1.53 million barrels of gasoline and alkylate.

According to Science Today, citing Toxicology Letter, alkylates “are a mix of high octane, low vapor pressure branched chain paraffinic hydrocarbons that can be made from crude oil through well established refinery processes, and are highly favored as streams for blending into gasoline.”

It’s used to produce premium, high octane, gasoline. Reportedly, the supply on board the first Iranian tanker will provide Venezuelan needs for around 50 days.

Much larger supplies are scheduled to arrive in Venezuela this week.

Despite Trump regime threats, suggesting possible high seas interdiction of Iranian tankers by Pentagon warships, no US action was taken so far.

The White didn’t comment on the first tanker’s arrival over the weekend.

What US designated puppet/usurper in waiting Guaido and pro-Western OAS secretary general Luis Almagro falsely called an “unacceptable provocation” is free and fair trade between Iran and Venezuela as defined under UNCLOS.

Late Sunday, a second Iranian tanker entered Venezuela’s Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) — met by Venezuelan naval vessels that will escort it to shore.

Commenting on possible US interdiction of Iranian tankers, President Hassan Rouhani said

“(i)f our oil tankers face problems in the Caribbean Sea or anywhere in the world by the Americans, they will face problems reciprocally.”

IRGC Chief of Staff General Hossein Bagheri warned that

“(w)e stand firm and decided to give the US an appropriate response for any miscalculation against the national interests of Iran.”

Iranian Defense Minister General Amir Hatami said

“our policy is fully clear and we have clearly announced that we will not tolerate any disturbance.”

“The Americans and others know that we certainly do not hesitate to react to any such move and if the disturbances increase and continue, they will certainly face a firm response.”

Reuters quoted an unnamed White House official, saying “we’re looking at measures that can be taken.”

No interference by the Trump regime against lawful trade between Iran and Venezuela by no means rules it out ahead.

Unlawful US war by other means rages against both countries and many others.

What’s ongoing will likely escalate ahead, risking possible confrontation — because of US rage to transform all nations it doesn’t control into vassal states.

That’s the stuff that wars and related hostile actions are made of — what the US repeats time and again against one country after another.

Iran and Venezuela are prime targets because of their immense hydrocarbon resources the US seeks control over.

They’ve withstood US war by other means for decades — defending their sovereign territory and rights successfully.

Seeking peace, stability, and cooperative relations with other countries by their ruling authorities is worlds apart from US war on humanity — an unparalleled threat to its survival.

*

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

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

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

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

Visit his blog site at sjlendman.blogspot.com.

Featured image is from Alliance for Global Justice

Next June the United Nations Assembly will hold elections at its 74th session for five non-permanent seats on the UN Security Council (UNSC) starting on January 1, 2021 for the period 2021–22.

The UNSC has 15 members five of which are permanent veto-wielding members: U.S., Great Britain, France, Russia and China. The remaining ten seats are elected for a two-year term in five seats at a time every year according to internal rotating rules. There are five geopolitical regions where the world countries are fitted into: African Group, Asian & Pacific Group, Western European & Others Group, Eastern European Group, Latin American & Caribbean Group.

Canada is promoting its candidacy for the “Western European and Others Group” in competition with Ireland and Norway. But many Canadians strongly reject the candidacy because they believe that the government of Justin Trudeau has gained a negative reputation for its warmongering foreign policy. On the international stage Canada has also lost its traditional peacekeeping image.

Canada has been on the UNSC six times once every ten years. In 2010 the Conservative Harper government withdrew its candidacy for fear of not getting the sufficient number of votes required.

A newly elected Prime Minister Justin Trudeau announced as far back as 2016 his bid for a seat in 2021 on a platform of “bringing people together”, a renewed “peacekeeping” role in the world, respect for human rights, and a commitment to tackling climate change.

Following a widely considered disappointing performance on those issues, Canadians may have at first welcomed hopeful promises by the new Liberal government. But, alas, four years later, those and other government policies are questioned to the point of considering Canada unfit to have a seat at the UNSC.

A recent article in the Canadian media outlet The Star raises the question “Does Canada deserve a UNSC seat?” Arguments are presented to make the case for the “Yes” and the “No” sides. In the poll embedded in the media, at the time of writing, about three quarters of respondents voted “No. Canada has failed on too many fronts, from human rights to climate”. This is not a scientific survey but The Star is a daily of wide circulation and considered a mainstream outlet.

Ottawa’s full platform for its bid as a candidate at the UNSC can be seen on the Foreign Relations website. Prime Minister Trudeau is quoted saying,

“Canada is committed to working with partners around the world to build a better future for all of us – from growing economies that benefit everyone, to fighting climate change, to creating a safer, more peaceful world. That’s the kind of progress we make when we work together.”

A petition launched by the Canadian Foreign Policy Institute, a non partisan organization that “seeks to bridge the gap between government policy and public perception”, is titled “Canada does not deserve a seat on the UNSC” and states, “Despite its peaceful reputation, Canada is not acting as a benevolent player on the international stage.” Details are listed. Among others, Canada is portrayed as a large exporter of weapons to conflict zones and countries that allegedly violate human rights, like Saudi Arabia; as well as having refused to join 122 countries represented at the 2017 UN “Conference to Negotiate a Legally Binding Instrument to Prohibit Nuclear Weapons”; in the region, the Trudeau government has led efforts to unseat Venezuela’s UN-recognized government, while propping up repressive, corrupt and illegitimate governments in Haiti and Honduras.

The petition has been signed by a large number of Canadian and international personalities including Nobel Peace Prize winners Setsuko Thurlow and Mairead Maguire, and will be delivered to UN member states prior to the vote for the UNSC seat in June with this final call: “The international community should not reward bad behaviour. Please vote against Canada’s bid for a seat on the UNSC.”

How much the Canadian request will influence the decision on the vote is uncertain. Ultimately, the final decision will be made by the individual countries’ ambassadors to the UN according to all political and geo strategic considerations.

Canada, Ireland and Norway bidding for two seats at the UNSC will leave one of them out. Which one is hard to tell. But here are some pointers by group.

African Group

This is the largest group with 54 member States. In general terms, Canada has increased its international visibility thanks to former Foreign Minister Chrystia Freeland’s presence in international affairs, albeit not always positive. Justin Trudeau has traveled to Africa earlier this year to attend the Africa Union meeting, but this may be seen as an opportunistic move to garner votes for the UNSC considering that Canada missed the 2019 meeting. The founding of the Africa Union is attributed to Muammar al-Gaddafi.

