Trump At Davos: “The Great American Comeback”

January 22nd, 2020 by Andrew Korybko

The theme of Trump’s second Davos speech during his presidency was what he described at the beginning of his talk as “The Great American Comeback”, a point that he returned to time and again to emphasize the fact that he fulfilled his promise to “Make America Great Again”.

Trump’s second speech at Davos on Tuesday was all about what he described at the beginning of his talk as “The Great American Comeback”, which is essentially the fulfillment of his famous promise to “Make America Great Again”.

The American President rattled off a dizzying array of statistics for the majority of his speech to hammer home the point that the US economy has never been better. Whether it’s the record-high stock market or record-low minority unemployment, the end effect is what he proudly trumpeted as a “blue-collar boom” that he insists has been nothing but beneficial for his people. The reader can skim through his speech for additional details such as the fact that 25% of all foreign direct investment in the first half of last year went to the US if they’re interested in learning about all of his accomplishments thus far, but the point of this article is to analyze the larger theme of his speech so the author doesn’t believe that there’s any reason to needlessly take up space by republishing each and every statistic when they’re easily accessible in the previous hyperlink.

The essence of “The Great American Comeback” is embodied in the parts of the speech where Trump implicitly touches on his ideology. The key components thereof are his belief that “a nation’s highest duty is to its citizens”, ergo why he’s focused on pursuing what he described as a “pro-worker, pro-citizen, pro-family agenda (which) demonstrates how a nation can thrive when its communities, its companies, its government, and its people work together for the good of the whole nation.” He’s advanced his vision through several key policies. In his own words, “I knew that if we unleashed the potential of our people, if we cut taxes, slashed regulations — and we did that at a level that’s never been done before in the history of our country, in a short period of time — fixed broken trade deals and fully tapped American energy, that prosperity would come thundering back at a record speed.” This contrasts with his fear of “radical socialists” who he says are plotting to “destroy our economy, wreck our country, or eradicate our liberty”, especially under the cover of the climate issue which he regards as a scam for seizing “absolute power to dominate, transform, and control every aspect of our lives.”

Elaborating on his four main policy pillars, he told the audience how he “passed the largest package of tax cuts and reforms in American history.” As for slashing regulations, he bragged that “for every new regulation adopted, we are removing eight old regulations”. His global trade negotiations are well known, but Trump reminded everyone about his achievements with China, the USMCA that was formerly known as NAFTA, Japan, and South Korea, as well as his plans to reach a similar deal with the post-Brexit UK. On the topic of fully tapping American energy, Trump told the world that his country “is now, by far, the number-one producer of oil and natural gas anywhere in the world”, which has correspondingly freed up its foreign policy from its former dependence on the Mideast and hence why he encouraged the Europeans to follow suit by purchasing American resources in order to do the same vis-a-vis that region as well as Russia by innuendo. Altogether, these four interconnected policies are most responsible for “The Great American Comeback”.

In terms of the bigger picture, it can be said that the US’ domestic and foreign policy gains have been greatly advanced through the economic means that were described. Even if one disagrees with them for reasons of ideology, there’s no denying that they’ve been extremely effective in promoting America’s interests. In fact, it can even be said that Trump himself doesn’t even regard any of this through an ideological prism except for example his opposition to socialism since this billionaire businessmen understands it all as simply being the most pragmatic policies to implement. Of course, the argument can be made that he’s such a “capitalist ideologue” that he takes his ideology for granted and doesn’t even recognize that he has one, but in any case, it’s the ultimate outcome more so than the intent that counts. The US is truly experiencing “The Great American Comeback” even if everything obviously isn’t perfect nor likely ever will be by virtue of the system in which it’s operating, but the country’s recent gains in aggregate are comparatively better than anyone else’s.

After all, the American marketplace is so important for the rest of the global economy that Trump has been able to easily leverage access to it through primary and secondary sanctions/tariffs in order to achieve serious foreign policy objectives vis-a-vis his rivals. None of those states on the receiving end of this strategy have been able to successfully replicate it against others of a similar size, except perhaps China to an extent through its reciprocal tariffs that eventually resulted in restarting the “trade war” negotiations that have thus far led to “phase one” of a more comprehensive trade deal between the two. Even so, China hasn’t weaponized its economy against others without provocation because of the fear that this would reduce confidence in its Belt & Road Initiative (BRI) which aims to establish a Community of Common Destiny with time. The US, meanwhile, only aims to retain its hegemonic role in the global system as opposed to completely revolutionizing its structural foundations like the rising underdog of China aspires to do, which therefore enables it to be much more “flexible” with is strategies since it doesn’t depend on soft power anywhere near as much as its rival.

All told, “The Great American Comeback” has both domestic and international implications, each of which are connected to this game-changing development that’s entirely attributable to Trump’s economic policy (“ideology”). By unleashing the full power of the American economy through tax cuts, deregulations, renegotiated trade deals, and energy independence, the President has successfully fulfilled his promise to “Make America Great Again” even if the outcome obviously isn’t perfect nor ever will be. The point in emphasizing all of this is simply to draw attention to the fact that he’s been extremely effective in implementing his agenda regardless of whether one supports it or not for whatever their reasons may be. Refusing to recognize this reality, as is regrettably the norm in the Alt-Media Community, is the definition of “Trump Derangement Syndrome”. While his supporters only have to pat themselves on the back, his detractors need to have an objective understanding of what he’s accomplished if they seriously attain to challenge it one way or another be it on the domestic and/or foreign policy fronts, yet few have reached that point of political maturity.

*

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

This article was originally published on OneWorld.

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

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is planning to use the influx of foreign leaders to Israel for the 75th anniversary of Auschwitz’s liberation to drum up support for efforts to block the International Criminal Court (ICC) from investigating war crimes, local media has reported.

Dozens of dignitaries are descending on Israel this week for the commemoration including Russian President Vladimir Putin, US Vice President Mike Pence and France’s Emmanuel Macron.

Sources familiar with Netanyahu’s preparations told the Haaretz daily that the prime minister will encourage leaders to oppose the ICC prosecutor’s efforts to investigate Israeli war crimes in the occupied West Bank, East Jerusalem and Gaza Strip.

Last month, Fatou Bensouda, the International Criminal Court’s chief prosecutor, said there was a reasonable basis to proceed with an investigation.

“I am satisfied that war crimes have been or are being committed,” she said.

Now the ICC is mulling whether or not it has jurisdiction in the territories affected.

The Palestinian Authority (PA) is recognised as a non-member state by the United Nations, which permits it to sign treaties and enjoy the majority of benefits, similar to full member states.

In 2015, the PA signed the Rome Statute that governs the ICC. Some countries, including the United States and Israel, are not signatories and therefore are shielded from prosecution in the Hague over war crimes.

‘Full frontal attack’

Since Fatou’s announcement, Netanyahu has asked Israel’s allies to publicly reject any ICC investigation, which amongst other cases would look into the 2014 Gaza War, which killed 2,251 Palestinians, the majority of them civilians, and 74 Israelis, most of them soldiers.

