Officially, the Boris Johnson government, in a post-Brexit world sees Global Britain punching way above its weight as it has traditionally done in the past. The gov.uk website makes this quite clear. “Global Britain is about reinvesting in our relationships, championing the rules-based international order and demonstrating that the UK is open, outward-looking and confident on the world stage.” However, relations with the USA and EU have dramatically soured in recent weeks and other international allies look on exasperated at Britain’s rapid decline, knowing that Boris Johnson and his administration do not have what it takes not just to repair the wounds of Brexit but rebuild Britain fit for the international arena.

It is laughable to think that Britain can claim to be championing the rules-based order. It’s dubious global arms and munitions sales is a good example, so is London’s reputation as the world’s laundromat. The Chagos Islands is a lesson in global immorality. The treatment of Julian Assange is another. Attacks on the judiciary, legislature and the media are the new rules and order. Even Boris Johnson’s rise to power has been built on a raft of lies, facilitated by a foreign state global surveillance machine that stole the privacy of millions and usurped democracy. Britain’s ruling elite is now seen as little more than a criminal clique of billionaires aided by a syndicate of corporate malfeasance facilitated by shadowy geopolitical players. Deep down, we all know this – but so does everyone else.

Global Britain and international security

Dozens of presidents, prime ministers, foreign and defence ministers and military chiefs gathered in Bavaria last weekend for the annual Munich Security Conference, but the U.K. was notable for only one thing — its absence.

Johnson declined an offer of the most coveted spot on the podium, ceding the spotlight to French President Emmanuel Macron, U.S. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, and U.S. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi. Even Facebook’s Mark Zuckerberg was there among others. However, U.K. Foreign Secretary Dominic Raab didn’t bother to turn up, nor did Defense Secretary Ben Wallace, even though neither of them was affected by the much-heralded reshuffle, given as an excuse for their absence (which took place three days earlier).

“Needless to say, as a former ambassador to the Court of St James, I am saddened by the absence of senior ministers of Her Majesty‘s government at @MunSecConf this year,” tweeted Wolfgang Ischinger, the veteran German diplomat who chairs and organizes the Munich conference, a major foreign and security policy fixture since the Cold War.

A token was there. Conservative MP Tobias Ellwood, a former soldier and minister who chairs the defence committee, and he was clearly dissatisfied with the U.K. turnout. “Having a presence at events like this is critical especially in the post-Brexit world.” ‘Global Britain’ gone fully introvert?” Carl Bildt, the Swedish former prime minister and foreign minister, asked on Twitter.

Britain, missing in action at one of the most prestigious and important global gatherings is a mystery. There are no excuses for not turning up and it was noticed.

Global Britain and EU

A Brussels blueprint says the EU will seek to police UK subsidies, impose rules on its tax regime and ask the government to commit to aligning with the EU’s standards forever. Britain was always aware that these were the rules but for Boris Johnson, not getting your way means blaming everyone else. That’s what the mainstream media headlines are reporting as they toe-the-line given the threats the government is throwing around at the media in recent days.

The prime minister’s fury with Brussels has emerged after his chief negotiator, David Frost, and his 40-person Brexit task force met this week to finalise the UK government’s negotiating position. It didn’t work and now no-one is speaking to each other. By all accounts, the two trade negotiators are in the midst of tearing each other apart. And so, before it all gets going, France has warned that talks between Britain and the EU over a future trade deal will turn nasty. And they have.

As an example, just 12 days after Brexit, the UK falls foul of its own rules that the U.K. introduced itself in 2014 for heavy goods vehicles. The levy it imposed discriminates against foreign truck drivers because British ones can get refunded for the tax they pay. That goes against the EU’s philosophy of treating citizens from all of its countries equally. So less than two weeks after leaving the European Union, the U.K. is already back in trouble with the bloc. And trucking is not just big business, it’s systemically important of course. While Brexit day was meant to enable Britain to finally throw off the shackles of the Brussels bureaucracy, the U.K. government now finds itself having to answer questions over an obscure transport tax that the EU doesn’t like. It’s a dispute that has explosive potential, and may well end up in court.

It’s a clear reminder that although the country technically ended its 47-year membership of the EU, the transition period that extends until the end of 2020 means Britain is still bound by the bloc’s rules and jurisdiction. And Britain doesn’t get a say in any decisions or policymaking, EU law applies in full, so it can’t really argue. But then, we knew that didn’t we – still, it’s their fault, isn’t it! Relations are plummeting.

Global Britain and the USA

The so-called ‘special relationship’ is now seemingly in flames. The pushing out of Kim Darroch, UK ambassador to the US – and a longtime British civil servant – because of Donald Trump’s childish tantrums is an illustration of the toxic political environment that has emerged. It’s what happens with populists.

The result of recent finger-pointing from across the pond is that Boris Johnson needed to distance himself from Donald Trump in December’s election. Since then, Johnson has cancelled a trip to the US planned for next month after a furious phone call from President Donald Trump in which Trump slammed down the phone on the prime minister. He was apparently ‘apoplectic’ with fury.

In fact, Johnson had been due to visit Washington last month but repeatedly delayed the trip after a series of rows with the president. First, it was over Iran, then Huawei, and all along there was the rejected request by the prime minister and Foreign Office to extradite the wife of a US diplomat that killed one of our own and did a ‘runner.’ The Harry Dunn incident ultimately made the British government look weak in front of its own citizens. In the meantime, Trump has decided to focus his indignation at the European Union and is currently engaged in ramping up the trade war over there instead. But even this was an opportunity for Trump to threaten that he’ll do a deal with the EU before doing one with the UK.  It all demonstrates the real damage being done to the US-UK alliance as relations continue to fall.

Global Britain and everyone else

After the three and half years since Britain’s EU referendum, it has become clear there never was a plan B. Aspirations of reviving its past global influence have fallen into what looks like a nightmarish delusion espoused by the political and media mouthpieces of the right-wing. As mentioned earlier, far from being a small island nation punching way above its weight – Great Britain, as it was once known, is the now the weakest link of the global power super league.

Britain currently has no influential role even at traditional global meetings. No representative went to the annual Davos meeting this year for the first time. Its influence at the G7, G20 and other global summit’s is now somewhat limited. This was the cunning plan of Dominic Cummings to ban attendance as it was “a waste of time sipping Champagne with billionaires.” Like it or not, “being there is absolutely critical as we redefine what the West stands for” said a clearly angry Tobias Ellwood, Chair of the UK’s Defence Committee.

Seen from Japan, Britain is no longer recognisably British. Brexit means that a substantial investment in the country over several decades now needs to be relocated. Foreign Minister Taro Kono, bluntly told Boris Johnson: “Please no no deal. Please no no-deal Brexit.” With thousands of Japanese people in Britain and billions invested – it is already walking away. From the Japan Times: “A whopping 70.8 per cent of Japanese manufacturers in the United Kingdom have been negatively impacted, the survey by the Japan External Trade Organization showed. Japanese companies in the United Kingdom said they have curbed capital spending because their clients are considering relocating operations outside the country.”

To Germany, British democracy has failed and is now led by crooks. Jan Fleischhauer is a senior columnist for Der Spiegel – “What haven’t I read about Boris Johnson? He is a charlatan, a huckster, a notorious liar.” Another newspaper wrote that Johnson was the British version of Donald Trump – albeit a “baby Trump”.

France is watching UK politics with bewilderment and complete disillusionment and is now treating no deal as the most likely scenario. No deal would mean “chaos” for the 30,000 French businesses that export to the UK, according to the head of the employers’ union. It would wreak havoc in Calais and no-one is impressed. Relations between the two countries is rapidly descending, with President Macron taking the lead in many global events.

Corporate relocations are a case in point. Honda has announced the closure of its huge Swindon plant, Dyson has moved to Singapore, Ford has closed its Bridgend factory, Barclays has moved £170bn of its assets to Ireland and UBS £32bn. Lloyds of London, the global insurance and reinsurance firm said it was working on transferring all European Economic Area (EEA) business to Brussels and HSBC, the banking and financial services giant announced that it was shifting ownership of its Polish and Irish subsidiaries from its London base to a French unit. As a result of Brexit, Panasonic has relocated (to Amsterdam), P&O (to Cyprus), Sony (to the Netherlands), AXA (to Ireland), Moneygram (to Brussels) and there are many more. It just not very – ‘global’ if global operations leave.

In the end

‘Global Britain’ – a phrase that provokes mockery and even indignation both domestically and internationally is partly the vision of a nostalgic and nationalistic attitude of the world order as it is right now – a mess. It is already becoming clear that Boris Johnson and Dominic Cummings don’t have what it takes to lead an invigorated Britain on the global stage.  Just for a start, to gain any semblance of international respect, Britain needs to reaffirm accountable democratic government in a world where democracies are falling like pins in a bowling ally. Constitutional, legal and administrative institutions that uphold civil society need to be reformed for the modern world and properly supported in a world where they are undermined to make space for populists. And Johnson is just that – a populist who has made a career out of undermining Britain’s institutions.

America, France, Germany and Japan. These are some of the countries that really mattered to Britain in the recent past. Britain is now dallying with China on critical infrastructure projects and incredibly forgiven Russia for all of its misdemeanours (if we can call such serious criminal acts that) and accepted a pile of ‘dark money’ to keep the Conservative party funded.

You are not witnessing the creation of a new ‘Global Britain’ – but more the dying embers of a global domain with a fantasist at the helm guided by Dominic Cummings, whose skill is stealing elections from democratic norms. You can’t build greatness on the footings of deception.

*

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 TP

This article was originally published in 2018.

A leaked Hillary Clinton email confirms that the Obama administration, with Hillary at the helm, orchestrated a civil war in Syria to benefit Israel. 

The new Wikileaks release shows the then Secretary of State ordering a war in Syria in order to overthrow the government and oust President Assad, claiming it was the “best way to help Israel”.

Newobserveronline.com reports:

The document was one of many unclassified by the US Department of State under case number F-2014-20439, Doc No. C05794498, following the uproar over Clinton’s private email server kept at her house while she served as Secretary of State from 2009 to 2013.

Although the Wikileaks transcript dates the email as December 31, 2000, this is an error on their part, as the contents of the email (in particular the reference to May 2012 talks between Iran and the west over its nuclear program in Istanbul) show that the email was in fact sent on December 31, 2012.

The email makes it clear that it has been US policy from the very beginning to violently overthrow the Syrian government—and specifically to do this because it is in Israel’s interests.

“The best way to help Israel deal with Iran’s growing nuclear capability is to help the people of Syria overthrow the regime of Bashar Assad,” Clinton forthrightly starts off by saying.

Even though all US intelligence reports had long dismissed Iran’s “atom bomb” program as a hoax (a conclusion supported by the International Atomic Energy Agency), Clinton continues to use these lies to “justify” destroying Syria in the name of Israel.

She specifically links Iran’s mythical atom bomb program to Syria because, she says, Iran’s “atom bomb” program threatens Israel’s “monopoly” on nuclear weapons in the Middle East.

If Iran were to acquire a nuclear weapon, Clinton asserts, this would allow Syria (and other “adversaries of Israel” such as Saudi Arabia and Egypt) to “go nuclear as well,” all of which would threaten Israel’s interests.

Therefore, Clinton, says, Syria has to be destroyed.

Iran’s nuclear program and Syria’s civil war may seem unconnected, but they are. What Israeli military leaders really worry about — but cannot talk about — is losing their nuclear monopoly.

An Iranian nuclear weapons capability would not only end that nuclear monopoly but could also prompt other adversaries, like Saudi Arabia and Egypt, to go nuclear as well. The result would be a precarious nuclear balance in which Israel could not respond to provocations with conventional military strikes on Syria and Lebanon, as it can today.

If Iran were to reach the threshold of a nuclear weapons state, Tehran would find it much easier to call on its allies in Syria and Hezbollah to strike Israel, knowing that its nuclear weapons would serve as a deterrent to Israel responding against Iran itself.

It is, Clinton continues, the “strategic relationship between Iran and the regime of Bashar Assad in Syria” that makes it possible for Iran to undermine Israel’s security.

This would not come about through a “direct attack,” Clinton admits, because “in the thirty years of hostility between Iran and Israel” this has never occurred, but through its alleged “proxies.”

The end of the Assad regime would end this dangerous alliance. Israel’s leadership understands well why defeating Assad is now in its interests.

Bringing down Assad would not only be a massive boon to Israel’s security, it would also ease Israel’s understandable fear of losing its nuclear monopoly.

Then, Israel and the United States might be able to develop a common view of when the Iranian program is so dangerous that military action could be warranted.

Clinton goes on to asset that directly threatening Bashar Assad “and his family” with violence is the “right thing” to do:

In short, the White House can ease the tension that has developed with Israel over Iran by doing the right thing in Syria.

With his life and his family at risk, only the threat or use of force will change the Syrian dictator Bashar Assad’s mind.

The email proves—as if any more proof was needed—that the US government has been the main sponsor of the growth of terrorism in the Middle East, and all in order to “protect” Israel.

It is also a sobering thought to consider that the “refugee” crisis which currently threatens to destroy Europe, was directly sparked off by this US government action as well, insofar as there are any genuine refugees fleeing the civil war in Syria.

In addition, over 250,000 people have been killed in the Syrian conflict, which has spread to Iraq—all thanks to Clinton and the Obama administration backing the “rebels” and stoking the fires of war in Syria.

The real and disturbing possibility that a psychopath like Clinton—whose policy has inflicted death and misery upon millions of people—could become the next president of America is the most deeply shocking thought of all.

Clinton’s public assertion that, if elected president, she would “take the relationship with Israel to the next level,” would definitively mark her, and Israel, as the enemy of not just some Arab states in the Middle East, but of all peace-loving people on earth.

*

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 Beatles, with an assist on backup vocals by none other than Mick Jagger, had this hit song in  1967:

“Baby, You’re A Rich Man”

How does it feel to be
One of the beautiful people?
Now that you know who you are.
What do you want to be?
And have you travelled very far?
Far as the eyes can see

How does it feel to be
One of the beautiful people?
How often have you been there?
Often enough to know
What did you see when you were there?
Nothing that doesn’t show
Baby you’re a rich man
Baby you’re a rich man
Baby you’re a rich man too
You keep all your money in a big brown bag inside a zoo
What a thing to do
Baby you’re a rich man
Baby you’re a rich man
Baby you’re a rich man too

How does it feel to be
One of the beautiful people?
Tuned to a natural E
Happy to be that way
Now that you’ve found another key
What are you going to play?
Baby you’re a rich man
Baby you’re a rich man
Baby you’re a rich man too
You keep all your money in a big brown bag inside a zoo
What a thing to do
Baby, baby you’re a rich man
Baby you’re a rich man
Baby you’re a rich man too
Baby you’re a rich man
Baby you’re a rich man
Baby, baby you’re a rich man too (fade out)

That was over 50 years ago and guess what, things now are even worse!

The super rich have always been way on top of us working stiffs, but this is ridiculous!

Just go onto any television show, whether it be the cooking shows my wife loves, or the news talk and sports talk shows I frequent, and the slew of mega millionaires is too much! People in this mainstream media are raking in mega fortunes, while the suckers like us watch them religiously… 

Ditto for most of our Two Party/One Party politicians, many of whom are super rich to the hilt! Question is how in the hell can any of these people know what it is like to be a few paychecks from the street? Or on a more softening instance, how can they know what it is like to have to worry about raising a few kids while staying afloat with the mortgage or rent payments?

As far as health care, that really pisses this writer off. You think any of those aforementioned super rich citizens need worry about paying for a Cadillac top of the line health plan costing on average $ 15k a year? Go online and Google the wealth of such people and see for yourself. Yet, many of them act like regular working stiffs when they get in front of the camera.

Bill Clinton could get up to $ 750K for a speech,

Barack Obama a healthy $ 400k, George W Bush $ 175k, Hillary Clinton around $ 200k a pop.

All of the top former politicos earn mega thousands for speeches.

Now, do you think they are getting paid by working stiff unions or such organizations? Come on, they are ALL being paid by Fat Cat corporate groups… and so many of us still support these vultures. One should ask just how much of those hefty speaking fees they all receive goes back to help those in need? You know and I know that at best these politicos may donate 10% of what they earn and just keep the rest. Why not? This is ‘free market’ Amerika.

Just follow the path of good old Mayor Pete Buttigieg, who likes to claim

“I am the only person on this debate stage who is NOT a millionaire”.

To date he has at least 40 billionaires and spouses who donate mega bucks to his campaign. If for some reason (hope springs eternal ) this 38 year old who came from seemingly ‘out of nowhere’ does not get the nod, just ‘Follow Da Money’ in the next year or two. We will see how much he is going to be earning for himself.

I would suggest it will be Mega Millions! And why not, aren’t we a ‘Free Market’? Yeah, free for the super rich to earn as they please while us working stiffs stand to watch the parade leave us. Folks, as long as we continue to live within a system that allows private money to run things…. the billionaires and mega millionaires will subsidize those who ‘Suck up to them’ to be elected. Yes, Bernie Sanders is an anomaly to this process, but watch what the Fat Cats who run things, including his own Democratic Party, will do (as they already have) to thwart him. The only answer is to have Complete Public Funding of ALL elections in this nation of ours!

The Zoo mentioned in that Beatles’ song where the rich man keeps his money is in reality the Zoo that our republic has become. In addition to the aforementioned ideal of public funding of ALL elections, how about this one: A flat 50% Surtax on any income over one million dollars per year. Let everyone file federal taxes at the current ceiling of 37% for the 1st million dollars they earn. After that, half of the rest they can keep and half goes to the Treasury. Think what can be done with all that extra revenue. Just use your imagination.

*

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

Philip A Farruggio is a contributing editor for The Greanville Post. He is also frequently posted on Global Research, Nation of Change, World News Trust and Off Guardian sites. He is the son and grandson of Brooklyn NYC longshoremen and a graduate of Brooklyn College, class of 1974. Since the 2000 election debacle Philip has written over 300 columns on the Military Industrial Empire and other facets of life in an upside down America. He is also host of the ‘It’s the Empire… Stupid‘ radio show, co produced by Chuck Gregory. Philip can be reached at [email protected].

Planned months in advance, the Bush/Cheney regime attacked nonbelligerent Afghanistan less than four weeks after the 9/11 attacks. 

Afghanistan did not attack America on 9/11. The Taliban and bin Laden had nothing to do with what happened on a day that will live in infamy, opening the gates of hell for endless US wars of aggression against nations threatening no one — spending countless trillions of dollars on mass slaughter and destruction, consigning the rule of law to the trash bin of history.

Over 18 years later, unwinnable war and occupation of Afghanistan continues — no end of it in prospect.

The US came to Afghanistan to stay, the same true in all its post-9/11 war theaters and the former Yugoslavia preceding them in the 90s — raping and destroying nations attacked, occupying them directly or with pro-Western puppet regimes.

Preemptive war on Afghanistan was waged to control the country and its resources, potentially worth trillions of dollars in economic value.

They include barite, chromite, coal, cobalt, copper, gold, iron ore, lead, enormous amounts of highly-valued lithium and other rare earth metals vital for high tech products, natural gas, oil, precious and semi-precious stones, potash, salt, sulfur, talc, zinc, among other minerals.

The above is a treasure US policymakers have no intention of relinquishing, wanting corporate America profiting from them.

Washington also wants to construct oil and gas pipelines across Afghanistan, wanting its territory used as part of a plan to encircle Russia and China, along with maintaining opium production used for heroin.

The opium economy was eradicated pre-9/11 by the Taliban government, the US restored it. A bonanza for money-laundering Western banks> Moreover,  the CIA relies on drugs trafficking as a revenue source.

Time and again, the US proved it can never be trusted, breaching international law, treaties, conventions, and bilateral agreements with other countries.

Whatever the US agrees on with negotiating partners isn’t worth the paper it’s written on — commitments abandoned at its discretion.

In August 2019, Brown University’s Watson Institute of International & Public Affairs published a report titled:

“The CIA’s “Army’ ”: A Threat to Human Rights and an Obstacle to Peace in Afghanistan,” saying:

CIA operatives infest Afghanistan with no intention of leaving. Paramilitaries they control serve US imperial interests.

Their existence and the CIA’s presence in Afghanistan, on the phony pretext of combatting terrorism the US supports, makes restoration of peace and stability in the country unattainable.

It’s true whether Pentagon forces stay or leave, the former virtually certain, the latter if claimed foolhardy to believe.

Langley paramilitaries are the modern-day equivalent of CIA-recruited Afghan mujahideen fighters against Soviet occupiers in the 1980s — today’s Taliban, combatting illegal US war and occupation of their country.

They want it back, US and allied invaders out. It’s not likely as long as the CIA’s private army remains in the country.

They’re shielded from public oversight and accountability. The US installed puppet regime in Kabul knows little or nothing about them, no say whatever about how they operate or for what purpose.

The CIA operates extrajudicially worldwide, including domestically in breach of its mandate.

A truce in name only was agreed to by the Trump regime and Taliban. Can what never worked before be likely now?

The NYT claimed it’s a “first step toward signing a deal to withdraw American troops.”

How possible when even if they leave, they’ll likely return, CIA operatives and Langley’s paramilitary army remaining in place, US occupation continuing in new form.

According to the Times, if a partial truce holds for seven days, both sides “will meet on Feb. 29 to sign an agreement laying out a timetable for the United States to withdraw its troops.”

If it happens, the agreement won’t be worth the paper it’s written on.

Whatever is said publicly, restoration of peace and stability to any active US war theater is more illusion than real.

The proof of the pudding, as the saying goes, is reality on the ground in all nations the US attacked preemptively post-9/11 — endless wars, instability and chaos continuing, nothing suggesting resolution.

The US doesn’t negotiate. It demands, wanting things its way. Whatever one ruling authority in Washington may agree on, a succeeding one walked away from time and again.

Besides breaching international law and walking away from international agreements, Obama’s withdrawal of US forces from Iraq in 2011 didn’t last long.

US occupation resumed in mid-2014, continuing to this day. Thousands of US forces controlling strategic parts of the country won’t leave — even though Iraqi authorities want them out.

Will Afghanistan be different? Will the US agree to leave and not reoccupy the country ahead?

Will it matter if CIA operatives and its paramilitary army control areas Pentagon forces withdraw from?

Will peace talks make a difference when they’re highly likely to turn out like Israeli-Palestinian no-peace ones, the outcome each time they’re held?

Can the Taliban co-exist with a US-installed puppet regime in Kabul it rejects because it has no legitimacy?

Previous US/Taliban talks failed because Washington undermined them.

If Pentagon forces are withdrawn from Afghanistan like earlier, it’ll likely be short-term to redeploy them as a hostile force elsewhere.

What the Taliban demand they won’t get — complete withdrawal of US and foreign troops from their country with assurances that that the move is permanent.

Currently about 14,000 US forces, around 17,000 more from dozens of other countries, and undisclosed numbers of CIA paramilitaries occupy Afghanistan.

The Taliban control most Afghan territory. Whatever is agreed on with the US will be tenuous at best.

The Taliban agreed to keep its fighters out of what it called “enemy territory” and return fire only in self-defense, a sort of maybe ceasefire that could and likely will end for any reason ahead.

The Pentagon saying it’ll continue operations against ISIS and al-Qaeda in Afghanistan is a ruse — the US supporting these jihadists, not combatting them.

They’re in Afghanistan because the Pentagon and CIA deployed them there, the same true wherever they show up.

Chances for the US agreeing to pull out and restore peace and stability to the country are slim at best, highly deceptive at worst.

The same goes for all its war theaters. They rage endlessly because bipartisan hardliners in Washington want things this way.

The military, industrial, security, media complex demand it.

Since Pentagon forces preemptively attacked North Korea in June 1950, a nation threatening no one, the US has been at war directly and/or through proxies at all times against one or more countries since then.

Both right wings of the one-party state reject world peace, stability, equity, justice, and the rule of law.

It’s why endless wars on humanity rage at home and abroad against invented enemies.

No real ones existed since WW II ended.

*

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 UN report stated that 45,000 displaced children in Iraq lack personal identification documents and that many of them do not receive education two years after the defeat of ISIS-Daesh.

The report issued by the United Nations Assistance Mission for Iraq (UNAMI) and the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR) indicated that about 45,000 displaced children are living in the camps, who lack personal identification documents, reported the Anadolu Agency.

The report said that one of five families who live outside the camps had children with documentation problems (lack of identification documents).

The report added that most of the families that lived under Daesh control lacked at least one of their essential identification documents, i.e., either lost, confiscated, destroyed, or not issued in the first place.

The report conveyed that losing identity documents has severe implications for access to social services, in addition to being a major obstacle to enroll children in school.

Daesh invaded northern and western Iraq in the summer of 2014 and controlled a third of the country’s territory, before losing all of those areas during the war that ended in late 2017.

This has caused the displacement of nearly 6 million Iraqis from their houses, most of whom have returned to their hometowns or cities, while about 250,000 people are still living in camps scattered throughout the country.

The report, entitled: The Right to Education in Iraq, stated that many of those who responded to the survey have indicated that they cannot move freely in and out of the displacement camps, due to the restrictions imposed on their movement, which prevents them from carrying out daily activities such as going to schools outside the camps.

The report pointed to two main factors that challenge children’s access to proper education, the first of which is “the lack of appropriate programs aimed at reintegrating the students, whose studies were interrupted for too long, into the government education system.”

The second factor is the difficulty in obtaining identification documents, which constitutes a major challenge for parents while trying to enroll their children in school.

The report stressed that the problem is continuously aggravated, as many adolescents have reached an age where they can no longer stay in primary schools, in addition to the lack of adequate schools and rapid-learning programs.

The UN report called on the Iraqi government to minimize administrative and security challenges, accelerate children’s access to civil documents, and review the provisions on the forms of education available to them, which compensates for the loss of years of education due to the control of Daesh over the children’s hometowns.

*

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: Iraqi children are seen in a town of Mosul after the village was retaken by Peshmerga forces from Daesh on 31 October, 2016 [Ahmet Izgi/Anadolu]

Empires despise laws. The U.S. Empire still desires to dominate Iran, Venezeula, Bolivia, Syria, and others, all in contravention of the United Nations Charter and the Geneva Conventions. When the Geneva Conventions and International Laws of War and Commerce were created and put into force, there was still a belief that nations of the world could live in harmony by being rational and reasonable, and following an agreed-upon set of norms and rules of law that kept nations bound.

But when the postmodern and neoliberal assault on reason and the norms of ethical interchange commenced, combined with the emergence of the U.S. Empire as an acquisitive, regulation-free capitalistic, and militaristic hegemon, the consequence for the world was the complete surrender of notions of cooperation between nations as set by and in the international rule of law, along with the ethical and rational conditions that emphasized discourse over power-plays. Most importantly, the rise of the Empire brought with it the evaporation of the possibility of a peace that was not based in the oppressive operations of a hegemon running its own worldwide military-based regime.

One of the primary conditions that allowed the U.S. Empire to grow was a spurning of a commitment to any ethical commitments, such as the equality of any other party to a discourse, and perhaps more importantly, the rejection of the universal jurisdiction of law and its application as a common ethical and legal baseline. All of American culture, to say nothing of the corporate elites of the Empire, mowed down these parameters of equal discourse and law like a summer lawn, with the result that the mobsterism of the U.S. Empire was not only all the world was left with, but simultaneously all the domestic government rule of U.S. citizens was left with: the last vestiges of our failed experiment with democracy.

On the other side of this same domestic coin, the U.S. media joined the mobsters as their mouthpiece, with no norms of critical thinking, no informed discourse, and no ethical principles taken by the media to be necessary and basic to any analyses of the current conditions of our national and international affairs. Thus, any analysis appealing to such guidelines is now simply dismissed by reducing it to just an “ideology” or “metaphor” that is in opposition to the reigning neoconservative “reality.”

Hence, the methods of propaganda once championed by Walter Lippmann and Edward Bernays have been now been cultivated by the supposedly left-leaning media outlets such as CNN and MSNBC, without overtly admitting that they have reduced themselves simply to “doing the Empire’s propaganda” with any alleged critique of the Mobster Empire’s abuses limited to personality flaws and voyeuristic dramas.

The result of all this is that we find ourselves today in that “never again” cultural space—the space where totalitarianism is ascending. Just as in Weimar Germany, the culture was immersed in irrationality and rejection of moral and rational norms and emphases, so today we find that we have arrived at that very same cultural position (I’m not arguing here that we are heading for another Hitler!). That such irrationalism is a prelude to a deeply authoritarian government has been well documented in the philosophical writings on World War II, and one can appeal to authors such as Georg Lukacs, Karl Popper, and Peter Drucker for detailed and cogent support and analyses of this phenomenon. The point here is that, under the sustained attack on reason and ethical values, a baseless and thus paradoxical irrationalism arises that allows for totalitarian forms of rule, both at home and abroad.

The solution can only be a return to some form of sanity—i.e. rationally-supported, communicable, unified principled view, most specifically with a goal of inculcating a sense of a common good ethics—or the result will be a common cultural and political suicide. What postmodern disciples do not understand is that with their celebration of the death of the primacy of reason comes the death of truth, and with the death of truth, all knowledge, ethics, and self-conscious social commonality have come to be taken as relative, and a true politics thereby becomes hopeless. In its stead politics becomes a means of raw competition for power and geo-political and resource control, if not just power for its own sake. Further, no criticism is possible from any quarter of society, since the criticism would just be ignored or dismantled under postmodern intellectual pretenses of proclaiming the death of such implied objective standards. Meanwhile, as the living standards of workers continue to plummet and the planet heats up, no pushback is possible because a relativist and individualist culture that results from denial of rational and ethical basics by definition will not unify themselves, since there is no understanding of a self-grounding set of principles, with the result that individual “identities” are all they have left to politically fight for.

Contrary to that, the political purpose of individual rational thinking and commitment to an ethical good has always been to prevent the lower impulses of our nature from taking over the human condition—i.e. self-centeredness, manipulation, hatred, brutality, class exclusion, etc. With the removal of the conditions that sought as its collective goal the best type of human interchange, and that might have prevented or significantly mitigated the corporate takeover of America and the American Empire, there is now nothing on which liberals can stand together to fight: not justice, not ethics, not reason, not the quest for truth. We are all suffering as a consequence, with no solid principle or set of principles around which to unify. And as we have seen in the last ten years or longer, common suffering does not necessarily result in common unity or common organizing. It will take something else to kick-start a new revolution against the depressive conditions of neoliberal policies of greed and class oppression. Even Marx and (really) Engels’ call that “you have nothing to lose but your chains” is insufficient to a dis-integrated population.

Some might object to this analysis on the grounds that it is too abstract: that if the social conditions of poverty, oppression, and the recognition of a rapidly-dwindling middle-class lifestyle are insufficient to move people, then it is unlikely a commitment to a new principle or a generalized call to rationality and justice will move people to unify. But this objection presumes that human values are locked into the vicissitudes of history alone. Contrary to that, witness the following facts. First, in WWII, the Western Allies defeated Hitler and his band of fascists, but they did not defeat the philosophy of fascism and totalitarianism. It is always a danger that this philosophy will rise again where great political and economic power is concentrated, as it is now in the United States, and thus it is that philosophy we must address if we are to avoid totalitarianism in the future.

Second, how did the civil rights movement progress and gain part of what they sought, for example, in terms of voting rights? They were organized around a set of principles, summarized by Martin Luther King as “justice,” which he defined in terms of fairness, equality, and freedom from oppression. Those were the driving forces of the civil rights movement. There was far more to the movement, of course, but without these principles, the truth of which they thought to be rational, self-evident, and the groundwork to their cause, they would not have had the pole around which to center their thoughts and actions, and the moral compass to direct their actions.

Finally, analogous to the case being made here, the main requirement environmentalists have for decades claimed that is needed is a change in our national philosophy, to one that moves deliberately and with full ethical intent away from fossil fuel reliance to renewable energy. They are not suggesting that social conditions will evolve so that this can become the case; they have consistently argued that a change in philosophy is needed to allow a move in this direction.

So we can learn a lesson from the persistent environmental and civil rights voices we have heard and are currently hearing—at least in more progressive media outlets: take their principle-based philosophy and make it a wider philosophy. Become unified with the voices of any and all democratic reform movements in general, be they civil rights, feminist, anti-war, and all. It’s not the (postmodern) “differences” that will bring change: it will be the common philosophy that unites us. It is only through principled unity that change will occur, not through divided and splintered “identity” politics. This is a perfect moment for finding a set of organizing and unifying principles to rally progressives into a unity.

These principles are going to have to be seen as universal if they are to be successful. It will also require a commitment to truth, not to some “ideology” or “metaphor.” But these shifts will imply a return to reason and ethical principle as a primary element in and of political discourse. This will certainly be counter to the current American culture. If this also is at cross-purposes with old-school liberals, with their focus on individual selves, relativism, and the reduction of rational, ethical, and political discourse to simple ideology or language, that is so much the worse for liberalism in general, and so much the better for the mobster Empire, which will continue until it either literally runs out of gas, or, more quickly and decisively, is overcome by the unified voices of the people.

What are the chances of unifying our principles so that we can unify our voices in a pushback against the Empire? Only to the degree to which all individual  and mini-group voices unify under larger and more inclusive principles can this be done. The focus will have to be unity with other citizens some of whose personal interests might be diverse from our own, but nonetheless have a commonality with us and with the people of other nations that transcends our differences (“ they” are not “those rapists,” “those Islamist terrorists,” or more generally in our history, “those savage others”). As part of this philosophy of what we share in common, we can easily craft a unified demand that our government follow a commitment to the rule of law (i.e. law’s universal application), by following international law and the United Nations Charter.

Learning to come together again need to be our new goal and new philosophy, for we have seen what the emphasis on “difference,” “fragmentation,” and “the other” has brought, and it has only strengthened the Empire. We need to bring the Empire down and people up, and that means unity under the same banner of “humanity.”

*

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. Robert P. Abele holds a Ph.D. in Philosophy from Marquette University. He is the author of three books: A User’s Guide to the USA PATRIOT Act (2005); The Anatomy of a Deception: A Logical and Ethical Analysis of the Decision to Invade Iraq (2009); Democracy Gone: A Chronicle of the Last Chapters of the Great American Democratic Experiment (2009). He contributed eleven chapters to the Encyclopedia of Global Justice, from The Hague: Springer Press (October, 2011). Dr. Abele is a professor of philosophy at Diablo Valley College, located in Pleasant Hill, California in the San Francisco Bay area. His web site is www.spotlightonfreedom.com

At the behest of Donald Trump and Chrystia Freeland, the Lima Group met in Ottawa on February 20th, 2020. Prime Minister Justin Trudeau and Foreign Affairs Minister François-Philippe Champagne dutifully mouthed their set lines and good Samaritan posturing in the pretense of democracy, humanitarianism and the rule of law. Ostensibly, the purpose of this meeting was to devise and orchestrate ways to oust the vile, murderous dictator, as Washington has sought to cast the duly elected President Nicolás Maduro.

Progressive chroniclers and activists have almost exclusively been concerned with the notion that a dismembered Venezuela is the main, or even the only, labor of love of this nefarious little band of economic fundamentalists, death-incanting, democratically-challenged member regimes of the Lima Group. I fear that we may not fully appreciate what this cartel is up to.

Let’s face it. As an aspirational objective, the overthrow of the Maduro Government, and more specifically, the pulverization of the Bolivarian Revolution and the feudalization of the masses of Venezuelans carrying it has been a laughable failure. The US and large corporations’ objective is not mere regime change; it’s the obliteration of the State, its structures, processes and programs, its most ingrained social values and its cultural and racial fabric. It is a wet dream in which Trump is finding less and less solace; it turns out that this political mirage does not meet his puerile need for instant gratification.

In spite of the immensity and criminality of the pain, suffering and death that Trump, Trudeau and the other corrupt Lima Group troubadours have inflicted on the Venezuelans, the people stand tall and resist; their social, political and economic system, although weakened and under constant attack, endures.

The discussions of the Lima Group on February 20^th touched on more than Venezuela because there are many other pressing issues and perceived threats to the oligarchs of Latin America and the contemptuous, hegemonic impulses of the North American white-supremacist, get-every-last-drop-of–blood ($$$) corporate/billionaire complex.

We can bet that this gabfest included the planning of concerted action re the ongoing coup and US-dictated election process in Bolivia. And how to deal more effectively, from their point of view, with the pesky resistance movements in each of their countries. Lest we forget, all of the South American members of this cartel (and Canada) intervened and co-parented the Coup d’État in Bolivia. Also, when Mexican President Manuel Obrador sent a rescue plane to extricate President Evo Morales from certain violence if not worse, as if by magic, all of the Lima Group regimes refused that plane’s access to their airspace. You need a well-oiled machine to succeed in such instantaneous action in the dead of night. The US has its vassals everywhere and its vessels (Lima Group, for instance) for the execution of its nefarious wishes.

The machinations of the Lima Group include executing US and financial magnates’ strategies to break the will of the citizenry to facilitate the overthrow of duly elected governments that may have real aspirations of looking after their citizens. The Lima Group is the farmer that sows the Washington-designed seeds of the destruction of responsible, citizen-dedicated governments. The Wikileaks drops and the Snowden revelations, among other critical information sources, showed that from the very first year of his election, Lula was being undermined and the seeds of his and Dilma’s political demise were being sown. The same can be said for many other once progressive states including Jean-Bertrand Aristide’s Haïti. The Orinoco Tribune reports that plans are already under way to engineer a future coup against Obrador (AMLO) of Mexico. It is therefore imperative that the human justice and progressive activist community understand that the Lima Group is more than a battering ram against Venezuela only.

The former Canadian Ambassador to Venezuela and now President of the Canadian International Council, Ben Roswell, was no doubt very involved in the framing of this February 2020 Lima Group confab. Let’s remember that he facilitated part of the February 4th, 2019 meeting in Ottawa. Roswell will then probably appear on the mainstream media networks to propagate his and the Trudeau/Freeland/Trump colonialist agenda. Our community must find a way to invalidate him because he is an effective justice wrecking ball and propagandist supreme. Minister Champagne on the other hand is merely a figurehead.

*

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

Featured image is from the author

One of the companies behind the Constitution Pipeline has reportedly abandoned the project, following a series of legal challenges by Earthjustice and our partners. The proposed 124-mile gas pipeline was slated to run through Pennsylvania and New York, threatening water quality, wildlife, and public health. The project also would have increased demand for fracked gas, locking in more climate pollution. 

The following is a statement from staff attorney Moneen Nasmith, who led Earthjustice’s work to stop the pipeline:

“Defeating the Constitution Pipeline is an enormous victory for advocates who have been fighting for eight years to protect New York State and its waterways. At this critical moment for our climate, we cannot afford unnecessary fossil fuel projects that will lead to more fracking and exacerbate our climate crisis. It’s time to embrace a 100% clean energy future, and today’s news is an important step in the right direction.”

On behalf of clients such as Catskill Mountainkeeper, Riverkeeper, and Sierra Club, Earthjustice has been engaged in close partnership with other groups in numerous legal battles to stop the project, including challenging the original approval of the pipeline by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission and helping to defend the State of New York’s decision to deny Constitution’s application for a critical permit under the Clean Water Act.

*

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

Featured image: The proposed 124-mile Constitution Pipeline was slated to run through Pennsylvania and New York, threatening water quality, wildlife, and public health (Source: AIGARS REINHOLDS/SHUTTERSTOCK)

Having studied, written on and engaged in public discussion about transnational corporations (TNCs), I have reached the conclusion that we are not collectively equipped to think about the kind of power that they represent, the silent way they exercise their specific form of sovereignty and the numerous mechanisms that allow them to circumvent the law wherever they operate.

To illustrate this, I will focus on just one corporation –Total – as a textbook case, and show what it is capable of globally, rather than piecing together several examples that could be accused of being selectively chosen just to satisfy our research needs.

Total is a corporate group headquartered in France, with operations in 130 countries, 100,000 employees and ‘collaborators’, and a daily production of the equivalent of 2.8 million barrels of oil. In 2018, Total reported net profits of $13.6 billion.

This energy giant, the world’s fifth-largest oil company and which has been around for almost a century, merits attention in view of the fact that it has been the subject of very little analysis, despite its shocking track record in human rights, the environment, public health and business ethics.

For instance, communities in Myanmar say they were forced to work on the construction of a gas pipeline. Dictatorships in Gabon and Congo-Brazzaville have received the corporation’s support for decades. It has openly used Bermuda as a tax haven to avoid paying taxes in France. And that is not to mention its polluting oil-exploration activities in northern Canada or themarkets that it obtained following bombardments in Libya, to name just a few examples.

We begin by defining TNCs, disproving the image of Total as ‘a French oil company’, as is commonly believed. Each of these terms – ‘a’, ‘French’, ‘oil’ and ‘company’ – is misleading.

‘A’

First, by definition, transnational groups are not ‘a’ or ‘one’ company and do not formally constitute one legal entity, but hundreds of them – including its various subsidiaries, trusts, holdings, foundations, specialised firms and private banks.

These structures are legally autonomous, bound only by the laws of the jurisdiction in which they were created, but are in fact part of the networks that form transnational groups. They bill and even provide loans to each other.

Total has nothing in common with a local corner shop: it comprises 1,046 consolidated companies controlled by its board of directors on behalf of a common shareholder base.

If we were to imagine Total as an octopus the size of the Earth, the numerous states where its tentacles lie legislate only on what the tentacles within their territory do there; they are treated in isolation, as if they were not legally governed by the same brain or anything other than themselves. Total’s subsidiaries in Algeria, Bermuda, Bolivia, Myanmar, Qatar, the UK and the US have no official ties to the parent company based in La Défense in Paris, even though it coordinates their operations. 

Only one law on the ‘duty of care’ passed in 2013 by the French National Assembly enforces the links of solidarity between them in cases where fundamental rights have been violated. In the rest of the world, through its subsidiaries, Total uses its full weight to influence each individual state where it establishes them, whereas none of these states is able to legislate at the global level, which is where the group is expanding its empire. 

Each subsidiary is anchored in its respective territory as a local actor, while bowing to financial interests. In the global economy, Total finds all the flexibility it needs to escape the combined power of all legislation and all jurisdictions. It is at this level that, with full control over access to wealth, the subsidiary joins forces with other TNCs and can effectively dominate states.

‘French’

As for the word ‘French’, only 28% of Total is now French-owned. France no longer has any direct ownership, and institutional investors own 72% of the corporation worldwide.

In a series of waves of privatisation adopted by the Chirac, Balladur and Jospin administrations between 1986 and 1998, France got rid of its shares in Compagnie française des pétroles (CFP, owner of the ‘Total’ trademark) and in Société nationale Elf Aquitaine (trustee of the ‘Elf’ brand).

After intense negotiations, these companies merged with PetroFina at the turn of the millennium to form Total as we know it today. Chinese political authorities and the government of Qatar have since become shareholders, as have families who act as governors in their countries, such as the Frère family in Belgium or the Desmarais in Canada, for example. The latter held a seat on Total’s board of directors from 2001 to 2017. Today, US-based BlackRock is the majority shareholder of Total.

Total’s main shareholders are from the US, the UK and elsewhere. To date, the corporation has issued 2.6 billion shares that are not held by reference shareholders. In 2017, it dished out €6.1 billion in dividends to satisfy the beast and adopted the goal of increasing the rate from 5% to 6% per year, up from the previous 3%. It earned €11.4 billion in profits in 2018. 

Since Total has no shareholder ties with France, its ‘French’ side amounts basically to its communications strategy. Back in 2015, the Énergies & environnement website announced that ‘[i]n 2012, 65% of its capital invested in refining and petrochemicals was concentrated in Europe, but the French oil company wants to reverse the trend by increasing the share of this capital in Asia and the Middle East to 70% by 2017’.

The corporation has invested enormously in megastructures, such as the one in Jubail in Saudi Arabia: investments of close to $10 billion guarantee Total 400,000 barrels of oil per day. Social and tax obligations are less strict in Saudi Arabia than in France. The corporation reduced the number of refineries in the city’s territory from eight to five – six including petrochemical sites. These are now generally either making a loss or their installations have been turned into niche entities.

‘Oil’

Screenshot of website: promoting its all-round energy solutions.

Total, the ‘oil company’, is reducing its focus on oil and petrochemicals and turning to diversification as a means to establish a place for itself in the sectors that will be favoured once it and its peers have depleted the last available oil deposits. Total clearly plans to exploit its deposits to the very last drop. 

In 2017, it acquired assets in prospecting and exploitation and shares in two plants from the Brazilian Petrobras corporation for a total of $2.2 billion. In addition to those it already exploits in Gonfreville-l’Orcher (France), Anvers (Belgium), Jubail (Saudi Arabia), Port Arthur (USA) and Ras Laffan (Qatar), Total acquired an integrated refining and petrochemical platform in South Korea in 2017. At the time, it owned stakes in another 19 refineries worldwide, and continues to exploit the highly polluting tar sands in Canada. 

By the 2040s, 35% of Total’s energy is expected to be produced from oil, 50% from gas and 15% from low-carbon energy sources such as biomass, solar power and storage. If global warming does not get the better of humanity after we have burned all the available fuel, Total anticipates having already redirected its distinguished customers towards its new energy markets. 

Just as the chemical corporations BASF, Bayer, and Monsanto are quickly establishing themselves as the leading firms in the organic farming sector, Total is regaining control of the markets that compete with oil and working to turn its depletion into the market of the future.

The ‘Gas, Renewables & Power’ subsidiary is now Total’s fourth main business segment. Before its creation, management had plans for Exploration & Production (EP), Refining & Chemicals (RC) and Marketing & Services (MS)..‘The Gas, Renewables & Power segment spearheads Total’s ambitions in low-carbon businesses by expanding in downstream gas and renewable energies as well as in energy efficiency businesses’, it declared in its unique style. 

Having tactically recognised its responsibility for global warming as an oil corporation, Total is now undergoing metamorphosis to make the gullible believe that ‘natural gas’, which it also exploits, is a solution. The group’s CEO is even advocating for the establishment of a reference carbon price that integrates the costs of CO₂ emissions so that the price of coal serves as a foil for the gas sector.

However, opting to produce less oil in the long term and extract more shale gas instead is like choosing to pollute the atmosphere less (if we conveniently ignore the thorny issue of the methane that is released) to risk destroying groundwater sources instead. 

Total uses the hazardous technique of hydraulic fracturing or ‘fracking’ in Australia, Denmark, and the UK and is aggressively arriving in or returning to the US, Argentina or Algeria to extract gas buried in rocks by causing underground tremors and whirlpools that potentially threaten the entire groundwater system – that is, when it is not launching deep-water gas prospecting and drilling projects such as those in Cyprus, Iran or Greece. 

