Global Research

Fighting in northern Syria has escalated as Syrian forces retake the last remaining bastions of foreign-funded militants and encircle, cut-off, and in some cases catch in the crossfire their Turkish backers.

Turkey had been making some promising steps in the right direction since Washington’s disastrous proxy regime-change war in Syria began unraveling – yet it still maintains a problematic position inside Syrian territory, backing what are unequivocally terrorists and obstructing Syria’s sovereign right to recover and restore order within its own borders.

The latest and most dangerous manifestation of this untenable policy is the increasingly frequent and fierce clashes between Turkish forces occupying Syrian territory and Syrian forces themselves moving deeper into the northern Syrian governorate of Idlib.

The BBC in its article, “Syria war: Turkey will not let Syrian army advance in Idlib, says Erdogan,” would summarize the Turkish position amid recent hostilities, reporting:

Turkey will not let Syria’s government gain more ground in the opposition stronghold of Idlib province, Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan says.

Mr Erdogan told reporters that Russian-backed pro-government forces were “driving innocent and grieving people in Idlib towards our borders”.

More than half a million civilians have fled their homes since the government launched an offensive in December.

Mr Erdogan’s warning came after eight Turkish military personnel were killed.

Indeed – hostilities in Idlib will undoubtedly drive fleeing militants and their families toward the Syrian-Turkish border and inevitably compound Turkey’s already large refugee problem. Yet this is not Syria’s doing, nor that of Syria’s Russian and Iranian allies. It is the doing of malign US foreign policy that Turkey had initially played a key role in facilitating – and at times still appears to be eagerly abetting.

The refugee crisis in Turkey itself was cynically used several times in the past by Ankara and its Western allies at the time for political leverage in demonizing Damascus and to justify more direct Western intervention against Syria.

But pursuing genuine peace was and still is the obvious solution to the refugee crisis – a solution Turkey has so far refused to fully commit to. Along with Turkey’s most recent attempt to cite the refugee crisis to justify its military presence in Syria is the Western media which is attempting to reuse years of propaganda to vilify Damascus and its allies, hoping to hinder security operations and drag out hostilities further.

Ironically and unfortunately – such attempts to hide behind humanitarian concern, protracting hostilities – will lead only to more loss of life.

Holding up the refugee crisis as an excuse to continue occupying Syrian territory and expand what is now becoming direct Turkish hostilities against Syrian forces will do little to justify Turkey’s current policy regarding Syria. It will also do little to improve the prospects of what are essentially unachievable objectives for the Turkish government and military – including maintaining its occupation of Syrian territory and its backing of militants operating there.

Turkish Forces Will Leave Syria – One Way or Another 

Turkish troops will not be able to remain indefinitely in Syria. Their proxies will eventually be liquidated and the positions of Turkish forces surrounded by Syrian forces. In many areas of Idlib this is already the case. Additional Turkish troops and supplies fed into losing battles and what is ultimately a lost war will only delay the inevitable undoing of Turkish interests in Syria.

Ankara could – on the other hand – begin aligning its policies with the reality of what is happening in Idlib and expand its cooperation with Russia and Iran regarding the Syrian conflict – incrementally withdrawing support from militant groups, encouraging them to disarm and surrender, and gradually handing over Turkish positions within Syria to the actual military, government, and people of Syria.

It is likely that Ankara realizes its position in Syria is untenable and is instead using the prospect of a painful and drawn-out conflict resulting from its refusal to withdraw as a bargaining chip to extract concessions from Damascus and its allies. Recent hostilities might also be an attempt to bluff Damascus in a bid to prevent further Turkish positions from being absorbed by Syria’s moving front line in Idlib.

Finding Turkey’s Place Amid Emerging Multipolarism  

Ultimately – Turkey’s decisions in the days, weeks, and months ahead – will further define the nation as it is perceived globally as its decades-long ties and subordinate role to the West fades and it forges a new position upon the global stage.

The malicious use of its lingering presence in northern Syria – a leftover of its complicity in the US-engineered proxy war that created the current conflict in the first place – would be unfortunate and would reflect poorly on Ankara and negatively impact its future international relations. It will impact not only its ties with the principal actors in the current Syrian conflict – but also its ties around the globe as nations seek to diversify away from aging and ill-intentioned hegemonies and toward nations of good faith.

Turkey faces a juncture where it must decide if it will move forward into the future with its increasing independence from the United States and NATO – but maintain the same style of malign statecraft as its Western allies – or find a constructive role to play among an emerging multipolar world.

Shelling and bombing Syrian forces inside Syrian territory is a poor start. It sets Turkey down another blind alley in terms of regional policy – making it more difficult for Syria and its allies to accommodate Turkey in any sort of constructive manner in a post-war regional architecture that will certainly favor Damascus and its allies. It will also complicate trust in the future should Turkey eventually accept this emerging architecture and seek to benefit from or contribute toward it.

Ankara has already come a long way from its initial support for US regime-change since the beginning of the Syrian conflict in 2011 to helping – even if sometimes reluctantly – end the deadly, protracted fighting in recent years. Only time will tell if Ankara will continue in this positive direction – meaning this recent confrontation in Syria is merely a temporary setback – or if Ankara is determined to cling to its increasingly untenable position in Syria at the cost of a risky conflict it will ultimately lose.

*

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.

Turkey and Syria are in a state of undeclared war. Ankara shied away to declare the war officially and the scale of its operations is much lower than in the event of a full-scale open conflict. However, Turkish forces, including troops, battle tanks and artillery, illegally entered Greater Idlib, provided local al-Qaeda-linked groups with weapons and equipment, and together with them attacked the Syrian Army.

Turkish Defense Minister Hulusi Akar had the audacity to describe these actions as self-defense efforts. He claimed that Operation Spring Shield, as Ankara calls its action in Idlib, was launched in response to the February 27 attack on Turkish troops and the operation is in his words “successfully” ongoing. Akar forgot to mention that the killed Turkish personnel were embedded with al-Qaeda members and already involved in attacks on forces of the Syrian government. This kind of hypocrisy is not surprising. Earlier, Turkish President Recept Tayip Erdogan claimed that the Turkish military had entered Syria under a request from the “Syrian people”; apparently he wanted to say al-Qaeda but forgot how to pronounce the names of the multiple Syrian affiliates of the group properly.

Therefore, official Turkish propaganda claims that the military action in Idlib started after February 27, while in reality clashes between Turkish-led forces and the Syrian Army have been ongoing since February 24. In the period from February 24 to March 1, the Turkish Army and radical militants captured Nayrab, Saraqib, and stopped the Syrian Army advance near Kafr Nabul recapturing several small villages near it. However, they were not able to achieve any military breakthrough on the ground.

The Turkish military tries to avoid sending its troops into an open fight. Rather, it employs waves of al-Qaeda members, including suicide bombers, supported by massive artillery and drone strikes as the main tool of warfare against the Syrians. According to the March 1 remarks by Defense Minister Akar, Turkish forces had destroyed a drone, 8 helicopters, 103 tanks, 19 armored personnel carriers, 72 artillery pieces and rocket launchers, three air-defense systems, 15 anti-tank weapons and mortars, 56 armored vehicles, nine ammunition depots, and neutralized 2,200 Syrian soldiers in the aforementioned period. Later on the same day, the Turkish Defense Ministry claimed that Turkey had shot down two Su-24 warplanes (later confirmed by the Syrian military) and destroyed 3 air defense systems operated by the Syrian government. The Turkish side even claimed that the Su-24 attack aircraft (which are designed for a close air support) were downed in response to an attempted attack on Turkish aircraft.

This remarkable nonsense highlights the scale and type of Turkish propaganda efforts regarding the conflict. Fully in the framework of this approach, the Turkish state blocked social media on February 27 in an attempt to hide Turkish casualties in Idlib. Tried to force Twitter and Facebook to remove photos of destroyed Turkish military equipment and ordered security raids in the Turkish branch of the Russian news agency Sputnik over its ‘wrong coverage’ of Idlib developments. Videos and photos showing Turkish soldiers and Turkish-backed militants involved in torturing and abusing captured Syrian soldiers come unnoticed by mainstream media or were described by Turkish sources as fake.

In a separate development, Turkish state media announced that Turkish artillery and drones had targeted the Al-Nayrab military airport, on the outskirts of Aleppo city.

In response to these actions, the Syrian military declared that it will shoot down hostile aircraft in Greater Idlib. The Syrian Air Defense Forces immediately turned this promise into reality engaging Turkish unmanned combat and reconnaissance aerial vehicles. According to Russian media, at least 6 Turkish drones were shot down. However, the visual evidence allows to confirm only one Anka combat drone downed in the area. When the video of the drone’s remnants first appeared online, Turkish-backed groups even claimed responsibility for the downing of aircraft claiming that it was a Syrian warplane. Later, they were forced to change the story.

On March 1, the Syrian Army and Hezbollah, that had recently suffered casualties in eastern Idlib, launched an attack on Turkish-led forces in the area of Nayrab. By the evening of that day, they have regained Kafr Battikh, Dadikh, San and Jawbas. They have also forced Turkish-backed militants to retreat from the eastern part of Saraqib. According to pro-government sources, at least 300 militants were killed or injured in the recent clashes in this area only. This number, as well as, those provided by Turkey is overestimated.

On March 2, units of the 25th Special Mission Forces Division (formerly the Tiger Forces) regained full control of Saraqib after the mighty Turkish Army and its al-Qaeda friends had fled the area.

The recent developments demonstrate that if Turkey continues avoiding employing its own troops in direct fighting, its forces appear to be not able to deliver a swift, devastating blow to the Syrian Army and achieve the goal declared by its top leadership: to force Syrian troops to retreat from all the areas liberated from al-Qaeda since October 2018.

It is likely that Turkey is trying to deliver as much damage as possible to strengthen its negotiating position before March 5, when Erdogan is set to meet with Russian President Vladimir Putin to discuss the situation in the region.

At the same time, Turkey is trying to get support from the EU by sending migrants to Europe and blackmailing the bloc with a new migration crisis.

*

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

A dispute between the traditional hereditary chiefs of the Wet’suewet’en First Nation of Northern British Columbia and Government of Canada recently erupted over the construction of a TC Energy Coastal Gas pipeline through their unceded territories. This controversy is akin to countless unresolved disputes that have occurred in the New World since the days of first contact between First Nation peoples and “The White Man”, as the European colonizers from the Old World have been called by them ever since.

At the heart of the controversy is who has ultimate sovereignty over the ancestral lands of the original peoples and whose rules of law take precedence when it comes to the infringement of the inherent rights of humans and use and development of the earth’s finite natural resources. The original peoples have mostly long since been pushed off of their traditional lands and placed on Indian Act Band Council System ‘reserves’ or ‘reservations’ that some traditional native peoples liken to New World ‘concentration camps’ because of the severe deprivations they’ve suffered as a result.

Another critically-important issue embedded within this dispute regards the question of the Climate Crisis in both the New & Old World’s and whose rules of laws chiefly are responsible – traditional peoples or the colonizers – for addressing the basic issues of wise land use and management or mismanagement of its finite natural resources that either will lessen or contribute to the climate crisis in the future. The problem is that when constant exponential growth and profit is the main objective of governments and corporations, and expansion their constant goal, it’s not basically in their DNA, and never will be, to ever lessen the crisis.

So the question of how to solve the climate crisis, which may not ever be achievable given the perpetual growth model that mercilessly drives forward the modern world, continues to be a highly contentious one. Some government’s, like the United States and Australia, have set a bad example for other nations to follow by continuing to play the denial game that climate crisis doesn’t exist so they too can continue their corporate ‘business as usual’ way of life and continue to rape and pillage the earth’s finite resources and natural world. But it’s not only the on-going rape of Mother Earth that is in question here but the age-old male power game and sexism of men over women that also is at the heart of the issue. When any human culture so readily accepts the raping of their mother earth for her coveted hidden resources buried deep inside her it doesn’t represent a huge leap in consciousness for that culture to also readily accept the widespread act of raping its own women for their own imagined hidden treasures.

So it’s no great surprise that Men basically run most of the energy-mining-resource development corporations, joined by their counterparts in the political realm who every day continue to give a green light to not only continue the raping of Mother Earth but, tacitly, accepts the wholesale rape of women as part and parcel of conducting business as usual. The raping of Mother Earth and Women simply a dominant male way of looking at and seeing the world that they have dominated since the beginning of time.

One salient example of this dominant male attitude in the world was manifested during the Wet’suewet’en dispute by one Doug Sparrow, the General Manager and President of X-Site Energy Services, Ltd, of Alberta who created a ‘Rape Culture’ logo for his company’s hard hats that depicts the rape of the 17 year-old minor Greta Thunberg who has become the world-renowned symbol of the Climate Crisis protest movement. Doug Sparrow’s stated defense for arrogantly creating the logo is that it’s not a crime, using the rationale, “She’s Not a Child! She’s 17!” This type of cynicism is but one example of yet even more horrific blowback still to come against all those traditional First Nations activists and non-indigenous climate crisis protestors in world-wide movements like ‘Fridays For Future International’ and ‘Extinction Rebellion’ who dare to defy what all is happening?

The world’s mining and energy corporations in Canada already are attempting to put some distance between themselves and the gross actions of Sparrow by declaring “X-Site Energy Services Does Not Represent Alberta” But the message sent and the spin conveyed is clear. The White Man’s corporate world is scared. The spin of vicious corporate blowback already is in high-gear around the world against the actions taken by the Wet’suewet’en First Nations, their Mohawk Nation allies and non-indigenous climate crisis protesters like Greta Thunberg.

So the pre-eminent question that faces Canada and the rest of the world is how to define who will have ultimate sovereignty over the land and its resources, whose rules of law must take precedence in 2020 and beyond, and how the human race once and for all will finally face up to its responsibilities to address and resolve the grossly-imbalanced power relationships that exist between the consciousness of men and women in regard to the protection and preservation of both the earth and women’s precious resources?

Canada now is Ground Zero. Every nation must take its lead in one direction or the other. Whichever way this dispute plays out it’s a watershed moment for the human race and the earth. The bottom line for humanity to heal the earth and itself and make them both whole, perhaps for the first time in the modern era, the corporate world obviously must change its basic relationships with indigenous people, women, and the massive, painful changes that will have to be made and mutually accepted by every human being on earth. Yet, as things now stand, most colonizers resolutely continue to avoid discussing anything to do with ‘climate change’, women’s ‘equal rights’ or the same inherent equal rights for ‘Mother Earth herself’.

The White Man’s Corporate World Avoids the Reality of What It Is or Isn’t Doing

Constant closer attention now must be paid to the many absurd hypocritical actions constantly being created in the mainstream world by those who pay lip service to wanting to do something progressive to positively address all these issues but then do just the opposite. In the case of climate change and the inherent rights of the Wet’suewet’en Hereditary Chiefs righteously put forward, heated debates, both pro and con, about the need for more or less oil and gas pipelines nevertheless rage on.

Meanwhile, one can simultaneously see on every television set around the world, every minute of every day and nighttime too, during every sports cast, sports match, sit-com, major cultural event, and in every movie theatre around the globe during every pre-show entertainment, while moviegoers are held as captive audiences, the masses are constantly force-feed slick, sophisticated commercials that woo, cajole and brainwash them to buy every larger, more expensive, more resource development-driven flashy SUV’s, P/U trucks and slews of  unnecessary products that need still more and more oil and gas to produce and run. So it raises the big question, “How many more endless oil and gas pipelines will the world need in the future and how many more will have to trespass through the traditional lands of indigenous peoples?

It’s a somewhat sad yet cynical note to realize that the oil and gas that is making the modern  world possible is the collective residue of all the life forms – prehistoric tropical plant life, dinosaur’s and the like, that represent the ancient very primitive consciousness of earth’s pre-human world yet is now playing a key central role in the evolution of the modern human civilization that, since its discovery, has literally killed billions of innocent lives, destroyed countless countries, nations and peoples just to gain hegemony over this slimy prehistoric residue that, at the same time, is destroying the climate that may end up killing us all…And that will be the end of that!

In the meantime, as the We’suewet’en and their allies continue to press their case before the legal courts and larger court of world opinion far too many citizens in the general populace instead only continue to moan and groan about the unacceptable inconveniences now being caused to their daily lives by what those like the Wet’suewwt’en First Nation, their Mohawk allies and those in the Climate Rebellion Movement are seeking to do. They miss the essential point why so many other traditional peoples also are protesting so vociferously all around the world, who a naysayer corporate press otherwise constantly dismisses as zealots and radicals, yet are serving as critical point men and women showing us all the way forward, if, indeed, the Survival & Well-Being of All of Life is what is to be the operative directive of the future.

Resistance and hostility to their efforts represents the clearest example of the inflexibility of “The White Man’s” alien, rapacious way of life and its inability to see what its way of life or ‘way of death’ perpetually perpetrates.

The critically important dialectic that has begun in Canada between traditional and non-traditional people underscores the fact that if the bottom line and ultimate goal is a healthier more balanced planet earth and more livable way of life in the 21^st century the human race is going to have to be prepared to yet suffer and endure still many more personal, cultural and economic privations and inconveniences than the few road and rail blockades, shipping backlogs, traffic snarls and upsets to tourism industry timetables then those that thus far have been caused by the dispute between the hereditary chiefs of the We’tsuewet’en Nation, Canadian Government and Corporate-Business world.

Someone who has the ear of the world’s political and corporate leaders has to talk some sense into them like a Dutch Uncleand get them to realize what we all must begin joining together to do in the world beyond demanding that the We’tsuewet’en and their allies simply stop and desist from their rail blockades.

If Shakespeare were alive today, this whole business would simply be more ‘grist for the mill’ to create yet some new pithy human drama that speaks truth to power and the human condition.

*

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.

Jerome Irwin is a Canadian-American activist-writer who, for decades, has sought to call world attention to problems of environmental degradation and unsustainability caused by excessive mega-development and the host of related environmental-ecological-spiritual issues that exist between the conflicting philosophies of indigenous and non-indigenous peoples. Irwin is the author of the book, “The Wild Gentle Ones; A Turtle Island Odyssey”, a spiritual sojurn among the native peoples of North America, and has produced numereous articles pertaining to: Ireland’s Fenian Movement; native peoples Dakota Access Pipeline Resistance Movement; AIPAC, Israel & U.S. Congress anti-BDS Movement; the historic Battle for Palestine & Siege of Gaza, as well as; innumerable accounts of the violations constantly waged by industrial-corporate-military-propaganda interests against the World’s Collective Soul.

Featured image is from Twitter/Krystalline Kraus

Reviled strongmen of one era are often the celebrated ones of others.  Citizens otherwise tormented find that replacements are poor, in some cases even crueller, than the original artefact.  Such strongmen also serve as ideal alibis for rehabilitation: Look at who we have come to bury! 

Fittingly, Egypt’s late Hosni Mubarak was given that most traditional of rehabilitative occasions, a military funeral that served to sanitise and restore.  Unremarkably, the procession was led by the current President Abdel Fattah el-Sisi, accompanied by Mubarak’s two sons, Alaa and Gamal. 

Mubarak, on coming to power in 1981 in the aftermath of his predecessor’s assassination, intended to die in office, a legacy of durable presidents that had marked the Arab world’s dynastic families.  During a three-decade rule, he survived various assassination attempts, contended, often brutally, with Islamic fundamentalism, and oversaw a vast imperium of cronyism.  The legal conditions were maintained by an emergency law passed in the aftermath of Anwar el-Sadat’s killing, permitting enormous latitude to the security services to arrest and detain individuals without charge and restrict the right to assembly.  Along the way, killings, torture and disappearances took place, with the Muslim Brotherhood proving to be a favourite target. 

His projection as a man of stability and order was sold to Western powers, which supported him with weapons and assistance; his abiding by the peace plan signed with Israel by his slain predecessor, helped.  But he was hardly a leader wedded to big picture visions for his country.  “We are waiting,” surmised the journalist Mohamed Hassanein Heikal in 1986, “for the unknown.” 

There was, for a time, some sense that Egypt might escape the orbit of military rule that had been the mainstay of the country since the Free Officers coup of 1952.  This was to come in the form of the “Arab Spring”.  The protests in Tahrir Square from January 25, 2011 seeking to oust Mubarak seemed to promise much.  Mubarak felt he could weather the bad mood and reject the demands that he and his family be investigated for corruption. “Egypt and I shall not be parted until I am buried in her soil,” he countered.  No fleeing was contemplated, no ignominious exit. 

More than 800 protesters lost their lives in ensuing violence, leading to Mubarak’s arrest on charges of murder and corruption.  He was subsequently tried and convicted, receiving a life sentence.  An appeals court overturned the verdict, leading to a retrial which saw his acquittal.  Thus began an effort to confect an image of a figure unjustifiably sinned against but restrained in retirement.  “I preferred to give up my post as a president, placing the interest of the nation and its people over any other interest and I chose to keep away from the political life, wishing all the best and progress for Egypt and its people within the period ahead.”

It was the easy, and frequently lazy assessment about the effects of the Arab Spring, often by a western media that needed to identify a revolution in the first place.  “Egypt was indispensable to the idea of an ‘Arab spring’,” Hugh Roberts would subsequently note, “and so it had to have had a revolution too.”

Arab Spring comparisons tend to be inevitable and often strained, but between, say, Tunisia and Egypt, key differences are evident. It can well be said that Tunisia had something of a genuine revolution, with its military cautious and resisting any broader blood lust.  But the military remained significant in Egypt for never being neutral, giving some appearance of backing the protesters. 

In 2013, the military’s influence was again evident with its termination of the discombobulated, fledging democracy and the suspension of the 2012 constitution.  Cunningly and devilishly, military officials gave the impression that they were merely aiding the protesters against the Morsi government, partners in democratic change against sectarianism. 

This proved short lived.  Officials from the Mubarak regime were returned; mass death sentences were passed and some 34,000 people jailed.  A brief hiatus followed in Egyptian-Western relations.  The US imposed a ban on the transfer of weapons and aid but el-Sisi proved charming enough to convince Obama administration to restore the $1.3 billion a year package.

El-Sisi is now seen to be a more violent and heavy-handed version of Mubarak, exemplified by such campaigns as those of Karim Hussein, whose “I’m Sorry, Mr President” Facebook page gathered millions of followers.  Last year, he was detained for 15 days on accusations of spreading false news and the misuse of social media.  The same follower had also described Mubarak as “a first-rate military man.  He was a commander during the 6 October War.  He should be treated like a commander before being a president.” 

Mubarak did achieve his goal of being buried in Egypt’s soil.  The officer legacy remains, as does the firm grip of military rule.  His tenure saw consolidation and centralisation to such an extent that genuine change was bound to be a herculean feat.  That feat never materialised, furnishing the historical record with the hiccup of Mohamed Morsi.  And the briefest of hiccups that proved to be. 

*

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]

While fretting over refugee children in freezing tents along Turkey’s border, or Nargis Fazili’s family fleeing Afghanistan across (see this), or lone migrant children caged in U.S. detention centers, we may barely register what happens to American children like Kaia Rolle; she’s a 6-year-old student at a not unusual neighborhood school in Florida.

I suppose we should feel grateful for the body cameras which most American police are now required to wear to document their on-the-job encounters. Some police videos are made available to the public; some are lost. One recently released records an incident last September—the handcuffing of Kaia Rolle by policemen at her school. The manacled child was led to a squad car and, unaccompanied by any school official or relative, and taken to a detention center to be finger-printed and photographed. The video was likely edited to hide the child’s face, probably in compliance with a ‘civil-rights’ law that protects minors—thank you. But it illustrates enough for us to witness an all-too-common injustice.

It’s not the pleas of the weeping child that I find most disturbing; it’s the school staff’s passive witness to the child’s torture. None of the three women in the camera’s scope makes any attempt to protest, or to question the decision by we-don’t-known-whom, to subject the child to this unconscionable treatment.

To further emphasize the egregious behavior by the police, we hear one man –likely the school resource officer –chatting with the staff members without any hint of regret or hesitation about how he regularly arrests children. Arrests are a source of pride for him, it seems. “Six thousand arrests over 28 years”, he boasts, “the youngest, 7-years-old.” When informed that the latest victim is six, he quips: “She’s six; now that’s a record.” Dennis Turner is a policeman who, like many in his position, are hired after retirement as “school resource officers”.

These resource officers constitute a new class of law enforcement personnel employed by schools across America— they’re in my New York neighborhood schools too– our solution to school shootings, a nationwide policy to protect our children from gun wielding maniacs. While they wait for anything that threatens the school from outside, these officers are engaged in student discipline inside. Parents and school administrators, out of fear of armed assailants, are empowering these unsupervised, armed retirees and veterans of foreign conflict –men accustomed to manhandling mostly adult male suspects– to discipline troublesome children.

(In addition to their school salary, a wage often higher than teachers’, many of them enjoy a generous pension from their police or military service. What a boon for the profession of law enforcement!)

Attorney John Whitehead of the Rutherford Institute’s warnings about our expanding police presence is so alarming that we are either too disturbed to register the details or we think he’s exaggerating. He is not.

Viewing this single video of an on-duty school guardian entrusted to protect children, one has to question how much more goes on that we are not privy to? And this in inside U.S.A. with its celebrated freedoms! (I cannot bear to imagine the experience of countless Iraqi and Afghan families subject to abuse by American military personnel.)

We are told Kaia was released and isn’t facing any charges. This doesn’t mollify me; nor am I gratified by the firing of that officer.)

The video of the child’s arrest is revealing about how the child is handled too. A school staff member calmly tells Kaia to “Go with them, baby girl.” As Kaia is handcuffed, we hear one officer gently say: “Come over here honey”, then “It’s not going to hurt”.

Later news clips of Kaia with her grandmother report that she is doing fine. That’s today. What about in the coming years?

This experience may embolden little Kaia to become an attorney or a civic leader, perhaps a policewoman to protect others from the cruelty she would never forget. Can we fault her, though, if she chooses violence as a way to defend herself when gentle people nearby fail her, or if they’re better informed about child victims of foreign aggression?

*

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.

Barbara Nimri Aziz is a New York based anthropologist and journalist. In addition to books on Tibet and Nepal, she is author of “Swimming Up the Tigris: Real Life Encounters with Iraq” based on her work in Iraq and the Arab Homelands. For many years a producer at Pacifica-WBAI Radio in NY, her productions and current articles can be found at www.RadioTahrir.org  

There have been a number of harmful consequences as a result of the neoliberal era, which emerged in the late 1970s, taking off during the tenures of Ronald Reagan (US president, 1981-1989) and Margaret Thatcher (British prime minister, 1979-1990). There has been an explosion of private power, splintering of societies, destabilization of the financial system, and so on.

Neoliberal globalization has been an important factor too in political parties shifting further to the right, and succumbing to the power of increasingly dominant multinational corporations. This is most notable in America where the Republican Party (or organization) has moved so far off the spectrum that traditional republicans from previous decades would hardly recognize it today.

The US Democratic Party has also drifted noticeably to the right since the 1970s, and now holds roughly the same political position as the republicans of half a century ago. Such has been the rightward lurch in the political landscape that Bernie Sanders, who is somewhat to the left of today’s democrats, is considered a radical and almost extreme figure. Sanders’ policies, which are those of a New Deal democrat, resemble some of the ideals expressed by president Franklin D. Roosevelt. Sanders’ political stance would not have perturbed former republican leaders like Dwight D. Eisenhower.

Regarding the prevailing neoliberal ideology, it is in fact proving so malevolent that it has become an existential threat to mankind, though hardly reported. In early June 2017 Noam Chomsky, the renowned American scholar and scientist, said that neoliberalism is directly behind humanity’s failure to deal with its two greatest challenges: that of either dismantling the threat of nuclear war or addressing climate change, both of which are becoming more ominous.

Chomsky outlined that,

“it’s not just inequality, stagnation. It’s terminal disaster. We have constructed a perfect storm. That should be the screaming headlines every day. Since the Second World War, we have created two means of destruction. Since the neoliberal era, we have dismantled the way of handling them. That’s our pincers. That’s what we face, and if that problem isn’t solved, we’re done with”. (1)

The modern neoliberal era was formulated in America a little over 40 years ago, the world’s strongest economic and military power. The term itself, neoliberalism, is misleading as this ideology is neither based upon anything new or
liberal.

Neoliberalism was originally developed in Europe during the interwar period (1919-1938), among the many repercussions of the First World War (2). Thereafter, the more extreme version of neoliberalism that we see presently, was formed by American business communities and its elites; before inevitably spreading across the world as a result of Washington’s vast economic influence, courtesy of US-based financial institutions like the IMF and World Bank.

This assault unfolded principally in order to defeat popular activism that sprang up in the mid-1960s – with the American public, some entering political circles for the first time, railing against the crimes committed by US forces during the war in Vietnam, along with protests against domestic problems such as poverty and racism. This was viewed with deep concern by those occupying positions of power in Washington and New York. A swift response ensued by the establishment to put the people back in its place, so to speak, mainly through wide-scale use of propaganda techniques.

The population’s declining influence is having potentially deadly ramifications. Chomsky affirms that,

“The one barrier to the threat of destruction is an engaged public, an informed, engaged public acting together to develop means to confront the threat and respond to it. That’s been systematically weakened, consciously”; and he further recognizes, “So there’s the two existential threats that we’ve created, which might in the case of nuclear war maybe wipe us out; in the case of environmental catastrophe, create a severe impact, and then some”. (3)

The continued attacks on populations have worked extremely well for a small percentage, in both hemispheres. Wealth has accumulated in the top 1% of societies, and more broadly the top 10%. In the most powerful country, real wages for American workers are just slightly higher by comparison to mid-1960s levels.

The US, thanks to its government, military and scientific apparatus, was also behind the unwarranted creation in 1945 of nuclear bombs, the globe’s silent grim reaper. Moreover, America has constituted easily the largest producer of carbon dioxide emissions in history. This century, since 2006, has America been surpassed in its carbon production levels by China. Yet on per capita terms the Americans remain well clear at the top, having less than a quarter of China’s populace.

Neoliberalism is centred on greatly favoring the private sphere over that of the public, with the role of government curtailed and restricted. Social programs benefiting the masses are cut, finance is deregulated, trade unions are attacked and austerity measures applied, which are intentionally harmful and unnecessary as even IMF economists admit.

The mainstream press performs a central role in promoting neoliberal ideology (4). The media, influenced by corporate advertising, carefully reduce the scope of what is discussed, so as to further push their neoliberal beliefs.

Cardiff University’s Joanna Redden, an expert in assessing media content, wrote that “mainstream news coverage narrows and limits the way poverty is talked about in a way that reinforces the dominance of neoliberalism and market-based approaches to the issue”.

An in-depth study of the mass media for example in Ireland, the word’s largest corporate tax haven and a prominent neoliberal state, has revealed that major newspapers there all have a history of endorsing neoliberalism. This includes the most widely read dailies like the Irish Times and Irish Independent (5). Very rarely, however, is the word neoliberalism to be found in newspaper articles. It is obscured and left unclear.

Due to the particularly strong neoliberal influence in Ireland, it is no surprise that this small country produces very high emission levels, and has proven incapable of addressing it. Irish media support for neoliberalism is a trend seen in standard press coverage in other “free market states”.

The media are very often a reflection of a nation’s structure, mirroring the flaws of that system of which it is a central component. As part of the neoliberal agenda, the press have effectively been supporting our blind march to the precipice – with coverage of nuclear weapons at a minimum, and focus on climate change, though increasing in recent times, often diluted and put into a political context. (6)

Silly stories have been emanating for years about how Moscow supposedly swayed the US elections. These claims have done nothing to harm president Donald Trump’s increasingly secure position; his approval ratings are at a personal best 49%, and he is a strong favorite to be re-elected in November. The American public, rather than paying much attention to assertions of Kremlin interference, are far more worried about real crises like insufficient healthcare, unaffordable education, and poverty (7). Trump’s most dangerous policies, his attacks upon the environment and abandonment of nuclear weapons treaties, have received far less attention and criticism.

From the immediate years following World War II, humans have been under threat of destruction from nuclear weapons. The Danish-born scientist Hans M. Kristensen, a nuclear weapons analyst, revealed that during the Cold War,

“Every day, nuclear-armed warships of the US and Soviet navies were rubbing up against each other on the high seas in gung-ho displays of national determination. Some saw it as necessary for nuclear deterrence; others as dangerous nuclear brinkmanship. Many of those who were on the ships and submarines still get goosebumps when they talk about it, and wonder how we survived the Cold War”. (8)

When examining the level of incidents between American and Soviet nuclear-armed instruments of war, it is hard to fathom that it did not eventually result in disaster for the world. Some of these accidents date to the 1960s, and were just as potentially lethal as the 1962 Cuban Missile Crisis.

Pertaining to climate change, the attempts so far by world governments to tackle the crisis have been wholly inadequate, with global carbon emissions now at an all time high. Neoliberalism has indeed been at heart of this impotence. Even a 1.5 Celsius rise will have troubling reverberations for extensive sections of the globe. Today, out of almost 200 countries worldwide, only two are on course to meet their climate obligations, by applying policies which can meet the goals in limiting global warming to 1.5 Celsius above pre-industrial age temperatures.

The two countries in question are in Africa: Morocco and The Gambia, both of which are situated in the continent’s north-west, and are firmly on a path towards dependence upon renewable energy, along with other strategies like large-scale reforestation. Morocco and The Gambia are anything but what can be considered affluent nations. This makes it all the more damning that the world’s rich countries, with ample resources at their disposal, have proven incapable of upholding their climate commitments.

The top 10 carbon producing states account for almost 70% of world greenhouse emissions (9). By themselves the globe’s two biggest emitters, China and the US, generate 43% of all known greenhouse gases. China, largely abandoning communist ideology since Mao Zedong’s death in 1976, is recording emission levels which are rising again. They rose by 2.6% in 2019, on top of a 2.5% increase for 2018. Still, with increasing focus on renewable sources in China, there are accounts that their emissions will peak by 2022 before falling off.

Dominating the neoliberal sphere are the hugely powerful, unaccountable corporations which control much of the international economy, dictating government policy formation in the United States, Britain, Ireland and elsewhere. An institutionalized requirement of big business is short-term wealth creation, something which corporate executives can go to desperate lengths in pursuing.

One can witness the spectacle of major automobile manufacturers, like Volkswagen and Nissan, deliberately falsifying emission levels in their vehicles (10); mostly due to the fact that low emission cars, less reliant on raw material consumption, are simply not as profitable to the fossil fuel industry.

There are about 1.5 billion vehicles in operation globally, which in total produce 20% of world carbon emissions. Of this, just six million consist of electric cars. Prospects of electric vehicles are discouraged by fossil fuel corporations like Shell and ExxonMobil, because they are not run on oil-based substances, therefore yielding less
profits.

ExxonMobil chief executive Darren Woods even stated last September that he did not understand why electric cars were needed at all. ExxonMobil, headquartered in Texas, are one of the world’s biggest carbon emitting companies. They create more emissions than the vast majority of countries on their own.

Neoliberalism has been a driving cause too in the degradation of ecosystems, with an alarming drop in animal species recorded since the 1970s alone. Perhaps the first government leader to highlight our planet’s environmental decline was Cuba’s president, Fidel Castro, someone seldom quoted outside of Cuba, and who said during a visit to South Africa in the autumn of 1998 that,

“Neoliberal globalization is rapidly destroying nature, poisoning the air and the waters, killing the forests, causing soil desertification and erosion, depleting and wasting the natural resources, changing the climate”. (11)

Castro was reiterating what he said six years before at the 1992 UN Earth Summit in Brazil, where among the presence of over 100 heads of state, he spoke in splendid isolation of the unfolding ecological catastrophe. Castro was addressing above an audience in the city of Durban, South Africa, a country at the time led by Nelson Mandela, a close ally of his Cuban counterpart.

Mandela was nevertheless a firm advocate of neoliberal policies which he implemented during his presidency, as the South African leader acknowledged in an interview with the experienced journalist John Pilger, who grilled him on the subject (12). Two decades following Mandela’s departure from office in June 1999, South Africa has today the highest level of inequality in the world, though he cannot be blamed for all of this.

In more recent times, by late 2018 a “60% decline” in animal species was widely reported by the media, who misread the facts, as the National Geographic magazine demonstrated (13). Yet there can be no doubt that animal numbers have been steadily declining overall, a symptom of the Anthropocene epoch in which humans are having a severe impact on planetary ecosystems.

Meanwhile, a ray of sunshine is breaking out on a dark horizon. There have been indications for some years that neoliberalism is in trouble. Growing protests against its ravages have been taking place around the globe, in Latin America, in Europe, in the Middle East. The public, as can be recalled, possesses a great deal of power, borne out by the hard-fought achievements gained in the past as a result of sustained activism.

*

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.

Shane Quinn obtained an honors journalism degree. He is interested in writing primarily on foreign affairs, having been inspired by authors like Noam Chomsky. He is a frequent contributor to Global Research.

Notes

1 Christopher Lydon, Noam Chomsky, “Noam Chomsky: Neoliberalism Is Destroying Our Democracy”, The Nation, 2 June 2017, http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:3DK5wNPu3jMJ:https://www.thenation.com/article/archive/noam-chomsky-neoliberalism-destroying-democracy/&hl=en&gl=ie&strip=1&vwsrc=0

2 Daniel Stedman Jones, “The American Roots of Neoliberalism”, History News Network, 18 March 2013, https://historynewsnetwork.org/article/151023

3 Christopher Lydon, Noam Chomsky, “Noam Chomsky: Neoliberalism Is Destroying Our Democracy”, The Nation, 2 June 2017, http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:3DK5wNPu3jMJ:https://www.thenation.com/article/archive/noam-chomsky-neoliberalism-destroying-democracy/&hl=en&gl=ie&strip=1&vwsrc=0
4 T. J. Coles, “How Fake News Perpetuates Neoliberalism”, Renegade Inc., 22 December 2018, https://renegadeinc.com/fake-news-perpetuates-neoliberalism/

5 Sean Phelan, “Irish neoliberalism, media, and the politics of discourse”, Academia, 2009, https://www.academia.edu/2019948/Irish_neoliberalism_media_and_the_politics_of_discourse

6 Seán McCárthaigh, “Irish newspaper coverage of climate change low by European standards and ‘predominantly political’”, TheJournal.ie, 28 November 2019, Irish newspaper coverage of climate change low by European standards and ‘predominantly political’

7 Kristen Bialik, “State of the Union 2019: How Americans see major national issues”, Pew Research Center, 4 February 2019, https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2019/02/04/state-of-the-union-2019-how-americans-see-major-national-issues/

8 Hans M. Kristensen, “Declassified: US Nuclear Weapons At Sea”, Federation of American Scientists, 3 February 2016, https://fas.org/blogs/security/2016/02/nuclear-weapons-at-sea/

9 Robert Rapier, “The World’s Top 10 Carbon Dioxide Emitters”, Forbes, 4 December 2019, https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:TAIHMX31K8YJ:https://www.forbes.com/sites/rrapier/2019/12/04/the-worlds-top-10-carbon-dioxide-emitters/+&cd=3&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=ie

10 Press Association, “‘Decisive court battle’ over Volkswagen emissions scandal set to begin”, BreakingNews.ie, 2 December 2019, https://www.breakingnews.ie/business/decisive-court-battle-over-volkswagen-emissions-scandal-set-to-begin-967835.html

11 Fidel Castro, “Address by Commander-In-Chief, Fidel Castro, To The 12th Summit Of The Non-Aligned Movement”, Fidel Soldado de las Ideas, 2 September 1998, http://www.fidelcastro.cu/en/citas-sobre/GLOBALIZATION

12 John Pilger, Freedom Next Time, (Black Swan; New Ed Edition, 4 Jun. 2007) p. 346
13 Elizabeth Anne Brown, “Widely misinterpreted report still shows catastrophic animal decline”, National Geographic, 1 November 2018, https://www.nationalgeographic.com/animals/2018/11/animal-decline-living-planet-report-conservation-news/

There are three main reasons why stocks are falling hard.

1– Uncertainty. It’s impossible for investors to gauge the economic impact of the rapidly-spreading coronavirus or its effect on stock prices. Investors buy stocks with the expectation that their investment will grow over time. In periods of crisis, when the environment becomes unfamiliar and opaque, expectations are crushed under the weigh of uncertainty. When expectations dampen, investors sell.

2– The Fed. Although investors have not faced a challenge like the coronavirus before, confidence in the Fed has remained surprisingly high. For the last 10 years, investors have seen multiple interventions by the Fed that were aimed at keeping Wall Street happy and stock prices high. Only recently have investors begun to doubt the Fed’s ability to stop the market slide by slashing rates or increasing liquidity. As more investors realize that the Fed does not have the tools to address a supply shock, the selloff is likely to accelerate.

3–Stock buybacks. In the last few years, stock prices have not been driven higher by institutional buyers or Mom and Pop investors. The rise is almost entirely attributable to share repurchases or stock buybacks as they are called. According to the Harvard Business Review, “In 2018 alone, with corporate profits bolstered by the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017, companies in the S&P 500 Index did a combined $806 billion in buybacks, about $200 billion more than the previous record set in 2007.” Coronavirus is dramatically impacting corporate earnings projections and many analysts are predicting recession. Shrinking revenues and profits will put a damper on the jet-fuel that had been pushing stocks higher.

The Ball is in the Fed’s Court

The pressure is building on the Fed to respond to the relentless 6-day stock market slide. In a Thursday article in the Wall Street Journal, former Fed governor Kevin Warsh appealed to the Fed to launch a coordinated response to the crisis with other central banks around the world. Here’s an excerpt from the article:

“A central bank’s primary job is to offset major disturbances to the economy. Today, the novel coronavirus is a material risk to the economy. It represents an unexpected shock, and the Federal Reserve should lead the world’s central banks in taking immediate action.

In a coordinated move alongside the People’s Bank of China, the European Central Bank, the Bank of England, the Bank of Japan and others so willing, the Fed should announce a 0.25-percentage-point interest-rate cut and make clear it’s open-minded about further action. The Fed should also encourage other central banks to take appropriate simultaneous action to loosen monetary policy in their jurisdictions. Global action would help make the most of scarce policy ammunition.