Ireland, in turn, seems to be developing a new relationship with Africa with its “Global Ireland 2025” plan promising “to advance shared values and to ensure priority for African issues at the United Nations.” Whereas, Norway’s relationship with Africa is deepening with Norwegian trade with African countries on the rise. Oslo has also recently established a permanent mission to the African Union.

But a critical factor must be taken into account: Africa-China relations. China is by far the strongest economic partner in the African continent with its ambitious Belt and Road Initiative (BRI). Analyst Andrew Korybko stated, “The China-proposed Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) is the answer that Africans are looking for.”

Given that Washington has slammed the BRI and taking into account the fact that Ottawa is politically and ideologically close the Washington, most of the African countries may deny a vote to Canada.

Asian & Pacific Group

For the second largest region with 53 States, Asian & Pacific Group, any prediction of their pick among the three countries under consideration is quite complex. China is by far the largest country with a permanent seat on the UNSC and therefore weighs some influence on the other countries also thanks to the promotion of the BRI. However, in this group the geopolitical spread is quite large. There are countries like India (also seeking a seat at the UNSC), Japan, South Korea and Saudi Arabia who would welcome Canada, and then countries like the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, Iran, Iraq, State of Palestine and the Syrian Arab Republic who may not be as receptive to the presence of Canada on the Council. It is particularly exemplary to cite the reportedly appalling Canadian record on Palestine, and the lack of diplomatic relations with Iran.

Western European & Others Group

A similar level of complexity is present in the Western European & Others Group. This group of 28 nations is quite diverse including not only Canada but also Australia and Israel. The United States of America is not formally a member of any group, but attends meetings of this group as an observer and is considered to be a member of the group for electoral purposes. The two NATO members, Canada and Norway, may be their favorite choice. However, the  mediation efforts by Norway aimed at resolving Venezuela’s political crisis might not go unnoticed as an obstacle.

Eastern European Group

The Eastern European Group with the smallest number of 23 nations is dominated by another permanent member, the Russian Federation. Several are former Soviet Union States and have since become members of the European Union, but, more importantly, some have become NATO members. If the loyalty to the NATO membership is “required” in casting the UNSC vote then Canada and Norway again may be the winning choices within this group.

Latin American & Caribbean Group

The last region to be considered is the Latin American & Caribbean Group of 33 nations. This is a group that is more compact geographically and mostly more uniform historically and culturally. However, the undue influence of the U.S. and more recently Canada, has created deep political divisions and regional instability. The persistent push for unconstitutional regime change that succeeded in Bolivia, and escalates in Venezuela, has polarised the region. Canada’s involvement has managed to split the region by helping create the so-called Lima Group of a dozen nations in 2017 with a single mandate to overthrow the legitimate Maduro government in Venezuela.

It is quite conceivable that the vote involving Canada will coincide with the nations political stand around Venezuela. If that is the case, many members of this regional group may not give Canada their vote and would rather vote for Norway and Ireland who have a different position vis-à-vis Venezuela within the EU. After all, Norway made a positive attempt to mediate in the internal crisis, and Ireland maintains that the crisis must be resolved by Venezuelans and has taken the UN position that irecognises states, not governments.

By refusing to vote for Canada may also be a way to stand up against U.S. intervention in the region.

Final thought

It is a futile task attempting to foresee the outcome of a vote at the UNSC. The previous sketch is not a pretension to achieve such a prediction. There are too many players and a very fluid political situation that can change daily until election day. There are also many more issues and important factors that individual States will consider at the time of casting their vote in June besides the very few mentioned above. For instance, at the time of writing, Iranian tankers attempt to deliver much needed fuel to Venezuela. The Iranian government promises to retaliate if the U.S. government follows through with its threat to forcefully stop the delivery. A much larger conflict is brewing that surely will not escape to the attention of voting countries: the escalating U.S. information warfare on China. Those and other facts will entrench some of the positions of the voters at the UN. Some may agree with many Canadians: “The international community should not reward bad behaviour.”

*

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

This article was originally published on OneWorld.

Nino Pagliccia is a frequent contributor to Global Research.

“If the bee disappeared off the face of the earth, man would only have four years left to live.” ― Maurice Maeterlinck, The Life of the Bee^[1]

In the last 50 years agrotoxins have spread and are pushing bees to extinction.

The choices before humanity are clear, a Poison Free Future to save Bees, Farmers, our Food and Humanity. Or continue to use poisons, threatening our common future by walking blindly to extinction through the arrogance that we can substitute bees with artificial intelligence and robots.

“Robotic bees could pollinate plants in case of insect apocalypse”, ran a recent Guardian headline reporting how Dutch scientists, “believe they will be able to create swarms of bee-like drones to pollinate plants when the real-life insects have died away”.^{[2] [3]}

“We see a crisis in 15 years where we don’t have enough insects in the world to actually do pollination and most of our vitamins and fruits are gone,” said Eylam Ran, CEO of Edete Precision Technologies for Agriculture. His company says its artificial pollinator can augment the labours of – and eventually replace – bees. Its system mirrors the work of the honey bee, beginning with a mechanical harvest of pollen from flowers and ending with a targeted distribution using LIDAR sensors, the same technology used in some self-driving cars”.^[4]

There is no substitute for the amazing biodiversity and gifts of bees.

Every culture, every faith has seen the bees as teachers – of giving, of creating abundance, of creating the future of plants through pollination, and contributing to our food security and welfare.The next generation of seed is transformed into the next generation of seed only through the gift of the pollinator.

Navdanya’s research has shown that more than 30% of the food we eat is produced by bees and pollinators.

Nature’s economy is the gift economy. In every tradition the bee has been exemplified as a teacher in giving.

Buddhist texts note that from a multitude of living things, bees and other pollinating animals take what they need to survive without harming the beauty and vitality of their source of sustenance. For humans, to act in the manner of bees is an enactment of compassionate and conscious living.

St. John Chrysostom of the Catholic Church wrote,

“The bee is more honored than other animals, not because she labors, but because she labors for others.” (12th Homily)

In the Islamic tradition, the Quran’s 16th chapter is titled ‘The Bee’.  This chapter is known to be the revelation of God.

In the Hindu tradition, there is a wonderful quote in the scripture Srimad Mahabhagavatam which reads,

“Like a honey bee gathering honey from all type of flowers the wise men search everywhere for truth and see only good in all religions.”

Let us together as diverse species and diverse cultures and through poison free organic food and farming, rejuvenate the biodiversity of our pollinators and restore their sacredness. We have the creative power to stop the sixth mass extinction and climate catastrophe without the need for these false technocratic solutions.

*

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

Dr Vandana Shiva is President of Navdanya International.