Total is also developing its shale-gas operations to target the markets for electricity and natural gas. For a while, it could rely on the support of Jean-Louis Borloo, the former French environment minister, who later became a ‘super-lobbyist for electricity in Africa’, as Le Monde newspaper put it. Borloo attempted to pave the way for relations in Africa among development fund directors, African leaders and French corporations such as Bolloré, Dassault, EDF, Total and Veolia that support the development of a vast continental electricity market.

By embarking on similar deep-water oil and gas projects, Total continues to push extraction from the ocean floor to new limits all around the world. 

This does not, however, stop Total from advocating a clean economy, as it also produces solar panels. It became the world leader of solar energy after it acquired the US-based SunPower corporation in 2011 and then Saft in 2016 and it dominates the energy-storage sector. 

This would make it a green company if we were to ignore – as it tries to do – the heavy metals that this industry requires. Total also carries out research in the energy-harvesting sector with the support of the Norwegian government. This new practice relies on the use of solvents that are capable of absorbing CO₂ under certain conditions and its underground storage. Total’s efforts in this area are entirely self-serving, positioning itself ‘pre-competitively’ to respond to a technological demand that is anticipated from China. 

Total is also drawn to agrofuels despite the threat they represent to food sovereignty, particularly in the Global South. It imports massive amounts of palm oil from South-East Asia to its French facility in La Mède – it needs 450,000 tonnes to produce approximately 500,000 tonnes of agrofuels per year – even though this operation is costly in terms of production, transport and processing, and thus, energy. Very little recycled oil will be included in their composition. 

Palm oil plantations in East Kalimantan, Indonesia. Photo credit: European Space Agency/Flickr/CC BY-SA 2.0

As the CGT (French General Confederation of Labour) delegate Fabien Cros wrote on Total’s website, ‘All of this has a much bigger carbon footprint than if diesel were used directly! In sum, to produce this so-called green energy, we will pollute the rest of the world’. The satellite states in the Françafrique framework, such as Gabon, are following suit and plan to gradually convert to the agrofuels economy, rather than adopting agricultural policies to promote their own food sovereignty.

As the growth-based economic order must in no circumstances be stopped, Total is seeking to diversify it. There are several examples of this in 2019 alone. In addition to developing pipelines, lubricants, plastics and other petrochemical products, the corporation is involved in the battery and wood-pellets sector, and has also penetrated the hydrogen sector.

Despite the high cost of the chemical reaction needed to produce this energy, there is already lobbying for its promotion. Thus, to the gasoline sold through Total’s vast global network of retail service stations, we can now add natural gas and roadside charging stations for electric vehicles. 

Total is busy not only producing these energy sources, but also trading them. It invests in structures designed to develop complex ways of selling these goods and has made some advances in the US and Japan.

In 2017, its subsidiary Total Marine Fuels Global Solutions positioned itself to sell massive amounts of marine fuel produced from liquified natural gas in Singapore. In 2016, it acquired the Belgium firm Lampiris, which buys 78% of the electricity that it itself sells. It returned to France in 2018 with Direct Energy. 

It also plans to invest directly in its competitors’ funds such as Shell’s subsidiary in Nigeria or in Saudi Aramco in Saudi Arabia. Furthermore, it has invested in the Internet of Things and cutting-edge computer research. The corporation cannot claim that its operations are zero risk when it is developing a drone that is meant to ‘assess the extent of accidental pollution’.

‘Company’

Given the scale and level of diversity of Total (and its peers), it is no longer a ‘company’ in the sense of a meeting of duly identified business associates, nor an ‘enterprise’ understood as a structure engaged in a particular sector. Rather, it has become a power, a sovereign authority that sets itself apart from states and dominates and manipulates them to achieve its own self-serving goals.

Being a power rather than a simple company requires knowing how to take advantage of all situations – when, that is, the situation is not under its control in the first place. This diversity of activities and the fact that the company controls a multitude of aspects in the energy sector – prospecting, exploitation, transport, refining, processing, storage, distribution, trade, and so on – enables it to profit from each and every situation. Even though the price of oil dropped by 17% in 2016, the corporation still earned profits of at least $8.29 billion.

Johann Corric of Le Revenu observed that ‘The group’s accounts continue to be kept afloat by its downstream activities (refining, petrochemicals) and by a cost reduction plan implemented ahead of schedule. It exceeded its target of 2.4 billion dollars in savings for 2016 by 400 million dollars’.

Total has made reducing production costs a priority, which results in miserable wages, demanding working conditions, different treatment for local craftspeople and expatriates – these methods obviously please only the firm’s most powerful stakeholders: the Fitch credit-rating agency explicitly compensated Total for its strict management policies by stabilising the group’s rating at ‘AA–’.

Those nostalgic for state sovereignty are reluctant to consider the disturbing scope of these new power relations. Theoretically, as the guardian of the legitimate use of violence and the exclusive power to legislate, only the state should be in a position to assert its prerogatives over any private companies and foreign entities operating in its territory.

However, a new form of sovereignty is developing. Representatives of Total, its marketing industry and its tentacular PR services now have their say on and meddle in everything.

Total’s CEO Patrick Pouyanné, like his predecessor Christophe de Margerie, is involved in everything: the issue of the Syrian refugees, the trade embargo imposed on Russia, academic research, the revival of local industries, financial or technical support for small businesses, the fight against diabetes, museum exhibitions, the restoration of historical monuments and rejecting all social movements.

Recognised by states as a sovereign power itself, Total signed a declaration of support for the Paris Agreement at COP21 in which it pledges to work to keep global warming at the 2°C mark – even though in private, Pouyanné spoke about a significant increase of 3°C to 3.5°C.

Ideology of power

Our interest in using Total as a case study also stems from the fact that its representatives have become particularly vocal. Successive CEOs and various representatives do not hesitate to comment on their activities and even on current political affairs, giving us an insight into their fundamental ideology. In doing so, they inform the public of the ideological means they use to justify, in their own eyes, their authority. They present themselves in the long term as resolutely sovereign.

The impact of Covid-19 on supply chains has been tremendous. Uncertainty across the global economy is building as China remains in economic paralysis. The luxury fashion industry is suffering its most significant “shock” since the 2008 financial crisis, reported the Financial Times. 

Our angle in this piece is to asses which luxury brand companies are most exposed/dependent on China. Many of these firms have complex operations in the country, from manufacturing facilities to brick and mortar stores to e-commerce platforms. Chinese consumers accounted for 40% of $303 billion spent on luxury goods globally last year.

The virus outbreak has also disrupted complex supply chains for mid-market apparel brands, like Under Armour, Adidas, and Puma, warning about collapsing demand and factory shutdown woes.

LVMH, Kering, and Richemont are luxury brands that are some of the least exposed to China because their manufacturing facilities are outside the country.

However, Luca Solca, a luxury goods analyst at Bernstein, said it doesn’t matter where luxury brands are making their products, the whole demand story in China has collapsed.

Kering, the owner of Gucci, warned earlier this month that the virus outbreak in China could damage sales in the first quarter.

A Moody’s report this week showed US-listed luxury brands, Coach and Kate Spade owner Tapestry, have increased their market exposure to China in recent years to gain access to a robust market, allowing their revenues to increase far faster than industry norms. That strategy today is likely to have backfired.

Fashion brands from Hennes & Mauritz, Next of the UK, and Tory Burch, have built factories in China to take advantage of inexpensive silk, fabrics, and cotton, along with lower labor costs, are now experiencing supply chain disruptions that could lead to product shortages in the months ahead.

The National Chamber for Italian Fashion warned earlier this week that the virus impact in China would lead to a $108 million drop in Italian exports in the first quarter because Chinese demand has fallen. If consumption remains depressed, then luxury exports to China could drop by a whopping $250 million in 1H20.

A top executive at Shanghai’s luxury shopping mall Plaza 66 said the mall had been deserted this month. Stores such as Cartier and Tiffany’s have been shuttered.

“We are now, brand by brand, reallocating that inventory to other regions in the world so that we are not too heavy in stock in China,” Kering chief executive François-Henri Pinault said last week. The move suggests the environment in China remains dire and to persist well into March.

Jefferies Group noted this week that Burberry Group is the most exposed luxury brand to China.

The crisis developing in the global luxury retail market is the first demand shock since that last financial crisis more than a decade ago. Brands that have manufacturing and retail exposure to China will be damaged the most.

UBS analyst Olivia Townsend said luxury brands she spoke with said factories are to remain shut for all of February may lead to product shortages.

The demand crisis comes as the global apparel industry rolls over suggests that world stocks could be headed for a correction.

*

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.

First published by listverse.com in January 2018

*

When the name bin Laden is mentioned today, the first thing that comes to most people’s minds would be terrorism—particularly against the United States. Similarly, the name George Bush (the father or the son) evokes images of each man’s time as president of the United States. In the case of George W. Bush, his time in the White House came during the 9/11 attacks.

However, there are many connections other than the obvious one mentioned above. The Bush and bin Laden families have a long history of business dealings, while Osama himself apparently did a complete about-face, as he once collected his paycheck from the CIA, working on behalf of the United States and their interests. While some of the following links between the Bushes and the bin Ladens are likely to be mere coincidences, they are intriguing, to say the very least.

Here are ten examples of connections, be they direct or through mutual associates, between two of the most famous families on the planet.

10. Oil Business Connections

The connections between the bin Laden and Bush families go back decades. Perhaps the first time of note that their paths crossed would be in 1978, when George W. Bush and Salem bin Laden (brother of Osama) set up Arbusto Energy in Texas.^[1]

The business was far from a success, however, and by the mid-1980s, it (having since merged with Spectrum 7) was taken over by a company called Harken Energy. As we will see  later on, this takeover raised suspicions in itself—suspicions that would be proven correct when examination of the company underwriting the takeover to the tune of millions of dollars exposed various corruption scandals.

There were other wealthy Saudi investors connected to Arbusto. The person largely seen as being responsible for many of the introductions between the Bush family and these wealthy investors is our next entry on this list.

9. Jim Bath

Jim Bath was seen as a “CIA asset” around the same time that Bush Jr. was venturing into the oil business (at a time when the CIA was under the direction of Bush Sr.).^[2] He also had connections going in all directions outside the United States, particularly with rich Middle Eastern businessmen looking for opportunities with the American dollar. Many of these were members of the royal family and rich class of Saudi Arabia, including the bin Ladens.

In fact, so deep was the trust between Bath and the bin Laden family that Bath had entered into an agreement with them to be their representative for business ventures in America. This agreement would also lead to Bath representing the interests of [the late] Khalid bin Mahfuz, a person whose name comes up time and again in connection to Bush and bin Laden business ventures and someone deeply connected to the National Commercial Bank of the Saudi royal family.

Bath had been close friends with Bush Jr. since their time together at the Texas Air National Guard—a placement that, rightly or wrongly, would keep an otherwise eligible Bush Jr. out of the Vietnam War.

8. BCCI And Harken Energy

When Harken Energy took over the collapsed Arbusto oil company in 1986, it was underwritten for $25 million by the Bank of Credit and Commerce International, better known as BCCI. Coincidentally or not, BCCI also had many of the same rich Middle Eastern businessmen involved in its operations as Arbusto had.

In early 1991, the BCCI was shut down due to investigations revealing money laundering activities that were connected to the movement of weapons, as well as “funneling money to the Mujahideen” to aid in their conflict against the Soviet Union. (As we shall see later, this money was essentially being funneled to Osama bin Laden.) Another longtime Bush–bin Laden associate, the previously mentioned Khalid bin Mahfuz, had a controlling interest in BCCI. In short, BCCI has been called “the most corrupt financial institution in history.”^[3]

Although there were no proven direct links between the Bush family and BCCI, there were definite indirect links to be investigated. There were also similar connections between another group the Bush and bin Laden families were involved with, which was directly involved with the BCCI, and it is the next entry on our list.

7. The Carlyle Group

In the book House of Bush, House of Saud, researcher and writer Craig Unger explored accusations of secret political agendas between the Bush family (and, in turn, the Bush administrations), several rich Saudi businessmen (including Saudi royals and bin Ladens), and a gathering of specific people known as the Carlyle Group. To say the content of the publication was explosive would be an understatement, with some publishing houses suddenly pulling the book from their available titles due to increasing risks of libel.

Needless to say, many people viewed this as an attempt to threaten such publishers and writers in order to suppress information. One of the publishers, Simon Master of Random House, would even claim that libel lawyers were “stifling free speech.”^[4] To others, it wasn’t the lawyers doing the stifling but rather those who were the subject of such book’s content.

In short, the Carlyle Group, while being a fully transparent private equity company, had many of the same Saudi businessmen and Bush Jr. and his associates, who were connected to the highly questionable aforementioned BCCI scandals, as well as various other companies stretching back years. Perhaps because of this, they are viewed by some with suspicion. Our next entry does nothing to temper that suspicion.

6. Bush Sr.’s 9/11 Meeting

While George W. Bush was reading a book about goats in a school in Florida at the time the 9/11 attacks were unfolding, George H. W. Bush was involved in a meeting representing the aforementioned Carlyle Group in Washington, DC, at the Ritz-Carlton Hotel, and he was with one of the brothers of America’s soon-to-be most wanted man, Osama bin Laden.^[5]

Whether or not the meeting was purely coincidence or not is up for debate—and there are many who have done just that. In his film Fahrenheit 9/11, Michael Moore, for example, would cite these links between the two families, not least the meeting on September 11. While both families insist the relationship between the Bushes and the bin Ladens is purely down to business interests, others believe it to have a covert political agenda.

So, while it doesn’t prove anything untoward in its own right, it is perhaps a coincidence too far, even for the most ardent skeptic to such conspiracy notions, maybe even more so, given the actions and details of the next entry on our list.

5. Bin Ladens Allowed To Leave The US

It is certainly no secret that in the aftermath of the Twin Tower attacks, prominent members of the bin Laden family were allowed to leave the United States.^[6] Not only that, but they were given safe passage courtesy of the US government at a time when every aircraft over US airspace was otherwise grounded.

Although it’s easy to jump straight on the conspiracy train with this one, when viewed clinically, it would most likely be a case of protecting longtime associates from the unjust attacks they would likely experience due to their relative having committed a terrible atrocity. As one of Osama’s brothers, Yeslam bin Laden, stated, since the 9/11 attacks, “the name bin Laden is synonymous with terror.”

It wasn’t just the fact that bin Laden family members were allowed to leave, though. Many reports would eventually surface from various military and government officials that Osama bin Laden could have been caught soon after 9/11. Perhaps most notably, CIA field commander Gary Berntsen claimed there was a distinct lack of foot soldiers and effort to hunt down and capture bin Laden, despite his location apparently being known in the immediate months following the attacks. Berntsen talks extensively about this in his book Jawbreaker, in which he ultimately states that the United States “let Osama bin Laden get away.” Of course, whether bin Laden was “taken out,” as the world was told in 2011, is a conspiracy in itself. While interesting, it is not one that we will look into here.

4. Osama’s CIA Connections

Of course, in the 1970s and predominantly in the 1980s, Osama bin Laden was not only considered friendly to the United States; he was considered to be a CIA asset.^[7]

While most of the bin Laden family were astute and successful businessmen, Osama’s talents were seemingly more hands-on and best applied “in the field.” During the 1980s, Osama led militia groups against the Soviet Union in Afghanistan. His group was essentially armed, trained, and backed by the CIA.

Once that conflict was over is where things begin to get murky. Many conspiracy theorists contend that Osama bin Laden maintained his links to the CIA, although in a more covert way. It should be noted there is no absolute proof of this, with many of the people making these claims using past CIA actions to back up their current theories.

Officially, Osama bin Laden believed the US influence in the Middle East was too great, and he eventually left his native country and began on the road that would ultimately lead to the 9/11 attacks. This type of action in intelligence circles is called “blowback.” Perhaps the fact that such actions are common enough for intelligence agencies to have a name for them should be telling in itself.

3. 9/11 And Saudi Arabia

Although there is indeed a lot of murkiness surrounding just about every aspect of the 9/11 attacks, another “coincidence” was an apparent Saudi involvement in the attacks.^[8] Of course, Saudi Arabia is the bin Ladens’ home country, to boot.

Official records state that of the 19 hijackers involved in the 9/11 incident, 15 of them were Saudi Arabian. Also, the alleged mastermind, Khalid Shaykh Mohammed, was free to travel in and out of the United States throughout much of 2001. This was in spite of alleged warnings to the Bush administration from their own intelligence services of his suspected involvement in terrorist activity. Further warnings were issued only weeks prior to the attacks, in August 2001, even mentioning Osama bin Laden and other Saudi sponsors.

It is strange, then, at least to some people’s reckoning, that the US military didn’t immediately turn their attention to Saudi Arabia. Instead, they opted to invade Afghanistan. Officially, they claimed this to be the place Osama bin Laden was residing. We examine the possible “other” reasons why in the next entries on our list.

2. The Afghan Pipeline

In 1997, California company Unocal (which had numerous past connections to Dick Cheney) began preparations for the Afghanistan Oil Pipeline, which would run from Turkmenistan, through Afghanistan, and to the Arabian Sea (and into the hands of US-run corporations). Both the Taliban and anti-Taliban groups supported the deal—so much so that US-led training was provided to potential workers to assist in laying the pipeline.

However, many activist groups, particularly feminist groups, intensely protested any project involving the Taliban due to their genuinely horrendous stance on human rights, particularly the lack of rights for women. The pressure proved too much, and Unocal was forced to pull out of the deal.

After the 9/11 attacks (which now made Osama bin Laden public enemy number one), the Bush administration would bomb key locations in Afghanistan, eventually invading the country in order to track down their culprit. Coincidentally or not, by the end of 2002, (with the aforementioned Dick Cheney high up in the Bush administration), the pipeline deal was back on. With the Taliban now the enemy, their approval was no longer needed.^[9]

Whether these events were manipulated, taken advantage of, or merely coincidental, so many researchers and critics have highlighted them in numerous books and writings that they really shouldn’t be ignored completely.

1. Heroin

Perhaps one of the most overlooked aspects of the Bush–bin Laden connection is the drug trafficking accusations following the invasion of Afghanistan, claims that have hounded the Bush family in particular for decades (and many would suggest rightly so).^[10]

Whereas the Taliban had expressed support for the aforementioned pipeline, they weren’t so supportive, and in fact were completely against, the producing and trafficking of heroin from the vast supplies of opium in the country. While the CIA, and, in turn, other intelligence agencies, would look the other way and essentially allow the opium trade to flourish, the Taliban were actively attempting to shut down such activities.

When US forces entered Afghanistan, accusing the Taliban of providing a haven to Osama bin Laden, some noted how heroin production not only returned to pre-Taliban times but positively exploded to an all-time high. Perhaps it was purely coincidence, then, that these opium fields had been seized by the US military shortly after the invasion and remained in their control in the years following?

*

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.

Marcus Lowth is a writer with a passion for anything interesting, be it UFOs, the Ancient Astronaut Theory, the paranormal or conspiracies. He also has a liking for the NFL, film and music.

“A desigualdade está fora de controle”, diz recente informe da OXFAM. A organização – patrocinada por transnacionais que em nada podem ser “acusadas” de socialistas – apresenta dados que mostram que o patrimônio de 3,8 bilhões de seres humanos está concentrado por apenas 26 magnatas (“Bem Público ou Riqueza Privada”, 2019).

Já relatório da Organização Internacional do Trabalho da ONU, “Perspectivas sociais e do emprego no mundo” (2020), diz que a “insuficiência de empregos remunerados” afeta quase “500 milhões de pessoas”; desde a crise econômica mundial de 2008, o sistema capitalista não consegue mais criar “empregos suficientes” para absorver os jovens que se incorporam ao mercado de trabalho a cada ano. Segundo o diretor-geral da OIT, Guy Ryder, a “persistência e a amplitude da exclusão e das desigualdades relacionadas ao emprego” impõem obstáculos cada vez mais intransponíveis para que se possa encontrar um “trabalho decente”. 

Algumas consequências disto são: a “uberização” da vida, ou seja, a precarização das condições de trabalho, o salve-se-quem-puder-cada-um-por-si das propostas de “contra-reformas”: sem direito a férias, nem a aposentadoria, nem a décimo-terceiro – e nem a um leito hospitalar em caso de acidente com o “uber” (pois a crise fechou o hospital). 

“Esta é uma conclusão extremamente preocupante, que tem repercussões graves e alarmantes para a coesão social” – observa ainda o diretor da OIT. De fato, não precisa muita visão de mundo para se perceber os efeitos desta paupérrima coesão social no crescente discurso fascista – que contamina o mundo deste novo século: xenofobia, preconceito, violência, o pavor que acomete o ser fragilizado diante da falta de perspectivas; o desespero que, na falta de quem culpar pela própria desgraça, culpa o outro, o diferente, o imigrante, o periférico. O ódio que vota com ódio no candidato do ódio – porque, ao menos, “é diferente do que está aí”… Será? 

Como os problemas da desigualdade e do desemprego se entrelaçam? Por que se agravaram desde a crise capitalista de 2008? E por que tudo tende a piorar – se nada for feito para frear o (erroneamente) denominado “progresso” de moldes capitalistas? 

Vejamos algumas causas desta situação, que a ONU – lamentavelmente – apenas “sistematiza” em relatórios, mas nada faz de efetivo para mudar o cenário (dado o poder de veto dos EUA e seus aliados subalternos europeus-ocidentais, a organização não tem quase voz).

O problema do desemprego na “crise estrutural capitalista”

Conforme pesquisas sociológicas e histórico-econômicas – teóricas e empíricas –, que vem sendo aprofundadas por variadas correntes marxistas contemporâneas (István Mészáros, Robert Kurz, Moishe Postone, Eleutério Prado, etc), vivemos desde as últimas décadas do século XX um agravamento da “crise estrutural” do capitalismo (o que motivou, por exemplo, a degradação do estado de bem-estar social europeu). 

Com a automação e o imenso aumento da produtividade industrial, resultado da Terceira Revolução Industrial (microeletrônica), a necessidade de trabalho humano (para tocar a produção) diminuiu significativamente. Porém, com esta baixa, também os lucros do capital tendem a diminuir: fenômeno que já tinha sido previsto por Karl Marx, no século XIX.

Embora, em um primeiro momento, os capitalistas mais simplórios possam ter entendido este processo de “enxugar trabalhadores” como algo “positivo”, a contraditória consequência disto é a criação de um obstáculo à acumulação de capital, o que pode encaminhar o atual sistema para um colapso. E a crise econômica de 2008 é uma dura “prova real” (com dados empíricos, calculada matematicamente) deste movimento de decadência do regime ocidental-moderno.

Em linhas gerais, essa queda tendencial da taxa de lucro se dá por causa da automação ascendente da indústria. Com maiores tecnologias em cena, as “taxas de lucros” da produção concorrencial capitalista tendem, não a aumentar, mas a decrescer: pois o trabalhador assalariado (que tende a ser despedido com a chegada da nova máquina) é justamente quem produz o “valor” (de onde o capitalista subtrai seu lucro)! As máquinas não produzem nada sozinhas: não trabalham por si só (não existem moto-contínuos, são uma impossibilidade termodinâmica). 

Por menos que se precise, atualmente, de trabalhadores para operar as fábricas (que com sua supertecnologia produzem cada vez mais, em menos tempo), serão sempre os seres humanos – os trabalhadores – que farão as máquinas e demais criações materiais se transformarem na criação de “novos valores” (donde o capitalista retira o lucro)! É justamente neste processo de criação de “novos valores” que o patrão enriquece ainda mais, retirando de seu empregado, para si mesmo, a tal “mais-valia” (de que falava Marx). 

A “mais-valia”, em poucas palavras, é aquela quantia que é roubada de cada trabalhador pelo seu patrão. O capitalista paga ao seu empregado somente aquilo que lhe é o necessário para sobreviver (comer, se vestir, pagar a condução, aluguel e portanto continuar vivo e trabalhando); entretanto, ele exige de seus empregados que trabalhem, a cada jornada, “um pouco mais de tempo” do que esse tempo efetivamente “pago” (que como dito, é aquele necessário à sua sobrevivência). 

Mais-valia, na prática, é isto: o empregado trabalha “um pouco mais”, mas não ganha “um pouco mais”: é furtado sistematicamente pelo empregador, que assim enriquece, ao pôr em seus bolsos (leia-se “bancos”) esse valor-extra produzido pelo trabalho-extra do trabalhador. 

O mecanismo da crise estrutural capitalista

Contudo, a “lógica capitalista” não é somente mesquinha: ela é irracional, inoperante e em longo prazo tende a destruir a maioria de capitalistas, concentrando o poder nas mãos de cada vez menos “donos do mundo”. 

Vejamos como isso se dá: 

1^o) o empregado assalariado vai se tornando mais e mais dispensável ao processo de produção geral, e o desemprego aumenta drasticamente; 

2^o) por outro lado, com menor necessidade de trabalhadores, o capital aumenta a exploração do operário (pois este, com receio do desemprego, aceita mais restrições de direitos trabalhistas, previdenciários, redução salarial, etc); 

3^o) embora a tal “mais-valia” seja aumentada “relativamente” (já que a tecnologia traz incremento de produtividade, permitindo que o empregado superexplorado produza muito mais do que antes), apesar disso a “mais-valia” tende a diminuir em montantes absolutos, já que a tendência é haver cada vez menos trabalhadores a serem subtraídos (furtados em seu tempo e produção, através do mecanismo acima descrito). Sim! Pois conforme passa o tempo e aumenta a tecnologia, conforme os operários são dispensados de fábricas cada vez mais modernas, o capitalista terá cada vez menos empregados assalariados para explorar. 

A “crise” na prática cotidiana

Uma forma bem concreta de se pensar este fenômeno é compreender que, no sistema capitalista, as riquezas materiais produzidas pelos trabalhadores, antes de se tornarem coisas a serem “usadas” pelas pessoas em seu cotidiano (portanto, antes de terem um “valor de uso”, nos termos marxistas), as riquezas produzidas têm a função de servirem de “valor de troca”, ou seja: de serem vendidas, gerando assim “lucro” ao proprietário da indústria. 

Perceba-se que, se tais produtos não forem vendidos, obviamente o patronal não conseguirá embolsar seu lucro. O patrão enriquece na medida em que as pessoas realmente comprem aquela mercadoria que seus operários fabricaram. Porém, com o aprofundamento da “crise estrutural do emprego assalariado” (aqui descrita), ou seja, com a exclusão da maior parte dos seres humanos do trabalho assalariado (pois a indústria cheia de novas tecnologias já não necessita deles), acontece que, gradativamente, haverá menos gente com poder de compra.

Estando a maioria das pessoas “desempregadas” – excluídas do sistema produtivo e do “mercado” – não haverá portanto “consumidores” para o imenso montante de novos produtos saídos das indústrias supermodernas. Ou de outro modo: o capital, ao excluir uma enorme massa de gente do trabalho assalariado, acaba por se abster de explorar diretamente essas pessoas – o que diminui sua possibilidade de auferir lucro.

Consequências da crise capitalista

Resultado imediato disto para a grande maioria dos patrões: futuramente serão “ex-patrões”. Pois a concorrência capitalista, que já é brutal, ao ser aumentada, fará com que os capitalistas menores quebrem, agravando a concentração das riquezas mundiais nas mãos de pouquíssimas pessoas (poderosos controladores de tudo e de todos que, em breve, poderão talvez ser contados nos dedos, se a situação persistir). 

Como diz o mencionado relatório da OXFAM: a “desigualdade” na distribuição de riqueza do mundo está “fora de controle”. Duas dúzias de abutres detêm o mesmo que metade da população miserável do planeta. 

No caso do Brasil (que “normalmente” já é um gigante da desigualdade e ignomínia), dois anos após o golpe de Estado (liderado pelo MDB de Temer, o Congresso de Cunha e o STF vergonhoso de tão poucos), a contabilidade macabra girava na casa de meia-dúzia de donos de monopólios (Facebook, Ambev, Safra, Votorantim) controlando o mesmo que 100 milhões de pessoas! Resumo do eterno golpe brasileiro: Seis senhores-de-engenho contra metade da população.

Assim, a medida que caminha o “progresso tecnológico” de modelo capitalista (consolidado há uns dois séculos), caminha junto, morro acima, o contingente de desempregados – trabalhadores excluídos do sistema, e para nunca mais voltar. O que cabe a estas pessoas, normalmente, é apenas o “progresso” da miséria: passando a viver de modos não “monetarizados”, através de precárias atividades de subsistência. Mas mesmo essas atividades básicas de sobrevivência vem sendo dificultadas pela destruição dos recursos naturais promovida pelo capitalismo, em sua ilógica do “crescimento eterno”: fenômeno impossível em um planeta com recursos energéticos finitos, e cujo limite vem se aproximando.

O problema ambiental: outra história que é a mesma 

Não cabe, neste breve artigo de explanação geral do problema do desemprego, tratar do problema ambiental (igualmente causado pela irracionalidade da “estrutura” capitalista em expansão). 

Mas veja-se ao menos o alerta das Nações Unidas quanto aos desastres climáticos que “vem ocorrendo semanalmente” e “requerem investimentos bilionários”: tais desastres, provocados pelo aquecimento global, têm um custo avaliado em 2,7 trilhões de dólares.

Observemos ainda a constatação, também da ONU, de que a humanidade se encaminha para uma espécie de “apartheid climático”, em que um punhado de ricos – senhores do sistema e causadores desta situação distópica – dominarão os cada vez mais raros locais com menor sujeição aos efeitos do caos ambiental, legando aos demais humanos as consequências da mudança climática (em grande parcela provocada pela insensata concorrência de seu modo-de-produção capitalista).

Logicamente, tais “mudanças” – ou antes, “catástrofes” – ecológicas trazem sua contribuição à crise econômica global: a mesma OXFAM afirma que todo ano 20 milhões de pessoas imigram para fugir de secas, inundações, incêndios e outras desgraças. 

***

Em suma: a crise do emprego (que inclui o processo de monopolização do capital e desigualdade social), assim como a crise ambiental, são ambas apenas faces da “crise estrutural capitalista”. E esta crise estrutural, por sua vez, não tem por consequências “somente” graves e recorrentes crises econômicas, mas tende a se amplificar socialmente, enquanto decadência ética, enquanto declínio civilizacional da (ainda) dominante “modernidade burguesa ocidental”.

Yuri Martins-Fontes

 

 

Yuri Martins-Fontes – Filósofo e doutor em história econômica pela Universidade de São Paulo, pesquisa o pensamento e literatura latino-americanos, os movimentos sociais, a ética marxista e os saberes originários. Exerce atividades também como professor, escritor, tradutor e jornalista. Coordena projetos de educação popular e formação política do Núcleo Práxis da USP. É autor do livro “Marx na América: a práxis de Caio Prado e Mariátegui”, dentre outros. Desde 1999 colabora com meios independentes, como: Brasil de Fato, Caros Amigos, Fórum, ALAI, Mondialisation. 

We bring to the attention of our readers the following video on the late Dr. Zbigniew Brzezinski’s foreign policy perspective. 

Brzezinski was national security advisor under the Carter administration. He worked in close collaboration with the CIA. He was an effective instrument serving the hegemonic interests of the US Empire. 

In the 1970s, Brzezinski developed a personal relationship with David Rockefeller. He played a key role in the foundation of  The Trilateral Commission which regrouped “prominent political, business leaders and academics primarily from the US, Western Europe and Japan.”  As director of the Trilateral Commission, in consultation with David Rockefeller, he was also involved in promoting Jimmy Carter’s candidacy in the 1976 presidential elections.

Carter became a member of the Trilateral Commission in 1974, on the advice of Brzezinski. The following year in late 1975 he became Carter’s foreign policy advisor.

In many regards, Brzezinski was the architect of the Soviet-Afghan war (1979-1989) which consisted in recruiting Islamic  “jihadists” and  “freedom fighters” (later named Al Qaeda) to wage America’s proxy war against the Soviet Union (1979-89).

That war initiated under the Carter administration in 1979, played a key role in triggering the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1989-91.

Brzezinski was an astute foreign policy analyst focusing on covert intelligence operations combined with carefully designed diplomacy.

What is important in reviewing this video is to compare Brzezinski’s foreign policy perspective to that of the reckless Trump  administration.

Astute foreign policy analysis and diplomacy has collapsed. Both under Obama and Trump, what prevails is the total collapse of (astute and carefully formulated) “friendly diplomacy” in relation to Russia and China, not to mention the spontaneous, improvised, flawed and  destructive actions led by Washington in the course of the last decade.

While Brzezinski talks about “shared responsibility”, “shared awareness” (with Russia and China), he was nonetheless firmly committed to the US imperial agenda. His focus was to strategically secure US economic domination preferably without military confrontation and all out war.

In this video interview, former national security adviser Dr. Zbigniew Brzezinski focusses on US relations with Russia and China,

Michel Chossudovsky, Global Research, June 23, 2020

At this stage in the Dem party campaign to choose its standard bearer in November, Sanders leads other aspirants in national polls.

As in 2016, DNC bosses likely prefer another candidate to head their ticket, a more reliable figure to assure continuity.

The US political system works this way. Both right wings of the one-party state operate the same way — so dirty business as usual continues uninterrupted in the aftermath of each election cycle.

Based on his voting record, especially on geopolitical issues, Sanders goes along with party bosses to get along, his actions and rhetoric worlds apart.

So why aren’t Dem party bosses comfortable with him as standard bearer? He goes along most of the time with longstanding US domestic and foreign policies.

They prefer someone who always operates this way, a safe candidate like Biden or others like him.

In 2016, the process was manipulated for Hillary to win. Hard evidence showed shenanigans for her in Iowa, Arizona, New York, Massachusetts, and elsewhere.

Former interim DNC chair Donna Brazile discussed what went on in her book titled “Hacks: The Inside Story of the Break-ins and Breakdowns that Put Donald Trump in the White House.”

Discussing her book pre-publication in 2017, she said the following:

“I stumbled onto a shocking truth about the Clinton campaign…I followed the money.”

Brazile’s DNC predecessor Debbie Wasserman Schultz “let Clinton’s headquarters (run things) so she didn’t have to inform the party officers how bad the situation was.”

Hillary and her minions ran things to assure her nomination. “(T)he party (was) fully under the control of Hillary’s campaign,” Brazile explained.

Things turned out as expected. At the Dems’ July 2016 national convention, she won. Sanders lost, things decided long before delegates arrived at Philadelphia’s Wells Fargo Center.

Ahead of the convention, Brazile told Sanders that she found a “cancer” in the system — Hillary’s chokehold over the DNC, “exert(ing) control of the party long before she became its nominee.”

The books were cooked for her in advance. As a Dem insider, Brazile had hard evidence to support her accusations.

On the issue of alleged Russian US election meddling, not a shred of evidence proving it ever surfaced because none exists — not in 2016 or now.

In US judicial proceedings, credible evidence is required to prove or disprove claims.

It may come from witnesses, documents, and/or other materials.

In civil cases, a preponderance of evidence suffices. In criminal cases, it must be “beyond a reasonable doubt” to convict.

Since US intelligence community accusations of Russian US election meddling surfaced during the 2016 presidential campaign, no evidence whatever was presented to prove it — clearly showing none existed.

Robert Mueller’s Russiagate witch hunt report accused Russia of election meddling — no evidence presented to back the claim.

In a US court of law, accusations without corroborating evidence are considered groundless. The same standard holds in regards to politics and related issues.

The Big Lie about Russian US election meddling won’t die because establishment media keep it alive with spurious reporting.

Most everything pounded into the public mind repeatedly without letup gets most people to believe it.

In its latest edition, the Washington Post headlined “Bernie Sanders briefed by US officials that Russia is trying to help his presidential campaign (sic),” saying:

“Russia is…interfer(ing) with the (Dem) contest” on his behalf, citing unnamed “people familiar with the matter (sic).”

“It is not clear what form that Russian assistance has taken (sic),” adding:

Moscow “use(d) social media to boost Sanders’s campaign against Hillary Clinton, part of a broader effort to hurt Clinton, sow dissension in the American electorate and ultimately help elect Donald Trump (sic).”

Some inconvenient facts WaPo omitted were as follows:

During the 2016 US presidential campaign, RT, RT America and RT en Espanol spent $274,100 for 1,823 US ads, its editor Margarita Simoyan explained.

Small amounts were spent on Google advertising — none of the above connected to supporting one US presidential aspirant over others.

Compare these amounts to Center for Responsive Politics data. In 2016, the amount spent by US presidential aspirants was $2.4 billion, including for primaries.

In all races, Republicans and Dems each spent around 48% of the total amount (96% combined).

Trump spent $398 million compared to Hillary’s $768 million.

Compared to these huge amounts, what possible impact could a few hundred thousand dollars have to influence the US electorate — even if that was the intent. Clearly it wasn’t.

Throughout the 2016 campaign, no evidence showed Russian attempts to try influencing US voters or interfere in its electoral process in other ways.

Facebook reported that over half of Russian ads on its platform appeared after the US 2016 presidential election.

Alleged Internet Research Agency Russian hackers spent $100,000 from mid-2015 to mid-2017 on 3,000 ads. One-fourth of them were never shown to anyone.

Only around 1,000 ads, allegedly connected to Russia, appeared during the 2016 presidential campaign, mostly expressing no preference for any candidate.

Facebook said US presidential candidates spent hundreds of millions of dollars in online  political advertising – “1000x more than any problematic ads we’ve found” – admitting virtually no evidence of Russian use of the platform for improper meddling.

Asked to examine 450 accounts Facebook flagged as fake, no evidence connected them to Russia, just groundless suspicions.

Twitter’s vice president Colin Crowell explained that “(w)e have not found accounts associated with this activity to have obvious Russian origin but some of the accounts appear to have been automated.”

Twitter at the time suspended 22 suspicious accounts, another 179 suspended for alleged terms of service violations – nothing connected to Russia.

No evidence suggested Russian US election meddling online or in other ways — in 2016 or currently.

Russiagate should have been called Hillarygate. With considerable media help, she, her campaign, and the DNC cooked the books for her to be Dem standard bearer.

Will things be cooked against Sanders this year or not?

If chosen in July to be Dem standard bearer because of strong public support, rest assured he’ll play ball with party bosses.

Otherwise they’d rig things for someone more reliable.

The money-controlled US political system is too debauched to fix, a fantasy democracy, never the real thing from inception.

Names and faces change, continuity assured every time farcical elections are held.

If they changed things to assure governance of, by, and for everyone equitably, they’d be banned.

A Final Comment

On Friday, Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov debunked phony accusations of Russian US election meddling, saying:

They’re “paranoid announcements, which unfortunately will multiply as we get closer to the (US) election.”

“Of course, they have nothing to do with the truth.”

*

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.

While there are certainly some structural similarities between the Syrian Arab Army’s ongoing liberation offensive in Northwestern Syria and Saakashvili’s previous desire to restore Georgia’s full sovereignty over Abkhazia and South Ossetia in 2008, the international legal and situational differences between the two are much too important to ignore and thus make these two cases morally incomparable, though some significant strategic insight can nevertheless be gained by studying both of them together.

There is no evidence that Russia is interfering in the 2020 US presidential election in order to reelect Trump.  Nor is there any reason for Russia to prefer Trump, who has done nothing for Russia.  Indeed, Trump has imposed sanctions and endangered Russia by withdrawing from arms control agreements.  The claims of interference reported by the New York Times come from unnamed sources, described as “US intelligence officials,” in a recent briefing of the House Intelligence Committee organized by Rep. Adam Schiff.  We do not even know if such claims were made or whether this is another of Schiff’s many inventions planted on the New York Times, Schiff’s partner in crime and fake news.

Schiff is the highly partisan chairman of the House Intelligence Committee who was a driver of Russiagate and the subsequent effort to impeach President Trump.  He is a known liar, having been caught in numerous lies and misrepresentations.  Schiff arranged these new claims of Russian interference in order that, in the event of Trump’s reelection, the Democrats can tie up Trump for the entirety of his second term with bogus charges just as they did Trump’s first term. In that way the Democrats, the political party of racial minorities, sexual perverts, and immigrant-invaders, can prevent Trump from politically organizing white Americans whose lives, careers, and safety have been harmed by global US corporations transferring their jobs abroad and by the increasing attacks on white Americans as racists and “white supremacists.”  Despite the First Amendment, white Americans are losing the right of free speech, because if they “offend” a protected category of person when they exercise their free speech right, they risk being fired from their job and being investigated for a “hate crime,” a crime that can only be committed by white people. White Americans are slowly being marginalized, and, rightly or wrongly, they see Trump as a protector.

If intelligence officials actually made the claim of Russian interference, money is the reason. The intelligence community gains more power and a larger budget the more threats, real or imagined, that can be claimed.  The intelligence community, which has badly served Trump during the Russia-gate and Impeach-gate hoaxes, is worried that they will experience cutbacks during Trump’s second term.  Therefore, they are determined to keep the “Russian Threat”  alive.

The notion of Russian interference in US elections is hilariously funny.  There is interference in US elections from many sources. Interest groups interfere with massive amounts of money. The Israel Lobby is the most notorious.  Even if the Russian government went all out to interfere in American elections, Moscow could not possibly match the influence of the Israel Lobby.

Powerful private interest groups also interfere. Candidates who stand for election need their campaigns financed by Wall Street and the banks, the military/security complex, the extractive industries (energy, mining, and timber), agribusiness, the pharmaceutical corporations, real estate interests, and so on.

The political parties themselves interfere by rigging electronic voting machines, by making voting difficult for supporters of the opposite party by such means as culling voting lists and providing an insufficient number of voting precincts for all to vote.  Democrats have also been noted for voting grave yards by stuffing ballot boxes with votes of dead people.

Many US elections are simply stolen.  Many Democrats believe, not without reason, that the US Supreme Court stole the 2000 presidential election for George W. Bush.

The obvious conclusion is that even if Russia tried to influence the election, Russia’s efforts would be insignificant compared to the many powerful forces interfering in American elections.

So what is the purpose of stressing Russian interference?  Moreover, the complaint of interference doesn’t set well coming, as it does, from the US, whose government has massively interferred in foreign elections—recently Hondorus, Venezuela, Ecuador, Bolivia, Brazil—and invades and overthrows governments—recently Serbia, Georgia, Iraq, Libya, Ukraine, and almost Syria— when election interference is not possible.  

Schiff might succeed in tying up Trump’s second term.  Trump’s patriotic American base has been successfully brainwashed by neoconservatives to view Russia as a dire threat to the United States.  This indoctrinated view of Trump supporters and right-wing talk radio, makes unfounded charges of Russian interference believable to flag-waving Americans.  The consequence is that Trump’s base is susceptible to Democrat charges that Trump has sold out America to Russia.  If you listen to Hannity and Rush Limbaugh, what you hear is: “yes Russia interferred in our election, but it had nothing to do with Trump.”  So, Schiff will ask, “why hasn’t Trump stopped Russia from re-electing him?

A country ruled by propaganda and disinformation has no capabiity of knowing what its interests are, much less how to defend the unknown interests.  A brainwashed population cannot hold on to its country. 

Americans have been brainwashed to believe that multiculturalism, that is, a flood of non-European ethnicities becoming a majority of the population, is in their interest. Americans are told that a flood of non-European immigrants are needed to provide business energy and innovation and to prevent population decline by having high birth rates.  White Americans are told that it is in their interest to become a minority that can be depossessed by the “replacement population.”

As the entirety of the Democrat Party has swallowed this line, what happens when one of them again becomes President?  Considering the virulent propaganda against white Americans, will they become endangered like Jews in Nationalist Socialist Germany?

Time will tell.

*

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

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

On February 20, the 2^nd Army of NATO and its proxy forces once again failed to capture the village of Nayrab, eastern Idlib, from the Syrian Army. The Turkish attack involved 2 dozens of military equipment pieces, including battle tanks and artillery, over 200 Turkish soldiers and approximately 300 members of Hayat Tahrir al-Sham (formerly the Syrian branch of al-Qaeda) and other Turkish-backed groups.

The Turkish attack started at approximately 13:00 local time under jeers of mainstream media regarding the nearing collapse of the Syrian defense and the Assad government under powerful strikes of the Turkish Army. By 14:00 local time, some Turkish supporters in twitter already concurred Aleppo city and were preparing to advance on Damascus.

However, by 17:00 it appeared that the attack died out despite the massive rocket and artillery strikes and the participation of Turkish troops united their efforts against the Syrians with al-Qaeda. Turkish-led forces, supposedly Turkish troops, even launched a MANPAD at a Russian Su-24 warplane that came to provide a close-air-support to Syrian troops. After this, the Turkish Defense Ministry reported that 2 Turkish soldiers were killed and 5 others were injured in an airstrike.

In keeping with the best traditions, the Turkish Defense Ministry a victorious statement claiming that 50 ‘Assad troops’ were killed, 2 Syrian battle tanks, 2 armoured vehicles, 2 armed pickups and a howitzer were destroyed. However, all what the Turkish side was able to demonstrate to confirm these claims were a few Hayat Tahrir al-Sham selfies from the vicinity of Nayrab. Turkish state media immediately declared that Turkish forces did not want to capture the village and just sent a message to the oppressive Assad regime.

After this, the mighty Turkish Army requested Patriots systems from the United States in order to deter the Assad aggression in Idlib. There are two explanations:

• Ankara apparently missed news that Patriots deployed at in Saudi Arabia had repeatedly failed to protect its military infrastructure from missile and drone strikes by the Yemeni Houthis.
• The Erdogan government would like to see troops of the United States in Idlib alongside their Turkish and al-Qaeda counterparts.

The Russian side officially confirmed that its warplanes supported the Syrian Army striking targets in Idlib. According  to it, a battle tank, 6 armoured vehicles and 5 armed pickups were destroyed. Moscow says that Turkish artillery strikes injured 4 Syrian soldiers.

February is coming to its end and the Turkish ultimatum demanding the Syrians to withdraw from the liberated areas is expiring. The inability of Turkish forces to recapture even a single village from the Syrian Army already became a powerful blow to the public image of the Erdogan government. Therefore, it’s likely that the Turkish Army will continue their attacks in Idlib paying with own blood for neo-ottoman dreams of Erdogan and its inner circle.

*

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

The Financial Times reports that the UK has jumped up the global rankings for financial secrecy, highlighting long-held concerns about its connection to territories vulnerable to use by terrorists, money launderers and tax evaders and that the UK increased its “secrecy score” more than any other country in the world last year. But it doesn’t end there.

In a post-Brexit world, Britain somehow needs to fund the next transition from services and manufacturing (previously manufacturing to services in the 1980s) to services and more services. Capital and inward investment has collapsed since the 2016 referendum and so Britain needs to attract more of it – quite quickly.