Any ICC investigation would probe war crimes on both sides. Eventually, an investigation could see charges against individuals, but not states.

So far, Israel has received public support from only the United States, Hungary, Germany and Canada, which have repeated Israel’s official line that Palestinians in the territories in question are not residents of a sovereign state.

In an interview aired on Tuesday with Trinity Broadcasting Network, the world’s largest Evangelical Christian TV station, Netanyahu derided the ICC and urged opposition to it.

“I think that everybody should rise up against this,” he said.

“They’re basically in a full frontal attack on the democracies. Both on the democracies’ right to defend themselves and on Israel’s right, the Jewish people’s right, to live in their ancestral homeland, the land of Israel.”

Netanyahu noted that Washington had criticised the ICC for its attempts to investigate Israel, adding that he urged “all your viewers to do the same and ask for concrete actions, sanctions, against the international court. Its officials, its prosecutors, everyone”.

*

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 IMEMC

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Netanyahu Drumming Up Opposition to ICC as World Leaders Descend on Israel
  • Tags: , ,

***

To the Editor:

Now in my hundredth year, I cannot remain silent. I entered the United States in January 1921 as a poor immigrant boy, and I have felt obliged to repay the United States for the opportunities given to me.

I was an American combat soldier in World War II, and was proud to serve my country as the chief prosecutor in a war crimes trial at Nuremberg against Nazi leaders who murdered millions of innocent men, women and children.

The administration recently announced that, on orders of the president, the United States had “taken out” (which really means “murdered”) an important military leader of a country with which we were not at war. As a Harvard Law School graduate who has written extensively on the subject, I view such immoral action as a clear violation of national and international law.

The public is entitled to know the truth. The United Nations Charter, the International Criminal Court and the International Court of Justice in The Hague are all being bypassed. In this cyberspace world, young people everywhere are in mortal danger unless we change the hearts and minds of those who seem to prefer war to law.

Benjamin B Ferencz

*

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 Wikimedia Commons

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Former Nuremberg War Crimes Prosecutor on the Immoral Killing of the Iranian General.

The US President Donald Trump assassinated the commander of the “Axis of the Resistance”, the (Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps) IRGC – Quds Brigade Major General  Qassem Soleimani at Baghdad airport with little consideration of the consequences of this targeted killing. It is not to be excluded that the US administration considered the assassination would reflect positively on its Middle Eastern policy. Or perhaps the US officials believed the killing of Sardar Soleimani would weaken the “Axis of the Resistance”: once deprived of their leader, Iran’s partners’ capabilities in Palestine, Lebanon, Syria, Iraq and Yemen would be reduced. Is this assessment accurate?

A high-ranking source within this “Axis of the Resistance” said “Sardar Soleimani was the direct and fast track link between the partners of Iran and the Leader of the Revolution Sayyed Ali Khamenei. However, the command on the ground belonged to the national leaders in every single separate country. These leaders have their leadership and practices, but common strategic objectives to fight against the US hegemony, stand up to the oppressors and to resist illegitimate foreign intervention in their affairs. These objectives have been in place for many years and will remain, with or without Sardar Soleimani”.

“In Lebanon, Hezbollah’s Secretary General Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah leads Lebanon and is the one with a direct link to the Syrian President Bashar al-Assad. He supports Gaza, Syria, Iraq and Yemen and has a heavy involvement in these fronts. However, he leads a large number of advisors and officers in charge of running all military, social and relationship affairs domestically and regionally. Many Iranian IRGC officers are also present on many of these fronts to support the needs of the “Axis of the Resistance” members in logistics, training and finance,” said the source.

In Syria, IRGC officers coordinate with Russia, the Syrian Army, the Syrian political leadership and all Iran’s allies fighting for the liberation of the country and for the defeat of the jihadists who flocked to Syria from all continents via Turkey, Iraq and Jordan. These officers have worked side by side with Iraqi, Lebanese, Syrian and other nationals who are part of the “Axis of the Resistance”. They have offered the Syrian government the needed support to defeat the “Islamic State” (ISIS/IS/ISIL) and al-Qaeda and other jihadists or those of similar ideologies in most of the country – with the exception of north-east Syria, which is under US occupation forces. These IRGC officers have their objectives and the means to achieve a target already agreed and in place for years. The absence of Sardar Soleimani will hardly affect these forces and their plans.

In Iraq, over 100 Iranian IRGC officers have been operating in the country at the official request of the Iraqi government, to defeat ISIS. They served jointly with the Iraqi forces and were involved in supplying the country with weapons, intelligence and training after the fall of a third of Iraq into the hands of ISIS in mid-2014. It was striking and shocking to see the Iraqi Army, armed and trained by US forces for over ten years, abandoning its positions and fleeing the northern Iraqi cities. Iranian support with its robust ideology (with one of its allies, motivating them to fight ISIS) was efficient in Syria; thus, it was necessary to transmit this to the Iraqis so they could stand, fight, and defeat ISIS.

The Lebanese Hezbollah is present in Syria and Yemen, and also in Iraq. The Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki asked Sayyed Nasrallah to provide his country with officers to stand against ISIS. Dozens of Hezbollah officers operate in Iraq and will be ready to support the Iraqis if the US forces refuse to leave the country. They will abide by and enforce the decision of the Parliament that the US must leave by end January 2021. Hezbollah’s long warfare experience has resulted in painful experiences with the US forces in Lebanon and Iraq throughout several decades and has not been forgotten.

Sayyed Nasrallah, in his latest speech, revealed the presence in mid-2014 of Hezbollah officials in Kurdistan to support the Iraqi Kurds against ISIS. This was when the same Kurdish Leader Masoud Barzani announced that it was due to Iran that the Kurds received weapons to defend themselves when the US refused to help Iraq for many months after ISIS expanded its control in northern Iraq.

The Hezbollah leaders did not disclose the continuous visits of Kurdish representatives to Lebanon to meet Hezbollah officials. In fact, Iraqi Sunni and Shia officials, ministers and political leaders regularly visit Lebanon to meet Hezbollah officials and its leader. Hezbollah, like Iran, plays an essential role in easing the dialogue between Iraqis when these find it difficult to overcome their differences together.

The reason why Sayyed Nasrallah revealed the presence of his officers in Kurdistan when meeting Masoud Barzani is a clear message to the world that the “Axis of the Resistance” doesn’t depend on one single person. Indeed, Sayyed Nasrallah is showing the unity which reigns among this front, with or without Sardar Soleimani. Barzani is part of Iraq, and Kurdistan expressed its readiness to abide by the decision of the Iraqi Parliament to seek the US forces’ departure from the country because the Kurds are not detached from the central government but part of it.

Prior to his assassination, Sardar Soleimani prepared the ground to be followed (if killed on the battlefield, for example) and asked Iranian officials to nominate General Ismail Qaani as his replacement. The Leader of the revolution Sayyed Ali Khamenei ordered Soleimani’s wish to be fulfilled and to keep the plans and objectives already in place as they were. Sayyed Khamenei, according to the source, ordered an “increase in support for the Palestinians and, in particular, to all allies where US forces are present.”