Notes

^[1] Maurice Maeterlinck is a Nobel Prize winner from Belgium https://www.nobelprize.org/prizes/literature/1911/maeterlinck/biographical/

^[2] https://gmwatch.org/en/news/latest-news/18543

^[3] https://seedfreedom.info/wp-content/uploads/2018/11/The-Future-of-Our-Daily-Bread-_-LowRes-_-19-11-2018-REVISED.pdf

^[4] With bees on decline, mechanical pollination may be solution

Featured image is by extradeda

Boris Johnson and his trusty advisor Dominic Cummings are finished. That’s the consensus much of the country has come to as people from all sides of the political spectrum joined together over the weekend to demand Dominic Cummings’ resignation. Twitter was swamped by the hashtag #CummingsMustGo, as politicians and the public alike questioned why it was that the Prime Minister’s advisor was able to breach the strict lockdown conditions and get away with it? Further still, the Prime Minister and his entourage even went as far as to defend his actions.

The advice from the government at the beginning of the coronavirus outbreak in the UK was clear: stay at home, and only travel if absolutely essential. People were allowed out once a day for exercise and to buy groceries. And if you experience symptoms of Covid-19, you must stay at home for 14 days.  But it emerged on Friday that Dominic Cummings, the controversial right-hand man of the Prime Minister, had travelled 250 miles north of his London home in late March this year, to stay with his parents in Durham. Over the course of this weekend, further evidence has emerged that Mr Cummings, far from staying at home, was out and about in the north of England, far away from his London home, where he should have been self-isolating, as according to the government’s own guidelines.

On Sunday night a video was published by the Guardian newspaper on Twitter showing police officers approach Mr Cummings’ London home, and it has been reported that the aide may be investigated for breaching the lockdown restrictions, after yet another witness came forward claiming to have seen him in town of Barnard Castle on 12th April. If witness statements to date are correct, then Mr Cummings made two separate trips in the 14 day period when he should have been self-isolating from coronavirus.

In his defence, Mr Cummings has said that he needed to visit his parents for childcare reasons, but since then other grounds have been given for why he decided to visit his elderly parents, including the death of a relative. But the reality is that the reasons so far given by Cummings, and cabinet ministers, who have all rallied around him in his defence, are not in keeping with lockdown restrictions. Many have pointed out that Cummings’ sister-in-law lives nearby in London and that there are childcare services available in the area where he lives for key workers – which of course he is, as a government employee.

The issue is only escalating. For a public already weary and frustrated after weeks and weeks of lockdown, Dominic Cummings has become a figure of hate. Why should the public adhere to these rules if the elite themselves do not? And at the very moment when the Prime Minister should have put public trust before his advisor’s position, he did not. No apology, no condemnation, only excuses from Boris Johnson. The PM at the daily coronavirus briefing even went as far as to say he believed Cummings had acted with ‘responsibly, legally and with integrity’ – words that surely Johnson will come to regret. At a time when the country very badly needed to hear that the public were being put before Dominic Cummings, it was told the opposite. A huge PR fail for Boris Johnson.

‘Failed’ was the very word used by opposition leader, Sir Keir Starmer, who put out a video message on Sunday evening, saying ‘This was a test of the Prime Minister and he has failed it. It is an insult to sacrifices made by the British people that Boris Johnson has chosen to take no action against Dominic Cummings.’  However it was not just opposition MPs turned against Johnson over this issue. One Tory MP told Sky News’ Beth Rigby much the same: ‘Frankly I feel disgusted on how a Conservative PM can treat decent people who have sacrificed so much with such contempt.’ Another Minister said that during Johnson’s press conference they saw ‘‘the PM’s authority with the British people drain away before [their] very eyes’.

This is the major point here – that Boris Johnson has now lost the confidence of the British people at a time when it is needed most, when we are being asked to comply with the strictest of measures during a pandemic. Cabinet colleagues have expressed deep concern that the decision to back Cummings could actually ‘cost lives’ as people no longer feel it necessary to adhere to a lockdown being breached by its very designers.  Politically, it’s clear that Johnson is ‘done’. How can he possibly survive a scandal where he put an advisor before the interests of the public?

There are also questions being raised as to why the PM is so vehemently defending this unelected colleague, who is not even a member of the Conservative party? It’s been suggested that in fact, without Cummings, Johnson is nothing, that all along it has been Dominic Cummings calling the shots. He was the Leave campaign strategist who ‘secured’ a Brexit win, he created the ‘Get Brexit Done’ message which saw Johnson elected in December. However, these successes have come at a price. On Cummings’ watch, the Leave campaign was accused of making up statistics, Johnson effectively lied to the Queen to prorogue parliament during the Brexit negotiations and even before this current scandal, he was facing criticism for reacting slowly to the coronavirus pandemic, favouring instead a policy of ‘herd immunity’ advocated by Cummings. It is therefore debatable just how helpful Cummings’ advice is to Boris Johnson. What is clear though, is that Johnson values it deeply, to the extent of sacrificing his own career as a result.

If Johnson is to have any possibility of a recovery, he simply has to sack Dominic Cummings. But so far there is no sign of this happening. On Monday morning it was reported in the Daily Telegraph there was a ‘cabinet reshuffle’ to limit Dominic Cummings’ influence. However this is not enough for an angry British public, tormented after weeks incarcerated at home. The man who only a few weeks ago was being prayed for as he lay in intensive care is at risk of turning himself into the enemy the British people. He needs to act now, if he is to have any change of saving his legacy.

*

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.

Johanna Ross is a journalist based in Edinburgh, Scotland.

Featured image is from InfoBrics

During the COVID-19 pandemic, not only will the U.S. military have the largest maritime military maneuvers in the world, with Rim of the Pacific (RIMPAC) coming to the waters off Hawaii August 17-31, 2020 bringing 26 nations, 25,000 military personnel, up to 50 ships and submarines and hundreds of aircraft in midst of a worldwide COVID-19 pandemic, but the U.S. Army is having a 6,000 person war game in June 2020 in Poland. The State of Hawaii has the most stringent measures to combat the spread of the COVID-19 virus, with a mandatory 14-day quarantine for all persons arriving in Hawaii — returning residents as well as visitors. This quarantine is required until at least June 30, 2020.

If these weren’t too many military operations during an epidemic in which personnel on 40 U.S. Navy ships have come down with the hyper-contagious COVID-19 and military personnel and their families have been told not to travel, plans are underway for a U.S. Army division-sized exercise in the Indo-Pacific region in less than a year — in 2021. Known as Defender 2021, the U.S. Army has requested $364 million to conduct the war exercises throughout Asian and Pacific countries.