In a report recently published by the Tax Justice Network (TJN), Britain has managed to increase its financial secrecy to such an extent that in just one year it jumped from 23rd on the index to 12th. However, this index doesn’t include the UK’s network of Crown Dependencies and Overseas Territories. It would if taken as a single entity, have topped every previous Financial Secrecy Index ever published. Often referred to as the (UK’s) Spider’s Web, the network is made up of Overseas Territories and Crown Dependencies where the UK has full powers to impose or veto lawmaking, and where powers to appoint key government officials rest with the British Crown. At the centre of the network is the City of London, which receives and launders wealth brought in by the satellite jurisdictions.

Speaking with sources in the City of London, there was always the view that the EU’s new financial regulation and reforms were going to cause considerable harm to its wealth, power and influence. Is it a coincidence that 2020 is the year that some of these new EU rules come into play and Britain’s desperate actions to leave the EU by end January his year and tie up the transition deal by 31st December?

Hundreds of billions are laundered through the City of London each year. A decent percentage ends up in residential and commercial property, household brand names and other legal entities that help to wash dirty money nice and clean. Without it, an army of facilitators – bankers, lawyers, accountants, real estate agents, surveyors and so on would suffer. So would the housing and commercial property markets as the true scale of investment is quite staggering.

Downsides

The TJN reports that – British dependencies are all expected to score as more secretive by the Financial Secrecy Index than at least some of the jurisdictions blacklisted by the EU. Most of the dependencies are expected to supply more financial secrecy to the world than the jurisdiction blacklisted by the EU. With the UK now unable to lobby the EU – as a member state – on behalf of its network, the prospects of blacklisting are likely to grow. At the same time, the EU has maintained its consistent position that the UK’s own financial services sector will not be able to maintain access to the Single Market if the UK itself pursues its stated policy of cutting taxes and financial regulations, dubbed ‘Singapore-on-Thames’.

As the EU’s chief negotiator, Michel Barnier, put it: “…people in the United Kingdom bearing authority should not kid themselves about this – there will not be general, open-ended, ongoing equivalence in financial services.”

Alex Cobham, chief executive at the Tax Justice Network, said:

“The UK government is threatening not ‘Singapore-on-Thames’ but ‘Cayman-on-steroids’ – a reckless race to the bottom on tax and financial regulation, in pursuit of global dirty money. The EU has been clear that this will threaten the City’s market access, and while the UK would ultimately benefit from rebalancing its economy away from finance, to go down this road while manufacturing is already exposed to major shock risks – aggravating the economic and human costs of Brexit quite needlessly.

“The other threat of the EU blacklist, and its politically biased application, is that it risks forcing lower-income countries to align their standards with OECD measures over which they had no influence, and which may not be appropriate to their needs.

“The EU has blacklisted the crown jewel of the UK’s tax haven network while letting other major tax havens off the hook. Cayman is one of the world’s greatest supplier of financial secrecy according to our Financial Secrecy Index. Countermeasures must be taken against the money laundering and tax abuse that Cayman enables. But equal countermeasures must also be taken against the other super suppliers of financial secrecy like the US and Switzerland, and indeed some of the EU’s own member states – the EU must be willing to confront secrecy wherever it originates.

“The EU’s blacklisting of Cayman signals the end of carte blanche for UK secrecy post-Brexit, which has used the City of London and its network of Overseas Territories and Crown Dependencies to siphon and launder huge sums of dirty money from around the world for decades. This will have damaging consequences for the UK as well as internationally, but it may prove to be the EU threat of blacklisting that actually saves the UK from itself.”

*

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

Featured image is from TP

The US government has failed to account for nearly $715.8 million in weapons and equipment funnelled to its Syrian allies involved in the multinational counter-offensive against Daesh, according to a report released on Tuesday by the Department of Defence.

Officials with the Special Operations Joint Task Force-Operations Inherent Resolve (SOJTF-OIR), which is part of the Combined Joint Task Force (the US military’s mission in Syria) reportedly “did not maintain comprehensive lists of all equipment purchased and received” to supply its allies fighting against Daesh, known as CTEF-S equipment in the fiscal years 2017 and 2018.

In addition to failures in accounting for the weapons purchased and received, they were also not stored properly, causing many to rust or become vulnerable to theft. “This occurred because SOJTF-OIR personnel did not divest or dispose of CTEF-S equipment, which led to overcrowding at the BPC Kuwait warehouse”.

The report however did not indicate whether weapons intended for vetted partners may have found their ways into the wrong hands. According to the Military Times, some of the equipment has ended up in the hands of Daesh and Al-Qaeda affiliates due to “battlefield losses by partner forces and as a result of Islamic State [Daesh] fighters plundering the armories of U.S.-backed groups in early 2014 as the jihadi group surged across Iraq and Syria”.

The Pentagon’s Syrian Train and Equip Program which reportedly cost $500 million was the public-facing part of a two-pronged effort in arming opposition groups in a bid to overthrow the Syrian government and to push back Daesh. According to an updated Congressional Research Service (CRS) report, the program has seen more than $2.3 billion allocated towards it between fiscal years 2015 and 2021.

Meanwhile, the CIA’s own operation in arming Syrian opposition, Timber Sycamore, which included Saudi involvement has resulted in terrorist groups armed by both parties fighting one another in Syria. Hayat Tahrir Al-Sham, a rebranded Al-Qaeda affiliate, was one such group benefitting from the CIA operation.

*

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 New Silk Roads – or Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) – were launched by President Xi Jinping in 2013, first in Central Asia (Nur-Sultan) and then Southeast Asia (Jakarta).

One year later, the Chinese economy overtook the U.S. on a PPP basis. Inexorably, year after year since the start of the millennium, the U.S. share of the global economy shrinks while China’s increases.

China is already the key hub of the global economy and the leading trade partner of nearly 130 nations.

While the U.S. economy is hollowed out, and the casino financing of the U.S. government – repo markets and all – reads as a dystopian nightmare, the civilization-state steps ahead in myriad areas of technological research, not least because of Made in China 2025.

China largely beats the U.S. on patent filings and produces at least 8 times as many STEM graduates a year than the U.S., earning the status of top contributor to global science.

A vast array of nations across the Global South signed on to be part of BRI, which is planned for completion in 2049. Last year alone, Chinese companies signed contracts worth up to $128 billion in large-scale infrastructure projects in dozen of nations.

The only economic competitor to the U.S. is busy reconnecting most of the world to a 21^st century, fully networked version of a trade system that was at its peak for over a millennia: the Eurasian Silk Roads.

Inevitably this state of things is something interlocking sectors of the U.S. ruling class simply would not accept.

Branding BRI as a “pandemic”

As the usual suspects fret over the “stability” of the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) and the Xi Jinping administration, the fact is the Beijing leadership has had to deal with an accumulation of extremely severe issues: a swine-flu epidemic killing half the stock; the Trump-concocted trade war; Huawei accused of racketeering and about to be prevented from buying U.S. made chips; bird flu; coronavirus virtually shutting down half of China.

Add to it the incessant United States government Hybrid War propaganda barrage, trespassed by acute Sinophobia; everyone from sociopathic “officials” to self-titled councilors are either advising corporate businesses to divert global supply chains out of China or concocting outright calls for regime change – with every possible demonization in between.

There are no holds barred in the all-out offensive to kick the Chinese government while it’s down.

A Pentagon cipher at the Munich Security Conference once again declares China as the greatest threat, economically and militarily, to the U.S. – and by extension the West, forcing a wobbly EU already subordinated to NATO to be subservient to Washington on this remixed Cold War 2.0.

The whole U.S. corporate media complex repeats to exhaustion that Beijing is “lying” and losing control. Descending to sub-gutter, racist levels, hacks even accuse BRI itself of being a pandemic, with China “impossible to quarantine”.

All that is quite rich, to say the least, oozing from lavishly rewarded slaves of an unscrupulous, monopolistic, extractive, destructive, depraved, lawless oligarchy which uses debt offensively to boost their unlimited wealth and power while the lowly U.S. and global masses use debt defensively to barely survive. As Thomas Piketty has conclusively shown, inequality always relies on ideology.

We’re deep into a vicious intel war. From the point of view of Chinese intelligence, the current toxic cocktail simply cannot be attributed to just a random series of coincidences. Beijing has serial motives to piece this extraordinary chain of events as part of a coordinated Hybrid War, Full Spectrum Dominance attack on China.

Enter the Dragon Killer working hypothesis: a bio-weapon attack capable of causing immense economic damage but protected by plausible deniability. The only possible move by the “indispensable nation” on the New Great Game chessboard, considering that the U.S. cannot win a conventional war on China, and cannot win a nuclear war on China.

A biological warfare weapon?

On the surface, coronavirus is a dream bio-weapon for those fixated on wreaking havoc across China and praying for regime change.

Yet it’s complicated. This report is a decent effort trying to track the origins of coronavirus. Now compare it with the [unfounded] insights by Dr. Francis Boyle, international law professor at the University of Illinois and author, among others, of Biowarfare and Terrorism. He’s the man who drafted the U.S. Biological Weapons Anti-Terrorism Act of 1989 signed into law by George H. W. Bush.

Dr. Boyle is convinced coronavirus is an “offensive biological warfare weapon” that leaped out of the Wuhan BSL-4 laboratory, although he’s “not saying it was done deliberately.”

Dr. Boyle adds, “all these BSL-4 labs by United States, Europe, Russia, China, Israel are all there to research, develop, test biological warfare agents. There’s really no legitimate scientific reason to have BSL-4 labs.”

His own research led to a whopping $100 billion, by 2015, spent by the United States government on bio-warfare research: “We have well over 13,000 alleged life science scientists… testing biological weapons here in the United States. Actually this goes back and it even precedes 9/11.”

Dr. Boyle directly accuses (without evidence) “the Chinese government under Xi and his comrades” of a cover up

“from the get-go. The first reported case was December 1, so they’d been sitting on this until they couldn’t anymore. And everything they’re telling you is a lie. It’s propaganda.”

The World Health Organization (WHO), for Dr. Boyle, is also on it:

“They’ve approved many of these BSL-4 labs (…) Can’t trust anything the WHO says because they’re all bought and paid for by Big Pharma and they work in cahoots with the CDC, which is the United States government, they work in cahoots with Fort Detrick.” Fort Detrick, now a cutting-edge bio-warfare lab, previously was a notorious CIA den of mind control “experiments”.

Relying on decades of research in bio-warfare, the U.S. Deep State is totally familiar with all bio-weapon overtones. From Dresden, Hiroshima and Nagasaki to Korea, Vietnam and Fallujah, the historical record shows the United States government does not blink when it comes to unleashing weapons of mass destruction on innocent civilians.

For its part, the Pentagon’s Defense Advanced Research Project Agency (DARPA) has spent a fortune researching bats, coronaviruses and gene-editing bio-weapons. Now, conveniently – as if this was a form of divine intervention – DARPA’s “strategic allies” have been chosen to develop a genetic vaccine.

The 1996 neocon Bible, the Project for a New American Century (PNAC), unambiguously stated,

“advanced forms of biological warfare that can “target” specific genotypes may transform biological warfare from the realm of terror to a politically useful tool.”

There’s no question coronavirus, so far, has been a Heaven-sent politically useful tool, reaching, with minimum investment, the desired targets of maximized U.S. global power – even if fleetingly, enhanced by a non-stop propaganda offensive – and China relatively isolated with its economy semi paralyzed.

Yet perspective is in order. The CDC estimated that up to 42.9 million people got sick during the 2018-2019 flu season in the U.S. No less than 647,000 people were hospitalized. And 61,200 died.

This report details the Chinese “people’s war” against coronavirus.

It’s up to Chinese virologists to decode its arguably synthetic origin. How China reacts, depending on the findings, will have earth-shattering consequences – literally.

Setting the stage for the Raging Twenties

After managing to reroute trade supply chains across Eurasia to its own advantage and hollow out the Heartland, American – and subordinated Western – elites are now staring into a void. And the void is staring back. A “West” ruled by the U.S. is now faced with irrelevance. BRI is in the process of reversing at least two centuries of Western dominance.

There’s no way the West and especially the “system leader” U.S. will allow it. It all started with dirty ops stirring trouble across the periphery of Eurasia – from Ukraine to Syria to Myanmar.

Now it’s when the going really gets tough. The targeted assassination of Maj. Gen. Soleimani plus coronavirus – the Wuhan flu – have really set up the stage for the Raging Twenties. The designation of choice should actually be WARS – Wuhan Acute Respiratory Syndrome. That would instantly give the game away as a War against Humanity – irrespective of where it came from.

*

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

Pepe Escobar is a frequent contributor to Global Research.

For the first time since Juan Guaidó’s auto-proclamation as so-called interim president of Venezuela in January 2019, a meeting of the Lima group (with its numerous political statements) has failed to even mention his name. All previous meetings of this spurious organization served as pledges to bring Guaidó to power and seemed to constitute virtual swearing-in ceremonies.

However, he has never been sworn in, nor even come close, except by himself.

On February 20, 2020, despite the extremely cold weather (even by Canadian standards), people demonstrated across Canada, including in front of the Lima group venue in Gatineau, Québec. At the same time, a statement in English, French and Spanish was widely distributed to the public and the media from coast to coast. The message and demonstration slogans focused on the Trudeau government’s role as a U.S. proxy in the Trump-led aggression against the legitimately elected president of Venezuela, Nicolás Maduro.

This constitutes an important lesson for Canadians who are increasingly saying that they must continue not to give an inch to the international or national pressure to convert the anti-imperialist sentiment of millions of Canadians into a pathetic apologist for the Justin Trudeau government’s actions.

On the contrary, following the relatively defensive Lima group position in Gatineau (the omission of Guaidó), Canadians who understand the situation must seize the opportunity to inform the public and demand that Canada withdraw from the Lima Group. In addition, as also highlighted in the message being sent by demonstrators, there is a desire to step up criticism of the Trudeau government for its domestic policies, such as those being implemented against First Nations peoples, which are in flagrant contradiction with the Lima group’s self-serving, distorted and highfaluting principals of “democracy,” “human rights,” etc., by which they want to judge Venezuela.

The Gatineau meeting was the first Lima group meeting since the recent four-month anniversary of the uprising in Chile, ongoing demonstrations in Haiti, massive demonstrations in Colombia, all met with thousands of arrests, with protesters wounded and murdered, and the appalling aftermath of the coup d’état against Evo Morales. Yet, the representatives of Chile, Haiti, Colombia and Bolivia, presided over by Trump’s main ally, Trudeau, were all there in Gatineau yesterday, judging Venezuela.

The Lima Group meeting in Gatineau also once again insists on interfering in Venezuela and destabilizing it to provide pretexts for more sanctions from U.S. and Canada. In its declaration it says:

“While the Venezuelan Constitution calls for parliamentary elections in 2020, democracy will be fully restored in Venezuela only through free, fair and credible presidential elections. This process must include an independent National Electoral Council, an un-biased Supreme Court, international support and observation, full press freedom and political participation of all Venezuelans.”

This arrogant interventionist statement amounts to preparing the conditions for calling the elections a “fraud,” as no self-respecting country in the world would allow its electoral process to be decided upon in Canada, the U.S. or any other country. To illustrate once again the self-serving nature of this statement, on the very day the declaration was issued, the U.S.-backed Bolivian government, installed by a coup d’état, ruled against Evo Morales running for the Senate in the upcoming elections!

Trudeau was rewarded by the Lima group members with a special made-to-measure clause for him to “lead” on Venezuela, as part of his global search for a seat on the UN Security Council. The clause reads as follows:

“In the coming days and weeks, representatives of the Lima Group will engage in an intensive period of outreach and consultation with all countries that have an interest in the restoration of democracy in Venezuela.”

Thus, Trudeau is being mandated once again to do Trump’s dirty work, opportunistically using his advantage over the other Lima group members thanks to his ability to speak English and French, and thus able to directly reach out to Europe, the Caribbean and elsewhere, hoping to steal  the international spotlight and gain votes at the UN for the Security Council seat Canada covets.

Yet, Canada does not deserve a seat on the Security Council. No country that is a faithful ally of the U.S. on all international issues, and that has been severely criticized by UN bodies for its genocidal treatment of its First Nations peoples, should get a seat at that table. Of the countries running in competition with Canada, Norway and Ireland, either would be preferable to Canada.

The peoples of the world must not forget the Trudeau government’s role in Latin America and the Caribbean, the main thrust of which lately, being the attempt to destroy the Bolivarian Revolution by supporting the coup d’état against Bolivia’s elected president, thus enabling that country to join the Lima group which of course under Evo Morales, was impossible.

*

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.

Arnold August is a Canadian journalist and lecturer, the author of Democracy in Cuba and the 1997–98 Elections, Cuba and Its Neighbours: Democracy in Motion and Cuba–U.S. Relations: Obama and Beyond. He collaborates with many web sites, television and radio broadcasts based in Latin America, Europe, North America and the Middle East. Twitter  Facebook.  He is a frequent contributor to Global Research. 

All images are from the author

“The system in this country cannot produce freedom for an Afro-American. It is impossible for this system, this economic system, this political system, this social system, this system, period. It’s impossible for this system as it stands to produce freedom right now for the Black man in this country. “ Malcolm X

***

I designed this poster originally for KPFT Radio (90.1 FM) in Houston in 2004.

Five years ago on the occasion of the 50th anniversary of the assassination of Malcolm X, I posted this political poster on my facebook page.

In light of today’s political situation, for the youth in America, it is imperative to know Malcolm X. Knowing Malcolm X is realizing that there is a lack of revolutionary leadership in the Black communities.

The endorsement of Mr. Bloomberg by many so-called Black leaders (Democrats) proves that Malcolm X was right and what he said is still true:

“We won’t organize any black man to be a Democrat or a Republican because both of them have sold us out.”

Below are excerpts of Malcolm X’s speech in New York, March 29, 1964 (emphasis added)

Massoud  Nayeri, Global Research, February 23, 2020

.

**

Malcolm X: this system can’t produce freedom

Below are excerpts of a speech given by Malcolm X at the Militant Labor Forum in New York on March 29, 1964, upon his return from his first trip to Africa and the Middle East. It was published in the pamphlet Two Speeches by Malcolm X, one of Pathfinder’s Books of the Month for February 2003.

Malcolm spoke as part of a symposium on the then-current effort by the New York cops and press to promote a racist scare-campaign about an alleged gang of young Black “Blood Brothers” sworn to kill whites.

The Militant, February 2004

***

I visited the Casbah in Casablanca and I visited the one in Algiers, with some of the brothers–blood brothers. They took me all down into it and showed me the suffering, showed me the conditions that they had to live under while they were being occupied by the French…

They showed me the conditions that they lived under while they were colonized by these people from Europe. And they also showed me what they had to do to get those people off their back.

The first thing they had to realize was that all of them were brothers; oppression made them brothers; exploitation made them brothers; degradation made them brothers; discrimination made them brothers; segregation made them brothers; humiliation made them brothers.

And once all of them realized that they were blood brothers, they also realized what they had to do, to get that man off their back. They lived in a police state, Algeria was a police state. Any occupied territory is a police state, and this is what Harlem is. Harlem is a police state. The police in Harlem–their presence is like occupation forces, like an occupying army. They’re not in Harlem to protect us; they’re not in Harlem to look out for our welfare; they’re in Harlem to protect the interests of the businessmen who don’t even live there.

The same conditions that prevailed in Algeria that forced the people, the noble people of Algeria, to resort eventually to the [so-called] “terrorist-type” tactics that were necessary to get the monkey off their backs, those same conditions prevail today in America in every Negro community.

And I would be other than a man to stand up and tell you that the Afro-American, the Black people who live in these communities and in these conditions are ready and willing to continue to sit around nonviolently and patiently and peacefully looking for some good will to change the conditions that exist. No!…

Conditions creating resistance

You will find that there is a growing tendency among our people, among us, to do whatever is necessary to bring this to a halt. You have a man like Police Commissioner Murphy–and I’m not against the law; I’m not against law enforcement. You need laws to survive and you need law enforcement to have an intelligent, peaceful society; but we have to live in these places and suffer the type of conditions that exist from officers who lack understanding, who lack any human feeling, and lack any feeling for their fellow human being….

I’m not here to apologize for the existence of any blood brothers. I’m not here to minimize the factors that hint toward their existence. I’m here to say that if they don’t exist it’s a miracle….

If those of you who are white have the good of the Black people in this country at heart, my suggestion is that you have to realize now that the day of nonviolent resistance is over; that the day of passive resistance is over….

The next thing you’ll see here in America–and please don’t blame it on me when you see it–you will see the same things that have taken place among other people on this earth whose position was parallel to the 22 million Afro-Americans in this country.

The people of China grew tired of their oppressors and the people rose up against their oppressors. They didn’t rise up nonviolently. It was easy to say that the odds were against them but eleven of them started out and today those eleven control 800 million. They would have been told back then that the odds were against them. As the oppressor always points out to the oppressed, “the odds are against you.”

When Castro was up in the mountains of Cuba they told him the odds were against him. Today he’s sitting in Havana and all the power this country has can’t remove him.

They told the Algerians the same thing–what do you have to fight with? Today they have to bow down to Ben Bella. He came out of the jail that they put him in and today they have to negotiate with him because he knew that the one thing he had on his side was truth and time. Time is on the side of the oppressed today. It’s against the oppressor. Truth is on the side of the oppressed today, it’s against the oppressor. You don’t need anything else.

I would just like to say this in my conclusion. You’ll see terrorism that will terrify you, and if you don’t think you’ll see it, you’re trying to blind yourself to the historic development of everything that’s taking place on this earth today. You’ll see other things.

Why will you see them? Because as soon as people realize that it’s impossible for a chicken to produce a duck egg even though they both belong to the same family of fowl–a chicken just doesn’t have within its system to produce a duck egg. It can’t do it. It can only produce according to what that particular system was constructed to produce. The system in this country cannot produce freedom for an Afro-American. It is impossible for this system, this economic system, this political system, this social system, this system, period. It’s impossible for this system as it stands to produce freedom right now for the Black man in this country.

And if ever a chicken did produce a duck egg, I’m certain you would say it was certainly a revolutionary chicken!
Source: the Militant

Copyright 1965, 1990 by Betty Shabazz and Pathfinder Press.

 

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.

Massoud Nayeri is a graphic designer and an independent peace activist based in the United States. He is a frequent contributor to Global Research.

All images in this article are from the author

As Canadians, we are paying for our own indoctrination and our own impoverishment. CBC and all mainstream media consistently provide cover for the Canadian government’s foreign policy criminality. In so doing, these media outlets are part of the war propaganda apparatus that fabricates public consent for Canada’s international criminality, its “America First” foreign policy (1), and its status as an international rogue state.

Mainstream media fabricates and manages perceptions that Canada is humanitarian and law abiding in its foreign policy endeavours, but real evidence, not fabricated narratives, shouts the opposite.

The Canadian supported LIMA group, for example, described by Raul Burbano of Common Frontiers, as “an ad hoc group of governments that want to achieve outside of the Organization of American States (OAS) what it failed to achieve within the OAS” is part of a criminal conspiracy to impose Regime Change on Venezuela, and to support Juan Guaido, an imposter, who was never elected as President of Venezuela.

In the following interview, Ken Stone of the Hamilton Coalition To Stop The War amplifies these and other points.

If Canadians were aware of the truth, they might be humiliated by their government’s decisions, and its misuse of Canadian 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.

Mark Taliano is a Research Associate of the Centre for Research on Globalization (CRG) and the author of Voices from Syria, Global Research Publishers, 2017. Visit the author’s website at https://www.marktaliano.net where this article was originally published.

Note

(1) Ben Norton, ” ‘Canada Adopts America First Foreign Policy’ US State Department Boasted in 2017 with appointment of FM Chrystia Freeland.” The Grayzone, 5 July, 2019.
(https://thegrayzone.com/2019/07/05/canada-adopts-america-first-foreign-policy-us-state-department-chrystia-freeland/ ) Accessed 21 February, 2020.

Andrew Fowler, an award-winning investigative journalist and long-time defender of Julian Assange, recently spoke with the World Socialist Web Site about the imprisonment and persecution of the WikiLeaks publisher and its implications for genuine investigative journalism, press freedom and basic democratic rights. The following is an edited version of the discussion.

Fowler, who began his journalistic career in the UK, was chief of staff and acting foreign editor for the Australian newspaper, and a senior reporter and investigative television journalist for the Special Broadcasting Services’ “Dateline” program and the Australian Broadcasting Corporation’s “Four Corners” and “Foreign Correspondent.”

He is also the author of The Most Dangerous Man in the World: The inside story of WikiLeaks (2011) and Shooting the Messenger: Criminalising Journalism (2018), which details how post-911 governments have used the “war on terrorism” to carry out a wide-ranging unprecedented assault on democratic rights.

Fowler interviewed Assange three times between 2010 and 2012 and reported Sex, Lies and Julian Assange, a detailed “Four Corners” exposé of the bogus sexual misconduct allegations in Sweden against the WikiLeaks founder. The 2012 documentary, which won the New York Festival Gold Medal, was one of the few honest reports about the false and politically-motivated character of the allegations made against Assange in Sweden and circulated by the corporate media and “liberal” and pseudo-left publications around the world.

Last June, after Australian Federal Police raids on the ABC, Fowler penned a powerful comment for the Sydney Morning Herald warning that the raids were “a wake-up call to journalists who left Assange swinging” and calling on them to speak out in defence of the WikiLeaks founder. Fowler also initiated an open letter from ABC Alumni—an organisation of former ABC staff—demanding that the Australian government oppose the US extradition of Assange and repatriate him to Australia.

We began our discussion by asking about the media silence over “Speak up for Assange,” a petition signed late last year by hundreds of journalists and asked him to comment.

Andrew Fowler: It’s curious why it didn’t received any coverage, especially given the fact that it was signed by [Kerry] O’Brien, [Daniel] Ellsberg and many other notable journalists.

My judgment of what is news these days is completely different from the people currently running the show. Most of the media has gone down the lightweight entertainment route—anything that’s deemed to be too disturbing to people tends to get pushed to one side. It’s the infotainment argument.

There’s a whole bunch of reasons why the media is silent on this, which I’ll be exploring in the update I’m currently writing to my previous book The Most Dangerous Man in the World. The question that has to be answered is why is the Australian government silent on all of this? It’s an outrage.

WSWS: Your Sex, Lies and Julian Assange exposure of the so-called sexual assault allegations against Assange was also largely ignored at the time, and the media slander against Assange continued.

AF: Yes, that’s right. Getting that story up was difficult and we put a lot of work into it. If you watch it again though you’ll see that analytically and factually it’s extremely strong and stands the test of time. But it seems to have been buried and neither “Four Corners,” nor any other program went back to it and used the facts that we uncovered.

But then AFP raids on the ABC and Annika Smethurst happened which made it pretty clear demonstrating the warnings Assange had been making. Suddenly journalists were made aware of just how vulnerable they were to the changes going on in this country—the warnings Kerry O’Brien made in his Walkley Awards’ speech about Australia heading towards authoritarianism and even down the road, he suggested, towards fascism.

What intrigued me about the reaction to the AFP raids was the way the ABC, and other media, separated Assange from all this.

Long before the raids, Hillary Clinton had been allowed to appear on the network and openly accuse Assange of doing the bidding of Putin just because Assange dared to publish emails showing she was getting preferential treatment over Bernie Sanders. No ABC journalist challenged her over this.

How can anyone and journalists in particular separate out Assange, who revealed one of the great stories of our time about Hillary Clinton—that she was getting preferential treatment over Bernie Sanders—and yet abandon the person that published this? How do you square that circle? The answer is related to the bigger picture of how a lot of journalists now see their role in society.

Journalists should always stand apart from power and not be part of it—to stand against authority and authoritarianism and not just be public relations officers. Instead, what we’ve seen in the last 20 or 30 years is mainstream media journalists coming to see themselves as part of the powerful elite, and so they mix with the politicians and administrators, and have come to see their role as upholders of the status quo. Some become stenographers for whichever government is in power.

You’ve only got to listen to Michael Pezzullo, head of [Home Affairs minister] Peter Dutton’s department, to get some idea of this. Pezzullo talks about “trusted journalists.” Obviously journalists should be trusted by the public but to be considered a “trusted journalist” by politicians, that’s something else altogether. Pezzullo is not talking about real journalists but “trustees” which is an extremely unhealthy development; it’s the road towards authoritarianism.

WSWS: How would you assess the relationship between what WikiLeaks exposed in Australia—the US protected sources in the Labor Party and elsewhere—and Australia’s military alliance with the US?

AF: WikiLeaks revealed the truth about all the political parties in Australia and consequently, it was party politically friendless. I know from my own experience that none of the mainstream political parties will take up the cudgels for you if you’ve just revealed what they’re all doing behind the scenes.

Julian Assange is now in a prison for terrorists, in virtual solitary confinement and charged with espionage because he revealed evidence of war crimes committed by another country—things that serious and honest journalists are supposed to do.

And such is the relationship between the United States and Britain that its judicial system is going to allow him to be extradited to the very country that he has exposed committing these crimes.

For the British government, Assange has become a tradable commodity and something they can use to ensure its access to the American intelligence and information gathering systems.

WSWS: The same relationship with Australia?

AF: Absolutely. Australian governments are terrified of the United States in case they’re cut out of intelligence-sharing. That’s what Australian involvement in the Iraq War was about. If Assange was brought back to Australia from the UK there’d be a new US extradition attempt here.

WSWS: You saw firsthand, the impact of the sex allegations against Assange on his support base and how it was used.

AF: Yes, it produced a very dramatic shift politically speaking. The problem was that the allegations were very, very flimsy and could not be tested until he was charged but the Swedish didn’t charge him. The Swedish prosecutor could have easily gone to London and actually gone through the process but she didn’t.

The role of Sweden in that process is extremely murky but there’s a very interesting email uncovered by Stefania Maurizi, an Italian journalist, who has done a lot of work on this. The email was from the British Crown Prosecution Service to the Swedes urging them not to get cold feet and call off the investigation. The British were more concerned about Assange getting away than the Swedes were.

WSWS: Could you comment on Nils Melzer’s report into the treatment of Assange.

AF: It isn’t so much what I think of Melzer’s report but the response of the Australian media. It was a shocking indictment of the treatment and torture of an Australian citizen and was, as he said, the biggest gang up of so-called democratic countries against an individual he’d ever seen. It was sickening to read it but it was barely reported here. It should’ve have been on the front-page of every newspaper in Australia and lead radio and television stories.

There used to be healthy debates in news rooms about what should be lead stories and that sort of thing.

WSWS: From the outset the WSWS has stressed that the persecution of Assange is inseparable from Washington’s preparation for war.

AF: America is always preparing for war—in the Middle East, against China—all over the place. The persecution of Assange is an attack on anybody who speaks out against the power and authority of the United States. It’s a warning to every journalist: “Pull your head in. Shut up. Don’t question. Just report what we say.”

These sorts of threats, however, should be a motivating force to serious journalists to actually stand up and ask questions and challenge authority.

The defence of Assange and WikiLeaks is extremely relevant to preventing another war. If people can’t reveal the truth from inside intelligence organizations. If [former Office of National Assessments intelligence analyst] Andrew Wilkie did now what he did and said about the Iraq War in 2003 both he and [Australian journalist] Laurie Oakes could have been charged.

WSWS: And subjected to secret trials.

AF: That’s right. We’re living through a very significant moment in history. The question is how to make people aware of just how much danger they face and why the defence of Assange is important.

The Australian public does not realise the full extent of anti-democratic laws that have been imposed in this country. As Daniel Ellsberg has explained, the more you expose what governments are really doing behind the scene, the tighter and more restrictive it’ll get. All sorts of draconian laws have been either imposed on us by being a member of the Five Eyes group but we have none of the protections of the First Amendment or European human rights laws.

WSWS: There’s tremendous popular support for Assange across Australia and internationally. The media silence on these issues highlight the vast gulf between the mainstream media and ordinary people. Millions of young people have no confidence in the established parliamentary parties—Labor or conservative.

AF: Yes, and that’s a very good point. There’s a shift underway. In December, in the midst of the bushfires and smoke engulfing the city we had a demonstration quickly called on climate change and 20,000 people turned up to protest in the centre of Sydney.

The other thing that’s quite interesting from my experience—I grew up during the Watergate period—is the kids today have no fear about socialism. They see no bogeyman in socialism, whereas for over 30 years, though, it was “Reds under the bed” and all the rest of that.

WSWS: How should the campaign to free Assange develop and what role should journalists play?

AF: The personality nonsense about Assange has to be taken out of it. The argument has to be about what has and will happen to journalism and the media. If you’re going to start looking at journalists and judging them according to how they live their lives well you’re not going to stand up for too many people. Assange has done what every journalist should do and told the truth about a powerful country, the most powerful country in the world, and the crimes that it has committed.

It should be incumbent on all journalists in this country to report on every single thing that happens to Julian Assange. Not as just Julian Assange, but as the editor-in-chief of WikiLeaks. These stories should be in news bulletins every night with live crosses from the courts.

This is a fundamental issue and if we don’t win this battle then it’s not over but it’s very nearly over. Journalists have to put these arguments clearly to the public and raise its awareness about what’s at stake.

Some journalists might argue that this is political. Well yes, of course it’s political—we don’t live in an apolitical world—and it’s a political battle that we have to win.

*

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.

Back in the summer of 2018, when the IMF handed Argentina an unprecedented $56 billion bailout loan, the largest in IMF history, some warned that this is a case of deja vu similar to the 2001/2002 precedent when Argentina eventually defaulted on its foreign creditors, while humiliating the IMF which had signed off on Argentina’s economic policies that ended up in bankruptcy court. The IMF, however, was confident that this time would be different, and rushed – under now-ECB head Christine Lagarde – to hand to Argentina the greatest amount of money the IMF had ever disbursed to a struggling nation.

It turned out that this time wasn’t different, and after completing a week of meetings in Argentine, the IMF – which so generously handed out other people’s money to prop up the crumbling, corrupt Latin American nation less than two years aqo – finally threw in the towel and admitted that Argentina’s debt load is unsustainable, paving the way for the government to ask private bondholders to take on losses as it prepares to renegotiate its obligations.

The last time IMF officials commented on Argentina’s debt was in the fourth review of the credit line in July 2019, when they called it “sustainable, but not with a high probability.”

Oops. But it gets better.

A “meaningful contribution” will be necessary from private bondholders to restore the country’s debt sustainability, the IMF wrote in a statement Wednesday following talks with Argentine officials during its first technical mission in Buenos Aires under Alberto Fernandez’s presidency.

“The primary surplus that would be needed to reduce public debt and gross financing needs to levels consistent with manageable rollover risk and satisfactory potential growth is not  economically nor politically feasible,” the Fund said, in what may be the most embarrassing moment in the Fund’s history.

Why embarrassing? Because as Hector Torres, a former executive director at the Fund who represented South American countries, said last summer, “The IMF has put a lot in — not just money, but prestige,” to avoid a default. “The fact that the arrangement is not performing well right now is an embarrassment,” he said. Little did he know just how embarrassing it would get.

As discussed previously, Fernandez is seeking to renegotiate billions of dollars in debt with private creditors, including the infamous $56 billion loan with the Washington-based organization.

Argentina’s record IMF loan has been on hold since August after Fernandez pulled off a shock upset of incumbent Mauricio Macri in a presidential primary vote, sending markets reeling.

“IMF staff emphasized the importance of continuing a collaborative process of engagement with private creditors to maximize their participation in the debt operation,” according to the statement. Meanwhile, Argentina’s economy has collapsed, the currency has plunged, bonds prices have been in freefall and debt rose to nearly 90% of GDP at the end of 2019, the Fund said.

But the biggest pain now await bondholders, some of whom were so dumb to actually buy 100 year bonds from Argentina. Guzman warned investors (or at least their replacement since those who made the original investment were surely summarily fired) last week they’ll probably be frustrated with negotiations, which he intends to wrap up by the end of March. South America’s second-largest nation owes over $38.7 billion to bondholders just this year, and payments peak in May. There is no way it can make those payments without magic.

*

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.

China’s Foreign Ministry spokesman, Geng Shuang, announced that China will not interrupt its relations with Nicolás Maduro‘s Venezuela, despite the US government’s sanctions on the South American country. The announcement is not surprising, given the undeniable efforts of the Asian country in terms of international cooperation, but, amid the increased aggressiveness with which American hegemony operates, it represents a true gesture of courage.

This means that, regardless of unilateral sanctions by the United States, China will continue to import Venezuelan oil. White House Special Envoy, Mr. Elliott Abrams, announced that Washington is taking the necessary steps to convince China to renounce its decision to continue cooperating with Nicolas Maduro’s regime. The American diplomat also announced his country is acting to prevent, not only China, but also India to stop buying Venezuelan oil.

On the other hand, Beijing’s official communiqués show unrestricted support for Venezuelan sovereignty and for the legitimacy of Nicolas Maduro’s government. The spokesman of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of China stated

“Let the US become aware of the facts, stop abusing sanctions and other coercive measures, work with all parties to find a political solution to the Venezuelan problem […] Cooperation between China and Venezuela will continue to develop, even with the ‘changes’ “.

The Chinese government’s actions are not limited to benefiting only Venezuela, but are expanding to a list of other countries. For instance, this is China’s position in relation to the case of Russian oil company Rosneft and its subsidiary, Rosneft Trading, which also suffered sanctions from the United States. Chinese Chancellery spokesman said that “We are opposed to any interference in the internal affairs of other countries, as well as we are against unilateral sanctions and extraterritorial jurisdiction”.

Geng emphasized that the principles that guide China in its international relations in case of conflict of interests between States are the same as those set out in the United Nations Charter, which favor negotiation in accordance with basic norms of coexistence. Regarding the specific case of Venezuela, Geng affirmed the need to prioritize a peaceful and rational dialogue with the government of Nicolás Maduro, not admitting arbitrary sanctions imposed in an unfounded way just to guarantee the interests of the world powers that impose them.

The American custom of violently imposing its interests against any state has been hegemonized in United Nations policies for decades. What Washington has done – and continues to do – against Havana and Pyongyang clearly demonstrates how far the promotion of boycotts and isolation can go. In fact, the White House’s plans include doing the same with Caracas, boycotting the world trade of Venezuelan oil, with the aim of cutting off the country’s main economic tool and aggravating its crisis, throwing millions of citizens into poverty and destabilizing the legitimate and sovereign government of Nicolas Maduro.

In contrast, China demonstrates an interesting and legally correct way of maintaining relations and asserting its interests on the international scenario, maintaining peaceful relations with States, negotiating through safe and dialogical ways and avoiding involvement in coercive measures anywhere in the world. Cooperation with Venezuela, disregard for unfounded punishments against the Russian oil company, fair loans and debt relief in African countries, in addition to a number of other factors, clearly show China’s role in building a new legal global civilization, based on good relations between peoples, security and peace between States. And the result will be the growth of China’s economic power and political influence.

However, until tensions in Venezuela subside, many conflicts will be witnessed. Worsening the situation, the trade war between the United States and China may be even more distant from a truce.

What remains for the other BRICS countries and for any Nation State that wants to maintain its sovereignty in the globalized world is to follow the Chinese example. There is no reason to comply with American sanctions against Venezuela when the country has a legitimate government, which, just because it wants to preserve its sovereignty, is humiliated by Washington.

*

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.

When will the Trump administration stop bullying Iraq? The latest examples of bullying involve delays in cash deliveries from an Iraqi account in the US Federal Reserve Bank of New York, and reducing the length of sanctions waivers allowing Iraq to continue buying Iranian natural gas, oil and electricity.

Every month Iraq’s central bank flies $1-2 billion in cash to Baghdad from the New York bank where Iraq’s oil revenues are deposited.  The cash is used to finance domestic operations and salaries.  The last shipment, due in mid-January, was a week late following threats from Washington that the flow of money could be disrupted. Senior Iraqi sources told Al Monitor that there were “political reasons” for the delay. This month’s shipment came on time. 

The delay of urgently needed funds for Iraq contrasts sharply with Donald Trump‘s withholding for four months US military aid for Ukraine until it launched an investigation of a Democratic rival for the presidency. Iraq’s cash belongs to Iraq while the sum allocated to Ukraine was US money destined to bolster Ukraine’s battle with Russia.

By withholding cash deliveries to Baghdad, the Trump administration has exerted pressure on Iraq to permit US troops to remain in that country and to use their presence to counter Iran’s influence. This effort violates the agreement for the return of US forces to Iraq. Those making policy on behalf of Trump should understand that Baghdad simply cannot cut ties to Tehran.

Last week, Al Monitor reported that a waiver was granted for only 45 days rather than the usual 90 or 120 days. If Iraq is barred from receiving Iranian gas, power cuts could last 20 hours a day.  Washington is playing with waivers not only to pressure Iraq over the US troop presence and also to compel Iraq to make deals with US companies, notably General Electric and Exxon Mobil.

In an interview with the French press agency, quoted by Al Monitor, Iraqi Electricity Minister Luay Al Khattib said Washington must not try to “corner Iraq” by weaponising waivers.  This would seriously impact public services and be counter-productive by exacerbating popular anger with the government and the US.

Anti-Iran Trump administration hawks, Secretary of State Mike Pompeo and Defence Secretary Mark Esper have ignored three hard facts. The US, 11,651 kilometres from Iran, is a resented interloper in this region. Iran is Iraq’s neighbour and after its conquest of Iraq in 2003 the US installed Iran-allied Shiite fundamentalists in power in Baghdad.

There had been some hope that Esper, who is of Lebanese descent on his father’s side, would act at a brake on an impulsive, inconsistent Trump.  Esper is  a former lieutenant colonel in the army who served during the 1991 US war on Iraq and as army secretary before working for an armaments manufacturer.  

However, Esper was Pompeo’s classmate at the US military academy at West Point and owes his appointment to Pompeo.  This is a risky duo. 

Following the December 27 killing of a US contractor in a missile strike on an Iraqi military base near Kirkuk, Pompeo and Esper lobbied Trump to slay Iranian Quds Force Commander Qassem Soleimani.  They lied by claiming the attack was carried out by a Shiite militia, Kataib Hizbollah, which held links to Soleimani.

The truth of the matter was that the Daesh terror group was almost certainly guilty as its paramilitaries abound and mount attacks in this area. The duo also lied when they told Trump Soleimani was planning imminent attacks on US interests in the region.

Weeks after his assassination, the White House dropped this false allegation.  He was, in fact, on his way to Baghdad with a message from Tehran for ex-Iraqi prime minister Adel Abdel Mahdi who was trying to open dialogue between Iran and Saudi Arabia.

Iranian Foreign Minister Muhammad Javad Zarif has revealed that the US assassination of Soleimani, who was highly popular in Iran, risked full-scale war with Iran.  Zarif told NBC news: “It’s unfortunate that the United States, based on misinformation, based on ignorance and arrogance, combined on a course that has brought the region very close to the brink. We were very close to a war.”

This risk might have sobered Pompeo and Esper. According to David Hearst writing in Middle East Eye, the US military has told Baghdad that it is ready to reduce the number of troops in the capital and pull out from bases in or near Shiite-majority areas, including Balad Air Base, which hosts US trainers and contractors. However, the US refuses to withdraw from Ain Al Asad, the largest air base in the entire region. This is located in the western Sunni majority province, Iraq’s biggest, and extends the US military footprint into Syria and Jordan.

Al Asad was the base struck by Iranian missiles last month in retaliation for the assassination of Soleimani.  More than 100 US soldiers suffered concussions and head trauma from the explosions of the missiles but there were no fatalities.

Under the 2014 arrangement between Baghdad and Washington, the US was meant to confine its operations to training the Iraqi army and providing logistical support and air cover in the campaign against Daesh. 

Since the eradication of Daesh’s territorial “caliphate” in both Iraq and Syria, the US has breached this agreement by mounting attacks on Kataib Hizbollah, one of the Iran-supported Shiite militias in the Popular Mobilisation Units (PMU), which have, formally, been absorbed by the Iraqi armed forces. The US also slew the PMU deputy head, Abu Mahdi Al Muhandis along with Soleimani, enraging Iraqis who regarded him as a victor in the struggle against Daesh.

The US military presence in Iraq is now seen by many Iraqis as re-occupation.  Iraqis are highly sensitive to external dictation and the presence of foreign military forces on their soil.  They have suffered grievously since the bungled 2003-11 US occupation and the installation of the Shiite sectarian regime which is both inept and corrupt. 

Since October 1, hundreds of thousands of Iraqis, the vast majority Shiites, have been protesting against this regime, sectarian rule, Iranian influence in Iraq’s domestic affairs and the malign US military presence.

*

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.

On Friday, Iranians turned out in large numbers to select members of parliament, its Majlis, and seven members of its 88-member Assembly of Experts.

Responsible for selecting Iran’s Supreme Leader, its members serve 8-year terms. Meeting twice annually, it’s comprised of a leadership council and six committees.

Held every four years, at stake are 290 seats in parliament, candidates aged-30 to 75 eligible to run.

Around 58 million Iranians are eligible to vote, citizens aged-18 or older.

Candidates from 208 constituencies ran for office, Tehran the largest.

Iranian elections are open, free and fair, shaming the US money-controlled duopoly system — one-party rule with two right wings.

The Guardian Council vets political aspirants to protect and preserve Iran’s Islamic character and national sovereignty from hostile imperial efforts to change things.

According to Iran’s Interior Minister Abdol-Reza Rahmani-Fazli, over 91% of political aspirants were approved by the Guardian Council to run for parliament on Friday — 7,148 candidates for 290 seats.

In Tehran, 1,453 candidates contested for 30 seats. No limitation exists on how often incumbents and former incumbents can seek reelection.

Around 85% of voting is electronic. Principalists (conservatives) vied with Reformists for parliamentary seats.

Various parties represented them, along with other independent parties. Elements tied to US imperial interests, wanting pro-Western (tyrannical) Pahlavi-style rule restored operate in exile.

When last held, Reformists gained control of parliament with moderate candidates by a 137 – 120-seat majority over Principalists.

Due to large numbers turning out Friday to vote, 54,611 polling stations scheduled to close at 6PM stayed open to 10PM, as late as midnight where needed to accommodate voters.

On Tuesday, Ayatollah Khamenei called Iranian elections “a source of strengthening the country,” adding:

“Look at how US propaganda seeks to separate the people from the Islamic system. They create think tanks to plot this.”

“They seek to distance the Iranian youth from the Islamic system, but they won’t succeed.”

“Enemies and friends are watching. Enemies want to see the result of these economic problems, the Westerners’ deceit in their promises to us, and the US pressures on the people.”

“Our friends watch worriedly, but we always tell them not to worry. The Iranian nation knows what it’s doing.”

“Taking part in the elections nullifies many of the vicious plots of the US and the Zionist regime against Iran.”

“These elections repel the schemes and ploys of the enemies of Iran.”