Sardar Soleimani was looking for his death by his enemies and got what he wished for. He was aware that the “Axis of the Resistance” is highly aware of its objectives. Those among the “Axis of the Resistance” who have a robust internal front are well-established and on track. The problem was mainly in Iraq. But it seems the actions of the US have managed to bring Iraqi factions together- by assassinating the two commanders. Sardar Soleimani could have never expected a rapid achievement of this kind. Anti-US Iraqis are preparing this coming Friday to express their rejection of the US forces present in their country.

Sayyed Ali Khamenei, in his Friday prayers last week, the first for eight years, set up a road map for the “Axis of the Resistance”: push the US forces out of the Middle East and support Palestine.

All Palestinian groups, including Hamas, were present at Sardar Soleimani’s funeral in Iran and met with General Qaani who promised, “not only to continue support but to increase it according to Sayyed Khamenei’s request,” said the source. Ismail Haniyeh, Hamas Leader, said from Tehran: “Soleimani is the martyr of Jerusalem”.

Many Iraqi commanders were present at the meeting with General Qaani. Most of these have a long record of hostility towards US forces in Iraq during the occupation period (2003-2011). Their commander, Abu Mahdi al-Muhandes, was assassinated with Sardar Soleimani and they are seeking revenge. Those leaders have enough motivation to attack the US forces, who have violated the Iraq-US training, cultural and armament agreement. At no time was the US administration given a license to kill in Iraq by the government of Baghdad.

The Iraqi Parliament has spoken: and the assassination of Sardar Soleimani has indeed fallen within the ultimate objectives of the “Axis of the Resistance”. The Iraqi caretaker Prime Minister has officially informed all members of the Coalition Forces in Iraq that “their presence, including that of NATO, is now no longer required in Iraq”. They have one year to leave. But that absolutely does not exclude the Iraqi need to avenge their commanders.

Palestine constitutes the second objective, as quoted by Sayyed Khamenei. We cannot exclude a considerable boost of support for the Palestinians, much more than the actually existing one. Iran is determined to support the Sunni Palestinians in their objective to have a state of their own in Palestine. The man – Soleimani – is gone and is replaceable like any other man: but the level of commitment to goals has increased. It is hard to imagine the “Axis of the Resistance” remaining idle without engaging themselves somehow in the US Presidential campaign. So, the remainder of 2020 is expected to be hot.

*

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

Washington Desperation Drives Nuclear Proliferation

January 22nd, 2020 by Ulson Gunnar

A cornered animal is a dangerous animal. For the elite in Washington, with the terminal decline of their “American Century” and the global empire it built during it, they find themselves in a most unaccommodating corner and thus have become increasingly reckless and dangerous in their decision making.

Compounding matters exponentially is the fact that in that corner and amid Washington’s desperation, they are in possession of thousands of nuclear weapons and an increasing disinterest in the treaties that sought to ensure such weapons were neither used nor proliferated.

The Unspoken Nuclear Threat

The highly destructive trade wars, real wars and political and/or economic interference the US is engaged in worldwide is creating a negative and very tangible impact on the globe. Despite the high costs of Washington’s increasingly disruptive polices and the prominence they assert themselves with across daily headlines, it is perhaps the nuclear threat of an increasingly reckless political order that poses the most danger.

Yet it is often downplayed, spun or left unspoken entirely.

Incremental policy decisions spanning the presidential administrations of George Bush Jr., Barrack Obama and Donald Trump have seen the end of two important nuclear arms treaties signed with the Soviet Union and the Russian Federation. Not only have these treaties been unilaterally shredded by the United States, the US immediately took actions these treaties had sought specifically to prevent such as the encircling of Russia with anti-missile systems to prevent Moscow from launching a nuclear retaliation in the wake of a hypothetical US first strike, undermining the entire premise of mutually assured destruction and the keystone of nuclear deterrence.

The New START (Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty) is nearing its expiration in 2021 and policymakers in Washington appear to have little interest in renegotiating its extension or its replacement with a similar or better treaty.

According to Reuters in its 2017 article, “Exclusive: In call with Putin, Trump denounced Obama-era nuclear arms treaty – sources,” it’s claimed that:

In his first call as president with Russian leader Vladimir Putin, Donald Trump denounced a treaty that caps U.S. and Russian deployment of nuclear warheads as a bad deal for the United States, according to two U.S. officials and one former U.S. official with knowledge of the call.

While many may dismiss Trump’s denouncement as an extension of his brash leadership style, it fits in perfectly with an incremental process of unilateral US withdrawal from a series of fundamental nuclear arms treaties, an incremental process almost never mentioned across the US mass media.

Washington Deliberately Walks Toward a Dangerous Nuclear Threat 

In 2002, US President George Bush Jr. would unilaterally withdraw the US from the The Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty (ABM Treaty). This was immediately followed by US efforts to encircle Russia with anti-missile systems designed to stymie any Russian nuclear retaliation.

Then in August 2019, US President Donald Trump withdrew from the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty (INF Treaty). Despite Trump’s name being associated with the withdrawal, the process of preparing for the withdrawal as well as developing the weapon systems prohibited under it began during the administration of US President Barrack Obama.

Immediately after the US withdrawal from the treaty, intermediate-range missile systems developed in the US were unveiled; systems that most certainly were under development long before the US withdrawal from the treaty.

Apparently, regardless of who is president and whatever their supposed policies are regarding foreign policy, there is a singular continuity of agenda aimed at walking the US away from nuclear arms controls and toward a future of reckless nuclear posturing attempting to upturn the concept of nuclear deterrence and breeding a dangerous arms race with newer, faster and more sophisticated weapons that will reduce the reaction time needed to prevent or react to a nuclear first strike.

While it is still unlikely that the US would ever launch a nuclear first strike, the probability of miscommunications leading to an accidental nuclear exchange is now increased. Why would the US take this risk? Who are the benefactors?

But it is a Lucrative Nuclear Threat 

To begin with, every new US military weapon system requires research and development funded by US taxpayers, to the obvious benefit of America’s massive military industrial complex. The production, deployment and maintenance of these weapon systems are likewise highly lucrative for arms manufacturers like Lockheed Martin and Raytheon who have developed the missile systems hitherto prohibited by the ABM and INF treaties as well as New START.

Injecting billions upon billions into arms manufacturers who possess the lobbying wherewithal to change US foreign policy including its position on various treaties inhibiting the development and deployment of complex and highly expensive weapon systems is an abundantly obvious motivation for the US’ withdrawal from various nuclear arms control treaties. But it is not the only motivation.

Placing anti-missile systems as well as intermediate-range first strike missiles in nations neighboring Russia is part of a process of further transforming these neighbouring nations into appendages of US military power.

As such, not only are these missile systems deployed along with US military personnel to maintain and operate them, a deepening network of inter-military cooperation is built around the process of deploying such systems. Peripheral military cooperation will undoubtedly lead to an increased US military footprint in these nations as well as deepening interoperability between the US military and the military of nations hosting US troops and missile system.