More than a decade ago, then-Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke and his colleagues chose to act decisively. When confronted with a major economic shock, the Fed took extraordinary monetary-policy actions, often in coordination with other leading central banks. Acting sooner would have been better, but Mr. Bernanke’s leadership at the Fed was exemplary. Less appreciated but no less important, the Fed benefited from a rich inheritance: a strong, highly credible institution replete with a large reservoir of interest rates to cut and a modest balance sheet with space to grow.” (“The Fed Can’t Wait to Respond to the Coronavirus”, Wall Street Journal)

We think Kevin Warsh is being disingenuous. We think his plea is aimed at saving Wall Street not Main Street. Warsh is worried that the downdraft in stocks will trigger defaults by deeply-indebted financial institutions that will domino through the financial system severely impairing critical counterparties and precipitating another financial crisis. This is why is wants the Fed to act immediately even though he knows that interest rate cuts will have no material effect on a supply shock.

So what is a supply shock?

When the Fed slashes rates, it lowers the cost of money making it cheaper to borrow. When people or businesses borrow, they increase their spending which generates economic growth. This is how the Fed boosts demand by cutting rates. But rate cuts are not a panacea. They can’t, for example, resolve supply-chain disruptions in China that have been brought on by the coronavirus outbreak. Many market participants have not yet grasped this fact. Simply put: The Fed does not have the tools to fix this problem. Therefore, confidence in the Fed– to reverse the current selloff by cutting rates or adding liquidity– is misplaced. It’s misplaced because the approach will not work. If you are trying to fix your computer and the only tool you have is a sledgehammer, you are not going to have much success. This is the predicament the Fed is in.

Earlier this week, market analyst Mohamed El-Erian said, “Coronavirus cannot be countered by central bank policies”. This is the critical fact that investors must realize before settling on a strategy. Financial Times journalist Katie Martin expanded on El-Erian’s comments saying, “The expectation alone of monetary assistance may already be softening the blow…But anyone who can clearly articulate how easier policy can fix an economic pullback based on deaths, grounded flights, closed factories and ghost cities is very welcome to get in touch.”

Good point, in other words, cheap money and boundless liquidity is not a cure-all. A can of 30-weight oil might keep your ’98 Corolla running smoothly, but it’s not going to help your head cold. It’s simply not the right antidote. The Fed needs a remedy for supply disruptions, but doesn’t have one. Here’s more from an article at Marketwatch:

“It’s that threat of a supply shock — an unexpected change in the supply of a product or commodity — that is particularly unnerving for investors. They are more used to dealing with the occasional threat of negative demand shocks — an unexpected hit to demand for goods and services….

Big, negative supply shocks are rare, Nielsen noted, with the oil shocks of the early and late 1970s offering perhaps the most well-known examples.... The problem is that there’s little that looser monetary policy or additional fiscal stimulus can do to offset the impact because those stimulus measures work by boosting demand….

While demand has so far held up outside of China, the disruption to global supply chains running through China, Korea and, potentially, Japan is likely to take a toll on production, wrote Nuveen’s Nick. If Asian production stoppages worsen or continue well into the second quarter, a global supply crunch could hit the already weakening manufacturing sector, he said, with implications for jobs and the wider global economy.

Moreover, it comes in an environment where valuations for U.S. stocks and credit markets were “’priced to perfection’ or something close to it following the three Fed interest rate cuts last year and the resolution of various trade deals,” he said.” (“Stocks keep getting slammed because investors fear a ‘supply shock’ that central bankers can’t fix” , Marketwatch)

Until this Monday, investors had been brushing aside the negative news on the coronavirus confident that the Fed would save market as it had done so many times before. Now more people are beginning to see that the so called “Fed Put” will not work this time, that the Fed will not be able to put a floor beneath stock prices because it doesn’t have the power to do so. The realization of the Fed’s limitations is going to weigh heavily on stocks which had been “priced to perfection” but are presently retracing their steps downward until prices are more consistent with fundamentals and the rapidly-deteriorating economic data.

Here’s a quote from an article by Caroline Baum at Marketwatch which helps to underscore the Fed’s impotence in dealing with a supply shock:

“The Fed can’t produce parts for automobile manufacturers across the globe that are dependent on intermediate-goods imports from China. It can’t reopen factories in Hubei Province, the epicenter of the coronavirus outbreak. It can’t provide needed factory workers for plants in locked-down areas of China. And it can’t create alternate supply chains as a substitute for China’s role as manufacturer to the world.…

A Fed rate cut is not the prescribed antidote for a negative supply shock. In fact, “the only reason you would cut rates now is if you’re the central bank of the S&P 500,” said Jim Bianco, president of Bianco Research, using a moniker the Fed abhors.” (“Why the Fed can’t defend the economy against the coronavirus outbreak”, Marketwatch)

There’s no doubt that the Fed will cut rates and perhaps even take more extreme measures like monthly purchases of individual stocks and ETFs. But the chance of stocks roaring back into record territory like they did in the heady pre-coronavirus days, are infinitesimally small. The contagion has not even spread to the United States yet, and look at the mayhem it has created. The virus has exposed the essential fragility of a market system that depends on the endless meddling of outside actors whose only objective is to transfer trillions of dollars in wealth to their voracious constituents on Wall Street.

So where is the bottom for stocks that have been grossly inflated for more than 7 years due to extreme monetary easing, below market rates, and regular infusions liquidity?

We don’t know, but we suspect there’s still a long way to go. As economist Nouriel Roubini said in a recent article in the Financial Times, “Investors are deluding themselves about how severe the coronavirus outbreak will be. Despite this week’s big sell-off in equity markets, the worst is yet to come.”

NOTE: Thursday’s 1,190 point rout was the Dow Jones’ biggest one day loss in history. Benchmark 10-year Treasury yields tumbled to an all-time low of 1.26%.

*

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

Featured image is from Shutterstock

Pre-election polls showed a likely dead heat between Netanyahu’s Likud party and lead challenger Benny Gantz’s Blue and White party.

Both parties were projected to win 33 of 120 Knesset seats. A 61-seat majority coalition is required to form a government.

Vote counting continues on Tuesday. Exit polls projected Likud to win 36 or 37 seats to Blue and White’s 34.

With coalition partners, Netanyahu’s Likud is expected to have 59 Knesset seats — two short of a ruling majority, based on early vote counting. See an update below.

Ahead of efforts by him and Gantz to try cobbling together enough support to form a new government, impasse continues following Israel’s third general election since last April.

It’s unclear whether either leading candidate can break it.

An update with over 90% of votes counted gives a Likud-led coalition a 59 – 54 seat margin, still two seats short of a ruling majority — Likud winning 36 seats, Blue and White 32.

Joint List is projected to win 15 seats, an historic high for an Arab party. Yet in apartheid Israel, it’s powerless.

Privileged Jews run things for their own self-interest, how things work in the West and most other countries.

In Israel, ordinary Jews and Arab citizens have no say over how the country is governed. Dirty business as usual wins every time elections are held.

As vote counting continues, further updates will follow later on Tuesday. It’s too early to know if either leading candidate can form a ruling majority, but based on exit polls and vote counting so far, Netanyahu is ahead.

Despite facing bribery, fraud and breach of trust charges, his trial beginning on March 17, conviction likely meaning prison time, more Israelis supported him over alternative candidates.

What does that say about the Israeli electorate? Do enough of its members favor continuity over the rule of law?

Do they support Netanyahu’s leadership they know over a former IDF chief of staff with no political experience?

Post-election analysis will provide insight into how a prime minister facing serious criminal charges outdid his rivals.

According to Haaretz editor-in-chief Aluf Benn, victory for a Likud-led “bloc will permanently cripple the rule of law in Israel, under the guise of ‘judicial reform’ and ‘reining in the High Court of Justice.”

In a separate editorial, Haaretz warned of the danger if a new government is formed under “power-hungry (Netanyahu) who has lost all restraint and who seems determined to keep his seat forever,” adding:

Above all, he seeks so-called “judicial reforms…to save him from facing justice, from the humiliation of appearing in court and perhaps even from imprisonment.”

If he manages to remain prime minister, he’ll “destroy” what remains of “the rule of law” in Israel.

“(A) wave of persecution against civil servants and politicians, prosecutors and judges, who will be labeled enemies of the state and be forced have to prove their loyalty to the ruler (who’s) above the law.”

Indicting him on bribery, fraud and breach of trust, major civil charges, attorney general Mendelblit denounced him strongly, saying:

He and his wife engaged in “an improper relationship” with individuals from whom they “received (special) favors” — actions amounting to a “serious and ongoing conflict of interest,” adding:

He “took advantage of the bribe offered him…us(ing) his power as prime minister to receive personal favors, while fundamentally harming the integrity of the public service and trust.”

His “conduct deeply and profoundly harm(ed) the rule of law, moral integrity and public trust.”

If he remains prime minister and avoids accountability, he’ll likely be unrestrained to do what he pleases because who’ll stop him.

Civil charges against him pale in comparison to his high crimes of war, against humanity, and slow-motion genocide against long-suffering Palestinians.

Nor does he face accountability for years of undeclared war on Syria and Lebanon’s Hezbollah, as well as partnering with US wars — the world community largely turning a blind eye to his Nuremberg-level high crimes.

A Final Comment

The Jerusalem Post reported that absentee ballots from soldiers and others will be counted Tuesday night local time, adding:

“Legally, the final results do not need to be published until next Monday.”

Here’s where things stand with over 90% of votes counted:

“Likud: 1,210,939 voters – 36 seats predicted

• Blue and White: 1,085,932 voters  –  32 seats predicted
• The Joint List: 536,028 voters  –  15 seats predicted
• Shas: 320,999 voters  –  10 seats predicted
• UTJ: 255,159 voters  –  7 seats predicted
• Yisrael Beytenu: 242,218 voters  – 7  seats predicted
• Labor-Gesher-Meretz: 235,934 voters  – 7  seats predicted
• Yamina: 208,638 voters  – 6 seats predicted
• The Right-religious bloc has 59 seats
• The Center-Left bloc has 39
• The Joint List has 15
• Yisrael Beytenu has 7”

Turnout was 71% of registered voters.

*

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

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

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

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

Visit his blog site at sjlendman.blogspot.com.

Featured image is from The Jerusalem Post

Whereas:

On January 9, 2020, Radio Canada’s flagship newscast “Enquête” reported on the “Ottawa Initiative on Haiti” held at the Meech Lake Government Complex on January 31 and February 1, 2003;

No Haitian officials were reportedly invited to the private meeting. Officials from the United States, France, Canada, and the Organization of American States in attendance reportedly discussed the replacement of Haiti’s elected government, the UN intervention, and the re-creation of the Haitian military, consistent with events that occurred 13 months later;

Investigation suggests that the “Ottawa Initiative on Haiti” gave rise to the “Core Group”, an alliance of foreign ambassadors in Port-au-Prince that many Haitians believe to be the real power behind President Jovenel Moïse;

Ten years after the earthquake, there is a demand for accountability for alleged misuse of relief funds during the same period when Haiti is said to be effectively under the rule of the so-called “Core Group” that is said to have brought to power the governments of Martelly and Moïse, who are accused of corruption and repression.

We, the undersigned, citizens and residents of Quebec and Canada, ask the House of Commons: 

1. To publish all documents related to the “Ottawa Initiative on Haiti”;

2. To hold a hearing of the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Development to determine the precise ins and outs of the “Ottawa Initiative on Haiti”, including the link with the “Core Group”.

Click here to sign the petition.

*

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 and the Taliban signed an historic peace deal on Saturday in the Qatari capital of Doha which sets the timeline and conditions for the full withdrawal of foreign forces from Afghanistan, with this landmark agreement giving credible reasons for observers to be cautiously optimistic about its prospects of success but also containing within it several key loopholes that deserve to be analyzed more in depth so as to obtain a more comprehensive understanding of the possible pitfalls that could capsize this pivotal accord.

Intravenous vitamin C is already being employed in China against COVID-19 coronavirus. I am receiving regular updates because I am part of the Medical and Scientific Advisory Board to the International Intravenous Vitamin C China Epidemic Medical Support Team. Its director is Richard Z. Cheng, MD, PhD; associate director is Hong Zhang, PhD.

Among other team members are Qi Chen, PhD (Associate Professor, Kansas University Medical School); Jeanne Drisko, MD (Professor, University of Kansas Medical School);

Thomas E. Levy, MD, JD; and Atsuo Yanagisawa, MD, PhD. (Professor, Kyorin University, Tokyo). To read the treatment protocol information in English: click this (Protocol in Chinese is here).

Direct report from China

OMNS Chinese edition editor Dr. Richard Cheng is reporting from China about the first approved study of 12,000 to 24,000 mg/day of vitamin C by IV. The doctor also specifically calls for immediate use of vitamin C for prevention of coronavirus (COVID-19). See this.

A second clinical trial of intravenous vitamin C was announced in China on Feb. 13th. In this second study, says Dr. Cheng,

“They plan to give 6,000 mg/day and 12,000 mg/day per day for moderate and severe cases. We are also communicating with other hospitals about starting more intravenous vitamin C clinical studies. We would like to see oral vitamin C included in these studies, as the oral forms can be applied to more patients and at home.” Additional information here.

And on Feb 21, 2020, announcement has been made of a third research trial now approved for intravenous vitamin C for COVID-19.

Dr. Cheng, who is a US board-certified specialist in anti-aging medicine, adds:

“Vitamin C is very promising for prevention, and especially important to treat dying patients when there is no better treatment. Over 2,000 people have died of the COIV-19 outbreak and yet I have not seen or heard large dose intravenous vitamin C being used in any of the cases. The current sole focus on vaccine and specific antiviral drugs for epidemics is misplaced.”

He adds that:

“Early and sufficiently large doses of intravenous vitamin C are critical. Vitamin C is not only a prototypical antioxidant, but also involved in virus killing and prevention of viral replication. The significance of large dose intravenous vitamin C is not just at antiviral level. It is acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) that kills most people from coronaviral pandemics (SARS, MERS and now NCP). ARDS is a common final pathway leading to death.

“We therefore call for a worldwide discussion and debate on this topic.”

News of vitamin C research for COVID-19 is being actively suppressed

Anyone saying that vitamin therapy can stop coronavirus is already being labeled as “promoting false information” and promulgating “fake news.” Even the sharing of verifiable news, and direct quotes from credentialed medical professionals, is being restricted or blocked on social media. You can see sequential examples of this phenomenon at my Facebook page https://www.facebook.com/themegavitaminman .

Indeed, the World Health Organization (WHO) has, literally, met with Google and Facebook and other media giants to stop the spread of what they declare to be wrong information. See this.

Physician-directed, hospital-based administration of intravenous vitamin C has been marginalized or discredited. Scientific debate over COVID-19 appears not to be allowed.

Ironically, Facebook, blocking any significant users’ sharing of the news of approved vitamin therapy research, is itself blocked in China by the Chinese government. As for the internet, yes, China has it. And yes, it is censored. But, significantly, the Chinese government has not blocked this real news on how intravenous vitamin C will save lives in the COVID-19 epidemic. Here is the protocol as published in Chinese.

Medical orthodoxy obsessively focuses on searching for a vaccine and/or drug for coronavirus COVID-19). While they are looking for what would be fabulously profitable approaches, we have with vitamin C an existing, plausible, clinically demonstrated method to treat what coronavirus patients die from: severe acute respiratory syndrome, or pneumonia.

And it is available right now.

*

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 IMF’s actions has a direct impact on the fate of hundreds of thousands of women like Hiruni in Sri Lanka.

For years, the IMF has been pushing for an end to customs barriers protecting local producers, whether farmers, fishermen, artisans or others. This is one of the reasons why Hiruni and others like her can no longer make a living out of what they produce. The IMF, together with the World Bank and other international institutions, also promotes the deregulation of the banking sector and micro-credit. It supports the right of credit companies to set the rates they want, in the name of “freedom” of prices and the market.

This is why Hiruni and so many others have to pay exorbitant interest rates. The IMF, in collaboration with other international institutions, put pressure on governments to privatize or close down public credit banks which were providing loans at reasonable, usually subsidized rates (i.e. without making profits), which the IMF and the World Bank abhor.

This is another reason why Hiruni and others cannot find credit from government sources.

To complete this negative picture, one must add several conditionalities imposed by the IMF’s credit policy handed out to Sri Lanka like so many other countries.

The IMF wants the government to reduce the public deficit by cutting social spending and reducing government staff. As a result, Hiruni and millions of people in Sri Lanka witnessed the free education and health care drastically eroded.

Indeed, Sri Lanka is one of the few countries where health and education are still free in principle, but the austerity measures imposed by the government in complicity with the IMF mean that the real cost of education (including primary education) and basic health is constantly rising, as school books and medicines have to be paid for, and parents are also being pushed into private education and health care to escape the falling public service. Therefore, poor families have to go into debt with micro-credit agencies to meet school and health expenses. And it is women who are most directly affected since they are primary responsible for ensuring education and health for their children.

The list of neo-liberal measures recommended by the IMF, having a disastrous impact on the daily lives of millions of people in Sri Lanka and hundreds of millions worldwide is enormous.

And this will only change if the people get rid of the IMF by electing such political forces in the government that have the will to bring radical solutions that ensure respect for social justice, the enjoyment of human rights and respect for nature.

Current IMF policy in Sri Lanka

In 2016, the neo-liberal government of Sri Lanka appealed to the IMF, which in return pledged $1,600 million in credit on the condition that it would follow the IMF’s recommendations. This programme is still being implemented and the balance sheet is entirely negative.

On 7 February 2020, an IMF visit to Sri Lanka was concluded. The press release of the Washington-based institution is highly significant

(https://www.imf.org/en/News/Articles/2020/02/07/pr2042-sri-lanka-imf-staff-concludes-visit-to-sri-lanka ).

The IMF states that the government’s decision to set a maximum interest rate of 35% on micro-credit loans can only be temporary because the distortion (sic!) of the functioning of the financial market must be avoided. It should be noted that the government set such a ceiling as it was under pressure from the streets.

Thousands of women, victims of micro-credit and its abusive rates, had mobilized in the North of the country to demand that interest rates should not exceed 25% (which remains an extremely high rate since the inflation rate is only 4%). Setting the maximum interest rate at 35% is a limited concession made by the government in view of the scale of the social drama and the risk of extending the mobilizations. It should also be noted that in a very clear report, the United Nations independent expert on debt and human rights sounded the alarm about the dramatic situation experienced by the very many victims of micro-credit in Sri Lanka. His report, written after completing a field mission, was damning for the government, financial institutions and other foreign donors. He called on the governments to act

(https://www.ohchr.org/EN/NewsEvents/Pages/DisplayNews.aspx?NewsID=23482&LangID=E).

(https://lk.one.un.org/news/end-of-mission-statement-un-independent-expert-on-the-effects-of-foreign-debt-and-human-rights/).

The government had tried to justify itself by claiming that it was pursuing a policy of poverty reduction

(https://www.mfa.gov.lk/sri-lankas-statement-on-the-report-of-the-independent-expert-on-foreign-debt-and-human-rights/ and

https://www.mfa.gov.lk/wp-content/uploads/2019/03/Statement.pdf ).

It should also be noted that the independent expert followed with keen interest, the proceedings of the 7^th South Asia CADTM workshop held in Colombo in April 2018

(https://www.cadtm.org/Colombo-Declaration-on ;

https://www.cadtm.org/South-Asia-New-creditors-and-new-forms-of-debt-peonage ; https://www.cadtm.org/Damning-testimonies-of-microcredit)

The Sri Lankan social movements had submitted to him a public document at the time of his visit in August 2018

(https://www.cadtm.org/Submission-to-the-Independent-Expert-on-foreign-debt-and-human-rights-By-Civil).

As a result of various forms of pressure exerted on it, the government set a maximum rate of 35%. Although this rate is still completely exaggerated and must be characterized as usurious, the IMF has the audacity to state in its press release of 7 February 2020 that it is necessary to soon restore the right to freely set rates!

The IMF also calls on the government to end as soon as possible the moratorium on the payment of debts of small and medium-sized enterprises. It must be said that following the terror attacks of April 2019, tourists have deserted Sri Lanka for months, which has damaged the economy and in particular small and medium enterprises. In order to prevent an increase of bankruptcies, the government has decreed a suspension of payment of their debts and it is this measure that the IMF is also asking to be cancelled soon.

In addition, the IMF calls on the government to continue austerity measures and the underhand and gradual privatization of state-owned enterprises. This applies in particular to SriLankan Airlines, the oil company and the electricity company

(see https://www.imf.org/en/Publications/CR/Issues/2019/11/04/Sri-Lanka-Sixth-Review-Under-the-Extended-Arrangement-Under-the-Extended-Fund-Facility-and-48787).

The IMF calls on the government to deepen international trade liberalisation and measures to attract foreign investment. The negative consequences of this policy are well known.

The volume of Sri Lanka’s public debt has risen sharply over the past three years and now exceeds 90% of GDP. It should be recalled that the current IMF arrangement dates back to 2016.

However, between 2016 and the end of 2018, public debt increased by 30%. This means that IMF action has actively contributed to the increase in Sri Lanka’s debt, increasing the country’s dependence on foreign and domestic lenders. Although a small part, debt in the form of sovereign securities issued in foreign financial markets has doubled in volume. In percentage terms, it has increased by 50 per cent.

The IMF is banging its fist on the table to call on the government to implement a firmer policy of austerity in public spending.

Hiruni, like the overwhelming majority of Sri Lanka’s population, has no fair expectations from the IMF.

The CADTM, which held its 8^th South Asia Regional Workshop in Colombo in February 2020, supported the struggle of victims of government and IMF policies. The UN Independent Expert on Debt and Human Rights sent a message to the CADTM workshop participants that addresses the substantive issues

(https://www.cadtm.org/Message-from-Juan-Pablo-Bohoslavski-the-UN-expert-on-Debt-and-Human-Rights-to).

It should be noted that, in addition to the fatal agreements with the IMF, the deadly action of the Trump Administration also plays a significant role in the deterioration of the living conditions of a large majority of the Sri Lankan population. One of the channels of Washington’s intervention is a federal agency created in 2004, called the Millennium Challenge Corporation, which has been active in Sri Lanka since April 2019.

(see https://www.mcc.gov/where-we-work/country/sri-lanka).

It assigns good or bad ratings to the countries in which it operates (see https://www.mcc.gov/who-we-fund/scorecard/fy-2019/LK). Its deleterious action is combined with that of USAID, the other federal agency that strongly encourages further job insecurity in Sri Lanka (so that the IMF does not deal with it directly).

The European Union is not to be outdone. Its investment bank, the EIB, actively supports micro-credit enterprises that exploit and despoil hundreds of thousands of women in Sri Lanka. It should also be noted that the so-called ethical European private bank Triodos also invests in the microcredit business in the country

(https://www.lankabusinessonline.com/tripartite-finance/).

Of course, we must not forget China, for which Sri Lanka occupies a geo-strategic position in terms of trade routes. China is building a number of ports without taking into account the preservation of the environment, and it is doing so while putting Sri Lanka into debt. China is not giving a gift either.

CADTM joins Hiruni and all those who, like her, have finally decided to resist. For after having been a passive victim, Hiruni joined the action of active resistance like many other women who demonstrated in Colombo on 27 February 2020 to request that the government respond to their demands.

*

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

This article was originally published on CADTM.

Eric Toussaint is a historian and political scientist who completed his Ph.D. at the universities of Paris VIII and Liège, is the spokesperson of the CADTM International, and sits on the Scientific Council of ATTAC France. He is the author of Debt System (Haymarket books, Chicago, 2019), Bankocracy (2015); The Life and Crimes of an Exemplary Man (2014); Glance in the Rear View Mirror. Neoliberal Ideology From its Origins to the Present, Haymarket books, Chicago, 2012 (see here), etc.

All images in this article are from CADTM

In unexpected news today, the small West African country of Sierra Leone has withdrawn recognition of the so-called independence of Kosovo. This now means that of the 193 UN member states, only 92 countries recognize the self-proclaimed independence of Kosovo, putting the illegitimate country into a minority of recognition. The head of Serbian diplomacy also explained that 96 countries do not recognize Kosovo, while five countries are in a fluid stance, i.e. mostly recognize Kosovo, but no longer have much support for Kosovo.

The news was revealed by Serbian Foreign Minister Ivica Dačić, who is on an official visit today to the African country that is located on the Atlantic Coast. Sierra Leone is now the 18th state to withdraw recognition of Kosovo as an independent state since 2017.

“It is with great pleasure that I can show a note from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs stating that Sierra Leone is withdrawing recognition of Kosovo as an independent state and will respect the results of the dialogue, with the mediation of the EU and the UN,” Dačić said. “This means Kosovo no longer has a majority in the UN.”

He continued to explain that this “recognition” of Kosovo’s independence was of particular importance for Belgrade. This deals a powerful blow to Kosovo, not so much that Sierra Leone holds great diplomatic influence, but rather for the first that the African country was among one of the first countries to recognize Kosovo’s independence in 2008. Dačić said he had successful talks with Sierra Leonese President Julius Maada Bio in the country’s capital of Freetown and that it was agreed that bilateral relations, which had been stalled for years, will be improved. Bio is expected to visit Serbia in June.

Prior to Sierra Leone, Kosovo independence recognition was withdrawn by Suriname, Togo, Ghana, Nauru, the Comoros, São Tomé and Príncipe, Guinea-Bissau, Burundi, Liberia, Lesotho, Grenada, Madagascar, the Commonwealth of Dominica, Papua New Guinea, Solomon Islands, Palau and Central African Republic. Only last night Serbian President Aleksandar Vučić told reporters that after meeting with U.S. National Security Advisor Robert O’Brien, he expected new withdrawals of recognition of the self-proclaimed Kosovo in the near future.

Vučić and President of Kosovo Hashim Thaçi met on Monday at the White House. According to a statement by Vučić, two presidents had “the usual talks” that resolved and progressed nothing. However, with Freetown withdrawing their recognition of Kosovo, it appears that Vučić knew this was going to occur and is alluding that there are more states ready to withdraw their recognitions.

The Greater Albanian project is accelerating as Kosovo’s statehood is in question. Kosovo-born Albanian Minister-in-office for Europe and Foreign Affairs Gent Cakaj and the Foreign Minister of Kosovo Glauk Konjufca in a meeting last month discussed the establishment of common economic space for free movement of people, goods and capital between Albania and Kosovo, as well as sharing embassies around the world. Although this is yet to occur, it is likely that because Kosovo now has minority recognition according to Dačić, Albania and Kosovo are likely to speed up this process of integration. With a minority recognition of Kosovo’s independence and Vučić alluding that there will be more recognition withdrawals, the legitimacy of Kosovo’s independence from Serbia is becoming increasingly tedious and will legitimize the reincorporation of the breakaway province, which is considered Serbia’s heartland.

The U.S. historically has been indifferent to a Greater Albania project that incorporates further areas of Serbia, as well as Greece, Montenegro and North Macedonia. The U.S. has had no need to support such a project as Greece, Montenegro and North Macedonia are subservient states to Washington. Serbia on the other hand serves as a bulwark to U.S. hegemony in the Balkans and is the most Russian-friendly state in the region, meaning Washington fully backs Kosovo’s illegal declaration of independence. Kosovo’s return under Serbian sovereignty challenges U.S. control of the Balkans, suggesting that Washington may not oppose the incorporation of Kosovo into the Albanian state.

For this reason, Serbia should not give up its current policy of pushing states to withdraw their recognition of Kosovo’s independence and Belgrade must maintain that Kosovo is an integral and historical part of their country. Serbia must continue its diplomatic campaigning to have more states withdraw their recognition of an independent Kosovo. With this achieved, Belgrade will have secured legitimacy to pursue all options necessary, including military, to prevent Kosovo from ever incorporating itself into Albania instead of Serbia.

Today marks a historic day when one of the first states to recognize Kosovo’s independence has now withdrawn it. However, this also spells a dangerous time for Serbia as Kosovo can start behaving in more irrational ways to maintain their illegal independence and resort back to terrorism as it had in the 1990’s and 2000 under the banner of the so-called Kosovo Liberation Army. We can expect Belgrade to secure more withdrawals of recognition, meaning that it is only a matter of time until Kosovo is finally reincorporated into Serbia, striking a massive blow to the U.S. as it will lose a region that has been extremely loyal to 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.

Paul Antonopoulos is a Research Fellow at the Center for Syncretic Studies.

In National Security Cinema: The Shocking New Evidence of Government Control in Hollywood (2017), Dr. Matthew Alford and Tom Secker offer convincing proof that the US Department of Defense, CIA and FBI have for decades used various means to manipulate content and even deny production of certain Hollywood projects, often using “national security” as a pretext to censor film and television. The real aim of these operations, according to the authors, is to advance “violent, American-centric solutions to international problems based on twisted readings of history.”

Alford is a Teaching Fellow at the University of Bath in England. He is also the author of Reel Power: Hollywood Cinema and American Supremacy (2010). Secker is a private researcher who runs spyculture.com—an online archive about government involvement in the entertainment industry.

Their book argues that the US military has had an influential relationship with Hollywood products since its earliest days. Alford and Secker point out that the Home Guard (reserve forces outside the National Guard) provided tanks for “the infamous feature film [D.W. Griffith’s] Birth of a Nation (1915), in which black slaves revolt against their masters, before the Ku Klux Klan ride in on horseback to save the day.”

Using the Freedom of Information Act, the authors gained access to files that exposed the extent of government censorship in films between 1911 and 2017. The DOD (Department of Defense, or Pentagon) provided military equipment and “advice,” and even allowed members of the military to make appearances, in exchange for some degree of control over the content of 814 films.

The authors continue, “If we include the 1,133 TV titles in our count, the number of screen entertainment products supported by the DOD leaps to 1,947. If we are to include the individual episodes for each title on long-running shows like 24, Homeland, and NCIS, as well as the influence of other major organisations like the FBI, CIA and White House then it becomes clear that the national security state has supported thousands of products.”

Alford and Secker offer the Transformer movie franchise (2007-2018 so far, most of it directed by Michael Bay) as an example of how the DOD reinforces its “national security” interests by using different “under the table” methods of influencing the making of what was (and still is) considered to be pure entertainment.

Normally, filmmakers have to send drafts of the script to the DOD along with their request for material support. Not so with the makers of Transformers. The DOD paid the filmmakers to gain “very early influence over the scripts” by giving them the most military assistance in filmmaking history, e.g., “twelve types of Air Force aircraft and troops from four different bases.” The second Transformers film was provided with $150m F-22 fighters.

Peter Cullen in Transformers (2007)

The authors rightly conclude that the Transformers franchise is anything but “apolitical,” and is, in fact, an example of what’s come to be known as “war pornography.” The unstated but intentional message to the audience is to “trust in officialdom” to “bring ’em home” from foreign wars and invasions, no matter the number of human beings, American or otherwise, soldier or civilian, who are killed in the process.

When the authors turn to investigating the CIA’s influences on movies, they work from available facts and information in regard to three different eras: 1943-1965, 1966-1986 and 1986 to the present. While the CIA has censored or interfered with far fewer movies, its repressive methods and means, fittingly, are even more insidious.

During the immediate postwar period, officials of the newly formed CIA worked, according to Alford and Secker, “to ensure that Hollywood films did not depict them in any form.” Meanwhile, the agency, from its establishment, was busy “recruiting assets within the highest levels of the film industry and using them to spy on Hollywood and to add and remove material from movie scripts.”

Image on the right: Jan Sterling in Nineteen Eighty-Four (1956)

The film versions of George Orwell’s Animal Farm (1954, John Halas and Joy Batchelor) and Nineteen Eighty-Four (1956, Michael Anderson) exemplify the kind of movies that the CIA would be expected to censor. Indeed, film scholars, our authors point out, have long been aware that both adaptations “were directly affected by the CIA.” In the case of Animal Farm, the changes to the film’s ending were designed to encourage revolts against “communist dictatorships,” i.e., the various Stalinist regimes in the USSR and Eastern Europe, “ironically just as, in the real world,” Alford and Secker point out, “the CIA was overthrowing the democratically elected governments in Iran and Guatemala and launching operations against Sukarno’s independence government in Indonesia.”

The CIA discovered the effectiveness of working through agents—or Hollywood figures who would act as agents—during the Cold War period. As an example, the authors reveal that Luigi Luraschi, the head of censorship at Paramount Studios, regularly contacted “an anonymous individual” at the CIA to inform him of Paramount’s ability and willingness to alter films to conform to US government interests.

Among the many Paramount movies from which scenes were added or deleted—intended to improve the image of American society—include the apparently innocuous Sangaree (Edward Ludwig), The Caddy (Norman Taurog) and Houdini (George Marshall), all released in 1953, and Strategic Air Command(Anthony Mann), from 1955. The latter was changed to ensure that America did not appear as “a lot of trigger-happy warmongering people.”

Sean Connery and Rik Van Nutter in Thunderball (1965)

In 1961 the CIA suffered its “first high profile failure” during the attempted invasion of Cuba at the Bay of Pigs, an operation aimed at overthrowing the Castro government. One of the CIA’s responses to the debacle was to turn to movies to improve its image. Nowhere was this more apparent than in Thunderball (Terence Young, 1965), the James Bond film based on the novel by Ian Fleming (a friend of CIA director Allen Dulles), featuring a number of positive references to the agency, and the first movie with a likable CIA character, Felix Leiter (Rik Van Nutter).

1966-1986: Richard Helms, who began working in intelligence in 1943 and who served as CIA director from 1966-1973, presided over what appeared to be a less intrusive relationship with Hollywood. Alford and Secker ask, “But was all as it seemed?”

Two films from this period—Topaz (Alfred Hitchcock, 1969) and Three Days of the Condor (Sydney Pollack, 1975)—portrayed the CIA as a ruthless intelligence agency that sent “murderous villains,” i.e., CIA agents, out into the public. The authors hypothesize that the agency may have welcomed the “more menacing” image that these and other films presented. They write that if there really was “tacit CIA approval for the Condor script, it would suggest that the CIA was actually at ease with being represented in such threatening terms. The final scene of the film rationalises the CIA’s criminal activity, as ultimately it is only the Agency that appears able to protect the flow of oil that is vital to the nation’s survival.”

Robert Redford in Three Days of the Condor (1975)

Alford and Secker point out that Helms, who was dismissed as CIA chief by President Richard Nixon in early 1973 (due in part to Helms’s refusal to help cover up the developing Watergate scandal), spoke with star Robert Redford “for hours” on the set of Condor in 1975.

The authors’ notion that the CIA was deliberately cultivating a “tough-guy” image is probably correct, but providing at least a brief history of Nixon’s firing of Helms and the surrounding developments, including the state of “the flow of oil,” would have strengthened their arguments and enlightened the reader.

1986-present: Top Gun (Tony Scott, 1986) proved to be a successful promotional film for the US Navy—in the year following the movie’s release, “Navy recruitment figures saw a spike of 16,000, and enlistment for naval aviators jumped 500 percent.” This success, according to Alford and Secker, caused the CIA to change its means of manipulating Hollywood. In fact, the CIA was taking advantage of a reactionary political and cultural atmosphere, one of whose central events was the collapse of the Eastern European Stalinist regimes and the dissolution of the Soviet Union between 1989 and 1991.

After building a relationship with author espionage-thriller writer Tom Clancy, the CIA allowed adaptations of two Clancy products, Patriot Games (1992) and Mission Impossible (1996), to be the first movies filmed at the CIA’s Langley headquarters in two decades.

Other celebrity links quickly followed, giving the CIA control over the development of a number of films. In his capacity as CIA’s Entertainment Liaison Officer (ELO), Chase Brandon, a 25-year veteran of CIA operations and cousin of Hollywood star Tommy Lee Jones, helped give the spy agency influence over the production of a number of films, such as The Bourne Identity(Doug Liman, 2002) , The Sum of All Fears (Phil Alden Robinson, 2002—also based on a Clancy Cold War potboiler) and The Recruit (Roger Donaldson, 2003). Brandon’s role as ghostwriter of the last film has been verified. The Recruit, as the authors note, is intended to counter political concerns, such as the CIA’s apparent failure to predict the 9/11 attacks, and to promote the Agency’s “number one priority, terrorism.”

Perhaps the most surprising and disgraceful of the authors’ findings is the number of Hollywood performers who have, in one way or another, shilled for the CIA and the US military. Robert De Niro (who had left-wing parents and should know better), Tom Cruise, Dan Aykroyd, Dean Cain, Will Smith, Claire Danes, Kevin Bacon, Patrick Stewart and Mike Myers are among those who have publicly visited Langley headquarters. “George Clooney and Angelina Jolie have worked on films with the CIA.” Ben Affleck, a friend of Rwandan dictator Paul Kagame, and star in the aforementioned CIA and DOD-assisted The Sum of All Fears, told an interviewer that “Hollywood is probably full of CIA agents.”

A “Case Studies” section allows the authors to scrutinize more closely the influence of the military-intelligence apparatus on 14 contemporary films in different genres, including James Cameron’s Avatar (2009); Mike Nichols’s Charlie Wilson’s War (2007); Robert Zemeckis’s Contact (1997); Terry George’s Hotel Rwanda (2004); Seth Rogen-Evan Goldberg’s The Interview(2014); The Kingdom (2007) and Lone Survivor (2013), both directed by Peter Berg; William Friedkin’s Rules of Engagement (2000); and Paul Greengrass’s United 93 (2006).

(The WSWS, without of course knowing the specific role of the military and CIA in every case, sharply criticized each of the films on this list that we reviewed.)

A detailed examination of these films brings to light the fact that most of them promote a common underlying ideology, that “American military supremacy is fundamentally benevolent.”

Tom Hanks and Philip Seymour Hoffman in Charlie Wilson’s War (2007)

In the case of Charlie Wilson’s War, the CIA advanced this ideology by deleting scenes from the script that portrayed Soviet goodwill during their occupation of Afghanistan, e.g., in one of several scenes removed from the script, a “maverick CIA operative” described Russian soldiers gathering Afghan refugees together in a semi-circle and teaching them how to read and write. Iron Man (2008) follows a familiar Hollywood plot line to prove the benevolence of American domination. Initially, Tony Stark (Robert Downey Jr.) is a stereotypically rich playboy, but his capture and imprisonment change him almost instantaneously into a heroic figure who, as Iron Man, uses sophisticated equipment to kill “generic Muslim terrorists,” just as the Pentagon was doing. The US Air Force rewarded the filmmakers by providing aircraft and airmen as extras, along with script and technical advice. Alford and Secker observe that “Air Force Captain Christian Hodge, the Defense Department’s project officer for the production, commented that the ‘Air Force is going to come off looking like rock stars.’” The Case Studies section concludes with a consideration of the relationship between various government departments and agencies, especially the CIA, and the work of Clancy and directors Oliver Stone and Paul Verhoeven.

While the authors note that Clancy is hardly a “laudable figure politically,” the Hollywood versions of his novels removed whatever anti-establishment elements they contained, and shifted them in the direction of misleading “people about real events and political dynamics while portraying the security state as the only answer to a dangerous and hostile world.”

Alford and Secker rather generously refer to Verhoeven’s “politically subversive trio of movies”—the sci-fi trilogy of Robocop, Total Recall, and Starship Troopers. The latter film, according to Verhoeven, got past the censors “because nobody [at Sony Pictures] ever saw it,” due to the fact that Sony was turning over management “every three or four months.”

Veteran filmmaker Oliver Stone had no such luck. After the release of Snowden, about whistleblower Edward Snowden, Stone spoke of his inability to find American financing for the movie, according to the authors, his “first major political movie in 21 years.” Stone commented, “It’s a very strange thing to do [a story about] an American man, and not be able to finance this movie in America.”

Stone faced censorship from multiple US government departments and agencies as well as a dry well when looking for American financing of any movie that was not sympathetic to US imperialist policies.

At times, the authors fail to bring enough historical background to their statements and assertions, although a valuable Endnotes concludes the book. The critical subject matter, about which the American public knows next to nothing, deserves an even larger study.

Overall, National Security Cinema: The Shocking New Evidence of Government Control in Hollywood offers a clearly written presentation of a Hollywood industry and government departments and agencies that are, indeed, intent on delivering more and more “war propaganda.” Until they are stopped, “we will,” to quote the authors, “continue to live and die in a military-industrial nightmare.”

*

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 hugely corrupted US political process is too debauched to fix, ordinary Americans with no say over how they’re governed.

Elections when held are political theater. Back-room deal-making decides things, not voters.

Going to the polls is a waste of time when so-called elections always turn out the same way under one-party rule with two right wings.

In 2016, Hillary’s Dem party takeover robbed Sanders of the nomination as standard bearer he  likely would have won if things were fair.

The process was like holding a world series or super bowl with only one team represented.

Sanders never had a chance and knew it. Are things now manipulated the same way in the race to be Dem standard bearer in November?

Based on his voting record, along party lines most often, Sanders assures continuity if elected to the nation’s highest office.

Yet he’s likely seen not safe enough by Dem party bosses and monied interests backing them.

Despite holding a sizable lead over other Dem aspirants and Trump in an average of national polls, showing him more popular than rivals for the nation’s highest office, things are being manipulated against him to benefit Biden.

Notably ahead of Super Tuesday, Buttigieg and Klobuchar dropped out of the race, their announcements timed to boost Biden’s chances in Tuesday voting — one of many ways the US political system is rigged.

Reportedly Obama and other Dem insiders pushed Buttigieg and Klobuchar to drop out and endorse Biden.

On Monday, they appeared separately with the former vice president to back him — timed ahead of Tuesday primaries in 14 states, including California and Texas, with 1,357 of 3,979 delegates at stake.

Their sellout to party bosses, likely in return for special favors offered, likely boosts Biden’s Super Tuesday chances at Sanders’ expense.

Key is whether Warren will drop out, endorse him, help his campaign, and make it a three-candidate race.

Late entrant/super-rich Bloomberg will likely stay the course as long as he sees a chance to buy the Dem nomination.