The pivot to the Pacific, begun under the Obama administration, and now under the Trump administration, is reflected in a U.S. National Defense Strategy (NDS) that sees the world as “a great power competition rather than counter-terrorism and has formulated its strategy to confront China as a long-term, strategic competitor.”

This month, May 2020, the U.S. Navy in support of the Pentagon’s “free and open Indo-Pacific ” policy aimed at countering China’s expansionism in the South China Sea and as a show of force to counter ideas that the capabilities of U.S. Navy forces have been reduced by COVID-19, sent at least seven submarines, including all four Guam-based attack submarines, several Hawaii-based ships and the San Diego-based USS Alexandria to the Western Pacific in what the Pacific Fleet Submarine Force announced publicly that all of its forward-deployed subs were simultaneously conducting “contingency response operations.”

The U.S. military force structure in the Pacific will be changed to meet the National Defense Strategy’s perceived threat from China, beginning with the U.S. Marine Corps creating new infantry battalions that will be smaller to support naval expeditionary warfare and designed to support a fighting concept known as Expeditionary Advanced Base Operations. U.S. Marine forces will be decentralized and distributed across the Pacific on islands or floating barge bases. As the Marine Corps eliminates much of its traditional equipment and units, the Marines plan to invest in long-range precision fires, reconnaissance and unmanned systems, doubling the number of unmanned squadrons.

To effect this change in strategy, marine infantry battalions will go down to 21 from 24, artillery batteries will go to five down from 2, amphibious vehicle companies will be reduced from six four and F-35B and F-35C Lightning II fighter squadrons will have fewer aircraft per unit, from 16 aircraft down to 10. The Marine Corps will eliminate its law enforcement battalions, units that build bridges and reduce the service personnel by 12,000 in 10 years.

The Hawaii-based unit, called a Marine Littoral Regiment, is expected to have 1,800 to 2,000 Marines carved out mainly one of three infantry battalions based at Kaneohe Marine Base. Most of the companies and firing batteries that will make up a littoral anti-air battalion will come from units not currently stationed in Hawaii.

The III Marine Expeditionary Force, based in Okinawa, Japan, the main Marine unit in the Pacific region, will be changed to have three Marine littoral regiments that are trained and equipped to operate within contested maritime areas. The region will also have three Marine expeditionary units that are globally deployable. The other two Marine expeditionary force units will provide forces to the III MEF.

The U.S. military war games in Europe, Defender Europe 2020 is already underway with troops and equipment arriving at European ports and will cost about $340 million, which is roughly in line with what the U.S. Army is requesting in FY21 for the Pacific version of the Defender series of war maneuvers. Defender 2020 will be in Poland June 5-19 and will take place at Drawsko Pomorskie Training Area in northwestern Poland with a Polish airborne operation and a U.S.-Polish division-size river crossing.

More than 6,000 U.S. and Polish soldiers will participate in the exercise, named Allied Spirit. It was originally scheduled for May, and is linked with Defender-Europe 2020, the Army’s largest exercise in Europe in decades. Defender-Europe was largely canceled because of the pandemic.

U.S. Army Europe is planning additional exercises over the coming months focusing on training objectives originally outlined for Defender-Europe, including working with equipment from pre-positioned stocks in Europe and conducting airborne operations in the Balkans and Black Sea region.

In FY20, the Army will conduct a smaller version of Defender Pacific while Defender Europe will get more investment and focus. But then attention and dollars will swing over to the Pacific in FY21. Defender Europe will be scaled back in FY21. The Army is requesting just $150 million to conduct the exercise in Europe, according to the Army.

In the Pacific, the U.S. military has 85,000 troops permanently stationed in the Indo-Pacific region and is expanding its longstanding series of exercises called Pacific Pathways with extending the time Army units are in countries in Asia and the Pacific, including in the Philippines, Thailand, Malaysia, Indonesia and Brunei. A division headquarters and several brigades would have a South China Sea scenario where they will be around the South China Sea and the East China Sea over the course of a 30- to 45-day period.

In 2019, under the Pacific Pathways exercises, US Army units were in Thailand for three months and four months in the Philippines. The U.S. Army is discussing with the Indian government about expanding military exercises from roughly just a few hundred personnel up to 2,500 for a duration of up to six months which “gives us a presence in the region longer as well without being permanently there,” according to the US Army of the Pacific commanding general. Breaking from the larger exercise, smaller US Army units will deploy to countries such as Palau and Fiji to participate in exercises or other training events.

In May, 2020, the Australian government announced that a delayed six-month rotation of 2,500 US Marines to a military base in Australia’s northern city of Darwin will go ahead based on strict adherence to COVID-19 measures including a 14 day quarantine. The Marines had been scheduled to arrive in April but their arrival was postponed in March because of COVID-19. The remote Northern Territory, which had recorded just 30 COVID-19 cases, closed its borders to international and interstate visitors in March, and any arrivals must now undergo mandatory quarantine for 14 days. U.S. Marine deployments to Australia began in 2012 with 250 personnel and has grown to 2,500.

The Joint US Defense facility Pine Gap, the U.S. Department of Defense and CIA surveillance facility that pinpoints airstrikes around the world and targets nuclear weapons, among other military and intelligence tasks, was also adapting its policy and procedures to comply with Australian government COVID-19 restrictions.

(Image by Photo by EJ Hersom, US Sports Network)

As the U.S. military expands its presence in Asia and the Pacific, one place it will NOT be returning to is Wuhan, China. In October, 2019, the Pentagon sent 17 teams with more than 280 athletes and other staff members to the Military World Games in Wuhan, China. Over 100 nations sent a total of 10,000 military personnel to Wuhan in October, 2019. The presence of a large U.S. military contingent in Wuhan just months before the outbreak of the COVID-19 in Wuhan in December 2019, fueled a theory by some Chinese officials that the U.S. military was somehow involved in the outbreak which now has been used by the Trump administration and its allies in the Congress and the media that the Chinese deliberately used the virus to infect the world and adding justification for the U.S. military build-up in the Pacific region.

*

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

Ann Wright is a 29-year US Army/Army Reserves veteran, a retired United States Army colonel and retired U.S. State Department official, known for her outspoken opposition to the Iraq War.

Featured image is from Hawaii Peace and Justice

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.