Logically this translates into joint-training, a growing officer corps in host nations amicable to US means and methods as well as the sale of US arms unrelated to the various nuclear treaties the US has withdrawn from and the missile systems it has deployed as a result.

In other words, citing a non-existent nuclear threat from Russia to sow hysteria and panic and serve as impetus to deploy US missile systems to “meet the threat,” allows the US “to get its foot in the door” regarding a much wider military involvement in nations along Russia’s peripheries.

More of the Same That Led to America’s Decline in the First Place 

In Washington, this is imagined as a means to help reverse declining US influence in Europe and serve as a template to save its likewise declining presence in Asia-Pacific opposite Beijing.

In reality, it is simply more of the same sort of non-constructive and unsustainable belligerence that has contributed to America’s decline, belligerence that serves as a stand-in for what should be American industrial, economic, financial and sociocultural competition and collaboration among the nations of the world rather than an increasingly futile attempt to assert American military hegemony upon the world.

America is not going to out-compete the industrial capacity of China or the diplomatic savvy of either Beijing or Moscow by shredding treaties, deploying missiles and using both as an excuse for further military expansion in Europe or East Asia.

Considering this, describing the US as cornered and desperate seems entirely appropriate. The real hope is that the special interests clinging to and benefiting from this dangerous policy will continue to fade as a force in directing America’s future, and other more constructive interests emerging across America’s socioeconomic landscape will displace both them and their policies.
In the meantime, nations like Russia and China targeted by America’s increasingly reckless view on nuclear weapons can construct a new policy architecture to create checks and balances regarding new weaponry within the context of nuclear deterrence. Doing so will further undermine and expose the current special interests driving US policy as irresponsible and as international rogues, pressuring either them or those who may replace them to adopt new and effective nuclear arms controls.

Failure to do so may lead to a cascading effect among nations seeking out nuclear weapons in a desperate bid to create a deterrence against an increasingly alarming US military threat; both nuclear and conventional. Investment in weapons globally redirects resources away from infrastructure and genuine, sustainable socioeconomic progress.

Thus, even if the actual threat of nuclear war is minimal, Washington’s current policy of belligerence is still highly costly to global peace, stability and progress. It is costly not only to Washington’s opponents, but also to the American people who will continue subsidizing corporations like Lockheed and Raytheon while civil infrastructure, healthcare and education at home continue to decline.

*

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.

Gunnar Ulson is a New York-based geopolitical analyst and writer especially for the online magazine “New Eastern Outlook”.

Featured image is from NEO

Friends, this year the WEF is celebrating its 50th Anniversary. Forty-nine (49) of the insanely pompous – and every year more – WEF events took place in Davos, Switzerland. Just one, in 2002, after 9/11, was moved to New York City, paradoxically for ‘security reasons’ they said – the logic of such a move was as ludicrous as the WEF itself.

Friends, you should go to the WEF, the notorious World Economic Forum in Davos, (21-24 January), where a 12 square-meter hotel room costs US$ 10,000 per night (if you don’t believe it, look it up on the internet), and where it’s totally normal that sharpshooters are everywhere on roof tops in subfreezing temperatures – to protect the about 3000 upper-echelons, of course – and that a huge section of the Zurich airport has been cordoned-off for the private planes of the ‘environmentally conscious elite’ — and where Trump arrived this morning, Tuesday, 21 January; and where the “plane-spotters” with their sophisticated binoculars and telescopes are practically camping in the airport areal — to be first when the airport gates are opened, for them to enter the airport terraces to “spot” the arriving VIP / CEO / celebrity private planes (you get the picture, it’s sort of like Black Friday, with the campers in front of the Walmart gates) – hundreds of private jets are expected – the normality of abject uselessness and decadence of the rich – and its acceptance and even glorification by the populace, is much more than George Orwell could have ever thought of when he wrote 1984 in 1948.

This year some 130 high-ranking guests, protected by international law, are expected – whoever they may be – in addition, are also anticipated 5 Royals, 22 Presidents, and 23 Prime Ministers. They will be shielded by Swiss police and military, a total of about 5000. President Trump will get about 300 special Swiss security police, in addition to his own security contingent, plus a private helicopter, brought in by military cargo from the US. His two days in Switzerland will cost the US tax-payer more than US$ 3.4 million, not including security personnel; peanuts compared to the entire Chabang for some 3,000 “high-level” VIPs and celebrities, or simply “wanna-be-seens”, who are eager to rub their elbows sore with the ‘real important’ people. What a farce!

The Zurich police chief told a reporter, that they, the police, have good relations with Trump’s security detail, “we are seeing eye-to-eye, they consider us as competent and equals”. What can I say? It looks like this high-ranking Swiss police officer’s self-esteem depends on the acceptance level of Trump’s secret service police. How sad!

When President Trump steps off Air Force One, he transfers immediately under utmost security, including the watchful eyes of zillions of sharp-shooters on the airport’s rooftops to his helicopter, especially flown-in from the US in a military cargo plane, to be carried like a king to Davos. Most of his support troops will have to travel in blinded SUVs and limousines in the WEF-congested highways to Davos. Trump will be in best company – Greta Thunberg is also expected in Davos, albeit with a day’s delay, due to a sudden high fever. Nevertheless, she promised to be there.

The protection of this incredibly ludicrous event, is gigantic, costing millions and millions. It’s an orgy of power and money, of  the men and women who call the shots over our western world – or that’s what they would like to believe, and they may, if you, folks, don’t wake up and take the reins into your own hands, the hands of the people, because it is the steering wheel of the people that is at stake – not the command lever of the super-rich.

They say, President Trump’s security risk is today even higher than what it was in 2018, when he first attended Davos, because of the constant threats on Iran, and mostly because of his ruthless, out-of-law assassination of Iran’s top General, Qassem Suleimani. That’s why his security detail has to be even larger than it would be otherwise. – Well, you may ask, since when does a murderer deserve protection? – Unless he is a suicide risk, which Trump – the epitome of egocentricity, certainly isn’t.

They, these WEFers, will just continue robbing you – as they have been doing for at least the last 200 years – and they have managed to this so skillfully – that the great lot of us ‘folks’ admire them – come to watch them in awe arriving in their private jets and taking off in their private jets… that’s how low we have sunk. But it’s never too late, folks, to wake up and ignore this nonsense – ignore and discard it. They are not worthy of an iota of your attention.

Their agenda is spiked with lies and deceptions. This is the official agenda – it’s called an agenda for “Stakeholders for a Cohesive and Sustainable World”:

1. How to address the urgent climate and environmental challenges that are harming our ecology and economy

2. How to transform industries to achieve more sustainable and inclusive business models as new political, economic and societal priorities change trade and consumption patterns

3. How to govern the technologies driving the Fourth Industrial Revolution so they benefit business and society while minimizing their risks to them

4. How to adapt to the demographic, social and technological trends reshaping education, employment and entrepreneurship.

That’s what the outside world gets to see and hear debated, the common folks like you and me, and those thousands ‘climate change’ protesters that have been trekking for tens of kilometers through snow and cold to reach Davos and leave their message to the Big Ones – “take responsibility, our planet is burning”. These people may get to hear some of the official debate on (man-made – CO2-caused)-climate change, and promises on what they – the Big Ones – will do about it.