A billion here, a billion there thrown at the race is pocket change for a figure worth about $55 billion, according to Forbes magazine.

Dem party bosses likely see him as an alternate choice against Sanders if popular support for Biden fades in upcoming primaries.

For now, establishment Dems are publicly endorsing the former vice president — not Obama so far, remaining publicly neutral despite clearly favoring Biden over Sanders.

According to NBC News, “(p)eople close to Obama said the former president has been keeping close tabs on the race.”

“They said the signal has been sent in the past 36 hours that he sees Biden as the candidate to back, and they don’t need Obama to say it publicly or privately.”

Separately, NBC News said sources close to Bloomberg explained that he’s “test(ing) the theory” that Biden won’t be nominated.

So he’s not bowing out of the race at this time even though aware of long odds against him. Based on polls so far, he may not win a single state.

Longstanding establishment figure Biden as US senator and vice president since 1973 reflects virtually everything disturbing about dirty business as usual in Washington.

He never met a US war of aggression against a nonthreatening nation he didn’t wholeheartedly endorse.

Hostile to people of color and the nation’s poor, he’s militantly pro-Wall Street, pro-the military, industrial, security complex, pro Big Oil and Big Pharma.

He supports the humanly destructive war on drugs and US gulag prison system, operating domestically and abroad.

The 1994 Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act he championed led to the imprisonment of millions of Black and Latino Americans — largely for illicit drug possession and other nonviolent offenses.

He once argued that Roe v. Wade (a woman’s right to choose, to maintain sovereignty over her own body) “went too far,” adding:

“I don’t think that a woman has the sole right to say what should happen to her body.”

He backed the notorious Hyde amendment, prohibiting federal funding for abortions.

He supported the anti-consumer 2005 Bankruptcy Abuse Prevention and Consumer Protection Act.

It notably made federal and private student loan indebtedness non-dischargeable, debt bondage relief through bankruptcy unattainable.

He backed the 1999 Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act, repealing Glass-Steagall. The 1930s law separated commercial from investment banks and insurers, among other provisions, curbing speculation — unleashed by this deplorable legislation.

He also backed the 2000 Commodities Futures Modernization Act — preventing regulatory oversight of derivatives and leveraging. It made Wall Street more of a casino, operating on only the house wins rules.

He supported all post-9/11 police state laws — while opposing Net Neutrality.

He never met a tax cut for corporate America and high net-worth households he didn’t endorse.

He’s militantly hostile to all sovereign independent states on the US target list for regime change.

He supports monied interests exclusively over the public welfare he disdains.

Based on his deplorable political record, he’s the worst of all Dem aspirants — a warmaker, not a peacemaker, an anti-progressive, not a man of the people, a shill for powerful interests exclusively, a Hillary clone with a gender difference.

*

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.

A MV Stellar Banner ship with almost 300 thousand tons of iron ore is stuck on the Brazilian coast, just over 10 kilometers from the coast. There is a great risk of sinking, as its hull is on the verge of breaking. In addition to ore, there is an immense fuel load, with 3,500 tons of residual oil and 140 tons of distilled oil. It can be one of the greatest environmental disasters in Brazilian history. 

The case would be tragic in isolation; however, environmental disasters in Brazil have been practically unceasing in recent years. The ship, interestingly, serves the Vale Company, the same company that was responsible for the disasters in Mariana (2015) and Brumadinho (2018), both in the interior of the state of Minas Gerais and which resulted in the death of almost 300 people. In both cases, tailings dams broke in the areas explored by mining, destroying two historic cities of Brazil, which have not yet been restored. The victims’ families remain homeless and without compensation – Vale has never been legally held responsible for the tragedies.

To fully understand these cases and the whole controversy surrounding the company Vale, we have to analyze a little of Brazilian political history. “Vale” was the name adopted by the company after its privatization. Before, it was called “Vale do Rio Doce” and was a state-owned mining company, founded in the 1940s by former president Getúlio Vargas, who saw it as an important stage in Brazilian national development. The decades had passed and the political rivalry between the nationalist defenders of Getúlio Vargas and the liberals has been intensified. The getulists wanted to preserve the public companies created by the ex-president to develop the country; liberals wanted to privatize them and subordinate the country economically to international economic elites. In 2007, the privatization of the Vale do Rio Doce was finally concluded, and the company came to be called “Vale”, being now a publicly traded company, operating worldwide and with shares traded on the world’s main Stock Exchanges.

It is precisely from the moment of its privatization, that Vale begins to drop the quality of its services, ceasing to be a central point of the Brazilian economy to become a truly murderous and mercenary company. In 2012, Vale was elected by the “Public Eye People’s” as the worst company in the world in regard to human rights and the environment.

Three years later, there was the incident in Mariana, considered until today the biggest environmental disaster in the Brazilian history, which, in addition to deaths and general destruction, caused the extinction of a large and important river in the region. Three more years passed and the company repeated its actions in the city of Brumadinho, killing an even greater number of people. In 2019, in another episode involving the company, approximately 500 people had to be forcibly removed from their homes due to a warning about possible breakdown of new dams. The collective evacuation in the city of Barão dos Cocais, also in the state of Minas Gerais, caused a huge disturbance to the population that remains homeless and prevented from returning to their residence, while more than a year has passed and nothing has been done to remedy the problem, with the homeless population and the environment waiting for yet another disaster.

Now, we have a new chapter happening involving the company and its environmental and social neglect. The ship belongs to the South Korean company “Polaris Shipping”, which was contracted by Vale to transport iron ore from Brazil to China. The ship is stranded and almost sinking in the coast of the state of Maranhão, in northeastern Brazil. Images captured by the Brazilian Navy detected a series of oil stains in the regions around the stranding. According to Brazilian authorities, there is no defined containment plan yet.

Why is Vale still involved with impunity in so many scandals and environmental disasters? How does a company “internationally awarded” with the “Oscar of environmental shame” continue to operate freely in Brazil, being involved in at least three tragedies in five years? Why has Vale never been punished? What prevents Brazilian authorities from restricting the activities of a company that has already killed hundreds of Brazilians?

The answer lies in other data: Vale is one of the main controllers of the Brazilian National Congress. Its political influence is immense, with several parliamentarians at its disposal. After the incidents of Mariana and Brumadinho, a survey organized by the Brazilian newspaper “Estadão” revealed that the company had already donated around US $ 19 million to Brazilian deputies, senators, governors and candidates for the Presidency of the Republic. Such donations were a key point in a major institutional corruption scheme in which politicians were bribed for failing to pass strict environmental laws, which to some extent “hurt” Vale.

Now, we see the results of the environmental neglect of neoliberalism: yet another environmental tragedy is approaching in Brazil. There will be more victims and the social and environmental impact will be even greater than that of previous crises. And this will not be the last tragedy, as Vale will probably go unpunished again.

*

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.

Curbing the tide of disinformation being pumped out by powerful and well-funded mainstream media is a considerable and costly challenge. Global Research operates on a shoe-string budget and does not accept funding from outside sources. This allows us to maintain complete independence in terms of what we decide to publish, but also means that without our reader’s support we would sink.

Our reader feedback has been an invaluable source of encouragement, motivation, and growth. But Global Research also needs your financial support and help. If you value the coverage we bring you on a daily basis, free of charge, please consider making a donation or becoming a member by clicking below:

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

---

Thank you for supporting independent media.

The Global Research Team

Os Estados Unidos subiram o alerta do Coronavírus para a Itália, do nível 3 (“evitar viagens não essenciais”), elevando-o para 4, para a Lombardia e Veneto (“não viajar”), o mesmo que para a China. A American Airlines e a Delta Air Lines suspenderam todos os voos entre Nova York e Milão. Os cidadãos USA que vão à Alemanha, Polónia e outros países europeus, no nível de alerta 2, devem “adoptar precauções acrescidas”.

Há, no entanto, uma categoria de cidadãos USA isentos dessas normas: os 20.000 soldados que começam a chegar dos Estados Unidos aos portos e aeroportos europeus para o exercício Defender Europe 20 (Defensor da Europa 20), o maior destacamento de tropas USA, na Europa, nos últimos 25 anos. Compreendendo os que já estão presentes, participarão em Abril e Maio, cerca de 30.000 soldados USA, apoiados por 7.000 dos 17 países membros e parceiros da NATO, entre os quais, a Itália.

A primeira unidade blindada chegou do porto de Savannah, nos EUA, ao de Bremerhaven, na Alemanha. Em resumo, chegam dos USA a 6 portos europeus (na Bélgica, Holanda, Alemanha, Letónia, Estónia) 20.000 peças de equipamentos militares. Outras 13.000 peças são fornecidas pelos depósitos pré-posicionados pelo US Army Europe (Exército dos EUA, na Europa), principalmente na Alemanha, Holanda e Bélgica. Tais operações, informa o US Army Europe, “requerem a participação de dezenas de milhares de militares e civis de muitas nações”.

Chega, ao mesmo tempo, dos USA a 7 aeroportos europeus, o grosso do contingente dos 20.000 soldados. Entre estes, 6.000 da Guarda Nacional, provenientes de 15 Estados: Arizona, Flórida, Montana, Nova York, Virgínia e outros. No início do exercício, em Abril – comunica o US Army Europe  – os 30.000 soldados USA “espalhar-se-ão por toda a região europeia” para “proteger a Europa de qualquer ameaça potencial”, com clara referência à “ameaça russa”.

O General Tod Wolters – que comanda as forças USA, na Europa e, ao mesmo tempo, as forças da NATO como Comandante Supremo Aliado na Europa – assegura que “a União Europeia, a NATO e o Comando Europeu dos Estados Unidos trabalharam em conjunto para melhorar as infraestruturas”. Isto permitirá que os comboios militares se movam rapidamente, ao longo de 4.000 km de rotas de trânsito. Dezenas de milhares de soldados atravessarão as fronteiras para realizar exercícios em dez países. Na Polónia chegarão a 12 áreas de treino, 16.000 soldados USA com cerca de 2.500 veículos. Os pára-quedistas USA da 173ª Brigada, estacionados em Veneto e os italianos da Brigada Folgore, estacionados na Toscana, irão à Letónia para um exercício conjunto de lançamento de bombas.

O Defender Europe 20 está a ser efectuado para “aumentar a capacidade de instalar rapidamente uma grande força de combate dos Estados Unidos na Europa”. Portanto, desenvolvem-se com horários e procedimentos que tornam praticamente impossível sujeitar dezenas de milhares de soldados às regras de saúde do Coronavírus e impedir que, durante os períodos de descanso, entrem em contacto com os habitantes. Além do mais, o US Army Europe Rock Band realizará uma série de concertos gratuitos na Alemanha, Polónia e Lituânia, que atrairão um grande público. As 30.000 tropas USA que “se espalharão pela região europeia” estão, de facto, isentas das normas preventivas sobre o Coronavírus que se aplicam aos civis. Basta a garantia dada pelo US Army Europe de que “estamos a monitorar o Coronavírus” e que as “nossas forças estão de boa saúde”.

Ao mesmo tempo, é ignorado o impacto ambiental de um exercício militar de tal envergadura. Participarão tanques USA Abrams, pesando 70 toneladas e com armadura de urânio empobrecido, que consumem 400 litros de combustível por 100 km, produzindo forte inquinamento para obter a potência máxima.

Em tal situação, o que fazem as autoridades nacionais e as da União Europeia, o que faz a Organização Mundial da Saúde? Além de tapar a boca e o nariz, colocam a máscara sobre os olhos.

Manlio Dinucci

Artigo original em italiano :

30 mila soldati dagli Usa in Europa senza mascherina

Tradutora: Maria Luísa de Vasconcellos 

Gli Stati uniti hanno alzato l’allerta Coronavirus per l’Italia a livello 3 («evitare viaggi non essenziali»), portandolo a 4 per Lombardia e Veneto («non viaggiare»), lo stesso che per la Cina. Le American Airlines e le Delta Air Lines hanno sospeso tutti i voli tra New York e Milano. I cittadini Usa che vanno in Germania, Polonia e altri paesi europei, a livello 2 di allerta, devono «adottare accresciute precauzioni».

C’è però una categoria di cittadini Usa esentata da tali norme:  i 20.000 soldati che cominciano ad arrivare dagli Stati uniti in porti e aeroporti europei per l’esercitazione Defender Europe 20 (Difensore dell’Europa 2020), il più grande spiegamento di truppe Usa in Europa degli ultimi 25 anni. Compresi quelli già presenti, vi parteciperanno in aprile e maggio  circa 30.000 soldati Usa, affiancati da 7.000 di 17 paesi membri e partner della Nato, tra cui l’Italia.

La prima unità corazzata è arrivata dal porto di Savannah negli Usa a quello di Bremerhaven in Germania. Complessivamente arrivano dagli Usa in 6 porti europei (in Belgio, Olanda, Germania, Lettonia, Estonia) 20.000 pezzi di equipaggiamento militare. Altri 13.000 pezzi sono forniti dai depositi preposizionati dallo US Army Europe (Esercito Usa in Europa), principalmente in Germania, Olanda e Belgio. Tali operazioni, informa lo US Army Europe, «richiedono la partecipazione  di decine di migliaia di militari e civili di molte nazioni».

Arriva allo stesso tempo dagli Usa in 7 aeroporti europei il grosso del contingente dei 20.000 soldati. Tra questi 6.000 della Guardia Nazionale provenienti da 15 Stati: Arizona, Florida, Montana, New York, Virginia e altri. All’inizio dell’esercitazione in aprile – comunica lo US Army Europe  – i 30.000 soldati Usa «si spargeranno attraverso la regione europea» per  «proteggere l’Europa da qualsiasi potenziale minaccia», con chiaro riferimento alla «minaccia russa».

Il generale Tod Wolters – che comanda le forze Usa in Europa e allo stesso tempo quelle Nato quale Comandante Supremo Alleato in Europa – assicura che «l’Unione europea, la Nato e il Comando europeo degli Stati uniti hanno lavorato insieme per migliorare le infrastrutture». Ciò permetterà ai convogli militari di spostarsi rapidamente lungo 4.000 km di vie di transito. Decine di migliaia di soldati attraverseranno le frontiere per effettuare esercitazioni in dieci paesi.In Polonia arriveranno, in 12 aree di addestramento, 16.000 soldati Usa con circa 2.500 veicoli. Paracadutisti Usa della 173a Brigata di stanza in Veneto e italiani delle Brigata Folgore di stanza in Toscana andranno in Lettonia per una esercitazione congiunta di lancio.

La Defender Europe 20 viene effettuata per «accrescere la capacità di dispiegare rapidamente una grande forza di combattimento dagli Stati uniti in Europa». Si svolge quindi con tempi e procedure che rendono praticamente impossibile sottoporre decine di migliaia di soldati alle norme sanitarie sul Coronavirus e impedire che, nei turni di riposo, entrino in contatto con gli abitanti. Per di più la US Army Europe Rock Band terrà in Germania, Polonia e Lituania una serie di concerti a ingresso libero che attireranno un grande pubblico. I 30.000 soldati Usa, che «si spargeranno attraverso la regione europea», sono di fatto esentati dalle norme preventive sul Coronavirus che invece valgono per i civili. Basta l’assicurazione data dallo US Army Europe che «stiamo monitorando il Coronavirus» e che «le nostre forze sono in buona salute».

Viene allo stesso tempo ignorato l’impatto ambientale di una esercitazione militare di tale portata. Vi parteciperanno carrarmati Usa Abrams, pesanti 70 tonnellate con corazze di uranio impoverito, che consumano 400 litri di carburante per 100 km producendo forte inquinamento per erogare la massima potenza.

In tale situazione, che cosa fanno le autorità Ue e nazionali, che cosa fa l’Organizzazione mondiale della Sanità? Si mettono la mascherina, oltre che su bocca e naso, sugli occhi.

Manlio Dinucci

Trump’s “Peace to Prosperity” Plan, was officially unveiled, on 28 January, 2020, at the White House, by both American President Donald Trump and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. The Plan, also known as “Deal of the Century”, dealt with a number of important issues but concentrated on three aspects: political, security and economic affairs. Out of its 181 pages, 54 pages were dedicated to the plan’s economic component, while the rest dealt with the other issues.[1]

It should be pointed out that the Plan was authored by a team headed by two American attorneys: Trump’s son in law Jared Kushner, and Trump’s former real estate lawyer Jason D. Greenblatt, two pro-Trump White House assistants.

The following article aims at providing critical analysis of parts of the “Peace to Prosperity” Plan. Consequently, it will concentrate only on three aspects: (a) Colonial Verbiage (b) International Law and Sovereignty and (c) The Proposed Palestinian “State”.

(a) Colonial Verbiage

Trump’s Plan should not be judged only by what ideas it contains, but also by both its terminology and by what it tried to conceal. The purposeful omissions by the authors of a number of realities inside the Colonized Palestinian Territories (CPT) revealed how, through the use of colonial verbiage, the authors attempted to twist realities and advance hazy assumptions.

Analysis of the style of language the authors used in this Plan reveals the following. The word ‘Vision’ was repeated 96 times while the term ‘security’ was repeated 165 times. Israeli 53-years old belligerent occupation of the Palestinian territories was described by the authors as a “security footprint”, while Israeli colonial settlers in the West Bank were called “Israeli residents”. The 12-years old tight Israeli military siege on the Gaza Strip, and the Israeli occupation, two familiar and internationally accepted terms, were never used by the authors.

Apparently, this American plan was focused on the Israeli version of “security”, an issue that will be dealt with later. It should be pointed out that Israeli settlers inside the West Bank call themselves Jewish settlers, so does the Israeli media which reports their shooting of Palestinian civilians, their plunder of Palestinian-owned land and their daily burning and cutting of Palestinian olive trees. Even Israeli politicians call them Jewish settlers or pioneer settlers. The Plan leaves us in the dark and the authors do not inform us how Israeli settlers were converted into Israeli residents?

Furthermore, the Plan and its authors are completely tilted to Zionist colonial interests. One indicator for this bias is a statement given by the so-called Special Representative for International Negotiations Jason Greenblatt. He has frequently criticized Palestinian leaders for their policies and rejection of the Trump administration’s efforts. When asked why he does not voice similar criticism of Netanyahu’s government policies, he responded by saying: I did not find “anything to criticize.”[2]

(b) International Law and Sovereignty

In the course of their ‘prolonged occupation’, the Zionist authorities annexed the occupied territories of both the Syrian Golan Heights and East Jerusalem. The present Israeli government expressed its intention to annex additional territories of the West Bank, namely the Jordan valley and all the illegal colonial settlements that were created in the West Bank in the period 1967-2020. Consequently, one should ask: can the Israeli authorities legally carry out this political measure and acquire a sovereign title over these occupied territories?

According to Michael Lynk[3], a well-known Canadian expert in International Law, they definitely cannot. Lynk elaborated his expert opinion in a research entitled “Prolonged Occupation or Illegal Occupant”, in which he argued that,

In the modern world, an occupying power cannot, under any circumstances, acquire the right to conquer, annex or gain sovereign title over any part of the territory under its occupation…This prohibition has been made clear by both the 1907 Hague Regulations, and the 1949 Fourth Geneva Convention.[4]

This same prohibition was formerly stated by the United Nations Security Council which, in November 1967, has endorsed the principle of “the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory” by war or by force, a position that was repeatedly adopted by the UNSC on at least nine occasions, most recently in December 2016.[5]

To begin with, International Law constitutes the only reliable and internationally accepted measure for issues of belligerent occupation and sovereignty. It is important to emphasize that when a foreign army occupies a foreign territory; sovereignty is suspended but never annulled. Lynk pointed out that any territorial annexation by the occupant cannot become valid and legal and should be measured by the principal instruments of international humanitarian law, namely the 1907 Hague Regulations, the 1949 Fourth Geneva Convention and the 1977 Additional Protocol to the Geneva Conventions.[6]

Initially, the authors of the “Peace to Prosperity” Plan dealt with the issue of sovereignty in a peculiar and bizarre way. They argued that:

Sovereignty is an amorphous concept that has evolved over time. … The notion that sovereignty is a static and consistently defined term has been an unnecessary stumbling block in past negotiations. Pragmatic and operational concerns that effect security and prosperity are what is most important.[7]

In accordance with this twisted and strange legal opinion, the authors of the Plan decided that Israeli sovereignty can be freely granted to the Israeli occupant on any part of the occupied Palestinian territories. Therefore, they endorsed Israeli annexation of two Palestinian territories: East Jerusalem and all the Zionist colonial settlements inside the West Bank.

From the very beginning, the authors who emphasized that their Plan “is security-focused”[8] contemplated that “The Jordan Valley, which is critical for Israel’s national security, will be under Israeli sovereignty…”[9] Even, after the establishment of the proposed Palestinian “state” and according to the Plan, Israel will still have “security responsibility”[10] inside the territory of this “state”.

When it comes to the issue of “security”, it should be emphasized that the Israeli army is one of the strongest armies in the world. According to the Military Strength Ranking index of Global Firepower, “Israel comes behind the standard military powerhouses of the United States, Russia, China, India and European powers Germany, the UK and France…”[11]

Historically speaking, Zionist justifications for conquests, plunder, violence and repression have been repeatedly projected by Zionist leaders as “historical rights”, “security needs”, and fight against Palestinian “terrorism”. These euphemisms constituted Zionist attempts to camouflage the colonial relationship that developed inside historical Palestine.

Consequently, the term “security”, is a classical Zionist euphemism that has been in use by Zionist politicians and military analysts, throughout the colonization period. It has frequently been used as a blanket phrase, designed to cover up and justify a number of Zionist settler colonial acts, policies and activities such as: colonial settlements, territorial annexations, expropriations of Palestinian-owned land and water resources, Gaza Strip siege, torture of Palestinian prisoners, targeted killings of Palestinian leaders, the so-called “security barrier” (Separation Wall), the arrest of Palestinian small children, and the shoot to kill policy.

Actually, all these Israeli measures and many other war crimes were all carried out by the Zionists for dubious “security reasons”. They were implemented, by successive Zionist governments, inside the Colonized Palestinian Territories and were justified by false security pretensions. Several UN and International resolutions have repeatedly condemned these violations.

Therefore, Zionist Israel has no “vital security needs” inside the West Bank and the Gaza Strip. In reality, it has colonialist interests cloaked as “vital security needs”.

In short, President Donald Trump who trampled on previous UN resolutions, declarations, treaties and principles, has appointed himself as an international bogus real state arbiter.  He granted what he does not legally own, namely the colonized Golan Heights and parts of the colonized West Bank, to the Zionist settler colonialists who neither legally own these territories.

In order to justify this grand land robbery that lacks any lawful title to ownership, the Plan authors call “sovereignty an amorphous concept” and completely devastate the existence of the internationally accepted International Law.

Accordingly, we should ask:  Who decides what is a valid legal claim of a belligerent occupant on an occupied territory? The only concrete and legally correct answer is International Law. Therefore, the authors’ worthless claims are null and void.

According to Michael Lynk, the Canadian International Law expert,

In the modern world, an occupying power cannot, under any circumstances, acquire the right to conquer, annex or gain sovereign title over any part of the territory under its occupation. This is one of the most well-established principles of modern international law and enjoys universal endorsement.[12]

Moreover, this principle has been confirmed by the UNSC resolution 242 in November 1967, which has endorsed the principle of “the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory” by war or by force on at least nine occasions, most recently in December 2016.[13]

Furthermore, the authors of “Peace to Prosperity” plan mentioned that,

“Since 1946, there have been close to 700 United Nations General Assembly resolutions and over 100 United Nations Security Council resolutions in connection with this conflict. …These resolutions have not brought about peace…”[14]

The authors did not mention that the 100 resolutions adopted by the United Nations Security Council were not implemented because of the numerous American vetoes that were casted by the American representative at the UNSC in favor of Israel, and because of the American backing of Israeli colonial policies pursued by Israel’s various governments inside the CPT.

(c) The Proposed Palestinian “State”

The so-called Palestinian “state”, envisioned by the Trump’s Plan, looks very much like a bizarre collection of disjointed land enclaves. The attached map reveals the proposed “state” as composed of countless number of land pieces, spread out inside both of the West Bank and the Gaza Strip and lacks any territorial contiguity. As stated by the Plan, these enclaves will be connected together by “… an innovative network of roads, bridges and tunnels that enables freedom of movement for the Palestinians”[15]. Moreover, these pieces of land happened to be the densely populated territories of cities, towns and villages, that are not colonizeable, therefore, are not desired by the Israeli colonial annexationists.

In addition, the proposed “state” lacks genuine sovereignty and is surrounded by clusters of Israeli colonial settlements. It will have no borders with Jordan or Egypt and its airspace, sea shore and exits will be under permanent Israeli military control. Furthermore, it will be fully demilitarized with no army but a local police force.[16]

Moreover, the proposed “state” will include imposed limitations that give it a fictitious sovereignty. The Plan:

“… necessarily entails the limitations of certain sovereign powers in the Palestinian areas (henceforth referred to as the “Palestinian State”) such as maintenance of Israeli security responsibility and Israeli control of the airspace west of the Jordan River…”[17]

Other related future tasks of the Zionist authorities inside the proposed Palestinian “state” were described in the document as “security responsibility” and “security challenges”.

As anticipated by the Plan, the proposed “Palestinian State” will have security forces that encompass the following tasks.

“…The mission of the State of Palestine’s security forces will be public order, law enforcement, counterterrorism … border security, protection of government officials and foreign dignitaries, and disaster response…”[18]

As it appears by the Plan, American support for the establishment of a “Palestinian state” would be conditional and comes after Palestinian leaders embrace “peace” under the following Zionist conditions:[19]

• Recognition of Israel as a Jewish state,
• Rejecting terrorism in all its forms,
• Carrying out special arrangements that address Israel’s vital security needs,
• Building effective institutions,
• Choosing pragmatic solutions.

In short, after renouncing the Palestinian legitimate national rights, Palestinian leaders must adopt the Zionist political agenda which is based on meeting Israel’s colonialist interests, hidden by the so-called Israeli “security needs”. In return for this total national capitulation, the Palestinians will receive “…more than $50 billion in new investment over ten years…”[20] and in return for their cooperation, the Jordanian, Lebanese and Egyptian governments will get a total of $22,857 billion[21], in grants and loans[22], but mostly subsidized loans, paid in the course of a ten years period. 

The South African Bantustans and the Israeli Zionistan

It should be pointed out that the politico-military and economic relationship that was developed by Israel, in the last 53 years, inside the CPT is described by the authors as a “security footprint”. One wanders, what kind of audacity the authors assumed when they summarized 53 years of Israeli brutal settler colonial rule by calling it “security footprint”? Perhaps they thought that they can easily succeed in covering up an ugly reality that has been numerously condemned by UN resolutions, the overwhelming majority of states in the world and by International Law experts?

The Palestinian-ruled areas inside the WBGS were described by various terms as “self-rule areas”, “autonomous areas”, “Palestinian Cantons”, “internal colonial regime” and Palestinian “Bantustans”.

Actually, these terms are misnomers that are inadequate and reveal a lack of a concise term to describe precisely these entities. These entities can best be described as “Zionistans”. Consequently, a Zionistan[23]could be defined as: a territory set aside by Israel for the indigenous Palestinians and given municipal independence while ensuring their political and economic subordination to Israel. These Zionistans were gradually established in the period 1993-2020, as racially segregated entities in the West Bank and previously in the Gaza Strip. Later on and in 2005, Israeli Prime Minister Erik Sharon decided to dismantle Israeli colonial settlements from the Gaza Strip.

When compared, these entities are similar to the system of Apartheid that was applied in South Africa until it collapsed in 1994.

The Proposed “State” of Palestine

Source: White House Staff, “Peace to Prosperity”, https://www.whitehouse.gov, retrieved on 10 February 2020, p.46

It is imperative to recall that the description of Apartheid was given to these Zionistans by two Israeli Prime Ministers, Ehud Olmert[24] and Ehud Barak[25], and by an American Secretary of State John Kerry[26]. US President Jimmy Carter was bold enough to use it for the tile of his 2006 book “Palestine: Peace or Apartheid”.[27]

Apparently, these Israeli and American politicians were able to foresee the destiny of Zionist colonial realities on the ground and knew for sure the close similarities between the Israeli Zionistan project and the South African Bantustan project. The parallel they drew was meant to pose a warning to the Zionist colonialists that once they start implementing their colonialist scheme, they will unleash an accelerated process of its inevitable destruction.

The following map shows the locations of the 10 Bantustans along the borders of South Africa. When compared to Trump’s map, one can easily notice the close similarities between the two maps. Both, the Zionistan entity and the Bantustan entity, are composed of disjoined enclaves, lack territorial contiguity, reveal racial segregation, and show a bizarre creature that can never survive.

Source: “Black homelands (“bantustans”) in apartheid South Africa, 1986”, http://upload.wikimedia.org, retrieved on 13 February, 2020.

This colonial solution was tried by Apartheid South Africa. It lasted for fifteen years but South Africa could not market, anymore to the world, its Bantustans as African independent entities. On 27 April 1994 this Apartheid regime collapsed. As a result, these Bantustans were re-encorporated into the new nine provinces of a democratic South Africa.[28]

Concluding Remarks

US arrogant president Donald Trump appointed himself as an international real estate arbiter, granting what remained of the Palestinian homeland to Zionist colonization and justifying Israeli illegal annexation of the colonized territories of both East Jerusalem and the Golan Heights.

Judged by its declared aspirations, timing and content, the Trump’s “Peace to Prosperity” Plan cannot be a peace plan because it proposes a detailed colonialist set of assumptions that were tailored by its authors to fit the exact measures of the Israeli ongoing Zionistan project. In actuality it looks more like an archaic Roman diktat that aims at the liquidation of the option for the two-state solution to the Palestinian-Zionist Conflict.

Moreover, Trump’s “Progress to Prosperity” Plan has used the impact of colonial settlements, in order to impose a colonial solution to a colonial problem. The authors of the “Progress to Prosperity” should be reminded that Israel is using a solution that has totally failed in Apartheid South Africa and it can never succeed in Palestine, because a colonial solution cannot be permanent nor stable since it contains the internal potential for its own demise.

I have received dozens of emails from people in several countries who report an increase in, or initial onset of, electrical sensitivity symptoms when high-speed fiber optic internet is installed in their neighborhood. How could this be? Isn’t wired fiber optic internet, which uses light to transmit large amounts of data at incredibly high speeds, supposed to be safer and healthier for everyone?

The issue is that fiber optic internet service does not only use light to transmit data. The high-speed fiber optic data must be converted to electrical signals before the data can be transmitted to the home on the existing copper cable or phone line DSL. Those electrical signals, which carry our internet data, are not inherently problematic because they are in a very narrow frequency range and don’t typically radiate from the cable or phone lines.

However, there can be a significant problem with the high-speed fiber optic converters out at the street (or in the home with some newer fiber systems) that create these electrical data signals. This is because the converters are not designed with low-EMI emissions in mind. Thus, their power supplies and operation can generate high amounts of wide-spectrum EMI (electromagnetic interference). This inadvertent EMI then piggybacks on the copper cable and phone lines into our homes where it can radiate from every copper wire. This EMI from the fiber optic infrastructure is a primary reason why electrical sensitivity is increasing when high-speed internet is installed in our communities.

Fortunately, there are solutions to this issue. Here are a few:

1.)  If electrical sensitivity symptoms increase all of a sudden with a new internet provider (for example, switching from Comcast Xfinity to AT&T), go back to your original provider right away. There is likely an EMI issue with their fiber optic converters that is impacting your home. I have seen several people get better by switching back to their original internet providers (this is with all wireless disabled).

2.)  Continue internet service with a non-fiber optic provider as long as possible. Many communities have multiple internet service companies to choose from. Consider this EMI issue when choosing your service.

3.)  Select the lowest bandwidth internet package available. This may reduce the EMI transmitted into your home and reduce the EMI created from the modem/router within your home. In most areas, even the most basic package is much faster than you will need to stream movies on Netflix or Amazon. Choose a package at or below 100 Mbps and stay away from 1 or 10 Gbps packages, which will likely add more EMI to your home.

4.)  Disconnect the existing cable and telephone lines in your home from the cable provider. This will prevent EMI from the fiber optic infrastructure from conducting along the cable and telephone lines in your walls. You could still have a data connection brought to your residence, but have it in just one area of your home. You will be able to control the EMF exposures in your home more easily if every copper wire is not radiating EMI.

5.)  Consider filtering the EMI before it comes into your home. Genisco Filters is a company that specializes in this issue. Send me a message for more information on EMI filtering options.

6.)  Use your own low-bandwidth cable modem. The two primary sources of EMI from high-speed internet service are the fiber optic converters at the street and the cable modem within your home. The cable modem can also add EMI to the electrical wiring of your home, so you want this to be clean as possible. Unfortunately, the modem provided by your internet provider will often produce high amounts of EMI, along with WiFi. The non-WiFi modems that seem to work best for electrically sensitive families include the Arris models TM822R, SB6141 and SB6183.

7.)  If you experience increased electrical sensitivity at your computer after high-speed fiber optics are installed in your neighborhood, consider installing your own fiber optic system between your cable modem and computer. This idea may seem counterintuitive, but it will create an EMI barrier between your computer and your internet provider’s system. I will outline how you can easily do this in my next article.

8.)  Consider that the high-speed fiber optic networks being installed in our communities will be used as the backbone for 5G wireless installations. Every cellular antenna on a light or utility pole needs a fiber connection to operate. As award-winning science journalist B. Blake Levitt points out in this article, fiber optic systems can be used as a Trojan horse for 5G installations in our communities. Thus, living in an area without fiber infrastructure can both reduce the EMI coming into your home and prevent you from having a cellular antenna like these installed directly outside your home. I will discuss this aspect of 5G further in an article to be published in October.

While microwave radiation from wireless technology and magnetic & electric fields from electrical wiring are critically important, EMI is equally problematic for human biology. It’s a part of the EMF spectrum that gets very little attention. However, it is a major contributor to electrical sensitivity and poor health. Hopefully this article will help you understand and reduce an important source of EMI in your home – the fiber optic internet infrastructure that is becoming common throughout our communities.

*

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.

During the late 1960s and the 1970s, the University of Dar es Salaam in the East African state of Tanzania was a center of Marxist thought on the continent.

After the overthrow of Convention People’s Party (CPP) of Ghana on February 24, 1966 which was founded and led by Dr. Kwame Nkrumah, the ideological thrust of the African Revolution shifted to other geo-political regions. Nkrumah’s emphasis on African unification and socialism had drawn the ire of United States imperialism and its allies.

The Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) was able to coordinate and facilitate a military and police led coup against the CPP installing a pro-western regime which brought Ghana back into the sphere of world capitalist system both ideologically as well as politically. During that same year, Dr. Walter Rodney, having completed a Ph.D. in historical studies at London University, took a teaching position at University of Dar es Salaam where he researched and wrote his most famous work, “How Europe Underdeveloped Africa”, published in Tanzania in 1972.

With so much interest in Socialism and Pan-Africanism, the origins of the world movements against capitalism and imperialism would be an important topic pursued by young scholars and their students. Consequently, a coterie of intellectuals and students in Tanzania debated fiercely the character of the struggle for socialism during this period and the character of the Ujamaa system inside the country itself.

President Julius Nyerere was given the Kiswahili name of “Mwalimu” meaning teacher. This had been his occupation prior to leading the independence movement in Tanzania to independence in 1961.

Nyerere realized that it was not enough to just become an independent state that the society had to be liberated from the economic and political legacies of colonialism. In 1967, the Arusha Declaration was issued by the ruling Tanzania African National Union (TANU) which outlined the need to build socialism in the largely agricultural country. (See this)

Julius Nyerere and Kwame Nkrumah leaders of the Tanzanian and Ghanaian Revolutions in Africa

The Arusha Declaration was widely read and analyzed in this era. Its very existence was bolstered by the presence of organizing and educational structures established in Tanzania by the leading national liberation movements on the continent such as the Mozambique Liberation Front (FRELIMO), the Zimbabwe African National Union (ZANU), Southwest Africa People’s Organization (SWAPO), African National Congress (ANC), among others.

Rodney, who was born in the South American nation of Guyana in 1942, had grown up in a progressive working class family which was committed to educational achievement. He would attend the University of the West Indies and later travel to London to research and write his dissertation on the impact of the Atlantic Slave Trade in West Africa’s Guinea coast.

Lectures Series Addressed Broad Scope of Russian Revolutionary Historical Questions

The existence of these lectures had been spoken of by former students and instructors at the University of Dar es Salaam for many years. Those who lived through the early 1970s when the lectures were delivered awaited their official publication by the Walter Rodney Foundation in 2018.

Rodney’s daughter, Asha, writes in an introductory statement to the book that:

“Most dedications are written by the author to someone or something that was important to the book’s creation. Who or what Walter Rodney would have written here was taken from us when his life was violently snatched from us at the age of thirty-eight. It has taken us the sum of his lifetime, another thirty-eight years, to publish this book. So, given this task, I dedicate this book to Walter Rodney, who brilliantly penned these lectures; and to his immeasurable mind and thirst for knowledge that made this work possible.”

These lectures are divided into nine categories with the first being “The Two World Views of the Russian Revolution” where the author examines the historical approaches to the Bolshevik Party which are either sympathetic and supportive or condemnatory. He raises the question as to why should African people be hostile to the revolutionary tradition when objectively they have faced similar problems which engulfed Russia at the turn of the 19^thand 20^thcenturies.

Rodney states in this introductory lecture:

“As it is, we know for a fact how prejudiced and distorted Europe’s view of Africa has been. We know that European capitalism and imperialism continue to have our exploitation as their main objective. There is, therefore, every reason to be suspicious of the Western European (and American) view of the Soviet Revolution, and there is every reason to seek an African view.” (p.3)

Later in parts two and three, he reviews “The Russian Regime and the Soviet Revolution” along with “Marx, Marxism and the Russian Left.” Marxism as a revolutionary body of intellectual work and political practice had existed since the mid-to-late 1840s when Karl Marx and Frederick Engels joined forces during a period where industrial capitalism was emerging as the dominant mode of economic production.

Citing Marx and Engels in their writings on Western Europe and Russia, Rodney concludes that the bourgeois historical critique which argues that what became Soviet society was not conducive to the building of scientific socialism is refuted by the actual writings of the two activist-scholars. Simply because the proletariat and capitalist classes did not constitute the majority in Russia in 1917 and in subsequent years during the early phases of the revolution does not mean that the general principles of historical and dialectical materialism are not applicable.

An entire chapter of the book of lectures examines Leon Trotsky as an historian of the Russian Revolution. Later Rodney discusses the concepts of democracy and its application to the Bolshevik revolutionary seizure of power in late 1917.

These chapters serve as a means for chronicling the intellectual and political attacks on the Bolsheviks after the October Revolution. A comparative analysis is put forward on the views of V.I. Lenin, the main architect and organizer of the revolutionary seizure of state power in Russia, Karl Kautsky, the German theoretician and literary executor of Marx and Engels, along with Rosa Luxemburg, the Polish and German left social democrat and later communist who debated with Lenin for years over the right of nations to self-determination, land redistribution to the peasantry and issues related to revolutionary democracy such as the dissolution of the Constituent Assembly  by the Bolsheviks.

Kautsky of course, received a scathing attack by Lenin when the German writer charged the Bolsheviks with undemocratic practice and extended his support to the Mensheviks. Rodney’s views on these important historical questions indicate a position quite sympathetic to Lenin and the developing Soviet state.

The final three chapters are of extreme importance in relationship to the lessons of the Russian Revolution and their significance to developments in Africa during the later decades of the 20^thcentury when many of the national liberation movements and post-colonial states adopted Marxism-Leninism as methodology and ideology which could provide guidance in both defeating colonialism, settler-colonialism and imperialism as well as constructing a socialist society.

These final lectures are entitled: “Building the Socialist State”, “The Transformation of Empire” and “The Critique of Stalinism.” Rodney explains in his evaluation of the historical treatment of the peasantry in the Soviet Union under leader Joseph Stalin by western oriented capitalist scholars, noting:

“Underlying bourgeois historical writings on this issue is the assumption that the capitalist system is infinitely superior. Indeed, at most points of the evaluation, there is the implied comparison, especially since the whole object of the Cold War propaganda was to set up the capitalist system as a superior one. It is therefore very relevant to inquire how capitalism treated peasants. The answer is quite revealing. In Eastern Europe, the peasant was bounded off his land….. Outside of Europe, wherever Europeans established capitalist farming, they did so by expropriating the land of the indigenous peoples and often they virtually committed genocide. The latter applies with most force to the United States, while examples of crude treatment of the indigenous landowners are also to be found in South Africa, Australia, New Zealand, Kenya and Algeria.” (p. 123)

Relevance of the Russian Revolution Today

It has been over a century since the advent of the Bolshevik Revolution. The Russian and Soviet Revolutions were instrumental in providing political models and material assistance for other popular upheavals and socialist transformations in Korea, China, Vietnam, Cuba, Ghana, Algeria, Angola, Mozambique, Tanzania, Namibia, South Africa, among other geo-political regions.

Since the collapse of the socialist states in Europe and the Soviet Union during the late 1980s until 1991, bourgeois scholars and political figures have utilized this phenomena to attack the theoretical underpinning of Marxism-Leninism as being inherently undemocratic, impractical and even contrary to human nature. Socialism in China, Cuba, Vietnam, Venezuela, Bolivia and the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea (DPRK) are often castigated for the purported lack of individual freedom and prosperity.

Yet capitalist societies have become more unequal in the 21^stcentury with the broadening gap between the wealthy and the working class. Imperialist wars throughout Asia, Africa and Latin America have created enormous social dislocation while creating the conditions for unprecedented environmental degradation which endangers the very existence of the planet and humanity. The advances made in Cuba, Venezuela, China, the DPRK and Vietnam is routinely overlooked while the ideological Cold War propaganda against these societies continues unabated.

The publication of these lectures so many years later makes a profound contribution to the historical evaluation of the Russian Revolution and its importance in the modern period.

*

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.

Abayomi Azikiwe is the editor of Pan-African News Wire. He is a frequent contributor to Global Research.