*     *     *

USA Plan: Militarized Control of Population. The “National Covid-19 Testing Action Plan

”By Manlio Dinucci, May 24, 2020

The Rockefeller Foundation has presented the “National Covid-19 Testing Action Plan”, indicating the “pragmatic steps to reopen our workplaces and our communities”. However, it is not simply a matter of health measures. The Plan prefigures a real hierarchical and militarized social model.  At the top, the “Pandemic Testing Board (PTB), akin to the War Production Board that the United States created in World War II“. The Pandemic Testing Board would “consist of leaders from business, government and academia”. 

According to Dr. Anthony Fauci the Reopening of the US Economy Would Endanger People’s Heath

By Prof Michel Chossudovsky, May 23, 2020

“The only tool we have right now for fighting the coronavirus is social distancing” says Dr. Fauci. And of course confinement, “stay at home”. Neither of these “recommendations” are medical solutions, i.e. drugs which can be used to prevent and inhibit the infection. Fauci is opposed to the treatment of COVID-19 using chloroquine.  What he wants is for all of us to be vaccinated.

Two Fictions of Mainstream Economics. 45 Million US Workers Unemployed

By Dr. Jack Rasmus, May 25, 2020

One of the favorite myths they perpetrate is that ‘wages are sticky downwards’. That means that in conditions of recession or worse, because workers won’t accept lower wages the recession tends to continue. If only workers would allow wage reductions it would mean business would have more disposable income (from wage cost savings) on hand. Business would then reinvest the extra income. Investment would rise. Workers would be rehired. Wage income would then recover and the economy would grow from more investment and consumption.

The “Lockdown” Has Turned America Into a Despotic, Cash-Strapped Basket-Case

By Mike Whitney, May 25, 2020

Economic activity across the country has collapsed, GDP is shrinking at the fastest pace on record, and the economic data is worse than anytime in history. Every sector of the economy is contracting and every economic indicator is pointing down. According to economist Nouriel Roubini, the country is headed towards a decade of “depression and debt”, and that is probably an understatement.

What Next if US Exits From Open Skies Treaty?

By Kester Kenn Klomegah, May 25, 2020

The Open Skies Treaty is the third important military pact that Trump has withdrawn from since coming to office in January 2017. He also dropped the 2015 JCPOA agreement to prevent Iran from advancing its nuclear weapons program and the 1988 Intermediate Range Nuclear Forces Treaty with Russia. In both cases, Trump accused the other side of violating treaty requirements.

The Cuban Revolution’s Survival in the Face of Six Decades of US Attacks

By Shane Quinn, May 25, 2020

Examining the introduction of communism to Cuba over 60 years ago, and the revolution’s survival despite large-scale American attacks, one can conclude these occurrences would likely not have been possible without the involvement of Fidel Castro, the country’s former head of state. The Cuban revolutionary performed a central role in firstly overthrowing the US-backed dictator Fulgencio Batista in 1959 through guerrilla warfare, and he then held sway over Cuba for half a century, making him one of the world’s longest serving government leaders.

US Blocks UNSC Draft Resolution Denouncing Paramilitary Incursion into Venezuela

By Ricardo Vaz, May 25, 2020

During a virtual session of the UNSC on Wednesday, Russian Permanent Representative to the United Nations Dmitry Polyanskiy presented a resolution calling on member-states to reject the “use of force… terrorism in all its forms and manifestations… [and] the use of mercenaries.”

American Hubris Robust in a Cataclysmic Global Pandemic

By Askiah Adam, May 25, 2020

The economic scenario unfolding in the United States, indicates that unemployment will hit 30 percent soon, one that is broader when compared to that of the Great Depression of the 1930s. One in three will be without a means to life and needing to be saved. Retrenchments and layoffs by the thousands have been announced. Airlines are suffering almost without exception and all will benefit from the US 2.2 trillion dollars rescue package but the workers have been neglected. The economic disruption is of at a global level.

Canadian Cities Hit by Pandemic Lockdown. Vulnerable to BlackRock’s Privatization Agenda

By Joyce Nelson, May 25, 2020

On May 20, CUPE Ontario (representing 80,000 municipal employees) and the Association of Municipalities of Ontario (representing about 440 municipal councils) joined forces to appeal for immediate federal and provincial emergency funding. Their appeal backs a similar call put out by the Federation of Canadian Municipalities in mid-April, urgently asking the federal government for $10 billion in emergency aid.

*

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.

Mainstream economics consistently fails to predict the future. I’m talking about those ‘schools’ of mis-thought, ranging from Paul Krugman on the ‘left’ to Glenn Hubbard and other apologists of business and neoliberalism on the ‘right’.

One of the favorite myths they perpetrate is that ‘wages are sticky downwards’. That means that in conditions of recession or worse, because workers won’t accept lower wages the recession tends to continue. If only workers would allow wage reductions it would mean business would have more disposable income (from wage cost savings) on hand. Business would then reinvest the extra income. Investment would rise. Workers would be rehired. Wage income would then recover and the economy would grow from more investment and consumption.

This fiction has ruled for more than a century. The economist John Maynard Keynes debunked it in the 1930s. But it was retained by the mainstream economics profession nonetheless, even to this day. Just read most of the entry college level textbooks. It’s still there. Along with at least a dozen other false propositions (like free trade benefits all; inflation is caused by too much money chasing too few goods; income inequality is due to workers not educating themselves and making themselves more productive; business tax cuts create jobs–and a host of other nonsense statements with no support in reality.

The notion that ‘wages are sticky downward’ is a clever way to argue that workers are responsible for the lack of a quick recovery from a recession. If they only would reduce their wages it would all be ok in a short while.

But take a look what’s going on right now. As of late May 2020 at least 45 million American workers are unemployed. In just two months they have lost $1.3 trillion in income. More than $1 trillion due to unemployed. Another $260B due to shorter hours of work. That’s a wage reduction of -$1.3 trillion! As in all recessions, workers do experience severe wage reduction–in joblessness (no wages), shorter hours of work, cuts and loss of benefits, lower pension contributions by employers, wage theft, etc. etc. So wages do fall, and are falling today faster and deeper than ever. And is business and investors spending and investing given the wage reductions? No. They’re hoarding the $1.74 trillion in Congressional loans and grants bailouts. And hoarding the $650 billion in business tax cuts also in the bailout legislation thus far (which one hears very little about in the media, I might add).

As journalist David Cay Johnson just revealed in a piece today, the short term cash deposits by business in just institutional money funds (only one source) has risen from $2.3 trillion before March 1, 2020 to $3.3T today. That’s a $1T rise in cash deposits by businesses, just in institutional money funds. More is being deposited in commercial banks. The long run average of business deposits in commercial banks has been around 5% (6% under Obama and 4.6% under Trump 2016-19) to 15.8% since March 1. Businesses and investors are hoarding their cash and stuffing it in their short term accounts in banks, funds, and who knows where else, on and offshore. No doubt some of that will be committed at some point to stock buybacks, dividend payouts, mergers & acquisitions, derivatives speculation, and all the rest of the financial gambling that in the 21st century defines capitalism. Don’t expect much to get into real investment that increases production, requiring the rehiring of workers, that generates wage incomes.