When behind the scene, behind closed doors – off earshot of the ‘commons’ – another narrative will be discussed, most likely in combination with ‘climate’, how to use climate and the fake climate propaganda, combined with harmful, potentially deadly G5 and soon G6 radiation technology, the 4th Industrial Revolution, and the gene- and “biotechnology – GMOs, and more to the heart of the matter, CRISPR (pronounced “crisper” – Clustered Regularly Interspaced Short Palindromic Repeats), a genome editing tool that can selectively alter human (and other living beings’) DNA.

These forces of commandeering power combined and united – plus, of course, eternal wars – may alter the course of the world. One of the elite’s key objective is reducing the world population, so that the elite can continue living in opulence, without having to share Mother Earths generous, but limited resources with 7.7 billion people, and growing – use some of them, deplorables, as oppressed slaves and get rid of the rest.

That sounds harsh. But these are not my words. Already in the 1960s Henry Kissinger, the world’s most sought-after war criminal still alive, a Rockefeller ‘scholar’ and associate and steadfast Bilderberg Society steward, said that a key objective of the Bilderbergers is population reduction. In 1974, newly rewarded by the Nixon Administration as Secretary of State, for the fascist coup “9/11/73” he led in Chile, had this advice:

“Depopulation should be the highest priority of foreign policy towards the third world, because the US economy will require large and increasing amounts of minerals from abroad, especially from less developed countries.”

There you have it. The dark Luciferian elite of the WEF may be talking eugenics. We don’t know. But given the supremacy of the west and the deplorable fate of the deplorable people, who knows? It doesn’t look too farfetched with all we know that is going on in the occult. With Washington’s / Pentagon’s / NATO’s ability of extra-judiciary drone killing of just about anybody who may be considered a US ‘national security’ risk, or rather a risk of preventing the Global Elite to reach its target of Full Spectrum Dominance – we are moving ever closer to an all-annihilating WWIII – except that this very elite knows that with a nuclear holocaust there will be no winners, that they themselves may be wiped out – how to enjoy then the stolen riches? – So, they may opt for a “soft” version of population reduction – eugenics – and continuous, eternal and highly profitable regional conflicts and wars.

The thing is: wake up folks, do not believe the corporate-finance elite’s lies, no matter how well they are manufactured, packaged and presented, do not fall for their deceptive propaganda. It’s never too late, because we, folks, are 99.99% against 0.01%. Don’t fall into their trap. They – the elite, the WEF schmucks – all want you to act against your own interests. Do your own research, do your own math – and stop watching mainstream media, they all collude with the same lies, that’s why they are paid billions by the small deep, dark interest groups.

*

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.

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

Guaido’s Last Ride

January 22nd, 2020 by Daniel McAdams

Remember Juan Guaido? Just a year ago the Venezuelan politician, unknown even in his own country, was tapped by the US government to lead a coup against the elected government of Nicolas Maduro. In a phone call with no less than Vice President Mike Pence himself, Guaido was told that if he declared himself president the US would back him. So…he did.

Guaido hadn’t received a single vote to be president in Venezuela’s election – in fact he never even ran for the office – but such absurdity has never stopped the US government from backing military coups overseas. All done in the name of “democracy,” to be sure.

News of US recognition of Guaido as the lawful president of Venezuela led to an avalanche of lies meant to bolster Washington’s claim that Maduro must be overthrown because he was making war on his own people. The claim that the elections were invalid because of fraud were the product of the Foggy Bottom foghorn, amplified by US government funded entities like the Organization of American States instead of any actual evidence or investigation.

The US government staged several stunts on Venezuela’s border with Columbia in attempt to provoke the Maduro government into over-reaction. Washington claimed that much-needed aid was sitting on the border but Maduro had closed it off – a lie easily debunked by the fact that the border crossing had never been open. Washington’s tears over the suffering Venezuelans were more of the crocodile variety. After all, an estimated 40,000 Venezuelan civilians have died in the chokehold of increasingly crippling US sanctions and none of Washington’s regime changers has raised a whisper about the suffering.

Sadly, many libertarians also fell for the State Department lies about Venezuela. This was all about the “free market” versus “socialism,” they chanted. There was no logic in their mantra. If all of Venezuela’s problems were the result of its “socialism,” how would the installation of a leader picked by the State Department set them on the path to freedom and free markets? Since when has the US government given a damn about free markets and weakening the power of the state? If anything, US foreign policy strongly favors concentration of power in governments overseas. A strong central government is easier to strong-arm in a direction favored by US elites.

Besides, if libertarians really hoped to weaken the power of Maduro over the Venezuelan economy they would have put their energy into opposing US sanctions rather than backing the hapless State Department stooge Guaido. Like all sanctions, US sanctions on Venezuela delivered far more power over the economy to the central government: rationing, price controls, more bureaucracy, etc. are all the result of US sanctions.

So back to Guaido. After several comically failed attempts to wrest power away from Nicolas Maduro, it became obvious that the State Department “experts” were once again believing their own propaganda and using it to drive policy: no one showed up in the street to back Guaido because he had no following inside Venezuela.

Because Washington loves nothing more than doubling down on bad policies – and because they will spend other people’s money with reckless abandon – the US government, realizing that their man in Caracas would never be king, settled for quietly paying the salaries of the corrupt circles around Guaido.

Earlier this month the year-long neocon fantasy of a Mike Pence-appointed president ensconced in Miraflores Palace finally came to an end. The opposition-dominated National Assembly had split amidst in-fighting and that last scrap of hope that Guaido clung to as leader of the Assembly was ripped from his fingers when the legislative body voted to oust him from his post. Though opposed to Maduro, the National Assembly was even more opposed to Guaido, voting convincingly end the Guaido era and elect fellow oppositionist Luis Parra.

The US foreign policy establishment, being the hammer that only sees nails, reacted to the end of the Guaido era the only what it knows how: in addition to sanctions across the board on the government of Nicolas Maduro, Washington announced that it would also slap sanctions on the opposition to the Maduro government!

This is US foreign policy in a nutshell…or should we say “nuthouse”?

*

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 Sky News

The planned budget for 2020 is based on principles of conservation and rationality in expenditures, and maximizing income, mobilizing all untapped potential that exists in the economy, stated Vladimir Regueiro Ale, first deputy minister of Finances and Prices, during a press conference yesterday.

U.S. harassment, financial persecution, and intensification of the blockade continue, he noted, requiring a detailed analysis of the use of funds and purpose of allocations, to avoid unnecessary expenditures.

During the year, he reiterated,

“Budgetary modifications to increase expenses will only be made based on adjustments in the economic plan, approved levels of activity and central government decisions. Likewise, salary expenses and workforce taxes are defined as guiding indicators with specific destinations in the budgeted sector.”

Regueiro insisted on item by item evaluation of the budget, based on financial records, to allow for timely decision making, in addition to the need be more discipline and rigor in collecting information and accounting.