The US came to Afghanistan to stay, the same is true for all its war theaters by occupation and/or installed puppet regimes serving its interests.

Afghanistan’s troubled history goes back centuries. John Pilger explained that “no country has been abused and suffered more, and none has been helped less than Afghanistan.”

If hell on earth exists, it’s headquartered in Afghanistan — with many global affiliate locations in the modern era, largely because of endless US wars by hot and other means.

For centuries, Afghans endured what few can imagine. Marauding armies besieged cities, slaughtered thousands, and caused vast destruction.

In the 19th century, Afghans were victimized by “great game” struggles between imperial Britain and czarist Russia — a time of endless war, destruction, occupation and human misery, continuing from then to now, notably post-9/11.

Wherever the US shows up, endless wars and mass destruction follow, the human toll of no consequence.

According to Gideon Polya,

“the horrendous carnage of the (post-9/11) US War on Terror (launched in Afghanistan caused) the deaths of 32 million Muslims abroad (by violence or imposed deprivation) and the preventable deaths of 27 million Americans at home inescapably linked to the fiscal perversion of committing to a $7 trillion long-term accrual cost of killing millions of Muslims abroad.”

The true cost is likely three-fold or more higher because of unaccounted for multi-trillions of dollars by the Pentagon since the 1990s.

“Bush, Obama and Trump are indeed American-killing US presidents,” Polya stressed, adding:

“(S)erial war criminal (Trump warned) that “no place is beyond the reach of American might.”

“The US-imposed, 4-decade Afghan Holocaust and Afghan Genocide is to continue under more draconian rules of engagement.”

Since the 1990s, Polya estimated six million preventable Afghan deaths, millions more refugees, an entire population emmiserated, largely post-9/11.

Since US aggression against North Korea in 1950, he estimates around 40 million preventable deaths and tens of millions of refugees.

Since WW II, the US invaded or otherwise attacked “52 countries.”

“American exceptionalism means that the US is disproportionately  involved in…existential threats (to) humanity” — notably possible nuclear war that could destroy all life forms on earth.

The notion of first strike with these weapons that’s stated in US National Security Strategies from Bush/Cheney to Obama to Trump should terrify everyone everywhere.

What’s unthinkable is possible because of US rage to control planet earth, its resources and populations.

The so-called Trump regime/Taliban peace agreement isn’t worth the paper it’s written on.

Time and again throughout US history, it breached treaties, conventions, and agreements — clear proof that its ruling regimes can never be trusted.

The notion of the US agreeing to peace and an end to its occupation of Afghanistan is pure illusion.

The deal calls for reducing numbers of US and allied forces in the country in the coming months, withdrawing entirely in 14 months, including abandonment of Pentagon bases that cost billions of dollars to build and maintain.

Earlier drawdowns of US forces in the country were followed by increased deployments — troops in a so-called advisory and counterterrorism capacity.

Pentagon terror-bombing continued throughout the war.

In mid-2017, with around 8,400 US forces in Afghanistan, Trump OK’d increasing their numbers, then-US war secretary Mattis saying:

“This assures (that the Pentagon) can facilitate our missions and nimbly align our commitment to the situation on the ground (sic),” adding:

“Our overall mission in Afghanistan remains the same, to train, advise and assist the Afghan forces so they can safeguard the Afghan people and terrorists can find no haven in Afghanistan for attacking us or others (sic).”

The Trump regime’s Afghan strategy put no limit on the number of US forces in the country.

US policy under Bush/Cheney, Obama and Trump has nothing to do with safeguarding the Afghan people or denying terrorists a safe haven — elements the US created and supports in all its war theaters and elsewhere.

Trump’s claim about “working to finally end America’s longest war and bring our troops back home” awaits its moment of truth in the coming weeks and months — the illusion of ending over 18 years of war in Afghanistan likely to be dispelled.

Whether Pentagon and allied troops stay or leave, the CIA maintains a private army of paramilitaries in the country that serve US interests.

They’re staying, not leaving, including ISIS, al-Qaeda, and likeminded jihadists to be deployed to the country at the discretion of Langley and the Pentagon.

Afghanistan’s strategic value to the US includes its vast resources and its geographical location near Russia and China.

The US wants both countries encircled with Pentagon bases. It wants oil and gas pipelines constructed across Afghanistan.

It wants opium production continued for heroin manufacture and distribution to world markets — a key revenue source for Western banks and the CIA.

It wants control over the country continued under pro-Western puppet rule.

It wants endless war waged in multiple theaters, serving its imperial agenda, feeding its military, industrial, security, media complex.

Restoration of peace and stability in its war theaters defeats its interests, why new millennium wars rage — threats invented to continue them endlessly.

Restoration of peace and stability to Afghanistan is likely to last no longer than an invented US pretext to breach what was agreed on.

All US wars are based on Big Lies and deception. The possibility for either of its war party wings turning a page for world peace and stability is virtually nil.

Longstanding US history shows it’s a warrior nation — how its been from inception against its native people to today against humanity at home and abroad.

*

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 word ‘corruption’ cannot fully embrace how this insulting megalomaniac is tearing apart our country, our democratic practices, and our moral norms. Who will put a stop to this president’s corrupt rampage against the American people?

***

Delusionary, dictatorial Donald Trump is drunk on power. Trump’s monarchical and lawless actions are a clear and present subversion of our Republic and its Constitution. As soon as the impeachment trial ended and Trump was acquitted by the Senate’s supine Republican courtiers (except for Senator Mitt Romney), vengeance flooded Trump’s fevered mind.

Ignoring warnings from his advisors, Trump is lashing out in all directions, unleashing torrents of foul-mouthed tweets. Note with alarm how this American Fuhrer is consolidating control and using his presidential power to smash all opposition. Remember that last July Trump declared “I have an Article II, where I have the right to do whatever I want as President.” He wasn’t kidding, America.

Trump is shocking his current appointees—in addition to those who have quit or been fired in purges.  Without evidence, he is accusing the intelligence agencies and the FBI of conspiring against him! Trump has attacked both the Justice Department and Attorney General William Barr because of the sentencing recommendations by four DOJ prosecutors for convicted criminal and Trump advisor Roger Stone. Barr, a Trump toady, was shaken. Barr said it would be impossible for him to do his job if Trump kept interfering.

As Mark Green and I depicted in our new book—Fake President: Decoding Trump’s Gaslighting, Corruption, and General Bullsh*t— loser Trump always retaliates against opponents by charging fraud, fakery, and crookery. Trump’s intimidation of others is amplified by the media that gives no right of reply to Trump’s targets.

What is most troubling are the silences of the countervailing forces that Americans have a right to rely on to fight Trump the tyrant.

Post acquittal, Trump has doubled down on his numerous impeachable offenses (see the Congressional Record from December 18, 2019, page H 12197). But Democrats, who control the House, are not doubling down on their impeachment investigations. Instead, they are following orders from Speaker Pelosi and standing down.

Trump regularly attacks the judges who rule against him or dare to challenge his illegal acts. Yet there is only silence by the many judge’s associations and the many bar associations. The American Bar Association, which has over 194,000 members, remains asleep. All of its members, so-called “officers of the court,” are attorneys and should understand their responsibilities to uphold the rule of law.

Trump’s Party has a long history of vicious voter suppression (chronicled in the new documentary, Suppressed: The Fight to Vote, by Robert Greenwald). These anti-democratic actions should be considered serious crimes. However, the members of the National Association of Secretaries of State (NASS) are largely unprepared to protect voter rights and accurate counting of votes. Some Secretaries of State are aiding and abetting these electoral crimes. Current Georgia Governor Brian Kemp used his power as Georgia’s Secretary of State to suppress black voters, cheating his way to the Governor’s mansion in 2018.

Trump is now doing what all dictators do when they take power: he is purging the civil service of any critical voices of those who simply want to do their jobs. These civil servants made the “mistake” of enforcing health and safety laws that the supreme leader wanted to go unenforced to benefit the President’s big corporate buddies and donors. The government employee unions are not doing enough to fight back and explain what Trump the tyrant is doing to harm people—Trump voters and anti-Trump voters alike. Trump and his cronies are making America more dangerous again by scuttling protections that reduce deaths, injuries, and illnesses.

Whether it is the air you breathe, the water you drink, the vehicles you ride in, or the toxins in your workplace, Trump’s corporatist wrecking crew is running federal agencies into the ground. While corporate outlaws fill Trump’s coffers and hotels with riches, he gives them huge tax escapes and starves infrastructure. The word “corruption” cannot fully embrace how this insulting megalomaniac is tearing apart our country, our democratic practices, and our moral norms. Protections for children, the elderly, veterans and workers are all on Trump’s chopping block.

Who will stand up to this horrible bully who is intent on rolling back America’s gains and the anti-monarchy purpose of the American Revolution itself? Some in the media will sound the alarm. Sensing this threat, Trump interfered with government procurement to tilt a large contract away from Amazon because Jeff Bezos owns The Washington Post, which has run many articles about Trump’s rampage. Trump’s Republican campaign committee just filed a loser suit against The New York Times. Whether Trump wins or loses, the intimidation of the media is his goal.

These tactics are working on Chairman Jerome Powell and the Federal Reserve, according to former Fed insiders. As a result, the Federal Reserve has stayed committed to lowering interest rates to the detriment of savers. Intimidation is also working on the House of Representatives Democrats, who abhor the lives ruined by the savage sexual predator. Sadly, these lawmakers are not demanding a House Judiciary investigation of Trump’s treatment of women. Credible tort lawsuits are being delayed by Trump’s lawyers.

The cowardly silence of Barack Obama is the most stunning. In his extraordinary new book, The Triumph of Doubt, that names names, former head of Occupational Health and Safety Agency (OSHA), Dr. David Michaels, documents “President Trump’s desire to reverse anything the Obama administration did—if Obama supported it, Trump would do the opposite no matter what the consequences.”

The results are more mercury and diesel particulates in your lungs, more deadly methane accelerating climate disruption, and more coal ash for your children to breathe. Trump’s administration is even failing to adequately invest in medical science, which could save you. Until the coronavirus came along, Trump demanded serious funding cuts for the Centers for Disease Control; these funding cuts were thwarted by Congress. Even more damning, the Trump administration fired the U.S. pandemic response team to save money! The CDC’s annual budget is equal to a mere three days spending by the Pentagon, whose budget Trump bloats.

So where is Obama? Critiquing music, making movies, attending NBA all-star festivities, and readying for March Madness. Obama is thoroughly enjoying himself. What about also using his high political poll ratings and his massive Twitter following (which is far larger than Trump’s) to combat Trump’s actions? If not for the wellbeing of the American people, Obama should at least want to protect his legacy.

If Obama remains so carefree in the critical months before November, he will need a sign beside the exhibits to be displayed at his forthcoming presidential library: REPEALED BY TRUMP.

From Common Dreams: Our work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 License. Feel free to republish and share widely.

*

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

Ralph Nader is a consumer advocate, lawyer, and author. His latest books include: To the Ramparts: How Bush and Obama Paved the Way for the Trump Presidency, and Why It Isn’t Too Late to Reverse Course, How the Rats Re-Formed the Congress, Breaking Through Power: It’s easier than we think, and Animal Envy: A Fable

Featured image is from Gage Skidmore

A New Milestone

President Trump’s unprecedented decision to retain his business interests while serving in the White House set the stage for a deluge of conflicts of interests between the government and the Trump Organization. From the beginning of President Trump’s administration, CREW has endeavored to track these conflicts, which pit President Trump’s personal and financial interests against those of the nation as a whole, and this week, President Trump reached a new, disgraceful milestone: He has racked up 3,000 conflicts of interest during his time in office.

Throughout his three years as president, Trump has used his office to praise and promote his resorts and golf courses. Foreign governments have granted long sought-after trademarks to his businesses, opening up new avenues of profit for his company. And by showing up at lavish fundraisers and political events, President Trump has also granted unparalleled access to his administration for wealthy political donors and special interest groups that spend hundreds of thousands of dollars a year to hold events at his properties. These examples, and many others, are all included in Trump’s growing tally of conflicts.

In contrast to his promise that a strict separation would be enforced, President Trump has established his private businesses as an extension of his White House⁠—by visiting them and rewarding their customers with access to, and sometimes jobs within, his administration. Meanwhile, the Trump Organization has embraced the image, and as a result, patronizing the president’s businesses has become an unregulated and unaccountable tool of influence for special interests and foreign governments seeking to influence the White House.

CREW defines a conflict as any interaction between the Trump Organization and the government and between the Trump Organization and those trying to influence the Trump administration. Additional information about our methodology is available here.

Political Allies Frequent Trump Properties

In recent months, Republican officials have stepped up their support for Trump in the way he likes best: by flocking to his eponymous properties, often for lavish events that boost the president’s businesses. Through frequent visits and relentless promotion, Trump has made it very clear that the best way to curry favor with him is by visiting one of the many properties that he still owns and profits from as president.

Even during President Trump’s impeachment, when members of Congress were supposed to be acting as impartial investigators and jurors in his trial, visits to Trump’s properties actually spiked compared to prior months.  Fifty-five members of Congress visited Trump properties 78 times in between House Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s opening of the impeachment inquiry on September 24th and Trump’s acquittal by Senate Republicans on February 5th.

Overall, since President Trump took office, Lindsey Graham has been Trump’s most loyal patron in Congress with 21 visits, followed by Kevin McCarthy and Rand Paul at 16, Mark Meadows at 13, and Jim Jordan and Matt Gaetz with 10 each.

Many visits from members of Congress occurred during political fundraising events. Three significant political events took place in the midst of the impeachment debates: the Take Back the House 2020 fundraiser, attended by 15 Representatives (including a couple of members from House committees involved in impeachment), Senate Leadership Fund’s private dinner event, and the National Republican Senatorial Committee’s Save the Senate retreat, attended by nine Senators.

In addition to making visits, some members of Congress have taken to social media to express support for Trump and compliment his properties. Representatives Jody Hice and Paul Gosar fawned over Trump’s Mar-a-Lago Club with a series of tweets where they called the club “amazing” and “off the hook.” Representative Thomas Massie has similarly gushed over the president’s D.C. hotel.

It’s no secret that the Trump hotel in D.C. is a sanctuary for conservative politicians and professionals who have or who seek ties to the administration. On the night that Senate Republicans acquitted Trump of charges of abuse of power and obstruction of Congress, his supporters converged at the hotel to celebrate. CREW tracked 15 members of Congress and administration officials present that night.

White House and executive branch officials are also frequent visitors. Several have even hosted personal events at the D.C. hotel. Most recently, the wedding of White House officials Stephen Miller and  Katie Waldman brought 22 other Trump administration officials—including the President and Vice President Mike Pence—to the Trump hotel. Together, the newlyweds were the fifth and sixth Trump officials who are known to have gotten married there since 2017.

Departing administration officials Tony Sayegh and Sarah Huckabee Sanders both had their going away parties at the hotel last year. Sanders’ party in particular brought a whopping 38 officials to the President’s prized property. In August, the Washington Post reported that Attorney General Bill Barr booked the hotel for his annual holiday party, though he was forced to reschedule due to negative press coverage. While it is unclear whether the party actually occurred, Barr put down a $10,000 deposit to book the venue—putting money right into his boss’s pocket.

Of course, the most frequent visitor is Trump himself. During his campaign for office he criticized Obama for making golf outings and told the press that if elected, he would “rarely leave the White House because there’s so much work to be done.” In December of 2015, Trump blasted President Obama for reports suggesting he had played 250 rounds of golf during nearly seven years in office, but since his inauguration just three years ago, President Trump has made 267 visits to the golf courses that he owns and profits from.

Trump has made it clear that while traveling he prefers to stay at his own properties, regardless of his destination. On his recent trip out to the west coast, the president insisted on staying at his Las Vegas hotel each night of his trip, despite having speaking engagements in California, Colorado, and Arizona. This is not the first time that Trump has derailed his travel plans to stop at one of his properties. Trump made a pit stop at his Hawaii resort in 2017 before traveling to Asia, and in 2019 he stayed at his Doonbeg golf course, hundreds of miles out of the way of meetings in the U.K. and France.

Special Interests and Political Groups Pay Trump for Lavish Events

Political groups and special interests have held 78 and 117 events, respectively, at Trump properties since the president took office. These often afford the hosts and attendees something that other venues don’t have: Access to top Trump administration officials, and even the President. Trump himself has attended 30 events at his own properties.

While the Trump hotel in Washington is far and away the most frequently booked venue out of all of Trump’s businesses, political groups and special interests have held events at 12 different Trump properties. In the last four months alone, Trump Victory, a political group that raises money for the RNC and the Trump campaign, has held political events at four different Trump properties, and the RNC held one at a fifth. Over the same period, political groups linked to Republican House and Senate leadership gathered members of Congress for events at the Trump hotel in Washington.

Two April 2018 recordings released last month by the lawyer representing an indicted Giuliani associate provided a rare look behind the scenes of these events. In one recording from a dinner held by a pro-Trump super PAC called America First Action at the Trump D.C. hotel, donors representing natural gas, steel, and other interests are heard lobbying Trump directly for their personal business interests during a dinner at the Trump hotel in Washington. That same super PAC held its seventh event at a Trump property this month. Naturally, President Trump stopped by.

President Trump’s visit to the hotel was a stroke of luck for another group there that night. The Texas Trucking Association was in Washington for a lobbying event, and staying at the president’s hotel. The group posted a video of Trump passing through the lobby and shaking hands with hotel customers on Twitter, adding that the encounter “made our members day” as well as an open invitation to the president to “talk trucking.”

In addition to President Trump himself, no private event venue in Washington can offer access to Trump administration officials like the Trump hotel can. Cabinet members have visited the hotel to attend events with special interests or wealthy political donors no fewer than 28 times—in essence, giving special interests and major donors access to powerful people in the president’s orbit, while the president himself personally profits from the event.

The federal government and government-linked groups have hosted events at the Trump hotel in Washington, bolstering the appearance that the president’s properties are an extension of his administration. The Commerce Department held a holiday party at the Trump hotel in 2017, and an Army Battalion gathered there for an event last year. According to documents obtained by CREW, government funds were used to pay a deposit to the hotel for that event, although they were reimbursed through ticket sales and private fundraisers.

In November, The 45 Alliance, a pro-Trump dark money nonprofit, hosted a reception for Trump officials “to connect with fellow President Trump appointees and celebrate your continued dedication and service.” Housing and Urban Development Secretary Ben Carson is reported to have addressed attendees—from behind a Trump Hotel podium no less.

Trump Customers Get Special Treatment From His Administration

What do Trump customers get from all of their patronage? Nominations to federal positions and promotions to higher ones, the chance to “shadow rule” a federal agency, and opportunities to weigh in to President Trump on myriad official questions by just hanging around. An anonymous former White House official told the Washington Post that “anyone who can get within eyesight changes the game” at Mar-a-Lago, Trump’s private club that costs $200,000 to join. Even club guests out of Trump’s sight are given “listening time” from White House aides, per President Trump’s orders. In spite of their access to the president and his administration, the White House has insisted that the names of club members should be kept secret.

Members of President Trump’s clubs have also been given sneak previews of upcoming administration action. In December, he hinted to guests at Mar-a-Lago that he would be taking a “big” action involving Iran “soon.” Days later, his administration announced that Iranian military official Qassem Soleimani had been killed. Last year, Mar-a-Lago patrons overheard President Trump grumbling about his then-national security advisor John Bolton, a few months before his ouster from the White House.

Prospective Trump officials have also appealed to President Trump through his businesses. Earlier this year, the Wall Street Journal reported that President Trump’s nominee to lead the Export-Import Bank, Kimberly Reed, saw the president at his Trump National Golf Club near Washington, D.C. and approached him about not having been confirmed yet. She was confirmed soon after. As Judy Shelton sought Trump’s nomination to the Federal Reserve board, she conducted a series of high-profile interviews from the lobby of his D.C. hotel and even booked an expensive suite there. On multiple occasions, she has expressed being open to having an international conference at Mar-a-Lago.

Taxpayer Money Flows to the President’s Properties

In August, President Trump used his platform at the G-7 conference in France to announce that his administration would likely hold the next year’s summit at his own Trump Doral resort near Miami. In October, the administration made the announcement official. The Trump Organization released a statement saying that it would be “honored” to host the meeting. Days later, President Trump caved to pressure from the public, lawmakers, and watchdog groups who objected to the conflict of interest and announced the G-7 would take place elsewhere.

While originally floating the idea of hosting the G-7 at his own property, President Trump claimed that the choice was based largely on other members of the government, including the Secret Service, expressing a preference for his Doral resort. Records obtained by CREW contradicted that claim, showing that the Trump resort was added for consideration at the last minute and the Secret Service expressed hesitation about “challenges” the location would present.

During an interview after the President first teased having the G-7 at his own resort, Eric Trump objected to conflicts of interest concerns by claiming having it there would be less expensive for taxpayers than any other venue. “We’d be doing it for nothing,” he told Yahoo News. That’s consistent with other statements he’s made about how the Trump Organization bills the government where he’s claimed that the Trump Organization doesn’t make any money from government business.

Contrary to Eric Trump’s claims that the Trump Organization bills the government “at cost,” documents obtained by the Washington Post show the Trump Organization charging the Secret Service far more. The documents show the Trump Organization has billed the government up to $650 per night to stay at Mar-a-Lago, and that the government paid Trump’s private businesses nearly half a million dollars between January 2017 and April 2018.

No Border Walls For Trump Conflicts

Trump’s presidency has not stopped the Trump Organization from continuing to do business in foreign countries. Those ties call into question whose interests—the American people’s interests or Trump’s personal financial interests—drive the Trump administration’s foreign policy.

Late last year, CREW discovered that one of Trump’s companies applied for two trademarks in Argentina for “real estate affairs” and building construction, suggesting that plans for a Trump Tower Buenos Aires might be moving forward. These were the first trademarks that Trump has applied for in the country since his election.

A closer look showed that the timing of the applications closely coincided with Trump administration action on tariffs in Argentina. After the trademark opposition period ended, Trump lifted tariffs on steel and aluminum from Argentina and a few other Latin American countries. Soon after the application was granted Trump reinstated the tariffs, defending his actions on Twitter by claiming that Argentina had manipulated their currency.

Trump’s international conflicts of interest span the globe to Indonesia, where the daughter of one of his business partners has assumed a high ranking role in the Indonesian government, thus directly linking Trump’s business to a foreign government. Angela Tanoesoedibjo was appointed in October to a position which gives her power over tourism in the country. Tanoesoedibjo’s father owns and operates one of Indonesia’s largest real estate conglomerates, MNC Group, which is building two Trump-branded developments in the country. In one meeting between government officials and her father’s Trump-connected company, an official brought up a property MNC Group is developing that will have Trump-branded aspects.

Conclusion

President Trump’s time in office has been an ethical disaster. While previous administrations have taken every precaution to avoid the appearance that the president’s official actions could be tainted by their private business interests, President Trump has instead done the exact opposite, blatantly and regularly using his office for his own financial gain. Three-thousand conflicts of interest later, President Trump has sent a clear message to special interests, foreign governments, and others trying to influence the federal government that his presidency is effectively for sale.

Instead of providing oversight or enforcing a higher standard, members of his administration and Republicans in Congress have condoned President Trump’s ethical abuses by taking their business to his properties and rewarding special interests who do the same with official access. Some have gone so far as to use their official platforms to give Trump businesses free advertising. Their abdication of responsibility has served to embolden President Trump, whose presidency is devolving into a cash grab that erodes ethical norms every time he visits his properties, promotes the Trump Organization, or bills the Secret Service top-dollar to stay at his foundering resorts.

*

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

Featured image is from Shutterstock

In the race to become Dem party standard bearer in November, Bernie Sanders leads rival aspirants — despite Biden now close behind in delegate count after his Saturday South Carolina primary win.

Do Dem party bosses consider Sanders not safe enough to assure dirty business as usual?

Israel clearly prefers Trump over any Dem rival for his unprecedented Jewish state support, dismissive of Palestinian rights, his agenda leaving no doubt about where he stands.

Israel’s Ambassador to the UN Danny Danon  in his AIPAC conference address, ripped Sanders for calling Netanyahu a “reactionary racist,” saying:

“We don’t want (him) at AIPAC. We don’t want him in Israel. Anyone who calls our prime minister a ‘racist’ is either a liar, an ignorant fool or both.”

According to critics, Danon’s extremism makes hardline Netanyahu look almost moderate by comparison.

Hours later, Sanders responded to Danon saying:

“I am not anti-Israel…but what we need in this country is a foreign policy that not only protects Israel but deals with the suffering of the Palestinian people as well.”

A Netanyahu source said Danon’s AIPAC remarks “were not coordinated with the prime minister.”

Former Israeli diplomat/expert on Jewish state relations with the US Nadav Tamir slammed Danon, saying:

His remarks are “a clear and frustrating example (of) the difference between a diplomat and a politician.”

“Whoever is willing to deepen the rift between Israel and the vast majority of the (Dem) party, to weaken the bipartisan basis of Israel’s special relationship with the US and to alienate the vast majority of US Jewry in order to gain popularity within his party, should not be allowed to serve as a diplomat.”

Over the weekend, AIPAC head Howard Kohr also denounced Sanders, saying:

“Any leader who energizes their political movement by demonizing Israel is not a friend of Israel.”

Sanders declined to address the AIPAC conference, days earlier saying:

“I remain concerned about the platform AIPAC provides for leaders who express bigotry and oppose basic Palestinian rights.”

“For that reason I will not attend their conference. As president, I will support the rights of both Israelis and Palestinians and do everything possible to bring peace and security to the region.”

Bloomberg is the only Dem aspirant addressing the conference in person. Biden and Klobuchar delivered video messages.

Ahead of March 3 Super Tuesday primaries in 14 states, including California and Texas, with 1,357 of 3,979 delegates at stake (excluding 771 unelected superdelegate that could decide the race), Pete Buttigieg suspended his candidacy — despite appearing to have legs following his Iowa caucuses showing.

Was his withdrawal based on doing poorly in South Carolina, finishing a distant 4th with singe-digit support?

Or knowing he lacks enough support to be Dem nominee, did he time his announcement ahead of Super Tuesday with 34% of elected delegates at stake — aimed at helping Biden at the expense of Sanders?

According to Real Clear Politics, an average of polls conducted from February 22 – 29 shows Sanders way ahead of Biden in California by a 33.7% – 15.3% margin — followed by Warren with 14.7% support, Bloomberg with 13.3%, and Buttigieg trailing way behind with 7.7% backing.

In Texas, Sanders has an 8.9% lead over Biden in second place. He’s ahead in Virginia, Massachusetts, Maine, Colorado, Utah, and Vermont, his home state.

He trails Biden narrowly in North Carolina, trails Klobuchar in Minnesota by six points, her home state.

Biden is ahead in Oklahoma by one point over Bloomberg, Sanders 8 points behind.

In Arkansas, Bloomberg leads Biden by one point, Sanders by 4 points.

Will Biden’s South Carolina win and Buttigieg dropping out Sunday gain support for the former vice president on Super Tuesday?

Or is support for Sanders in most Super Tuesday states likely to hold one day before voters go to the polls?

An average of national polls conducted from February 19 – 27 shows Sanders leading Biden by 10.8 points, Bloomberg by 13 points, other Dem aspirants way behind — according to Real Clear Politics.

Sanders has strong support among young and working-class voters as well as Latinos, why he’s way ahead in California and Texas polls — Biden an establishment favorite.

If he stays close to Sanders in upcoming primaries over the next few months, superdelegates could assure his nomination as Dem standard bearer — even though Sanders may have a better chance to defeat Trump in November.

With Buttigieg out of the race, Dem party bosses are lining up behind Biden’s candidacy, aiming to boost him over Sanders ahead of Super Tuesday and what follows.

If the Vermont senator makes a strong showing Tuesday as polls indicate, he’ll regain momentum lost over the weekend with many more primaries to go before the July nominating convention.

One of more candidates doing poorly on Tuesday could drop out the race.

If Warren bows out, her supporters could shift to Sanders. Support for Bloomberg and Klobuchar could swing to Biden if they drop out ahead.

It’s still early in the race. Much can happen between now and the July nominating convention.

*

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.

Turkey and Israel continue their aggression against Syria in an increasingly overt and direct manner – and at the cost of what little if anything remained of either nation’s regional or international credibility.

Now there is news of violence erupting in southern Syria in Daraa along the Syrian-Jordanian border in a replay of the initial US-engineered proxy war initiated against Damascus in 2011 and confirms that the US – the common denominator linking Turkish, Israeli, and Jordanian aggression – is still hard at work attempting to perpetuate the Syrian conflict and reverse its flagging fortunes amid it.

Dividing Syrian Forces

The violence in southern Syria will likely be augmented by flashpoints elsewhere in a bid to divide and distract Syrian forces from their ongoing operations and successes in northern Idlib.

This helps expose that the ongoing confrontation between Turkey and Syria isn’t ultimately being engineered in Ankara or on behalf of Turkish interests – but instead in Washington and on behalf of US interests.

This may explain why Turkey’s otherwise dead-end foreign policy has not been altered to reflect the interests of Turkey both immediately or in the intermediate to long-term future – and instead appears to be a last-ditch and desperate attempt to win Washington’s all-but-lost proxy war against Damascus.

Renewed Propaganda Blitzkrieg 

The violence in Syria’s south is independent of Turkey’s operations in the north – but is clearly being coordinated to aid Turkey’s aggression.

Likewise – a renewed propaganda blitz has been organized across the Western media to help enhance the political impact of continued aggression against Damascus.

There are still columns published across the Western media by writers representing organizations funded by Western governments calling for regime change in Syria and the obstruction of reconstruction until this happens.

There are also attempts to use the West’s protraction of this conflict and the resulting humanitarian impact to further demonize and pressure the Syrian government. Turkey – in addition to its continued aggression within Syrian territory – has once again leveraged refugees – releasing them into Europe to fan the flames of public fear in the West.

This is not to gain Western support for Turkey’s military operations in Syria – as Turkey’s operations are carried out on behalf of the West’s own machinations. Instead – another manufactured and exploited refugee crisis is meant to garner public support from the Western public so that Western governments can more aggressively involve themselves alongside their Turkish, Israeli, and other terrorist proxies.

Futility 

Ultimately this is a replay of all the same tricks used since 2011. The difference now is US and its proxies hold less territory in Syria – fewer cards politically upon the global stage – and face an entrenched Russia and Iran who have grown adept at countering US-fuelled violence and political ploys within and beyond Syria.

This recent renewal of aggression against Syria is more likely a last-ditch effort to extract concessions before the final and inevitable conclusion of the conflict – with all but total war being capable of overthrowing the Syrian government and removing Russia and Iran from their growing positions of influence within Syrian territory.

Complacency is the biggest enemy. Until every square inch of Syrian territory is liberated and its borders fully secured – the war will continue and the threat it poses to the Syrian state and its people will endure – however unlikely the nation’s complete ruination may be.

*

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

This article was originally published on the author’s blog site, Land Destroyer Report.

The spokesperson for the Islamist party of Turkey’s President Tayyip Erdogan has called upon all of NATO to go to war against Syria for Syria’s having killed dozens of Turkey’s troops in order for Syria to defeat Turkey’s invasion and military occupation of Syria’s Idlib Province, which borders on Turkey. Going to war against Syria would mean going to war also against Russia, which is in Syria to protect Syria’s sovereignty over its own territory.

If the United States accepts that Turkish proposal, this could lead to World War III.

Darius Shahtahmasebi reported for Russia’s RT News on the morning of February 28th,

Turkey is calling for NATO’s protection after 33 of its soldiers were killed in an apparent Syrian airstrike in Idlib, allegedly while fighting in terrorist ranks. In the regional chaos that ensues, only one player stands to gain.

Speculation over what’s to come next has seen #article 5 trending on Twitter in the hours following the attacks, after Omer Celik, spokesman for Turkey’s ruling AKP party, indicated to reporters in Ankara that he was looking at requesting formal NATO protection against Damascus and, by proxy, the Russian air force.

“We call on NATO to [start] consultations. This is not [an attack] on Turkey only, it is an attack on the international community. A common reaction is needed. The attack was also against NATO,” Celik told Turkish media.

Article 5 of the NATO treaty says an attack on one member is an attack on them all.

The US State Department also condemned the attack, stating that it stands by its “NATO ally Turkey.” It further stated that it continues to “call for an immediate end to this despicable offensive by the Assad regime, Russia and Iranian-backed forces.” Never one to let us down, the US envoy to NATO Kay Bailey Hutchinson also told journalists that “everything is on the table.”

This is the opportunity for U.S. President Donald Trump to join his opposition, Democratic Party’s, and even his own Party’s, hate-Russia campaign, “by unleashing World War III, if he wants to”. (For example, it was a unified Congress, both Parties, that forced him, on 17 July 2018, to reverse himself and say that Russia had assisted in his having become the U.S. President. He needed to be forced in order to say he agreed with that statement.)

Internally, within Islamist-ruled Turkey, the official Anadolu Press Agency sub-headlined one English-language news report, “Crisis in Idlib has crossed all limits, says presidential spokesman after regime attack martyrs 33 Turkish troops” and opened,

“Turkey’s presidential spokesman on Friday called on the international community to take measures to de-escalate tensions in Syria after dozens of Turkish soldiers were martyred in a late night attack by the regime forces.”

No mention was made, about those ‘martyrs’, that this had occurred in Syrian territory, where Turkish forces were invaders and military occupiers, and that the ‘regime’ they referred to is Syria’s committedly and ideologically secular, non-sectarian, Government, which is the only internationally recognized Government that Syria has (but from which Islamist Turkey is now trying to seize Syria’s Idlib Province and to include it within Turkey’s own territory).

By 7PM Turkish time on Friday the 28th, Firat Kozok of Bloomberg News headlined “Turkey Says It Has No Choice But to ‘Loosen’ Stance on Refugees” and reported that

Turkey is pressed by developments in Syria’s Idlib and has no choice but to “loosen” its policy of preventing refugees from travelling on to Europe, President Recep Tayyip Erdogan’s communications director Fahrettin Altun told reporters in Ankara.

“If Idlib falls, then millions of Syrian refugees will try to escape to Turkey and Europe. Turkey no longer has the possibility to provide resources for and help these people,” Altun said.

This is applying pressure upon the European member-nations in NATO to either join Turkey’s now very hot war against both Syria and Russia, or else to become faced with Turkey’s release of the tens of thousands of ‘rebels’ (mainly jihadists) whom Turkish forces in Syria’s Idlib Province have been protecting against military fire from Syria’s Army and from Russia’s Air Force. 

For further details see: “Turkey Now Claims Syria’s Idlib Province as Turkish Territory”  by Eric Zuesse, Global Research, February 28, 2020

UPDATE:

On February 28th, the German Government news-agency Deutsche Welle (DW) bannered “Idlib: ‘I’d rather suffer bombs than Assad’” and provided an extensive interview by telephone with someone in Idlib who says that she supports democracy and tolerance of all religions and is determined to overthrow the present Government of Syria. If her pro-democracy, anti-jihadist, allegations are honest, then she is an extraordinary exception for Idlib, as has been documented by the periodic polls that the British polling firm Orb International took throughout Syria and reported during 2014, 2015, 2016, and 2018. For examples:

In the 2014 report (page 12) only 4% of the people sampled in Idlib said that they supported “The Assad Government.” This was far lower than the percentages in any other Syrian province. 52% supported either “armed opposition” or “Violent religious extremist groups.” This was far higher than in any other province except ISIS-controlled Raqqah, where it was 59%.

In the 2015 report (page 7), 35% of the people sampled in Idlib said that al-Nusra (al-Qaeda in Syria) was a “Completely positive influence”; an additional 35% said it was a “Somewhat positive influence.” That 70% support for al-Qaeda was by far the highest found in any of Syria’s provinces.

If the person who was at the other end of that DW phone-call was authentic, then she was anything but representative of the people in Idlib. 

At around 10 AM Eastern time in the U.S. on the 28th, Turkey’s Daily Sabah newspaper headlined “Erdoğan and Putin may meet next week, Kremlin says”, and reported that “Erdoğan and Putin spoke over the phone Friday to try to defuse tensions that rose significantly in northwestern Syria after 33 Turkish troops were killed in a Syrian regime airstrike.” Either Erdogan is trying to find a face-saving way out of his huge gamble, or Putin is trying to prevent WW III, or both. An hour later, that newspaper bannered “Turkey determined to remove Assad regime from Syria’s Idlib, Erdoğan tells Trump.” Why is it that a country can proudly proclaim in a headline that it will commit international aggression in blatant violation of international law and yet not be roundly damned by the publics in all countries for doing such a vile thing?

At around noon, U.S. Eastern time, on the 28th, Turkey’s TRT World bannered “NATO and the West’s dereliction of duty in Syria and Turkey” and opened: “If the West and NATO continue on the path they have chosen, it will allow Vladimir Putin to reshape the post-Soviet world order in his image.” After trying to scare Europe’s leaders by threatening to overwhelm them with maybe hundreds of thousands of released jihadists who have been basically penned-up in Idlib, Erdogan was trying to appeal to those leaders’ obligations to NATO, America’s anti-Russian military alliance.  

At around 1:30 PM U.S. Eastern time on the 28th, Britain’s Guardian headlined “Nato expresses ‘full solidarity’ with Turkey over Syria airstrikes”but NATO chief “Stoltenberg offered no immediate promise of assistance to Turkey,” and the article went on to report that the UK and five of its allies would bring the matter to the U.N. Security Council on Friday night (where Turkey’s demands would even more certainly go nowhere). The reality of Stoltenberg’s statement (which had been issued at 12:33 Eastern time) was a total humiliation to Erdogan’s fantasies that because of his country’s NATO membership he could get the U.S. to invade Russia. Stoltenberg gave the standard NATO hate-talk against Russia and its allies, however, saying that “Allies condemn the continued indiscriminate air strikes by the Syrian regime and its backer Russia in Idlib province.” Even when a NATO member engages in clear-cut foreign aggression in violation of the U.N. Charter’s prohibiton against that, and explicitly violating the International Criminal Court’s “Crime of Aggression”, NATO will spew its standard hate-propaganda against the countries that were and are victims of that blatantly illegal aggression by the NATO member-country. Notwithstanding NATO’s sometimes diplomatic language, it is — after Russia ended its side of the Cold War in 1991 — basically an extremely dangerous militarized hate-organization, of which every one of its member-nations should be profoundly embarrassed to belong.

*

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

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

For years now, as regular readers of Truepublica will know, I have consistently warned that Britain will be moving from a system of liberal democracy towards authoritarianism and that it would only take a few short years to achieve. As we moved through the discord and division of the EU referendum from 2016, I also took the view that a new form of ideology would be looking to usurp Britain’s system of governance, with its constitutional checks and balances, having been vandalised by right-wing autocrats. This might very well end with a form of ‘guided democracy’ – or another way of putting it, a de facto autocracy.’ More qualified people are slowly coming to the same conclusion.

In Britain, we have never had jackboots marching down our high streets and so we are too trusting of events. We Brits do not believe that such extremes could possibly take hold. Authoritarianism has many veils and not all of them come with uniforms and insignia but in the end, with its variances, it amounts to the same. But don’t take my word for it, the experts are more worried than me.

Phil Syrpis is Professor of EU Law at the University of Bristol Law School. He wrote in a recent article for the London School of Economics that:

“He (Boris Johnson) has sought, in a range of ways, to minimise Parliamentary scrutiny of his actions. He has plans for the judiciary, both in terms of its composition, and its ability to hold the government to account via judicial review. He attacks the BBC and the civil service. He treats the devolved governments with barely disguised contempt. Institutions which serve as ‘checks and balances’ against executive power are systematically undermined because they might object to things he might want to do. It seems that we are dealing with a Prime Minister who is interested in power for power’s sake.”

Syrpis goes on to say:

“We have a Prime Minister who rejects scrutiny and constraint. He is showing himself to be reckless about the consequences of his actions, and uninterested in the people and business groups most affected by his policies. All the while, he is constructing a narrative that he is delivering ‘the will of the people’, standing up for ‘our’ interests in the face of the threats created by others. For now, it appears to be working.”

These thoughtfully measured words demonstrate something that is dawning on many. That Boris Johnson wants to increase executive power in order that he can push through his version of Brexit – whatever that might be. And under the cover of Brexit – most people in Britain are not seeing what else is going on.

Nicholas Reed Langen is a long-established expert on the British Constitution and writes for The Justice Gap and Project Syndicate. He surmises that in one of the world’s oldest democracies, Boris Johnson is moving executive power towards what he terms a ‘constitutional dictator.’ He does, however, go one step further in reviewing the trajectory of Johnson’s ambitions:

“In attempting to imbue the executive branch with near omnipotence, both Johnson and Trump are aligning themselves with a view that bears a striking resemblance to that of the twentieth-century German jurist Carl Schmitt.”

It shouldn’t be under-estimated what is being said here. Schmitt was a well known, highly respected 20th-century political philosopher – a conservative German political theorist and in the end, a prominent member of the Nazi Party. He wrote extensively about the effective wielding of political power. His work has been a major influence on subsequent political theory, legal theory, continental philosophy and political theology, and remains to this day both influential and controversial due to his close association and juridical-political allegiance with Nazism. I am not suggesting the Boris Johnson is a Nazi – only that many leaders have taken this philosophy and applied it in varying grades of intensity.

Some have argued that neo-conservativism, the same form of economic management brought to us in the UK and USA by Thatcher and Raegan was indeed heavily influenced by Schmitt. It is interesting that the judicial theory espoused by Schmitt during the war years have since led to modern-day ideologies such as the ‘war on terror‘ and substantial interference of international law such as the Geneva Convention. We have all seen this with the introduction of unlawful combatant status, indefinite imprisonment, rendition, torture and mass surveillance programmes – all of which mimic his writings and all of which were practised (wholly or in part, legally or otherwise) in Britain and America.

“In both cases, Johnson and Trump are following a Schmittian playbook, defending the constitutional legitimacy of their preferences by claiming that they are channelling the true voice of the people.”