“Iran should become stronger. This frustrates the enemy. One manifestation of strength is having a strong Majlis.”

“The more participation there is in the election, the stronger the Majlis will be. This is one factor for strengthening the Majlis.”

Iranian First Vice-President Eshaq Jahangiri called Friday’s large turnout a testimony to Iranian rejection of hostile US propaganda.

Tabulating Friday’s ballots continues, results expected to be announced Sunday.

According to Press TV, partial results show Principalists ahead, including a clear lead in Tehran.

Interior Ministry spokesman Esmail Mousavin said most constituency results will be announced on Saturday, adding:

“In certain constituencies, however, releasing results will take until Sunday due to the number of candidates.”

Winning a minimum of 20% of votes cast in each constituency is required to gain a seat in parliament.

A follow-up election is held for undecided constituencies.

Based on what’s known so far, Principalists appear heading for a parliamentary majority.

A Final Comment

Timed to be announced on election day, the Trump regime imposed illegal sanctions on “five senior” Iranian officials.

According to DJT’s envoy for regime change in Iran Brian Hook, targeted individuals “denied the Iranian people free and fair parliamentary elections” — how the US political system operates, not the Islamic Republic’s.

Friday’s action was symbolic, part of US war on Iran by other means.

Ongoing for over 40 years, it’s part of what US imperialism is all about, a scourge threatening everyone everywhere.

*

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 Wikimedia Commons

Image: Senator Prescott Sheldon Bush and his son George H.W. Bush

Is it Coincidental? The Bush family had close links with Nazi Germany, the bin Laden family and the Mexican Drug cartel. 

Two members of the Bush dynasty acceded to the White House.

Had the US public been fully informed by the media, who in America would have voted for George W. Bush? 

Bush Family Links to Nazi Germany

Grandpa Prescott Sheldon Bush “was a director and shareholder of companies that profited from their involvement with the financial backers of Nazi Germany.” (The Guardian, September 2004)

The American public was not aware of the links of the Bush family to Nazi Germany because the historical record had been carefully withheld.

Prescott S. Bush’s assets were seized in 1942 by the Roosevelt Administration under the Trading with the Enemy Act, “[He was] a partner and director of Brown Brothers Harriman holding company and a director of one of its key financial components, the Union Banking Corporation (UBC)”(Bill van Auken, WSWS.org, 2003)

An investigation carried out in 1945 revealed that the bank run by Prescott Bush was linked to the German Steel Trust run by Thyssen and Flick, one of the defendants at Nuremberg.(Ibid)

Thyssen was central to the development of the weapons industry and the Nazi war machine, including the exploitation of slave labor at Auschwitz.

…New documents, many of which were only declassified [in 2003], show that even after America had entered the [second world] war and when there was already significant information about the Nazis’ plans and policies, he [Prescott S. Bush] worked for and profited from companies closely involved with the very German businesses that financed Hitler’s rise to power. It has also been suggested that the money he made from these dealings helped to establish the Bush family fortune and set up its political dynasty.

Remarkably, little of Bush’s dealings with Germany has received public scrutiny… But now the multibillion dollar legal action for damages by two Holocaust survivors against the Bush family… are threatening to make Prescott Bush’s business history an uncomfortable issue for his grandson, George W, ….(The Guardian, September 25, 2004)

The Ascendancy of George Herbert Walker Bush

“Poppy”, George Herbert Walker Bush (Prescott’s son, and GWB’s dad) became CIA director in January 1976 (2 months before the onslaught of the “Dirty War” in Argentina), and then Vice President under Reagan before becoming President of the US (1989-1993).

For more details see

Bush Family Links to Nazi Germany: “A Famous American Family” Made its Fortune from the Nazis

By Prof Michel Chossudovsky, November 16, 2019

**

Friends with the Bin Ladens

The Bush family were friends with the Bin Ladens going back to the 1970s. They were business partners with the wealthy Bin Laden family which was connected to the Saudi Royal family.

Salem bin Laden, half brother of Osama bin Laden, was the founder of the Saudi Binladin Group, a multibillion construction conglomerate.

The bin Laden – Bush relationship started in 1978 when George W. Bush and Salem bin Laden established the Arbusto Energy Company in Texas.

Meanwhile Osama bin Laden (brother of GWB’s partner Salem bin Laden) was on the CIA payroll. He contributed to running Maktab al-Khidamat (MAK) also called the Afghan Services Bureau. founded in 1984 “which funneled money, arms and fighters” into Afghanistan. (See NBC). MAK was a CIA initiative overseen and coordinated by Pakistan’s Inter-Service Intelligence (ISI), which was in permanent liaison with the CIA. MAK later laid the groundwork for the launching of Al Qaeda (The Base) in 1988.

In the course of the Reagan administration (1980-1988), Vice President George Herbert W. Bush (and former CIA director) played a key role in the creation of MAK and Al Qaeda. Osama bin Laden belonged to the wealthy bin Laden family which had a longstanding relation to the Bush family. The recruitment of the Mujahideen as well as the purchase of weapons was in part funded by the drug trade out of Afghanistan as well as by the House of Saud.

Enemy Number One

Osama served as “A Freedom Fighter” in the Soviet-Afghan War before becoming  the (alleged) “Enemy Number One” and “Terror Mastermind” of the 9/11 attacks.

“He changed sides, he went against us” (paraphrase). It’s called the “blowback” when an “intelligence asset” is said to “have gone against their sponsors”; “what we’ve created blows back in our face.”(UPI, 15 September 2001).

In a twisted logic, the US government and the CIA were portrayed as the ill-fated victims:

The sophisticated methods taught to the Mujahideen, and the thousands of tons of arms supplied to them by the US – and Britain – are now tormenting the West in the phenomenon known as `blowback’, whereby a policy strategy rebounds on its own devisers. (The Guardian, 15 September 2001)

The 9/11 Attacks

Coincidence?

On September 11, 2001, former president George H. W. Bush (“Poppy”) met Shafiq bin Laden, brother of  Osama at the Ritz Carlton Hotel in Washington. Nothing wrong. It was a business meeting. Shafiq was “a guest of honour at the Carlyle Group’s Washington conference”. He was mingling with “fellow investors” including former secretary of defense Frank Carlucci and former secretary of state James Baker III.

Careful timing: Shafiq was one among 7 members of the bin Laden family who were hastily invited to leave the United States on September 19th, one day prior to president Bush’s  historic address to the US Congress: “Either you are with us or you are with the terrorists”.

Since 1979, both the Bin Laden family and The Kingdom of Saudi Arabia have provided financial aid to Al Qaeda which was sponsored by the CIA. Visibly, Shafiq and the Bin Ladens were not invited to attend Bush’s September 20 address which “officially” consisted in launching the “Global War on Terrorism”(GWOT)

“We will make no distinction between the terrorists who committed these acts and those who harbor them”.

But there is always an “Exception that Proves the Rule”  and that is George W. Bush himself.

screenshot of Economist report

screenshot Washington Post, March 16, 2003

 

Shafiq Bin Laden and George H. Walker Bush, date unknown (source Michael Moore)

For more details see:

The Bin Ladens and the Bushes: On 9/11 George Herbert W. Bush Meets Osama’s Brother Shafiq bin Laden

By Prof Michel Chossudovsky, September 10, 2019

Links to Mexico’s Drug Lords

GWB’s brother Jeb Bush, former governor of the Sunshine State was a buddy of Raul Salinas de Gortari who had ties to Mexico’s Drug-lord Juan Garcia Abrego.

And “Poppy” Bush was a friend of Raul’s dad Raul Salinas Lozano, who was a leading figure in narcotics dealings.

George H. W. Bush, the dad of  Bush Junior had developed close personal ties with Carlos Salinas de Gortari (former president of Mexico) and his dad Raul Salinas Lozano who, according to the Dallas Morning News (February 27, 1997) was “a leading figure in narcotics dealings that also involved his son, Raul Salinas de Gortari…  And Raul was an intimo amigo of  Jeb Bush, (former Governor of Florida) and the brother of  George W, Bush.

“There has also been a great deal of speculation in Mexico about the exact nature of Raul Salinas’ close friendship with former President George Bush’s son, Jeb. It is well known here that for many years the two families spent vacations together — the Salinases at Jeb Bush’s home in Miami, the Bushes at Raul’s ranch, Las Mendocinas, under the volcano in Puebla. There are many in Mexico who believe that the relationship became a back channel for delicate and crucial negotiations between the two governments, leading up to President Bush’s sponsorship of NAFTA.” (Houston Chronicle, 9 March 1995)

“witnesses say former Mexican president Carlos Salinas de Gortiari, his imprisoned brother Raul and other members of the country’s ruling elite met with drug lord Juan Garcia Abrego at a Salinas family ranch; Jeb Bush admits he met with Raul Salinas several times but has never done any business with him”  Andres Openheimer,  (Miami Herald, February 17 1997)

The North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA)

When George H. Walker Bush was president he signed the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) with President Carlos Salinas de Gortari, son of drug lord Salinas Lozana together with Canada’s Prime Minister Brian Mulroney.   

One of the signatories of the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) was directly linked to organized crime.  President Salinas de Gortari’s links to the Mexican Drug Cartel was withheld until after the signing of NAFTA agreement.

George H. W. Bush Senior was fully aware of the links of the Salinas presidency to the drug lords. Public opinion in the US and Canada was never informed so as not to jeopardize the signing of NAFTA. The US Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) was instructed “not to spill the beans”:

“Other former officials say they were pressured to keep mum because Washington was obsessed with approving NAFTA”.

“The intelligence on corruption, especially by drug traffickers, has always been there,” said Phil Jordan, who headed DEA’s Dallas office from 1984 to 1994. But “we were under instructions not to say anything negative about Mexico. It was a no-no since NAFTA was a hot political football.” (Dallas Morning News, 26 February 1997, emphasis added)

Ask yourself, is NAFTA a “legal agreement” when one of the signatories is linked to a criminal syndicate? Not to mention the fact that Carlos Salinas de Gortari was an “intimo amigo” of George H. W. Bush (who was complicit in the coverup).

Had this been known, the NAFTA agreement would not have seen the light of day.

President Carlos Salinas de Gortari, President George H. W. Bush, Canada’s Prime Minister Brian Mulroney

That’s summarizes the Bush  family history.

The Nazis, the Bin Ladens and the Mexican Drug Lords …

Two Presidents, One Vice President, A CIA Director, a Member of Congress, A Senator and a Governor. Not to mention key positions in Wall Street and the Texas Oil Industry.

Without the falsification of  American history sustained by extensive media disinformation, the Bushes would never have acceded to high office.

First published on January 2, 2020

Baron Nathan Mayer de Rothschild once said “I care not what puppet is placed on the throne of England to rule the British Empire on which the sun never sets. The man that controls Britain’s money supply controls the British Empire, and I control the British money supply.”

Unfortunately that system of control is evident in today’s society. Special interests have been behind every US president including Trump.

Trump is following his marching orders to big oil interests including his authorized theft of Syrian oil.

Trump has given more support to Israel than any of his predecessors, which to the Pentagon is another important agenda. Israel is an important US ally in the Middle East besides Saudi Arabia.

Trump first trip as President was to Saudi Arabia to sell more weapons, which is business as usual for the arms industry. 

There is a power structure that sets the rules of the game in Washington. The Military-Industrial Complex (MIC) has an agenda and that is war. A US led war in the Middle East with Iran is increasingly coming close to reality. It would affect Syria, Lebanon and the Palestinians.  At some point, the war will reach Latin America targeting Venezuela because of its oil reserves since Trump likes the “oil”.  As of now, Bolivia, Chile and Ecuador are in chaos due to new US-backed fascistic governments that re-established neoliberal economic policies which will lead to the impoverishment of the masses.

The U.S. military has over 800 bases ranging from torture sites to drone hubs in over 70 countries. US tensions are more intense that in any period of time with Iran, Syria and Hezbollah as Trump signed off on a new defense budget worth $738 billion including funds for his new Space Force.  Despite the fact that the Democrats are still angry over their election defeat to Trump and are still pushing the Russia collusion hoax and now the farcical impeachment scandal, but when it comes to foreign policy, both Democrats and Republicans are unified with the same war agenda.  The Trump administration continues its regime change operations despite the fact that Trump said no more regime change wars when he was a candidate in 2016. “We will stop racing to topple foreign regimes that we know nothing about, that we shouldn’t be involved with”

Fast-forward to 2019, Trump’s CIA and others from his administration such as Eliot Abrams, a Reagan-era neocon was given the green-light to conduct another regime change operation with a nobody named Juan Guaido leading the Venezuelan opposition against the Maduro government which failed. Bolivia on the other hand was a success for Washington which was planned the day Evo Morales was elected President of Bolivia and was allied with Washington’s adversaries in Latin America including Venezuela, Ecuador, Nicaragua and Brazil (before Balsonaro of course). Trump continued the pentagon’s agenda when he praised the new fascist Bolivian regime who forced Morales from power with Washington’s approval of course. Trump even threatened Nicaragua and Venezuela with new attempts of regime change when he said that “these events send a strong signal to the illegitimate regimes in Venezuela and Nicaragua that democracy and the will of the people will always prevail.” In other words, Trump is not in charge.

US Presidents do have some room to make decisions concerning domestic issues such as taxes or healthcare, but when it comes to foreign policy, its a different story.  It’s not a conspiracy theory.

Many people in power has told the world who is really in charge from politicians, Wall Street bankers to military generals. In a 1935 speech by a Marine General Smedley titled ‘War is a Racket.’

A veteran in the Spanish-American War who rose through the ranks during the course of his career.  From 1898 until his retirement in 1931 he was part of numerous interventions all around the world. Butler was also the most decorated Marine ever with two Medals of Honor added to his resume. He said the following:

“I spent 33 years and four months in active military service and during that period I spent most of my time as a high class muscle man for Big Business, for Wall Street and the bankers. In short, I was a racketeer, a gangster for capitalism. I helped make Mexico and especially Tampico safe for American oil interests in 1914. I helped make Haiti and Cuba a decent place for the National City Bank boys to collect revenues in. I helped in the raping of half a dozen Central American republics for the benefit of Wall Street. I helped purify Nicaragua for the International Banking House of Brown Brothers in 1902–1912. I brought light to the Dominican Republic for the American sugar interests in 1916. I helped make Honduras right for the American fruit companies in 1903. In China in 1927 I helped see to it that Standard Oil went on its way unmolested. Looking back on it, I might have given Al Capone a few hints. The best he could do was to operate his racket in three districts. I operated on three continents”

He was correct. General Butler could have given notorious gangsters such as Al Capone a few lessons in how to run a business empire. Then in 1961, President Dwight D. Eisenhower made it clear who had the real power inside Washington in a farewell address he gave to the American public. Eisenhower issued a stark warning on the dangers of the MIC posed to humanity.

Here is a part of the speech:

“This conjunction, of an immense military establishment and a large arms industry, is new in the American experience. The total influence – economic, political, even spiritual – is felt in every city, every state house, every office of the federal government. We recognise the imperative need for this development, yet we must not fail to comprehend its grave implications… In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists, and will persist. We must never let the weight of this combination endanger our liberties or democratic processes.”

Eisenhower seemed like he was not in agreement with the deep state’s decision to drop the atomic bombs during World War II, perhaps he was cornered by the growing power of the deep state. A comparison between the Roman Empire and America today is uncanny. In Rome for example, choosing an emperor was made difficult by the ruling elite, political debates dominated how new emperors were selected by old emperors, the senate, those who were influential and the Praetorian Guard which is today’s version of the Military-Industrial Complex. The political and industrial heavyweights and its intelligence agencies select the best two candidates from the only two political parties who are bought and paid for by corporate and political interests make the important decisions. The Praetorian Guard (who was the emperor’s private army by default is similar to Presidents relationship with the Military-Industrial Complex) had dominated the election process for the next century or so resulting in targeted assassinations of several emperors they did not want in power before Rome’s collapse. They were assassinations and attempted assassinations on US presidents resulting in four deaths, the most notable assassination in the 20th century was President John F. Kennedy who wanted to “smash the CIA into a thousand pieces” gave a speech on April 27th, 1961 at the Waldorf-Astoria Hotel in New York City, many believe, including myself, that it was the speech that eventually got him killed:

“For we are opposed around the world by a monolithic and ruthless conspiracy that relies primarily on covert means for expanding its sphere of influence–on infiltration instead of invasion, on subversion instead of elections, on intimidation instead of free choice, on guerrillas by night instead of armies by day. It is a system which has conscripted vast human and material resources into the building of a tightly knit, highly efficient machine that combines military, diplomatic, intelligence, economic, scientific and political operations.

Its preparations are concealed, not published. Its mistakes are buried, not headlined. Its dissenters are silenced, not praised. No expenditure is questioned, no rumor is printed, no secret is revealed. It conducts the Cold War, in short, with a war-time discipline no democracy would ever hope or wish to match.”

The ” tightly knit, highly efficient machine “ Kennedy spoke about directs U.S. presidents to authorize wars or a covert operations to topple foreign governments. Kennedy exposed that fact and followed that same fate as those emperors in Rome. Even in Domestic politics, the U.S. government deep state apparatus is in control as the former Governor of Minnesota Jesse Ventura, who is also a former Navy Seal, actor and professional wrestler who now has his own show on RT news called ‘The World According to Jesse’ admitted on TruTV’s ‘Conspiracy Theory with Jesse Ventura’ on how the CIA interrogated him shortly after he became governor:

“About a month after I was elected governor, I was requested into the basement of the capital to be interviewed by 23 members of the Central Intelligence Agency, the CIA, they were very formal, there was governor, sir and all that, but they put me in a chair and they were in a big half-moon around me, and I said to them, look before I answer any of your questions, I want to know what are you doing here? because in the CIA mission statement, it says that they are not operational inside the United States of America. Well, they wouldn’t really give me an answer on that and then I said I want to go around the room and I want each one of you to tell me your name and what you do, half of them wouldn’t. Now isn’t that bizarre, I’m the governor and these guys wouldn’t answer questions from me. Then they started questioning me and it was all about how I got elected. You know what was the most bizarre thing about it was? There was every array of person you could imagine, young people, old people, all nationalities and that’s what really got to me. These were people you would see every day. They look like your neighbors.”

The US president including all elected congress members are all bought and paid for by the arms industry, major corporations, bankers, Big Pharma, Big Oil, the media and a handful of lobbyists with the Israel lobby being the most powerful. Trump is no exception. He will follow the road given to him by those who are in charge and he will continue the path to a world war, an agenda that been long in the making. One of America’s favorite enemies, Russian President Vladimir Putin was interviewed by Megan Kelly of NBC news in 2017 and was asked about the so-called Russian collusion conspiracy theory and he said the following:

Presidents come and go, and even the parties in power change, but the main political direction does not change, That’s why, in the grand scheme of things, we don’t care who’s the head of the United States, we know more or less what’s going to happen. And so, in this regard, even if we wanted to, it wouldn’t make sense for us to interfere 

Whether Trump wants war or even peace, it won’t matter, he will do the right thing, for the deep state that is.

*

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

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

GR Editor’s Note

The following article by professor Eric Waddell was first published more than 16 years ago by Global Research in December 2003 in the immediate wake of the invasion and occupation of  Iraq by US and British forces, with a postscript added in 2007. 

The article provides an incisive historical perspective on America’s “long war” against humanity, which is being carried out under a fake humanitarian mandate.

Let us be under no illusions as to the intent of the US and its allies.

We are dealing with World Conquest under the disguise of a “Global War on Terrorism”. 

Michel Chossudovsky, January 2020

---

World Conquest: The United States’ Global Military Crusade (1945-)

by Prof. Eric Waddell

The United States has attacked, directly or indirectly, some 44 countries throughout the world since August 1945, a number of them many times. The avowed objective of these military interventions has been to effect “regime change”. The cloaks of “human rights” and of “democracy” were invariably evoked to justify what were unilateral and illegal acts.

The aim of the United States is to protect and reinforce national interests rather than to create a better world for all humankind. It is an “imperial grand strategy” of global dimensions designed to ensure unlimited and uninhibited access, notably to strategic resources, notably energy, and to markets. Rather than to establish a direct colonial presence, the preferred strategy is to create satellite states, and this requires constant, and often repeated, military interventions in countries around the world, irrespective of their political regime.

Democratically elected governments are as much at risk as dictatorships. In recent years, the tendency has been for such direct interference to increase since less of these countries are prepared to act as willing allies. Indeed, events of 2003 would suggest that the number of unconditional and powerful U.S. allies is now reduced to three: Great Britain, Australia and Israel. The US strategy is characterised, wherever possible, by invasion and the setting up of friendly (puppet) governments. Attention is focussed, by preference, on relatively small and weak countries, the aim being to achieve rapid victory.

Historically, this process of US domination of the World has been characterized by:

(i) direct military intervention with nuclear or conventional bombs and missiles,

(ii) direct military intervention with naval or ground forces,

(iii) indirect military intervention through command operations and

(iv) the threat of recourse to nuclear weapons.

Broadly speaking, three historical phases can be identified:

– 1945-49: The U.S.-Soviet struggle for European domination, terminating with the stabilisation of the frontier between the two blocs and the creation of NATO;

– 1950-89: The Cold War proper and, in the context of it, the emergence of the non-aligned group of nations;

– 1990 on: The post-Cold War

The first period was characterized by a significant degree of US military intervention in Europe, the second by a concern to confine the Communist bloc within its frontiers and to prevent the emergence of pro-communist regimes elsewhere in the world, and the third, focused on gaining control over the former Soviet republics and in the oil-rich Middle East. The Middle East, Southeast Asia and the Caribbean/Central America reveal themselves to be Regional Theaters of concern throughout the post-2nd World War period.

click image to enlarge

The non-negotiable defense and promotion of “the American way of life” through global military interventions took form in the closing months of the 2nd World War and it came at great cost to much of the rest of the World’s population. Although Germany capitulated in May 1945 and the United Nations was created in the following month, the U.S. nevertheless chose to use nuclear weapons to bring Japan to its feet.

The dropping of two atomic bombs, respectively on Hiroshima and Nagasaki in August of that year resulted in some 150,000 immediate deaths and tens of thousands of wounded. Such nuclear terrorism was quickly denounced by the international scientific community and no other nation has resorted to the use of such weapons of mass destruction. However the U.S.A. regularly brandishes the threat of recourse to them, while under Bush they have been reinstated as an integral part of national discourse. But the story does not end with nuclear weapons, for the U.S.A. has also, over the past half century, used chemical and biological weapons in its quest for global domination with, for example, recourse to Agent Orange in Viet Nam and blue mold, cane smut, African swine fever, etc. in Cuba. All such weapons of mass destruction are an integral part of the country’s arsenal.

In this context, the map of U.S. Military Interventions since 1945 only tells a part of the story. While the country’s global reach is apparent, the scale of military violence is not fully revealed. Up to 1,000,000 people were killed in the CIA command operation in Indonesia in1967, in what was, according to the New York Times, “one of the most savage mass slayings of modern political history”. Another 100,000 were killed in Guatemala, in the CIA-organized coup. And the map makes no mention of military interventions where the U.S. played a support (e.g. Rwanda and the Congo in the 1990s) as distinct from a lead role, or where U.S. arms were used by national military forces, as in East Timor where, in the hands of the Indonesian military, they were responsible for the death of some 200,000 people from 1967 on.

Interestingly, with regards to the international arms trade, it was President Reagan who announced, in 1981, that “The U.S. views the transfer of conventional weapons… as an essential element of its global defence posture and an indispensable component of its foreign policy.”

The U.S. Empire knows no limits. Its aim is political and military domination of the world. Under the US system of global capitalism, the demand for energy and other vital resources is unlimited.

America’s “Road Map to Empire” was not formulated by the Bush administration as some critics are suggesting. In fact, there is little that is “new” about the “Project for a New American Century”. It is just that the post-war rhetoric of human rights and social and economic development has diminished, to be replaced by the primary concern with global supremacy through military force. The imperial project was outlined in the immediate wake of the 2nd World War. It was part of the “Truman Doctrine” formulated in 1948 by George Kennan, Director of Policy and Planning at the U.S. State Department:

“We have 50 percent of the world’s wealth but only 6.3 percent of its population…. In this situation we cannot fail to be the object of envy and resentment. Our real task in the coming period is to devise a pattern of relationships which will allow us to maintain this position of disparity. We should cease to talk about the raising of living standards, human rights and democratization. The day is not far off when we are going to have to deal in straight power concepts. The less we are then hampered by idealistic slogans, the better.”

Postscript 2007

In one sense little has changed since 2003. The next target for military intervention has already been clearly identified. It is Iran which so happens, according to the most recent US Government official energy statistics, to rank third among the world’s oil-rich nations, and to be the one with the largest increase in proven oil reserve estimates over the period 2005-2006.

In another sense however a new portrait is beginning to emerge, where a war-weary and increasingly vulnerable United States is moving to the creation of a Fortress North America which embraces its northern neighbour. Once again the logic is clear. Canada now ranks second, ahead of Iran and Iraq but behind Saudi Arabia, in terms of world oil reserves, thanks notably to the tar sands of Alberta. A minority government in Ottawa, dominated by Albertan interests, is consciously taking Canada into both the US energy and the military and strategic fold. In so doing, the country is joining the ranks of the United Kingdom and Australia as an unflinching US ally.

If global reach is becoming a too costly and hazardous endeavour then fortress North America becomes an increasingly attractive alternative, particularly when the minor partner is consenting and docile.

Eric Waddell is a distinguished author and professor of Geography based in Quebec City

ANNEX:  

MAP, for larger view click link below and enlarge

http://www.globalresearch.ca/audiovideo/USA_intervention_bleu.gif

 

The NYT falsely warned of Russian meddling to re-elect Trump that hasn’t occurred.

Nor does any evidence suggest it’s coming ahead. Earlier accusations of Moscow electoral interference to help Trump defeat Hillary in 2016 were bald-faced Big Lies.

Not a shred of evidence suggests Russian election meddling occurred in the US or anywhere else — a longstanding CIA/NED specialty in dozens of countries worldwide throughout the post-WW II period.

Carnegie Mellon University’s Institute for Politics and Strategy researcher Dov Levin earlier documented 81 times Washington meddled in foreign elections from 1946 – 2000 – since then in Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Ukraine, Honduras, Paraguay, Brazil, and elsewhere, unsuccessfully in Venezuela, Iran and Russia.

In his book titled “Demonstration Elections,” the late Edward Herman documented US involvement in orchestrating sham Dominican Republic, El Salvador and Vietnam elections, wanting regimes installed that serve US interests.

The same thing goes on in countless other countries, electoral coups masquerading as democracy in action, an abhorrent notion Washington tolerates nowhere, especially not domestically.

According to a Times report with no credibility, US intelligence officials “warned (that) Russia was interfering in the 2020 campaign to try to get President Trump re-elected…”

No evidence was cited because none exists. The anti-Trump Times, still furious over his defeat of media darling Hillary, loves to resurface the Big Lie that won’t die.

Reportedly House Intelligence Committee members were briefed by US intelligence officials on February 13.

According to the Times, lawmakers were told earlier of Russian US election meddling — no evidence presented suggesting it. Without it, accusations are groundless.

So-called “new information” that doesn’t exist about Moscow intending to interfere in primaries and the general election this year indicates lots more of this rubbish to come in the run-up to November.

Last April, Robert Mueller’s witch hunt report exposed the Russiagate hoax by revealing no damning evidence because there was none to find.

Cooked up by Obama’s Russophobic CIA director John Brennan, it was one of the most shameful chapters in US political history.

Mueller’s 19-lawyer team, 40 FBI special agents, intelligence analysts, forensic accountants, and other professional staff spent around $25 million.

They issued 2,800 subpoenas, 500 search warrants, almost 50 orders authorizing use of pen registers, 13 requests to foreign governments for evidence, over 230 orders for communication records, interviewed about 500 individuals, and made 34 politicized indictments on dubious charges unconnected to his mandate.

When all was said and done, Mueller’s team discovered nothing connected to phony allegations of possible Trump team/Russia collusion to triumph over Hillary, no collusion, no obstruction of justice, no evidence of Russian US election meddling.

Why would Russia or any other country interfere in America’s political process when outcomes are always the same!

Dirty business as usual always wins, how duopoly rule works under a one-party system with two extremist right wings.

Earlier claims by the DNI and CIA that Putin personally ordered a campaign of US election meddling to favor Trump over Hillary in 2016 were rubbish.

Yet the Big Lie reared its ugly head in this year’s race for the White House — once again, no evidence backing phony accusations because none exists.

The Russophobic Times is front and center promoting what has no credibility — its own long ago lost.

*

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 Intercept

The inept course of what passes for United States Foreign Policy continues, with the Trump Administration now going after the nation’s second oldest friend, Great Britain. With Trump having serially insulted America’s oldest ally France last year, it should only have been expected that the Brits would be next on the list, joining the other key European ally Germany, which is being threatened with sanctions over buying gas from Russia.

In the latest episode of international misunderstanding, the British media has aggressively latched on to a traffic death involving the wife of an American government technical employee at a top-secret communications facility in England. The story has been prominent in the U.K. papers since last August, when the incident occurred, with much of the editorializing in England blaming the White House and State Department for a grave miscarriage of justice. The woman, Anne Sacoolas, was reportedly driving on the wrong side of the road near the RAF Croughton airbase in Northamptonshire, which hosts the communications facility, when she had a head on collision with motorcyclist Harry Dunn, killing him instantly.

Sacoolas was questioned by the police and then released with the understanding that the authorities would follow up with more questions if warranted but the U.S. Embassy put her and her husband Jonathan and three children on a plane and flew them back to Washington, claiming diplomatic immunity in the accidental death.

The British did not buy into that argument and demanded that Anne Sacoolas be extradited to the U.K. to take responsibility for what she had done, denying that she had diplomatic immunity because she had fled the country without making any such claim.

Secretary of State Mike Pompeo rejected the British demands, arguing that

“If the United States were to grant the UK’s extradition request, it would render the invocation of diplomatic immunity a practical nullity and would set an extraordinarily troubling precedent.”

In simpler language Pompeo was declaring that he would never under any circumstances recognize that the killing of a foreigner might justify allowing an American government official to stand trial, even in a Western European country where the accused would have rights and be treated fairly.

In October Sacoolas was interviewed by British police officers in the U.S. and in December the U.K. government charged Sacoolas with “causing death by dangerous driving” and made clear that it was demanding cooperation from Washington. British Prime Minister Boris Johnson also warned that he would go directly to President Trump over the issue. However, the State Department refused to budge and Sacoolas was last seen pumping gas in Falls Church Virginia.

There is, of course, more to the story. The Daily Mail has published a piece asserting that the husband and wife are actually Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) employees, though she was “not active” in their posting in Britain. The article also states that Anne Sacoolas outranks her husband.

The Mail article relies on unnamed sources and the manner in which it is framed suggests that the United States government is refusing to extradite Anne Sacoolas because she is an intelligence officer, active or otherwise. The implication would seem to be that Washington is fearful lest Sacoolas be questioned by the British police and wittingly or unwittingly reveal details of classified secret CIA operations.

A simpler explanation for the State Department’s unwillingness to compel Sacoolas to return to England would be that it would compromise the cover arrangements at Croughton base. And the claim that she and her husband are both CIA should also be taken with somewhat more than a grain of salt. The media in Europe and much of the rest of the world routinely labels any U.S. intelligence link as CIA. As Croughton is presumably a major communications and “listening post” intercept center for the U.S. government it would include elements of all the alphabet soup that makes up the intelligence community, to include the National Security Agency (NSA) as well as representatives from all the armed services and the State Department.

The argument over returning Sacoolas to Britain centers around the use or abuse of diplomatic immunity. Diplomatic and Consular immunity are defined by the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations, which was codified in 1961, but the protections provided are not the same for all employees of embassies overseas. In principle, diplomatic immunity became an established practice to prevent a local government from using the law to maliciously harass the emissary of a foreign country. This has inevitably produced some bizarre cases where the privilege has been abused. Back in 2010, a Qatari diplomat Mohammed al-Madadi was in the news when he was caught by an air Marshal for smoking in the bathroom of a Washington to Denver flight. He joked that he was actually lighting a bomb in his shoes before claiming diplomatic immunity and being released by the police.

In reality, ambassadors and deputy chiefs of mission plus their families have full immunity and can commit any crime, though the host country has the option of demanding that such individuals go home as personae non gratae (PNG). Diplomats with something like full immunity are normally accepted by the Foreign Ministry of the host country and they are then entered on the diplomatic list. Other embassy employees, to include those at Consular posts, have what is regarded as “functional immunity,” which means that they are protected as long as they are performing work that is related to their jobs at the foreign mission. Other embassy administrative employees who have no diplomatic related duties have no immunity at all.

It is by no means clear how Jonathan Sacoolsa, identified both as a “technical” officer and “intelligence officer” by various sources had diplomatic immunity in the first place, as he clearly did not function as a diplomat and was working at a communications site. It is possible that there was some special arrangement made with the British government to cover intelligence officers who were declared to the British security services.

With the Sacoolsa case still roiling the international waters, one would think that the Trump Administration just might talk nice to America’s closest ally to undo some of the damage. But no, Donald Trump does not do nice and is angry with Boris Johnson because British government has contracted with Chinese tech giant Huawei to build part of Britain’s next generation 5G cellular phone network. According to the Financial Times Trump vented “apoplectic” fury at Boris Johnson in a tense phone call before slamming down the receiver. Boris has, as a consequence, canceled an upcoming trip to Washington.

The president, claiming that using Chinese technology is “very dangerous,” a “security issue,” threatened that there would be consequences arising from the British decision, including some limits on the Five Eyes intelligence sharing as well as less willingness on the part of Washington to enter into bilateral trade talks. Johnson, taken aback by the verbal onslaught, argued that there was no commercially available alternative to the Chinese technology to no avail. Trump has also been angered by Britain’s continued adherence to the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) intended to monitor Iran’s nuclear program and prohibit development of a weapon. Officials who have been engaged in the management of the bilateral “special relationship” between the U.S. and Britain believe that the rift between the two countries, fueled solely by Trump’s taking personal affront whenever anyone disagrees with him, is wide and growing. If Trump is reelected it is quite likely that by 2024 the United States will have no friends left in Europe.

*

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: Anne Sacoolas (Facebook)

Tensions between the United States and Russia are growing in northeastern Syria. On February 19, a video appeared online showing how an armored vehicle of the U.S. military was pushing a vehicle of the Russian Military Police off a road. The US move endangered a civilian standing near the road. If he had not run away in time, he would have been killed by the vehicle. The incident reportedly took place to the east of the city of al-Qamishli in the northern al-Hasakah countryside.

Russian air defense forces repelled a drone and missile attack on the Hmeimim airbase in the province of Latakia. Pro-government sources reported that the attack was carried out from the southern part of the Idlib de-escalation zone, where militants are still present.

On February 19, Turkish Sultan-in-Chief Recep Tayyip Erdogan declared that the Turkish military has finished preparations for an operation against the Syrian Army in Greater Idlib, and its start is inevitable because Syrian troops are not planning to withdraw from the recently liberated areas. On the same day, Turkey continued deployment of additional troops and equipment to the region, as well as directly to the frontline. The frontline areas where the Turkish military presence is especially strong is the eastern countryside of Idlib city and the town of Atarib. Turkish media outlets are enthusiastically drawing maps of a possible Turkish aggression.

Pro-Turkish sources claim that the operation in Idlib will not only help to rescue supposed civilians from the regime offensive, but to separate the so-called moderate opposition from terrorists. According to these claims, Hayat Tahrir al-Sham, the Turkistan Islamic Party and other al-Qaeda-linked groups, which make up over 80% of Idlib militants, will be disbanded. It would be interesting to see how Ankara would go about disbanding and disarming the forces that it has been supplying with weapons and supporting so much. Do Turkish media outlets really expect their audience to believe that from one moment to the next tens of thousands of battle-hardened al-Qaeda members are going to abandon their ideology and become florists or Instagram bloggers?

*

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

Transcript and Sources

My name is Derrick Broze. For the past 8 years I have worked as an independent freelance investigative journalist in Houston, Texas. Since 2012 I have covered a wide range of topics, from indigenous resistance at Standing Rock, exposing government and corporate surveillance, and reporting from important trials like Chelsea Manning’s sentencing, and the Silk Road trial. Throughout this time, I have noticed that choosing to investigate certain topics, often results in being labeled a conspiracy theorist, or, at the very least, a proponent of less-than-credible journalism. One of these “forbidden” topics relates to potential harms caused by the use of cell phones and related digital technology.

Over the years I have seen articles discussing research on the dangers of radio frequency radiation and electromagnetic fields. Again, I noticed these studies never made mainstream newspapers, or headlines on the 24 hour cable news cycle. Even if the news had reported on this information, would it have made a difference?

I – like millions of people around the world – never gave a second thought to the possibility that cell phones or laptops could be causing harm to human health. We assume that the government agencies responsible for these fields have tested everything for safety. I started to wonder Has this blind faith in authority been a huge mistake?

My ignorance of these topics came to an end in September 2018 when I learned that the City of Houston had recently partnered with companies like Microsoft and Verizon to turn Houston into a “Smart City”. This Smart City would use emerging 5g technology to power the so-called “Internet of Things”, which In turn will allow for autonomous vehicles, robot assistant’s, artificial intelligence, sensors in the street to moderate street lights and environmental warning systems, and many other futuristic technologies we have been promised.

At this time, I had little understanding of what exactly 5g was, but my preliminary research had shown me that there was an increasing amount of people raising questions about the potential health and privacy concerns. I also learned that there were lawsuits taking place across Texas and around the world, as the opposition pushed back against the federal government and the wireless industry seizing power from towns, cities, and states.

On October 1st, 2018 Houston Mayor Sylvester Turner held a press event with officials from Verizon wireless. The Mayor and Verizon CEO Hans Vestberg were on location at a Houston couples home as they installed 5G equipment and helped the young couple become “the world’s first 5g customer”.

DB: Mayor Turner, as far as moving forward with innovation and wanting to be the first, has anybody stopped to look at any studies related to potential health effects of increasing the amount of small cells in the city, as well as privacy concerns that the American Civil Liberties Union and others have put out concerns regarding the push towards smart cities?

Houston Mayor Sylvester Turner:  you know, I haven’t seen any recent studies on it. I mean the reality is that, umm, if you want to move things quicker, if you want to innovate, you’ve got an installation that, I mean, the infrastructure is critically important”

DB: is there any concern about the health effects of the increase in small cells?

Hans Vestberg, CEO Verizon Wireless: The studies that have been done over years, has not shown any effects or health effects on the radio signals and there’s no difference. There are safety rules on all of it that is regulated by the regulators, how much power you can use. 

I was not satisfied with their answers. I did more research and the following week I attended Houston City Council to share what I had found with the Mayor and Council. (video) This visit to council was followed by another, and another, and another. These videos gained more than 900,000 thousand views via Youtube alone, leading dozens of activists from around the world to reach out and encourage me to keep going.

I was also featured on local news discussing the concerns around the 5g roll out. I confronted the Mayor of Houston for his close ties to the Wireless Industry and ignoring the concerns about 5g. The Mayor ran away from my questions at City Council and on 3 different occasions in public (1, 2, and 3). In fact, due to the response from the Mayor and the City, I ran a campaign for Mayor of Houston, calling for a moratorium on the installation of 5g towers until further studies.

Over the last year my research has involved interviewing health and privacy experts, and uncovering the truth about the Race to 5g. What I have learned is that the industry known as Big Wireless is colluding with the Federal Communications Commission to create a false demand for 5g technology, in total disregard to health and privacy concerns, all the while using the 5g rollout to strip away local power. I offer the conclusions of my research, in the hopes that it will encourage the public to question and oppose the promises of …. The 5g Trojan Horse.

Chapter 1: Understanding the Electromagnetic Spectrum

To have a discussion on 5g we first have to talk about Electromagnetic frequencies or EMFs. An emf is a measure of how many times the peak of a wave passes a particular point per second. It is measured in Hertz. This range of potential frequencies makes up what we call the electromagnetic spectrum.

The electromagnetic spectrum is divided into separate bands, and the electromagnetic waves within each frequency band are called by different names, including radio waves, microwaves, infrared, visible light, ultraviolet, X-rays, and gamma rays at the high-frequency (short wavelength) end.

Within those bands, gamma rays, X-rays, and high ultraviolet are classified as ionizing radiation, meaning they have sufficient energy to ionize atoms, causing chemical reactions. Exposure to these rays can be a health hazard, causing radiation sickness, DNA damage and cancer. Radiation from visible light and lower wavelength are called nonionizing radiation because they apparently cannot cause these effects. We will revisit the science around ionizing and non-ionizing radiation in a moment.

What is 5g?

Devices like Cellphones, Wifi, and Bluetooth all operate on the microwaves band of the spectrum. When it comes to cellphones, a new generation of cellular standards has appeared approximately every ten years since 1G systems were introduced in 1979 and the early to mid-1980s. Each generation is characterized by new frequency bands, higher data rates and non–backward compatible transmission technology.

The 2nd Generation, or 2g, featured cell phones with texting and pictures. The 3rd generation came about around 2000, with the introduction of phones with some internet, video, and images. The 4th Generation came around 2009 with the introduction of smart phones with instant streaming of video, as well as the use of apps.

As we move into 2020, the shift to the 5th generation, or 5g, has begun. In addition to being promoted as the solution to 4k movie downloads, the new technology is expected to herald the beginning of Smart Cities, where driverless cars, traffic lights, pollution sensors, smart phones and countless other smart devices interact in what is known as “The Internet of Things.” The IoT is a fancy way to say that we will be surrounded by hundreds of thousands of interconnected devices and sensors which are gathering mass amounts of data that will be used to show you advertising and monitor your habits, and other uses that we can’t even predict yet.

The switch from 4g to 5g is a change unlike those of previous generations. One notable difference is that 5G technology uses much higher frequencies, ranging from 10-300 GHZ. 5g is using millimeter waves which do not travel far and are easily blocked by trees, buildings, and walls. The 5 G rollout means the installation of hundreds of thousands of new cell sites, towers, and additions to existing infrastructure. Cities like Houston, Atlanta, Boston, Chicago, Denver, San Diego, New York City, and Washington D.C. are already deploying 5g for residential and commercial uses.

Let’s examine some of the concerns surrounding 5g and electromagnetic fields in general.

Chapter 2: The Concerns Around EMF’s and 5g

As I mentioned earlier, over the years I have come across articles claiming that cell phones were giving people cancer or making people sick. I did not pay too much attention at first, but when I finally decided to investigate the topic I realized there was ample evidence that the technology we are so hurriedly surrounding ourselves with might be putting our lives at risk in more ways than one.

I started by trying to understand the concerns around EMFs in general. I went through hundreds of studies, including those from official government sources and others funded independently. I found studies like “International and National Expert Group Evaluations: Biological/Health Effects of Radiofrequency Fields“, which examined six decades worth of research into the effects of in vitro and in vivo exposures of animals and humans or their cells to RF fields.

“Data reported in peer-reviewed scientific publications were contradictory: some indicated effects while others did not,”the researchers write. Still, in the end, the expert groups suggested a “reduction in exposure levels, precautionary approach, and further research.” So I continued digging.

I came across studies discussing extremely low frequency electromagnetic fields and their effect on DNA. The researchers concluded that cells exposed to ELFs “presented an increase of the number of cells with high damaged DNA as compared with non-exposed cells.” I found studies examining a potential association between nocturnal mobile phone use and mental health, suicidal feelings, and self-injury in adolescents. I also found an interesting one discussing the excitability of the brain being induced by radiofrequencies. The study stated that “These results suggest that low-intensity RF fields can modulate the excitability of hippocampal tissue in vitro in the absence of gross thermal effects. The changes in excitability may be consistent with reported behavioural effects of RF fields.”

A 2004 study found  “an increased risk of acoustic neuroma [tumors] associated with mobile phone use of at least 10 years’ duration.”

I also found studies that were inconclusive, which found “No conclusive evidence of an association between use of mobile and cordless phones and a meningioma brain tumor”. The study discovered “An indication of increased risk” but was not “supported by statistically significant increasing risk“, ultimately calling for further studies.

A study by Kaiser Permanente examined rates of miscarriages for women near cell towers. The study of hundreds of pregnant women in the San Francisco Area found that those who were more exposed to the type of radiation produced by cell phones, wireless networks and power lines — radiation that grows more common everyday — were nearly three times as likely to miscarry. The Kaiser Permanente study did not show definitively what was causing the higher rate of pregnancy loss, nor did it isolate the potential impact of cell phones or other producers of EMFs. However, the authors said the results underscore the need for more research into the potential dangers.

During my investigation I came across the name of Dr. Martin Pall, a Professor Emeritus of Biochemistry and Basic Medical Sciences at Washington State University. Pall is a published and widely cited scientist on the biological effects of electromagnetic fields, an expert in how wireless radiation impacts the electrical systems in our bodies.

He has published 7 studies showing sensitivity to electromagnetic fields exists in what is known as the voltage sensor, in each cell of the body. A study by Pall published in the journal of Environmental Health found this sensitivity in human cells in response to wi-fi exposure. He calls this effect an important threat to human health. According to Dr. Pall, there are at least 15 different ways EMFs harm humans, including :

1. changes in brain structure and function, changes in various types of psychological responses and changes in behavior.
2) At least eight different endocrine (hormonal) effects.
3) Cardiac effects influencing the electrical control of the heart
4) Chromosome breaks and other changes in chromosome structure.
5) Histological changes in the testes.
6) Cell death
7) Lowered male fertility including lowered sperm quality and function and also lowered female fertility (less studied).
810) Cellular DNA damage including single strand breaks and double strand breaks in cellular DNA
9) Cancer which is likely to involve these DNA changes but also increased rates of tumor promotion-like events.
10) Cataract formation
11) Breakdown of the blood-brain barrier.
12) Melatonin depletion and sleep disruption.

In 2016 Dr. Pall released another study on EMFs [in the journal of chemical neuroanatomy].He writes:

“18 more recent epidemiological studies, provide substantial evidence that microwave EMFs from cell/mobile phone base stations, excessive cell/mobile phone usage and from wireless smart meters can each produce similar patterns of neuropsychiatric effects. Lesser evidence from 6 additional studies suggests that short wave, radio station, occupational and digital TV antenna exposures may produce similar neuropsychiatric effects. Among the more commonly reported changes are sleep disturbance/insomnia, headache, depression/depressive symptoms, fatigue/tiredness, dysesthesia, concentration/attention dysfunction, memory changes, dizziness, irritability, loss of appetite/body weight, restlessness/anxiety, nausea, skin burning/tingling/dermographism and EEG changes.”