So wage cuts and reductions, now underway, will not result in renewed business investment and general rehiring of the 45 million laid off. Wage cuts don’t result in real investment and growth.

The nonsense economics notion that wages are sticky downwards is just pure economic bullshit today, as it has always been! And so is the parallel mainstream idea that if you can just find a way to boost business cash (via tax cuts or bailout loans) it will lead to economic recovery as well.

*

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

Dr. Rasmus is author of the recently published book, ‘The Scourge of Neoliberalism: US Economic Policy from Reagan to Trump’, Clarity Press, January 2020, where the empirical record on wages, investment, taxes, employment thoroughly debunks the various myths and misrepresentations of mainstream economics. He is a frequent contributor to Global Research.

“… and when we look back on this in two years time, from the ruins of our economy and the ruins of our liberty, we will want to see some kind of justice, that the people who made this decision should pay a penalty for what they’ve done.” – Peter Hitchens

Economic activity across the country has collapsed, GDP is shrinking at the fastest pace on record, and the economic data is worse than anytime in history. Every sector of the economy is contracting and every economic indicator is pointing down. According to economist Nouriel Roubini, the country is headed towards a decade of “depression and debt”, and that is probably an understatement.

What prompted our leaders to follow the path of China? Were they bullied into it by Dr. Fauci and the Vaccine Gestapo or were they simply reacting to the sudden rise in Covid cases that skyrocketed overnight? Whatever the reason might be, the country is now headed for either a short-but-severe “U” shaped recession or an excruciating-and-protracted 1930s-type slump. Small and mid-sized businesses are folding by the thousands, the states are drowning in red ink, and more people are currently unemployed than anytime in the country’s 244 year history. The lockdown has effectively obliterated the economy and left the country in ruins. Here’s some background from an article at Yahoo Finance:

“Permanent job losses are likely to be a feature of the eventual U.S. recovery, according to University of Chicago research, which estimates that 42% of recently unemployed workers will not return to their jobs amid the “profound” shock stemming from coronavirus lockdowns.

The pandemic has taken a brutal toll on the world’s largest economy, with at least 36 million people thrown out of work over the last two months….The lockdowns have cratered activity in an economy that consists of 70% consumer spending, while undoing all of the jobs created since the great recession ended….

“It will likely take a number of years for the labor market to recover from its pandemic-induced meltdown.”…researchers extrapolated their findings that over 100,000 restaurants are expected to be permanently shuttered in the near-term…”

Some employers will shift resources to other roles, while many laid off workers may have to find new positions or careers.”
(“‘Major reallocation shock’ from coronavirus will see 42% of lost jobs evaporate: Study” Yahoo Finance)

The American people have yet to grasp the magnitude of the devastation caused by the lockdown but, soon, it will be the only topic of conversation. Most people left their jobs thinking they would return to them in a matter of weeks. They never imagined that a policy blunder would put the economy into a vicious death spiral that would terminate their livelihoods, dampen their prospects for the future, and reduce them to hopelessness and destitution. They never thought that such a nightmare was possible, especially since they were just following the orders of their governors and the affable Dr Fauci. They trusted these people. They put their lives in their hands and they were misled, duped into believing that these “experts” knew what they were doing when, all-along, they were making it up on the fly. Now we’re all going to pay for the mistakes for which they alone are responsible. This is from abc7news:

“Doctors at John Muir Medical Center in Walnut Creek say they have seen more deaths by suicide during this quarantine period than deaths from the COVID-19 virus.…The head of the trauma in the department believes mental health is suffering so much, it is time to end the shelter-in-place order.

“We’ve never seen numbers like this, in such a short period of time,” he said. “I mean we’ve seen a year’s worth of suicide attempts in the last four weeks.”

Kacey Hansen has worked as a trauma nurse at John Muir Medical Center in Walnut Creek for almost 33 years. She is worried because not only are they seeing more suicide attempts, she says they are not able to save as many patients as usual.

“What I have seen recently, I have never seen before,” Hansen said. “I have never seen so much intentional injury.”The trauma team is speaking out because they want the community to be aware, for people to reach out and support each other and for those who are suffering to know they can get help.” (“Suicides on the rise amid stay-at-home order, Bay Area medical professionals say”, ABC News 7)

Here’s more from an article at the Washington Examiner:

“A study published in early May suggested that the coronavirus could lead to at least 75,000 deaths directly brought on by anxiety from the virus, job losses, and addiction to alcohol and drugs. Another study conducted by Just Facts around the same time computed a broad array of scientific data showing that stress is one of the deadliest health hazards in the world and estimated that the coronavirus lockdowns will destroy 7 times as many years of human life than strict lockdowns can save….

Earlier this week, more than 600 doctors signed their names on a letter to President Trump, referring to the continued lockdowns as a “mass casualty incident” and urging him to do what he can to ensure they come to an end….By late March, more people had died in just one Tennessee county from suicide than had died in the entire state directly from the virus.” (“California doctors say they’ve seen more deaths from suicide than coronavirus since lockdowns”, Washington Examiner)

So the lockdown is a “mass casualty incident”?

Of course it is. What else would you call it? People are locked in their homes indefinitely while the predatory media does everything in its power to terrorize them with one appalling horror story after the other. Did anyone consider this grim scenario before the lockdowns were imposed? Did anyone think that, perhaps, fragile people — that are cut off from the world, their friends and their families– might become so depressed that they’d take their own lives? Of course none of this matters to the media that measures its success in terms of its ratings not the number of people they’ve killed with their relentless fearmongering. For that, they accept no responsibility at all. Here’s more:

“Researchers warn that socially isolated people are over 40% more likely to suffer a heart attack, stroke, or other major cardiovascular event. Moreover, the socially isolated are nearly 50% more likely to die from any cause….The study was conducted by Dr. Janine Gronewold and Professor Dirk M. Hermann from the University Hospital in Essen, Germany. They analyzed data on 4,316 people (average age: 59 years old) who had been recruited for research between 2000 and 2003…

“We have known for some time that feeling lonely or lacking contact with close friends and family can have an impact on your physical health”, Dr. Gronewold explains in a release. “What this study tells us is that having strong social relationships is of high importance for your heart health and similar to the role of classical protective factors such as having a healthy blood pressure, acceptable cholesterol levels, and a normal weight.”…

“We don’t understand yet why people who are socially isolated have such poor health outcomes, but this is obviously a worrying finding, particularly during these times of prolonged social distancing,” Dr. Gronewold says.” (“Social Isolation Increases Risk Of Heart Attack, Stroke, & Death From All Causes,” Study Finds)

Repeat– “We don’t understand why people who are socially isolated have such poor health outcomes??”