Despite limitations, he emphasized,

“Cuba’s state budget maintains its eminently social focus, guaranteeing basic services in education, health, culture and sports, as well as the implementation of social policies, national defense and internal order.”

Also ensured is continuity of partial salary increases in the budgeted sector and of Social Security pensions.

Income is projected to reach 66.291 billion pesos, representing 11.5% growth.

Planning has taken into consideration the substantial increase projected in retail trade circulation, along with increased efficiency, especially in the state enterprise sector, which provides 85% of total income. Tax revenues also play a key role, accounting for 74% of collections.

Achieving these results will require:

– Discipline in monthly contributions by economic actors, allowing for consistent liquidity.

– Strengthening control and systematic supervision of municipal and provincial tax administrations.

– Continuing to promote a tax culture, with emphasis on the importance of contributing and, in turn, increasing the rigor of measures taken for non-compliance.

Income

Tax revenues should reach 49.348 billion pesos, representing 12% growth.

Taxes on sales of goods and services, which account for 37% of total gross revenue, are projected to grow by 14% and 25%, respectively.

Contributions based on earnings provide 19% of gross income and are expected to increase 4%, exceeding 12 billion pesos.

Taxes on the use of labor and Social Security contributions should increases as a result of salary and pension raises.

Funds generated by territorial contributions for local development are projected to reach 1.144 billion pesos, similar to 2019.

The contributions of non-state forms of management represent 13% of total income, with estimated growth on the order of 12%.

Of this total, 50% is contributed by self-employed workers, 17% by non-agricultural cooperatives, and 33% by other forms of non-state management.

Tax measures projected for 2020:

– Personal income tax for athletes with contracts abroad.

– Simplification of personal income tax rates and the payment process for individual agricultural producers. In this case, the progressive scale is replaced by a tax rate of 5%.

– Updating of activities taxed under the simplified regime.

Addressing untapped potential for revenue in 2020, Regueiro emphasized eliminating delays in the filing of affidavits, as well as non-payment of taxes on earnings and personal income, plus accumulated tax debts and evasion by under-declaration associated with sales of homes and vehicles by individuals.

Similarly, he stressed the importance of involving workers in analysis of tax compliance at the level of every entity, basic enterprise unit, and site of non-state economic activity.

Expenses

Deputy Minister of Finance and Prices Maritza Cruz emphasized that the budget’s execution must be based on several key premises, including avoiding superfluous and non-priority expenses; maintaining rigorous control of public spending; making efficient use of material and financial resources allocated; as well as strengthening steps taken to save energy and rationalize expenditures for basic services such as telephone, water, and gas, among others.

Total expenditures of 73.186 billion pesos are planned for 2020, implying an increase close to 10.5%. The most significant areas contributing to this increase are running expenses, which support basic social services; subsidies for housing construction and repair; as well as salary increases in the budgeted sector.

An important amount is allocated for investments, with priority given to the   housing program; infrastructure, including works to expand use of renewable energy sources; tourism; works to mitigate the impact of drought; and projects in the social sectors of Education and Health.

The Social Security budget is fully funded to support some 1,680,000 beneficiaries, 96% devoted to pensions based on age, disability or death of a head of household.

*

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 Endrys Correa Vaillant

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Despite Limitations, Cuba’s State Budget Maintains Its Eminently Social Focus
  • Tags: ,

US Violated Unspoken Rule of Engagement with Iran

January 22nd, 2020 by Prof. As'ad AbuKhalil

Something big and unprecedented has happened in the Middle East after the assassination of one of Iran’s top commanders, Qasim Suleimani

The U.S. has long assumed that assassinations of major figures in the Iranian “resistance-axis” in the Middle East would bring risk to the U.S. military-intelligence presence in the Middle East.  Western and Arab media reported that the U.S. had prevented Israel in the past from killing Suleimani.  But with the top commander’s death, the Trump administration seems to think a key barrier to U.S. military operations in the Middle East has been removed.

The U.S. and Israel had noticed that Hizbullah and Iran did not retaliate against previous assassinations by Israel (or the U.S.) that took place in Syria (of Imad Mughniyyah, Jihad Mughniyyah, Samir Quntar); or for other attacks on Palestinian and Lebanese commanders in Syria.

The U.S. thus assumed that this assassination would not bring repercussions or harm to U.S. interests. Iranian reluctance to retaliate has only increased the willingness of Israel and the U.S. to violate the unspoken rules of engagement with Iran in the Arab East.

For many years Israel did perpetrate various assassinations against Iranian scientists and officers in Syria during the on-going war. But Israel and the U.S. avoided targeting leaders or commanders of Iran. During the U.S. occupation of Iraq, the U.S. and Iran collided directly and indirectly, but avoided engaging in assassinations for fear that this would unleash a series of tit-for-tat.

But the Trump administration has become known for not playing by the book, and for operating often according to the whims and impulses of President Donald Trump.

Iran’s AyatollahAli Khamenei consoles one of General Soleimani’s sons. (Fars News Agency, CC BY 4.0, Wikimedia Commons)

Different Level of Escalation

The decision to strike at Baghdad airport, however, was a different level of escalation. In addition to killing Suleimani it also killed Abu Mahdi al-Muhandis, a key leader of Hashd forces in Iraq. Like Suleimani, al-Muhandis was known for waging the long fight against ISIS. (Despite this, the U.S. media only give credit to the U.S. and its clients who barely lifted a finger in the fight against ISIS.)

On the surface of it, the strike was uncharacteristic of Trump.  Here is a man who pledged to pull the U.S. out of the Middle East turmoil — turmoil for which the U.S and Israel bear the primary responsibility. And yet he seems willing to order a strike that will guarantee intensification of the conflict in the region, and even the deployment of more U.S. forces.

The first term of the Trump administration has revealed the extent to which the U.S. war empire is run by the military-intelligence apparatus.  There is not much a president — even a popular president like Barack Obama in his second term — can do to change the course of empire.  It is not that Obama wanted to end U.S. wars in the region, but Trump has tried to retreat from Middle East conflicts and yet he has been unable due to pressures not only from the military-intelligence apparatus but also from their war advocates in the U.S. Congress and Western media, D.C. think tanks and the human-rights industry.  The pressures to preserve the war agenda is too powerful on a U.S. president for it to cease in the foreseeable future.  But Trump has managed to start fewer new wars than his predecessors — until this strike.

Trump’s Obama Obsession

Trump in his foreign policy is obsessed with the legacy and image of Obama.  He decided to violate the Iran nuclear agreement (which carried the weight of international law after its adoption by the UN Security Council) largely because he wanted to prove that he is tougher than Obama, and also because he wanted an international agreement that carries his imprint.  Just as Trump relishes putting his name on buildings, hotels, and casinos he wants to put his name on international agreements. His decision, to strike at a convoy carrying perhaps the second most important person in Iran was presumably attached to an intelligence assessment that calculated that Iran is too weakened and too fatigued to strike back directly at the U.S.

Iran faced difficult choices in response to the assassination of Suleimani.  On the one hand, Iran would appear weak and vulnerable if it did not retaliate and that would only invite more direct U.S. and Israeli attacks on Iranian targets.