He concludes that “extensive epidemiological studies performed over the past 50 years”  “all collectively show that various non-thermal microwave EMF exposures produce diverse neuropsychiatric effects”. Pall also notes that the effects of EMF’s were documented 49 years ago in the U.S. Office of Naval Medical Research report, published in 1971.

Despite the breadth of his work, Dr. Pall has largely been pushed to the fringes of society. To be fair, his work has been criticized by other scientists who have accused him of bias and cherry picking studies to support his claims. In 2018, I asked Dr. Martin Pall why his research has been ignored or pushed out of the mainstream conversation.

Dr. Martin Pall: We quit funding, we quit funding the studies of this sort back between 1986 and 1999. We’ve done almost nothing since then. So basically the US government’s been pushing these technologies, at the same time doing absolutely nothing,  well almost absolutely nothing, to protect us.

The debate around the safety of cellphones and other devices that emit EMFs grew a little more heated in early November 2018 when the National Toxicology Program released data concluding there is clear evidence radio-frequency radiation (RFR) can cause brain and heart tumors in male lab rats. The $30 million study took more than ten years to complete as researchers examined the effects of prolonged exposure to high levels of RFR, specifically the type of radiation emitted via 2G and 3G cellular networks.

The researchers write:

“There was also some evidence of tumors in the brain and adrenal gland of exposed male rats. For female rats, and male and female mice, the evidence was equivocal as to whether cancers observed were associated with exposure to RFR.”

The NTP caution that the results should not be applied to humans and the FDA and other government agencies also said that they do not support the conclusions and they do not apply to 5g. [John Bucher, Ph.D.,] A  senior scientist with the NTP said, “The exposures used in the studies cannot be compared directly to the exposure that humans experience when using a cell phone. In our studies, rats and mice received radio frequency radiation across their whole bodies.” The NTP stated that, “The lowest exposure level used in the studies was equal to the maximum local tissue exposure currently allowed for cell phone users.”

The NTP seems to suggest the only way to avoid the health concerns is to avoid using a cell phone. In a health advisory, the NTP recommends those concerned about the potential health risks from RFR should, “Use speaker mode or a headset to place more distance between your head and the cell phone,” or “reduce the amount of time spent using your cell phone.”

Ronald Melnick PhD, a researcher and scientist [Former senior toxicologist, US Environmental Toxicology Program] who designed the exposure systems used in the study, disagrees with the FDA and the FCC.

Melnick notes that, “Dr. Shuren neglects to note that the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC), a part of the World Health Organization, classified radio-frequency radiation from wireless devices as a “possible human carcinogen”based largely on findings of increased risks of gliomas and Schwann cell tumors in the brain near the ear in humans after long term use of cellphones.” The IARC designation of cell phones as a possible carcinogen has been highly controversial since it was first issued in 2011.

[In an opinion piece published by The Hill,] Melnick also stated that, “Simply claiming that conclusions about human risk cannot be drawn from animal studies runs counter to standard practices of evaluating human cancer risks by public health agencies including the U.S. EPA, NTP, IARC and even the FDA. Every chemical known to cause cancer in humans is also carcinogenic in animals when adequately tested.”

In an interview with Josh Del Sol of Take Back Your Power, Melnick elaborated on the problems he sees with the U.S. regulatory agencies.

Josh Del Sol, Take Back Your Power: Approximately 30 million dollars was invested to see if cell phones cause cancer at levels at or below the allowable levels right and in rats and the answer is that there was a significant increase in schwannomas of the heart and gliomas in the brain and then they dropped it, they just dropped it. So I guess I want to ask the question, like why do you think, now we’re getting into speculation here, and we know that Harvard Ethics Department has written about the FCC’s being controlled by industry but the FDA? We’ve heard in other conversations various things about them but like what’s actually going on and how significant of a thing is this. The study was done, it showed cancer, and then they just dropped it. Help us to frame this here.

Dr. Ronald Melnick: Well, I can’t tell you why they decided as such all I can say is that they decided at this point, or as far as I know, not to do anything about this. This information was actually available in 2016 when the NTP released some of the partial findings because of the potential impact of these findings on the general population. The tumors in the heart and tumors in the brain were known in 2016. If you know, it could be that, they don’t want people to think that their cell phones pose a cancer hazard, maybe they have other reasons and I can’t say whether or not the industry is having an influence that is certainly a possibility but seems to me that from a public health perspective what you want to do is understand the risk, quantify it, and do something about it, promote precautionary principles. 

Even more recently, an August 2019 investigation by the Chicago Tribune found that currently available models of cell phones are already exceeding the safety limits set by the FCC. This means that the cell phones being used by millions of Americans are exposing them to dangerous levels of radiation.

There is clearly sufficient evidence to warrant a mass warning to consumer of electronic devices, yet we are met with silence from health professionals and mainstream corporate media. Regarding the dangers of 5g, Dr. Melnick suggests caution.

“5G is an emerging technology that hasn’t really been defined yet. From what we currently understand, it likely differs dramatically from what we studied. Consequently, I believe that new wireless technologies, including 5G, should be adequately tested before their implementation leads to unacceptable levels of human exposures and increased health risks.”

Additionally, hundreds of scientists from around the world have signed the “5g Appeal”, a statement calling on a moratorium on 5g.

“We the undersigned, scientists and doctors, recommend a moratorium on the roll-out of the fifth generation, 5G, for telecommunication until potential hazards for human health and the environment have been fully investigated by scientists independent from industry. 5G will substantially increase exposure to radiofrequency electromagnetic fields (RF-EMF) on top of the 2G, 3G, 4G, Wi-Fi, etc. for telecommunications already in place. RF-EMF has been proven to be harmful for humans and the environment.“

At a May 2018 United Nations hearing, Claire Edwards, [a United Nations Editor and Trainer in Intercultural Writing from 1999 to 2017,] warns the UN Secretary-General  António Guterres about the dangers of 5G. Edwards is a co-organizer of a second appeal to Stop 5G, called the International Appeal to Stop 5G on Earth and in Space (www.5gspaceappeal.org), which as of December 2019, had 186,352 signatories from 208 nations and territories. At the hearing she told Guterres that recently installed wifi equipment could cause harm to UN employees.

Claire Edwards: “Since December 2015, the staff here at the Vienna International Centre have been exposed to off-the-scale electromagnetic radiation from WiFi and mobile phone boosters installed on very low ceilings throughout the buildings. Current public exposure levels are at least one quintillion times (that’s 18 zeros) above natural background radiation according to Professor Olle Johansson of the Karolinska Institute in Sweden.

The highly dangerous biological effects of EMFs have been documented by thousands of studies since 1932 indicating that we may be facing a global health catastrophe orders of magnitude worse than those caused by tobacco and asbestos.

Mr. Secretary-General, on the basis of the Precautionary Principle, I urge you to have these EMF-emitting devices removed immediately and to call a halt to any rollout of 5G at UN duty stations, because 5g is designed to deliver concentrated and focused electromagnetic radiation in excess of 100 times current levels, in the same way as do directed energy weapons”.

Guterres claimed he was ignorant to the dangers of the technology.

Groups like Physicians for Safe Technology have also called for caution and common sense on 5g. Doctors have begun speaking out about the concerns of surrounding ourselves with hundreds of thousands of new cell towers and small cells in the interest of 5g. [In October 2018, Sharon Goldberg, a medical practitioner for 21 years, testified in front of the Michigan House Energy Policy Committee (:13 to 1:58, )]

Thus far, there have only been a few politicians brave enough to speak out about this issue. Former Michigan State Senator Patrick Colbeck recently spoke out against the unprecedented roll out this new, untested technology ( 4:04-5:30)

In April 2019, New York Congressman Thomas Suozzi sent a letter to the FCC seeking answers about the technology.

“Small cell towers are being installed in residential neighborhoods in close proximity to houses throughout my district. I have heard instances of these antennas being installed on light poles directly outside the window of a young child’s bedroom. Rightly so, my constituents are worried that should this technology be proven hazardous in the future, the health of their families and value of their properties would be at serious risk.”

New Jersey Congressman Andy Kim also sent a letter, noting that:

“Current regulations governing radiofrequency (RF) safety were put in place in 1996 and have not yet been reassessed for newer generation technologies. Despite the close proximity to sensitive areas where these high-band cells will be installed, little research has been conducted to examine 5G safety.”

Most damning of all, Senator Richard Blumenthal of Connecticut exposed that Big Wireless and the FCC have failed to do adequate independent studies into the effects of emerging 5g technology. At a Senate Commerce committee hearing, Blumenthal questioned industry reps about the absence of this research. (2:38-3:44, 4:35-4:44)

Richard Blumenthal: “If you go to the FDA website, there basically is a cursory and superficial citation to existing scientific data saying ‘’he FDA has urged the cell phone industry to take a number of steps, including support additional research on possible biological effects of radio frequency fields for the type of signals emitted by cell phones.’

 So my question for you: How much money has the industry committed to supporting additional independent research—I stress independent—research? Is that independent research ongoing? Has any been completed? Where can consumers look for it? And we’re talking about research on the biological effects of this new technology.”

Brad Gillen, Executive Director of the CTIA: “There are no industry backed studies to my knowledge right now.”

At the end of the exchange, Blumenthal concluded, “So there really is no research ongoing.  We’re kind of flying blind here, as far as health and safety is concerned.”

As more health professionals, politicians, and scientists speak out against the dangers of 5g and EMFs, the cellular industry and some in the mainstream media have begun pushing back. In March 2019, William Broad of the New York Times wrote a piece promoting the idea that those who are concerned about the health effects of 5g are simply falling prey to Russian propaganda designed to make America lose the “race to 5g”.  His article, “Your 5G Phone Won’t Hurt You. But Russia Wants You to Think Otherwise.”, sought to place the blame for concern around 5g on the shoulders of America’s favorite boogeyman – The Russians.

Interestingly, Broad failed to mention that in April 2019 the Times announced a partnership with Verizon to showcase a “5g journalism lab”. This seems to be a new trend for corporate media as the Washington Post announced a similar deal with ATT in November 2019. Questions regarding potential conflicts of interest have not been addressed.

Dr. Devra Davis, PhD, President of the Environmental Health Trust, responded to Broad’s claim by noting that “by relegating concerns about 5G to a Russian ploy, he misses altogether the fact that the purportedly independent international authorities on which he relies that declare 5G to be safe are an exclusive club of industry-loyal scientists. China, Russia, Poland, Italy and several other European countries allow up to hundreds of times less wireless radiation into the environment from microwave antennas than does the U.S..”

Davis went even further, comparing the treatment of those who raise awareness about the public impact of radio frequency microwave radiation to that of those scientists in the 1950s and 60s who attempted to ring alarm bells about the dangers of tobacco.

“Scientists who showed the harmful impacts of tobacco found themselves struggling for serious attention and financial support,” [Davis wrote].

Dr. Devra Davis: “For health impacts from wireless radiation, a similar pattern is emerging. Each time a U.S. government agency produced positive findings, research on health impacts was defunded. The Office of Naval Research, the National Institute of Occupational Safety and Health, the Department of Health, Education and Welfare, and the Environmental Protection Agency all once had vibrant research programs documenting dangers of wireless radiation. All found their programs scrapped, reflecting pressure from those who sought to suppress this work.”

Ironically, one of the sources for an extensive amount of research on the health effects of EMFs comes from Russia and Ukraine. In fact, a review paper of Russian and Ukrainian science discusses research on the effect of EMFs in the former Soviet Union during the 1950’s, 60’s, and 70’s.

[ The report states that,] “In epidemiological studies of the population of Ukraine, a connection was established between leukemia in children and cancer in adults, and exposure to EMF at industrial frequencies. Specific injuries under radiowave exposure are development of cataracts, instability in leukocyte make-up of peripheral blood, and vegeto-vascular disorder.”

Additionally, on March 3, 2011 the Russia radiation watchdog committee [members of the Russian National Committee on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection (RNCNIRP)] approved a resolution on the effects of non-ionizing radiation emitted by cell phones. According to U.S. government agencies, cell phones and EMFs are non-ionizing, meaning they do not have the power to alter atoms in the human body. Because of this, and the assumption that heat alone cannot cause health problems, the public is told that non-ionizing means safe. The resolution by the committee says otherwise. 

[The committee states that] “urgent measures must be taken because of the inability of children to recognize the harm from the mobile phone use and that a mobile phone itself can be considered as an uncontrolled source of harmful exposure.”

The Russian committee called for requiring health information regarding exposure to EMFs on the phone itself, as well as setting limits for children and teens using cell phones and laptops. As of 2019, no U.S. regulatory body has adopted similar measures.

Regarding this debate around ionizing and non-ionizing radiation, I asked Dr. Martin Pall why some researchers claim non-ionizing radiation is safe, and others warn of harm.

Dr. Martin Pall (18:25-19:54): When thinking about radiation you’re talking about the individual photons that make it up and the fact is that the individual photons that make up non-ionizing radiation, particularly you know in the microwave and lower frequency ranges, don’t have enough energy to influence the chemistry of our bodies. That’s true. They don’t, but we’re not talking about the individual photons. It’s the fields as a whole and those fields as a whole put forces on a structure called the voltage sensor that controls these voltage-gated calcium channels and that structure is extraordinarily sensitive to these fields and that’s why you get activation of the voltage-gated calcium channels, and why you get excessive calcium in the cell. So, we know why the system works and we know why it’s so extraordinarily sensitive. And the industry has been claiming that these fields are not strong enough to do anything but the reason the industry is wrong is because this structure is extraordinarily sensitive to the forces of the EMF’s. So this comes straight out of the physics and this is where this is where the physics background that I have has been very valuable, in addition an understanding of biology.

By studying the evidence, it becomes abundantly clear that – despite the attacks from mainstream news and promises from Big Wireless – there are a great deal of reasons to be concerned about health issues related to cell phones, laptops, smart devices, and 5g. To be fair, there are, of course, scientists and researchers who say that the claims of health problems associated with EMFs are exaggerated and unfounded.

The proponents of EMFs claim the opposition is cherry-picking evidence to make their case.  However, even if one takes only a cursory look at the information we have just presented to you, it should be easy enough to see that rolling out a new untested technology is not smart science. At the very least, we must encourage public officials to exercise the precautionary principle and do further testing before rolling out 5g.

Smart City or Surveillance City?

Cancer and other health issues are not the only concerns being raised by critics of 5g and The Internet of Things. There are a growing number of professionals, government agencies, civil rights attorneys, and activists asking important questions about the digital future.

In April 2018, the American Civil Liberties Union released a guide detailing important questions that should be asked by city officials seeking to join the “Smart City evolution. [The guide, “How to Prevent Smart Cities from Turning to Surveillance Cities”, was written by Matt Cagle, an attorney with the American Civil Liberties Union of Northern California.] In the course of my research I spoke with the author about his biggest concerns associated with 5g.

Matt Cagle, ACLU: (1:50-3:12): When we talk about smart city technology or the Internet of Things in the government context, that what we’re really talking about is you know electronics that are maybe small and cheap that can be placed around the city and that essentially can be designed to collect information, whether it’s visual information or audio information or information about say whether a parking space is occupied. But before any smart city technology is acquired or deployed, it’s really important that a city working with its community determine whether that technology is actually smart for the city to do.

Why do we ask why do we say that? Well, that’s because you know smart city technology can be a wolf in sheep’s clothing. It can be another way for the government to amass information that it may not have wanted to collect for law enforcement purposes but that might be vulnerable to that sort of use later or that they may not have wanted to collect for immigration purposes but that could potentially be vulnerable to that later. And again, this technology is often going to be collected by companies that have developed it. So it’s really important for the city and the community to be on the same page about who’s going to own this data as we go forward with this project, who’s going to be able to sell this data, and at the end of the day are communities in control of these technologies.

There already exist a few examples of what a Smart City will resemble. In places like San Diego, activists are already fighting against privacy invasions via environmentally friendly smart streetlights that are always listening. In South Korea the Smart City vision is advancing quite quickly.  (Video 1:27-2:18)

Let’s look at another example of a smart city.

Quayside is a planned smart city that has been in the works since 2016. Located on 12 acres of waterfront property southeast of downtown Toronto, Canada, Quayside represents a joint effort by the Canadian government agency, Waterfront Toronto, and Sidewalk Labs, which is owned by Google’s parent company Alphabet. Sidewalk Labs claims Quayside will solve traffic congestion, rising home prices and environmental pollution. There are even plans for housing developments and a school within the smart city. 

Unfortunately, residents of Quayside will be using a centralized identity management system through which they access public services such as library cards and health care. This means their data will be highly centralized, leaving it open to access by hackers and law enforcement. In fact, Quayside has consistently faced pushback due to a failure to build-in the necessary privacy protections.

At least two officials involved in the project have resigned. Saadia Muzaffar resigned from Waterfront Toronto in protest after the board showed “apathy and a lack of leadership regarding shaky public trust.”

In October 2018, Ann Cavoukian, one of Canada’s leading privacy experts and Ontario’s former privacy commissioner, became the latest person to resign from the project. Cavoukian was brought on by Sidewalk Toronto as a consultant to help install a “privacy by design” framework. She was initially told that all data collected from residents would be deleted and rendered unidentifiable. She later learned that third parties would have access to identifiable information gathered at Quayside.

“I imagined us creating a Smart City of Privacy, as opposed to a Smart City of Surveillance,” she wrote in her resignation letter.  “I have to resign because you committed to embedding privacy by design into every aspect of your operation.”

The fears around Quayside grew in late October 2019, when The Globe and Mail reported that previously unseen documents from Sidewalk Labs detailed how people living in a Sidewalk community would interact with and have access to the space around them. This experience in the proposed smart cities largely depends on how much data you’re willing to share, which could be used to reward or punish people for their behavior.

Although the document, known internally as the “yellow book,” was designed as a pitch book for the company, and predates Sidewalk’s formal agreements with the City of Toronto, it does provide a vision of what the Google sister company would like to do.

Specifically, the document details how Sidewalk will require tax and financing authority to finance and provide services, including the ability to impose, capture and reinvest property taxes.” The company would also create and control its public services, including charter schools, special transit systems and a private road infrastructure.

The document also describes reputation-based tools that sound disturbingly similar to the social credit system we have seen in tv shows like Black Mirror and those unfolding in modern China. These tools would lead to a “new currency for community co-operation,” effectively establishing a social credit system. Sidewalk could use these tools to “hold people or businesses accountable” while rewarding good behavior with easier access to loans and public services.

In response to the document leaks, Sidewalk spokesperson Keerthana Rang said, “The ideas contained in this 2016 internal paper represent the result of a wide-ranging brainstorming process very early in the company’s history.”

Perhaps due in part to the push back against privacy invasions, in November 2019 Sidewalk Labs released a 482-page Digital Innovation Appendix stating that none of Quayside’s systems will incorporate facial recognition, and that Sidewalk Labs won’t sell personal information or use it for advertising. Sidewalk Labs says it will require explicit consent to share personal information with third parties.

For the moment, future residents of Quayside will have their data protected, but these types of systems are already being put into place in China. Under the expansion of China’s Sesame Credit System, more than a million people were denied the right to fly. Chinese citizens already live under constant surveillance with CCTV’s and facial recognition a part of daily life.

The U.S. is not far behind China. The U.S. government is also expanding their facial recognition capabilities, with the FBI maintaining a massive secret database of “face prints”. The 5g roll out, the growth of Artificial Intelligence, and the push towards a Smart City future will only increase the potential for abuses of privacy. As we move ever closer to the Smart City future, privacy – and the liberty that comes with privacy – are under extreme threat.

A Threat to Local Control

In September  2018, the FCC passed a new rule putting the federal government in complete control of the 5G rollout. Although the original 1996 Telecommunications Act was the first power grab by the federal government, the September 2018 rule made it so that cities and towns had little ability to regulate or avoid the installation of so-called “Small Cells”.. Under the new rule, phone companies can be charged no more than $270 to install each small-cell antenna. Additionally, local authorities would have 60 days to review the proposed wireless infrastructure.

Localities are already limited in deciding where the equipment can be located. The new rule also continued the tradition of forbidding localities from opposing the equipment on health grounds. The only acceptable claim is based on aesthetics. Basically, if you think the tower looks ugly, they will turn into a palm tree for you.

The Republicans on the FCC stated that limiting the fees that cities can charge localities will free up capital for them to invest in local infrastructure. Democrat Jessica Rosenworcel was the lone dissenter, calling the rule  “extraordinary federal overreach”.

“I do not believe the law permits Washington to run roughshod over state and local authority like this and I worry the litigation that follows will only slow our 5G future,” Jessica Rosenworcel, FCC Commissioner stated.

Rosenworcel was correct about litigation to follow. In fact, in the weeks after the October 2018 rule, two dozen cities and counties filed lawsuits against the Federal Communications Commission. The governments argued that the rule hinders their ability to manage how phone companies use public property.

The mayors of Los Angeles and Philadelphia opposed the rule and accused the FCC of overriding local authority to regulate the new technology. Los Angeles Mayor Eric Garcetti sent a letter to the FCC stating that the rules would override previous agreements established by local authorities and Verizon and AT&T.

Sascha Meinrath, the Palmer Chair in Telecommunications for Pennsylvania State University, stated that he believed preventing local government from collecting fees is “Anti-competitive” and simply a part of Telecom history “that happens again and again and again.”

The matter was only made worse when, in April 2019, President Trump issued an executive order stating that local and state bodies must now approve new 5G infrastructure within 90 days. The Trump administration also initiated a cap on the fees local governments can charge telecom companies wanting to install 5G technology. (video 4:17-5:12)

The push back against the usurpation of local power by the federal government and the telecom lobby can be seen clearly in the town of Danville, California. Back in March 2019, the Danville Town Council voted four to one to block a permit for a 5g small cell wireless installation by Verizon. During the meeting, Danville Mayor Robert Storer stated that the vote was an effort to stand up to the federal government and telecom companies, like Verizon. The Danville Town Council’s decision to deny the land use-permit for the small cell opens the town to possible lawsuits from Verizon.

(video 4:55-5:12, 6:06-6:28, 6:41-7:17)

“We’ve lost local control, and this says: ‘You know what? We are sick of this and we’re not going to just sit here and be bulled over.’ We say no; we play our cards out. We’ve been in lawsuits before,” Mayor Robert Storer said during the council meeting.

Danville city attorney Robert Ewing reiterated that cities cannot fight the small cells or 5g rollout based on health concerns, stating that, “While potential health concerns are a huge concern, if that was the basis on which you were making a decision I would be fairly confident to tell you that you would lose, because that’s about as clear as the law can get.”

Similar resolutions are passing in towns across the world, either outright banning 5g or requiring more testing before implementation.  Between the FCC rules, and the Presidential Executive Order, the U.S. federal government is working with the Big Wireless Lobby to force 5g down the throats of cities and states around the country. Together, in an incestuous corporate-state relationship, they are slowly taking away choice and consent from local bodies. Most worrisome is the thought that the 5g rollout and the subsequent theft of local power, might be setting a precedent for a future where cities and towns have no say in what happens in their own communities, and instead are forced to go along with the agenda of the federal government and their corporate buddies.

A Danger to the Environment

As we examine the impact of 5g, EMFs, and radio frequency radiation on human health, we must also take a moment to consider the impacts on the environment. One of the more recent concerns is how the rolling out of 5g might negatively impact our ability to forecast the weather and accurately predict storms.

In the spring of 2019, NASA and the  NOAA said 5G antennas using similar frequencies used by satellites to gather critical water vapor data,  could compromise forecasts and science. The FCC and Big Telecom companies are seeking to expand cellular service into frequency bands such as 24 GHz, which falls near the frequency used for weather forecasting, at about 23.8 GHz. The Federal Communications Commission, which licenses the wireless spectrum for 5G in the United States, says the fears are exaggerated.

In March 2019, Secretary of Commerce Wilbur Ross, who oversees NOAA, and NASA Administrator Jim Bridenstine sent a letter asking the FCC to postpone the auction of the 5g frequency bands. Instead, the FCC went ahead with the auction, selling frequency to both T-Mobile and AT&T. In May 2019, Neil Jacobs, NOAA’s acting administrator, testified to Congress that an internal study had found 5G-related interference could cost NOAA 77% of the water vapor data it collects at 23.8 GHz, and could degrade weather forecasts by up to 30%, essentially back to 1980 levels. Due to these concerns, NASA and NOAA were seeking a sizable buffer zone between the frequency bands used for weather and those used for 5g. This buffer is measured in units of decibel watts.

Unfortunately, in late November 2019, at a meeting of the International Telecommunication Union, international regulators agreed to a buffer of 33 decibel watts until 1 September 2027, and a 39 decibel watts limit after that. The goal was to allow 5G companies to start building networks now, and to add more protection for weather forecasting once the companies have established their networks. Eric Allaix, a meteorologist and head of World Meteorological Organization (WMO), called the idea of having eight years of lax regulation “of grave concern” to weather forecasters.

Once again, regulators chose policies that benefit Big Wireless and fail to protect the planet and the people.

The 5g expansion not only poses a threat to human health, privacy, and weather forecasting, but an increasing amount of research indicates that surrounding ourselves with an unprecedented amount of digital devices is creating a new form of pollution, known as a digital or “electrosmog”.

n the report, Bees, Birds, and Mankind, German researchers discuss the effects of this electric smog. “The consequences of this development have also been predicted by the critics for many decades and can now no longer be ignored. Bees and other insects disappear, birds avoid certain areas and are disoriented in other locations,” the researchers write.

In September 2008,  a co-author of the report [Dr. Ulrich Warnke, one of the authors of that report, also presented his findings to the Radiation Research Trust at the Royal Society in London. He] stated that, “an unprecedented dense mesh of artificial magnetic, electrical and electromagnetic fields are disrupting nature on a massive scale, causing birds and bees to lose their bearings, fail to reproduce and die.”

A review of studies from around the world show that concerns around the electrosmog are rising. One study Electromagnetic pollution from phone masts. Effects on wildlife reviewed the impact of radiofrequency radiation from wireless telecommunications on wildlife. The researchers note that phone towers located in the living areas of some species are continuously irradiatiating wildlife, causing a reduction of their natural defenses, deterioration of their health, and problems in reproduction. The researchers conclude that “microwave and radiofrequency pollution constitutes a potential cause for the decline of animal populations and deterioration of health of plants living near phone masts. To measure these effects urgent specific studies are necessary.”

Studies are also beginning to look at the impact of RFR on trees. A 2016 study [Radiofrequency radiation injures trees around mobile phone base stations]

attempted to verify whether there is a connection between unusual tree damage and radiofrequency exposure. The researchers conducted a long-term field monitoring study in two German cities. They observed and took photos of unusual or inexplicable tree damage, along with measurements of electromagnetic radiation. A statistical analysis showed that electromagnetic radiation from cell phone towers is harmful for trees. The researchers note that, “These results are consistent with the fact that damage afflicted on trees by mobile phone towers usually start on one side, extending to the whole tree over time.”

A 2010 study looked at the decline in Aspen trees in Colorado since 2004. This study suggested that the RF exposure may have strong adverse effects on growth rate, and may be an underlying factor in aspen decline. Additionally, there are concerns that thousands of trees will be cut down or trimmed to ensure the 5g frequencies operate efficiently.

Another area of growing concern relates to the fear that the massive increase in exposure to RFR could be one of the causes for bee colony collapse disorder, which has wreaked havoc on the global honeybee population.

In a 2017 study,[ Disturbing Honeybees’ Behavior with Electromagnetic Waves: a Methodology,] researcher Daniel Favre of Switzerland claims that his article describes an experiment on bees, which clearly shows the adverse effects of electromagnetic fields on their behavior. [Favre states that,] “The experiment should be reproduced by other researchers so that the danger of manmade electromagnetism (for bees, nature and thus humans) ultimately appears evident to anyone.”

In a study on tadpoles [Mobile Phone Mast Effects on Common Frog Tadpoles,] researchers exposed eggs and tadpoles to electromagnetic radiation from cell phone antennas for two months, from the egg phase until an advanced phase of tadpole and found low coordination of movements, an inconsistent growth pattern, and a high mortality rate. The authors conclude, “these results indicate that radiation emitted by phone masts in a real situation may affect the development and may cause an increase in mortality of exposed tadpoles. This research may have huge implications for the natural world, which is now exposed to high microwave radiation levels from a multitude of phone masts.”

These concerns are not being promoted on the corporate media nightly news or 24 hour news cycles, but to those willing to do the homework, it becomes clear. There is ample evidence of negative impacts as a result of RFR associated with cell phones wifi, and likely, 5g. In fact, in 2018 the European Commission[‘s Scientific Committee on Health, Environmental and Emerging Risks] released a statement on emerging health and environmental issues which clearly outlined the need for more independent research.

Under section 4.4 Potential effects on wildlife of increases in electromagnetic radiation, the report states that “How exposure to electromagnetic fields could affect humans remains a controversial area, and studies have not yielded clear evidence of the impact on mammals, birds or insects. The lack of clear evidence to inform the development of exposure guidelines to 5G technology leaves open the possibility of unintended biological consequences. “

These unintended consequences have the potential to affect human life, as well as insects, birds, plants, and trees.

Chapter 3: The Big Wireless-5g Takeover

As I continued my research and began presenting it to the Houston City Council and fellow Houstonians, I noticed there was often a reluctance to believe what I was claiming. Several times I was asked something along the lines of, “How could something so dangerous be allowed on the market? Doesn’t the government regulate this technology?”

Once again, the trust of the authorities made people feel like they were safe from harm. Unfortunately, the research shows otherwise. But how could this happen? How can the U.S. government allow potentially hazardous products to be sold and used by millions of people?

To understand this, we need to go back to 1996. That year the Telecommunications Act was passed as an effort to update the law around communications technology as the internet was beginning to come into mass public use. The Act was also seen as a way to limit the growing AT&T monopoly. Unfortunately, it was the beginning of further consolidation of telecommunications companies and a huge step towards eroding local power.

The 1996 act prohibits local jurisdictions from considering perceived health effects when taking an action on a proposed facility, such as towers or small cells. Instead, cities and towns could only regulate cell sites based on the aesthetics and location of the devices. [Section 332(c)(7)(B)(iv) of] The Telecommunications Act of 1996 states:

“No State or local government or instrumentality thereof may regulate the placement, construction, and modification of personal wireless service facilities on the basis of the environmental effects of radio frequency emissions to the extent that such facilities comply with the Commission’s regulations concerning such emissions.”

Essentially, as long as the facilities comply with the standards set by the FCC, they cannot be subjected to environmental or health regulations. But what happens if those federal standards set by the FCC in 1996 are not adequate? As we will get into shortly, there are studies which show health effects even at the levels allowed by the 1996 Telecommunications Act, not to mention the fact that the standards are over two decades old and based on outdated technology.

Not only was the Telecom Act designed to protect the profits of the Big Wireless companies, but somewhere along the way the FCC and the Telecoms developed an incestuous relationship that has overtaken the voices and concerns of the American people.

A 2015 expose [, the Harvard Edmund J. Safra Center for Ethics published an expose ] by investigative journalist Norm Alster shows the financial ties between the US Federal communications Commission (FCC) and the telecoms industry and how, as a result, the wireless industry bought unfettered access to—and power over—a major US regulatory agency.

The report [ “Captured Agency: How the Federal Communications Commission is Dominated by the Industries it Presumably Regulates”, ] details how the FCC, an independent government agency created in 1934 to regulate interstate communications by radio, television, wire, satellite and cable, has become a captured agency with Big Wireless leaders filling the government seats in a revolving door fashion similar to other federal agencies.

Regarding the passing of the 1996 Telecom Act, Alster writes that “late lobbying won the wireless industry enormous concessions from lawmakers, many of them major recipients of industry hard and soft dollar contributions. Congressional staffers who helped lobbyists write the new law did not go unrewarded. Thirteen of fifteen staffers later became lobbyists themselves.”

Alster states that direct lobbying by industry is “just one of many worms in a rotting apple”. The report says the FCC is involved in a network of powerful moneyed interests with limitless access and a variety of ways to shape policy. Alster believes the worst part is that the wireless industry has been allowed to grow unchecked and virtually unregulated, with fundamental questions on public health routinely ignored.

Unfortunately, the situation goes beyond corrupted government agencies and into defaming those who speak out against potential harms caused by wireless technology.

During the 1990’s, Biochemist Jerry Phillips was hired by cellphone giant Motorola to study the effects of the RF Radiation emitted by cell phones. Phillips and his colleagues looked at the effects of different RF signals on rats, and on cells in a dish. Phillips say the relationship between him, and his employer was initially cordial, but soured once he submitted research data to Motorola which found harmful effects to the DNA structure as a result of exposure to radio-frequency radiation. The negative results were not to Motorola’s liking, and they began putting pressure on him.

Public Exposure documentary (33:05-33:40;  34:35-35;  35:06-35:30)

In another example of industry attempting to influence research, we have Dr. Henry Lai, the University of Washington, and fellow researcher, Narendra Singh. The researchers were looking at the effects of nonionizing radiation—the same type of radiation emitted by cell phones—on the DNA of rats.  They used a level of radiation considered safe by FCC standards and found that the DNA in the brain cells of the rats was damaged—or broken—by exposure to radiation.

After publishing the research in 1995, Dr. Lai would later learn of a full-scale effort to discredit the experiments. Lai and Singh caused controversy when they publicly complained about restrictions placed on their research by their funders, the Wireless Technology Research (WTR) program. In response to this public action, the head of the Wireless Technology Research sent a memo asking then-university president Richard McCormick to fire Lai and Singh. McCormick refused, but the message was clear. Get rid of anyone who makes our products look bad.  In a leaked internal Motorola memo executives claimed to have succeed in “War-Gaming ” the Lai-Singh experiments.

“This shocked me,” [Lai says, ] “the letter trying to discredit me, the ‘war games’ memo. As a scientist doing research, I was not expecting to be involved in a political situation. It opened my eyes on how games are played in the world of business. You don’t bite the hand that feeds you. The pressure is very impressive.”

Think about that. An international corporation trying to exert pressure on scientists who are drawing conclusions which prove their product could cause harm to public health. Even further, Dr. Lai’s experiments showed negative health consequences at levels considered “safe” by the FCC.

The Captured Agency report makes it clear that this type of corruption takes place because of “the free flow of executive leadership between the FCC and the industries it presumably oversees”. For example, at the time of the report’s release, the Chairman of the FCC was Tom Wheeler, a man with deep ties to the Big Wireless industry. In 2013, Wheeler was nominated as FCC chairman by former President Obama after raising more than $700,000 for his presidential campaigns. Wheeler lead the two most powerful industry lobbying groups: The National Cable & Telecommunications Association (NCTA) and the Cellular Telecommunications & Internet Association, or, the CTIA.

The current chairman of the FCC could also be seen as another example of a “captured agency” in action. Ajit Pai, a lawyer and current chairman of the FCC, served as Associate General Counsel at Verizon Communications Inc. between 2001 and 2003, where he handled competition and regulatory matters. Pai was appointed to the FCC by Barack Obama in 2012 and then made FCC Chairman by Donald Trump in January 2017.

FCC Commissioner Brendan Carr is another example of a government official working closely with industry and maintaining relationships which clearly present conflicts of interest. Carr is credited with accelerating the 5G build out. Prior to joining the FCC, Carr worked as an attorney at Wiley Rein where his clients were Verizon, AT&T, Centurylink, CTIA, the wireless association and the USTA, the telecom lobby. The Wiley Rein law firm is a hot bed of activity for former government officials and industry regulars. One of the founders of the law firm is Richard Wiley, himself a Former FCC Chairman.

On September 30, 2019, Commissioner Carr and other officials were in Houston to discuss the future of 5g. I asked Commissioner Carr about the concerns regarding his connections with the wireless industry. I also asked him about the Captured Agency report released by Harvard’s School of Ethics. Unfortunately, Mr Carr had no interest in addressing these questions. (video 1:49-3:08)

The following day I was able to question Commissioner Carr for a second time and once again he avoided my questions. (video :38-2:07)

Much of this revolving door relationship between industry and government can be traced to the CTIA, the Cellular Telecommunications & Internet Association.

Established in 1984, the CTIA claims to represent the U.S. wireless communications industry, from carriers and equipment manufacturers. The CTIA “advocates for legislative and regulatory policies at federal, state, and local levels that foster the continued innovation, investment and increasing economic impact of America’s wireless industry. CTIA is active on a wide range of issues including spectrum policy, wireless infrastructure, and the Internet of Things, among others.” They also host events on topics ranging from cybersecurity to 5G.

The CTIA’s Board of Directors includes the presidents, CEOs and other senior officials of Verizon, Sprint, T Mobile, Nokia, Erricson, Intel, General Motors, Tracfone, EZ Texting and others.

Brad Gillen, the current Executive Vice President of the CTIA, was formerly a Legal Advisor to a former FCC Commissioner and served in other senior policy roles at the FCC and with DISH Network. Mr. Gillen was also a partner at Wilkinson Barker Knauer, LLP, a law firm stacked with former employees of the FCC, the National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA), the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) and other state government positions

The CTIA’s current President and CEO is Meredith Attwell Baker. Baker has spent the last two decades bouncing between lobbying for Big Wireless and working for the government. From 1998 to 2000, Baker worked as Director of Congressional Affairs at the CTIA. Afterwards, she worked for the U.S. government as an FCC Commissionner between July 2009 to June 2011. She then went back to the CTIA where she is now President and CEO, in charge of promoting the so-called Race to 5g.

So, what exactly is the race to 5g?

If you have paid attention to any media or visited a cell phone store recently, you have likely heard the buzz about 5g, and more specifically, the Race to 5g.

Geopolitically speaking, the Race to 5g describes the ongoing rift between the U.S. and China, a kind of digital Cold War where the two superpowers race to implement the next generation of cellular technology because of its potential for massive profit and massive data collection. The American media and President Trump have stated that Chinese company Huawei could use their 5g infrastructure to spy on Americans. Trump has called on federal officials and American companies to abandon Huawei equipment. This fear of Chinese spying using 5g equipment completely ignores the reality that the U.S. government has the same exact opportunity to pressure American companies to spy on the private data of Americans.

The Race to 5g could also be described as a clever marketing concept designed to sell consumers an upgrade they did not know they wanted or needed. (Not to mention, an upgrade that has sparked lawsuits, and has many health and privacy concerns.) As part of the ongoing Race to 5G, telecom companies are promoting 5g as the solution for faster downloads and high-definition movie streaming. It’s not immediately clear if the public is demanding faster downloads, but the Telecoms, global governments, and the tech industry are pushing the shift towards 5g. While it is true that 5g has the potential to spur on innovation in the fields of medicine, manufacturing, entertainment, and other industries – there has not been a truly organic call for this emerging technology.

It seems much of the hype around the 5g roll out is coming from the CTIA itself. Yes, the Cellular Telecommunications & Internet Association, the organization created to lobby explicitly for the Wireless Industry. The CTIA is Big Wireless.

(video  “April 19, 2018 The CTIA Race to 5G Summit”)

One of the ways the CTIA has spread enthusiasm for the Race to 5g is by working with city officials. The CTIA has been honoring City Mayors who have worked to erode local authority regarding the 5g roll out. The 5G Wireless Champion Awards “honor the state and local officials” who “bring next-generation 5G networks” into communities and “remove barriers to the deployment of next-generation wireless infrastructure”. In 2018, the CTIA gave out 3 “5g Wireless Champion Awards” to mayors across the United States, including Houston’s Mayor Sylvester Turner.

As I mentioned earlier, it was the Mayors response to my questions about 5g which encouraged me to look deeper. I found out that in July 2018, Mayor Turner stood side by side with Verizon Wireless officials to announce plans to roll out 5g technology in Houston. The Mayor said 5G will turn Houston into a “smart city”, with better control of traffic flow, money-saving smart street lights, and driverless cars. By September 2018 , Turner was awarded the “5g Wireless Champion Award” by the CTIA. The CTIA stated that, “Under Mayor Turner’s leadership, Houston has streamlined the permitting process by not requiring a license or attachment agreement for new poles or small cells, and completes review ahead of deadlines. “

Despite my efforts at emailing the Mayor and City Council about the concerns, and visiting city council many times, I continued to be met with silence. When I decided to run for Mayor, making 5g a central part of my campaign, I finally had the opportunity to call out the Mayor to his face, in front of the people of Houston.

(Houston Mayoral Debate 2:53-3:40)

During the campaign, I attempted to question Mayor Turner again. He laughed in my face and dodged my questions while a member of his staff attempted to knock my camera out of my hands. (1:03-1:49)

Sylvester Turner and Mayor’s like him are a problem, but they are a symptom of a bigger battle. The CTIA uses the 5g Wireless Champion Awards and other local programs to convince Mayors and local officials to support the 5g agenda. This allows the agenda adopted by the federal government and Big Wireless to be filtered down to the state and local level.

Despite a number of lawsuits from cities and states; objections from scientists and health professionals; concerns from citizens, politicians, and journalists – the CTIA, the FCC, and Donald Trump continue to push the 5g agenda forward. As I discovered in my research, there are health and privacy concerns around cell phones, bluetooth, WiFi, laptops, and other digital devices. The research shows we should limit our exposure to these devices and find ways to protect our privacy.

We should also recognize that the major difference between the 5g Smart Grid and the current technology, is that once 5g rolls out you will not be able to avoid it. You can choose not to use a cell phone, or not install wifi in your home, but once the 5g network is complete, you will be surrounded by hundreds of thousands of sensors, small cells, and other infrastructure. Once I understood this, I realized I had to know what I can do to protect myself, my family, and friends.

Chapter 4: Solutions

The reality is that we are already living in the electro, digital smog. The public has excitedly purchased the latest upgrades to their digital technology of choice. From smart phones, to laptops, doorbell cameras, public wi-fi networks, home assistants, smart houses, and the early stages of 5g – we are inundated with digital technology which emit various levels of radiofrequency radiation. Bit by bit, device by device, we are being exposed to an increasing level of radiation, and this cumulative effect has the potential to cause a great amount of harm to the public.

Collectively, each of these devices form a digital panopticon where private companies, law enforcement, governments, and hackers can literally trace your movements from the moment you wake up and interact with your phone, throughout your entire day as you move through public spaces and visit your work, family, and friends. If the public doesn’t wake up to these dangers and quickly organize a massive, global effort to push back against 5g, the Smart City future seems inevitable.

So, what would this push back look like and what can we do as individuals?

First, the opposition would need to involve ending the relationship between Big Wireless execs and government officials, as well as an honest discussion about the established dangers posed by our digital world. Organizing political opposition should take place at all levels, but I highly encourage everyone to start getting involved in their local communities and asking about the dangers presented in this documentary. You can join a group that might be talking about 5g, privacy, health or the environment, and let them know about these concerns. If there isn’t a group already, you can start one. Pass out flyers at community festivals, farmers markets, concerts, and political events. You can host educational events at community centers and show this documentary. If your neighborhood has a Homeowners Association or similar group you can attempt to fight against the installation of new small cells in your neighborhood. Some activists and concerned homeowners have even filed lawsuits in an attempt to stop the 5g rollout.

When it comes to solutions for protecting yourself in the meantime, remember that the National Toxicology Program’s ten-year study recommends those concerned about the potential health risks from RFR should, “Use speaker mode or a headset to place more distance between your head and the cell phone,” or “reduce the amount of time spent using your cell phone.”

Simply put, limiting your use of and exposure to these devices is the best solution available. I would recommend turning your phone on airplane mode when not using it, or simply turn it off when not in use. I know, it is a scary thought, but we will survive. I would also stop using bluetooth headphones and stop using bluetooth while driving in your vehicle. There are also companies producing products which are supposed to be able to block or absorb the EMF’s emitted by our devices. Do your research and see what works for you.

Probably one of the most important steps to take is to stop falling asleep with your phone or next to your laptop. I also started unplugging my wi-fi at night to protect myself from unnecessary exposure while I am sleeping. The exposure to these devices and the RFR they emit has the potential to disturb your sleep and create stress. This can cause an overall decline in the body’s ability to heal and repair at night.

When it comes to your home or office I recommend rewiring as much as possible using ethernet cables for your desktop or laptop. This will allow you to remove wi-fi if you choose and drastically decrease your exposure. There are even options available to use ethernet connections on your cellphone. When I interviewed Dr. Martin Pall he mentioned the possibility of using graphite paint in your home as an option to block or absorb EMFs. There are also similar concerns regarding the smart meters which have been rolled out around the U.S. Do some research and find out if you can opt out of a smart meter in favor of an analog meter.

Remember what I said about the difference between 5g and previous technologies?

Once it’s rolled out, you will not be able to avoid it while in public. No matter what you do in your house, your car, or with your own phone, if 5g is everywhere there will be no way to opt-out. I have seen researchers working on devices that could protect you in public by either repelling or absorbing the EMFs, and others have suggested clothing that can defend you, but for the moment none of these seem adequate to protect you from the coming 5g Smart Grid.

As we have shown, there are numerous valid reasons to oppose the 5g roll out. Whether it’s concerns about health, privacy, local power, or the environment, the government and the wireless industry need to answer our questions. Another thing, where has the media been during all of this? If I could dig up this information and gather these sources with my limited skills and time, why didn’t the corporate media identify and report on the concerns about 5g? Why did The New York Times and other compliant media outlets insinuate that opponents of 5g are simply victims of Russian disinformation? Instead of listening to the researchers speaking up and the people pushing back, the media stood silent.

So all this begs the question:  would consumers be so quick to embrace cell phones, Wi-Fi, and 5g, if the wireless industry and their partners in government hadn’t silenced critics and corrupted the science? If the public knew this information, would that change their minds? Does it change yours?

The cold hard truth is that we have willingly accepted this technology. Yes, we have been lied to by people we believed we could trust, but at the end of the day, the power lies in our hands. We decide if we still choose to surround ourselves with devices that threaten our privacy and health. We must take responsibility for our actions and remember to be skeptical of promises of convenience and utopia. As the saying goes, if it sounds too good to be true, it probably is.

Thanks for watching.

*

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 Greek City Times

Assange’s legal advisor Renata Avila joins Gray Zone investigative reporter Max Blumenthal, Black Agenda Report founder Glen Ford, and Green Party presidential candidate Howie Hawkins in Randy Credico’s acclaimed radio series, “Assange: Countdown to Freedom” – hosted by CovertAction Magazine with breaking news updates from Courage Foundation Director Nathan Fuller. Click here to listen or play the button below.

.

.

.

This is the seventh and latest episode in Credico’s ongoing radio exploration of the prosecution and persecution of the imprisoned WikiLeaks founder. Keep listening for late-breaking updates on the approaching extradition trial of Julian Assange in London.

You can listen to the prior episodes here:
Episode 1
Episode 2
Episode 3
Episode 4
Episode 5
Episode 6

*

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.