Both Sypris and Langen see the fraudulent alignment of “the will of the people” and gaining executive power to deliver fictitious benefits to them.

I have said for a long time now that the implications of this current political trajectory of the right-wing is really very worrying. Before Brexit, political scandals were pretty much restricted to expenses, corporate corruption and/or sexual indiscretions. Today, no-one cares because the new norm is all of that plus mass propaganda campaigns based around misinformation, breaking electoral laws, soliciting dark money from anonymous sources, raids on judicial and legislative restraints and blatant media coercion and threats. All of that has been proven as the current government strategy of control.

Thomas Piketty’s seminal book ‘Capital in the 21st Century’ states emphatically that “no government programme could be sustained without an apparatus of justification” – this is what we are seeing right now.

At the centre of Boris Johnson’s administration is a desire to take a wrecking ball to the pillars that uphold institutional order in Britain – just as Schmitt would have endorsed. Britain is now gliding down a dangerous and dimly lit tunnel with a T-junction in complete darkness – to be reached (so we are told) on the last day of 2020. Which way will Britain be led – toward liberal democracy with economic restraints via the EU or an illiberal corporatocracy escorted by authoritarianism? It’s extraordinary to think that in this most dangerous of moments we, the public, are not allowed to know.

The latter could easily lead Britain quite rapidly to a dystopian scenario in which a prime minister would be imbued with Schmittian powers such as stripping rights from British citizens and foreign residents and to overthrow and dismantle the UK’s political and economic model of the last five decades – all accompanied by the soundbites of the ‘will of the people.’ To keep up appearances, we would still have elections and courts, national newspapers and broadcasters – but they would be neutered, as is the ongoing battle to achieve just that right now. Public dissent will be policed and controlled and the judiciary’s power to challenge No10 Downing Street completely restrained. Even the resignation of Sajid Javid and his replacement highlights the fact that scrutiny within government is fading quickly.

As Langen says – “Parliament would be relegated to the position of a mere bystander … the implications of this philosophy for the legislature are alarming. But those for the courts are even more distressing.”

German Politician Ralf Fücks warns in an interview that –

“The idea that one can separate democracy and freedom from one another has deep roots, precisely in the German history of ideas. In 1923 Schmitt in his famous criticism of parliamentarians attempted to separate out democracy and liberalism. His enemy is liberalism, democracy he abridged down to the rule of the people. Even bolshevism and fascism are for him possible forms of democracy.”

Just type into your web browser the keywords “Boris Johnson dictator” and news articles from all over the UK, Europe, America – even the Middle East and India have already proclaimed the arrival of a quasi- dictatorship in Britain after the proroguing of parliament and subsequent December plebiscite. From the Irish Times to Germany’s Deutsche Welle, the world has gasped in horror as Britain’s characterful and mostly balanced polity has been replaced with an apathetic and disrespectful ringleader surrounded by dubious courtiers of political zealotry.

Philip Sargeant is an applied linguist at The Open University, specialising in the relationship between language, politics and social media. He concludes in an article for Democratic Audit that for all the soundbites, and the campaigns of misinformation that have got us to this moment, populists like Boris Johnson – “have little real interest in engaging with the complexities of the challenges their societies face.” And Britain has a lot of challenges to face, the imminence of Brexit is just one of them.

Make no mistake, Britain has chosen to take a sinister hard-right turn led by a radical faction of ideologues. It’s a trajectory, it’s leading somewhere – that’s the real worry.

*

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.

What are the political ‘takeaways’ from yesterday’s South Carolina primary? In just few words: not many.

None that change the fundamental dynamics that have in play throughout the primaries in general thus far to date.

Biden bought himself some time, at the expense of Bloomberg and the other mainstream candidates like Klobuchar, Steyer, and Buttigieg.

Steyer & Buttigieg Drop Out

Although having come in third, Tom Steyer announced first thing next day that he’s dropping out of the race.

Then, in a bombshell of sorts, Buttigieg announced his departure from the race today as well.  It was strange that he reaffirmed early in the day his intent to stay in the race to the end. Then, at day’s end, abruptly announced he was dropping out. What’s behind the about face? Most likely, the dozens of billionaires who began footing Buttigieg’s campaign bill in December decided to pull their funding at mid-day. Was it just because the boy wonder from Indiana had no chance of winning the nomination? That was true from the beginning. It’s always been hard to imagine how a small town Indiana mayor of 38 could ever be a real candidate.

Buttigieg was kept in the race this far, funded by the three dozen or so billionaires, in order to pull the youth vote from Sanders. Or so it was possibly reasoned. Having failed that, the moneybags today, a day after South Carolina, decided to stop writing him checks.  It is likely their decision was also to refocus money to Biden, now that South Carolina injected some life support into his campaign.

The money moves around, as it bets on the next possible long shot, or as the strategy of the moneybag wing of the Democrat Party shifts from splitting Sanders delegate votes in the primaries to concentrating the money game on the horse they think best to beat Sanders.  Bloomberg doesn’t need the funding…yet. So the money shifts from Buttigieg to Biden.

Klobuchar Next!

Expect the same to happen within days, perhaps hours, to the other ‘centrist’ female candidate intended to shift votes from Sanders based on gender, rather than youth. Amy Klobuchar will go next, and quickly. Not much else to say about that.

Biden Taken Off Political ‘Life Support’

Biden had to win by a large margin. He did, with around 48% to Sanders’ 21%. All the rest falling far behind, including Bloomberg and, even further, Warren.

Biden’s last minute surge can be attributed to the ‘pull out the stops’ by the Democratic party leadership and the moneybags behind them. On the surface this was reflected in the various last minute endorsements from the Party elite, from outside the state as well as within by leading black political leaders in state.

Older black voters in South Carolina (and true of much of the South) tend to follow the recommendations of their black politicians, community leaders, and churches. Younger black voters not so much. While that phenomenon is typical of the South, it is less so of other states. It won’t be repeated significantly in California, New York, and elsewhere. Biden won’t have any black vote in his pocket beyond South Carolina.

The important point about the South Carolina black vote, which comprises 60% of all Democrat voters in South Carolina yesterday, is that Biden won most of the over-35 black vote. But Sanders won a clear majority of the under-35 black vote. That youth black vote in South Carolina made up only 18% of the potential black vote. So it was an older generation of blacks that dominated the total black vote and voted for Biden. Sanders reportedly won the 18% under-30 black youth vote.

That divide within the black vote in the state may suggest that the churches, community organizations, and black political elite in the state may be losing hold on the younger voters. That may be the takeaway. (Latinos in the state make up only 3% of all Democrat eligible voters, so Sanders’ support there made little difference).

Another takeaway is that the analysis of the black vote and Biden’s margin of victory shows is that the main dynamic in play throughout the Democratic primary season continued in South Carolina despite Biden’s win: i.e. Sanders continued to rally the ‘youth’ vote behind him–including blacks, Latinos, and others; in contrast, Biden’s support derived from the older crowd. It’s reflective over all of a major youth-not youth division within the Democrat party that may, in the end, sink it. For the party leadership is clearly aligned with the older voter than the younger.

Generation v. Class Divide (Or Both?)

On the other hand, that there is a major ‘generational divide’ within the Democratic Party may be more appearance than essence. The South Carolina black youth v. black elders split—a reflection of a similar generational divide elsewhere in the country—may actually be covering up something more fundamental. It may all appear generational, but the real divide is economic and class. Working class youth, students, and young adults vs. a mix of older, better well off middle age boomers-silent generation voters, many of whom are not working class unlike the youth who are virtually all so.

Black, Latino, or white, the youth movement behind Sanders is overwhelmingly working class: whether low-paid employed, underemployed working multiple jobs, or student.

They are the millennials, the GenXers, and now GenZers, who have been, and continue to be, devastated by economic policies that have been in effect from Obama through Trump, and now intensifying under the latter.

They carry most of the economic burden of low paid, no benefits, no job security service jobs. They are the vast majority of the uninsured, or trying to get by on bare bones Medicaid coverage, or who manage to obtain some lower cost ACA coverage (in some states) albeit with $1,000 or more deductibles. They are the new class of the indentured working class, with student debt totaling more than $1.6 trillion. They are the most heavily burdened with accelerating rental costs, having to triple and quadruple up together to share apartments, or else return home to parents, to secure accommodations. The thought of home ownership isn’t even on their imagination radar. They are the students who are sleeping in their cars, frequenting community food banks, or even ‘dumpster diving’ outside restaurants to make ends meet. They are the hundreds of thousands of ‘Dreamers’ who have virtually given up on either party allowing them US citizenship. They are inner-city youth hustling by whatever means necessary to get by day to day and week to week. They are the millions who have graduated from college and can’t find meaningful work that pays the bills—let alone the exorbitant interest charges on their student loans.

Formerly cynical or hopeless, they are the heart of those flocking to the Sanders movement. And it is not race or gender or other difference—easily manipulated by media and politicians—that drive their attraction to Sanders. It is economic. For them it is about someday maybe getting real affordable medical coverage, or relief from the crushing weight of student debt, or access to affordable education, or ending the prospect of being locked in for a lifetime of minimum or below-minimum wages, or being able to assume an independent adult existence. And Sanders’ ‘Green New Deal’ offers the hope at least of turning around the growing climate crisis and a world in which they and their children will almost certainly have to pay a high price in which to live.

That is the meaning of the fundamental dynamic behind the primaries, and indeed the election of 2020 in general. South Carolina’s primary and the win for Biden hasn’t changed that.

Hey, Red-Baiting Works!

Another immediate ‘takeaway’ from the South Carolina primary is that Democratic Party leadership will now conclude that bashing Sanders as ‘socialist’, unelectable, incapable of ensuring ‘down ballot’ Congressional victories, or similar scare tactics works.  They’ll now conclude such charges helped put Biden over in South Carolina. And those big donors who threatened publicly to vote for Trump if Sanders was the nominee will also believe their threats worked. That means Sanders can expect even more intense bashing during Super Tuesday and after; and we can expect even more threats of big campaign donors bolting from the party in the general election from Super Tuesday contests to the Party convention in June.

Bloomberg Unfazed

Although the immediate fallout from South Carolina is Tom Steyer and Buttigieg,  Bloomberg was only superficially wounded. Mike has billions of bucks to buy the best and quickest political medical repair to his campaign. He’ll conclude that South Carolina is an ‘outlier’ primary with little significance to other state Super Tuesday primaries coming up. In that he’s correct.

It remains to be seen this coming week, and Super Tuesday, how much South Carolina has impact the campaigns of Warren. For reasons having to do with the unique black vote in South Carolina noted previously, South Carolina’s outcome signifies little for her campaigns as well. However, if she doesn’t perform at or near Sanders’ totals—which is highly unlike—she’s the next to go sometime between Super Tuesday and June convention.

Warren vs. Bloomberg (Or Is It Sanders?)

What became very apparent in the pre-South Carolina Primary debate last wing was Warren began attacking Sanders even as she continued her telling critique of Bloomberg. Warren can’t move ‘right’ and peel away votes from either Biden or Bloomberg. She may accrete some votes from Klobuchar but that’s insufficient to make a difference. Watch her therefore turn her critique more toward Sanders during Super Tuesday, especially in states like California. But her problem strategically is she’s like Poland—caught between Russia and Germany. And the battle between the two real contending forces will soon run her over. She may last longer than Pete, Amy and Tom. But not much.

South Carolina: All ‘Sound and Fury, Signifying Nothing’

The obvious takeaway always there is that South Carolina means next to nothing for the general election.  The Democrats, whomever their nominate, stand no chance whatsoever in getting the electoral votes in Republican South Carolina.

The same applies to most of the other southern ‘red states’, which are now locked into the Republican camp due to years of successful gerrymandering and voter suppression that went un-confronted by Democratic Party leadership under Obama.  And that means a lock-in for Trump in the electoral college from those states. A couple ‘long-shot’ possible exceptions may be Virginia or Florida (a longer shot). But Democrats can forget North Carolina and Texas where they’ve been dreaming of possible general election upsets.

The election will still come down, as in 2016, to the swing states of Pennsylvania, Michigan, Wisconsin, Minnesota, Iowa, and maybe Arizona. The general election will be determined there, as it was in 2016.  And it was Hillary Clinton’s virtual abandonment of working class voters in these states that ‘turned’ the 70+ electoral votes to give Trump victory in 2016. To repeat that: working class votes.

So the story is who best—Biden, Bloomberg, or Sanders—can turn out enough youth, under-35 working class voters to offset older, more comfortable voters, non-working class and older working class, staying with Trump in 2020. I’m referring to those ‘comfortables’ who have benefitted from Trump’s massive $4 trillion plus business-investor tax cuts, from the record $1.2 trillion a year in stock buybacks and dividend payouts under Trump in both 2018 and 2019, those who shared some crumbs from the lion’s share subsidies from Trump’s $28 billion dollar direct subsidies to big Agribusiness, from Trump’s ‘green light’ to big Pharma to continue to gouge consumers, from the $300 billion increase in defense goods government purchases, and from the deregulation of bankers, insurance, coal, oil and other climate crisis contributing companies.

What matters is who can turn out the working class and youth vote in the swing states? Not in South Carolina. Is it Sanders, or the candidate of the Democrat Party leadership, big donors, and moneybags? That’s still likely Bloomberg, although Biden may surprise now that big money is flowing his way again as well. And the other ‘centrist’ candidates—Buttigieg, Klobuchar, Steyer—are being defunded and pushed out of the race to concentrate votes in favor of Biden or Bloomberg.

But Sanders may not even get the chance. Already pressuring is building within the party to commit the 500 plus Special Delegates held in reserve by the party leaders, to be released on the second ballot of the upcoming party convention in Milwaukee on behalf of the party leadership’s preferred (read: corporate) candidate. That’s still likely to be Bloomberg. Bets are Biden won’t replicate his ‘special case’ South Carolina victory. And, except for Sanders, the rest of the field are already ‘has beens’ and ‘also rans’. They’ll drop like flies, one after the other, in the wake of Super Tuesday and the run-up to the June party convention.

Should Sanders’ momentum continue through Super Tuesday, don’t rule out the party releasing Super Delegates (who are mostly Congressional representatives and Senators) before the convention. But before that we’ll hear the party big guns come out against Sanders—Bill Clinton and Barack Obama and, if necessary, Pelosi and Shumer.

And that will be the death-knell of the Democratic Party as we know it.

So from this point on the race is Sanders vs. whoever prevails in the ‘race within the race’, i.e. between Biden-Bloomberg.

*

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

This article was originally published on the author’s blog site, Jack Rasmus.

Dr. Rasmus is author of the just published book, ‘The Scourge of Neoliberalism: US Economic Policy from Reagan to Trump’, Clarity Press, January 2020. He blogs at jackrasmus.com. His website is http://kyklosproductions.com and twitter handle, @drjackrasmus.

Russia is pushing back the Turkish Army in Idlib. As the Turks broke through the Syrian Arab Army’s (SAA) defence the latter called for air assistance from Russia. The fighters came and victory was the SAA’s. With that all uncertainty is gone. Russia will keep its promise of maintaining the integrity of the Syrian state, even when an “ally” is attempting to force her to break that promise. Relations with difficult Turkey is no reason for Russia to betray a decades-old major ally inWest Asia.

After all, to all intents and purposes, Ankara is proving to be an unworthy ally irrespective of the benefits given and promised. Appeased many times — including the intentional downing of a SU-24 Russian fighter in 2015 near the Syria-Turkey border; and the assassination of the Russian envoy to Turkey. But Turkey appeared to straddle both East and West. Trump was defied and the purchase of the Russian S-400 air defence system went through. However, many saw that sale as Putin’s foolishness knowing that President Erdogan was not a man of his word. And, it has been reported that apparently, Ankara is threatening to deploy the S-400 against Syria in the current conflagration. Thus proving the skeptics correct.

But if others are suspicious of Erdogan, surely it is safe to assume that President Putin must have taken this into consideration before selling the S-400 to Turkey, especially given the rocky history between these two countries. Surely Putin is not so naive as to think that appeasement and Erdogan’s debt for the rumoured early warning of the American backed coup against Erdogan bought him the latter’s undying loyalty?

Are regional hegemonic ambitions worth the high stakes gamble? If not hegemony, what is the likely cause of Erdogan pushing Moscow to bare its fangs? Are the Kurds such a threat that controlling their territory in Syria is not something that Ankara can compromise on?

The fight is progressively becoming more dangerous — note that Turkey remains a NATO member — and now Ankara has persuaded Washington to back it. As of a week ago the fighting has reached a new intensity as a result.  The Turks are fighting the SAA on the ground and the Russians in the air.  This could further escalate if Ankara can persuade other NATO members that it is being attacked by Russia thus taking the war to a whole new level. History shows that NATO has long looked for war with Russia. In recent years the impression is that NATO is satisfied that Russia has been effectively encircled and can be defeated.

These possibilitiesof escalation, all parties involved are well aware of. Hence the intense diplomacy between Ankara and Moscow. Fact on the ground shows nothing less than the victorious SAA winning back most territories around Idlib held by the terrorists. Nevertheless peace is being denied the Syrians by the unending interference of the US and its allies and Turkey appears nothing less than a staunch US ally in preventing Syria a total victory around Idlib, while the US determinedly occupies the oil rich Syrian territories in Deir Ezzor in far eastern Syria.

It seems ludicrous, therefore, to view Turkey as a Russian ally any longer. Not only has Turkey not delivered her part of the Sochi de-escalationagreement, Ankara has openly threatened Damascus. The Ankara position is one where the invader is wanting the invaded to embrace being invaded. Syria is, at pain of invasion, not allowed to kill the invading soldiers.

Russia was not amused. Not something Ankara expected thinking instead that “neither Russia nor Syria would seek to escalate the fighting in Idlib to include force on force engagements with a NATO member,” writes Scott Ritter.

Erdogan has also been reported as saying ”Turkey will not allow the Syrian government to take control of the province (Idlib). Which is then what the Kremlin spokesman, Dmitry Peskov described as the “worst case scenario”.

Diplomatically, all this boils down to the “need to implement everything that our leaders (Putin and Erdogan) have agreed upon,” said Sergei Lavrov, the Russian Foreign Minister. Is this possible, when one party has decided to renege on its responsibilities? Ankara has not been coy about its unwillingness to meet its obligations. Rather, Ankara has done a Trump, renege on its obligations.

It is true to say that even a whiff of Syrian victory at reclaiming her territories has brought on tactics to impede a resolution. The US would airlift out terrorist groups friendly to her only to return them to battle. In certain instances the US allies have acted as air cover for the terrorists as in the 2016 Deir Ezzor air raid which killed 50 Syrian Army and allied troops, which the US claimed was accidental. This particular airstrike facilitated the terrorists’ advance on the Syrian position.

Is peace, then, possible for Syria given the powers ranged against her, powers with no compunction to resort to any move, legal or otherwiseto thwart Damascus?Even the battle hardened SAA with years of experience are kept fighting against any number of groups of terrorists acting as proxies. When the SAA wins they are threatened with retaliation.

It would appear that a Russian intervention of the sort that puts paid to any terrorist victory is the only way. But then the armies of other nations will step in to try a push back of the victorious SAA from their ownSyrian territories as if they had no right to them. A total and final victory cannot but come from a determined strike against invading forces. But as Idlib has proven Syria cannot be restored intact without Russian support. The question then is, are the powers, NATO et al, edging towards  a World War? One does get the impression that at this time the US and its NATO allies are erring towards thebelief that they can win such awar.

And, Russia has overtly taken a no-nonsense posture. Is the world walking straight into the perfect storm given adverse global economic conditions compoundedby the impact of the Covid-19 virus now already menacing the world?

*

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

Askiah Adam is Executive Director of the International Movement for a JUST World (JUST).

MIT Study Finds No Evidence of Fraud in Bolivian Election that Resulted in a Coup

By Dave DeCamp, March 02, 2020

Back in November 2019, former Bolivian President Evo Morales was ousted in a coup after claims of election fraud from the Organization for American States (OAS). A new MIT study into the October 20^th presidential election does not support the conclusions of the OAS and casts further doubt on the already flimsy claims. Much damage has already been done, Morales fled the country, members of his Movimento al Socialismo (MAS) party have been arrested, and dozens of his supporters were shot and killed by police in the unrest that followed the coup.

Jeremy Corbyn’s Silence During Julian Assange’s Extradition Hearing

By Chris Marsden, March 02, 2020

Throughout the four-day proceedings in London, Labour Party leader Jeremy Corbyn and his closest allies, Shadow Chancellor John McDonnell and Shadow Home Secretary Diane Abbott, along with every single Labour MP, have kept their mouths firmly shut. Their silence was tantamount to collusion in a monstrous political show trial, aimed at silencing a publisher and journalist who has exposed US war crimes in Afghanistan and Iraq.

Turkey and Syria Are at War Without a Declaration of War

By Paul Antonopoulos, March 02, 2020

Although Turkey has supported anti-Syrian government forces, especially terrorist organizations  like ISIS and the Al-Qaeda affiliated Al-Nusra and Turkistan Islamic Party, since the very beginning of the Syrian War in 2011, no declaration of war has ever been announced between the two neighboring countries. Russia became militarily involved in 2015 and its intervention saw the quick defeat of ISIS and the recovery of large swathes of the country back into Syrian government control, as well as a partnership emerging with Turkey to discuss the Syrian crisis.

Canadian Media Lies About Venezuela

By Alison Bodine, March 01, 2020

Canada’s public media the CBC long-ago entered the ranks of yellow journalism when it comes to its reporting on Venezuela.  However, two recent reports, in particular, one on CBC radio’s “The Current” and the other a CBC News article by reporter Evan Dyer, weigh heavy on the sensationalism and light on facts. Filled with unsubstantiated claims, right-wing pundits parading as “pro-democracy” advocates and unchallenged declarations by the government of Canada officials, once again, the CBC firmly establishes their role as the mouthpiece of the government Canada.

Why Not Sanders? He’s “Far Too Risky”

By Robert Fantina, March 01, 2020

An article on CNN on February 25 discusses the fear and apprehension of ‘moderate’ Democrats about the possibility of Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders winning the Democratic presidential nomination. “This is playing into Trump’s hands!” they lament. “Downstream candidates will be adversely impacted” they moan. They wring their hands and proclaim that “The Party will lose the House!”

They all say that Sanders is far too risky. Democrats must nominate some middle-of-the-road, namby-pamby, white, male candidate to oppose Trump. That, they state, is the only possibility of victory.

Thailand Protests: “Students” Fight to Save Washington’s Billionaire Proxy

By Tony Cartalucci, March 01, 2020

“Long Live Democracy!” cried “student” protesters at Thailand’s Thammasat University as local and Western media organizations reported “hundreds” gathered to decry the disbanding of Thai political party, Future Forward.

However, the Western media’s eager support for the small mob complete with quotes of support from the US Embassy in Bangkok should be the first clue that it has little to do with actual democracy or Thailand’s best interests and more to do with bolstering Western proxies in Thailand and boosting waning Western influence in Thailand, and across wider Asia vis-a-vis China.

China is Confronting the COVID-19 Epidemic. Was It Man-Made? An Act of of Bio-warfare?

By Peter Koenig, February 29, 2020

The new coronavirus, 2019-nCoV, also called COVID19, has as of this date killed about 3,000 people and infected some 87,000 around the globe, the vast majority of them in China. The virus has spread to at least 56 countries.

The new coronavirus, 2019-nCoV, also called COVID-19, has as of this date resulted in more than 3,000 deaths and infected more than 80,000 people Worldwide, the vast majority of them in China.

---

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 consequences of the COVID-19 outbreak in Iran will exacerbate the Islamic Republic’s ongoing economic crisis and bring it even closer to political collapse than ever before, the outcome of which is unwittingly being facilitated by the government’s mismanaged response to this disease as a result of the narrative corner that it’s backed itself into for “politically correct” reasons, which worryingly raises the question of whether or not regime change might be just around the corner if this dire situation isn’t soon brought under control.

Back in November 2019, former Bolivian President Evo Morales was ousted in a coup after claims of election fraud from the Organization for American States (OAS). A new MIT study into the October 20^th presidential election does not support the conclusions of the OAS and casts further doubt on the already flimsy claims. Much damage has already been done, Morales fled the country, members of his Movimento al Socialismo (MAS) party have been arrested, and dozens of his supporters were shot and killed by police in the unrest that followed the coup.

The claims of election fraud stem from a 24-hour pause of the preliminary count system on election day. The counting was paused after 84 percent of the votes were tallied, at the time it showed Morales leading his closest opponent Carlos Mesa by just under eight percent. When the counting resumed the next day, Morales’ lead increased to over 10 percent. In Bolivia’s election system, a candidate is required to have over 40 percent of the votes, and a 10 percent lead to their nearest opponent to prevent a runoff vote.

The OAS claims that during this 24-hour pause in the preliminary count, manipulations occurred that resulted in Morales taking a large enough lead to prevent the runoff vote. The new MIT study examined the data and concluded, “The OAS’s claim that the stopping of the trep (preliminary count) during the Bolivian election produced an oddity in the voting trend is contradicted by the data … Therefore, we cannot find results that would lead us to the same conclusion as the OAS. We find it is very likely that Morales won the required 10 percentage point margin to win in the first round of the election on October 20, 2019.”

The MIT study was commissioned by the Center for Economic Policy and Policy Research (CEPR). The CEPR conducted their own study on the election shortly after it happened that found “no evidence that irregularities or fraud affected the official result that gave President Evo Morales a first-round victory.” In a press release that came out with the MIT study, CEPR Co-Director Mark Weisbrot said, “The OAS greatly misled the media and the public about what happened in Bolivia’s elections, and helped to foster a great deal of mistrust in the electoral process and the results.”

The MIT researchers wrote an article in The Washington Post on their findings. The OAS angrily responded to the article and said the researchers ignored the OAS findings in their final report on the election and focused mostly on the preliminary report.

After the OAS released their preliminary report on the election in November 2019, Morales agreed to hold fresh elections and even said he would replace members of the electoral board that were responsible for the alleged fraud. These concessions were not enough for Morales’ opposition, who, along with the military, demand Morales step down. Morales fled to Mexico and eventually ended up in Argentina, where he was granted asylum.

At least 35 people were killed, and 700 were wounded in the post-election day unrest. Most of those killed and wounded were Morales supporters who protested against the coup. Bolivia has a large indigenous population, and Morales being the country’s first indigenous president, has much support in the community.

Morales’ resignation was celebrated in Washington. In a statement, President Trump called it “a significant moment for democracy in the Western Hemisphere.” Florida Senator Marco Rubio also celebrated the news and said, “Morales was illegitimately holding on to power in Bolivia after the recent presidential elections.” Rubio’s statement doesn’t make much sense, considering Morales’ term was not set to end until January.

Rubio, along with the OAS, expressed doubt over Morales’ victory by a ten percent margin before the final votes were tallied. On October 21^st, Rubio tweeted,

“In Bolivia all credible indications are Evo Morales failed to secure necessary margin to avoid a second round in Presidential election. However some concern he will tamper with the results or process to avoid this.”

Leaked audio recordings of coup plotters discussing their plans surfaced shortly after election day and was reported on by many Spanish-language media outlets. Among the topics discussed was the support the plotters had from US Senators Marco Rubio, Bob Menendez, and Ted Cruz, who would be willing to push for economic sanctions against Bolivia if Morales stayed in power. A report from The Grayzone shows that some of the military officials involved in these conversations attended WHINSEC, a military training school in Fort Benning, Georgia, formerly known as the School of the Americas (SOA).

The SOA is a notorious training ground for coup plotters and human rights abusers of Latin America. For example, graduates of the SOA took part in the 1981 El Mozote massacre in El Salvador, where a US-backed death squad slaughtered over 800 civilians. After being connected to such atrocities, and years of bad publicity, the SOA changed its name to WHINSEC. Antiwar activists still keep a close eye on the school. SOA Watch is a grassroots organization that publishes data on the school’s graduates.

Morales expelled the US Agency for International Development (USAID) from Bolivia in 2013. US media outlets portrayed it as a paranoid move, but documents released in 2009 show that USAID poured millions of dollars into anti-Morales opposition groups and programs from the time he was a presidential candidate in 2004. After Morales was elected at the end of 2005, those efforts were ramped up, USAID focused on decentralization and separatist projects in Eastern Bolivia. In January, President Trump waived a restriction on US assistance to Bolivia, paving the way for USAID to reenter the country.

The US-government funded National Endowment for Democracy (NED) maintains a strong presence in Bolivia. In 2019, the NED spent nearly one million dollars on programs like, “Monitoring the National Election Process,” “Promoting an Informed Electorate,” and “Providing Independent News and Election Information.”

Like Venezuela, Bolivia is rich in natural resources and sits on one of the world’s largest lithium reserves. As the world becomes more reliable on batteries and electronics, lithium may replace oil as the most sought-after resource. This fact certainly gave Washington some motivation to kick out a leftist president who would likely nationalize lithium.

The OAS also plays its part in advancing Washington’s policies in Latin America. While the OAS consists of 35 member states, it is mostly funded by one member, the US. Since January 2019, the US and its allies have been pushing hard to oust Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro. Before Juan Guaido declared himself interim president of Venezuela in January 2019, the OAS Permanent Council agreed “to not recognize the legitimacy of Nicolas Maduro’s new term as of the 10th of January of 2019.”

Under Morales, Bolivia remained one of the few OAS countries that still recognized Maduro as president of Venezuela. That changed rather quickly once right-wing Senator Jeanine Anez declared herself acting president of Bolivia. One of Anez’s first moves was to recognize Juan Guaido as the “legitimate” president of Venezuela.

Since Anez took office, many members of Morales’ MAS party have been arrested or are wanted by authorities. The most common charge the party members face is related to claims of election fraud. New presidential elections are set to take place on May 3^rd, and the candidate leading the polls is Luis Arce, a member of the MAS party. The government of Jeanine Anez just opened a corruption case against Arce, in a move many see as an attempt to hinder his presidential run. It is tough to say what the future holds for the people of Bolivia, but it looks like the post-coup government is going to make every effort to keep the MAS party from power.

In 2017, Bolivia’s supreme court ruled against term limits, paving the way for Morales to run for a fourth term. The court’s ruling went against a referendum that was held in 2016, where Bolivians voted in favor of term limits in a close vote of 51-49. Whether or not Morales’ bid for a fourth term was legitimate is certainly up for debate, but that is a discussion for Bolivians to have.

It appears Morales was thrown out for false claims of election fraud, and while the post-coup government has the support of the OAS and Washington, it is unlikely much will be done to rectify it. The US has a long bloody history of overthrowing governments in Latin America, and these policies continue today through organizations like the NED and USAID. What President Trump called “a significant moment for democracy” was just the result of modern-day imperialism in Latin America.

*

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

Dave DeCamp is assistant editor at Antiwar.com and a freelance journalist based in Brooklyn NY, focusing on US foreign policy and wars. He is on Twitter at @decampdave.

Last week, Julian Assange was subjected to an extradition hearing brought by the Trump administration to bring the WikiLeaks founder to the United States to face Espionage Act charges carrying a 175-year prison sentence.

Throughout the four-day proceedings in London, Labour Party leader Jeremy Corbyn and his closest allies, Shadow Chancellor John McDonnell and Shadow Home Secretary Diane Abbott, along with every single Labour MP, have kept their mouths firmly shut. Their silence was tantamount to collusion in a monstrous political show trial, aimed at silencing a publisher and journalist who has exposed US war crimes in Afghanistan and Iraq.

Assange’s defence team detailed Washington’s conspiracy to silence him by any means necessary. The proceedings also revealed how the British courts and Boris Johnson’s Conservative government are prepared to trample on basic democratic and legal rights to ensure that Assange is sent to the US and silenced forever.

The extradition hearing had a Kafkaesque character. On February 24, Assange took his seat at Belmarsh Magistrates’ Court in a bulletproof glass box. He could barely hear his legal team outlining his defence against extradition. The bulk of the world’s press, stuck in a porta-cabin grandly described as a “media annexe,” could also barely hear or follow events.

For the defence, Edward Fitzgerald QC made a powerful presentation insisting that the US extradition request was illegal because it was demonstrably politically motivated. He detailed the extraordinary level of criminality involved in the US vendetta against Assange, including the methods employed by Spanish security firm US Global on behalf of the CIA to monitor every movement of the award-winning journalist during his political asylum inside the Ecuadorian Embassy.

Private and privileged conversations between Assange and his lawyers and doctors were filmed, even in the toilet, so that he was forced to sleep in a tent in his bedroom to protect his privacy.

More devastating still were the revelations of an unnamed Spanish whistle-blower, “witness 2,” that the US had plotted to kidnap and possibly kill Assange.

“There were conversations” between the CIA and UC Global head David Morales “about whether there should be more extreme measures contemplated, such as kidnapping or poisoning Julian Assange in the embassy,” Fitzgerald told the court. This included suggesting that the embassy door could be left open to make a kidnapping look like it could have been “an accident.”

Day two began with reports that Assange was handcuffed 11 times and stripped naked twice by prison guards on the opening day of proceedings, while his legal documents were confiscated. He was moved to five different cells. Despite this grotesque interference in the right to a fair trial, presiding judge Vanessa Baraitser declared that she had “no jurisdiction” over Assange’s treatment in detention.

The next day, she informed the court that Assange was “medicated” and might have “difficulty following proceedings.” In response, Assange approached the glass panels separating him from the body of the court, telling the head of his legal team, Gareth Peirce, that he was under constant surveillance: “I cannot communicate with my lawyers or ask them for clarifications without the other side seeing … What is the point of asking if I can concentrate if I cannot participate?”

The defence requested Assange be allowed to sit in the body of the court, but Baraitser rejected their written submissions, ruling on the final afternoon that Assange must remain in a dock encased in reinforced glass when the hearing resumes in May.

Fitzgerald cited the medical opinion of Professor Michael Kopelman that, “I am as confident as a psychiatrist can ever be that, if extradition to the United States were to become imminent, Mr. Assange would find a way of suiciding” and of Doctor Sondra Crosby that, “It is my strong medical opinion that the extradition of Mr. Assange to the United States will further damage his current fragile state of health and very likely cause his death.”

This is the corrupt and depraved British legal system that Corbyn, McDonnell, et. al. refuse to challenge. Their public rationalisations are politically criminal.

On February 20, McDonnell visited Assange at Belmarsh. He called Assange’s plight “the Dreyfus case of our age.” At the same time, he insisted that “when the hearings start they will be sub judice and it will be difficult to raise it in the House of Commons…”

McDonnell was advancing the contemptible rationale which he and Corbyn—and their pseudo-left political allies—would use to justify their own cowardice and lack of political principle.

Jeremy Corbyn is the leader of the Opposition. He could have raised Assange’s fate in Parliament every single day, informing millions that he was being tried in a kangaroo court and that his fundamental democratic rights were being abused by a judge whose verdict has been decided in advance. He should have called for every worker and young person in Britain and internationally to demand an immediate end to the legal travesty at Belmarsh and for Assange to be freed.

What would the courts have done in response? Threaten him with prosecution or arrest? A genuine workers’ leader would have told the judiciary, “Just you dare try it!”

If any action had been taken against Corbyn, this would have been the most incendiary move since Charles I entered Parliament in January 1642 seeking to arrest five members of the Commons and precipitating the English Civil War. It would have unleashed a wave of protest throughout the UK that would have galvanised mass support for Assange’s freedom.

But Corbyn and McDonnell are not only too fond of their own skins to throw down the gauntlet to the judiciary. They are servants of the same capitalist masters as Baraitser and are bitterly opposed to any mobilisation of the working class to thwart the machinations of British imperialism.

Corbyn kept quiet on Assange for years after becoming Labour leader, until April last year when Assange was illegally dragged out of the Ecuadorean Embassy. He briefly opposed extradition to the US, before supporting extradition to Sweden on manufactured sex allegations. He then resumed his silence for 10 months, including during December’s general election campaign, before again breaking it briefly on February 12.

The media barely and selectively reported last week’s trial. Over the weekend, Socialist Equality Party campaign teams in the UK found that many workers and youth did not even know it was taking place. Corbyn is politically responsible for this dangerous situation.

Against the efforts of the official Don’t Extradite Assange campaign, and its political leaders such as John Rees and Tariq Ali, the World Socialist Web Site, the International Committee of the Fourth International and the Socialist Equality Parties have warned repeatedly that Assange’s freedom cannot be won by relying on such false political friends as Corbyn and McDonnell or by extending the slightest confidence to Britain’s courts. As we wrote on February 13:

“Corbyn’s tenure as Labour leader has been an object lesson in the impossibility of fighting for democratic rights and against war by supporting or peddling illusions in the Labour Party and its ‘left’ representatives. It has demonstrated that the fight to block Assange’s extradition, secure his freedom and defend civil liberties requires the development of an independent movement of the working class—the vast majority of the population—directed against the entire official political set-up.”

We appeal to our readers to contact the WSWS and take part in the global campaign to free Julian Assange and heroic whistle-blower Chelsea Manning. Meetings must be called in every workplace, school, college and university demanding Assange’s and Manning’s immediate and unconditional freedom, the withdrawal of the US extradition request and full compensation for the decade-long state vendetta against them. Their lives depend on the intervention of the working class. There is no time to lose.

*

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.

After 33 Turkish troops were killed in a Syrian army offensive on February 27 amidst the current Russia-backed campaign to liberate Idlib, Erdogan responded by laying the blame entirely on Russia and Syria – successfully avoiding all mention of the uncomfortable fact that Turkey has been protecting radical terror networks not only in Idlib but across Syria as a whole for years.

During this time, Islamist forces within Turkey favorable to Assad’s overthrow have been attempting to play a complex game of geopolitics for which they are totally unqualified.

Turkey in over its head

One of the most wild-card members of NATO, Turkey had originally been preparing itself to gain entry into the European Union with the promise of being granted local control across the Middle East as a loyal member of the New World Order. This ambition for a revived Ottoman Empire made Erdogan an enthusiastic proponent of regime change in the Middle East, and as journalist Eva Bartlett has documented for years, resulted in Turkey’s role as supplier of logistics, military hardware, training and monetary support to the various terrorist groups masquerading as anti-Assad regime freedom fighters.

When this policy nearly resulted in Turkey being wiped off the map after shooting down a Russian jet in Syrian airspace on November 24, 2015 (the claims that it had flown into Turkish airspace have long been debunked), Erdogan began to change his tune first sending a letter of apology to Putin on June 27, 2016, whereby it began to change its behaviour dramatically. For this shift in policy, Turkey was thanked by Washington with a nation-wide coup d’etat effort launched by followers of the strange CIA-asset Fethullah Gülen on July 15, 2016.

This hefty serving of humble pie brought a dose of sanity to Turkey which toned down its pro-regime change rhetoric, opened up diplomatic channels with Syria and Russia, cut down many of its ISIS supporting operations (especially its role as primary purchaser of oil stolen by ISIS from Syrian oilfields), and settled with a more benign role in the region… but not entirely.

Part of the 2017 Astana negotiations (and later Russia-Syria-Turkey-Iran negotiations in Sochi) involved Turkey’s establishment of 12 military observation posts in Idlib province which increased Turkey’s already significant Idlib military installations to 29.

What they were doing there was never addressed in the western press but in 2017 Brett McGurk, Special Presidential Envoy for the Global Coalition Against ISIL stated at a Middle East Policy forum that “Idlib province is the largest al-Qaeda safe haven since 9/11.” In a rare moment of cogency in 2014 even rambling Joe Biden admitted that Turkey was a major sponsor of ISIS (for which he was duly slapped and then apologized). All signs of that sort of honesty have long disappeared from Biden’s mind, leaving Tulsi Gabbard as the only presidential figure today who has raised this uncomfortable fact.

In opposition to Ankara’s demands that the current anti-terrorist Idlib operation be halted going so far as to threaten war with Russia, Syrian-Russian forces have continued full speed with great success knowing that if this last zone of insurgents is cleansed then all remaining terrorist threats to the region can be properly addressed and reconstruction can begin. It isn’t a secret that this reconstruction would be guided in large measure by a new partnership with Russia and China in the region which have offered billions of dollars, and engineering assistance for years guided by the Belt and Road Initiative. The BRI’s designs run directly through Iran, Iraq and Syria- all of whom would be transformed by this multi-trillion dollar initiative.

Returning to the crisis today

In response to Ankara’s howling threats, Russia’s Foreign Ministry responded by clearly making two points: 1) Turkey has avoided following through on its part of the 2018 Sochi agreement on Idlib which demanded a separation of terrorists from moderates which it entirely failed to do and 2) Turkish military made no effort to convey their location which is odd considering an active military operation was in place. Either way, as Lavrov stated “the Syria Army certainly has [the] full right to retaliate and suppress the terrorists.”

In response to the Turkish deaths, Ankara invoked Article 4 of NATO convening a meeting of all 29 Ambassadors of NATO allies which he hoped would result in a no-fly zone over Idlib and Patriot air defence backing. To increase the pressure, Erdogan even tried to blackmail NATO allies by playing the immigrant card by permitting for the first time in four years an opening of their northern frontier to the millions of Syrian refugees who wish to go to Europe by land and sea. After the 2015-2016 immigration crisis that saw millions of refugees flood into Europe from war-torn nations of Syria and Libya, Turkey agreed to close its northern frontier in resulting in 3.7 billion Syrian refugees in camps suffering through cold winters, low sanitation levels and often food scarcity.

Erdogan’s threats didn’t result in his desired outcome as NATO merely released a written message of condemnation of the offensive, but nothing more. To this point, military analyst Scott Ritter commented that “At a time when NATO is focused on confronting Russia in the Baltics, opening a second front against the Russians in Syria is not something the alliance was willing to support at this time.”

It is unknown how Europe will respond to this new onslaught of refugees, but the fact is there isn’t much they can do to turn back Russian and Syrian forces or sabotage the success of the Idlib operation at this point in the game. If European countries wish to get the best results to this long drawn out game, the best thing they could possibly do is accept the flux of immigrants with open arms and ignore Ankara’s cries of indignation. By giving Russia and Syria the space to properly extinguish terrorism from Idlib, the Middle East will come that much closer to genuine stabilization and full reconstruction can begin. This in turn would create a positive dynamic of growth and stability that would usher in a homecoming of Syrian refugees living abroad who would proudly take part in their nations’ rebirth.