On the other hand, the decision to respond in a large-scale attack on U.S. military or diplomatic targets in the Middle East would invite an immediate massive U.S. strike inside Iran. Such an attack has been on the books; the U.S military (and Israel, of course) have been waiting for the right moment for the U.S. to destroy key strategic sites inside Iran.

Furthermore, there is no question that the cruel U.S.-imposed sanctions on Iran have made life difficult for the Iranian people and have limited the choices of the government, and weakened its political legitimacy, especially in the face of vast Gulf-Western attempts to exploit internal dissent and divisions inside Iran. (Not that dissent inside Iran is not real, and not that repression by the regime is not real).

Nonetheless, if the Iranian regime were to open an all-out war against the U.S., this would certainly cause great harm and damage to U.S. and Israeli interests.

Iran Sending Messages

In the last year, however, Iran successfully sent messages to Gulf regimes (through attacks on oil shipping in the Gulf, for which Iran did not claim responsibility, nor did it take responsibility for the pin-point attack on ARAMCO oil installations) that any future conflict would not spare their territories.

That quickly reversed the policy orientations of both Saudi Arabia and the UAE, which suddenly became weary of confrontation with Iran, and both are now negotiating (openly and secretively) with the Iranian government.  Ironically, both the UAE and Saudi regimes — which constituted a lobby for war against Iran in Western capitals — are also eager to distance themselves from U.S. military action against Iran.  And Kuwait quickly denied that the U.S. used its territory in the U.S. attack on Baghdad airport, while Qatar dispatched its foreign minister to Iran (officially to offer condolences over the death of Suleimani, but presumably also to distance itself and its territory from the U.S. attack).

The Iranian response was very measured and very specific.  It was purposefully intended to avoid causing U.S. casualties; it was intended more as a message of Iranian missile capabilities and their pin point accuracy. And that message was not lost on Israel.

Hasan Nasrallah, the leader of Hizbullah, sent a more strident message. He basically implied that it would be left to Iran’s allies to engineer military responses. He also declared a war on the U.S. military presence in the Middle East, although he was at pains to stress that U.S. civilians are to be spared in any attack or retaliation.

Supporters of the Iran resistance axis have been quite angry in the wake of the assassination.  The status of Suleimani in his camp is similar to the status of Nasrallah although Nasrallah — due to his charisma and to his performance and the performance of his party in the July 2006 war — may have attained a higher status.

It would be easy for the Trump administration to ignite a Middle East war by provoking Iran once again, and wrongly assuming that there are no limits to Iranian caution and self-restraint.  But if the U.S. (and Israel with it or behind it) were to start a Middle East war, it will spread far wider and last far longer than the last war in Iraq, which the U.S. is yet to complete.

*

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.

As’ad AbuKhalil is a Lebanese-American professor of political science at California State University, Stanislaus. He is the author of the “Historical Dictionary of Lebanon” (1998), “Bin Laden, Islam and America’s New War on Terrorism (2002), and “The Battle for Saudi Arabia” (2004). He tweets as @asadabukhal

Guantanamo: An Enduring Symbol of US Islamophobia

January 22nd, 2020 by Maha Hilal

Nothing hits you harder than realising you’ve been singled out for differential treatment. 

This is how I felt as a Muslim American when I learned about the opening of the Guantanamo Bay prison camp. It was 2002, and what would become the post-9/11 “war on terror” was still evolving. 

Though Muslims have long been targeted in the US, as a young Muslim, learning about Guantanamo Bay introduced me to the specifics of how this country would criminalise my community. To many Muslim Americans, this prison – an extrajudicial space deliberately opened off the US mainland – is a haunting symbol of Islamophobia.

Alternate legal structure 

The first 20 detainees arrived at Guantanamo Bay on 11 January 2002, exactly four months after 9/11. The base, on land in Cuba long occupied by the US, was repurposed as a prison for Muslim men – but to obscure this fact, it was presented as a detention facility for Taliban and al-Qaeda terrorism suspects. That they were all Muslim was treated as a coincidence.

From its inception, Guantanamo was about creating a separate system of justice that would make it easier for the US to utilise tactics such as torture, based on the premise that US laws did not apply to prisons outside of the US mainland.

Constructing terrorism as an inherently Muslim crime, exceptional in its scope and brutality, is what allowed it to exist in this alternate legal structure. This idea, captured in the oft-cited narrative that the prisoners sent to Guantanamo were “the worst of the worst”, has specifically justified the need for an offshore prison.

Furthermore, the US government claimed that the men detained at Guantanamo were all “suspected terrorists”. With these narratives stacked against them, the Muslim men detained were denied the presumption of innocence until proven guilty.

Denial of justice

Getting people to acknowledging the fact that every prisoner at Guantanamo is Muslim has been part of the problem. Many will ignore the centrality of Muslim identity when it comes to Guantanamo, but it is worth noting that much of the abuse and torture these men suffered was deeply rooted in Islamophobia. Examples include being force-fed during Ramadan, having their hair and beards shaved off, and having their Qurans desecrated in front of them.

But Guantanamo Bay is not just about deeply entrenched Islamophobia, which rationalises the denial of justice to the Muslim prisoners it houses. It’s also about setting a precedent on how any Muslim should expect to be treated when it comes to justice in the context of national security.

It’s also about justifying a parallel legal structure for a certain subset of people. We need look no further than US President Donald Trump, who has threatened to send new prisoners to Guantanamo, including the perpetrator of a truck attack in New York in 2017.

Despite this, the many calls to close Guantanamo have instead been based on the cost of the prison, the contradiction it poses to US values, and the idea that it serves as a terrorist recruitment tool. All of these reasons were captured in former President Barack Obama’s remarks in 2016, and they continue to be echoed by the country’s political establishment.

Recognising Muslim humanity

Last month, during the last Democratic debate of 2019, candidates Elizabeth Warren and Joe Biden both responded to a question on closing Guantanamo Bay by saying that they would shut down the prison. In their explanations, Warren cited its inconsistency with American values, while Biden called it an “advertisement for creating terror”.

To me, something was missing in these answers. The fact that the treatment of Muslim prisoners doesn’t factor into arguments to close the prison, only amplifies the dehumanisation that renders their detention an acceptable measure.

Guantanamo Bay is evidence that the legal system constructs crimes and punishment based on the identity of the accused. Once we acknowledge the blatant Islamophobia crucial to sustaining Guantanamo, and develop remedies that recognise Muslim humanity, we may get a little bit closer to justice.

*

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.

Maha Hilal is the co-director of Justice for Muslims Collective, an organiser with Witness Against Torture, and a council member of the School of the Americas Watch. She holds a PhD from American University in Washington.

Featured image: Two US Army (USA) Military Police (MP) escort a detainee, dressed in his new orange jumpsuit to a cell at Camp X-Ray, Guantanamo Bay Navy Base, Cuba. Camp X-Ray is the holding facility for detainees held at the US Navy (USN) Base during Operation ENDURING FREEDOM.