Turkey will take the Idlib matter into its own hands and the military operation in northwestern Syria is simply a “matter of time”, President Recep Tayyip Erdogan declared on February 19. Erdogan said that Turkey is not satisfied with talks on the matter with Russia, and it will not leave the region to “the Assad regime and its backers.”

He recalled that only a few days left until the end of February, the deadline given by Ankara to Syrian forces to stop operations against Idlib armed groups. If the Syrians do not withdraw, Turkey promised to attack and push the Syrian Army back from the areas cleared from militants. Erdogan’s “last warning” came as Turkish media outlets were broadcasting news showing how columns of Turkish troops and vehicle were moving towards the border with Syria. However, did Turkey really deployed enough forces to deliver a devastating blow to the Syrian military and do not pay a heavy price?

In the framework of the Astana agreements, Turkey established 12 observation posts. As the Syrian Army was advancing into Idlib, Ankara created a plethora of additional military positions in a failed attempt to stop the collapse of militants’ defense. These efforts binged the total number of Turkish military installations in the region up to 27.

Judging from various footage, there are between one dozen and two dozen soldiers, as well as 4-6 military vehicles at every post located within the areas currently controlled by the Syrian government. The recently created posts are much stronger and can be described as real military positions with battle tanks, howitzers, mortars and fortified structures.

The estimated total number of military equipment deployed by the Turkish Armed Forces in Idlib stands at 3,000. Since February 2nd, Turkey deployed 2,315 trucks and military vehicles, as well as 7,000 soldiers. Meanwhile, Turkey has positioned approximately 30,000 troops along the Syrian border in case of an escalation.

The equipment and weapons that are being delivered include armored trucks, MRAPs, armored personnel carriers, battle tanks, ATGMs, various artillery pieces and rocket launchers. Army troops are reinforced with a notable number of special forces.

According to pro-opposition sources, there are over 100,000 members of various groups, predominantly Hay’at Tahrir al-Sham in Idlib. These groups are already actively taking part in the fight against the Syrian Arab Army. However, the real mobilization potential demonstrated by these factions during the recent battles does not exceed 10,000-20,000.

In comparison, during Operation Euphrates Shield, in which Turkey struggled greatly, it deployed approximately 8,000 soldiers, in addition to approximately 11,000 Syrian “opposition” fighters, against 7,000 ISIS militants. This operation became widely known for large casualties among Turkish soldiers and proxies, as well as a large number of military equipment, including Leopard 2A4 battle tanks, lost during the battle of al-Bab.

Another example is operation Olive Branch that involve around 6,000 Turkish troops, and 20,000 Turkish-backed fighters, against approximately 20,000 Syrian Democratic Forces and allied fighters. However, Kurdish armed groups did not engage Turkish-led forces in an intense open or urban fighting and opted to retreat from the region after weeks of artillery and air bombardment. Since then, Ankara has been trying to consolidate control over the area and put an end to constant attacks on its forces from the remaining YPG cells.

Finally, Operation Peace Spring, which began in late 2019, reportedly involved 15,000 Turkish troops and 14,000 members of proxy groups. It also went without a significant open resistance from Kurdish groups and was frozen with the Syrian Army and the Russian Military Police deployed in the area.

It also would be useful to note that both ISIS and Kurdish formations targeted by Turkey were outnumbered in the area of operations, suffered from a lack of modern weapons, heavy military equipment and artillery, and had no means and measures to combat the Turkish Air Force. No intense fighting took place in large urban areas. Despite this, the aforementioned operations became a real challenge for Turkey and its proxy groups.

Therefore, it is unlikely that the Turkish forces currently deployed in Idlib and northwestern Syria will be enough to turn into reality Erdogan’s threats and promises. So, Turkey should hurry up and increase its military group in the area by several times, or Erdogan supporters should start preparing for March 1, the day when the dreams about the swift and powerful Turkish victory over ‘Assad forces’ will be broken by the reality.

*

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

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

Biology has done what malicious US foreign policy aimed at China has failed to do for years; complicate China’s relations along its peripheries (and the rest of the world for that matter), particularly in Southeast Asia.

In Thailand, contrary to popular belief, Chinese tourists make up the vast majority of those visiting the Kingdom. Approximately ten times more Chinese tourists arrive in Thailand each year than tourists from all other Western nations combined.  With China’s government putting travel bans in place to curb the spread of the recent coronavirus outbreak, Thai resort areas have seen a marked decrease in business.

The Bangkok Post in an article, “Chinese tourists desert Phuket as virus spreads,” would note the impact on the southern resort island of Phuket, with locals describing about a 70% decrease in business and the Tourism and Sports Ministry estimating “50 billion baht of lost tourism revenue.”

With the first Thai victim of the virus being a taxi driver who likely contracted it from picking up a Chinese tourist, many taxi drivers are now attempting to avoid Chinese fares; which may have a negative impact on Chinese-Thai tourism in the near and intermediate future.

A Weakpoint 

While this disruption is likely to be temporary with tourism, business, and other Chinese-Thai relations bouncing back – the coronavirus outbreak illustrates a weakpoint in China’s rise and one that most likely will be exploited by China’s adversaries; particularly the United States.

Chinese state media, CGTN, in an article titled, “China says US raising travel advisory ‘not a gesture of goodwill’,” would report:

Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesperson Hua Chunying Friday criticized certain US officials’ words and actions amid the ongoing novel coronavirus outbreak, noting that their behavior is certainly not a gesture of goodwill as they are neither factual nor appropriate.

US State Department Thursday announced a highest-level warning not to travel to China due to the recent coronavirus outbreak. On the same day, US Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross said the spreading coronavirus will accelerate the return of jobs from China to the US.

Thus, the US is cynically using the outbreak to enhance its anti-China policies at a time when other nations are extending aid to the Chinese government and the Chinese people.

While the outbreak is most likely an accident prompted by China’s breakneck development, industrial-scale agriculture, immense population and the millions of Chinese people who travel within and beyond China’s borders, the fact that certain US policy circles have contemplated the use of biological weapons to achieve exactly the same results the coronavirus outbreak is having should be a stark reminder to China and all other nations about the importance of being able to quickly and effectively combat such outbreaks.

Even without the US being behind the outbreak, the US is openly taking advantage of it; yet another illustration of how important it is to first prevent such outbreaks, as well quickly react to them should they happen.

The outbreak will continue into the near future, but in the intermediate future it will subside just like previous outbreaks of similar respiratory viruses (SARS, MERS). Once the outbreak subsides, China and its partners must carefully consider how to avoid a repeat of this event.

China will also have to consider future measures to protect itself from nations like the United States who seek to exploit China at a moment of weakness such as now.

Outbreaks are a part of modern civilization, resulting from overcrowding and the ease of travel allowing an infected person to carry a disease from one part of the world to another in just hours. Past outbreaks of have proven that nations can adapt and overcome them and then bounce back. Improving prevention and refining responses after this recent outbreak will define China and its international relations into the foreseeable future.

Complacency will only invite future accidents and even tempt malicious state actors to spur such accidents when all other methods of confounding their adversaries fail. China has already demonstrated significant resolve, but only time will tell how this most recent outbreak will play out in its entirety, both in terms of a human health crisis and in terms of short and long-term geopolitics.

*

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.

Joseph Thomas is chief editor of Thailand-based geopolitical journal, The New Atlas and contributor to the online magazine “New Eastern Outlook”.

Featured image is from NEO

US forever war in Syria shows no signs of ending because restoration of peace and stability to the country would be a major strategic blow to Washington’s aim for controlling the Middle East — NATO and Israel serving as junior partners in its project.

Turkey’s Erdogan is a significant obstacle to resolving years of war in Syria because of his revanchist aims — what his support for ISIS, al-Nusra, and likeminded jihadists is all about, using them as proxies (earlier and now) in northern Syria.

His aims and Russia’s in the country are world’s apart. Negotiations between his regime and Moscow on the conflict are uneasy at best.

Multiple recent rounds failed to resolve differences, further talks planned, including a possible summit involving Putin, Iranian President Rouhani and Erdogan.

On Thursday, Russia’s Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Maria Zakharova slammed his support for jihadists in Syria, saying:

“We are expressing significant concerns over such support for (these elements) from the Turkish armed forces.”

It “violat(es) the Russian-Turkish agreements on separating armed opposition from terrorists, and creating a demilitarized area, and it may provoke a further escalation in the conflict in this part of the Syrian national territory,” adding:

“On February 20, the Russian center for reconciliation of the conflicting sides in Syria reported several mass attacks with the use of a large amount of armored vehicles at the positions of the Syrian army in the Idlib de-escalation zone carried out by terrorist units.”

“At the same time, the actions of (jihadists) were supported by artillery fire by the Turkish forces, which allowed terrorists to breach Syrian army’s defenses” before being repelled with Russian aerial support, a statement by its military saying:

“In order to prevent terrorist groups from advancing deep into Syrian territory, Su-24 aircraft of Russia’s Aerospace Force delivered a strike at the request of the Syrian command against the terrorists’ armed formations that had penetrated the area. This helped the Syrian troops to repel all the attacks successfully.”

A Russian reconnaissance drone filmed Turkish artillery providing support for al-Nusra terrorists near Nayrab village in southern Idlib province.

AMN News reported that Russia’s aerial response was “devastating,” repelling Turkish-supported jihadists, destroying or damaging their equipment, causing a number of casualties, including Turkish soldiers killed or wounded.

Tass reported that jihadists “sustain(ed) heavy losses” of fighters, weapons, and military equipment.

Days earlier, Sergey Lavrov accused Ankara of breaching its agreed on Astana obligations by escalating conflict instead of pursuing efforts to resolve it, adding:

“It is only natural that the Syrian armed forces, reaffirming their commitment to the original agreements on Idlib, including an agreement on a ceasefire, respond to such inadmissible provocations. We support them in this.”

“The Syrian army’s actions are a response to a flagrant violation of the agreements on Idlib.”

“Contrary to some estimates, let me emphasize that the Syrian troops are not pushing militants and terrorists back on a foreign territory but on their own soil, thereby reestablishing the legitimate Syrian government’s control over its territories.”

“Judging by hysterical comments by some Western representatives, one (gets) impression that…Russia and Turkey agreed to put the issue on the back burner, leave terrorists alone and let them do whatever they want.”

“This is not true. No one has ever promised to leave terrorists unscathed in the Idlib de-escalation zone” or anywhere else in Syria.

On Thursday, a Kremlin statement said Putin discussed Syria with Germany’s Angela Merkel and France’s Macron by phone.

“Special attention was paid to issues of settling the Syrian crisis in the context of rapidly escalating situation in Idlib as a result of aggressive actions by (Turkish supported) extremist units against Syrian government forces and civilians.”

“The importance was underscored of preventing humanitarian consequences for civilians.”

“Vladimir Putin stressed the importance of taking effective measures on neutralizing a terrorist threat while observing the principles of sovereignty and territorial integrity of the Syrian Arab Republic.”

Merkel, Macron, and other key NATO leaders are allied with US imperial aims — Erdogan involved in Syria in pursuit of his own objectives.

According to Turkey’s Daily Sabah, Erdogan regime war minister Hulusi Akar suggested that US Patriot air defense missiles could be installed in northern Idlib territory controlled by Turkey, adding:

Ankara and Moscow are discussing use of Idlib’s airspace controlled by Russia’s military. Neither country wants belligerent confrontation with the other.

Would Erdogan use long-range Russian S-400 air defense missile’s against its aircraft in Idlib airspace?

What’s highly unlikely is possible. In 2015, Turkish warplanes downed a Russia Su-24 fighter jet in Syrian airspace, an incident Putin denounced at the time as a “stab in the back.”

Bilateral relations improved significantly since that time. How far Erdogan may push his revanchist agenda in Idlib remains unknown.

According to the Middle East Eye (MEE), citing an unnamed Turkish official, Ankara “asked the US to conduct aerial patrols in its airspace bordering…Idlib to show support for (its) ongoing military operations against forces loyal to Damascus,” adding:

Erdogan and Trump spoke by phone on the situation in Idlib. DJT “promised that he would sanction (Syrian) officials, or anyone involved in attacks against the civilians.”

“(H)e would issue strong-worded statements. But he didn’t commit himself to anything involving the military, yet.”

No large-scale confrontation occurred between Syrian and Turkish forces so far.

Both countries want it avoided. So does Russia, going all-out to prevent it.

Moscow has a significant investment in Syria since intervening against jihadists in September 2015 at the request of Damascus.

Putin supports Syria’s liberating struggle while trying to maintain good relations with Turkey and prevent clashes between Russian and US forces.

It’s a delicate balance not easily maintained, especially when dealing with US and Turkish belligerent regimes.

In mid-March, war enters its 10th year with no prospect for resolution in sight.

As in all wars, civilians in harm’s way suffer most.

*

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 fast rise of China as a major power over the past few decades has led many to argue that world war between the US and China is a real possibility. Already, we have seen a trade war erupt between the two countries, with tariffs imposed in both directions. Although there was a positive development last month which potentially signals a move towards a form of détente, as the two countries signed ‘phase one’ of a trade agreement, this agreement is by no means comprehensive, leaving many unresolved issues that could potentially serve as points of conflict in the future. 

The Thucydides Trap

The major concern that world war could erupt between the two powerhouses stems from the fact that their relationship contains a historical dynamic which often leads to war: known as the Thucydides trap. This trap refers to the ancient Greek historian, Thucydides, who wrote that one of the main causes of the Peloponnesian war, which was fought between two alliances, one led by Athens and the other by Sparta, was that the “rise of Athens and fear that this installed in Sparta made war inevitable” (Allison 2018: xiv). The dangerous situation Thucydides outlined thousands of years ago has been used to refer to the explosive dynamic when a rising power threatens a ruling power (Allison 2018: xv). The Harvard Professor, Graham Allison, has used the Thucydides trap in the context of the Sino-US relationship, as a rising China is now challenging the position of the US in many respects.

The Thucydides’ Trap Project at Harvard has analysed the last 500 years of history, and found sixteen cases when a rising power has challenged a ruling power, with war ensuing in 12 instances (Allison 2018: 41). Some notable examples of the cases that resulted in war include the rise of Napoleonic France that challenged ruling British power in the late 18th, early 19th century, and the rise of Germany in the run-up to WWI, which led to war with the ruling power Britain and its allies (Allison 2018: 42).

Video

The Anglo-American Peaceful Transition of Power

In relation to the potential outcome of the relationship between the US and China, some parallels and deeper insights may be found if we look closer at one of the four instances where war did not erupt over the last five centuries: namely, when a rising America challenged and surpassed the power of the British Empire in the late 19th, early 20th century (Allison 2018: 42). Although there were periods where tensions were high between the two countries, with one instance being the Venezuelan dispute of 1895, the British gradually accepted and in some respects supported the rise of US power, with this often referred to as the Great Rapprochement. This rapprochement ultimately led to Britain and America fighting on the same, victorious side during WWI.

Furthermore, numerous connections existed and were developed between the two countries during the peaceful transition of power, both before and after WWI. Some prominent and well-connected figures in Britain were even actively supportive of the ascent of America. The English journalist and newspaper editor, William Stead, was one for instance. In his 1901 book, The Americanization of the World; The Trend of the Twentieth Century, he urges Britons to “rejoice” in the power of the US and not “resent” its rise (Stead 1901: 1-2). In the immediate aftermath of WWI, more formal, institutional connections were formed between the two nations, with the influential networks Stead belonged to playing a prominent role.

After discussions between the American and British delegations at the Paris Peace Conference in 1919, two parallel organizations were formed, one in London, at the heart of the British empire, and the other in New York, a major center of the new great power. The first organization was the British Institute of International Affairs, which later become the Royal Institute of International Affairs after the Institute was given a Royal Charter by King George V in 1926, with the Institute holding its inaugural meeting in 1920 (Quigley 1981: 182-183). A year later, the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) was formed as the American branch of the Institute. The CFR grew out of the think tank called ‘The Inquiry’ that prepared President Woodrow Wilson for the Paris Peace Conference, with the CFR having close ties to the banking powerhouse, J.P. Morgan and Company (Quigley 1981: 190-191).

The fact that the Royal Institute of International Affairs, also referred to as Chatham House, managed to set up a parallel organization in the country that was already well on its way to dwarfing British power, is highly pertinent, given the power Chatham House represented. Many of the most powerful networks at the heart of the British Empire were responsible for the Institutes creation, either directly, or through precursor organizations that then merged to form Chatham House. Some of the influential figures that belonged to these networks included Cecil Rhodes, the diamond magnate and ardent imperialist; Reginald Balliol Brett, the trusted adviser to Queen Victoria and King George V; Alfred Milner, an influential statesmen and banker, in addition to Stead himself (Quigley 1981: 3). In the years after its founding, Chatham House went on to attract many more prominent people, including the British Prime Ministers, Arthur Bal­four and Ramsey MacDonald, with members of Chatham House also being key architects and supporters of the League of Nations and the United Nations (UN). Additionally, Chatham House received financial support from notable American businessmen and corporations, including the oil magnate, John D. Rockefeller, and the Ford Motor Company (Quigley 1981: 190).

It is critical to highlight that Britain and America were highly connected when the power center of the world shifted to the US, with Britain even setting up a parallel organization in the heart of the new center of power. The connections between the two countries and Britain’s acceptance of the rise of America, with some Britons even being supportive of the Americanization of the world, are arguably key reasons why war never broke out between the two powers. Therefore, in relation to whether a hot war between the US and China is inevitable, a key question emerges: how connected was America to the rise of China?

America and the Ascent of China

The answer, quite simply, is that America was deeply connected to the China’s rise. In fact, the US in many ways facilitated China’s rise on the world stage, as the US government under Richard Nixon made the decision to bring China in from isolation, and help integrate it into an international order dominated by US power, with this power sitting within an overarching global system. Nixon made his stance on China clear even before he became US President in 1969. In a 1967 article for Foreign Affairs, the publication of the CFR, Nixon argued that it should be the long-term strategy of the US to bring China out of isolation and incorporate it into the evolving international system (Nixon 1967: 121).

Four years later, in 1971, Henry Kissinger, who was serving as Nixon’s National Security Adviser, secretly visited China in order to stimulate relations with the Chinese. Kissinger’s meeting laid the foundations for Nixon to visit China the following year, in a historic meeting for the US President. Then, in 1973, the American billionaire and banker, David Rockefeller, visited China and had a private meeting with Zhou Enlai, the then Premier, or Prime Minister, of China. In fact, the Rockefeller family had many connections to China stretching back over a century, from selling kerosene in the country in 1863 to establishing medical institutions through the Rockefeller Foundation. David Rockefeller also brought a small team from his Chase bank on a 10-day trip of China in 1973, penning an article for the New York Times where he praised the country and the social experiment under Mao Zedong. After the trip, Chase bank, where David Rockefeller was Chairman and CEO, became the first US bank to establish a relationship with the Bank of China since the Chinese revolution in the 1940s.

Without Nixon, Kissinger and Rockefeller bringing China in from the cold, it is highly improbable that China would be anywhere near as powerful as it is today, as these moves paved the way for China’s growth to explode in the subsequent decades. Furthermore, the US also aided the rise of China through the transfer of technology. In 1999 for instance, the Clinton administration transferred missile technology to China so that a communications satellite could be launched using a Chinese rocket. The technology transfer pertained to satellite fuel and explosive bolts, with these technologies potentially going to help the development of China’s ballistic missile program.

Today, there are numerous connections between the US and China. In addition to the Rockefeller Foundation, many US-based foundations have major footprints in China, with the Ford Foundation working in China since opening an office there in 1988, and the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace operating a global center in Beijing. The connections between the US and China extend to having shared membership in a plethora of global organizations, including the UN, the World Health Organization (WHO), the World Trade Organization (WTO), the G20, and the global central bank of central banks, the Bank for International Settlements (BIS).

Given the vast amount of connections between America and the rise of China, it seems reasonable to conclude that world war is not inevitable between the two powerhouses. No doubt there will be skirmishes between the two countries in the future, particularly in hot spots such as the South China Sea and potentially Africa going forward, as the two countries adapt to a new way of interacting with each other. Conflict in the cyber, psychological and economic spheres of warfare is also highly likely in the near future, as the nature of warfare itself changes. Yet the probability that a world, nuclear war will erupt is less likely than the way it is often presented, not only because nuclear weapons themselves serve as MAD deterrents, but because America and the networks of power in America were heavily involved in the rise of China, and are still deeply invested in the Asian powerhouse today.

*

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

Sources

Allison, G. (2018) Destined for War: Can America and China Escape the Thucydides Trap? (London: Scribe).

Associated Press, South China Morning Post (21 March 2017) Statesman banker David Rockefeller, guardian of legendary fortune, dies at 101 https://bit.ly/2SKUqV1

Bank for International Settlements, Members https://bit.ly/37M6Obr

BBC News (16 Jan. 2020) A quick guide to the US-China trade war https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-45899310

BBC News (15 Jan. 2020) US and China sign deal to ease trade war https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-51114425

Broader, J. (May 11 1999) Clinton Approves Technology Transfer to China, New York Times https://nyti.ms/2P8SlzG

Carnegie–Tsinghua Center for Global Policy https://bit.ly/2SZugwp

Chatham House, Our History https://www.chathamhouse.org/about/history

China Daily (21 March 2017) Rockefeller family’s connection with China – https://bit.ly/2HIthf2

Ford Foundation in China https://bit.ly/2V8Hda7

Grose, P. Continuing the Inquiry, The Council on Foreign Relations https://www.cfr.org/book/continuing-inquiry

Harvard Kennedy School’s, Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs, The Thucydides’s Trap Case File, featured in Graham Allison’s new book Destined for War: Can America and China Escape Thucydides’s Trap?https://www.belfercenter.org/thucydides-trap/case-file

Nixon, R. (1967). Asia after Viet Nam. Foreign Affairs, 46(1), 111-125 https://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/asia/1967-10-01/asia-after-viet-nam

Quigley, C. (1981) The Anglo-American Establishment (San Pedro: GSG and Associates).

Rockefeller, D. (10 Aug. 1973) From a China Traveler, The New York Times https://www.nytimes.com/1973/08/10/archives/from-a-china-traveler.html

Stead, W. T. https://archive.org/details/americanizationo01stea/page/n5/mode/2up

US-China Institute (21 July 2011) Getting to Beijing: Henry Kissinger’s Secret 1971 Trip https://china.usc.edu/getting-beijing-henry-kissingers-secret-1971-trip

Venezuela Boundary Dispute, 1895–1899 https://history.state.gov/milestones/1866-1898/venezuela

United States officials have expressed concern over the so-called Iranian intervention in Afghanistan in recent days, claiming that Tehran is trying to challenge Washington’s interests in Afghanistan through groups that it supports like the Taliban. General Kenneth Mckenzie, the U.S. Central Commander, came to Kabul after rising threats and concerns over Iran’s supposed interference in the Afghan war. He stayed in Kabul for three days, analyzing the situation and restraining Iran’s possible actions while meeting with American forces occupying the country. Iran’s warnings and threats against the U.S. military in Afghanistan is the main agenda of this high-profile military trip to Kabul according to sources. At the same time, Iranian diplomat Ebrahim Taherian who specializes in Afghan affairs came to Kabul and voiced his country’s concerns about recent U.S. actions during a meeting with Afghan leaders. 

Following Taherian’s trip to Kabul, Tadamichi Yamamoto, the UN special envoy to Kabul, went to Tehran to urge Iranian officials not to involve Afghanistan in their complications with the U.S. The flow of Iranian and U.S. diplomats and troops to Kabul shows that the conflict between the U.S and Iran has certainly spread to Afghanistan, an inevitable outcome since Afghanistan is on Iran’s eastern border and hosts thousands of American soldiers. The U.S. and Iran have been involved in proxy wars for many years in countries in the Middle East, including Iraq, Syria and Lebanon, but surprisingly to a very low level in Afghanistan.

Iran was actually among the countries that supported the abolition of the Taliban regime in Afghanistan. During the Taliban’s rule in Kabul, the fundamentalist organization was a major threat to Iran. In 1998, the Taliban set fire to the Iranian consulate in Mazar-i-Sharif and killed at least 10 Iranian diplomats. However, the Islamic Republic’s cooperation with the U.S. in Afghanistan led to opposition and hostility. Iran then sought to secure relations with the Taliban and became a refuge for family members of a number of senior Taliban officials. More recently, Iranian officials have confirmed their relationship with the Taliban, but they said they were not seeking military and/or arms cooperation with the Taliban and were committed to the principle of government-to-government relations. But local officials in southwestern Afghanistan have repeatedly spoken of Iran’s military and arms cooperation with the Taliban.

Effectively, Iran has many leverages that are challenging and pressuring the U.S. The presence of at least 3.5 million Afghan refugees in Iran has provided Tehran with a good opportunity to use them to achieve its goal of challenging the U.S everywhere across the region, including Afghanistan.

As Iran neighbors Afghanistan, it is unsurprising that it is one of the largest economic and trade partners of the war-torn country. Economic ties between the two countries have reached $4 billion. Iran has widespread cultural, historical and social influence in Afghanistan. Nearly 25% of Afghanistan’s population are also Shi’ite who have much attachment to Iran. However, Tehran’s contacts in Afghanistan were not limited to Shi’ites as demonstrated by Iran’s attempts to have relations with all political authorities and social groups in the country. Iran’s deep relations with the Afghan political community became clear after the U.S. assassination of Qassim Soleimani, the commander of Iran’s famed Revolutionary Guards’ Quds Force.

Wide and broad partnerships between the two countries provide Tehran with a favorable platform to pursue its goals and programs with open arms in Afghanistan. When U.S.-Iranian relations reached the level of potential military conflict, Kabul declared that it would not allow its territory to be used against any another country, an indirect reference that Afghanistan will not be used to attack Iran. The U.S. has several important military bases on the Iranian border with Afghanistan such as Shindand that could be utilized in any conflict with Iran.

During the period of national unity, Afghanistan’s policy of neutrality towards the countries of the region, especially Iran, changed. The disruption of the balance in foreign policy has prompted the countries of the region to reconsider their support for the Afghan central government. The end of neutrality in foreign policy was a great opportunity for the Taliban. They were able to expand their relations with the countries of the region.

This of course does not overlook that Kabul and Tehran are involved in some issues, such as the long running water dispute, drug production and trafficking, and Iran’s relations with the Taliban. However, with the U.S. seeking an agreement with the Taliban and withdrawing from Afghanistan, the escalation of the conflict with the Islamic Republic will certainly have an impact on Washington’s goals in the region and in Afghanistan. The U.S. ensured that Iran was the only neighbor ignored in the peace talks – meaning that no true peace can be found in Afghanistan as Iran has thousands of years of relations with Afghanistan. As a strategic partner of Kabul and Afghanistan’s influential neighbour, Iran is affecting the current volatile situation. Only a balanced and impartial policy can reduce the country’s vulnerability, but non-the-less, the U.S. cannot ignore Iran’s role in finding peace in Afghanistan.

*

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.

“I think that now it is time that the government I am a part of needs to be standing up and saying to both the UK and the US: ‘enough is enough, leave our bloke alone and let him come home.’” – George Christensen, Australian conservative MP, Sydney Morning Herald, Feb 19, 2020

An odd crew and perhaps the sort Julian Assange would have liked.  Australian parliamentarian and government backbencher George Christensen, conservative to the point of parody.  Andrew Wilkie, MP from Tasmania, a man fitfully dedicated to fight poker machines and gambling, formerly of the Office of National Assessments.  Both united by a distinct liking for the cause of Julian Assange and a dislike for his treatment, showing the astonishing cross appeal of the WikiLeaks publisher, a point missed by his detractors and even his own followers.

Visiting Assange in London’s Belmarsh Prison, Wilkie found “a man under great pressure, holding up OK” but showing “glimpses” of a “broken man”.  For his part, Christensen, did not “want to talk too pejoratively about the state that we saw him in but it was the kind of state that you’d expect from a man who’s been absolutely and utterly isolated and who just does not know what is going on.”  Assange had been “depersonalised” and “dehumanised” in confinement.

Their calls chime with those of over 117 doctors and psychologists from 18 nations, whose letter published in the medical journal The Lancet condemned “the torture of Assange”, “the denial of his fundamental right to appropriate health care”, “the climate of fear surrounding the provision of health care to him” and “the violations of his right to doctor-patient confidentiality.”

Both parliamentarians insist, with good reason, on the nagging matter of having a British court deliberate over whether an Australian citizen should be extradited to the United States or not. “There’s a lot of Australians who think Julian Assange is a rat bag,” observed Christensen.  “But he’s our rat bag – he should be brought home.”  Wilkie, on leaving Belmarsh, was “in absolutely no doubt that [Assange] has become a political prisoner in this country and that the US is determined to extradite him to get even.”  Unblemished, Assange could not be accused of hacking or espionage, but merely for “doing the right thing and publishing important information in the public interest”.

Christensen, an avowed fan of British prime minister Boris Johnson, was keen to impress him on Assange’s treatment. “It is highly political what’s going on – it involves values that Boris Johnson as a former journalist holds dear – press freedom.”

The delegation is receiving various mixed messages, some of them heartening.  British Labour’s Jeremy Corbyn, soundly beaten at the December elections, is confident he has found a changing mood towards the Australian publisher.  Johnson, he claimed, had given some hope in comments made on the UK-US Extradition Treaty, a document heavily slanted in favour of the United States.  “He accepted that it is an unbalanced treaty and it is not a fair one, therefore I think this is a big change by the British government.”

In of itself, this says little.  Johnson, it is true, did concede to Corbyn in the House of Commons that “there are elements of that relationship that are unbalanced and I certainly think it is worth looking at.”  The point has been admitted as much by various UK politicians over the years.  The report of the Home Affairs Committee from 2012 expressed “serious misgivings about some aspects of the current arrangements” despite favouring an extradition arrangement with the US.  An “imbalance in the wording of the Treaty, which sets a test for extradition from the US but not from the UK, has created the widespread impression of unfairness within the public consciousness and, at a more practical level, gives US citizens the right to a hearing to establish ‘probable cause’ that is denied to UK citizens.”

The treaty is the subject of much conversation of late.  Washington’s curt rejection of an extradition request by the UK of an American citizen accused of causing the death of Harry Dunn, a teenage motorcyclist, has muddied diplomatic waters.  The claim by British police was that Anne Sacoolas, wife of an intelligence officer, was driving on the wrong side of the road.  On returning to the US, she duly shielded herself behind diplomatic immunity.

Sacoolas, through her attorney, claimed that the charges against her carried a disproportionate sentence of 14-years.  She would “not return voluntarily to the United Kingdom to face a potential jail sentence for what was a terrible but unintentional accident.”  The US State Department was irate at the very idea that extradition would be sought in such instances.  “The use of an extradition treaty to attempt to return the spouse of a former diplomat by force,” claimed a spokesman, “would establish an extraordinarily troubling precedent.  We do not believe that the UK’s charging decision is a helpful development.”

A review into the immunity arrangements for US personnel conducted by the Foreign Office subsequently found, in the words of Foreign Secretary Dominic Raab, an “anomaly”, namely, that family members had “greater protection from UK criminal jurisdiction than the officers themselves”.

In January, US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo scotched the extradition request via an email to the UK government.  To have granted it, he claimed offhandedly, would have rendered “the invocation of diplomatic immunity a practical nullity”.  The decision, according to the Dunn’s family spokesman Radd Seiger, filled Raab with incandescent rage.  That rage, it seemed, had cooled by the time Raab met his US counterpart at an event chaired by the centre-right think tank, Policy Exchange.  “We’re going to work on every aspect of that [regarding the Dunn case] and want to see this get resolved.”

Whether Assange’s case sparks appropriate concern in Downing Street might be another matter.  For one thing, it will provide a test case regarding extraditions for non-British citizens to the United States.  For his part, Johnson is a curious fish, often adjusting his course in infuriatingly erratic, and amoral ways.  While he might well adopt a Bold Britannia line regarding the Australian’s possible extradition, the chances remain slim.  Should the request be granted, it will establish an extraordinarily troubling precedent, to use the US State Department’s own words, a blatant misuse of the treaty for political purposes.

*

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

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]

Many Iranians question the benefits of arming and financing Iran’s many allies in the Middle East while Iran is suffering the harshest ever US “maximum pressure”. Iran’s allies are spread over Afghanistan, Yemen, Iraq, Syria, Lebanon and Palestine. Is Iranian support for these allies the main cause of the US’s aggressive attitude towards the Iranian people and their state, or are there other factors? What makes Iran finance these allies and strengthen them with the most advanced warfare equipment, and be ready to fight and die on their territory?

Since Iran’s “Islamic Revolution” prevailed in 1979 under the leadership of Imam Khomeini, the country has been heavily sanctioned, sanctions increasing with the advent of almost every new US President. In 1979, Iran had no allies but was surrounded by enemies.  Its regional neighbours joined western countries in supporting Saddam Hussein’s war (1980-1988) on the “Islamic Republic”. The US war on Iran has its origin in the fall of its proxy the Pahlavi Shah. It was disclosed how the CIA brought Pahlavi to power in an organised Coup d’état against the democratically elected Prime Minister Mohamad Musaddeq in 1953 in order to keep Iranian oil under US-UK control. Democracy has never been the real issue: western-provoked wars can be understood as motivated by self-interest and the quest for dominance. But attempts to overthrow regimes are always publicly justified by the West in the name of freedom and democracy.

In 1979, the US set a trap to drag the Soviets into invading Afghanistan by supporting the mujahedeen from whom al-Qaeda was born. This catastrophic result and similar destructive phenomena are habitually described as “unintended consequences” in order to rationalise the devastating costs of these savage interventions into other people’s lives and in world affairs. However, in 2001 the US fell back into exactly the same type of quagmire and invaded Afghanistan with tens of thousands of US troops. The US plan was to block the path of a possible return by Russia to Eurasia; to weaken the Russians and to encircle Iran with a chain of hostile elements; to bully all countries concerned into submission, particularly the oil-rich states, thus preventing any possible alliance with Russia and China. This is still the US objective in the Middle East. History has never been a good guide to powerful leaders and their administrations because they apparently consider themselves not subject to its lessons.

Iran found itself deprived of allies. With the consent of the Gulf states, notably Saudi Arabia, Israel invaded Lebanon in 1982 to remove and subdue the Palestinian Liberation Organisation (PLO) led by Yasser Arafat, who had rejected King Fahd’s peace initiative. However, the “unintended consequences” of the invasion and the occupation of the first Arab capital by Israel (Beirut) offered Iran an excellent opportunity to respond to the demands of a group of Lebanese asking for help to stand against the Israeli aggressor. Imam Khomeini replied to his Lebanese visitors (who described the horror and the killing committed by the Israeli war machine): “al-kheir fima waqaa”, meaning “What has happened is a blessing”. His visitors did not understand the meaning of Khomeini’s words until many years later.

Iran found in the Lebanese Shia fertile ground to plant seeds for its ideology. The ground was already prepared in 1978. Lebanese Islamist followers of Sayyed Mohamad Baqer al-Sadr were already receiving training in various Palestinian camps, including the Zabadani training boot camp (Syria), and had embraced the Palestinian cause. When Imam Khomeini took power in Iran, Sayyed Mohammad Baqer al-Sadr asked his followers in Iraq and Lebanon to declare loyalty to Imam Khomeini and “melt into him as he has melted into Islam” (which means “adopt Imam Khomeini as your Imam and Marja’ al-Taqleed”). Iran established great ideological compatibility with the Lebanese Shia, who had historically been considered second-class citizens in Lebanon. Their territories in the south of Lebanon were considered disposable and were put on offer to Israel by Lebanese leaders (Maronite President Emile Eddé suggested to detach South of Lebanon and offer it to Israel to reduce the number of Muslim Shia) , elites and governments.

The Iranian constitution (articles 2 and 3) stipulates that the Iranian government will support any group or country suffering from an oppressor. Its outlook fit perfectly with the oppressed Lebanese Shia.

The Iranian IRGC (Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps) travelled to Lebanon and shipped their weapons via Syria to strengthen the Islamic Resistance in Lebanon, known later as Hezbollah, and defend their country from the occupier. It was, therefore, necessary to establish a strategic relationship with the Syrian President because most shipments arrived via Syria.

The Iranian-Syrian relationship went through various ups and downs. It had reached its high point in the last years of President Hafez al-Assad’s rule when his son Bashar was responsible for the relationship with Lebanon and Hezbollah in particular.

The destinies of Lebanon, Syria and Iran became linked. President Bashar al-Assad was struggling to keep his country out of the conflict when the US-occupied Iraq in 2003. The circle around Iran became tighter, and US forces occupied neighbouring Iraq. Even though getting rid of Saddam Hussein was a blessing for the Iranian regime, Saddam was so weak that he did not represent any real danger to Iran. The US embargo had weakened him, and he had no friends in the Gulf countries after his invasion of Kuwait and his bombing of Saudi Arabia.

The US prevented Iran from moving forward to support the Iraqi resistance to overthrow Saddam Hussein, instead of establishing its own control over Baghdad. The next US objective was Syria and Lebanon. Secretary of State Colin Powell warned President Assad that he was next on the list of presidents to be taken down if he continued offering support to Hamas and Hezbollah. The US declared itself an occupying power, and the Iraqi right to defend their country was acknowledged by the United Nations resolutions. Assad, like Iran and Saudi Arabia, supported the insurgency against the US occupation forces in Iraq. The Saudis rejected Shia-dominated governance over Iraq. The Iranians were next on the US list. So, Iran chose to fight the US on Iraqi ground, which was much less costly than fighting on Iranian ground. Strengthening Iraqi allies was, therefore, an essential component of Iranian national security and an important line of defence.

In 2006, the Bush administration pushed an unprepared Israeli Prime Minister Olmert to agree to destroy Hezbollah and was expecting the war to be expanded to Syria. This was an opportunity to conquer Syria and cut the supply of Iranian arms. The US and its allies were aiming to close the circle around Iran by eliminating its strong ally in Lebanon. Hezbollah was an impediment to the US-Israeli project of bringing all the Arabs to the negotiating table, eliminating the Palestinian cause and its defenders, and weakening Iran as a prelude to overthrowing its government.

When Israel bombed and invaded Lebanon in 2006 with the goal of defeating Hezbollah, President Assad opened his warehouses and offered dozens of game-changing anti-tank missiles and anything Hezbollah needed to fight back, regardless of Israeli air force superiority. Assad became an essential partner in the successful defeat of Israel in Lebanon. The fall of Hezbollah would have had devastating consequences for Syria and Iran. Joining the destinies and alliances of the Lebanese-Syrian-Iraqi-Iranian front was necessary for the survival of each.

In 2011, the world declared war on Syria. It took President Assad two years before he realised the plot was both regional and international, aiming to create chaos in the Levant and to produce a failed state dominated by jihadists. The same ideological jihadists first planted in Afghanistan were expanding and offered a perfect tool for the US to destroy Iran and its allies. The regional and world intelligence services infiltrated the jihadists, and well understood their strengths and weaknesses. They were well suited to fighting the Iranian ideology and Iran’s ally. Wahhabi jihadism was perfect cancer to destroy Iran on many fronts.

Jihadists were growing in Iraq and expanding in Syria under the eyes of the US, as US intelligence sources themselves revealed. The Levant was the perfect and most desirable ancient place for jihadists to mushroom and expand. This was when President Assad asked his allies for support. Iran’s IRGC forces came to Damascus and the journey to liberate Syria started. Syria, like Iraq, offered a vital defence line to Iran. It was another platform to fight – on non-Iranian soil – an enemy that was about to migrate to Iran (had Syrian been defeated). An opportunity that Iran could not miss because of Syria’s strategic importance.

It took Russia until September 2015 to wake up and intervene in the Middle Eastern arena, in Syria in particular. All these years, the US was planning to leave no place for Russia to create alliances, preparing to vanquish Iran and its allies, the “Axis of the Resistance” standing against US hegemony in the Middle East. All Gulf countries succumbed to US power, and today they are hosting the largest US military bases in the region. The US had deployed tens of thousands of troops to these bases and through them enjoyed superior firepower to any country in the world. Still, Iran and the Levant (Syria and Lebanon) remained impervious to the US attempt at complete dominance.

Without Iran’s allies, all US military efforts would have been concentrated on Iran alone. The US would have moved from sanctions to military attack with little fear of the dire consequences. Today, the US needs to consider the now unquestioned fact that if Iran is attacked, its allies in Palestine, Lebanon, Syria and Iraq will open hell for the US and its allies in the Middle East. Forty years of Iranian support for its allies have created a wall of protection around it and a bond whereby the allies join their fate to that of Iran. There are no allies in the world any country could count on to sacrifice their men more readily and stand for a common ideological motivation and shared objectives.  Iran is not only investing in its partners, but it is also investing in its own security and well-being. Iran is prepared to offer the same sacrifices provided by its allies to support them when needed.

Many Lebanese and Iraqis fought in the Iraq-Iran war. Thousands of Iranian, Iraqi and Lebanese Hezbollah (and other allies) lost their lives in Syria protecting the well-being of the Syrian ally and preventing the country from falling into the jihadists’ hands.

Many Iranians and Lebanese were killed in Iraq to support the Iraqis against the terror of ISIS. Iranians and Lebanese Hezbollah are today in Yemen, supporting it against the Saudi-led genocidal massacres. Iran and the Lebanese Hezbollah took the risk of supporting the Palestinians and their cause to free their land, to have their own state and the right to return home. No US allies anywhere in the world are ready to offer comparable solidarity to the US. Iran has created deep alliances whereas the US has failed to do so.

Iran openly attacked the US Ayn al-Assad military base following the unlawful assassination of Major General Qassem Soleimani. No other country in the world has dared to attack the US face-to-face and inflict over a hundred casualties on US service members while continuing to challenge US hegemony. There was no need for Iran to ask its allies to act on its behalf. Iran and its partners on the battlefield are united against their enemies. The US wants Iran without missiles, without armed drones, and without access to intelligence warfare. These vital programs have proved crucial to protecting the country and preventing it from becoming vulnerable. If Iran did not have the allies it has today and the missiles it has manufactured, the US would already have retaliated without hesitation.

The war is far from over. Iran and its allies are still in the heart of the struggle, and the US and Israel are not sitting idly by. Solidarity between Iran and its allies is needed more than ever. The question of how much of its annual budget Iran is spending on its partners is less than relevant, though ordinary Iranians may complain and even challenge its benefits. The spirit of sacrifice that unites allies in mutual protection cannot be limited to monetary considerations. It is priceless.

*

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

All images in this article are from the author

The British government covertly established a network of citizen journalists across Syria during the early years of the country’s civil war in an attempt to shape perceptions of the conflict, frequently recruiting people who were unaware that they were being directed from London.

A number of leaked documents seen by Middle East Eye show how the propaganda initiative began in 2012 and gathered pace the following year, shortly after the UK parliament refused to authorise British military action in Syria.

Drawing upon British, American and Canadian funding, UK government contractors set up offices in Istanbul and Amman, where they hired members of the Syrian diaspora, who in turn recruited citizen journalists inside Syria.

These journalists, many of them young, were commissioned to produce TV footage, radio programmes, social media, posters, magazines and even children’s comics.

While many Syrians turned spontaneously to media activism from the start of the war, the documents describe the way in which the British government sought to guide some of their output, seeing citizen journalism as a way of covertly influencing Syrian audiences.

The papers also make clear that those people who were recruited were often unaware that they were part of a British propaganda initiative.

Some of those who were recruited have defended their involvement, however, saying that they were reliant on western support in their efforts to counter pro-government reporting in Syrian state media, and in Iranian and Russian-backed media.

At a time when the last opposition-held enclave in Idlib province is under assault by pro-government forces, they questioned whether western countries could have contributed more material support to moderate rebels.

Some Syrian journalists complained that western support for their work was decreasing even as it was most needed, after Russia’s entry into the war in 2015 tipped the balance in favour of President Bashar al-Assad.

The documents were drawn up as blueprints for the initiative by an anthropologist working in counter-terrorism at the foreign office in London. They were issued in late 2014 to a small number of communications companies that were invited to bid for three contracts to deliver the work.

One says: “The objective of the project is contribute [sic] towards positive attitudinal and behavioural change.”

This was further defined as: “Reinforcement of popular rejection of the Assad regime and extremist alternatives; promotion of the moderate values of the revolution; promotion of Syrian national identity.”

The documents show that the over-arching aim of the citizen journalism project – and a series of interlinked British propaganda initiatives – was to promote the UK’s strategic interests in Syria and the Middle East.

These are defined in the leaked papers as “a more stable and democratic Syria that better meets the needs and aspirations of its people”, support for a political solution to the conflict, the alleviation of humanitarian suffering, and enhanced UK security.

As well as developing grassroots journalism aligned with British government values, the UK and other western governments were at the same time attempting to build civil society in areas controlled by some of Assad’s opponents, financing and training police forces and civil defence teams.

The anthropologist’s blueprint makes clear that this was being done not just to help maintain law and order and provide humanitarian assistance, but “to build confidence in a future Syria free from extremist rule”.

However, the documents acknowledge the risks to the young journalists who had unwittingly been co-opted by the British government.

“Media coverage of the project will be distinctly unwelcome due to the risks to Syrian employees and to project effectiveness that it would generate,” says one.

“The implementer is not permitted to speak publicly (to the media or at academic conferences) about their work without the explicit permission of HMG [Her Majesty’s Government]. This will be enforced by a Non Disclosure Agreement.”

A number of young Syrian citizen journalists were detained and murdered by the Islamic State (IS) group after it began capturing territory in the country in 2015.

The group frequently denounced its victims as western “spies”, and some Syrian citizen journalists were pursued across the border to Turkey and killed.

Whilst many of the victims were not thought to be involved in British-sponsored projects, MEE is aware of two who were.

Three-pronged campaign

The British government’s citizen journalism project was part of a three-pronged propaganda initiative that was developed in London and was, according to the documents, intended to “have a synergistic effect”.

The first strand, named Syrian Identity, sought to “unite Syrians through positive affirmation of common cultures and practices and to restore trust between neighbours, while illustrating Syrians’ strength in numbers,” according to the blueprint.

The documents explain that the second strand, called Free Syria, “seeks to build confidence in a future Syria free from extremist rule”.

It “amplifies the work of the ‘free’ police, civil defence teams and wider public service provision and broader developments in civil society and seeks to unite the moderate opposition (civil and armed) to work for a common future”.

The third, known as Undermine, “seeks to degrade the effectiveness of VE [violent extremist] networks in Syria by undermining the credibility of VE narratives and actors and isolating VE organisations from the populace.”

The document goes on, using a different acronym for IS: “ISIL is an explicit and named focus, Al Nusra Front (due to its current popularity within Syria) is addressed indirectly through its behaviour.