*

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.

A new report from the United Nations bluntly conveys the extent of the continuing chaos in Libya and the suffering it has caused. Yacoub El Hillo, the U.N. humanitarian coordinator for Libya, stated that the impact on civilians of the country’s nine-year internecine war “is incalculable.” That horrible situation is the long-term outcome of U.S. and NATO actions, and it is well past time that guilty officials are held accountable for their disastrous policies.

Libya has been an arena of strife ever since the United States and its NATO allies helped insurgents overthrow Moammar Gaddafi’s regime in 2011. But the U.N. report suggests that matters have grown noticeably worse over the past year. In the spring of 2019, the Benghazi-based Libyan National Army (LNA), led by one-time CIA asset Field Marshal Khalifa Haftar (sometimes spelled Hifter), launched a military offensive against the U.N.-recognized Government of National Accord (GNA), based in Tripoli. Haftar’s attack initially seemed likely to prevail, but it soon bogged down and a bloody stalemate ensued.

The Libya conflict has increasingly become a proxy war involving Middle Eastern powers and Russia. Haftar receives weapons, funds, and other backing from several countries, most notably Egypt and the United Arab Emirates. In addition to the diplomatic and financial support it gets from the U.N. and most Western governments, the GNA is obtaining ever-stronger backing from Turkey. Earlier this month, Ankara significantly escalated its involvement when its parliament authorized the deployment of Turkish forces to Libya. Russian mercenaries are already fighting there on behalf of Haftar.

The stakes are higher than just a mundane struggle for political power. Libya sits atop Africa’s largest supply of oil and natural gas, worth tens of billions of dollars. Both the LNA and GNA have maneuvered to use that oil as a weapon against the opposing side.

U.S. policy seems muddled and ambivalent. Washington still recognizes the GNA as Libya’s “legitimate” government, but the Trump administration has sent mixed signals. After a telephone call between Trump and Haftar in April 2019, the U.S. seemed implicitly to back the LNA’s offensive against Tripoli. More recently, U.S. officials called on Haftar to halt the offensive. Yet when peace talks between the GNA and LNA broke down, the administration sent U.S. Ambassador to Libya Richard Norland to meet with Haftar even before contacting the Tripoli regime it officially recognizes.

There is little question that today’s Libya is a chaotic mess. Once again, however, Western news outlets are trying to portray a complex foreign conflict as a contest between good and evil. Journalists are intensifying their hostility towards Haftar, designating him as the villain. The Guardian warns that Libya’s ugly violence will continue so long as outside governments continue to back Haftar. (Apparently, external meddling on behalf of the GNA and its allied, often Islamist militias does not have a similar effect.) The New York Times appears to have seized the lead in the media campaign to discredit Haftar. In recent weeks, several prominent stories in the Times have highlighted his authoritarianism and brutality.

The one thing most members of the Western media establishment remain unwilling to do, however, is explain how the current chaos in Libya began—much less who was responsible for the tragedy. Such convenient amnesia continues a long-standing pattern.

In late 2017, Western reporters belatedly discovered that a slave trade of captured black Africans had become a feature of “liberated” post-Gaddafi Libya. A devastating account by Ben Norton, an analyst with Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting (FAIR), documented the mainstream media’s ongoing willingness to minimize American and NATO responsibility. In particular, Western journalists largely ignored that war’s connection to the resumption of slave trading. “The American and British media have awakened to the grim reality in Libya, where African refugees are for sale in open-air slave markets,” Norton observed. “Yet a crucial detail in this scandal has been downplayed or even ignored in many corporate media reports: the role of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization in bringing slavery to the North African nation.”

NATO supported an array of rebel groups in Libya, Norton noted, “many of which were dominated by Islamist extremists and harbored violently racist views.” Yet journalists “have largely forgotten about the key role NATO played in destroying Libya’s government, destabilizing the country and empowering human traffickers.” Moreover, even the few news reports that acknowledge NATO’s complicity “do not go a step further and detail the well-documented, violent racism of the NATO-backed Libyan rebels who ushered in slavery after ethnically cleansing and committing brutal crimes against black Libyans.”

Norton singled out a 2017 CNN report for criticism. Despite the flashy multimedia features, he noted, “something was missing: The 1,000-word story made no mention of NATO, or the 2011 war that destroyed Libya’s government, or Muammar Qadhafi, or any kind of historical and political context whatsoever.” The same omission occurred in a series of subsequent CNN news stories about human trafficking in Libya, as it did in plenty of stories in other publications.

Recent news accounts about instability and repression in Libya show a similar desire to avoid discussing the destructive impact that NATO’s policies have had. The otherwise excellent, detailed article in the February 20, 2020 New York Times, which documented the oppression of Haftar’s forces, devoted only one sentence to NATO’s role: “[Libya] has been in turmoil since an Arab Spring revolt and NATO’s intervention toppled Colonel el-Qaddafi nine years ago.” And that was in a nearly 2,000-word article.

When they participate in this conspiracy of silence, journalists shirk their duty as watchdogs alerting the public to government incompetence and misconduct. Whatever the Obama administration’s motives and goals in launching the military intervention that ousted Gaddafi, the results have been indisputably catastrophic. Yet Obama, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, and key advisers such as Susan Rice and Samantha Power still refuse to acknowledge their blunders or apologize to the suffering Libyan people. It is time for the media to stop aiding and abetting such an evasion of responsibility. Stories about the current turmoil in Libya need to provide a clear picture of the shameful historical context.

*

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

Ted Galen Carpenter, a senior fellow in security studies at the Cato Institute and a contributing editor at The American Conservative, is the author of 12 books and more than 850 articles on international affairs. His 2019 book, Gullible Superpower: U.S. Support for Bogus Foreign Democratic Movements, contains a chapter on the 2011 U.S.-led regime-change war in Libya and its consequences. 

Although Turkey has supported anti-Syrian government forces, especially terrorist organizations  like ISIS and the Al-Qaeda affiliated Al-Nusra and Turkistan Islamic Party, since the very beginning of the Syrian War in 2011, no declaration of war has ever been announced between the two neighboring countries. Russia became militarily involved in 2015 and its intervention saw the quick defeat of ISIS and the recovery of large swathes of the country back into Syrian government control, as well as a partnership emerging with Turkey to discuss the Syrian crisis.

However, this now appears to be well and truly over. Oleg Zhuravlyov, chief of the Russian Center for Reconciliation of the Opposing Parties in Syria, said on Sunday that the Syrian government was forced to declare the closure of airspace over Syria’s northwest Idlib province. However, it was his following comment that sent social media into a frenzy with speculation that Russia would begin attacking jets illegally operating in Idlib.

“In such conditions, the command of the Russian taskforce cannot guarantee safety of flights by Turkish planes over Syria,” said Zhuravlyov.

Many people have interpreted this as Russia threatening Turkish jets. This is not the case, and rather, Russia is warning Turkey that it will not restrain the Syrian Army in attacking the Turkish military, especially after Turkey downed two Syrian jets yesterday. It was a tense day, even though no Syrian pilots were killed.

The day saw six Turkish drones downed and then in the early morning, Turkish ambulances were seen at the Syrian-Turkish border point to retrieve dead and wounded Turkish soldiers after a Syrian Army attack on a military convoy at Qamenas near Sarmin in Idlib countryside. All this happened yesterday on the first day after a deadline set by Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan ended which demanded the Syrian Army to withdraw to positions it held earlier in the year.  Although Turkey has not declared war on Syria, there is little doubt that the two countries are now at war and Russia will do little to restrain the Arab country from defending its territory.

The Syrian army command announced on Sunday that the airspace over the northwestern part of the country is now closed. The situation in Idlib escalated after Turkish-backed and Al-Qaeda affiliated Hayyat Tahrir al-Sham launched a large-scale attack on Syrian government forces on February 27, with the Syrian army striking back in retaliation and killing 36 Turkish soldiers and wounding another 30. Immediately afterwards, Russia took steps to ensure a short ceasefire to enable Turkey to recover the bodies of their fallen and wounded.

Moscow has expressed concern over Ankara’s support for terrorist organizations in Idlib. In addition, Russian President Vladimir Putin first conducted trilateral talks with French President Emmanuel Macron and German Chancellor Angela Merkel, and then with Erdoğan, who described the implementation of the agreement with Sochi as the main condition for the settlement in Idlib. This has been problematic as Erdoğan has refused to stop supporting terrorist organizations in Idlib as set out by the Sochi agreement. In turn, Putin expressed concern over the increase in terrorist activity in the province, while also noting the need for unconditional respect for Syria’s sovereignty and territorial integrity.

Turkey has blamed Russia for the at least 50 Turkish soldiers killed in February alone, testing Moscow’s patience with Ankara, especially with Erdoğan showing his arrogance after asking Russia to step aside and allow Turkey to engage against Russia’s Syrian allies directly. Although Ankara has received verbal backing from Washington, it is unlikely that Turkey would receive backing from NATO because of the asymmetric weaponization of illegal migrants that Erdoğan unleashed against Greece.

Greece on Friday blocked a joint communique from NATO being announced on Friday night that intended to support Turkey in its war against Syria. This came to the anger of the U.S., UK, Germany and France, pushing the case further that Russia needs to prioritize Greece as relations rift with Turkey. This is especially necessary as relations have broken down so badly that the Turkish military are writing “With Love for Putin” on Turkish bombs destined for Syria.

Although NATO wanted to show a united front against Russia and support Turkey against Syria, it was unable to do it because of Greece’s veto. Despite not having international legitimacy or making a declaration of war, there is little doubt that Turkey is at war with Syria directly now, rather than in an indirect manner like in previous years.

*

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 a Research Fellow at the Center for Syncretic Studies.

On Monday, Israelis are voting for the third time since last April, impasse occurring twice before, what may happen again this time.

According to the latest pre-election polls, Netanyahu’s Likud party and lead challenger Benny Gantz’s Blue and White each are predicted to win 33 of 120 Knesset seats.

A 61-seat majority coalition is required to form a government. What neither leading party achieved twice before may be repeated a third time following voting on Monday.

Likud and Blue and White each appear a few seats short of cobbling together a ruling majority.

Anti-Gantz mudslinging defined Netanyahu’s campaign. After voting on Monday, Gantz slammed his chief rival saying:

“I hope that today will be the day that we change the tune, stop the mudslinging (and) stop the lying,” adding:

“Hopefully on this day we will begin the process of healing and begin living together with each other.”

Voting in Occupied Jerusalem, Israeli president Rivlin said “(t)his is normally a festive day, but the truth is that I don’t feel celebratory.”

“I only feel a sense of deep shame…We don’t deserve another awful and grubby election campaign like the one that ends today, and we don’t deserve this never-ending instability.”

“We deserve a government that works for us.” Like the US and other Western countries, it only “works” for Israel’s privileged class.

The vast majority of its Jewish citizens have no say over how they’re governed.

Israeli Arabs and Occupied Palestinians are ill-served and abused by ruling authorities controlling their lives.

Gantz earlier and ahead could easily cobble together a ruling coalition by including Joint (Arab) List Knesset members in it.

Instead he refused to ally with Arab representatives twice before — supporting apartheid rule like all Israeli regimes from inception.

Joint List leader Ayman Odeh said governance serving all Israeli citizens equitably is impossible “without a partnership between Arabs and Jews.”

According to polls, his party is projected to win a record-high 14 or 15 seats — making him a potential kingmaker if Gantz agreed to included Joint List in a ruling coalition with portfolios for the first time in Israeli history.

The Times of Israel cited unnamed analysts who believe that Gantz “may try to mold a minority coalition backed by the Joint List from the outside,” how this might work not explained.

Odeh said for Gantz to have Joint List ruling coalition support, he must “change direction” — what never happened before in Israel politically.

Arab Knesset members are treated like potted plants — with no power to serve their constituents.

Opening Monday at 7:00 AM local time, over 10,000 polling stations will stay open until 10:00 PM, 6,453,255 registered voters eligible to cast ballots.

On Sunday, Haaretz editors slammed Netanyahu. Calling him Israel’s “mudslinger-in-chief,” they “demand(ed) that he retire from public life,” adding:

“It’s hard to find words to describe the toxic stink that wafts from the political sewage Netanyahu, his associates and his family are channeling into the public fields.”

“There is not enough space to cover the entirety of mudslinging in Netanyahu’s sewer politics.”

“In the battle for the premiership, Netanyahu has stopped at nothing in demeaning his political rivals, delegitimizing them to the point of dehumanizing anyone perceived as standing in his way to another term.”

“That includes methodical, consistent incitement against Israel’s Arab citizens, Arab lawmakers and the legitimacy of the Arab vote.”

“How many more shovelfuls of muck must Israelis endure…from the messiah of hatred, incitement and lies…”

More the same filled the strongly worded denunciation of Netanyahu by Haaretz editors, wanting an end to his “poisonous rule on Monday.”

*

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.

President Donald Trump’s 36-hour whirlwind visit to India this past week was designed to show Americans just how adored abroad their president really is.

Unluckily for Trump, his campaign stop at this behemoth nation of 1.3 or 1.4 billion proved a fiasco.

First came the terrifying Chinese coronavirus that so far has killed less people than the weekly toll on China’s dangerous roads, but the whole world went into a panic. The US stock market, the underpinning of Trump’s popularity at home, took a crash dive even though the all-knowing president-physician assured Americans that the Wuhan virus was only a cold.

VP Mike Pence, who believes in Adam and Eve and Noah’s Ark, was put in charge of combating the new virus.

Next, anti-Muslim riots led by Hindu fanatics in India left large numbers of mostly Muslims dead or injured. A not very well briefed Trump had just lauded India for its harmonious communal relations. The riots were sparked by a virulent anti-Muslim immigration bill enacted by hard-line Hindu Prime Minister Narendra Modi that has caused distress across the nation.

But all was not lost. Trump signed a deal to sell $3 billion of US arms to India and got a visit to the Taj Mahal. He will very likely want a copy built in Washington. The parade-loving president also viewed a fine display in Delhi of Indian martial prowess.

The latest US military helicopters will be sold on credit to India. They could be particularly useful in the high mountain regions along India’s tense northern borders with Pakistan and China.

US President Trump and India’s Prime Minister Narendra Modi are both flaming populist leaders who play to two popular passions: hatred of Muslims and fear of China. Muslims make up roughly 14% of India’s billion-plus population, or some 172 million people.

Trump and American hawks dream of unleashing India against China. India and China have a long, disputed, ill-demarcated border across the high Himalayas and Karakoram mountains that divide them. They are rivals over Tibet, Ladakh and Burma, and Nepal, Sikkim and Bhutan. India and Pakistan have already fought three wars over Kashmir. But Indians are clever and cautious and will not allow the US to push them into a big war against China.

For more on this topic, my geopolitical analysis of the region, ‘War at the Top of the World,’ is available through Amazon and used by general staffs, intelligence agencies, and universities.

As I’ve long warned, this little-known but highly strategic Himalayan region, the source of India’s and Pakistan’s major rivers, could well spark nuclear war between them – possibly joined by China. Many Americans could not even find Kashmir on a map and care nothing about a war there that could ignite a nuclear conflict and contaminate the entire globe.

But none of this matters at election time. Trump wants to show he is beloved by the outside world.

He has now forged a very close alliance with the Muslim-hating PM Modi, who is the front man for India’s powerful Hindu fundamentalist organization, the RSS, which was modeled in the 1920’s after Mussolini’s Fascists. Israel’s prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu, who is denounced as a ‘Jewish fascist’ by many on Israel’s left, has joined Trump and Modi in a de facto anti-Muslim rightist alliance.

At the same time, India has drawn very close to Israel, its principal supplier of arms and nuclear technology. Israel has opened doors for India across Washington. Interestingly, in a quid pro quo almost totally ignored by US media, the Trump White House has allowed massive Indian immigration to the US. There are now an estimated four million Indian immigrants in the US. Most are Hindus. They are designed to offset Muslim immigration and sway US politics in Trump’s favor.

There is nothing new in his immigration game. The Democrats encouraged large numbers of Latino and Irish immigrants who reliably voted for them. Many of the Indian immigrants are educated and fairly well-off. They cluster in IT, banking and journalism, bringing much value to both fields.

Instead of heightening tensions between India, Pakistan and China, the US should be helping calm India’s ethnic riots and promoting a fair settlement over the Kashmir dispute that has dragged on since 1947. Photo ops of the Taj Mahal are not going to help.

*

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 Syria News

Bad Medicine: Symbolic of the moral and intellectual decay at the White House, a photo shows Vice President Mike Pence and his team trying to pray away the coronavirus.

On social media, conservative Christians cheered at the embarrassing photo showing Vice President Pence and his coronavirus team wallowing in ignorant superstition and willful ignorance.

For example:

And:

According to EurAsia Review, the official White House photo by D. Myles Cullen depicts Vice President Mike Pence meeting with the President’s Coronavirus Task Force earlier this week in the West Wing of the White House.

Commenting on the story, Hemant Mehta at Friendly Atheist notes:

It’s not a joke when people say these Republicans are trying to stop a virus with prayer. What else did anyone expect? Science? Reason? Something sensible? Of course not.

While it is disturbing and heartbreaking to know that the man in charge of protecting the nation from the coronavirus would resort to something as useless as prayer, it is not surprising. In fact, it is no secret that Pence is a radical religious extremist.

Indeed, Pence is a terrible choice to lead any scientific or medical endeavor. The man is a dangerous Christian extremist who rejects science in favor of religious superstition.

Pence believes that creationism should be taught in public schools.

When serving as a congressman, Pence made it clear that he opposes evolution, and believes that only creationism (intelligent design) provides a “rational explanation for the known universe.”

Pence thinks the government should pay for gay conversion therapy.

In 2015, as Governor of Indiana, Pence allowed an HIV outbreak to spread, choosing prayer over a clean needle exchange. As a result of Pence taking the time to “pray on it,” citizens of his state suffered and died.

In addition to rejecting evolution, promoting gay conversion therapy, and allowing a deadly HIV epidemic to spread by choosing prayer over science, Pence has also claimed that condoms are “too modern and too liberal.”

Bottom line: Conservative Christians cheer while reasonable people are horrified at the sight of Pence’s team trying to pray away the coronavirus.

Weep for the nation.

*

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: Photo Shows Pence Team Trying To Pray Away Coronavirus (Image via Facebook)

The Federal government wants Canadian corporations to profit from Ethiopia’s minerals.

During his recent trip to the Horn of Africa country Prime Minister Justin Trudeau announced negotiations on a Foreign Investment Promotion and Protection Agreement (FIPA). As I detailed in this article, bilateral investment treaties with African countries are overwhelmingly designed to solidify the position of Canadian mining interests.

Alongside the Prime Minister, the Canadian Trade Commissioner Service (TCS) deployed a week-long “Business Mission to Ethiopia.” Mining was one of three industries cited in their release about the mission. TCS officials regularly assist mining firms with market assessments, problem-solving, contacting local officials, etc. “The TCS plays a pretty big role,” explained Ben Chalmers, senior vice‑president Mining Association of Canada in April. Trade commissioners “stand behind us and give us the additional credibility that being associated with the Government of Canada abroad brings.”

On other occasions in recent years Ottawa has shown interest in shaping Ethiopia’s burgeoning mining sector. International trade minister Jim Carr met Ethiopia’s Minister for Mining at the 2019 Prospectors & Developers Association of Canada conference in Toronto. In 2016 Global Affairs Canada launched a $12.5 million “Strengthening Education in Natural Resource Management in Ethiopia”, which was designed “to improve the employability of people … in natural resource fields like geology, mining and engineering. It works through universities and technical institutes to improve the quality of programs, align them more closely with the needs of the private sector.”

Concurrently, Global Affairs put up $15.3 million for a unique five-year collaboration between the Canadian International Resources and Development Institute (CIRDI) and Ethiopia’s Ministry of Mines. That initiative was to modernize licensing system and includes support for a geological survey. CIRDI and the Ministry of Mines also collaborated on a short marketing booklet titled “5 reasons Ethiopia is the mining investment destination you’ve been looking for”, which describes “Ethiopia’s virtually untapped, diverse and vast mineral resources.” It also lauds “improving government policies and regulations” that have put Ethiopia “on the radar screen of international mining investors.”

Two weeks ago, CIRDI Director Isabeau Vilandre and Ethiopia’s Minister for Mining participated in the African Mining Indaba conference in Cape Town, South Africa. According to the event publicity, it was a “presentation on opportunities in the Ethiopian mining sector and its critical role in the country’s home-grown economic reform.”

Housed at the University of British Columbia, Simon Fraser University and Polytechnique Montréal, CIRDI was established by the Stephen Harper government to advance Canada’s massive international mining sector. In 2012 the Canadian International Development Agency put up $25 million for CIRDI, which then International Development Minister Julian Fantino told a Mining Association of Canada meeting would “be your biggest and best ambassador.”

At the end of November Ethiopia announced new mining regulations. A Financial Post story headlined “Ethiopia vows to remove barriers to investment in mining” lauded the Canadian backed mining legislation. The story noted, “Ethiopia’s current law guarantees the government just a 5% minimum equity stake in projects – less than in many African countries.”

Canadian companies have shown interest in Ethiopia. The President & CEO of the Canadian Council on Africa(CCAfrica), a corporate lobby group, visited Addis Ababa recently to meet the Minister of Mines. Ethiopia’s state-owned airline sponsored and participated in CCAfrica’s “Unleashing Canadian Mining Ecosystem” conference in January, marketing a regular flight between Toronto and Adidas Ababa to the extractivist crowd. (At the start of the month CCAfrica and CIRDI announced a “Strategic Partnership”.)

Canadian firms are exploring a number of projects in a country that’s begun to throw its territory open to foreign mining firms. Vancouver based East Africa Metals has three gold and precious polymetallic licenses in the country.

On its site CIRDI lists “Who Benefits” from its project in Ethiopia. It claims the “Ultimate” beneficiaries are “the citizens of Ethiopia.” Justin Trudeau would make a similar claim about his push for a bilateral investment treaty and Ottawa’s mining projects in Ethiopia. It wouldn’t be true. He wants corporate Canada to profit from Ethiopia’s resources.

*

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

Canada’s public media the CBC long-ago entered the ranks of yellow journalism when it comes to its reporting on Venezuela.  However, two recent reports, in particular, one on CBC radio’s “The Current” and the other a CBC News article by reporter Evan Dyer, weigh heavy on the sensationalism and light on facts. Filled with unsubstantiated claims, right-wing pundits parading as “pro-democracy” advocates and unchallenged declarations by the government of Canada officials, once again, the CBC firmly establishes their role as the mouthpiece of the government Canada.

CBC’s Lies and Manipulations Against Venezuela

The January 28 report on Venezuela on The Current could have been shortened to the 30 second sound clip from the Foreign Affairs Minister of Canada François-Philippe Champagne that was played near the beginning of the report –

“You have to look at the economic hardship that people are living. You have to look at the environmental disaster that is going on now with the illegal mining of gold. You have to look at the humanitarian crisis that is going on. We think that there will be about six million displaced by the end of the year. So everything that we’re seeing suggests that we should redouble our efforts. The solution needs to come from the region. We will work with the region, but I think the president would tell you that with Canada’s support, we’re going to look ahead to restore democracy in Venezuela.”

The economic and humanitarian crisis, environmental disaster, restoring democracy, Minister Champagne said them all. The other 16 minutes of the program had nothing further to offer, in terms of reporting or analysis because these are the buzzwords that mark the depth of mainstream media coverage on Venezuela.

Minister Champagne also fails to mention one word, one which the mainstream media has also willfully neglected to include in any of their reporting – sanctions. Neither he nor the entire episode of The Current bothers to mention that the governments of Canada, the United States, and the European Union have all imposed illegal and immoral sanctions and blockade on the people of Venezuela. So much for an objective discussion on the government of Canada’s Venezuela policies and actions.

And who the CBC invite to the program to comment on the government of Canada’s foreign policy with Venezuela?

First, Mr. Galloway welcomed Yvon Grenier, as a “professor of political science at St. Francis Xavier University in Antigonish, Nova Scotia”. Supposedly presenting him as an intellectual authority figure, with an objective point of view, the CBC neglected to mention the title of his most recent book – “Culture and the Cuban State, Participation, Recognition, and Dissonance under Communism (2017),” or his position as a fellow at the right-wing Brian Mulroney Institute of Government, which recently hosted Stephen Harper’s former Chief of Staff as a “honoured guest speaker.”

Cleary, his position on the government of Venezuela, which continues to allocate a large part of its budget to social programs, is not the kind of government Mr. Grenier would support.

The Current did play the words of the NDP deputy foreign affairs critic, Heather McPherson, including her comment that “What concerns me most is the idea that by meeting with Guaidó that the prime minister is taking a side and is putting his nose where it doesn’t belong” (which he clearly is).

However, Matt Galloway allowed Professor Grenier to dismiss her statement with a mere one-sentence repetition of what he had already said – that Guaidó is a legitimate President and the government of Canada is right to intervene – in so many words. Yet again, the pundits go unchallenged, and an audio clip that could have led to critical thought and discussion about Canada’s warmongering foreign policy was cut off before it could begin.

Next, Mr. Galloway welcomed Maryhen Jimenez, as a “lecturer in political science at the University of Oxford who has studied the Venezuelan opposition movement,” to the program. Her introduction was slightly more revealing of her bias, but it omitted the focus of her research “explore uneven patterns of opposition coordination in autocracies…” Of which, her biography continues, Venezuela is one of her countries of study. Matt Galloway started the report on Venezuela with “It was just over a year ago that Juan Guaidó declared himself interim president following national elections widely considered to be fraudulent,” so inviting Ms. Jimenez, who bases her research on the idea that Venezuela is an “autocracy” is fitting.

It’s almost as if the producers for The Current looked for two guest speakers with the most similar perspective as possible – if it was a position against the government of President Maduro.

CBC Silences the Voices of Those Who Acknowledge the Legitimacy the May 2018 Presidential elections o

Now, it might be considered understandable that former U.S. President Jimmy Carter, who declared the election system in Venezuela the “best in the world,” might have been hard to reach for comment. However, there are many people from Canada, including the author of this article, that was in Venezuela as elections observers when President Maduro was re-elected in May of 2018.

It seems out of the question that the CBC would ever get comments from any of the millions of people in Venezuela that support the Bolivarian revolutionary process and President Maduro. However, there are journalists, academics, unionists, students, and workers right here in Canada that could attest to how the United Nations and 75% of countries around the world recognize President Maduro, not the U.S. puppet Guaidó, as the President of Venezuela. People who could talk about how President Maduro received 68% of the vote, which represented a higher percentage of votes from the entire electorate, then either Trudeau or Trump received in their last election. Venezuelan Canadians who could comment on how the government of Canada refused to let them vote from within Canada in the Venezuelan Presidential election. Even someone that could remind the CBC and their “expert” guests that Guaidó never ran in any election to be President of Venezuela. Undoubtedly, one of us would have been available, had anyone from the CBC asked.

If The Current and the CBC intended to discuss the government of Canada’s foreign policy towards Venezuela – they indeed should have reached out to someone directly impacted by Canada’s sanctions against Venezuela. Only a week before this report, Venezuela Olympic athlete Alejandra Benítez was denied a visa to Canada under these cruel and arbitrary sanctions. Alejandra Benítez’s had hoped to compete in the Montreal Grand Prix, a fencing competition that is a qualifying event for the 2020 Olympics in Tokyo. But, her chances of making it to the Olympics were quashed because she was Venezuela’s Minister of Sports from 2013-2014. Indeed, she would have been happy to share her story with people in Canada.

Instead, The Current didn’t even bother to pretend that they are providing balanced reporting that is in opposition to the line of the Liberal government. The Trudeau government’s policy towards Venezuela is a playbook lock in step with the United States’ objective to bring about the overthrow of the President of Venezuela, Nicolas Maduro. For all intents and purposes, the CBC is in support of these anti-democratic and anti-human policies.

CBC Ignores U.S. and Canada Sanctions on Venezuela

Now, undoubtedly, the CBC would work harder to present more than rhetoric on Venezuela in their articles. Well, not if the article “Canada considers new international push to oust Venezuela’s Nicolas Maduro,” by veteran CBC journalist Evan Dyer is of any indication. This 1500-word article could also be summed with a short quote from the government of Canada.  Justin Trudeau’s, “I commend Interim President Guaidó for the courage and leadership he has shown in his efforts to return democracy to Venezuela, and I offer Canada’s continued support. Canadians stand with the people of Venezuela in their pursuit of free and fair elections, and basic human rights” would do just fine.

In 1500 words, Mr. Dyer managed to parrot nearly every lie about the government of President Maduro that has become the mainstay of the mainstream media war against Venezuela, especially when it comes to the election of Luis Parra as the President of the National Assembly in Venezuela on January 5. Guaidó is not President of the National Assembly anymore. Yet, Mr. Dyer continues the CBC’s shameful trend of presenting the point of view of Venezuela’s counter-revolutionary opposition as objective fact – all the while presenting the government of Canada’s intervention in the internal affairs of Venezuela as a foregone conclusion that is immune to any critical thought.

Much the same as The Current, Mr. Dyer couldn’t be bothered to mention U.S., Canada, and European Union sanctions in his article. How could he dare bring up the words “humanitarian crisis” without referencing a report by economists Mark Weisbrot and Jeremy Sachs of the Center for Economic Policy Research, which documented the deadly impact of the over 350 sanctions since 2015. According to their findings, these sanctions killed an estimated 40,000 people from 2017-2018. As Alfred de Zayas, a United Nations Independent Expert, wrote in his 2018 report from his mission to Venezuela to the UN Human Rights Council, “Modern-day economic sanctions and blockades are comparable with medieval sieges of towns with the intention of forcing them to surrender. Twenty-first-century sanctions attempt to bring not just a town, but sovereign countries to their knees.” It appears these types of reports are of no use to the CBC.

This pro-war, “news” article, would be a much better fit in the opinion page of any major corporate newspaper or website.

With manipulative coverage such as this, how is it that the CBC can continue to claim that they operate on the principle that “All employees of CBC News, as well as the content they create, must respect the principles of accuracy, fairness, balance, impartiality, and integrity as expressed through the Journalistic Standards and Practices”?

The Media War Against Venezuela Continues

It is not just the CBC, major corporate media in the U.S. and Canada is decidedly attempting to manufacturer consent for the pro-intervention stance of Trump and Trudeau through lies and manipulations. A study by the non-profit organization FAIR (Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting) found that in the three months between January 15 and April 15, 2019, there were “no voices in elite corporate media that opposed regime change in that country… zero opinion pieces in the New York Times and Washington Post took an anti-regime change or pro-Maduro/Chavista position. Not a single commentator on the big three Sunday morning talk shows or PBS NewsHour came out against President Nicolás Maduro stepping down from the Venezuelan government.”

Is it a mere coincidence that the CBC upped its slanderous coverage about the democratically elected government of Venezuela just as Guaidó was about to touch down in Ottawa? No way.

The CBC is a crucial part of maintaining the dog and pony show that Prime Minister Trudeau created around the arrival of Juan Guaidó to Canada on January 27, 2020. They made sure that people in Canada were unprepared to question the perfect selfie and the friendly exchange between Trudeau and Guaidó. Their profoundly inadequate, one-sided and manipulative coverage on Venezuela has silenced millions of people in Venezuela that support the Bolivarian revolutionary process and the democratically elected President of Venezuela, Nicolas Maduro.

U.S./Canada Hands Off Venezuela!

The CBC has proven time and time again that they are unwilling to question the government of Canada’s sanctions and intervention in the internal affairs of Venezuela. They have refused to introduce even a shred of critical thought against the campaign led by the United States to overthrow the President of Venezuela, Nicolas Maduro, and reverse the tremendous gains of the last 20 years of the Bolivarian revolutionary process.

This professional neglect by the CBC, and other mainstream, capitalist media, elevates our responsibility as poor, working and oppressed people in Canada and the United States. We must unite together to create our own media and use all the means at hand to end U.S.-led intervention, blockade, and threats against the sovereign and independent country of Venezuela!

*

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.

Originally published: Volume 14, Issue 2 of Fire This Time newspaper (www.firethistime.net)

Alison Bodine is a social justice activist, author and researcher in Vancouver, Canada. She is the author of “Revolution and Counter-Revolution in Venezuela” (Battle of Ideas Press, 2018). Alison is coordinator of the Fire This Time Movement for Social Justice Venezuela Solidarity Campaign in Vancouver and is also a founding member of the Campaign to End U.S./Canada Sanctions Against Venezuela. @alisoncolette. She is a frequent contributor to Global Research. 

An article on CNN on February 25 discusses the fear and apprehension of ‘moderate’ Democrats about the possibility of Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders winning the Democratic presidential nomination. “This is playing into Trump’s hands!” they lament. “Downstream candidates will be adversely impacted” they moan. They wring their hands and proclaim that “The Party will lose the House!”

They all say that Sanders is far too risky. Democrats must nominate some middle-of-the-road, namby-pamby, white, male candidate to oppose Trump. That, they state, is the only possibility of victory.

Perhaps not. In 2008, the Party stepped outside of its old, white, male box and nominated Illinois Senator Barack Obama. He galvanized the party, motivating millions to volunteers to work on his campaign, and generating excitement for a candidate not seen in decades. He defeated an aging, white, middle-of-the-road senator (John McCain of Arizona). How excited do the current Democratic Sanders-naysayers think anyone is going to get about, say, Joe Biden? Will his crowded rallies be energized by feelings of electrified excitement? Will his venues be filled with the young and old, and racially-mixed throngs who are excited just to be in his presence? When pigs fly.

Perhaps a better alternative is billionaire and former New York City mayor Mike Bloomberg. He could, the pundits say, go head-to-head with the (alleged) billionaire Trump. But Bloomberg carries his own racist, sexist and elitist baggage. The ‘stop and frisk’ policies instituted when he was mayor, and his clear statements that, as mayor, he had to put most of the police in minority neighborhoods, because that’s where most of the crime occurs, will not sit well not only with minority voters, but with any voters who believe in equality and justice. He also blamed the 2008 economic melt-down at least partly on the end of redlining, the illegal practice of denying housing loans to people in minority neighborhoods. And his blatantly sexist statements to female co-workers, suggesting that they provide oral sex to a male co-worker who was soon to marry, as a ‘gift’ to him, and commenting ‘kill it’ when one woman announced her pregnancy, border on the behaviors for which Trump has been criticized. So, maybe Bloomberg isn’t the right alternative to Sanders.

Popular these days is former South Bend Indiana mayor Pete Buttigieg. He is about as middle-of-the-road as Biden, but young enough to be his grandson, so less entrenched in the ‘swamp’ than Grandpa Biden. Perhaps passion, which Sanders demonstrates with every statement and Buttigieg seems not to have at all, isn’t necessary to be president; the facts, figures and statistics that Buttigieg is fond of discussing are, of course, of vital importance in running any government. But they don’t motivate voters. And, of course, like Biden, Buttigieg is a Zionist, so his disdain for international law and human rights should automatically disqualify him.

Trying to bridge the gap between revolutionary change and centrist is Massachusetts senator Elizabeth Warren. She has moved far to the left to be seen as an alternative to Sanders, but her campaign seems to be dying a slow and painful death.

And then we have the proud Zionist, Amy Klobuchar of Minnesota. She had an ‘impressive’ (?) third-place showing in New Hampshire, which she had seized upon as the beginning of the end for Sanders, Warren, Buttigieg, etc. Unfortunately for her but for no one else, she slipped into sixth place in Nevada, garnering less than 9% of the number of votes Sanders received.

There are a few important lessons to take from the 2016 election. First, people wanted change, and that was hardly represented by Democratic candidate Hillary Clinton. Second, polarizing candidates with trainloads of baggage are not viable alternatives to even the most reprehensible opponents. Third, Democratic voters do not like to see their party behaving in a most un-democratic way, as it did in 2016 when it cooked the books in a variety of ways to ensure that Clinton was the nominee.

What can be learned from this? Well, let’s write off Bloomberg right now. His racist and sexist statements and policies should automatically disqualify him. And we have already seen the ‘wonders’ that an (alleged) billionaire businessman can do as president. Does anyone really want more of the same?

We also learn that Democrats want an honest primary season, where candidates are given the same level of support by the Democratic National Committee, and where the DNC doesn’t manipulate things to favor one or the other (yes, we are talking about you, Debbie Wasserman-Schultz).

Mostly, we learn that Democrats want change. How much change Sanders actually represents remains to be seen (like most elected officials, he has seldom seen a U.S. war he hasn’t liked, Iraq being an exception, but his reasoning for voting against that war was hardly a denunciation of it; that is a topic for a different essay). But they are excited about a candidate who talks about universal health care, protecting the environment, establishing an almost-livable minimal wage, cutting aid to Israel and giving it to Palestine. They feel a sense of refreshment that, perhaps, they can vote for a candidate for president who knows, and perhaps even cares, that people like them – working class, struggling – exist.

Some pundits look back to 1972 and the disastrous landslide victory of incumbent Richard Nixon over South Dakota Senator George McGovern. But one must remember that, going into that election, Nixon was a popular president; no poll ever showed McGovern even close to him in the race, let alone defeating him. Such is not the case today, when Trump’s popularity is hovering around 50%, the highest of his entire term, and head-to-head matchups between him and Sanders consistently show Sanders as victorious.

The next series of primaries will indicate whether or not Sanders maintains his front-runner status, and if those would-be candidates who drop out will endorse him. And while a Sanders presidency would certainly not institute the level of change that his most ardent supporters hope for, it would represent a significant redirection of U.S. foreign and domestic policy. And that is something that every Democrat should support.

*

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.

Even after the “Russiagate” claim of supposed Russian interference in the last US Presidential Election was irrefutably debunked, members of the Democratic Party elite and sections of the US “Deep State” of National Security/Intelligence in alliance with sections of the mainstream media continue to peddle this asinine and tiresome trope that posits certain American politicians as collaborators, assets or useful idiots of the Russian state. Hillary Clinton used it against US Congresswoman Tulsi Gabbard, and now the same ploy of projecting a political figure as being Russia’s “favoured candidate” is being used against another presidential aspirant US Senator Bernie Sanders.

The 2019 report into “Russiagate” by Robert Mueller turned up no credible evidence to back up the narrative that the Russian state orchestrated a powerful and effective campaign to influence the presidential race between Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton. The core narrative of “Russiagate” lacked solid evidence. Right from the beginning, astute commentators such as Emeritus Professor Stephen Cohen, an expert in Russian affairs for decades, pronounced the two central documents on which the whole Russiagate sage relied as “impotent”. If anything the real interference which inspired “Russiagate” had to do with the State of Israel attempting to fix a vote in the United Nations in regard to which the Israelis hoped that Russia would refrain from exercising its right of veto in a UN Resolution concerning the Palestinian issue. It speaks volumes that the mainstream media and the politicians of the world’s most powerful nation are fearful of speaking out about the power of the Israel Lobby in US domestic politics and foreign policy.

It is important to explain the motivation behind “Russiagate” and the actors who perpetrated the myth. “Russiagate” is simply the fruit of an alliance between the Democratic Party elite and members of the military-security establishment. The former wished to exact revenge on Trump for inflicting an unexpected defeat on their candidate, while the latter have a financial interest in prolonging a Cold War with Russia because peace or rapprochement would effectively mean the extraordinary levels of money spent by the United States on defence in terms of manufacturing weapons, maintaining bases around the globe and justifying its vast intelligence network would be rendered redundant.

The Russia smear is thus a political weapon directed at any politician who speaks out against American militarism, whether as pertaining to the manufactured Cold War against the Russian Federation or to the unchanging policy of instigating overt and covert wars of regime change.

Those who threaten the interests composed of defence contractor companies such as Lockheed Martin, Boeing and Raytheon along with serving and former serving officials of the Pentagon imperil the continuation of an extremely lucrative trade in arms, ammunition and miscellaneous weapons of war.

Thus, when Trump promised during the presidential election campaign of 2016 to leave NATO, as well as his description of Russia as not an enemy, he was inviting the wrath of a amalgam of powerful interests. The same may be said of Tulsi Gabbard and her campaign against the American policy of regime change wars, and of Bernie Sanders and his perennial anti-war stance.

This powerful and malevolent interest group wields considerable clout in American politics through the control and influence exercised on political representatives in both houses of the United States Congress. It is a group which President Dwight D. Eisenhower warned the American public to be wary of, when giving his farewell address to the nation. Eisenhower described this burgeoning interest group, in his words “an immense military establishment and large arms industry” as the “Military Industrial Complex”. He prophesied that it would threaten American democracy in the future.

The “unwarranted influence” acquired by the Military Industry has come to pass.

Tufts University Professor Michael J. Glennon in his lengthy paper cum book “National Security and Double Government” identified what he termed the “Trumanite” institutions (in contrast to the “Madisonian” institutions of state governance prescribed by the American Constitution), an unaccountable collection of former military, intelligence and law enforcement officers whose influence has been strong enough to ensure that America’s national security policy, one of consistent militarism, has essentially remained unchanged through the administrations of George W. Bush, Barack Obama and Donald Trump.

The Military Industry has its tentacles in politicians whose payoffs are enabled by laws which allow unlimited electoral spending. It also has a pervading influence on the mainstream media regardless of the ideological designation of “liberal” or “conservative”. Thus we see Democratic Party Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi, who tore up President Trump’s State of the Union address, rise up to applaud Trump’s expression of support for the US puppet Juan Guaido, the man being used by the US National Security State to overthrow the legitimate government of Venezuela.

It also explains the pro-war sentiments of supposed liberal media figures such as  Rachel Maddow and Anderson Cooper, both of whom are emblematic of the sort of liberal political and media figures who subscribe to “Humanitarian Wars” which fulfill the war agenda of the Military Industry and its perennial allies associated with the neoconservative agenda and the Israel Lobby.