Yes, we do. It’s because they’re desperately lonely and cut-off from normal human-to-human contact. That, in turn, effects their overall health and well being. Of course if it was up to the malevolent Dr. Fauci we’d never even shake hands again. Fauci would like to repeal 5 thousand years of normal, social interaction and remake the world according to his own ghoulish specifications. Unfortunately, we are now seeing the blowback from that delusional world-view in the form of growing mental health problems, depression, anxiety and suicide. Should we tally the suicides alongside the Covid deaths to see whether Fauci’s strategy is working or not or should we simply ignore the horrible human costs of this twisted lockdown experiment? Some day, the American people will demand an accounting for the last 10 weeks, but we’re not there just yet. Here’s more from Bloomberg News:

“Retail landlords are sending out thousands of default notices to tenants, a situation that could tip already-ailing retailers into bankruptcy or total collapse….Department stores, restaurants, apparel merchants and specialty chains have been getting the notices as property owners who’ve gone unpaid for as long as three months lose patience, according to people with knowledge of the matter and court filings.

…“The default letters from landlords are flying out the door,” said Andy Graiser, co-president of A&G Real Estate Partners, whose firm works with retailers and other commercial tenants. “It’s creating a real fear in the marketplace,” Graiser said.” (“Default Notices Are Piling Up for Retailers Unable to Pay Rent”, Bloomberg)

More bad news. The lockdowns have triggered a tsunami of defaults and bankruptcies. With no source of revenue, merchants cannot pay the rent nor can landlords roll over their debts. The economy is an interlocking row of dominoes that tumble in sequence once the first block is set in motion. The American people were sold the idea that the economy could be turned “on and off” like a light switch. Now they can see that the theory has no basis in reality. As the bankruptcies pile up, the job losses will continue to increase pushing the country deeper into recession. Fauci’s directives have turned the country into a economic wastelands, that much is certain. Check out this excerpt from an article by is a clip from an article by Naomi Klein:

“…. former Google CEO Eric Schmidt wrote an op-ed for the Wall Street Journal that both set the new tone and made clear that Silicon Valley had every intention of leveraging the crisis for a permanent transformation….

” Schmidt called for “unprecedented partnerships between government and industry…

At the heart of this vision is seamless integration of government with a handful of Silicon Valley giants — with public schools, hospitals, doctor’s offices, police, and military all outsourcing (at a high cost) many of their core functions to private tech companies….

If tech companies win their ferocious lobbying campaign for remote learning, telehealth, 5G, and driverless vehicles — their Screen New Deal — there simply won’t be any money left over for urgent public priorities, never mind the Green New Deal that our planet urgently needs…

For them, and many others in Silicon Valley, the pandemic is a golden opportunity to receive not just the gratitude, but t he deference and power that they feel has been unjustly denied.” (Screen New Deal, Naomi Klein, The Intercept)

Can you see what’s going on?

The fact that tens of thousands of people are dying and the nation’s economy has been reduced to rubble, doesn’t matter to the tech giants. For them the crisis is a “golden opportunity”, a once-in-a-lifetime chance to further subsume the government, to garner more government funding for their futuristic projects, to assert greater influence over public policy, and to wrap their tentacles more tightly around the levers of state power.

The tech giants are using the pandemic as a vehicle for imposing their own vision on the country and for promoting their own malign police state agenda. Just as Corporate America is using the crisis to restructure the labor market, and Wall Street is using the crisis to garner lavish multi-trillion dollar bailouts, and Fauci and Co are using the crisis to push for universal vaccines, so too, the tech giants are using the crisis to grab more power, more money and more integration with the state until the US government is nothing more than a trifling subsidiary of the ever-expanding Google octopus. That’s the ultimate goal, privatizing the state so the corporations rule the world. It is a Mission (that is nearly) Accomplished!

So how are the people going to respond to these developments? What will the reaction be when ordinary working people realize that their lives have fundamentally changed for the worse, that their living standards will continue to slide, that full-time work and job security have gone the way of the Dodo, that the middle class is going to be reduced to the size of an acorn, and that the social safety-net has been replaced by higher taxes, fewer public services, a weaker dollar and years of grinding, demoralizing austerity? Should we expect social unrest, rioting and street violence in the near future or should we assume that that those outbursts are inevitable now that personal liberty has been strangled while the economy was vaporized?

No country that willingly destroys its own economy should expect anything different. No people that abandon their liberty for the faux-security of state protection should expect anything different. Peter Hitchens sums it up perfectly in an article at the Daily Mail:

“I hate this word, (“lockdown”) because it does not seem to me to be fitting to describe free people in a free country. But we are no longer such people, or such a country. We have become muzzled, mouthless, voiceless, humiliated, regimented prisoners, shuffling about at the command of others, stopping when told to stop, moving when told to move, shouted at by jacks-in-office against whom we have no appeal. We are learning, during this induction period, to do what we are told and to become obedient, servile citizens of a new authoritarian State. We are unlearning the old rules of freedom.” (“Peter Hitchens: The New Authoritarian State’s Dream”, Daily Mail)

Well put. Bravo, Peter Hitchens!

*

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

This article was originally published on The Unz Review.

Mike Whitney is a frequent contributor to Global Research.

Featured image is from TUR

President Donald Trump sudden or unexpected decision to withdraw from the 1992 Open Skies Treaty has posed unprecedented challenges, generated extensive debates among Russian politicians and experts, and equally worried are leaders in Europe and Asia.

Trump administration notified international partners on May 21 that it was pulling out of a treaty that permits 30-plus nations to conduct unarmed, observation flights over each other’s territory – overflights set up decades ago to promote trust and avert conflict.

The administration explained that it wanted to fall out of the Open Skies Treaty because Russia has been violating the pact, and imagery collected during the flights could be obtained quickly at less cost from United States or commercial satellites. Exiting the treaty, however, is expected to strain relations with Moscow and upset European allies and some members of Congress.

President Dwight Eisenhower first proposed that the United States and the former Soviet Union allow aerial reconnaissance flights over each other’s territory in July 1955. At first, Moscow rejected the idea, but President George H.W. Bush revived it in May 1989, and the treaty entered into force in January 2002. Currently, 34 nations have signed it; Kyrgyzstan has signed but not ratified it yet.