“The purpose of the project to directly ‘Undermine’ (degrading the effectiveness of) VE networks in Syria through the delivery of media product, the emboldening and empowering of moderate voices, and supporting community coalescence around a vision of a tolerant, pluralist Syria. Ultimately, active Syrian rejection of VE is the requirement.”

The documents add that the research underpinning the initiative “will need to be able to draw upon open source material, jihadist discourse and, in particular, a network of assets inside Syria”.

Military intelligence officers

Individuals familiar with the project say that around nine companies were invited to bid for the contracts. They included a number of firms established by former British diplomats, intelligence officers and army officers.

Although the contracts were awarded by the UK’s foreign office, they were managed by the country’s Ministry of Defence, and sometimes by military intelligence officers.

These companies set up offices in Amman, Istanbul and, for a period, at Reyhanli in southeast Turkey. From here they would employ Syrians who would in turn recruit citizen journalists inside Syria, who were under the impression that they were working for the media offices of Syrian opposition groups.

“It was a shady, shady business,” says one person involved in the work, adding that frequently the individual journalist would believe they were working for an opposition group, and have no idea that a British communications company was running their media office, under contract to the UK government.

A second person involved with the initiative added that if you hired Syrians “to pump out propaganda, inside Syria and outside”, attributing their work in any way to the British government would have undermined its effectiveness.

Many of these citizen journalists would be using equipment that they believed was being supplied by opposition groups but which had in fact been bought using funds supplied by the UK government as part of the contract.

Some would be paid a retainer of between $250-$500 a month, while others were paid for individual pieces of media – around $50 for each picture or $200 for a short piece of video.

These would then be distributed to Arabic language media organisations, through what purported to be the press offices of Syrian opposition groups.

Favoured video clips might be film of fighters from the moderate opposition handing out food, or using sophisticated weaponry to good effect.

“Then that would go to Sky News Arabia, BBC Arabic, Al Jazeera, Al Arabiya, those sort of outlets,” said one person involved.

Whenever British government officials wished to discuss the work, meetings would be held away from the newly established offices, to avoid contact with the locally hired Syrians.

British staff running the offices would also be expected to prepare reports on their meetings with Syrians, which would be passed back to the foreign office.

Opposition social media accounts

Meanwhile, other leaked documents seen by MEE show that the British government had awarded contracts to communications companies, which selected and trained opposition spokespeople, ran press offices that operated 24 hours a day, and developed opposition social media accounts.

British staff running these offices were told that their Syrian employees were permitted to talk to British journalists – as spokespeople for the Syrian opposition – but only after receiving clearance from officials at the British consulate in Istanbul.

One of the responsibilities of the press offices set up covertly by the British government under the terms of these contracts was to “maintain an effective network of correspondents/stringers inside Syria to report on MAO [moderate armed opposition] activity”.

In this way, the British government was able to exert behind-the-scenes influence over conversations that the UK media was having with individuals who presented themselves as Syrian opposition representatives.

People involved with the operation say that some prominent British journalists visiting Istanbul would be introduced to Syrians acting as opposition spokespeople, who had been prepared for the encounter by British handlers.

They say they would brief the Syrians before the meeting, and avoid any face-to-face contact with the visiting journalists themselves.

The propaganda initiative was primarily aimed at Syrians, living both inside and outside Syria. The blueprint explains that “radicalised UK citizens are not an explicit focus (target audience) for this work,” adding: “Those efforts are the responsibility of another government department.”

It adds: “Nevertheless, it is accepted that some C-VE [countering violent extremist] material may reach the UK information space.”

Furthermore, UK audiences could on occasion be “a specified target” of some media being produced as part of the initiative, with the permission of British officials in Istanbul.

The different strands of the propaganda programme were evaluated by a scientist from the UK’s Ministry of Defence, looking for evidence of “behavioural and attitudinal change”.

The companies bidding for the contracts were told: “Behavioural changes linked… to campaign activity will be especially highly valued.”

During 2015, Free Syria, Syrian Identity and Undermine were funded in both British pounds and Canadian dollars, with the equivalent of around £410,000 ($540,000) being spent each month.

Some Syrians who became involved in the programme say that the money they received was the only means by which they could hope to support their families. “I have a wife and family,” said one. “We need support in order to be able to live. Is there an independent media outlet in this world?”

The British government appears to have regarded its propaganda initiative as being in part a way to maintain a presence in Syria until it was able to become militarily engaged, with the blueprint saying that it should have “the capability to expand back into the strategic as and when the opportunity arises, to help build an effective opposition political-military interface”.

Around the same time that the initiative was being developed, the British government “loaned” a number of its pilots to the US, French and Canadian air forces, enabling them to take part in combat missions against Syrian targets, despite the county’s parliament having voted against such action.

British government enthusiasm for much of the work appears to have begun to wane as it became increasingly clear that the Assad government and its Russian and Iranian allies were winning the civil war, and funding for contracts began to dry up.

Early in 2019, the Free Syrian Police, a British-backed organisation, finally ceased operations following a militant takeover of Idlib province, much to the dismay of civilians and civil society activists.

The Turkish government is also said to have become less tolerant of the propaganda initiatives being co-ordinated from its territory.

One British contractor is understood to have been expelled after the Turkish authorities discovered she had entered the country on a tourist visa.

*

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

In early February, the RCMP, Canada’s colonial police force, raided the land defender camps of the Wet’suwet’en people in British Columbia, in order to clear the way for pipeline construction. Clearly, none of the political decision makers responsible for this repressive action ever imagined that it would spark a powerful wave of solidarity actions across Canada. There have been ongoing protests and rallies but the focus has been on the tactic of economic disruption, most notably by blockading the railway network. If the attack on the Wet’suwet’en was driven by the profit needs of extractive capitalism, the resistance that has emerged has targeted the flow of goods and services as the most effective form of counter-attack.

In October of 2018, the provincial government of British Columbia approved the building of a 670 km pipeline to bring liquified natural gas from northern BC to a $40-billion export plant, to be constructed in Kitimat. In BC, the New Democratic Party (NDP) is in power, so it was shameful that Canada’s social democratic party would join with the federal Liberals to provide “a bouquet of government subsidies for BC’s largest carbon polluter.”

From the outset, it was clear that there would be a major problem with driving this environmentally destructive project through Indigenous territory. Unlike the rest of Canada, BC has been built up on disputed or ‘unceded’ land over which no treaties between the Crown and the Indigenous nations were ever drawn up. This is because the process of colonization in BC was especially ruthless and lethal. In 1862, when a smallpox epidemic broke out in Victoria, infected Indigenous people were driven back into the interior of the province, spreading the disease. At least 30,000 died as a result, which was about 60% of the Indigenous population at the time. Following this successful genocide, treaties seemed unnecessary to the colonizers. “The Indians have really no rights to the lands they claim,” concluded land commissioner, Joseph Trutch, in 1864.

Trutch and his friends would doubtless be chagrined to learn that, in the 21st Century, an unintended legacy of their handiwork has emerged. The Wet’suwet’en Nation lays claim to a 22,000 square kilometre unceded territory through which the Coastal GasLink project must pass. Moreover, almost twenty five years ago, in the Delgamuukw ruling, the Supreme Court of Canada held that there is, indeed, Aboriginal title over such land. Coastal GasLink and its apologists make much of the fact that they were able to coerce and cajole twenty Indigenous band councils into signing agreements with them. However, these bands only have authority, under the Indian Act, over the reserves they operate. They have no jurisdiction over Wet’suwet’en land as a whole, whereas the hereditary chiefs of the Nation have a claim that predates Canada and that various court rulings have acknowledged is still highly relevant.

The hereditary chiefs remain implacably opposed to the pipeline project and neither the Trudeau Liberals in Ottawa, the BC government or the pipeline company have the “free, prior and informed consent” that is required under the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples that Canada has signed onto.

Resistance and Solidarity

The brutal arrogance with which the RCMP were unleashed on the land defenders was so shocking and appalling that it blew up in the faces of those responsible. After a previous assault on the Wet’suwet’en, in January of last year, it was discovered that RCMP planners were ready to shoot to kill. The notes of their meeting included an observation that “lethal overwatch is req’d.,” a reference to the deployment of snipers. After this last raid, a video emerged of a cop training his telescopic sights on the unarmed defenders. The footage and accounts of the militarized police action against people trying to protect their own ancient land was as heartbreaking as it was enraging.

“This is Wet’suwet’en territory. We are unarmed. We are peaceful. You are invaders,” yelled Eve Saint, the daughter of one of the hereditary chiefs. She later told the media that, “I held my feather up and cried because I was getting ripped off my territory and there was nothing I could do about it. That’s the type of violence our people face. It’s embedded in my DNA and hit me in the heart. This is what my people have been going through since contact (with colonizers).”

This ugly use of state power was made all the more vile and disgusting by Justin Trudeau’s hypocrisy. He is fully implicated in the attempt to crush Indigenous rights yet he postures as a champion of ‘reconciliation.’ The response was remarkable and powerful and created a political crisis, as hard-hitting actions took place across the country. BC’s NDP Premier, John Horgan, has been left ‘despondent’ by a solidarity action that disrupted his government’s throne speech. A day of action targeted BC government offices across the province. The Port of Vancouver has been blockaded. On the other side of the country, in Halifax, the Ceres container terminal was blocked by protesters chanting, “Where are we? Mi’kmaqi! Respect Indigenous sovereignty!” as well as, “Shut down Canada!”

It is, however, the rail blockades that have had such a huge economic impact and that have taken things to the level of political crisis. Action taken by residents of the Tyendinaga Mohawk Territory in eastern Ontario has prevented the movement of train traffic along a vital corridor connecting Toronto with Ottawa and Montreal for almost two weeks now and has had a national impact. The Mohawks have refused to obey a court injunction ordering them to leave on the grounds that Canadian courts have no right to tell them what to do on their land and they have made clear that they are going nowhere until the just demands of the Wet’suwet’en have been met. The economic impact of their action, along with a series of other rail blockades across Canada, has been enormous and it is growing. It is reported that “wood, pulp and paper producers have lost tens of millions of dollars so far.” At least 66 cargo ships have been unable to unload in BC and the president of the province’s Chamber of Shipping says, “those line-ups are only going to increase, of course ships are continuing to arrive. Eventually, there will be no space and they’ll be waiting off the coast of Canada, which is a situation we’d like to avoid.”

The federal Indigenous Services Minister, Marc Miller, has now been to Tyendinaga to meet with members of the community. His account of the hours long meeting doesn’t suggest much was resolved at all. Clearly, the Trudeau government is in a very difficult situation. They have seen the response to the RCMP raid on the Wet’suwet’en and they desperately fear the consequences of moving on the rail blockades. Yet the driving of pipelines through Indigenous territory is vital to their strategic priority of exporting dirty oil and gas to the Pacific market. The Coastal GasLink project is the harbinger of much more to come and the resistance of Indigenous people and their allies poses a threat to all their plans.

The considerable ability of the Liberal Party to serve the interests of the capitalists while containing social resistance is being tested to the limit. The vulnerability to disruption of the global supply chain that has been created during the neoliberal era, with its wide ranging sources of raw materials and component parts and its systems of ‘just in time’ inventory, makes the blockades and the economic disruption even more of a threat than they would have been at an earlier time.

The political crisis that has been unleashed by this wave of action in solidarity with the Wet’suwet’en is already very serious but if state power is unleashed to remove the blockades, at Tyendinaga or at other locations, especially if a serious confrontation ensues, the mood across the country is such that disruptive actions could intensify dramatically. In that eventuality, the choice for Trudeau and his provincial allies would be between a dangerous escalation or a retreat on so fundamental an objective as the pursuit of environmentally disastrous extractive capitalism. Sparked by the magnificent defiance of the Wet’suwet’en, a struggle is unfolding with the most important implications for the building of resistance in Canada to the colonial project that Indigenous people face. At the same time, however, it is also creating a precious model for the global struggle against the deadly consequences of corporate climate vandalism.

*

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

John Clarke is a writer and retired organizer for the Ontario Coalition Against Poverty (OCAP). Follow his tweets at @JohnOCAP and blog at johnclarkeblog.com.

Featured image: Rail blockade. Photo: Twitter/Krystalline Kraus

Many baby boomers like this writer seem to have better ‘long term memory’ than what just transpired recently. I can remember, almost vividly, when we held our student government elections over 50 years ago.  Current NY Senator Chuck Schumer, running for school president at 14 years of age and wearing an Abe Lincoln style beard and stove pipe hat, rests clearly in my memory bank. Interesting how the state of politics today is very much similar to those SGO races. It wasn’t so much about issues, rather about personalities or personality flaws that opponents hammered out against one another. Things could even get rather nasty to say the least. So it is in this Junior High School Amerika.

The 90+ minutes of last evening’s Democratic debate hardly touched upon dissecting issues and ideas for real change in this empire. Instead, it was ‘dog eat dog’ to make the most talking points for the media to tally as to ‘Who won’ and ‘Who lost’. We had the usual media suspects, this time from NBC, who were leading the candidates down this rabbit hole. Interesting how the ‘Lead moderator’, good ole Lester Holt, was once again ordained to be such an authority on this ****. Remember Lester? I do.

Go back into your memory bank to a bit shy of 17 years ago, to March of 2003, when the Bush/Cheney gang did their heinous act of the illegal and immoral attack and invasion of Iraq. Good ole Lester was one of the newscasters who did MSNBC’s cheerleading of the infamous Shock and Awe carpet bombing of Baghdad. Lester was the good soldier, along with NBC’s little Miss Katie Couric, she of the famous phrase “Marines Rock”, that celebrated an act that still negatively resonates within that Middle East region. One would think that ALL the hacks who whored themselves for this empire would have been castigated and ripped of their careers a bit. No sir! Ole Lester became NBC’s anchor and moderator for presidential election debates. Little Katie continued to do well with her career too. Why not? You serve the man well and he pays well. Ask Rachel Maddow, the brilliant scholar turned news journalist and empire lover, who earns, I believe at last look, 8 million dollars a year!

While the Dems were doing their ‘slash and burn’ show last night, the other Junior High School politician, our president, was at it in Phoenix. He was conducting another of his ‘Tent show rallies’ to a crowd of loyal minions. I say ‘minions’ because it seems that no matter how many times he and his ‘Billionaire run’ administration do things to screw working stiffs nationwide, the suckers… oh sorry, the voters, ask for more. His base, many of whom are working stiffs like you and me, keep thinking that Trump is ‘on their side’ against the evil government and the Deep State, the very Deep state that he serves.

How many cuts in funding for their needs and survival until they realize that he is NOT on their side? His cronies, people like Steve Mnuchin, Wilbur Ross, Steve Schwarzman and his son in law Jared Kushner made mega millions on the Sub Prime Scam and its aftereffects. They made sure that millions of homeowners were foreclosed into becoming renters from these predators… who are now our ‘Public Servants’. Factor in Trump’s buddy, Fox’s Sean Hannity, who owns thousands of rental units, many in low income areas. One wonders how many of Trump’s base have been subjected to the terror of these guys, or had friends and relatives so tortured. As long as this carnival barker tells them about ‘Building the wall’ or spending their tax money on more military at the expense of domestic needs, they drink the ‘War on Terror’ Kool Aid. Sad.

This Two Party/ One Party system that serves our empire so well will never allow dialogue on how to end this mess. Never! Sanders comes close, in the little he is able to transmit, on how we need systematic changes to things. If you watched the (so called) Junior High School debate last night, you saw how the NBC and DNC masters of deception operate.

They did their best to marginalize Sanders, and now Bloomberg (who deserves such treatment), for getting the public energized. Bloomberg does it by spending mega millions of TV ads for his recognition. The empire’s handlers realize that the suckers.. sorry, the voters,  just won’t finally buy his approach when and if they go into that voting booth. Thus, he is not safe… even for a corrupt empire as ours. As to Sanders, well their agenda is obvious. He is too dangerous to their Status Quo. Big Pharma, Big Insurance and of course Big Oil & Gas , along with Wall Street, have too much to lose. Even if as the nominee he would lose the election, his use of the bully pulpit, like the one he has now, is something they just don’t want the suckers.. sorry, the voters to have to be exposed to.

Yes, the empire loves our Junior High School brand of politics… always has and always will.

*

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

Philip A Farruggio is a contributing editor for The Greanville Post. He is also frequently posted on Global Research, Nation of Change, World News Trust and Off Guardian sites. He is the son and grandson of Brooklyn NYC longshoremen and a graduate of Brooklyn College, class of 1974. Since the 2000 election debacle Philip has written over 300 columns on the Military Industrial Empire and other facets of life in an upside down America. He is also host of the ‘It’s the Empire… Stupid‘ radio show, co produced by Chuck Gregory. Philip can be reached at [email protected].

On Wednesday Wikileaks editor Julian Assange appeared at a Westminster court for his final case management hearing before his extradition hearing which begins on 24 February.

The U.S. government will present its case arguing for Assange’s extradition to face 17 charges under the Espionage Act and one charge of computer crime which could carry a sentence, if convicted, of 175 years.

At the extradition hearing Assange’s London lawyer, Jennifer Robinson, will argue that the United States ‘breached due process’ due its surveillance operation of the Wikileaks editor while sheltering in the Ecuadorian embassy. This secret surveillance operation was carried out by a Spanish company that sent the footage to U.S. intelligence services,. It filmed Assange talking to his lawyers, family and friends in the embassy and is the subject of an investigation in Spain.

Joseph Farrell, a spokesman for Wikileaks, stated that this breach of due process raises huge doubts as to whether Julian Assange will receive a fair trial next week:

“You had a security company working for the Ecuadorian Embassy that was recording all of his meetings, including his meetings with his doctors and his lawyers, including strategic legal discussions, so that completely destroys any element of client/attorney privilege.”

International support from Julian Assange mounts

Assange’s case has received support from 2 Australian MPs who visited the Wikileaks publisher at Belmarsh maximum security prison on Tuesday. They called on the UK government to block his extradition to the U.S.

Australian MP Andrew Wilke said on twitter:

“In London we met with UN Special Rapporteur on Torture to discuss Julian Assange. Nils left us in no doubt that Assange is showing the effects of psychophysical torture and feels betrayed by the justice system in the UK, the USA & Aus.’’

Further pressure is being brought to bear by the publication on 17 February of a letter in the Lancet representing 117 doctors from 18 countries.

They note that their first 2 letters to the UK government on the treatment of Assange had been ignored. The letter declares:

“We condemn the torture of Assange. We condemn the denial of his fundamental right to appropriate health care. We condemn the climate of fear surrounding the provision of health care to him. We condemn the violations of his right to doctor–patient confidentiality. Politics cannot be allowed to interfere with the right to health and the practice of medicine.’’

The 117 doctors conclude their letter with a warning to the UK government and a call for solidarity and support for Julian Assange:

“Should Assange die in a UK prison, as the UN Special Rapporteur on Torture has warned, he will effectively have been tortured to death. Much of that torture will have taken place in a prison medical ward, on doctors’ watch. The medical profession cannot afford to stand silently by, on the wrong side of torture and the wrong side of history, while such a travesty unfolds.

In the interests of defending medical ethics, medical authority, and the human right to health, and taking a stand against torture, together we can challenge and raise awareness of the abuses detailed in our letters. Our appeals are simple: we are calling upon governments to end the torture of Assange and ensure his access to the best available health care before it is too late. Our request to others is this: please join us.’’

Further pressure has been brought to bear on the UK government on Thursday by the unprecedented intervention of Dunja Mijatović, who is the Council of Europe’s Human Rights Commissioner. She released a statement opposing Assange’s extradition to the United States due to the, “potential impact on press freedom and concerns about ill-treatment.’’

The Human Rights Commissioner declared that:

“Julian Assange’s potential extradition has human rights implications that reach far beyond his individual case. The indictment raises important questions about the protection of those that publish classified information in the public interest, including those that expose human rights violations. The broad and vague nature of the allegations against Julian Assange, and of the offences listed in the indictment, are troubling as many of them concern activities at the core of investigative journalism in Europe and beyond. Consequently, allowing Julian Assange’s extradition on this basis would have a chilling effect on media freedom, and could ultimately hamper the press in performing its task as purveyor of information and public watchdog in democratic societies.’’

She went on to acknowledge the danger that Assange may suffer torture at the hands of U.S. authorities:

“Furthermore, any extradition to a situation in which the person involved would be at real risk of torture or inhuman or degrading treatment would be contrary to Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights. The UN Special Rapporteur on Torture and other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment has made clear that he considers that both the detention conditions in the United States and the sentence likely to be imposed on Julian Assange present such a real risk.

She concludes with the damning conclusion, remember this is coming from the EU a close American ally, that Assange should not be extradited to the United States:

“In view of both the press freedom implications and the serious concerns over the treatment Julian Assange would be subjected to in the United States, my assessment as Commissioner for Human Rights is that he should not be extradited.’’

UK Shadow Chancellor John McDonnell visits Julian Assange and calls for his release

On a day of dramatic interventions the Shadow Chancellor John McDonnell visited Julian Assange at Belmarsh maximum security prison. He has battled for several weeks to be allowed to visit the Wikileaks publisher. McDonnell has recently spoken at public rallies calling for Assange’s release.

After visiting Julian Assange the Shadow Chancellor said:

“We are hoping that in court he is able to defeat the extradition bid. We don’t believe that extradition should be used for political purposes, and all the evidence – even the recent revelations with regard to Trump engagement – demonstrates that this is a political trial and we are hoping that the courts will see it that way.’’

“If this extradition takes place it will damage the democratic standing of our own country as well as America. We have a long standing tradition in this country of standing up for whistle blowers, journalists … if this extradition takes place I think it will damage our reputation.”

Despite the obstacles facing the Wikileaks editor John McDonnell remained optimistic that Assange’s extradition may not go ahead:

“I am hoping that combination of cross-party support, what has happened in the media, the exposes that have taken place in recent weeks, will ensure that we have a climate of opinion in this country that prevents this extradition taking place.”

The UK historian/journalist Mark Curtis, who has been a consistent critic of US and UK foreign policy in the Middle East, has noted the conspiracy of silence by the UK media over the British government’s ‘criminal’ handling of Assange’s case:

“It’s a big deal when a UN special rapporteur [Professor Nils Melzer] says UK officials should be investigated for possible “criminal conduct’’ over torture of Julian Assange. Proof of its importance that it hasn’t been mentioned in any UK mainstream media report, as far as I can see.’’

The 2003 extradition treaty between the UK and US forbids extradition on the grounds of political offences. Yet this award winning journalist is being extradited, for exposing American war crimes in Iraq and Afghanistan and government corruption around the world.

Take solidarity action to stop the extradition of Julian Assange.

*

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

Clear indications have been made that there is a project for a Greater Albania and it is progressing ahead, especially as the world’s attention is focussed on and distracted by the coronavirus, Libya and Syria’s Idlib province. The ultimate goal of Albania was to absorb Kosovo and the Preševo Valley in Serbia, southern Montenegro, Epirus in Greece and western North Macedonia into a single Greater Albania state.

Although this may not be official policy of the Albanian Republic, it is ingrained into the Albanian mythos. However, this has now changed with the Kosovo-born Albanian Minister-in-office for Europe and Foreign Affairs Gent Cakaj and the Foreign Minister of Kosovo Glauk Konjufca meeting yesterday to discuss 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 which so far only exists in the Australian capital of Canberra.

Cakaj said on Twitter about “the need to deepen cooperation between [Albania and Kosovo] and strongly support the coalition of Albanian political parties in [Serbia’s] Preshevo [Preševo] Valley” to the east of Kosovo. Although the tweet just emphasizes deeper cooperation between Albania, Kosovo and the Preševo valley, it was his comments to Turkey’s Anadolu Agency that gives the biggest suggestion of a Greater Albania project being put into action. Cakaj said to the agency that

“the borders between the Republic of Kosovo and the Republic of Albania should not exist at all, they should be removed immediately and our countries should enjoy unrestricted freedom of movement and unhindered ability to deepen economic cooperation.”

Although it may seem like that Albania and Kosovo are making strong efforts for the Greater Albania project, it rather demonstrates their desperation as Kosovo continues to lose legitimacy and countries withdraw their recognition of the quasi-independent state that illegally broke off from Serbia in 2008. A total of 14 countries since 2017 have withdrawn their recognition of Kosovo, meaning only 51% of United Nations members now recognize it. The usual norm in statehood recognition is that more and more countries overtime recognize the state, not withdraw recognition. If we look at the Israeli situation, since its founding in 1948, only five states have withdrawn recognition and 162 of the 193 United Nations member states recognize it. It is inevitable that with incentives from China and Russia more states will withdraw their recognition of Kosovo.

This brings a new question then. Has the failings of Kosovo actually accelerated the Greater Albania project?

The proposal by Finnish Nobel “Peace” Prize winning Marti Ahtisaari to establish an independent Kosovo and Kosovan identity has been an abject failure. Rather, Kosovo has taken on the Albanian identity openly with Kosovo Prime Minister Albin Kurti, who is currently serving as the fourth Prime Minister of Kosovo since February 3 2020, not differentiating between nation and ethnicity as he sees Kosovo as an extension of Albania, despite the nation and the state not being the same. Kurti also does not recognize the flag and anthem of Kosovo, as well as the Kosovar identity.

As Kosovo continues to lose legitimacy, meaning the breakaway province could return back to Serbian administration, it is attempting to avoid this situation by merging Kosovo into Albania. It is for this reason that Cakaj says the borders between Albania and Kosovo should not exist at all and that they should both share embassies. As Serbia’s position has strengthened, Albania’s official support for Kosovo is an attempt to parry it and jointly formulate a strategy to achieve some success.

The broader goals of merging Albania and Kosovo are multiple – to confirm Kosovo’s independence from Serbia; to propagate the Greater Albania project; and to put pressure on Serbia as well as international states to challenge Belgrade’s foreign policy successes. The campaign cooperation between Albania and Kosovo demonstrates the attempts to raise the issue to a higher level and the desire to establish new mechanisms and measures, with the incumbent government in Pristina to implement a practical policy because all tactics so far have not yielded results and giving up is not an option.

Therefore, there is no reason why Serbia should give up its current policy of pushing states to withdraw their Kosovo independence recognition. Belgrade must maintain that Kosovo is an integral and historical part of Serbia. Belgrade’s efforts have produced results and the Serbian public demand results. Serbia should not accept any blackmail and demands from Kosovo or Albania, especially as it continues its project of reintegrating Kosovo. Only days ago, it was announced that rail links between Belgrade and Pristina will be constructed, something that does not even exist between Kosovo and Albania. Although Kosovo’s failings continue, it has also accelerated the Greater Albania project in an effort to prevent the reintegration of the breakaway province back into Serbia.

*

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.

Featured image is from InfoBrics

As the emerging Quantum World continues to shake reality as we once knew it, it is no coincidence that the ultra-secret FISA Court has been unwittingly thrust into the public spotlight of the FBI Russiagate scandal – exactly where it needed to be.   The Shift is deliberately focused on those forms, structures and institutions of no service to humanity.  Besides the collapse of the Democratic Party, the FBI and Donald Trump, one benign example is Prince Harry and Meaghan abandoning the royal family for a ‘normal’ life.

On March 15^th, the Patriot Act will expire unless it is reauthorized by Congress. As if it had been patiently waiting in the wings, the Patriot Act was adopted in October 2, 2001, 21 days after the 911 attacks, revealing a curious foreknowledge of what occurred  three weeks earlier,

The Act set the stage for the next two decades of unfettered, expanded surveillance of the American people – under the guise of ‘national security.’  

After 2001, the Act was amended to include the FISA (Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act) Court (FISC) which authorized the gathering of foreign ‘intelligence’ with the Court approving ‘warrant’ applications for the unrestricted collection of information.

It should not have taken the 2016 Russiagate/FBI disgrace to confirm that after decades of government surveillance, warrantless or not, that 24-7 secret spying on Americans is unconstitutional and incompatible within a free and democratic society, nor is it necessary.   

After the 911 attacks, the FISA Court prospered with an increased bureaucracy to handle the expanded caseload.   As the American Empire spread fear and paranoia with a belligerent foreign policy, the US portrayed itself in constant jeopardy from external forces and that, at all costs, the ‘homeland’ must be protected from evil doers.   If in fact the US govrnment wanted to shut down the ‘terrorist threat’, they could do so in short order.  There is no terrorist organization stronger than the US military.

We now know that there are evildoers within our own borders and within our own government who have no interest in protecting the jewels that were once valued American ideals: freedom and justice for all.

FISA Court

In 1978, the Court began with seven US District Court Judges from diverse geographic areas to serve seven year terms. Today, there are eleven Judges who serve on a weekly rotation with each conducting at least four annual one-week  stints. Nominated by President Barack Obama and then individually selected by Chief Justice John Roberts, their appointments are subject to no public oversight or scrutiny.  As of 2020 each District Judge receives a salary of $216,000 with an added bonus for their FISA service.

Referred to by CNN as the “most powerful Court you have never heard of”, it is housed in a SCIF-like bunker at an undisclosed location between the WH and the Capitol.  The list of FISA Judges is public but details of their interactions remain obscure and closely guarded.  Yet thanks to the FBI Russiagate scandal, the focus on the Court has intensified with revelations that do not inspire confidence in an independent judicial experience.

Since the workings of the Court are ultra-secret, a Judicial Watch FOIA discovered that no hearings were held on all four of the FBI warrant requests on the Russiagate investigation, all of which were proven  to be factually flawed,  In other words, the Court does not verify the alleged facts on any application which questions whether the Court ever holds hearings on any warrant application or whether the Court routinely acquiesces to the FBI and is literally a rubber-stamp.  

As renewal of the Court comes before a moribund Congress, the question arises whether the Court serves any useful purpose with a history of carte blanche approvals of almost every application for surveillance that has ever been submitted.  The statistics do not support the pretense that there is a democratic entity performing a patriotic public service protecting the American population.  Note the examples of 2016 and 2017 with increased rejections:

The most obvious reason for FISA renewal is to hoodwink the American public into ‘feeling’ safe while allowing intel agency tentacles to deepen its creep into American society.

FISA Court Judges

Let’s begin with then presiding Chief Judge Rosemary Collyer.  Ten days after publications of the IG Report, Collyer issued a rare Order that belatedly ‘rebuked’ the FBI for providing ‘unsupported or contradicted’  information to the Court while withholding exculpatory information detrimental to the FBI’s case.  While the Order citing FBI ‘misconduct’ was little more than a bureaucratic put down, the Order went no further than requiring the FBI to provide assurance of how it will improve its processes in the future.  Three days later, Collyer resigned as Presiding Judge as she chose to remain a Judge on the Court until her term expires in March.

It is noteworthy that Collyer should have found none of the abuses outlined in the IG Report startling since Rep. Devin Nunes, then Chair of the House Intel Committee, alerted her to potential FBI/DOJ abuses in a February 7 2018 classified memo to the Court.

In a follow up June 13^th memo, Nunes reiterated his earlier memo  including a classified summary of specifics that the IG Report would repeat almost two years later.  Given Nunes’ oversight function as Committee Chair with jurisdiction  over the FISA Court, he requested that Collyer initiate a ‘thorough investigation’ into his allegations. Collyer’s response was a stonewall of condescension and dismissal as if Nunes had no legal authority to provide oversight on the Court’s conduct.

The four page memo was ultimately approved for public release by the White House and Committee majority despite Democratic protests.   Meanwhile, the Senate Intel Committee, chaired by Sen. Richard Burr (R-NC) has ceded committee authority to Sen. Mark Warner (D-Va) as the silence has been deafening.

 

*

With minimum information available about the Court’s inner workings, the presence of US District Court Judge Rudolph Contreras has drawn attention to his relationship with former FBI counterespionage chief Peter Strzok.  In a July 25, 2016 email with FBI lawyer Lisa Page including discussion about setting up a cocktail party:

Page: “Rudy in on the FISC. Did you know that? Just appointed two months ago.“  Strzok:  “I did. We talked about it before and after. I need to get together with him.”

In addition, it has come to light that Contreras, acting in his capacity as US District Court Judge for the District of Columbia was assigned to the criminal case of Gen. Michael Flynn.  On December 1, 2018 Contreras accepted Flynn’s original guilty plea per an agreement with the Mueller investigation.   With Flynn expecting to be sentenced on December 7^th, instead the US District Court announced that Contreras “has been  recused” from the  case offering no explanation.  Former US Attorney Joe diGenova speculates, with his ear to the ground, that Contreras may have also signed the legally defective FBI warrants thus creating a mammoth conflict of interest in light of his relationship with Strzok. 

There is no dispute that the Flynn prosecution was the result of an ‘ambush interview’ created by Strzok, deputy FBI Director Andrew McCabe and others.

*

U.S. District Judge Royce C. Lamberth, who served as FISA’s Chief Judge from 1995 through 2002  lamented that he “..struggled with the perception for years that we did whatever the government wanted and were rubber stamps,” A review of the Court’s  33 year history shows that during Judge Lamberth’s time as Chief Judge only one FISA application denial.

The aforementioned examples of judicial malfeasance or simply crass indifference are unacceptable on the part of FISA judges responsible for Constitutional decisions affecting the lives, liberty and freedom of all American citizens.  The fact is that the FISA Court’s secrecy encourages a climate of cutting corners, inferior work quality and contempt for public exposure.

In addition, the Court’s existence  is irrelevant since the “terrorist threat” is little more than a paper tiger.  If the US cut off the flow of weapons, the ‘terrorists’ would be out of business but it is to the Government’s advantage to maintain its surveillance grip on the gullible American population.

To be continued….

*

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.

A revelation in Westminster Magistrate’s Court on Wednesday sent shockwaves through the mainstream media. It is being widely publicised that in 2017 US President Donald Trump offered Julian Assange a pardon if he was to declare that Russia had not been the source of the DNC hack, which had exposed emails discrediting then presidential candidate, Hillary Clinton. A lawyer representing Mr Assange, the former Wikileaks editor who faces extradition to the United States, put forward evidence that former US congressman Dana Rohrabacher had visited him in the Ecuadorian embassy in 2017, in the early days of Robert Mueller’s investigation into alleged Russian interference in the US election.

Edward Fitzgerald QC said that the statement from Assange’s lawyer described: “Mr Rohrabacher going to see Mr Assange and saying, on instructions from the president, he was offering a pardon or some other way out, if Mr Assange … said Russia had nothing to do with the DNC leaks”. The deal was allegedly offered a year after Assange published the DNC troves, which provided insight into the inner workings of the Clinton campaign, and proved highly embarrassing and damaging to the presidential nominee. Clinton allies accused both Wikileaks and Russia at the time of working in cahoots with the Trump campaign.

Although Julian Assange was always reluctant to declare outright that the source was in fact not Russia, due to Wikileaks’ policy of not naming its sources, a visitor to the Edinburgh office of Sputnik news, back in November 2016, did just that. Friend of Assange, Craig Murray, the former British ambassador to Uzbekistan, told journalists that he had recently been to see Assange, who had assured him that the source of the DNC hack was in fact from within Washington. He went further to say that he had met the person responsible for the leak, and that it was someone from within the DNC.  The story was then picked up by other news outlets, which spread doubts regarding the Democrats’ claims of Russia being involved in the hack.

Several former US intelligence analysts, including former NSA officer Bill Binney, have also come out publicly and said that the DNC could not have been hacked by Russia, but most likely came from within the DNC itself.  A piece published by Patrick Lawrence titled “A New Report Raises Big Questions about Last Year’s DNC Hack,” also claimed that for technical reasons, the data that was allegedly downloaded to a hacker could not have been done so in the way suggested because it was downloaded at a much faster rate than would have been possible given the technology available to such a hacker at the time. Indeed it has been said that the data could only have been retrieved internally and loaded onto a device such as a thumb drive.

As for Dana Rohrabacher, he denies offering a ‘quid pro quo’ to Assange on behalf of Trump.  He states on his website: ‘I was not directed by Trump or anyone else connected with him to meet with Julian Assange. I was on my own fact finding mission at personal expense…However when speaking with Julian Assange, I told him that if he could provide information and evidence about who actually gave him the DNC emails, I would then call on President Trump to pardon him.’  Rohrabacher then says that on his return to the US he called General Kelly to say Assange would be prepared to provide information about the DNC emails in exchange for a pardon. He vouches that he had no further discussions on the matter with anyone from the administration, including President Trump. The White House, for its part, also strongly denies any such offer was made on behalf of Trump. Press Secretary Stephanie Grisham said: ‘The President barely knows Dana Rohrabacher other than he’s an ex-congressman. He’s never spoken to him on this subject or almost any subject…It is a complete fabrication and a total lie.’ Whether or not Rohrabacher was indeed acting on behalf of Trump, the emergence of this story can only be of further detriment to both Trump and the bid to extradite Assange.

Julian Assange, who is currently being held in Belmarsh Prison in the UK, is facing 18 charges in the US, none of which are in connection to the DNC hack, but instead concern WikiLeaks’s publication of diplomatic cables and files detailing illegal atrocities carried out by the US military in Afghanistan and Iraq and which were provided to Wikileaks by former US army intelligence analyst Chelsea Manning. His extradition hearing is due to start on at Woolwich Crown Court on Monday.  There are grave concerns however about the state of Assange’s health, with 117 doctors signing an open letter in the medical journal The Lancet this week, calling for an end to what they describe as his ‘psychological torture and medical neglect’. They state: ‘Should Assange die in a UK prison, as the UN special rapporteur on torture has warned, he will have effectively been tortured to death…The medical profession cannot afford to stand silently by, on the wrong side of torture and the wrong side of history, while such a travesty unfolds.’ Recently UK opposition leader Jeremy Corbyn also shared concerns about Assange’s plight and called on his extradition to be halted and the European Commissioner for Human Rights on Thursday announced her opposition to any extradition, citing the ‘chilling effect’ it would have on media freedom and human rights.

It remains to be seen whether such pleas will fall on deaf ears. But with new questions now being raised as to whether Donald Trump did indeed offer Julian Assange a pardon, the timing of these court revelations is significant.  It isn’t too much a stretch of the imagination to think that they could impact negatively on the US’ extradition case. Boris Johnson will now have to decide whether the UK-US ‘special relationship’ is indeed worth jeopardising Britain’s record on press freedom and human rights.

*

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

This article was originally published on InfoBrics.

Johanna Ross is a journalist based in Edinburgh, Scotland.

Featured image is from InfoBrics

‘Scientists are wrong’, the Uruguayan writer Eduardo Galeano said with a warm smile on his face. ‘Human beings are not made of atoms; they are made of stories’. It is why we want to sing and draw, tell each other about our lives and our hopes, talk about the wonders in our lives and the wonders that we dream about. These dreams – this art – are what make us get up each day, smile, and go forward into the world. It is so common for human beings, even in the most wretched situation, to find a way to lift the spirit through our own forms of art, as is clear in Brazil’s Jongo traditions and in the ovi songs of agricultural workers in India, whose singers push aside the drudgery of their work in the fields and factories with songs of their lives and of nature – songs of the hot summer, teasing songs from older women about how their young son cannot tolerate the heat,

And then comes the turbulence.

If you walk through the streets of Santiago (Chile) or Baghdad (Iraq) or Delhi (India), you will find that the walls and streets have become an art gallery, that the protest sites have become a music hall, that libraries have appeared on the streets, that pamphlets and leaflets are being clutched in the hands of the people as they brave the whirlwind. You will find that language cascades out of its strict proportions, that new phrases are coined, that the limits of grammar and of meter are discarded.

If you sit for a minute at Shaheen Bagh in Delhi, the translucence of the new culture will grip you and move you and force you to reconsider the stresses and strains of your life. You will sing the poems, to shout out aloud, but not by yourself; that is the majesty of the protest – you will sing in a chorus of strangers who become comrades even if the notes are discordant and the lyrics are unfamiliar. Some of the songs will be older ones, Víctor Jara’s 1971 anthem for Vietnam, El derecho de vivir en paz (‘The Right to Live in Peace’); others will be new songs, chants that become songs. You will welcome the poets, who will come shyly to the stage with their notebooks in their hands and their powerful words tumbling through the hastily erected speakers. These poets will try out their work in public, and then be taken by videographers and editors to clean up their performance, the new videos viral on social media.

Not far from where Aamir Aziz conjured up this poem is Shaheen Bagh, one of the epicentres of the Indian uprising. Here, young artists painted a mural of the women who have been the sentinels of this protest; they are joyous and free, carrying a picture of Dr. B. R. Ambedkar – who comes from an oppressed community and wrote India’s 1950 Constitution – and a line from the Pakistani Communist poet Faiz Ahmed Faiz: ‘We will see. Certainly, we too shall see’.

Aamir Aziz’s Everything Will Be Remembered comes out of this unending protest in India against the citizenship act and against a government that is insensitive to the call from the street.

Kill us, we will become ghosts and write
of your killings, with all the evidence.
You write jokes in court;
We will write ‘justice’ on the walls.
We will speak so loudly that even the deaf will hear.
We will write so clearly that even the blind will read.
You write ‘black lotus’;
We will write ‘red rose’.
You write ‘injustice’ on the earth;
We will write ‘revolution’ in the sky.
Everything will be remembered;
Everything recorded
So curses may be sent to you;
So your faces may be smeared;
Your names and your faces will be remembered;
Everything will be remembered;
Everything recorded.

This outpouring of the human spirit is taking place in a time of revolt, when the fetters of propriety are set aside.

This outburst of expression and emotion is far more dramatic in the immediate aftermath of a revolution when the old order is defeated and a new one struggles to be born. It is hard to capture the immensity of feeling in the new Soviet Republic as 1917 slipped into 1918, and as poets and actors, as writers and painters, as designers and philosophers swept aside the old clichés and tried to produce – out of the muck of ages – a new sense of the world. It was as if the clouds had parted and the sun was shining, as if the shoulders that had slumped in the depression of wartime and factory-time could now lift up. The Soviet Republic, in December 1917, passed a decree on popular education to end illiteracy and ignorance in the country. Free education was obligatory, said the decree. The point was not simply to learn to read and write; it was to make art. Every school and college developed, for instance, a photography club and a painting club. Students went to see the great art of the past in museums, and they saw the work of the Soviet artists in galleries. Vladimir Tatlin, the painter and stage designer, dismissed the entire debate that made art stand aside from politics; ‘to accept or not to accept the October Revolution? There was no such question for me. I organically merged into active, creative, social, and pedagogical life’.

Between 28 January and 2 February 2020, our Tricontinental: Institute for Social Research team and the International People’s Assembly held a Meeting on Art and Culture in People’s Struggles in Cuernavaca, México. Thirty-two people came from fifteen countries, most of them militant artists who discussed a range of issues, from broad questions of art and politics to the narrower focus on street theatre in India and graphic arts since the Cuban revolution.

This meeting builds on both the tradition of the art of national liberation and on the urgency of making art out of the popular struggles that now enfold the world. Cuernavaca is in Morelos, the land that produced Emiliano Zapata, who led the Mexican Revolution of 1911 and then – having gained Mexico City – went back to his rural life. This is the land of the ancient pyramids of Tepoztlán; the land of a once vibrant cultural centre that welcomed exiled Latin American and Mexican artists alike, such the communist muralist David Alfaro Siqueiros (1896-1974). His energy manifested itself into the desire amongst those who came to the meeting to build an international network of artists and designers. For more about this network, please be in touch with our lead designer, Tings Chak at gro.latnenitnocirteht@sgnit.

David Alfaro Siqueiros, Del Porfirismo a la Revolución (1957-1966)

On 21 February, thousands of people around the world will gather in public places for Red Books Day, which emerged from three urgencies:

1. To stand up against the attack on Left writers, Left publishers, and Left bookstores.
2. To defend the Marxist outlook against obscurantism and irrationality.
3. To build a network of Left publishers across the world.

At these gatherings, from Japan to Chile, people will read the Communist Manifesto in their own languages. It was on 21 February 1848 that Marx and Engels first published this remarkable text, now available in most of the world’s languages.

Ten thousand people across Tamil Nadu in India will read the text in a new Tamil translation, while thousands of people will read it across South America in Portuguese and Spanish. In Johannesburg, at The Commune, the Manifesto will be read in Zulu and Sotho; in Delhi, at May Day, it will be read in Assamese, Bengali, German, Hindi, Marathi, Malayalam, Odiya, Punjabi, Telugu, and Urdu.This is an act of audacity, a stroll into the public space to demand – in these cadaverous times – the right to write revolution in the skies.

*

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.

Vijay Prashad is an Indian historian and journalist. Prashad is the author of twenty-five books, including The Darker Nations: A People’s History of the Third World and The Poorer Nations: A Possible History of the Global South. Read other articles by Vijay, or visit Vijay’s website.

Cash from secretive Tory groups and anonymous donors played a critical role in demolishing Labour’s ‘red wall’ of northern seats, the key strategy that won the election for Boris Johnson.

***

According to new research by openDemocracy, almost half a million pounds of highly targeted donations from secretive Tory funding clubs bankrolled the Conservatives’ historic gains in Labour-held constituencies in the Midlands and northern England.

Although this ‘dark money’ funding is technically legal under UK law, transparency campaigners and opposition parties have demanded a review of British election laws and called on the Conservatives to end the secrecy and publish the names of all those who bankrolled the party’s victory.

Dozens of victorious Conservative candidates in so-called ‘red wall’ seats received significant cash injections from secretive Tory funding clubs, much of it without any need to identify the donors.

Many of the same winning ‘red wall’ candidates also received cash from individual billionaires and obscure companies based in London, far from the constituencies where the money was spent.

The Conservative Party has frequently emphasised its local fundraising, telling openDemocracy that “small-scale, grassroots support” is “the bedrock of the Party”.

But the newly released Register of Members’ Financial Interests for the House of Commons reveals the extent to which winning Tory candidates were reliant on donations from super-rich party backers and ‘dark money’ from secretive funding clubs.

Companies involved in the Midlands Industrial Council – a mysterious group of Conservative business interests formed in the late 1940s to oppose Clement Attlee – donated almost £230,000 to Tory candidates, mostly in key ‘red wall’ target seats.

Another Conservative funding club, the United and Cecil, doled out £113,500 to 36 successful candidates. The political committee of London’s prestigious Carlton Club – whose honorary members include Michael Gove, Theresa May and Liam Fox  – handed £48,500 to Tory candidates in at least seventeen seats. Again almost all this money went to candidates in ‘red wall’ seats.

These Conservative clubs are what is known in British law as ‘unincorporated associations’. Although they must register with the Electoral Commission when they make political contributions of more than £25,000 in a calendar year, they do not have to register donations made to candidates in elections.

Concerns have been raised about unincorporated associations and dark money before. The Democratic Unionists’ record £435,000 Brexit donation was funnelled through an unincorporated association, the Constitutional Research Council. Ahead of December’s election, openDemocracy revealed the network of unincorporated associations funding the Conservatives.