The “Russiagate” smear is a disinformation exercise geared to denigrate and to discredit politicians. It is not limited to effecting the derailment of political campaigns, it also serves as a tool to be used to control the policy of a successful candidate in terms of their conduct of relations with Russia.

The reactions of those targeted has been varied. While Trump and Gabbard have actively fought against it, Sanders has unwisely played into the narrative by accepting the intelligence services claim that Russia has habitually interfered with the US electoral process and by referring to Vladimir Putin as an “autocratic thug”.

Many unfortunately are still unable to ascertain the obeisance to the dictates of the Military Industry as being at the root of the attacks and smears mounted against the likes of Gabbard and Sanders, and as a result the mainstream media is able to revive the canard of the Kremlin-orchestrated undermining of American democracy.

The question now is how much longer will the insouciant masses keep falling for the same old ruse?

*

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

This article was originally published on the author’s blog site, Adeyinka Makinde.

Adeyinka Makinde is a writer based in London, England. 

Featured image: Newspaper opinion piece by Stephen Kinzer  acknowledging the debunking of “Russiagate” (Boston Sunday Globe, April 7th 2019)

The notion that America is democratic is a colossal hoax — falsely claimed by the US political establishment and press agent media.

Reality is vastly otherwise. Powerful interests run the country. Ordinary people have no say whatever.

If elections changed anything for the better, they’d be banned. The US political system is manipulated to assure continuity.

Monied interests are served exclusively, the vast majority of Americans exploited so they benefit, the way it’s always been from inception, notably since the neoliberal 90s.

On MSNBC, former Obama regime official Anton Gunn bluntly said “(t)he party decides its nominee. The public doesn’t really decide the nominee.”

Things are decided out of public view, voters deluded to believe otherwise, why elections when held are farcical.

Both right wings of the US one-party state operate the same way, by their own rules to assure no change in dirty business as usual.

In its Thursday edition, updated on Friday, the NYT reported that Speaker Pelosi, Senate Minority Leader Schumer, and Bill Clinton warned about Sanders emerging as party presidential nominee in July — falsely claiming Dems could be wiped out in November.

According to the Times, Dem leaders are “willing to risk intraparty damage to stop his nomination at the national convention in July if they get the chance.”

The Times interviewed 93 out of 771 unelected superdelegates, comprised of high-level current and former Dem officials.

They expressed “overwhelming opposition to handing the Vermont senator the nomination if he arrived with the most delegates but fell short of a majority.”

Claiming he’d lose to Trump and hand both houses to GOP candidates defies reality, polls showing otherwise.

According to Real Clear Politics, an average of polls conducted from February 14 – 27 showed Sanders is heavily favored to be Dem nominee with an 11.1 point edge over Biden, other Dem aspirants trailing him by wider margins.

An average of national general election polls conducted this month show Sanders defeating Trump handily by a 49.4 – 44.5 margin.

He may be more likely to defeat Trump than other Dem presidential aspirants, his rhetoric notably appealing to young and working-class voters.

If he fails to win a majority of delegates before the July Dem convention, superdelegates will likely choose an aspirant other than him as party standard bearer.

Wanting his chances undermined, anonymous US intelligence sources falsely claimed Russia is helping his campaign to “sow division” in the country — despite no evidence suggesting it because none exists.

Aspirant Tulsi Gabbard slammed the above rubbish, saying it “seek(s) to do two things:

“1. Create enough suspicion around Sanders, by falsely tarnishing him as a puppet of Russia, that he loses the election.

2. Or, at the very least, if Bernie wins the (Dem) nomination, force him to engage in inflammatory anti-Russia rhetoric and perpetuate the New Cold War and nuclear arms race, which are existential threats to our country and the world.”

Addressing her own campaign, Gabbard added:

“Am I going to allow myself to be manipulated and forced into a corner by overreaching intelligence agencies and the corporate media where, in order for me to win the presidency, I’m going to have to do what I know is not in the interests of the American people and world peace?”

“Or will I stand up to the corrupt neocon and neoliberal establishment, condemn their lies and smears, and act with the integrity and foresight necessary to forge a rational policy that will serve all our interests?”

She’s the only aspirant in the race worthy of public support because of her anti-war/progressive agenda, shown by her voting record, much different from Sanders, voting along Dem party lines most of the time.

It’s why party bosses and supportive media either smear or ignore her, assuring her marginal support as shown in polls, keeping her out of most debates to deny her a public platform for voters to know what she stands for.

Aspirants for the nation’s highest office aside, polls show most voters oppose same old/same old. Yet party bosses assure that’s what they get every time.

Candidate Trump pretended to be different. His record in office showed otherwise, exceeding the worst of his predecessors.

If Sanders becomes Dem nominee and defeats Trump in November, a long shot on both counts but possible, will he live up to his lofty campaign promises or follow in the footsteps of his predecessors?

It’s highly unlikely that he’d be permitted to become Dem standard bearer and president without having sold his soul to the system.

The only way he can win over powerful interests that run the country and be elevated to the nation’s highest office is by assuring that he’ll guarantee continuity.

That’s the price to become president or hold high-level congressional positions.

Throughout his near-40 years in politics, largely in Congress, he’s gone along to get along.

If elevated to the nation’s highest office, it’s virtually certain that he’d operate the same way — with a little wiggle room to throw crumbs at supporters, short of major policy changes like Medicare for all and other social justices programs.

While he’s not Trump, he’s part of the same dirty system that won’t change with him or anyone else as president.

That’s the disturbing reality of how the US is run — by the people who own the country, what John Jay, the first Supreme Court chief justice, long ago explained.

*

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

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

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

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

Visit his blog site at sjlendman.blogspot.com.

Featured image is from The Unz Review

Please try this experiment for me.

Try asking this question out loud, in a tone of intellectual interest and engagement: “Are you suggesting that the two have the same effect?”

Now try asking this question out loud, in a tone of hostility and incredulity bordering on sarcasm: “Are you suggesting that the two have the same effect?”

Firstly, congratulations on your acting skills; you take direction very well. Secondly, is it not fascinating how precisely the same words can convey the opposite meaning dependent on modulation of stress, pitch, and volume?

Yesterday the prosecution continued its argument that the provision in the 2007 UK/US Extradition Treaty that bars extradition for political offences is a dead letter, and that Julian Assange’s objectives are not political in any event. James Lewis QC for the prosecution spoke for about an hour, and Edward Fitzgerald QC replied for the defence for about the same time. During Lewis’s presentation, he was interrupted by Judge Baraitser precisely once. During Fitzgerald’s reply, Baraitser interjected seventeen times.

In the transcript, those interruptions will not look unreasonable:

“Could you clarify that for me Mr Fitzgerald…”

“So how do you cope with Mr Lewis’s point that…”

“But surely that’s a circular argument…”

“But it’s not incorporated, is it?…”

All these and the other dozen interruptions were designed to appear to show the judge attempting to clarify the defence’s argument in a spirit of intellectual testing. But if you heard the tone of Baraitser’s voice, saw her body language and facial expressions, it was anything but.

The false picture a transcript might give is exacerbated by the courtly Fitzgerald’s continually replying to each obvious harassment with “Thank you Madam, that is very helpful”, which again if you were there, plainly meant the opposite. But what a transcript will helpfully nevertheless show was the bully pulpit of Baraitser’s tactic in interrupting Fitzgerald again and again and again, belittling his points and very deliberately indeed preventing him from getting into the flow of his argument. The contrast in every way with her treatment of Lewis could not be more pronounced.

So now to report the legal arguments themselves.

James Lewis for the prosecution, continuing his arguments from the day before, said that Parliament had not included a bar on extradition for political offences in the 2003 Act. It could therefore not be reintroduced into law by a treaty. “To introduce a Political Offences bar by the back door would be to subvert the intention of Parliament.”

Lewis also argued that these were not political offences. The definition of a political offence was in the UK limited to behaviour intended “to overturn or change a government or induce it to change its policy.” Furthermore the aim must be to change government or policy in the short term, not the indeterminate future.

Lewis stated that further the term “political offence” could only be applied to offences committed within the territory where it was attempted to make the change. So to be classified as political offences, Assange would have had to commit them within the territory of the USA, but he did not.

If Baraitser did decide the bar on political offences applied, the court would have to determine the meaning of “political offence” in the UK/US Extradition Treaty and construe the meaning of paragraphs 4.1 and 4.2 of the Treaty. To construe the terms of an international treaty was beyond the powers of the court.

Lewis perorated that the conduct of Julian Assange cannot possibly be classified as a political offence. “It is impossible to place Julian Assange in the position of a political refugee”. The activity in which Wikileaks was engaged was not in its proper meaning political opposition to the US Administration or an attempt to overthrow that administration. Therefore the offence was not political.

For the defence Edward Fitzgerald replied that the 2003 Extradition Act was an enabling act under which treaties could operate. Parliament had been concerned to remove any threat of abuse of the political offence bar to cover terrorist acts of violence against innocent civilians. But there remained a clear protection, accepted worldwide, for peaceful political dissent. This was reflected in the Extradition Treaty on the basis of which the court was acting.

Baraitser interrupted that the UK/US Extradition Treaty was not incorporated into English Law.

Fitzgerald replied that the entire extradition request is on the basis of the treaty. It is an abuse of process for the authorities to rely on the treaty for the application but then to claim that its provisions do not apply.

“On the face of it, it is a very bizarre argument that a treaty which gives rise to the extradition, on which the extradition is founded, can be disregarded in its provisions. It is on the face of it absurd.” Edward Fitzgerald QC for the Defence

Fitzgerald added that English Courts construe treaties all the time. He gave examples.

Fitzgerald went on that the defence did not accept that treason, espionage and sedition were not regarded as political offences in England. But even if one did accept Lewis’s too narrow definition of political offence, Assange’s behaviour still met the test. What on earth could be the motive of publishing evidence of government war crimes and corruption, other than to change the policy of the government? Indeed, the evidence would prove that Wikileaks had effectively changed the policy of the US government, particularly on Iraq.

Baraitser interjected that to expose government wrongdoing was not the same thing as to try to change government policy. Fitzgerald asked her, finally in some exasperation after umpteen interruptions, what other point could there be in exposing government wrongdoing other than to induce a change in government policy?

That concluded opening arguments for the prosecution and defence.

My Personal Commentary

Let me put this as neutrally as possible. If you could fairly state that Lewis’s argument was much more logical, rational and intuitive than Fitzgerald’s, you could understand why Lewis did not need an interruption while Fitzgerald had to be continually interrupted for “clarification”. But in fact it was Lewis who was making out the case that the provisions of the very treaty under which the extradition is being made, do not in fact apply, a logical step which I suggest the man on the Clapham omnibus might reason to need rather more testing than Fitzgerald’s assertion to the contrary. Baraitser’s comparative harassment of Fitzgerald when he had the prosecution on the ropes was straight out of the Stalin show trial playbook.

The defence did not mention it, and I do not know if it features in their written arguments, but I thought Lewis’s point that these could not be political offences, because Julian Assange was not in the USA when he committed them, was breathtakingly dishonest. The USA claims universal jurisdiction. Assange is being charged with crimes of publishing committed while he was outside the USA. The USA claims the right to charge anyone of any nationality, anywhere in the world, who harms US interests. They also in addition here claim that as the materials could be seen on the internet in the USA, there was an offence in the USA. At the same time to claim this could not be a political offence as the crime was committed outside the USA is, as Edward Fitzgerald might say, on the face of it absurd. Which curiously Baraitser did not pick up on.

Lewis’s argument that the Treaty does not have any standing in English law is not something he just made up. Nigel Farage did not materialise from nowhere. There is in truth a long tradition in English law that even a treaty signed and ratified with some bloody Johnny Foreigner country, can in no way bind an English court. Lewis could and did spout reams and reams of judgements from old beetroot faced judges holding forth to say exactly that in the House of Lords, before going off to shoot grouse and spank the footman’s son. Lewis was especially fond of the Tin Council case.

There is of course a contrary and more enlightened tradition, and a number of judgements that say the exact opposite, mostly more recent. This is why there was so much repetitive argument as each side piled up more and more volumes of “authorities” on their side of the case.

The difficulty for Lewis – and for Baraitser – is that this case is not analogous to me buying a Mars bar and then going to court because an International Treaty on Mars Bars says mine is too small.

Rather the 2003 Extradition Act is an Enabling Act on which extradition treaties then depend. You can’t thus extradite under the 2003 Act without the Treaty. So the Extradition Treaty of 2007 in a very real sense becomes an executive instrument legally required to authorise the extradition. For the executing authorities to breach the terms of the necessary executive instrument under which they are acting, simply has to be an abuse of process. So the Extradition Treaty owing to its type and its necessity for legal action, is in fact incorporated in English Law by the Extradition Act of 2003 on which it depends.

The Extradition Treaty is a necessary precondition of the extradition, whereas a Mars Bar Treaty is not a necessary precondition to buying the Mars Bar.

That is as plain as I can put it. I do hope that is comprehensible.

It is of course difficult for Lewis that on the same day the Court of Appeal was ruling against the construction of the Heathrow Third Runway, partly because of its incompatibility with the Paris Agreement of 2016, despite the latter not being fully incorporated into English law by the Climate Change Act of 2008.

Vital Personal Experience

It is intensely embarrassing for the Foreign and Commonwealth Office (FCO) when an English court repudiates the application of a treaty the UK has ratified with one or more foreign states. For that reason, in the modern world, very serious procedures and precautions have been put into place to make certain that this cannot happen. Therefore the prosecution’s argument that all the provisions of the UK/US Extradition Treaty of 2007 are not able to be implemented under the Extradition Act of 2003, ought to be impossible.

I need to explain I have myself negotiated and overseen the entry into force of treaties within the FCO. The last one in which I personally tied the ribbon and applied the sealing wax (literally) was the Anglo-Belgian Continental Shelf Treaty of 1991, but I was involved in negotiating others and the system I am going to describe was still in place when I left the FCO as an Ambassador in 2005, and I believe is unchanged today (and remember the Extradition Act was 2003 and the US/UK Extradition Treaty ratified 2007, so my knowledge is not outdated). Departmental nomenclatures change from time to time and so does structural organisation. But the offices and functions I will describe remain, even if names may be different.

All international treaties have a two stage process. First they are signed to show the government agrees to the treaty. Then, after a delay, they are ratified. This second stage takes place when the government has enabled the legislation and other required agency to implement the treaty. This is the answer to Lewis’s observation about the roles of the executive and legislature. The ratification stage only takes place after any required legislative action. That is the whole point.

This is how it happens in the FCO. Officials negotiate the extradition treaty. It is signed for the UK. The signed treaty then gets returned to FCO Legal Advisers, Nationality and Treaty Department, Consular Department, North American Department and others and is sent on to Treasury/Cabinet Office Solicitors and to Home Office, Parliament and to any other Government Department whose area is impacted by the individual treaty.

The Treaty is extensively vetted to check that it can be fully implemented in all the jurisdictions of the UK. If it cannot, then amendments to the law have to be made so that it can. These amendments can be made by Act of Parliament or more generally by secondary legislation using powers conferred on the Secretary of State by an act. If there is already an Act of Parliament under which the Treaty can be implemented, then no enabling legislation needs to be passed. International Agreements are not all individually incorporated into English or Scottish laws by specific new legislation.

This is a very careful step by step process, carried out by lawyers and officials in the FCO, Treasury, Cabinet Office, Home Office, Parliament and elsewhere. Each will in parallel look at every clause of the Treaty and check that it can be applied. All changes needed to give effect to the treaty then have to be made – amending legislation, and necessary administrative steps. Only when all hurdles have been cleared, including legislation, and Parliamentary officials, Treasury, Cabinet Office, Home Office and FCO all certify that the Treaty is capable of having effect in the UK, will the FCO Legal Advisers give the go ahead for the Treaty to be ratified. You absolutely cannot ratify the treaty before FCO Legal Advisers have given this clearance.

This is a serious process. That is why the US/UK Extradition Treaty was signed in 2003 and ratified in 2007. That is not an abnormal delay.

So I know for certain that ALL the relevant British Government legal departments MUST have agreed that Article 4.1 of the UK/US Extradition Treaty was capable of being given effect under the 2003 Extradition Act. That certification has to have happened or the Treaty could never have been ratified.

It follows of necessity that the UK Government, in seeking to argue now that Article 4.1 is incompatible with the 2003 Act, is knowingly lying. There could not be a more gross abuse of process.

I have been keen for the hearing on this particular point to conclude so that I could give you the benefit of my experience. I shall rest there for now, but later today hope to post further on yesterday’s row in court over releasing Julian from the anti-terrorist armoured dock.

*

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.

Freedom of the press is on trial right now in London, as the Assange case has now gone 3 days. As this massive case begins, Julian Assange has been subjected to yet more intimidation, depravation and abuse. In just the first 2 days, Assange had been stripped naked and searched 2 times, handcuffed 11 times and locked up in different holding cells 5 times.

In addition, all of his court documents were taken from him by the prison wardens, including privileged communications between himself and his lawyers, leaving him with no ability to prepare to participate in the proceedings. As journalist Taylor Hudak, who is covering the event, said, this is a “selective prosecution and also a political persecution.”

Learn below why the courageous Assange, due to his extremely extensive efforts in exposing governmental war crimes and corruption, is not only morally in the right, but also very much lawfully in the right. It is no exaggeration to say that this is a landmark and unprecedented case on freedom of the press which has colossal implications for the future of free speech and journalism.

Freedom of the Press and the UK Kangaroo Court

Before we begin, let’s examine whether this is really a fair trial or not. Prima facie, one would expect that a courtroom trial involving the UK and the US would be just, given that the Magna Carta and the the US Bill of Rights sprung from those 2 liberal, freedom-upholding nations respectively. You would expect that a UK court would uphold the value of the presumption of innocence until proven guilty. However, don’t count on it; there are very ominous signs that this UK court is more of a kangaroo court. The supervising judge Lady Emma Arbuthnot is riddled with conflicts of interests.

WikiLeaks itself has exposed some of the dealings of Lord James Arbuthnot, Emma’s husband, who is a former Conservative defense minister with extensive links to the British military and intelligence community! Arbuthnot is overseeing the district judge Vanessa Baraitser who is presiding over the Assange trial right now. Former UK ambassador Craig Murray has been one of the few who was able to get a seat (limited to 16 members of the public). He reports:

“James Lewis QC made the opening statement for the prosecution. It consisted of two parts, both equally extraordinary. The first and longest part was truly remarkable for containing no legal argument, and for being addressed not to the magistrate but to the media … I am frankly astonished that Baraitser allowed this. It is completely out of order for a counsel to address remarks not to the court but to the media, and there simply could not be any clearer evidence that this is a political show trial and that Baraitser is complicit in that.”

To her credit, the magistrate Baraister actually asked a pertinent question to the prosecution:

“Lewis then proceeded to read out a series of articles from the mainstream media attacking Assange, as evidence that the media and Assange were not in the same boat. The entire opening hour consisted of the prosecution addressing the media, attempting to drive a clear wedge between the media and Wikileaks and thus aimed at reducing media support for Assange.”

“In particular, the claim that newspapers were not in the same position because Assange was charged not with publication, but with “aiding and abetting” Chelsea Manning in getting the material, did not seem consistent with Lewis’ reading of the 1989 Official Secrets Act, which said that merely obtaining and publishing any government secret was an offence. Surely, Baraitser suggested, that meant that newspapers just publishing the Manning leaks would be guilty of an offence … Lewis appeared to come to a decision. Yes, he said much more firmly. The 1989 Official Secrets Act had been introduced by the Thatcher Government after the Ponting Case, specifically to remove the public interest defence and to make unauthorised possession of an official secret a crime of strict liability – meaning no matter how you got it, publishing and even possessing made you guilty … Lewis had thus just flat out contradicted his entire opening statement to the media stating that they need not worry as the Assange charges could never be applied to them.”

Yet the MSM didn’t report this:

“Yet remarkably I cannot find any mention anywhere in the mainstream media that this happened at all. What I can find, everywhere, is the mainstream media reporting, via cut and paste, Lewis’s first part of his statement on why the prosecution of Assange is not a threat to press freedom; but nobody seems to have reported that he totally abandoned his own argument five minutes later. Were the journalists too stupid to understand the exchanges?”

For the most part not too stupid – just too lazy, too complicit, too scared about their job security, too attached to career climbing and too comfortable pandering to the Establishment to do real journalism, think for themselves and report what the public needs to know.

1. The Public Has the Right to Know

The first reason why Assange is lawfully in the right is that he was using the freedom of the press to perform a public service. The people have the right to know what their governments are doing in their name. The public’s right to know is based on the fundamental truth that the public at large are the source of legal power in a society. The people are sovereign, and so when politicians and government represent them, they are borrowing the people’s power, and may only do so with the consent of the governed. When a government uses the hackneyed excuse of national security to hide war crimes, it is unlawful. When a government classifies secrets to hide criminality (rather than to legitimately protect a field agent’s safety), it is unlawful. Exposing governmental criminality is not unlawful.

This next point is a key point on which the entire case could already have been thrown out and summarily dismissed. The USG (US Government) was caught using its notorious spying agency the CIA to hire the Spanish security company UC Global to spy on Assange during his time in lockdown at the Ecuadorian Embassy in London. Every room was bugged, so Assange had no privacy as he met with his lawyers to discuss his defense strategies. One of Assange’s lawyers, Edward Fitzgerald QC, has claimed the defense will produce evidence showing that the CIA actively considered kidnapping or poisoning Assange! Murray reports:

“On abuse of process, Fitzgerald referred to evidence presented to the Spanish criminal courts that the CIA had commissioned a Spanish security company to spy on Julian Assange in the Embassy, and that this spying specifically included surveillance of Assange’s privileged meetings with his lawyers to discuss extradition. For the state trying to extradite to spy on the defendant’s client-lawyer consultations is in itself grounds to dismiss the case.”

Clearly, there is no commitment to proper rule of law in this case. This egregiously and blatantly violates Assange’s rights and is a clear abuse of process. It is fair to say that a non-biased judge would have summarily have throw the case out of court on this point alone.

3. Political Extradition is Illegal

At this stage in the hearing, the crux of the case will probably come to hinge on this key point. The US and UK have a 2003 Extradition Treaty which was ratified in the US in 2007, but never ratified in the UK. Article 4.1 of this US-UK Extradition Treaty forbids the political extradition of people. Espionage is considered a prime example of a purely political offense; Jen Robinson, one of Assange’s lawyers, stated that “espionage is the traditional and typical political offense.“ However, here’s the catch – magistrate Baraitser, who almost appeared to be working for the prosecution with this comment, dropped a bombshell. She stated that although the US-UK Extradition Treaty forbade political extraditions, this was only in the Treaty, and that this particular exemption did not appear in the UK Extradition Act, which is a UK domestic political act that differs from the Treaty. She therefore claimed that political extradition was not illegal in the UK, since the Treaty had no legal force in this court.

This is an interesting plot twist which, you can be sure, will be fiercely debated in the days to come. In general, political extradition is illegal in UN Treaties and other US Treaties, so it remains to be seen whether the prosecution can use this legal loophole to make the charges on Assange stick or not.

4. Assange Didn’t Reveal Agents’ Names

The Establishment has been working overtime to pin smears on Assange, and the prosecution is using this one big time. They are claiming that Assange put lives at risk by carelessly publishing classified documents which contained the names, locations and other identifying pieces of data of or on US agents – which meant an enemy group or nation of the US could use that information to kill those agents.

This is a giant lie.

Assange was very careful to not release any names or information that could put people in danger. He carefully redacted them. In fact, Wikileaks’ redaction was so thorough that it exceeded that of the Pentagon and other MSM organizations. There is no evidence of harm to agents or informants, a fact which the USG had confirmed in other fora like the trial of whistleblower Chelsea Manning. What happened was that 2 journalists who worked at The Guardian, David Leigh and Luke Harding, published their book Wikileaks in February 2011, and one of the chapters (Chapter XI) was entitled with the exact password to the unredacted collection of 250,000+ files. The German news outlet Die Freitag publicized this. Once Assange found out, he and his assistant Susan Harrison frantically called the White House to warn them that people’s lives were at risk. Guess what? The White House put them off for a few hours and downplayed the problem. Several journalists who worked with Assange attested (on Twitter) to the fact that Assange deeply cared about agents’ names and not putting anyone in harm’s way with WikiLeaks revelations, e.g. Iain Overton.

Besides, as Murray writes, the USG “had been actively participating in the redaction exercise on the cables. They therefore knew the allegations of reckless publication to be untrue … Assange and Harrison attempted to convince US officials of the urgency of enabling source protection procedures – and expressed their bafflement as officials stonewalled them. This evidence utterly undermined the US government’s case and proved bad faith in omitting [this] extremely relevant fact.”

Assange also pleaded with Die Freitag not to publicize the information.

Meanwhile, look at the gross double standard: the USG claims it’s worried about potential harm to its agents in leaked documents, while the US war machine murders foreign civilians and Reuters journalists in cold blood (see Collateral Murder)! This is on top of its regime-change wars in places like Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria and more, which have easily killed way over 1,000,000 people.

5. Assange Didn’t Hack Any US Computers, and Neither Did Manning

Another false claim leveled at Assange is that either he himself hacked into US Military computers, helped Chelsea (then Bradley) Manning do it or encouraged Manning to do it.

It’s another lie.

Chelsea Manning was already acquitted on the charge of conspiracy to hack computers. The truth is that Manning already had access (just as other soldiers of her rank did) to sensitive and classified documents, so there was no need to hack and there was no password to share. Another of Assange’s lawyers, Mark Summers QC, walked through the facts of the case. Murray reports on day 2:

“He said the charges from the USA divide the materials leaked by Manning to Wikileaks into three categories:

1) Assange helped Manning to decode a hash key to access classified material.
Summers stated this was a provably false allegation from the evidence of the Manning court-martial.

2) Assange solicited the material from Manning
Summers stated this was provably wrong from information available to the public

3) Assange knowingly put lives at risk
Summers stated this was provably wrong both from publicly available information and from specific involvement of the US government.

a) Diplomatic Cables
b) Guantanamo detainee assessment briefs
c) Iraq War rules of engagement
d) Afghan and Iraqi war logs

Summers then methodically went through a), b), c) and d) relating each in turn to alleged behaviours 1), 2) and 3), making twelve counts of explanation and exposition in all.

The bottom line here is that the prosecution deliberately misconstrued the “hacking” since Manning already had access as did many other military members – purportedly to access high-bandwidth videos.

6. Does Dual Criminality Exist?

In order to prove their case, the prosecution must prove that there is double or dual criminality. What is this? It is a common requirement in the extradition law of many countries. It means that a suspect can only be extradited from one country to stand trial for breaking a second country’s laws if a similar law exists in the extraditing country. Murray reports that Assange’s defense have already brought up some case law showing examples where a defendant was not extradited because dual criminality was not proven:

“He pointed to three examples in case law—most notably Castillo vs. Kingdom of Spain—where precedent gave the judge the ability to determine a more accurate picture of the facts in the case when the court has been severely misled. The new facts can then be used to determine whether dual criminality exists, a requirement of extradition.”

7. Assange is a Publisher – Not a Whistleblower, Leaker or Hacker

It’s important to define who Julian Assange is in this case. He is a publisher – not a whistleblower, leaker, hacker or hactivist. As a publisher, he is a member of the media or press. Under US law, he is specifically and specially protected by the First Amendment, which states that “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.” This protection is so important that the media is the only class/profession singled out. This is how important freedom of the press is to the functioning of a free society. Now, Assange is not a US citizen (see #8 below), but the prosecution is arguing that Assange should be subject to US jurisdiction (which itself is a matter of debate), so as long as they argue that, they need to concede that Assange is entitled to certain rights enshrined in US law.

Assange has won many awards for being a journalist and publisher. Here are some of his credentials:

– He has been a member of the Australian Journalists Union since 2009;

– He is a member of the National Union of Journalists (NUJ) (a trade union for journalists in the United Kingdom and the Republic of Ireland);

– He is a member of the European Federation of Journalists;

– He has won numerous media awards including being honored with the highest award for Australian journalists;

– His work has been recognized by the Economist, Amnesty International and the Council of Europe;

– He is the winner of the Martha Gelhorn prize;

– He has been repeatedly nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize, including both last year (2019) and this year (2020);

– He has written or produced many books, articles and documentaries;

– His articles have been published in The Guardian, The New York Times, The Washington Post and the New Statesman.

8. Assange is Not a US Citizen!

One highly contentious and important legal matter here, which has thus far been sidestepped, is whether Assange can even be charged by the USG at all, given that he is not and was not on US soil and is not a US citizen. Lawfully, how can he possibly be considered as subject to US jurisdiction? How can he even be charged under US law when he’s not an American – he’s an Australian? Again, this case is unprecedented, since we are now living in a globally connected society where it is apparently possible to commit high crimes against the government of a nation – in the cyber world – without ever setting foot in their geographical jurisdiction. But, can this really be lawfully or legally justified? How can USG lawfully chase journalists all over the world and claim they have magical extra-territorial reach? Is this law or is this intimidation and bullying?

9. Impossibility of a Fair Trial in the US

Just like Edward Snowden, Julian Assange is rightfully worried that he will not get a fair trial if he is extradited to the US. His lawyer Fitzgerald referred in court to the shocking conditions of US prisons and the impossibility of a fair trial for Assange in the US. Knowing this, this lawfully puts the burden on the UK to not extradite a defendant, since it would be exposing him to injustice and serious danger.

10. Trump Administration Denies Foreign Nationals First Amendment (Freedom of the Press) Protections

As covered in the article WikiLeaks Editor: US Is Saying First Amendment Doesn’t Apply To Foreigners In Assange Case, former CIA Head and now Secretary of State under Trump, Mike Pompeo, said in 2017 that “Julian Assange has no First Amendment freedoms. He’s sitting in an embassy in London. He’s not a US citizen.” As a reminder, this is the very same Pompeo who confessed that at the CIA that “we lied, we cheated, we stole.”

However, this is a serious perversion and misunderstanding of the First Amendment – or any of the Ten Amendments of the Bill of Rights. Everyone, not just Americans or US citizens, is endowed with inherent, natural, God-given rights, including life, freedom, the pursuit of happiness, free speech and the right to choose or not choose a religion. That means everyone. It includes people who are citizens of other countries. Citizenship has nothing to do rights that are vested in everyone by nature and God. The above mentioned article quotes journalist Glenn Greenwald, who is also being harassed by the USG even though he lives in Brazil:

““To see how false this notion is that the Constitution only applies to U.S. citizens, one need do nothing more than read the Bill of Rights,” Greenwald argued in 2010. “It says nothing about ‘citizens.’  To the contrary, many of the provisions are simply restrictions on what the Government is permitted to do (‘Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion . . . or abridging the freedom of speech’; ‘No soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the owner’). And where rights are expressly vested, they are pointedly not vested in ‘citizens,’ but rather in ‘persons’ or ‘the accused’ … “The U.S. Supreme Court, in 2008, issued a highly publicized opinion, in Boumediene v. Bush, which, by itself, makes clear how false is the claim that the Constitution applies only to Americans,” Greenwald wrote. “The Boumediene Court held that it was unconstitutional for the Military Commissions Act to deny habeas corpus rights to Guantanamo detainees, none of whom was an American citizen(indeed, the detainees were all foreign nationals outside of the U.S.). If the Constitution applied only to U.S. citizens, that decision would obviously be impossible.””

In a nutshell, we all have the right to free speech and freedom of the press, and the USG cannot lawfully deny this to Assange.

The Assange Case is a Retaliation by President Trump

According to Kit Dotcom, Trump was well aware of the meeting between Assange and Rohrabacher. This case is retaliation by Trump against Assange because Assange refused to reveal his sources. Trump clearly wanted this so he could have more proof that the whole RussiaGate fiasco was a hoax, but what is strange is that:

– The Mueller Report has already exposed the fact that there was “no collusion”; and

– Assange had already clearly said in 2016 that Russia was not responsible when he said that Wikileaks DNC source was “a non-state actor” and also when he said that the material from the DNC was “leaked, not hacked” which means it must have come from an insider.

As a true journalist, Assange refused on principle to reveal his sources. Here is Suzie Dawson’s take:

This is where media keep twisting the Rohrabacher/Trump/Assange/Russia story:

1st image: what MSM are trying to push – that Assange was asked to exonerate Russia

2nd image: what Trump *actually wanted* – for Assange to NAME THE SOURCE – which he refused to do on principle pic.twitter.com/WHIjBWxpU0

— Suzie Dawson (@Suzi3D) February 28, 2020

Independent journalist Cassandra Fairbanks has released a call between her and a senior Republican operative by the name of Arthur Schwartz. In the call (dated September 2019), Schwartz begs Fairbanks to delete a tweet (from September 10th, 2019) where she refers to this ABC story that reports that Richard (Rick) Grenell (Trump’s new DNI) was instrumental in persuading Ecuador to let British police into its London embassy. The report alleged that Grenell promised Quito that the US would not pursue the death penalty for Assange if it gave him up. This is yet more proof that Trump has the whole time been directing the prosecution of Assange. Assange inadvertently got Trump elected, yet Trump went from “I love Wikileaks” to conducting his own witch-hunt against Assange.

This is an absolutely disgusting betrayal of freedom of the press by Trump, who has yet again shown his true tyrannical colors. At the time of the Chelsea Manning trial and again in 2013, the Obama Administration decided not to prosecute Assange for the Manning leaks, presumably because they knew the case was so weak. Trump has reversed this decision for completely political reasons. I point this out not because I like Obama more than Trump – I reject the entire ruling class. This has nothing to do with the fake left-right paradigm and everything to with freedom and justice.

Conclusion: What is the Future of Freedom of the Press Worldwide?

Assange is on trial for telling the truth. He is being attacked for embarrassing the New World Order US Empire. He is morally and lawfully right in every way. His only crime is telling the truth in a world of lies.

The question is: will they find a legal loophole to capture Assange and destroy freedom of the press? We shall see.

Hat tip to Craig Murray, Taylor Hudak, Cassandra Fairbanks, Tareq Haddad, Kevin Gosztola and all the other independent reporters, citizen journalists, activists and concerned members of the public who are paying attention to this historic case and reporting the truth to the public – because the MSM sure isn’t.

Biggest hat tip of all to you Julian: you have done so much for freedom of speech and freedom of the press. So many people admire your guts and determination. May truth start peace, as you say, and as we say in Australia, you’re a bloody legend mate.

*

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 Freedom Articles.

Makia Freeman is the editor of alternative media / independent news site The Freedom Articles and senior researcher at ToolsForFreedom.com. Makia is on Steemit and FB.

Sources

*https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fWDWJV_mr4w

*https://www.dailymaverick.co.za/article/2020-02-21-revealed-chief-magistrate-in-assange-case-received-financial-benefits-from-secretive-partner-organisations-of-uk-foreign-office/

*https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2020/02/your-man-in-the-public-gallery-assange-hearing-day-1/

*https://english.elpais.com/elpais/2019/09/25/inenglish/1569384196_652151.html

*https://twitter.com/iainoverton/status/1231948664584704000?s=20

*https://collateralmurder.wikileaks.org/

*https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2020/02/your-man-in-the-public-gallery-assange-hearing-day-2/

*https://thefreedomarticles.com/curious-case-edward-snowden-permanent-record/

*https://thefreedomarticles.com/wikileaks-editor-usg-first-amendment-doesnt-apply-foreigners/

*https://www.pscp.tv/w/1ZkKzLgobAyJv

*https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/us-gave-verbal-pledge-death-penalty-assange-sources/story?id=62414643

*https://www.pscp.tv/w/1YpJkQadPAVKj

The media is doing its best to make the Seth Rich story go away, but it seems to have a life of its own, possibly due to the fact that the accepted narrative about how Rich died makes no sense. In its Iatest manifestation, it provides an alternative explanation for just how the information from the Democratic National Committee (DNC) computer somehow made its way to Wikileaks. If you believe that Jeffrey Epstein committed suicide and that he was just a nasty pedophile rather than an Israeli intelligence agent, read no farther because you will not be interested in Rich. But if you appreciate that it was unlikely that the Russians were behind the stealing of the DNC information you will begin to understand that other interested players must have been at work.

For those who are not familiar with it, the backstory to the murder of apparently disgruntled Democratic National Committee staffer Seth Rich, who some days before may have been the leaker of that organization’s confidential emails to Wikileaks, suggests that a possibly motiveless crime might have been anything but. The Washington D.C. police investigated what they believed to be an attempted robbery gone bad but that theory fails to explain why Rich’s money, credit cards, cell phone and watch were not taken. Wikileaks has never confirmed that Rich was their source in the theft of the proprietary emails that had hitherto been blamed on Russia but it subsequently offered a $20,000 reward for information leading to resolution of the case and Julian Assange, perhaps tellingly, has never publicly clarified whether Rich was or was not one of his contacts, though there is at least one report that he confirmed the relationship during a private meeting.

Answers to the question who exactly stole the files from the DNC server and the emails from John Podesta have led to what has been called Russiagate, a tale that has been embroidered upon and which continues to resonate in American politics. At this point, all that is clearly known is that in the Summer of 2016 files and emails pertaining to the election were copied and then made their way to WikiLeaks, which published some of them at a time that was damaging to the Clinton campaign. Those who are blaming Russia believe that there was a hack of the Democratic National Committee (DNC) server and also of John Podesta’s emails that was carried out by a Russian surrogate or directly by Moscow’s military intelligence arm. They base their conclusion on a statement issued by the Department of Homeland Security on October 7, 2016, and on a longer assessment prepared by the Office of the Director of National Intelligence on January 6, 2017. Both government appraisals implied that there was a U.S. government intelligence agency consensus that there was a Russian hack, though they provided little in the way of actual evidence that that was the case and, in particular, failed to demonstrate how the information was obtained and what the chain of custody was as it moved from that point to the office of WikiLeaks. The January report was particularly criticized as unconvincing, rightly so, because the most important one of its three key contributors, the National Security Agency, had only moderate confidence in its conclusions, suggesting that whatever evidence existed was far from solid.

An alternative view that has been circulating for several years suggests that it was not a hack at all, that it was a deliberate whistleblower-style leak of information carried out by an as yet unknown party, possibly Rich, that may have been provided to WikiLeaks for possible political reasons, i.e. to express disgust with the DNC manipulation of the nominating process to damage Bernie Sanders and favor Hillary Clinton.

There are, of course, still other equally non-mainstream explanations for how the bundle of information got from point A to point B, including that the intrusion into the DNC server was carried out by the CIA which then made it look like it had been the Russians as perpetrators. And then there is the hybrid point of view, which is essentially that the Russians or a surrogate did indeed intrude into the DNC computers but it was all part of normal intelligence agency probing and did not lead to anything. Meanwhile and independently, someone else who had access to the server was downloading the information, which in some fashion made its way from there to WikiLeaks.

Both the hack vs. leak viewpoints have marshaled considerable technical analysis in the media to bolster their arguments, but the analysis suffers from the decidedly strange fact that the FBI never even examined the DNC servers that may have been involved. The hack school of thought has stressed that Russia had both the ability and motive to interfere in the election by exposing the stolen material while the leakers have recently asserted that the sheer volume of material downloaded indicates that something like a higher speed thumb drive was used, meaning that it had to be done by someone with actual physical direct access to the DNC system. Someone like Seth Rich.

What the many commentators on the DNC server issue choose to conclude is frequently shaped by their own broader political views, producing a result that favors one approach over another depending on how one feels about Trump or Clinton. Or the Russians. Perhaps it would be clarifying to regard the information obtained and transferred as a theft rather than either a hack or a leak since the two expressions have taken on a political meaning of their own in the Russiagate context. With all the posturing going on, the bottom line is that the American people and government have no idea who actually stole the material in question, though the Obama Administration was extraordinarily careless in its investigation and Russian President Vladimir Putin has generally speaking been blamed for what took place.

The currently bouncing around the media concerns an offer allegedly made in 2017 by former Republican Congressman Dana Rohrabacher to imprisoned WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange. According to Assange’s lawyers, Rohrabacher offered a pardon from President Trump if Assange were to provide information that would attribute the theft or hack of the Democratic National Committee emails to someone other than the Russians. He was presumably referring to Seth Rich.

Assange did not accept the offer, but it should be noted that he has repeatedly stated in any event that he did not obtain the material from a Russian or Russian-linked source. In reality, he might not know the original source of the information. Since Rohrabacher’s original statement, both he and Trump have denied any suggestion that there was a firm offer with a quid pro quo for Assange. Trump claims to hardly know Rohrabacher and also asserts that he has never had a one-on-one meeting with him.

The U.S. media’s coverage of the story has emphasized that Assange’s cooperation would have helped to absolve Russia from the charge of having interfered decisively in the U.S. election, but the possible motive for doing so remains unclear. Russian-American relations are at their lowest point since the Cold War and that has largely been due to policies embraced by Donald Trump, to include the cancellation of START and medium range missile agreements. Trump has also approved NATO military maneuvers and exercises right up to the Russian border and has provided lethal weapons to Ukraine, something that his predecessor Barack Obama balked at. He has also openly confronted the Russians in Syria.

Given all of that back story, it would be odd to find Trump making an offer that focuses only on one issue and does not actually refute the broader claims of Russian interference, which are based on a number of pieces of admittedly often dubious evidence, not just the Clinton and Podesta emails. Which brings the tale back to Seth Rich. If Rich was indeed responsible for the theft of the information and was possibly killed for his treachery, it most materially impacts on the Democratic Party as it reminds everyone of what the Clintons and their allies are capable of. It will also serve as a warning of what might be coming at the Democratic National Convention in Milwaukee in July as the party establishment uses fair means or foul to stop Bernie Sanders. How this will all play out is anyone’s guess, but many of those who pause to observe the process will be thinking of Seth Rich.

*

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 American Herald Tribune.

Philip M. Giraldi is a former CIA counter-terrorism specialist and military intelligence officer who served nineteen years overseas in Turkey, Italy, Germany, and Spain. He was the CIA Chief of Base for the Barcelona Olympics in 1992 and was one of the first Americans to enter Afghanistan in December 2001. Phil is Executive Director of the Council for the National Interest, a Washington-based advocacy group that seeks to encourage and promote a U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East that is consistent with American values and interests. He is a frequent contributor to Global Research.