The Open Skies Treaty is the third important military pact that Trump has withdrawn from since coming to office in January 2017. He also dropped the 2015 JCPOA agreement to prevent Iran from advancing its nuclear weapons program and the 1988 Intermediate Range Nuclear Forces Treaty with Russia. In both cases, Trump accused the other side of violating treaty requirements.

Russian Foreign Ministry issued an official statement May 22, describing the exit decision a deplorable development for European security. That said, Moscow was not surprised by Washington’s decision, which characterizes its approach to discarding the entire package of arms control agreements and trust-building measures in the military sphere.

It said that “the US administration’s strategy is to cover up its own destructive actions by accusing Russia,” and that Russia has been collecting information on critical US and European infrastructure with a view to targeting its precision weapons.

The statement suggests that Washington make public the full list of Russian facilities that it has filmed in the past few years. Using its rights under the treaty, Russia has acted strictly in line with its provisions, and American colleagues have previously made no claims against Russia.

Russia’s policy on the treaty is based on its national security interests and in close cooperation with its allies and partners. The policy to discard the Open Skies Treaty calls into question Washington’s negotiability and consistency. Apparently, lacking any real argument in justifying its actions, the treaty’s opponents have resorted to this far-fetched allegation.

Besides the official statement, Moscow further indicated it would continue observing the treaty even if the US pulls out. “As long as the treaty is in force, we intend to fully follow all the rights and obligations that apply to us from this treaty,” Deputy Foreign Minister Alexander Grushko told the RIA Novosti News Agency.

Fellow Deputy Foreign Minister Sergei Ryabkov denounced the “absolutely unacceptable” conditions set by Washington, accusing the US of sowing “discord and uncertainty.”

In addition, Grushko warned that the US pullout would damage European security and harm the interests of US allies. China, which is not a party to the treaty, expressed “deep regret” over the US move, calling it a display of the United States’ entrenched Cold War mentality.

The Europeans said they would work to resolve “outstanding questions” with Moscow, including “unjustified restrictions” imposed on flights over Kaliningrad — a Russian exclave bordered by Poland and Lithuania. China, which is not a party to the treaty, expressed “deep regret” over the US move, calling it a “display of the United States’ entrenched Cold War mentality.”

The United States will gain nothing by withdrawing from the Treaty on Open Skies, Chairman of the Russian Federation Council (the upper house of parliament) Foreign Affairs Committee Konstantin Kosachev wrote on Facebook.

According to him, the Trump administration’s move is harmful to the US interests so it is hard to understand its logic.

“One can only suspect that the US authorities seek to destroy the current world order. The White House has sent another signal to US allies. Will they show unconditional support, like they always do?” Kosachev said.

In his view, the US president is determined to dismantle the entire mechanism of ensuring global security.

“There is no other way to explain this not only destructive but in many ways clumsy step that the White House has taken,” the Russian senator stressed.

Experts have shown much interest. There is no reason for Russia to remain a party to the Open Skies Treaty after the US withdrawal since this gives Washington an advantage in obtaining data on Russia’s Armed Forces, Deputy Director of the Center for Comprehensive European and International Studies at the Higher School of Economics National Research University, Dmitry Suslov told TASS.

“It is not advisable for Russia to keep its own participation in the agreement after the United States pulls out of this agreement, because European countries of NATO within the framework of this agreement will still be able to fly over Russian soil,” Suslov said.

“If Russia remains a party to the agreement, the zero-sum game will go on, because the United States will continue receiving information on the state and deployment of the Russian Armed Forces from its European allies in NATO remaining in the agreement, while Russian planes will not be able to fly over the United States. Certainly, Russia will not receive relevant information about the US army from the Europeans,” Suslov added.

In the meanwhile, Moscow is awaiting an official notice from Washington on its decision to pull out of the Treaty on Open Skies. According to the terms of the agreement, the official withdrawal from the treaty will happen six months after the US officially notifies other participants. Experts interviewed by the Izvestia newspaper agree that Washington’s looming exit from the treaty is another step towards the collapse of the international arms control system. The New START Treaty, which expires in 2021, could be next.

“The agreement was in line with the course towards strengthening trust and security measures. And trust is now needed more than ever, since its lack thereof is close to complete. Washington may be content with it, but in general I don’t see any benefit from the collapse of the system of international agreements for the United States,” Deputy Permanent Representative of the Russian Federation to the UN Office and other International Organizations in Geneva, Alexander Alimov told Russian newspaper Izvestia.

German Federal Minister of Defense Annegret Kramp-Karrenbauer stated that Germany would continue to fulfill its obligations within the Treaty Open Skies Treaty, despite the US’s intention to abandon it. Her statement was published in the ministry’s twitter account.

“I deeply regret the US’s announcement on abandonment of the Treaty. All sides must take efforts to preserve this important agreement and prevent the US’s withdrawal. We will continue to adhere to the Treaty,” the Minister said.

According to Agence France-Press (AFP), NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg said the US decision to quit the agreement would not come into effect for six months, leaving Moscow time to change course.

“All NATO allies are in full compliance with all provisions of the treaty,” Stoltenberg said, adding that Russia has, for many years, imposed flight restrictions inconsistent with the treaty, including flight limitations, over Kaliningrad and restricting flights in Russia near its border with Georgia.

EU Foreign Policy Chief Josep Borrell said he regretted the US decision, calling the Open Skies treaty “a key element of our arms-control architecture” which serves as “a vital confidence and security-building measure” and called on Washington to reconsider and for Moscow to “return immediately to the full implementation of the Treaty.”

Earlier, the local media also reported that a group of 10 European nations said in a joint statement they regretted Trump’s threat, — Trump’s latest in a string of withdrawals from international agreements.

China is equally troubled by the new developments. The withdrawal “will have a negative impact on the international arms control and disarmament process,” China Foreign Ministry Spokesman Zhao Lijian said.

The Open Skies Treaty was signed in March 1992 in Helsinki by 23 member-nations of the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE). It was drafted with Moscow’s active participation. The treaty is a major tool of strengthening trust and security.

The Open Skies’ main goals are to build transparency, render assistance in monitoring compliance with existing or future arms control agreements, broaden possibilities for preventing crises and managing crisis situations. The accord establishes a program of unarmed aerial surveillance flights over the entire territory of its participants. Now, the treaty has more than 30 signatory states. Russia ratified the Open Skies Treaty on May 26, 2001. ).

*

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

Kester Kenn Klomegah writes frequently about Russia, Africa and the BRICS.

Featured image is from The Unz Review