Labour shadow cabinet secretary Jon Trickett told openDemocracy that the law needs urgent change: “The simple fact is that our electoral law is riddled with loopholes and simply not fit to contain the explosion of dark and unaccountable money that has contaminated politics.”

The Scottish National Party’s Deidre Brock said that there had been “a coordinated movement of large amounts of cash from concealed donors to frontline Conservative political campaigns” and called on the Electoral Commission to investigate “to see what laws have been broken and the true original sources of this cash should be published”.

Steve Goodrich, head of research at Transparency International, said: “The law should be changed to provide much greater clarity over the source of political donations made by unincorporated associations.”

Electoral regulations set a tight spending limit of around £15,000 in total per seat, so these donations of £2,000 to £7,000 per seat, from multiple sources, would have been enough make all the difference.

Few Tory funding clubs gave any money to candidates in the safe Tory seats where most are based. The Association of Conservative Clubs – a limited company, but representing Tory unincorporated associations up and down the country – sent £45,000 to at least fourteen candidates. The obscure Midlands-based Leamington Fund gave £31,000 to seven candidates.

And even relatively small Conservative clubs in the prosperous south-east sent money up north. The Tandridge Club in Surrey, for one, split £12,750 in donations between the Tory victors in Colne Valley, Delyn and the former coal-mining district of Ashfield.

Tory clubs were not the only ones bankrolling the Tories’ demolition of the ‘red wall’. Billionaires in the Conservatives’ elite Leader’s Group dining club also supported many of the same candidates in the Midlands and northern England.

Return of the MIC

Boris Johnson chose a symbolic location for his first post-election speech: Sedgefield in north-east England. On 14 December, a few days after winning a “stonking” majority, the prime minister promised voters in Tony Blair’s former constituency that he would deliver a “people’s government” and thanked former Labour supporters who had “lent” their vote to the Conservatives.

In the general election, Sedgefield returned its first Conservative MP in 84 years when local councillor Paul Howell overcame a Labour majority of more than 6,000. A £2,500 donation from the Association of Conservative Clubs helped the unexpected victory.

Ten miles east, in Bishop Auckland, successful Conservative candidate Dehenna Davison received almost £25,000 in recordable donations, all from Tory funding clubs and major party donors.

The 26-year-old Davison, seen as a rising Conservative star, received £5,000 from J.C. Bamford Excavators Ltd, better known as JCB. The donation from the mechanical digger firm – headed by the billionaire Tory peer Lord Bamford – was listed as coming “via the Midlands Industrial Council”.

The Midlands Industrial Council is one of the longest running, and most secretive, Conservative funders. Initially set up in 1946 to oppose Labour leader Clement Attlee’s nationalisation programme, this unincorporated association has long shunned publicity: for decades it refused to print a members’ list, until a 2006 leak of 22 names.

Since new disclosure rules took effect in 2001, donations from the Midlands Industrial Council seem to have dwindled. The Electoral Commission lists only one donation from it since 2008 – a relatively modest £10,000 to Torbay Conservative MP Kevin Foster, in 2015.

However, openDemocracy’s research found that the Midland Industrial Council was involved in a string of donations in 2019 – all sums received from other organisations, but given via the council to Tory candidates overwhelmingly in ‘red wall’ seats.

These named companies linked to the council include the former Tory peer Lord Edmiston’s IM Group Ltd, J.C. Bamford Excavators Ltd and developer Nicholas Cooper’s NFC Homes (East) Ltd. Cumulatively, these firms gave £229,500 to Conservative candidates.

Millionaires and billionaires

Many members of the Conservatives’ elite Leader’s Group dining society – who pay a minimum of £50,000 a year into party coffers – also provided a shot in the arm to key marginals.

Lord Bamford’s brother Mark personally donated £45,000 to five Tory MPs, while the JCB scion’s son Jo gave £10,000 to two successful Tory candidates.

Alongside the Bamfords, the billionaire Cayzer family of financiers donated over £60,000 to six successful candidates, mainly via the Cayzer Trust Company Ltd, but also as individuals such as Elizabeth Gilmour (née Cayzer) and Charles Cayzer. Again these candidates were predominantly contesting traditional Labour seats in northern England.

Long-standing Tory donor Stalbury Trustees gave £116,000 to 26 successful candidates.

Stalbury Trustees is a private unlimited company, registered in a Mayfair solicitor’s office since 1979. Its four directors are the seventh Marquess of Salisbury (a former Tory Leader in the Lords), his younger brother, the seventh Earl of Verulam, and stockbroker David Barnett, who lists his occupation as “gentleman”.

Elsewhere, former Conservative treasurer, Leader’s Group member and multi-millionaire Lord Harris of Peckham continued to donate generously to target seats, giving £48,500 to thirteen successful candidates.

Lord Harris’s fellow Leader’s Group member, the property billionaire Tony Gallagher – who threw a fiftieth birthday party for David Cameron at his stately home – gave £47,800 to five candidates, through his companies Countywide Developments Ltd and Gallagher Developments Ltd.

One major new donor also gave similar amounts: racing tycoon Lawrence Neil Tomlinson, worth a reported half a billion pounds, who donated £40,500 split across thirteen Tory candidates.

One of the most mysterious features of the new donor data is the prominence of a little-known company, D Contracts Ltd, which gave £26,500 to eight successful Tory candidates. D Contracts has never given registerable donations before, shares a registered address in Trafford with over 250 other companies and describes itself as a “business support services” company.

D Contracts has one director, Cristinel Drug, a Knightsbridge-based Romanian citizen who has no obvious record of previous political activity in the UK. Drug owns construction company Tecton-DHC Ltd, a client redeveloping a major Knightsbridge site around the corner from Harrods.

Well-funded seats

As well as sending money to key Labour-held seats, many of the same Tory funding clubs and major donors also diverted money to shore up key Conservative-Labour battleground seats including Corby, Crewe and Nantwich, Derby North, Dewsbury, High Peak, Ipswich, Keighley, Lincoln, Peterborough, Stroud, Vale of Clwyd, Warrington South and Wolverhampton South West.

Other well-funded seats were gains from the 2017 general election, which needed defending, such as Banff and Buchan, Mansfield, Moray, North East Derbyshire, Stoke-on-Trent South, and Walsall North.

In Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland, the 2017 Conservative gain saw an eye-watering £64,600 donated to the local party in the year running up to December’s election campaign. A variety of donors gave the money, including private equity tycoon Jeremy Hosking (a major donor to the Brexit Party only a few months earlier), Kilfrost Chemicals CEO Gary Lydiate and Ukrainian-born energy mogul Alexander Temerko (via his company, Aquind Ltd). Stalbury Trustees and the United and Cecil Club, mentioned above, also gave to this local party.

The donations seem to have paid off. While the Conservative vote across the UK only rose by 1.2%, the Tory vote in Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland jumped 9.2%, with the majority increasing from 1,020 to 11,626.

The four Conservative gains from the Liberal Democrats at the last election – Brecon and Radnorshire, Carshalton and Wallington, Eastbourne, and North Norfolk – all saw significant funding from Tory funding clubs and billionaire donors, too.

Intriguingly, a few ‘red wall’ seats which fell to the Tories, such as Blyth Valley, Burnley, Durham North West, Leigh, Redcar, and Rother Valley, received no declarable donations. It is unclear whether this was because they enjoyed central party funding instead, or is merely a sign of unexpected electoral success.

There were a few significant donations in safe Conservative seats too. While Lord Harris of Peckham typically donated around £2,000-£3,000 to candidates in marginal seats he also gave £10,000 to Michael Gove who was defending ultra-safe Surrey Heath.

Multi-millionaire Michael Spencer, who has reportedly been blocked from a peerage three times but has been tipped for a peerage this time around, gave at least £80,500 to some twenty seats, including safe seats such as Gove’s, Boris Johnson in Uxbridge and South Ruislip, and the backbencher Alan Mak in Havant.

Anonymous donations

Transparency campaigners have previously raised concerns about unincorporated associations’ role in political funding. If they are registered, these groups are supposed to report all gifts they receive over £7,500. But the last time a donation to an unincorporated association was registered was in November 2014.

Reacting to openDemocracy’s research, MPs and campaigners called for action to prevent unincorporated associations funnelling dark money into British politics.

Labour’s Jon Trickett said: “For years incredibly wealthy donors have used shell companies and unincorporated associations to funnel anonymous donations into our political process, undermining transparency and democracy, often to benefit the Conservative Party.

“In the 2019 general election I announced a series of policies to combat this head on, and these are more necessary now than ever.”

Steve Goodrich, head of research at Transparency International, said: “Unincorporated associations make it far too easy for those shy of publicity to withhold their names from public view.

“Whilst this may be within the current rules, it also shows the rules aren’t achieving their aim: providing transparency and probity over the origins of money in politics. Having this information out in the open is crucial to understanding potential access, influence and power in our democracy.”

The SNP’s Deidre Brock said that the Conservative donations were “clearly run at a UK level and it should follow the same reporting rules that the rest of us follow in reporting donations during election campaigns.

“From the hidden cash of the DUP’s Brexit campaign to the fortunes clearly sloshing around Tory candidates, dark money is leaving a stain on UK politics that will be difficult to wash away.”

openDemocracy asked the Conservatives for comment. At the time of publication no comment had been received.

*

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.

On Wednesday, Turkey’s Erdogan threatened escalated cross-border aggression against Syria.

He ignored his regime’s illegal occupation of northern Syrian territory, support for anti-government jihadists, and his revanchist aims, wanting Syrian territory bordering Turkey annexed.

That’s what his phony “safe zone”  scheme is all about, unrelated to helping Syrian refugees he doesn’t give a hoot about.

An earlier Business and Human Rights Resource Center (B&HRRC) report accused his regime of exploiting Syrian refugees in Turkey as near-chattel workers, including young children, profiting from their misery, paying them sub-poverty starvation wages and no benefits.

Even pro-Western Human Rights Watch earlier accused Turkey of “rampant” child labor exploitation at a time before Ankara’s relations with Washington soured.

State-permitted or sponsored sweatshops exist worldwide, Turkey a notorious example, a police state run by thuggish wannabe sultan Erdogan, ruling with an iron fist, threatening Syria’s sovereignty.

On Wednesday, Netanyahu regime war minister Naftali Bennett threatened “escalated” aggression against Syria — on the phony pretext of confronting an Iranian threat that doesn’t exist.

Zionist zealot Bennett is more extremist than Netanyahu, espousing neo-Kahanist notions, including contempt for human rights, the rule of law, while supporting might over right.

Time and again, Bennett threatens Iran and Syria. Despite an uneasy relationship with Netanyahu, the prime minister appointed him war minister to buy his loyalty that’s not for sale.

At the time, Haaretz said Netanyahu and Bennett struck “a cynical bargain” even for Israel’s extreme politics, a move the PM hoped would aid his political survival.

Bennett represents settler interests. The son of US immigrants, he’s one of Israel’s super-rich class.

Earlier he led the Jewish state’s hardline Yesha Council umbrella group, representing settler interests. It replaced Gush Emunim (Block of the Faithful).

GE adherents believed all Judea, Samaria, and Gaza land belongs exclusively to Jews, the view shared by Yesha Council hardliners.

Expanding settlements and displacing their longtime Palestinian residents reflects core Israeli policy.

Bennett encourages settlers to shoot Palestinians, earlier bragging about “kill(ing) lots of Arabs in my life” during military service.

On Tuesday, he claimed the Netanyahu regime “identif(ied) signs of loosening and recalculation by Iran regarding its plans in Syria (sic),” adding:

“We just started and we will increase. We will go from a defensive concept to an offensive concept – weakening, tiring and erasing (Iran’s) head by weakening its tentacles.”

“For us, Syria is not only a threat but also an opportunity. They send forces there and try to exhaust us, but we can turn the downside into an advantage.”

“We have intelligence and operational superiority, and we are telling Iran clearly: ‘Get out of Syria. You have nothing to look for there.’ ”

Iran has political, economic and military ties to Syria, the latter by military advisors, aiding government forces combat the scourge of US/NATO/Turkish/Israeli/Saudi-supported terrorism.

In full compliance with UN Charter principles and other international law, Iran supports Syrian’s liberating struggle against foreign supported jihadists.

According to Bennett, the Netanyahu regime and IDF are “rais(ing) the stakes for Iran…to prevent an Iranian presence on our northern border” — despite no threat its diplomats and military advisors pose to Israel.

A new IDF Iran Command was formed to deal with the nonexistent threat, its tactics perhaps to intensify hostile Israeli actions against Tehran, including cyberwar.

At a Wednesday Security Council Session on Syria, Trump regime UN envoy Kelly Craft said the following:

The US “will not spare any effort, including working with allies, to isolate (Damascus) diplomatically and economically…”

Syria is Obama’s war escalated by Trump. Ongoing for nine years, there’s no prospect for resolution because bipartisan US hardliners reject restoration of peace and stability to the war-torn country.

At Wednesday’s Security Council session, Russian UN envoy Vassily Nebenzia explained the key role Moscow is playing in resolving years of conflict.

He stressed the following:

“(I)t is necessary to stop protecting (jidadists), including those from UNSC-listed organizations such as” al-Nusra under whatever other names it calls itself.

Russian and Syrian forces captured Western, Turkish, and Israeli weapons and munitions in liberated areas.

Many were found “in schools and hospitals converted into combat positions.”

As long as the West, Turkey, Israel and the Saudis support jihadists, conflict will continue endlessly.

Time and again during Security Council sessions on Syria, nations opposed to its sovereignty and territorial integrity play “the card of civilian suffering and longterm truce every time when the terrorists (they) cherish are in danger,” said Nebenzia.

“(Y)ou stubbornly keep speaking about deliberate bombings of schools, hospitals and refugee camps” — phony accusations that ignore reality on the ground, turning a blind eye to efforts by Syrian and Russian forces to protect civilians who are attacked by US/Turkish supported jihadists.

In the past 24 hours alone, Russia’s reconciliation center in Syria recorded 29 shelling attacks by terrorists against government forces and civilians — ignored by the West and establishment media.

Russia and Syria alone established humanitarian corridors for civilians to reach safe areas free from captivity by jihadists as human shields.

Nebenzia also stressed the importance of beginning post-conflict reconstruction in liberated areas, including hospitals, schools and other infrastructure.

Yet the Trump regime and its imperial partners imposed sanctions on Syrian companies involved in reconstruction, an attempt to undermine their efforts.

Russia continues going all-out to restore peace and stability to Syria — what the US and its imperial partners want prevented.

*

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 Sputnik

On the surface it appeared that the Director-General of the UN World Health Organization (WHO) has acted swiftly and seriously about the spreading coronavirus health emergency spreading across China. He has gone to meet with Chinese leaders to discuss the situation and on January 30, after his talks in Beijing and meetings with the WHO advisory body, Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus declared the coronavirus a “Public Health Emergency of International Concern (PHEIC).” What the WHO has really done and especially the remarks of the Director-General, give cause for concern that he is motivated by something other than world health.

There are still many open questions surrounding the outbreak of what is being called 2019 Novel Coronavirus (2019 nCov) that was first noted sometime in December in Wuhan city in central China. By about January 20 severe cases of respiratory disease were spreading at such a rate that Beijing took drastic measures including canceling major social events of the Chinese New Year celebrations and imposing a cordon sanitaire around Wuhan, a city of 11 million on January 23 in a desperate bid to contain whatever was spreading. The quarantine however was imposed after some 5 million residents had reportedly already left to visit relatives outside in the largest holiday in China.

On January 28 Tedros was in Beijing meeting with President Xi Jinping to discuss the situation.

By the time of Tedros’ January 30 declaration that the coronavirus situation in China warranted proclaiming a “Public Health Emergency of International Concern (PHEIC),” a full week had passed since the Wuhan lockdown was declared. Such a public health lockdown had never in modern times been attempted. Indeed, on the day Wuhan was sealed off by the authorities, Gauden Galea, WHO China representative, told Reuters, “The lockdown of 11 million people is unprecedented in public health history, so it is certainly not a recommendation the WHO has made.”

By the time WHO head Tedros arrived however, the Director-General had nothing but praise for the extraordinary measures being taken by Beijing to contain and deal with the situation. Back in WHO Geneva headquarters Tedros announced that China is “setting a new standard” for outbreak response, he said. “It’s actually doing more than China is required to do,” he added. But then he made the inexplicable statement that other countries were not warranted to ban air travel to China as precaution. He declared,” It’s not a time for judgment… This is a time for solidarity, not stigma,” refusing to recommend any international restrictions on travel or trade with China.

What that should mean is not at all clear, only that he clearly was trying to dampen world response at a critical time. As the leading international health authority, the UN WHO carries considerable influence over national responses to any such health danger. This makes Tedros’ condemnation of airline travel bans more noteworthy. It raises the question whether the WHO head has an undisclosed agenda.

Who is WHO’s Tedros?

Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus was voted WHO Director-General in 2017 replacing the controversial Dr Margaret Chan of Hong Kong. He is the first African to head the health agency and the first one not a medical doctor. He has a BA degree in biology at the University of Asmara in Eritrea. He then served in a junior position, at the Ministry of Health under the Marxist dictatorship of Mengistu. After the fall of Mengistu in 1991 Tedros went to the UK and took a Doctorate of Philosophy (PhD) in Community Health from the University of Nottingham in 2000, with a doctoral dissertation on “The effects of dams on malaria transmission in Tigray Region, northern Ethiopia.”

He then went on to become Minister of Health from 2005 to 2012 under Prime Minister Meles Zenawi. There he met former President Bill Clinton and began a close collaboration with Clinton and the Clinton Foundation and its Clinton HIV/AIDS Initiative (CHAI). He also developed a close relation with the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation. 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.

Today the largest donors to the WHO are the Gates Foundation and its associated GAVI Alliance for vaccination. With backers like Gates and Clinton it was no surprise that Tedros went on, after a stint as Ethiopian Foreign Minister, to win the post of WHO Director-General, this despite being the first non-physician to hold the position. 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.

“Don’t stigmatize…”

As reports of the spread of confirmed and suspected cases of the novel coronavirus in other countries grew in the past several weeks, numerous airlines took the precaution to temporarily cancel their flights to and from China. Tedros, while officially declaring the Wuhan novel coronavirus as a “Public Health Emergency of International Concern (PHEIC),” (in 2009 the WHO called it a Level 6 Global Pandemic), sharply and repeatedly criticized other countries for allowing air travel to China to be cut. On February 7 the China Peoples’ Daily reported Tedros stating, his disapproval of imposing travel bans on China, stressing that “such restrictions can have the effect of increasing fear and stigma, with little public health benefit.”

Important in containing any epidemic is taking action very early in the detection of the disease.

Ethiopian Airlines

There is one country where the national air carrier has not cut flights to China to this date—Tedros’ own Ethiopia. Ethiopian Airlines continues to fly daily into Ethiopia from major Chinese cities. At the Addis Ababa airport the passengers are only given a minimal temperature test, something for a disease with a 14 day incubation period is hardly sufficient to limit the spread of the pathogen to Africa. While 59 other air carriers from 44 different countries have all grounded their flights to China, Ethiopian Airlines insists that it will follow directives from the World Health Organization and continue its daily China flights.

The entry point for air travel between China and Africa is Ethiopia. The Chinese have built a new airport in Addis Ababa and it is the “gateway” for travel between many African countries like Zambia and China. Ethiopia’s Bole International airport sees on average 1500 passengers per day arriving from China. There are an estimated one million Chinese working in Africa from Zambia to Nigeria, and Tedros’ Ethiopia is their place to enter. The problem is that Ethiopia is an extremely poor country and it, like most of Africa is ill-prepared to handle any outbreak of coronavirus. Despite the fact that Ethiopian citizens have protested at the continuing China air travel risk, the government continues to use WHO and Tedros’ statements to keep business flowing. In an alarm signal, the first reported case of coronavirus in Botswana was of an African student who came from China on an Ethiopian Airlines plane.

With the daily traffic through Ethiopia’s Bole International Airport of some 1,500 China passengers the health system of the country is ill-prepared to take adequate precautions. It is one of the poorest countries in Africa after decades of civil war. The largest investor by far is China which sees Ethiopia as a centerpiece of its African investment strategy for the Belt and Road.

Is it because he does not want to jeopardize that economic relation that WHO head Tedros does not pressure his own state airline to take short-term precautions by declaring a moratorium on its China flights? At the time he was elected to WHO Tedros was a member of the politburo of the minority Tigray People’s Liberation Front, which had ruled Ethiopia since 1991 with an iron fist. Is he today more concerned with the financial health of Ethiopian Airways and the future of China investments in his country for his party allies than with the precautionary principles of public health in a growing international crisis that shows little sign of being under control? Indeed, now in the past days Tedros has shown signs of growing alarm, noting that the WHO has seen “concerning incidents” of onward spreading among people with no history of travel to China, noting it “could be the spark that becomes a bigger fire.” We must watch closely to see if that translates into a changed WHO policy towards not only the China flights of Ethiopian Airlines.

*

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

F. William Engdahl is strategic risk consultant and lecturer, he holds a degree in politics from Princeton University and is a best-selling author on oil and geopolitics, exclusively for the online magazine “New Eastern Outlook” where this article was originally published. He is a Research Associate of the Centre for Research on Globalization (CRG).

Featured image is from NEO

---

Seeds of Destruction: Hidden Agenda of Genetic Manipulation

Author Name: F. William Engdahl

ISBN Number: 978-0-937147-2-2

Year: 2007

Pages: 341 pages with complete index

List Price: $25.95

Special Price: $18.00

 

This skilfully researched book focuses on how a small socio-political American elite seeks to establish control over the very basis of human survival: the provision of our daily bread. “Control the food and you control the people.”

This is no ordinary book about the perils of GMO. Engdahl takes the reader inside the corridors of power, into the backrooms of the science labs, behind closed doors in the corporate boardrooms.

The author cogently reveals a diabolical world of profit-driven political intrigue, government corruption and coercion, where genetic manipulation and the patenting of life forms are used to gain worldwide control over food production. If the book often reads as a crime story, that should come as no surprise. For that is what it is.

“Experience shows us that every man invested with power is apt to abuse it, and to carry his authority as far as it will go”. —Montesquieu (1689-1755), 1748.

“Where you have a concentration of power in a few hands —all too frequently —men with the mentality of gangsters get control.” —Lord Acton (1834-1902), 1866.

“The totalitarian mass leaders based their propaganda on the correct psychological assumption that, under such conditions, one could make people believe the most fantastic statements one day, and trust if the next day they were given irrefutable proof of their falsehood, they would take refuge in cynicism; instead of deserting the leaders who had lied to them, they would protest that they had known all along the statement was a lie and would admire the leaders for their superior tactical cleverness.“ —Hannah Arendt (1906-1975), (in ‘The Origins of Totalitarianism’, 1951, Part 3, Ch. 2, p. 80).

“If this [U.S.] government ever became a tyrant, if a dictator ever took charge in this country, the technological capacity that the intelligence community has given the government could enable it to impose total tyranny, and there would be no way to fight back because the most careful effort to combine together in resistance to the government, no matter how privately it was done, is within the reach of the government to know.“ —Frank Church (1924-1984), American lawyer and U.S. Senator, chairman of the Church Senate Committee, (in an interview with TV program ‘Meet The Press’, Aug. 17, 1975)

“When fascism comes to America, it will be wrapped in the flag and carrying the cross.” —Sinclair Lewis (1885-1951), American author (in ‘It Can’t Happen Here’, 1935, a novel about the election of a fascist to the American presidency).

Introduction 

Wednesday, February 5, 2020 will come to be remembered as a date of historic significance for the United States.Indeed, this is the date when a Senate majority of 52 Republican Senators (with the notable exception of Sen. Mitt Romney), voted against convicting President Donald Trump for abuse of power and obstruction of justice, in the impeachment trial of the latter. That is also the date when Donald Trump interpreted such exoneration as a blank check to move towards a fully autocratic presidency.

Thus, in open defiance of the American Constitution and of America’s checks-and-balances system, Trump’s Republican enablers have placed the American people before a fait accompli and the only question now is to see if this dangerous drift toward autocracy will be condoned or reversed in the next presidential election of November 3^rd.

How far will Donald Trump push the United States towards autocracy?

According to the well-known duck test, “If it looks like a duck, swims like a duck, and quacks like a duck, then it probably is a duck“!

President Donald Trump is a most excessive person in anything he does or says. For example, he likes to take the so-called authoritarian “Mussolini pose”. He also likes to embark on totalitarian style “purges” of persons working for the United States government who do not heel to his commands, —persons he considers his “enemies”.

He surrounds himself with hard-core sycophants, lackeys and puppets, who are expected to give him a loyalty pledge, not a pledge to the U.S. Constitution or to the American people. Consequently, it is said that the U.S. under Trump is turning into a “banana republic”!

Donald Trump, the law and the privatization of the U.S. government

Mr. Donald Trump has often used the courts to his personal advantage. He has arbitrarily and unprecedentedly attacked the courts and about everybody else who stands in his way. He has second-guessed prosecutors and contested judges’ decisions, and he has expected favors to help his felon“friends” receive reduced sentences. This is showing an elevated level of disrespect and contempt for the rule of law, and it is undermining the American legal system in a big way.

Mr. Trump has also declared that the Secretary of the Department of Justice should de facto work as his own personal attorney, and not be the independent chief lawyer of the federal government of the United States. This could have the effect of destroying the integrity and independence of the Justice Department and its reputation.

Indeed, it is to be feared that the DOJ under William Barr is going to be Mr. Trump’s weapon of choice against his so-called “enemies”. What Trump is doing is privatizing the U.S. Department of Justice for his own personal benefits. Fearing the worst, more than 1,100 former U.S. federal prosecutors and officials have pressed Mr. Barr to resign.

Donald Trump is also showing a profound lack of judgment when he does not hesitate to tweet about pending criminal cases before the courts. Donald Trump seems to really believe that because he is president, he is above the law. Do Americans accept that? They did not accept it when Richard Nixon said, “if the President does it, it’s legal”! Would they do it now?

The current American president constantly attacks the freedom of the press, which is protected by the U.S. Constitution, calling journalists “enemies of the people” —an expression used in Nazi Germany. Donald Trump also shamelessly befriends other countries’ dictators and autocrats, while making fun of democratic leaders. And, to top it all, Trump has used in public the hubristic Nazi slogan of “God is on our side”, (‘Gott mit uns’), … etc.

—Well. One gets the picture, if one is not totally blind by partisanship or embroiled in his emotional cult of personality. Ever since he took the oath of office, with his inappropriate daily tweets and reprehensible pronouncements, Donald Trump has been a daily scandal in American politics, and his behavior is going from bad to worse.

As an authoritarian, Donald Trump is going further and further toward turning the USA into a one-man government, with himself as an intolerant, ultra nationalist tin pot dictator-in-the-making, who openly yearns for unchecked, and if possible, absolute power. His plan, notwithstanding the U.S. constitution and its founding principles, is to transform the USA into a militaristic and neo-fascist state, with all the trappings, under his control, and with as few constraints as possible.

He is, by far, the most unprincipled and the most dangerous occupant of the White House that the United States ever had. He has no qualms in bulldozing American institutions if he feels such institutions are an impediment to him exercising full powers.

In this post-impeachment era, Mr. Trump feels unleashed and he thinks that he can do whatever he wants, including meddling in the functioning of the justice system of the United States.

Conclusion

As the duck test above wisely teaches, “if a politician thinks, talks and acts like an autocrat, that is probably because he is an autocrat”!

Such a politician can be expected to undermine the very democratic institutions (Congress, the courts, the press, etc.) that stand in his way. Maine Republican senator Susan Collins has been much chastised for claiming, after the Senate impeachment trial, that Donald Trump“has learned from this case … a pretty big lesson … I believe that he will be much more cautious in the future.” She should have known better, i.e. that after a personal setback, Donald Trump always doubles down and that, in fact, he would get much worse as time goes by.

Therefore, it is time for Americans to hear a wake up call before it is too late.

When constitutional democracy is dying under one’s very eyes, the least a concerned citizen can do is to stand up and denounce the forces whose aim is to destroy democracy and replace it with an authoritarian regime. Please keep in mind that the Second World War (1939-1945) was fought at very high costs to defend the principles of democracy and liberty. How could one accept that these principles could be undermined from within?

If one is comfortable with corruption, abuse of power and amorality in politics, if one accepts that the U.S. Congress could be by-stepped and the courts compromised, and if one does not mind if an autocratic politician wants to be a one-man government and if he shows disrespect for the constitution and its core principle of division of power, he or she may be tempted to vote for such an autocraticcandidate.

Yes, I know. The stock market is up and unemployment is low. As an economist, let me tell you something. First, one should not get obsessed with the stock market. The current stock market bubble is largely the artificial result of huge tax cuts to corporations. The latter are buying back their shares with public money, while the government is going deep into debt. Add to that artificially low, sometimes negative, interest rates pushed down by central banks in a panic over debt levels, and you have the result that you see.

Secondly, the current low unemployment rates are mainly the demographic result of baby-boomer workers going into retirement in droves, thus creating a shortfall in the supply of labor in many professions and trades. —Don’t be fooled by these mirages and slight of hand.

Yes, I know also how clumsy and amateurish the retrenched Democratic establishment is. One has only to see the complex rules, based on proportional representation, chosen to select a Democratic presidential candidate in 2020. Such rules seem to have been designed to divide the democratic electorate and weaken the Democratic presidential candidate to the utmost.

Nevertheless, if a citizen values democracy, liberty and freedom, for the present as well as for the future, he or she should think twice before giving Mr. Trump a second chance. Otherwise, this would be like playing dangerously with fire.

Indeed, as Hannah Arendt wrote, “If someone cannot be mobilized when freedom is threatened, it is because nothing can mobilize him.”

*

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.

International economist Dr. Rodrigue Tremblay is the author of the book “The Code for Global Ethics, Ten Humanist Principles”, of the book “The New American Empire”, and the recent book, in French “La régression tranquille du Québec, 1980-2018“. He is a Research Associate of the Centre for Research on Globalization (CRG)

Please visit Dr. Tremblay’s site: http://rodriguetremblay100.blogspot.com/

The shifting sands of the Syrian conflict have left many wondering what might happen next between the Kurds, the US, and Russia inside Syria.  I reached out to, Professor Tim Anderson, an Australian political economist, and author of “The Dirty War on Syria: Washington, Regime Change and Resistance”, “Countering War Propaganda of the Dirty War on Syria”, “Axis of Resistance: towards an independent Middle East” for some answers.  Despite Dr. Anderson’s busy schedule, he replied to my interview questions. 

***

Steven Sahiounie:  What is the possible future of the Syrian Kurds, given the fact they invited the US military to invade Syria?

Tim Anderson:  Before assuming that all Syrian Kurds are separatists and collaborators, we should first observe their historical character. Before the 2011 conflict, Jordi Tejel classified Syrian Kurdish identities as comprising Arab nationalist, communist, and Kurdish nationalist, with Syrian Kurd leaders Husni Za’im and Adib al-Shishakli campaigning for a non-sectarian ‘Greater Syria’. Turkish Kurd influence began early in the 20th century, as Kurdish culture was repressed by the post-Ottoman Turkish state. Turkish Kurds took refuge in Syria after their failed rebellion in 1925, and the idea of a Syrian Kurdish party first came in 1956 from the Turkish refugee Osman Sabri. Another Turkish refugee Nûredîn Zaza became president of that party. Let’s remember also that two great heroes, Salah ad-Din and Sheikh Ramadan al Bouti, both Syrian Kurds, are buried on the grounds of the Ummayad Mosque.

Even today the Kurdish separatist movement in Syria is still run by the Turkish Kurds. For all his madness and delusions, Turkish leader Erdogan is right about this: the idea of ‘Rojava’ in northern Syrian would have been simply a stepping stone for the Kurdistan project in Turkey. However, advances by the SAA, backed by Russia and Iran, have removed any possibility of a ‘Rojava’ excision from Syrian territory. Historically the project was doomed because (one) the Kurdish groups in the north never had an exclusive claim to those lands (there are several others groups, often outnumbering the Kurds), (two) the separatist movement in Syria has been overdetermined by the politics of and migration from Turkey, and (three) intervention by the US has only raised separatist expectations while damaging Kurdish relations with other Syrian groups.

In the current circumstances, SAA advances and retreats by the USA have driven a northern group of Kurdish separatists back to the SAA and the Russians, while the other group in the east maintains its collaboration with US occupying forces. That will disintegrate when the Syrian people and the SAA take back more territory, when Iraqi-Syrian integration strengthens, and when US troops are forced out.

In the end, there may be some political accommodation of Kurdish culture and language and some level of local administration, in the revised Syrian constitution; but this will not likely be at the expense of other groups, like the Arabs, Armenians, Assyrians, Circassians, and others.

SS:  Will the situation in the east of Syria escalate between the Syrian Arab Army and the US military?

TA:  US occupation forces are meeting regular low-level confrontations with the NDF, the Russians and local residents. There has been some violence but so far this has not escalated drastically. Both sides have backed down. The Russians remain honest brokers in this situation. Since the US is under pressure and is gradually retreating in both Syria and Iraq, I expect the patience and management of the situation to continue. We saw Trump back down after Iran’s strike on their airbase in Iraq, they have made a partial withdrawal from Syria and they are speaking of a partial withdrawal from Iraq. If they stall they will face continued local pressures, such as in Syria’s east and Baghdad’s green zone.

SS:  Tension between Damascus and Ankara is at the highest level.  Will the Russians stabilize the situation, or we will see a war between the two sides?

TA:  The moves by Erdogan are difficult to understand. The al Qaeda gangs he backs are rapidly losing ground in Aleppo and Idlib, and he has made no new advances elsewhere in northern Syria. Yet he persists with his failed caliphate project, perhaps to prolong the conflict damage the minds of those (especially young people) in Syria’s north.

Erdogan has no legitimacy in Syria, other than that given by Russia in its peacekeeping agreement, which Erdogan has trashed. The Russian military admits that Erdogan is the main obstacle in Idlib.

Despite this madness, I believe Russia will discipline Erdogan, hold him at bay while his gangs are destroyed. Much the same happened with the US and Israeli backed gangs in the south. In the end, the US allowed them to be smashed by the SAA. Erdogan will sacrifice the takfiri gangs, who these days are moved around by money. Both Kurdish militia and SAA told me late last year that there was “no difference” in any respect between the Free Army, Nusra and DAESH. They are directed and redirected by money. However, the foreign component does decrease, as money decreases; this happened with the SDF in Syria’s north.

SS:  What is the role of the US in the tension between Damascus and Ankara?

TA:  Washington is losing in Syria and knows it is losing but, as a senior Syrian General told me late last year, they want to prolong the game and make the Syrian people suffer. They want the world to see the price of resistance. Yet they are retreating, as they maintain bold words.

For all his madness, Erdogan will remain alive to signals from Washington. He has had US permission to continue with this game, so far.

But the region is shifting. Iran, Syria and the Resistance in Lebanon have held firm. The Resistance in Iraq gained tremendous cohesion with the murder of Muhandis and Soleimani. All the gains the US had made in Iraq – with street protests, blaming Iran, etc – that all went down the drain when they murdered those heroes. Then Iran hit the US airbase directly and, by the discipline of the strike, contained US retaliation. The region now openly speaks of expelling the enemy from the entire region. Things are changing. So I believe that, as Erdogan is forced to retreat in northern Syria and as Washington is forced to retreat from the region, the Resistance Axis will steadily impose its own terms.

*

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

This article was originally published on Mideast Discourse.

Dr. Tim Anderson is Director of the Sydney-based Centre for Counter Hegemonic Studies. He has worked at Australian universities for more than 30 years, teaching, researching and publishing on development, human rights and self-determination in the Asia-Pacific, Latin America and the Middle East. In 2014 he was awarded Cuba’s medal of friendship. He is Australia and Pacific representative for the Latin America based Network in Defence of Humanity. His most recent books are: Land and Livelihoods in Papua New Guinea (2015), The Dirty War on Syria (2016), Global Research, 2015, now published in ten languages; Countering War Propaganda of the Dirty War on Syria (2017) and Axis of Resistance: towards an independent Middle East (2019).

Steven Sahiounie is a political commentator.

---

The Dirty War on Syria

by Tim Anderson

240 pages

Order the print version here

ISBN Number:

978-0-9737147-8-4

List Price: $23.95

Special Price: $15.00

Mobile users, click here to order your copy.

To order the PDF version of the Dirty War on Syria, click here, sent directly to your email.

Winston Churchill said that Russia was “a riddle, wrapped in a mystery, inside an enigma.”  Having read two contrasting news reports of attitudes in Russia, I understand what Churchill meant.

General Valery Gerasimov, chairman of the Russian General Staff, has concluded from Washington’s many NATO intensified drills on Russia’s border that Washington and its NATO puppet states are preparing for a major conflict.  In a briefing to foreign military attaches in Moscow, Gerasimov said that the increased number and scale of military exercises conducted by NATO members indicates that the alliance “is purposefully training its troops to be engaged in a major military conflict.” See this. 

The Kremlim’s spokesperson said that the Russian government trusts the opinion of General Gerasimov.

To be clear, based on analyzed evidence the Russian military sees Washington and its vassals preparing for war with Russia. The Russian government states that it trusts the opinion of the Russian military leadership.

Yet, a contemporaneous poll published by the Levada Center, an independent Russian pollster, reports that 80% of Russians see Washington and its NATO vassals as “friends.” See this.

“Only 3% of Russian respondents said they see the West as Russia’s enemy, Levada said. Another 16% said they view the West as a rival.

“Two-thirds of Levada’s respondents (67%) said Russia should treat the West as a “partner,” while 11% said Russia should treat the West as a “friend,” according to the Kommersant business daily’s breakdown of the data.”

The extraordinary difference between the view of the Russian general staff and ordinary Russians is hard to explain. Who is communicating with the Russian people?  Their leaders? Or the Western funded NGOs and media that feed Western propaganda to the Russian people?  Are the Russian people still listening to the Voice of America?

If these  contrasting news reports are correct, then Russia is faced with the fact that the awareness of the government that Washington and its European vassals are an enemy intent on war is not shared by the Russian population. This implies a total failure of communication between the Russian government committed to Russian national sovereignty and the Russian people who apparently see no risk of being colonized by their friends in the West. 

How can the Russian people, humiliated by American sanctions and endless denunciations of their elected president, who led them out of American captivity, and threatened by Washington’s nuclear missiles on their border, possiblly believe in friendship and partnership with Washington? 

If the polls are correct, and the Russian people do not understand Washington’s hegemonic impulse, Russian sovereignty is not a sure thing.

*

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

Dr. Paul Craig Roberts writes on his blog, PCR Institute for Political Economy, where this article was originally published.

Like Julian Assange, Chelsea Manning is a victim of police state injustice.

She’s been imprisoned since last spring and fined $1,000 daily for invoking her constitutional right to remain silent — refusing to give grand jury testimony against Assange that could be self-incriminating.

The right to remain silent is constitutionally guaranteed. It’s affirmed by the European Convention on Human Rights. Legal systems of other nations affirm it.

It’s what Miranda rights are all about in the US. Police detainees can invoke the right to refuse answering questions asked.

Its purpose is to avoid self-incrimination, along with the right to be represented by counsel for guidance when interrogated.

The US grand jury system is flagrantly unconstitutional, what the Supreme Court should have ruled against long ago for violating the First, Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendments.

The system lets prosecutors manipulate proceedings to get indictments. Their career advancement depends on them.

Americans can be prosecuted for claimed association with “undesirable group(s).”

They’re subjected to unreasonable searches and seizures by unchecked surveillance powers of the state, their privacy compromised.

Due process, habeas rights, and equal justice under law greatly eroded. All of the above are hallmarks of police state rule.

Manning’s First, Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, and Eight Amendment rights were violated. The same goes for Julian Assange, UK actions against him based on Trump regime orders.

Subjecting Manning to unreasonable searches and seizures violated her Fourth Amendment rights.

Her Fifth Amendment rights of due process, protection from self-incrimination, and possible double jeopardy were violated.

So was her Sixth Amendment right of a public trial represented by counsel, an impartial jury, and nature of charges against her. Silence is not a crime.

Subjecting her to cruel and unusual punishments violated her Eight Amendment rights.

Demanding she testify before a grand jury in secret without counsel violated her Fifth and Sixth Amendment rights.

In a February 19 motion to the US District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, the same one to try Assange if he’s extradited to the US, Manning’s attorney Moira Meltzer-Cohen petitioned the court for her release from punitive incarceration, a procedure called a Grumbles motion, saying:

“A witness who refuses to cooperate with a grand jury subpoena may be held in contempt of court, and fined or incarcerated.”

“The only permissible purpose for sanctions under the civil contempt statute is to coerce a witness to comply with the subpoena.”

“If compliance is impossible, either because the grand jury is no longer in existence, or because the witness is incoercible, then confinement has been transformed from a coercive into a punitive sanction, and thus is in violation of the law.”

“Over the last decade, Chelsea Manning has shown unwavering resolve in the face of censure, punishment, and even threats of violence.”

“As Ms Manning’s resolve not to testify has been unwavering, and as her moral conviction has become only more developed since her confinement, her incarceration is not serving its only permissible purpose.”

“The key issue before Judge (Anthony) Trenga is whether continued incarceration could persuade Chelsea to testify.”

“Should (he) agree that Chelsea will never agree to testify, he will be compelled by the law to order her release.”

“She reiterated her refusal to cooperate with the grand jury process before this court, and has now reiterated that refusal every day for more than 11 months.”

“There is no reason to believe she will at this late date experience a change of heart; there is a profusion of evidence that she will not.”

Detaining her indefinitely for remaining silent constitutes “cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.”

A statement by Manning said she refuses to give grand jury testimony because of her “longstanding belief that (they they’re) used by federal prosecutors to harass and disrupt political opponents and activists through secrecy, coercion, and jailing without trial,” adding:

“No matter how much you punish me, I will remain confident in my decision.”

“I have been separated from my loved ones, deprived of sunlight, and could not even attend my mother’s funeral.”

“It is easier to endure these hardships now than to cooperate to win back some comfort, and live the rest of my life knowing that I acted out of self-interest and not principle.”

Manning proved she’s incoercible. She can’t be pressured, harassed or punished into doing what she believes violates her moral and ethical code of conduct.

Last November, UN Rapporteur on Torture Nils Melzer called for her immediate release in a letter to the Trump regime.

Calling her imprisonment unjustifiable, he said disproportionate fines against her should be cancelled, the amount exceeding $235,000, the figure increasing by $1,000 daily.

After a personality assessment of Manning by clinical/forensic psychologist Sara Boyd, she said the following that’s included in Meltzer-Cohen petition for her release, saying:

“Manning exhibits longstanding personality features that relate to her scrupulousness, her persistence and dedication, and her willingness to endure social disapproval as well as formal punishments.”

She cannot be coerced into doing what she believes is fundamentally wrong.

She’s willing to endure constitutionally prohibited punishment and possible financial ruin rather than compromise her core beliefs.

For the past decade, she proved that no matter how harshly she’s punished, she remains undaunted and steadfast to her principles.

*

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 Massoud Nayeri

This article was originally published in 2019.

We have known for a long time that naval sonar has devastating effects on marine life but just exactly how it leads to sickness and death was a mystery till now.

In new research published in the Proceedings of the Royal Society B, they discovered that the sound emitted by sonar is so intense that marine mammals will swim hundreds of miles, dive deep into the abyss or even beach themselves to flee from the sounds that are literally unbearable to them.

In particular, beaked whales are one of the marine mammals that are often found beached due to sonar testing. Prior to the 1960s, beaked whale strandings were extremely rare. But once the 60s rolled around, the Navy started to use mid-frequency active sonar (MFAS) to detect submarines.

And from the 60s onwards, whales washing up on beachings became a very common occurrence. The paper recently published is a summary of what was discussed at a 2017 meeting of beaked whale experts in the Canary Islands and revealed that sonar distresses beaked whales so often that the marine mammals ends up with nitrogen bubbles in their blood very similar to what divers would call decompression sickness or the bends. The nitrogen can cause hemorrhaging and damage to whales vital organs.

The big question that was brought up was how an animal that lives in the ocean and is adapted to perform deep water dives for hours at a time can obtain decompression sickness? Well simply, the sonar is so powerful, the animals dive deep too quickly causing the sickness.

“In the presence of sonar they are stressed and swim vigorously away from the sound source, changing their diving pattern,” lead author Yara Bernaldo de Quiros told AFP.

 “The stress response, in other words, overrides the diving response, which makes the animals accumulate nitrogen. It’s like an adrenalin shot.”

The conclusions are drawn from autopsies of dead whales, although a handful of animals were killed by other threats inflicted by humans, such as collisions with ships or entanglement in fishing nets, as well as disease.

The authors note that to mitigate the impacts of sonar on beaked whales, we must ban its use in areas where they’re found. A moratorium on the use of MFAS around the Canary Islands in 2004 shows just how well this works – no atypical strandings have been seen since. The researchers urge other countries where sonar is deployed, such as the US, Greece, Italy, and Japan, to follow suit.

This is not the first time nor the last sonar has been called into question. The Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) has successfully challenged the government failure to protect marine wildlife from sonar three times with the most recent time coming in 2016.

The case was brought forward by the NRDC to the court system claiming that the National Marine fisheries Service (NMFS) had illegally approved a permit authorizing the Navy to use its high-intensity long-range sonar, called low-frequency active sonar (or LFA), in more than 70 percent of the world’s oceans.

In its decision, the three-judge panel found that the Fisheries Service had unlawfully ignored reasonable safeguards recommended by the government’s own scientists to reduce or prevent harm from the sonar system, resulting in a “systematic underprotection of marine mammals” throughout “most of the oceans of the world.”

Experts had recommended that the Fisheries Service protect the Galapagos Islands off the coast of Ecuador, the Papahanaumokuakea Marine National Monument off of Hawaii, Challenger Bank off of Bermuda, and other areas around the world important to whales, dolphins, seals, and other marine mammals. But the Fisheries Service went ahead and gave the Navy the greenlight to operate its intense sonar in the vast majority of these areas.

Among other things, the court also found that:

• Protecting marine mammal habitat from Navy sonar is “of paramount importance” under the law.
• The Fisheries Service has an independent responsibility to ensure the “least practicable impact on marine mammals” (i.e., the lowest possible level of harm)before giving the Navy – or anyone else – permission to harm these protected species; and that the Fisheries Service must err on the side of overprotection rather than underprotection.
• The Fisheries Service had given “mere lip service” to the requirement to minimize impacts during Navy sonar training.
• The law requires the Fisheries Service to mitigate harm to individual marine mammals and their habitat, rather than ignore its statutory responsibility until species as a whole are threatened.

*

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 SVN