Featured image: Seth Rich, Julian Assange and Dana Rohrabacher. Credit: Public domain/ Gage Skidmore/ Flickr

Having been hit by the Syrian Air Force in Idlib, Turkey has called on NATO’s protection, but as much as the alliance would like a fight with Assad and his ally Russia, it’s refused to back Ankara’s questionable adventure.

The media hype and disinformation campaign regarding the spread of the COVID-19 novel coronavirus have created a Worldwide atmosphere of fear and uncertainty following the launching of  a global public health emergency by the WHO on January 30th. 

The fear campaign is ongoing.  Panic and uncertainty. National governments and the WHO are misleading  the public.

“About 84,000 people in at least 56 countries have been infected, and about 2,900 have died” says the New York Times. What they fail to mention is that 98% of those cases of infection are in Mainland China. There are less than 5000 confirmed cases outside China. (WHO, February 28, 2020)

While COVID-19 is a matter of Public Health concern, at the moment, there is no real pandemic outside Mainland China. Look at the figures.

At the time of writing, the number of  “confirmed cases” in the US was 64.

A low number and the media is spreading panic.

Meanwhile, there are  15 Million Cases of Influenza in the USA.

The latest FluView surveillance from the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) reports that as of January 18, 2020, there have been 15 million cases of flu, 140,000 hospitalizations, and 8200 deaths in the US this influenza season. (emphasis added)

Data on the COVID-19 pandemic: 

The WHO has also reported 2,791 deaths of which only 67 have occurred outside Mainland China.

These figures confirm that the pandemic is largely limited to Mainland China.

Moreover, recent data suggests that the epidemic in China is firmly under control. On February 21, 2020, China’s National Health Commission reported that 36.157 patients were designated as cured and discharged from hospital. (see graph below).

Chinese reports confirm that people have received treatment and are recovering from the virus infection. Concurrently, the number of infected patients is declining.

According to the National Medical Products Administration of China, hospitals are  using Favilavir, an anti-viral drug, “as a treatment for coronavirus with minimal side effects”.

.

Lets Crunch the Numbers  

The World Population is of the order of  7.8 billion.

The population of China is of the order of 1.4 billion.

The World population minus China is of the order of 6.4 billion.

4691 confirmed cases and 67 reported deaths (outside China) out of a population of 6.4 billion does not constitute a pandemic. 4691/6,4oo,ooo,ooo =0.00000073 = 0.000073 %

64 cases in the US which has a population of approximately 330 million is not a pandemic. (Feb 28 data): 64/330,000,000 = 0.00000019 = 0.000019 %

Why the Propaganda? Racism directed against Ethnic Chinese

A  campaign against China was launched, a wave of racist sentiment against ethnic Chinese is ongoing largely led by the Western media.

The Economist reports that “The coronavirus spreads racism against—and among—ethnic Chinese”

And this phenomenon is happening all over the U.S.

Economic Warfare against China

US strategies consist in using COVID-19 to isolate China, despite the fact that the US economy is heavily dependent upon Chinese imports.

The short-term disruption of the Chinese economy is largely attributable to the (temporary) closing down of the channels of trade and transportation.

The WHO Global Public Health emergency is coupled with media disinformation and the freezing of air travel to China.

Panic on Wall Street 

Spearheaded by media disinformation, there is another dimension. Panic in the stock markets. 

The Coronavirus fear has triggered the drop of financial markets Worldwide.

According to reports, roughly $6 trillion have been wiped off the value of stock markets Worldwide. The decline in stock market values so far is of the order of “15 percent or more”.

Massive losses of personal savings (e.g. of average Americans) have occurred not to mention corporate failures and bankruptcies.

It’s a bonanza for institutional speculators including corporate hedge funds. The financial meltdown has led to sizeable transfers of money wealth into the pockets of a handful of financial institutions.

In a bitter irony, analysts in chorus have casually linked the market collapse to the escalation of the coronavirus at a time when there was less than 64 confirmed cases in the US.

It’s not surprising that the market went down because … the virus has gotten so expanded. … ‘

Was it Possible to “Predict” the February Financial Crash?  

It would be naive to believe that the financial crisis was solely the consequence of spontaneous market forces, responding to the COVID-19 outbreak. The market was carefully manipulated by powerful actors using speculative instruments in the market for derivatives, including “short-selling”.  Media disinformation on the “escalation of the COVID-19 pandemic certainly played a role.

The unspoken objective is the concentration of Wealth. It was a financial bonanza for those who had “inside information” or “foreknowledge” leading up to the WHO’s decision to declare a Worldwide public emergency on January 30.

Was there Foreknowledge of the COVID-19 (nCoV-2019) Pandemic? And of its Likely impacts?

On October 18, 2019, the Johns Hopkins Center for Health Security, Baltimore undertook a carefully designed simulation of a coronavirus epidemic entitled nCoV-2019.

In the Event 201 Simulation of a Coronavirus Pandemic, a 15% collapse of financial markets had been “simulated”. It was not “predicted” according to the organizers and sponsors of the event, which included the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation as well  the World Economic Forum.

.

Screenshot, 201 A Global Pandemic Exercise

The simulation conducted in October entitled nCoV-2019 was undertaken barely 2 months prior to to the outbreak of COVID-19.

The  John Hopkins Pandemic Exercise simulated a stock market decline of  “15% or more” (Video section 0.0 – 1’2″) which largely corresponds to the real market decline registered in late February 2020.

(See video below)

Many features of the “simulation exercise” do in fact correspond to what actually happened when the WHO Director General launched a global public health emergency on January 3o, 2020.

What must be understood is that the sponsors of the John Hopkins “simulation exercise” are powerful and knowledgeable actors respectively in the areas of “Global Health” (B. and M. Gates Foundation) and “Global Economy” (WEF).

It is also worth noting that the WHO initially adopted a similar acronym (to designate the coronavirus) to that of the John Hopkins Pandemic Exercise (nCoV-2019) before it was changed to COVID-19. 

Corruption and The Role of the WHO

And what motivated WHO Director General Dr. Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus to declare the coronavirus nCoV-2019  as a “Public Health Emergency of International Concern (PHEIC)” on January 30 when the epidemic was largely confined to Mainland China? 

The evidence suggests that WHO Director-General Tedros was serving the interests of powerful corporate sponsors.

Together with the Davos World Economic Forum (WEF) The Gates Foundation were the sponsors of the October John Hopkins 2019 nCoV-2019 “simulation exercise”. 

As health minister, Tedros would also chair the Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria that was co-founded by the Gates Foundation. The Global Fund has been riddled with fraud and corruption scandals.

“During Tedros’ three year campaign to win the WHO post he was charged with having covered up three major epidemics of cholera while health minister in Ethiopia, mislabeling the cases as “acute watery diarrhea” (AWD)—a symptom of cholera—in an attempt to play down the significance of the epidemics, charges he denied.”(Engdahl, op. cit.)

.

A massive vaccine campaign has been ordered by the Director General of the WHO Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus. Numerous pharmaceutical companies are already working on the development of a vaccine.

In this regard, it is worth recalling the WHO scam during the mandate of his predecessor Dr. Margaret Chan, who stated in relation to the 2009 H1N1 Swine Flu Pandemic that:

“Vaccine makers could produce 4.9 billion pandemic flu shots per year in the best-case scenario”,Margaret Chan, Director-General, World Health Organization (WHO), quoted by Reuters, 21 July 2009, emphasis added)

There was no H1N1 pandemic in 2009. It was a money making scam as revealed by the European Parliament.

What’s the Next Phase of COVID-19 Pandemic? Is it Fake or is it Real?

• The propaganda campaign against China is not over.
• Neither is the “fear pandemic” outside China despite the exceedingly low number of “confirmed cases”.
• The financial crisis is ongoing, supported by media disinformation and financial meddling.
• If normal US-China trade (and transportation) relations fail to be duly restored, the shipping of  “Made in China” consumer goods exported to America could be affected.
• This in turn could potentially trigger a major crisis in retail trade in the US, i.e “Made in China” commodities constitute a large share of monthly household consumption.
• From a public health point of view, there are favorable prospects for eliminating the COVID-19 in China. Progress has already been reported.
• For the rest of the World (which currently has approximately 3000 confirmed cases, 28 February 2020 ) the COVID-19 pandemic is ongoing coupled with propaganda in favor of a Worldwide vaccination program.
• Without a fear campaign coupled with fake news, the incidence of COVID-19 would not have made the headlines.
• From a health/medical standpoint is a Worldwide vaccination required?
• 43.3 percent of the “confirmed cases” in China are now categorized as “recovered” (See graph above). Western reports do not make the distinction between “confirmed cases” and “confirmed infected cases”. It is the latter which is relevant. The trend is towards recovery and decline of the “confirmed infected cases”.

The massive WHO vaccination campaign (referred to above) was duly confirmed by Director General Dr. Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus on February 28: 

“…work is also progressing on vaccines and therapeutics. More than 20 vaccines are in development globally, and several therapeutics are in clinical trials. We expect the first results in a few weeks” (emphasis added)

Needless to say this WHO decision is another financial windfall for the Big Five Vaccine producers: GlaxoSmithKline, Novartis, Merck & Co., Sanofi,  Pfizer, which control 85% of the vaccine market. According to CNBC:  (emphasis added)

While COVID-19 (alias nCoV-2019) constitutes a multi-billion corporate bonanza for Big Pharma, it has also contributed to precipitating humanity into a dangerous and unfolding global process of economic, social and geopolitical destabilization.

The new coronavirus, 2019-nCoV, also called COVID19, has as of this date killed about 3,000 people and infected some 87,000 around the globe, the vast majority of them in China. The virus has spread to at least 56 countries. 

The new coronavirus, 2019-nCoV, also called COVID-19, has as of this date resulted in more than 3,000 deaths and infected more than 80,000 people Worldwide, the vast majority of them in China

The epidemic is largely confined to Mainland China. 

While the virus has spread to at least 56  countries according to the WHO, the numbers of confirmed cases are low: 4691 confirmed  cases outside Mainland China. (See table right) 

Source: WHO, February 28, 2020. 51 countries according to WHO

What the western media fails to address is that there is the possibility that the virus could have been “man-made” in one or more of the numerous US bio-warfare laboratories.

Western media also are silent about the fact that the virus appears to be largely affecting ethnic Chinese, meaning, it targets specifically Chinese DNA. Almost all of the deaths and confirmed cases in the 51 countries and territories to which the virus has spread, are of Chinese origin.

The virus appears to be strengthening, as it mutates over time, making its control even more difficult. Will it eventually break the “Chinese DNA boundaries” and affect also other DNA types, i.e. western “Caucasian” people.

But the west also expects Chinese scientists and bio-researchers to overcome the epidemic and stop the virus from further mutating, therefore reducing the western infection risk.

Despite early hopes that a vaccine may be found soon – until now there has been little progress in this direction. However, Cuba’s antiviral Recombinant Interferon Alpha 2B (IFNrec) was chosen by Chinese medical and bio-researchers to combat the coronavirus.

Interestingly, Interferon had been discovered in Cuba 39 years ago, at the very onset of Cuba’s biotechnology programme in 1981. But it is not widely used in the world, even though it could save countless lives and cure countless patients (mainly diabetics), simply because of the US boycott that does not allow marketing of medication Made in Cuba.

Nevertheless, the COVID19 infection rate seems to have been gradually declining in the last three weeks. And there is no doubt that China will overcome this epidemic. Yet, the world must wake up to the fact that this could be an act of biological warfare.

Precedents: Bird Flu, African Swine Flu affecting China

In the last two years, since 2018 alone, China was hit by several types of bird flu (H7N4 and H7N9) in 2018 and yet another strain just in January 2020 which was overshadowed by the more serious COVID-2019.

There was also an outbreak of the African swine Flu (2018), killing millions of pigs. And there was a massive food crop destruction (2019 – mostly corn and soybeans) by the so-called “armyworms”.

Compensating for the impacts on the supply of pork, corn and soybean, China resorted to importing theses commodities– and most of the imports came from the US.

Were these ‘outbreaks’ which  had destructive impacts on China’s economy coincidental? They have created instability, food price inflation and a dependence on imported agricultural products from the US.

The western media has been playing up the so-called Trump tariff war with China, while hidden from the limelight and in parallel, more serious warfare – bio-warfare – was going on.

In fact, little is known in the west about these previous biological attacks by the US-led west, aiming at damaging massively China’s economy – as well as heightening China’s dependence on imports from the US; in addition to damaging China morally, thereby, they, the west, believe (wrongly), weakening the level of resistance. A real war with bombs and guns, maybe nuclear, aiming at total destruction, cannot be ruled out.

Let’s remember the Big Picture – namely that this is in whatever way you want to turn it, a bio-war against China, and perhaps the first step of an all-out war against China’s rising economic power, and foremost against China’s solid currency, the yuan which may soon take over as the world’s chief reserve currency.

This would mean the fall of the US-dollar hegemony, the only force that keeps the empire alive and kicking, other than its military strength which is non-sustainable, as it aims only at destruction abroad – but leaving behind a rapidly faltering economy at home. Precisely the same pattern brought down the Roman Empire some 2000 years ago.

Too Many “Coincidences”: The October 2019 Simulation of a High Level Pandemic 

There are too many “coincidences” to conclude that this strengthened coronavirus – considerably stronger than SARS, the one of the 2002 / 2003 epidemic – ‘escaped’ a Wuhan lab by accident, or as the west would like to present it: by negligence.

 

First, there were the Military Olympics in October in Wuhan (18 – 27 October 2019), where about 200 American soldiers participated; the first cases of 2019-nCoV fever were discovered about two weeks later – two weeks is the average gestation period from infection to outbreak.

.

Event 201

Second, there was Event 201, on October 18, 2019, at the Johns Hopkins Center for Health Security, in Baltimore, Maryland, sponsored by the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, the World Economic Forum (WEF – the corporatocracy representing Big Weapons, Big Pharma and Big Money), and the John Hopkins Institute.

The theme was simulating a High-Level Pandemic Exercise – and yes, the simulation produced 65 million deaths. Just a couple of weeks before the first COVID-19 victims were identified.

Curiously, in their defense the sponsors of Event 201, now say,

“We are not now predicting that the nCoV-2019 (which was also used as the name of the simulation) outbreak will kill 65 million people. Although our tabletop exercise included a mock novel coronavirus, the inputs we used for modeling the potential impact of that fictional virus are not similar to nCoV-2019.”

One doesn’t have to be a rocket scientist to conclude that the simulation and actual outbreak is a very strange coincidence. (See below)

To consult the 201 videos, click here

.

Lunar New Year: The Year of the Rat 

And third – the timing, hitting China right on their most important Holiday, the Lunar New Year, when people are traveling, uniting with family and friends, when there are usually huge festivities with lots of people – an event of celebrating happiness – all cut short by the outbreak that put Wuhan and portions of Hubei Province, and a total of about 50 million Chinese in quarantine; and more – no shopping, no exchange of presents, no celebrations – a huge economic loss.

Circumstantial gut-feeling tells me, this is not a series of three coincidences. This could be (yet to be confirmed) a maliciously planned disaster.

Is this a sinister plan (coupled with media propaganda) carried out by a western elite to attack China’s rapidly growing economy, outpacing that of the United States?

Is it an attack on the Yuan which is also gradually replacing the US dollar as a world reserve currency?

When that happens the US-empire which essentially relies on dollarization is doomed.

The build-up to more harm and destruction, possibly a hot war?

In late January,  the World Health Organization’s (WHO) Director General (DG) said that the new coronavirus, COVID-19, also called 2019-nCoV, was not a pandemic. On January 30, probably on instructions from Washington, he declared the outbreak of a Global Emergency, but added on his own initiative that there were no reasons for countries to ban travel of their citizens to China.

In contradiction to WHO’s recommendation, Washington immediately issued a travel warning for US citizens not to travel to China. Many other countries followed their master, especially Europeans.

Another hit on the Chinese economy. Cruise ships with Chinese on board are not granted docking rights. Merchandise vessels are in many countries not allowed to enter international harbors to unload their goods.

Media Propaganda

The media propaganda drums proclaim that the virus is spreading fast and will soon engulf the entire world. The culprit is China, where the virus originated. That’s what western propaganda wants you to believe.

Nobody mentions that the COVID-19 virus appears to be focusing on the Chinese genome (yet to be confirmed) and that almost no westerners are affected.

Well, if the media would talk about it, it would become clear for the entire world that the virus could not have been created or originated in China, as China would not infect her own people, and that the virus was most likely man-made and somehow transported into Wuhan. Could it be that it was brought to Wuhan by one or more of the American participants in the military games?

The death to infection rate is about 3% in China, but has been steadily declining in the past week. The ratio is less than  1% in the several countries outside of China, where the virus was detected. Italy and Iran seem to be exceptions. In Italy, as of this date, the official number of infected people has jumped to 400 with 12 confirmed deaths, also a death rate of 3%.

Iran with about 140 cases and 20 deaths, a 14% death rate, the highest in the world. Why? Faulty reporting, or do those who died in Iran have Chinese DNA?

In Italy, a country in the midst of the European flu season, most diseased people are elderly, according to the Health Ministry. But how precise are the tests? This is important since most symptoms of COVID-19 are very similar to those of the common flu, especially for elderly people vulnerable to respiratory diseases and pneumonia. By comparison, US deaths from in the 2019 / 2020 flu season so far are estimated at about 34,200 (CDC). Figures in Europe are probably proportionately similar. But these figures are silenced by the media.

And now Italy is building up the propaganda drama, discussing border closing, but not yet deciding, and so are France, Germany and Switzerland – the discussion is a big media hype – but so far to the question – “Shall we ban entry to travelers from Italy?” –  They decided up to now, to leave borders open, as closing them would be bad for business. Though, that’s what they don’t say.

 To add spice to the drama, Italy has also canceled the Venice Carnival and other public events, even closed church service and tourist attractions and monuments.

The point is tremendous fear mongering, propagating fear from China. People in fear can easily be manipulated. It’s always been the case. Planting fear into a docile and even placid and peaceful population has always been the precursor to a call for war. Fear, in a first round also helps isolating China, to cause as much economic damage as possible (weakening China to the point of ‘least resistance’).

Public consent for the second round, namely the possibility of a hot war, would be easier. There is not much time, as the Chinese economy is advancing rapidly and along with it – the possible displacement of the dollar system. Which, once recognized by the majority of the world, means the dollar hegemony is broken, and through that the US empire is broken. For sure the US would not shy away from military action, resulting in civilian deaths, just to preserve their dollar hegemony.

Washington also realizes that the east, China, Russia and the rest of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO) is no longer dependent on the west, but could carry on with an autonomous “eastern” economy – which in itself would be an incentive for other countries in defiance of the US dictate to join the east.

The China – Russia – Iran alliance is one of the strongest “eastern axis” – which also provides full energy self-sufficiency to the eastern countries, i.e. the Shanghai Cooperation Organization or SCO. The association of SCO and the Eurasian Economic Union (EEU) comprises today about half of the world’s population and controls about a third of the world’s economic output (GDP).

Economic Damage

Nevertheless, China’s economic damage is considerable – work stoppages, limited consumption at home and in many countries a virtual ban on Chinese imports. The stock market has dropped tremendously due to the Coronavirus outbreak and its economic consequences. The worst may not yet be over, even if it doesn’t come to a ‘hot’ war – which we profoundly trust it will not.

To counteract this economic calamity, the People’s Bank of China (PBC – China’s Central Bank) may consider injecting quickly important amounts of money into China’s economy, especially targeting small and medium size enterprises, both public and private, through China’s public banking system and other means of direct economic support – to cut short losses caused by the western-imposed epidemics. The immediate and medium-term objectives may be reducing the risk of economic stagnation and un- or under-employment – and – to achieve food self-sufficiency, as well as to diversify China’s suppliers and supply-chains away from the US and western US-allies. The accent is on food self-sufficiency.

For international trade and transfer payments, Chinas Interbank Payment System (CIPS) and the crypto-yuan is expected to gradually increase its acceptance around the world and outrank the western transfer system SWIFT and the US-dollar hegemony which are key instruments the United States uses to impose totally illegal economic sanctions upon countries that dare insisting on their sovereignty and refuse to submit to Washington’s pressure. Cases in point are Russia, China, North Korea, Venezuela, Iran, Cuba, Syria, Sudan – and many more.

These US-led western efforts to weaken China’s economy are also meant to send a discouraging message to all those countries that are planning to divest their reserves and international payment methods away from the US-dollar. The west will not succeed.

Even with the massive damage caused by the recent coronavirus, China’s economy is steadier and stronger than that of most western countries, especially the US.

China’s non-confrontational approach to resolve these social – health – and economic issues, will help China to overcome and isolate her aggressive adversaries. That’s part of the 5000-year old Tao philosophy.

As the US is increasing her aggressive stance against China (and Russia) – Washington appears and acts more and more like a dying beast, lashing out around itself, trying to bringing down and destroying as much as possible, while steadily digging itself deeper into its own (economic) grave.

Sanctions left and right and bio-wars on China – threatening China by surrounding her with some 400 military bases and nuke-equipped warships and planes, will not create more confidence in the US, rather the contrary. Countries and people realize that being aligned and allied with the US of A, is dangerous, can be deadly. So, they are driven away and towards the east, rather than being attracted by the western sinking ship.

Amazingly, western aggressions will falter confronting China’s robust social and economic system, and more so, China’s peaceful plan to connect and build bridges between the world’s people, nations and cultures, through the socioeconomic development scheme of the 21^st Century spanning the globe – the Belt and Road Initiative (BRI), also called the New Silk Road. A way Towards a Shared Future for Mankind.
—–
Peter Koenig is an economist and geopolitical analyst. He is also a water resources and environmental specialist. He worked for over 30 years with the World Bank and the World Health Organization around the world, including in Palestine, in the fields of environment and water. He lectures at universities in the US, Europe and South America. He writes regularly for Global Research; ICH; RT; Sputnik; PressTV; The 21st Century; Greanville Post; Defend Democracy Press, TeleSUR; The Saker Blog, the New Eastern Outlook (NEO); and other internet sites. He is the author of Implosion – An Economic Thriller about War, Environmental Destruction and Corporate Greed – fiction based on facts and on 30 years of World Bank experience around the globe. He is also a co-author of The World Order and Revolution! – Essays from the Resistance.

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

 First published by the New Eastern Outlook – NEO

As a mid March deadline approaches, the mad scramble is on for Congress to  rubber stamp  a ‘clean’ renewal of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISC)  without amendment. 

At every opportunity since 2001, Congress has used the re-authorization process to expand both the Patriot Act and the FISA Court’s authority in a further erosion of American civil liberties. 

Over the years, Fourth Amendment protections have been eviscerated allowing government access into every nook and cranny of American life.

---

Read Part I here:

Why Renew the “Ultra Secret” Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) Court?

By Renee Parsons, February 21, 2020

---

Those expansions of authority with bipartisan Congressional support who claim to value liberty and freedom except when it comes to conducting widespread surveillance of Americans.  The Court has functioned unscathed as the Dems historically split 50-50 in their support for civil liberty and surveillance votes while almost 100% of Republicans have supported the mass surveillance of the American people under the illusion of a national security threat. It is worth noting that the US is the world’s leader in surveillance of its own citizens.

It might be expected that any politician who wraps themselves in the American flag would find US surveillance repugnant but that has not been the case as the House Freedom Caucus’s avid support for the Surveillance State has demonstrated.

The following are recent Congressional roll-call votes reauthorizing the FISA Court:

• 2008 Senate vote 32 – 66; House vote 293 – 129
• 2012 Senate vote 73 – 23; House vote  301-118
• 2018 Senate vote 65 – 34; House vote 256 – 164

Despite its original intent in 1978 to provide oversight into government surveillance on American citizens, the FISA Court has remained super secret and obscure from public awareness, resistant to meaningful Congressional oversight and largely immune from real accountability while unilateral in its authority.  In other words, hands off the Court while the black-robed wizards labor in dark places about mysterious matters delving into the lives of anonymous Americans who remain unaware of the intrusion – and Congress has dutifully obeyed.

As a result of the IG Report on FISA Abuses revealing the FBI’s egregious misconduct and the Court’s unwillingness to protect its jurisdiction, there is a bit of groundswell in Congress demanding ‘significant’ amendments to the Court’s authority. Whether that groundswell materializes or evaporates into obscurity, remains to be seen.

The question remains whether any amount of ‘reform’ can make the FISA Court acceptable from a Constitutional perspective or whether continued existence of the Court is necessary given its unabashed record of  facilitating near-unanimous approval to conduct surveillance, in other words, the Court is needed for the mindless approval of surveillance applications to create the false impression for a gullible public that there is an independent Constitutionally-valid process at work.

No matter what changes are made to the Court, the process approving surveillance will always be subservient to the political whim of the day.  It is essential to recognize that automatic approvals are indicative of a judicial system complicit with a rigged law enforcement agency more committed to increased surveillance as a means to justify its existence as well as to assure budget and staff increases. The ease with which the Bureau manipulated the moribund Court (FISC) into approving flawed applications suggests that unless profound changes are made to the FBI/DOJ, the current  crisis is doomed to repeat itself.

With the Russiagate fiasco and the IG Report on FISA leading to Spygate, an impeachment charge depending on a covert whistleblower of suspect intentions and origin, it might be expected that the upcoming Court re-authorization ought to, especially for House Republicans, be a subject of fierce debate who have learned first hand, in a way that the Dems did not, that surveillance is a nasty business fraught with  unintended consequences.  

While Attorney General Bill Barr favors a ‘clean’ renewal bill with reforms being enacted at the Department level,  Sen Lindsay Graham (R-SC) who is more focused  on his re-election, agrees to postpone any substantive changes to some future time. However, on the House side, it is an entirely different scenario with sleeping bi-partisan tigers finally awakened to the implications of how the FISA Court process does  not serve the American people and how easily it can be manipulated.

Judiciary Committee member Rep. Zoe Lofgren (D-Calif) has five amendments to further strengthen ‘reforms’ to the Committee’s bill,  all of which were rebuffed  by Committee Chair Jerrold Nadler at the urging of House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Intel Chair Adam Schiff (D-Calif).    Scutlebutt says that the House Judiciary bill is more of a Schiff ‘wish list’ with watered down civil liberty tokens.

It is essential to recognize that government surveillance; that is, to secretly spy into another’s private life is never done with good intentions or with the innocence of a harmless outcome.  As the American Empire struggles to survive, spying, in all its nefarious forms, is a gross violation of elementary principles of fairness and ethics in a moral, just and civil society.  It is ironic that Americans, as the most surveilled people on the planet, also pay for their own surveillance through their tax dollars.

*

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.

Renee Parsons  has been a member of the ACLU’s Florida State Board of Directors and President of the ACLU Treasure Coast Chapter.   She has been an elected public official in Colorado, an environmental lobbyist with Friends of the Earth and staff member in the US House of Representatives in Washington, DC. Renee is also a student of the Quantum Field.  She can be reached at #reneedove31. She is a frequent contributor to Global Research.

Members of al-Qaeda-linked groups embedded with Turkish troops have reentered the town of Saraqib in eastern Idlib following the collapse of the Syrian Army defense northwest of the town.

The attack was backed by Turkish artillery strikes on positions of the Syrian Army. Al-Qaeda members were actively using Turkish-supplied armoured vehicles and even MANPADs.

Since the evening of February 26, government troops have lost the villages of Salihiya and Afis and been forced to retreat towards the eastern and southern vicinities of Saraqib. Turkish forces reportedly captured three battle tanks, including a Russian-supplied T-90, in the course of the attack. Several other military vehicles were destroyed. Earlier, Syrian troops withdrew from Nayrab leaving behind 2 battle tanks, 4 amoured vehicles and 2 bulldozers as well as other weapons and equipment.

The Turkish Defense Ministry reported on February 26 that 2 Turkish soldiers were killed and 2 others injured in a Syrian airstrike. This became another official confirmation of the participation of Turkish troops in the fighting.

The fall of Saraqib is a major blow to the plans of the Damascus government to reopen the M5 highway and to threaten Idlib city with a possible offensive operation.

Local sources name the Syrian Army overcommitment to the advance south of the M4 highway as one of the causes  of the recent setbacks in Saraqib. According to them, a large number of trained and experienced units, including the 25th Special Forces Division and the 4th Division, were redeployed from Saraqib to southern Idlib. Other issues are the lack of coordination among pro-government units and close-air-support.

According to pro-government sources, on the morning of February 27 army troops regrouped and launched a counter-attack. Clashes are ongoing.

The setbacks of government forces in Saraqib came amid the ongoing army advance in the southern part of the Idlib zone. Syrian troops have cleared another dozen villages of militants and reached the administrative border with the province of Hama. Now, the militant strongholds of Sahn and Barah are the two main obstacles in the way of the Syrian Army towards the M4 highway.

However, if government forces are not able to stabilize the frontline in the area of Saraqib and put an end to advances by Turkish-led forces, the gains in southern Idlib may not be enough to achieve a strategic victory over al-Qaeda in Idlib.

*

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

Last Thursday, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) took the highly unusual step of declining to move forward on permits for the proposed Jordan Cove LNG export terminal in Coos County, Oregon. If built, the $10 billion Jordan Cove project would become the largest source of global warming pollution in the state.

FERC commissioners voted 2 to 1 to postpone a decision on federal approvals for the project after a string of permit denials from the state of Oregon. Commissioner Bernard McNamee said he needed an additional week to review the latest denial, issued by the Oregon Land Conservation and Development Commission (LCDC) one day prior to FERC’s vote.

In their February 19 letter, sent to Jordan Cove, FERC, the Army Corps of Engineers and others, Oregon’s land conservation officials wrote that approving Jordan Cove would “negatively impact” resources relied on by the state’s coastal tourism, fishing, shipping, and other industries, as well as endangered and threatened wildlife, “among other sectors critical to the state.”

“After long deliberation and review of the record before the department, it is clear that there is no reasonable assurance that the proposed project is or will be consistent with the laws, regulations, and policies that continue to maintain the Oregonian way of life,” the LCDC said in a statement announcing its decision. “Overall, the issuance of this decision protects the interests of the State of Oregon and those who call Oregon home.”

Without the state’s sign off, called a “consistency certification,” federal agencies including FERC and the Army Corps of Engineers “cannot authorize this project,” the Oregon commissioners wrote.

The next day, February 20, one Jordan Cove backer abruptly resigned from the state’s land conservation commission, citing the commission’s February 19 letter. Coos County commissioner Melissa Cribbins — whose contacts with Jordan Cove backers during the time that the project’s county-level permits were pending were at the center of a recent DeSmog investigation — penned a letter to Oregon’s governor.

“I am tendering my resignation from the Land Conservation and Development Commission (LCDC) effective immediately,” Cribbins, who is currently running for state office, wrote in a letter posted to Facebook by her campaign. She cited the timing of the land conservation permit decision, calling it “purely political.”

“Clearly, this is not the Oregon way,” the letter concludes, “and I will not lend my credibility to this process any longer.”

Cribbins retains her seat as a Coos County commissioner. She was also recently appointed to a federal Environmental Protection Agency advisory committee on local government, which advises Trump-appointee Andrew Wheeler.

The land conservation commission had emphasized the significance of the negative impacts on Oregon and its coast that Jordan Cove construction would have as it issued its state permit denial.

“After careful review of the proposed project, in conjunction with receiving extensive public comment, and coordination with coastal partners, [Department of Land Conservation and Development] has determined that the coastal adverse effects from the project will be significant and undermine the vision set forth by the [Oregon Coastal Management Plan] and its enforceable policies,” the commission wrote in their February 19 letter (emphasis in original). “Coastal effects analyses show that the project will negatively impact Oregon’s coastal scenic and aesthetic resources, a variety of endangered and threatened species, critical habitat and ecosystem services, fisheries resources, commercial and recreational fishing and boating, and commercial shipping and transportation, among other sectors critical to the state.”

The Jordan Cove project would export U.S. and Canadian fossil fuels — enough to fill roughly 120 liquefied natural gas tankers a year.

Project opponents say that without permits from the state of Oregon, the Jordan Cove fossil fuel export project cannot be built. “Oregon has concluded that the Jordan Cove LNG project would have significant adverse effects on the state’s coast and without permits from the state of Oregon, Jordan Cove LNG cannot move forward,” Courtney Johnson, attorney and executive director at Crag Law Center, said in a statement following the LCDC’s permit denial.

Jordan Cove has 30 days from the LCDC’s denial to appeal the state’s decision.

On Monday, Jordan Cove representatives urged FERC to approve the project over Oregon’s rejection. “A [Coastal Zone Management Act] consistency determination ‘is a permit issued under federal law,’ and state [Coastal Zone Management Act] objections are subject to plenary federal administrative override,” David Owens, an attorney representing the Jordan Cove Energy Project and the Pacific Connector Gas Pipeline wrote in a February 24 letter to FERC.

The FERC commissioner who cast the deciding vote to delay a decision cited the state’s permit denials at the hearing last week. “I want to see what the State of Oregon said, and I need that information to inform my decision, whether I’m ultimately going to vote for or against Jordan Cove,” McNamee said.

The land conservation permit is not the only permit that the Jordan Cove project currently lacks.

In January, Oregon’s Department of State Lands detailed over a half dozen categories of “critical information” that the Jordan Cove project had not yet provided to state officials after the company’s permit application was first deemed incomplete in November 2017. Days later, Jordan Cove withdrew its application for that permit.

And in May 2019 state officials denied a required Clean Water Act permit for Jordan Cove, citing concerns about the hazards posed to the state’s waters.

State officials predict a legal battle may be on the horizon. “I think the evidence is very clear that the strategy now for this project is to wholly ignore Oregon and its requirements and to have the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission approve it, and somehow have the courts rule that that Oregon law, that quite clearly can’t be preempted by the federal government, can be,” State Sen. Jeff Golden said in early February after Jordan Cove withdrew its land permit application. He described a “legal fight that almost certainly is coming, to uphold the law of the land and tell the Trump administration you don’t get to cancel environmental safeguards all over this country on behalf of the fossil fuel industry.”

Oregon’s governor Kate Brown has also said the state “would consider all available options” if FERC attempted to override the state’s permit processes.

It’s not clear when FERC will reconvene to consider the Jordan Cove project. Legal experts have said that the law also allows Jordan Cove to appeal to the U.S. Secretary of Commerce, currently Trump appointee Wilbur Ross, to approve the project without the state’s sign off. Ross has previously expressed support for the Jordan Cove project.

Environmentalists called on FERC to reject the permit when it does reconvene.

“Tens of thousands of people across the region have spoken out against this Jordan Cove LNG for over a decade,” Allie Rosenbluth, campaign director of Rogue Climate, said in a February 20 statement. “It’s time to put an end to Jordan Cove LNGfor good this time so our communities can focus on creating local jobs in clean energy instead.”

*

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: Coos Bay, Oregon, in 2012. The proposed Jordan Cove LNG export terminal site is in the lower left. Credit: RBrittsan, CC BY–SA 3.0

With Russia delivering another round of the Pantsir S1 anti-missile defense system to Serbia on Tuesday, EU and U.S. officials have reacted. Both Brussels and Washington have sent their warnings to Serbia, with Washington even threatening sanctions against the Balkans country. For the U.S., they are hoping to prevent Serbia from acquiring the Russian made S-400 missile defense system as it will severely restrict American hegemony over the Balkans. While Brussels expects Serbia to comply with the commitments it made when it entered the EU’s strategic priority, the U.S. State Department urged countries to abandon purchases from Russia as it could lead to sanctions.

“In discussions with senior government officials, we have repeatedly expressed concern that Serbia is buying Russian military equipment, including the purchase of the Pantsir system,” a State Department spokesman said.

The European Union previously said that in order to progress on the road to European integration, “Serbia needs to align its foreign policy with the EU’s foreign policy, in accordance with the negotiating framework.” Although Brussels is not making threats of sanctions against Serbia, it is leveraging a potential Serbian admission into the EU. This leverage would not be effective however as only 42% of people in Serbia are in favour of EU membership.

However, this is not the first time that U.S. administration officials are threatening to activate Section 231 of the Countering America’s Adversaries Through Sanctions Act of 2017, which deals with the possibility of imposing sanctions on individuals and legal entities having business cooperation with the security and intelligence sectors of Russia, Iran and North Korea. In November last year, Thomas Zarzecki, director of the U.S. State Department’s Task Force 231, arrived in Belgrade immediately after it was announced that Serbia had purchased the Pantsir system. Even before the arrival Zarzecki, it was announced by Matthew Palmer, U.S. Secretary of State’s representative for the Balkans, that sanctions may be imposed against Serbia.

Zarzecki left Belgrade last November and no sanctions were imposed on Serbia. Now, after Serbia acquired the Pantsir and they have begun arriving in the country, the possibility of imposing U.S. sanctions is being activated again. This becomes difficult as there is no doubt that the State Department will be pushing to punish Serbia for acquiring Russian weaponry. However, it is still within easy living memory that the U.S. led a NATO campaign of destruction against Serbia in 1999, killing over 500 civilians and destroying vital civilian infrastructure like bridges, industrial plants and private businesses. This campaign of destruction has left widespread anti-American sentiment that still persists to this day. Paradoxically, most NATO members today, with the exception of the U.S., has a more positive attitude towards Serbia and would accept that the purchase of military equipment from Russia is a national decision of Serbia and that Belgrade is entitled to that decision.

The President of the Foreign Policy Committee of the House of Representatives of the U.S. Congress, Eliot Engel, publicly rebuked one of the U.S. generals serving in NATO over the Alliance’s stance on Serbia. Engel criticized the position on Serbia’s military neutrality and intensive cooperation with Russia. As the Pantsir system is arriving in Serbia, interests for the S-400 system will intensify. Other states have received threats of sanctions if they purchase the S-400, such as India, and it can only be expected that Serbia will receive such warnings, too. Therefore, these discussions of sanctions because of the Pantsir system is a preventative warning for Serbia not to purchase the S-400.

However, the Serbia of the 1990’s is drastically different to the Serbia of today. Today, Serbia is making a recovery from the 1990’s and both Russia and China have achieved Great Power status and are willing to oppose Western interventionism and support independent states such as Serbia.

The U.S. State Department’s position certainly has elements of dissatisfaction over Serbia’s co-operation with Russia and China. NATO, on the other hand, praises the level of co-operation with Serbia and is ready, at least in words, to respect military neutrality. With the 1990’s remembered for the collapse of the Soviet Union and the advent of the U.S. dominated unipolar world, things have changed so much in the world that a once weak Russia and China who were, now are capable of maintaining their own positions.

With Russian and Chinese support, Serbia has enough strength to resist U.S.-led pressures that imposed sanctions could have minimal impact on the country, and rather create opportunities to push towards financial independence away from the U.S. dollar. It is for this reason that even Washington will be contemplating whether imposing such sanctions would be worth the risk of pushing another country towards financial independence as has happened in Iran and Venezuela.

*

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 a Research Fellow at the Center for Syncretic Studies.

Turkey has allegedly lost another 33 troops in Syria this week amid its refusal to withdraw from Syrian territory amid Syrian government gains in the northern governorate of Idlib. 

The BBC in its article, “Syria war: 33 Turkish troops killed in air strike in Idlib,” would report:

At least 33 Turkish soldiers have been killed in an air strike by Syrian “regime forces” in north-western Syria, a senior Turkish official has said.

More were hurt in Idlib province, said Rahmi Dogan, the governor of Turkey’s Hatay province. Other reports put the death toll higher.

Turkey later retaliated against Syrian troops government targets.

The US-led proxy war against Syria is all but over. It is just a matter of time before Damascus and its allies restore control over the entire nation and begin rebuilding.

The US-armed and funded terrorists that have ravaged the country since 2011 have been exposed, depleted, and cornered. So desperate is the state of this proxy war that in recent years the US and its allies including Turkey and Israel have resorted increasingly to direct military action against Damascus itself as their proxies are no longer capable of carrying out sustained military operations themselves.

And despite brazen aggression against Damascus and its forces – the combined military might of the US, Turkey, and Israel have failed to produce any noteworthy or sustainable gains in contrast to Damascus’ imminent victory.

Giving Up a Graceful Exit 

Turkey has been a NATO member since the 1950’s and was an eager participant in Washington’s proxy war on Syria allowing its territory and resources to be used to flood Syria with terrorists, weapons, equipment, and money to fuel the destructive 9 year conflict.

Despite Turkey’s integral role in facilitating Washington’s malice and destructive proxy war, Syria’s allies – seeing the conflict as ending in Damascus’ favor – attempted to create a graceful exit for Turkey and the possibility of playing a more constructive role in the region they – not Washington – would now be shaping.

This included economic and military ties with Russia and Iran to help ease pressure from Washington who was attempting to cut both to punish and increasingly uncompliant Ankara.

However, recent events appear to indicate that Turkey has rejected this graceful exit. Turkish forces find themselves increasingly escalating directly against Syrian forces and now even their nuclear-armed Russian allies.

Nothing Turkey can do short of total war in northern Syria will reverse their flagging fortunes.

The occupation of northern Syria through the use of depleted proxies is no longer sustainable. The invasion and occupation of northern Syria by Turkish forces capable of repelling Syrian government forces backed by nuclear-armed Russia is also not a viable policy.

Discovering whatever Ankara is still being promised – or threatened with – by Washington to continue its policy of belligerence and disruption in northern Syria will be key to dissuading Turkish cooperation with the US – or formulating a strategy to frustrate and defeat the lingering machinations of Washington and its two chief partners – Turkey and Israel.

Turkey now finds itself in the unenviable position of having all but abandoned promising ties with the winners of the Syrian conflict and a constructive role in reorganizing the region in the conflict’s aftermath – and now also doubling down on a clearly lost war that will cost Turkey not only blood and treasure, but also its standing in the region in the near to intermediate future.

*

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

This article was originally published on the author’s blog site, Land Destroyer Report.