Netanyahu and Gantz Vow Jordan Valley Annexation

January 22nd, 2020 by Stephen Lendman

The Jordan Valley, including the northern Dead Sea, comprise about 30% of the West Bank.

Most of the territory was designated Area C under Oslo II (1995).

The 1993 Oslo Accords gave Israel de facto control over the Occupied Territories entirely, what Edward Said called unilateral surrender to Jewish state demands, a Palestinian Versailles, a license to steal Palestinian land with impunity.

To this day, Palestinians got nothing in return for renouncing armed struggle, recognizing Israel’s right to exist, and agreeing to leave major unresolved issues for later final status talks. They’re still waiting.

Major unresolved issues largely ignored by US proposed no-peace/peace plans since the 1970s include an independent sovereign Palestine free from occupation, the right of return, settlements, borders, water and other resource rights, as well as East Jerusalem as Palestinian territory and future capital.

Oslo established the Palestinian Authority (PA) to enforce Israeli rule over the Territories.

The West Bank was divided into three parts, each with distinct borders, administrations, and security rules — Areas A, B and C, plus a fourth for Greater Jerusalem.

Nominally, the PA has civil control over Areas A and B. In reality, Israel exerts total control over the West Bank, Jerusalem, and Gaza by controlling the Strip’s borders and besieging its two million people.

Israel wants de jure and de facto control over all valued Judea and Samaria land, Palestinians confined to isolated cantons on worthless scrubland.

Jordan Valley land constitutes the largest West Bank area for further urban, agricultural, and energy development.

Israel maintains total control, Palestinians prohibited from entering or using nearly 90% of the territory for any purpose.

Almost half of the Jordan Valley is called state land, most of the rest designated closed military zones, nature reserves, and land set aside for regional councils administered by local officials of settlements.

Throughout Area C, including the Jordan Valley, Palestinian residential and other construction is banned without almost impossible to get permit permission.

Slow-motion ethnic cleansing is longstanding Israeli policy, wanting Palestinians dispossessed from areas Israel wants exclusively for Jewish development and use — including the entire Jordan Valley and its resources.

Annexation is planned, including forcible transfer of Palestinians from their land — a war crime under the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, prohibiting “extensive destruction and appropriation of property, not justified by military necessity and carried out unlawfully and wantonly.”

“Deportation or forced displacement of…persons…from the area in which they are lawfully present, without grounds permitted under international law” is considered a crime against humanity.

On Tuesday, Israeli Blue and White party head Benny Gantz vowed if elected prime minister in March 2 elections, he’ll annex the Jordan Valley, saying:

The area “is Israel’s eastern defensive barrier in any future conflict.”

“Israeli governments that spoke of the possibility of returning the area (to Jordanian control) were making a grave strategic and security mistake, and we see this strip of land as an inseparable part of the State of Israel.”

Hours later, Netanyahu made a similar vow, saying “we will apply Israeli law to all Israeli (Jordan Valley) communities without exception.”

In response to Gantz delaying publication of a Jordan Valley annexation plan until after March elections, Netanyahu said:

“Why wait…if we can apply sovereignty over the Jordan Valley right now with broad consensus in the Knesset?”

“Benny Gantz, I expect your answer by tonight, unless (Joint Arab List co-chairman) Ahmad Tibi vetoes you.”

Joint List head Ayman Odeh responded to Gantz, saying:

“Israel’s (Arab) citizens deserve hope, not imitation. This is not how you overturn a prime minister,” adding:

“Annexation is the annihilation of any chance at democracy and peace. It seems you forgot that life goes on after the campaign.”

“The pathetic attempt to gather a couple votes from the right isn’t worth destroying our collective future.”

In response to the Trump regime’s announcement last November, falsely declaring settlements not “inconsistent with international law,” Netanyahu said the following:

“The time has come to apply Israeli sovereignty to the Jordan Valley and to normalize all (settlement) communities in Judea and Samaria…They will be part of the State of Israel.”

If Netanyahu is reelected Israeli prime minister in March or Gantz triumphs over him, Israeli dirty business as usual will continue as always.

It includes illegal occupation, apartheid rule, and annexation of all Palestinian land Israeli leadership wants for exclusive Jewish development and use.

*

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 Shutterstock

Honouring Martin Luther King Jr.

January 22nd, 2020 by James J. Zogby

Thirty-two years ago this month, I was arrested sitting-in and blocking the entrance of the Israeli embassy in Washington, DC. The embassy was hosting an event that evening in honour of Martin Luther King Jr. Looking back at what we did that day, I’m confident that it was the right way to remember Dr. King’s legacy.

There were a number of concerns that prompted our protest. In the first place, we were in the beginnings of the first Palestinian Intifada, the mass protest movement which witnessed tens of thousands of young Palestinians, armed with nothing more than stones, confronting Israeli military occupation forces. In response to this youth protest and the nationwide Palestinian boycott of Israeli products that accompanied it, then defence minister Yitzhak Rabin cracked down using, what he termed, an “Iron Fist”. He imposed crippling curfews, demolished homes, expelled dozens of Palestinians and ordered his troops to “break the arms” of the protesters “to teach them a lesson”.

It was confounding that despite carrying out this brutal repression, the Israeli embassy, nevertheless, saw fit to celebrate Martin Luther King Day together with making an announcement that, in Israel, they were dedicating a Martin Luther King Street in Jerusalem. What rubbed salt into that wound was when, shortly before the event, I was informed by Israel Shahak, head of the Israeli League for Civil and Human Rights, that the century old olive trees that Israel had planted along this street had been uprooted and stolen from Palestinian landowners by the Israeli occupation authorities. That was too much to bear.

Because, at that time, I was serving as an appointed member of the Washington, DC, Martin Luther King Holiday Commission, I took my concerns to my fellow commissioners and asked them to join me in a protest against what a number of them agreed was an Israeli insult to the legacy of Dr. King and not in keeping with the meaning of the day. Three other commissioners demonstrated and were arrested with me. The banner we carried read, “Dr King Taught Non-Violence and Justice, Not Occupation and Repression”. After blocking the front gate of the embassy for a time, we were arrested, brought before a judge, charged and released. Later the charges were dropped, since our demonstration was determined to be a legitimate expression of political speech.

I mention this story and my pride in choosing this way to commemorate Dr King’s holiday because, like many others who fought for King’s birthday to be celebrated as a national holiday, I have been concerned that almost from the first year, our celebrations did not do justice to the day, the man, or his legacy. Instead of honouring the fierce fighter for racial and economic justice, the critic of US militarism and the corruption and greed of our economic/political order, the King we have come to remember is a fuzzy and benign shadow of the original.

It is important to note that well over one-half of all Americans were not alive or living in the US during King’s lifetime. They have no recollection of segregated lunch counters, of dogs and fire hoses being turned on children simply protesting for equality. And they do not remember the disgusting racist rhetoric used by senators, governors and others seeking to maintain the old segregated order that King and his colleagues sought to tear down.

What we hoped for then, and still hope for, is that King’s Day can be one in which we recall our racist history, recall the sacrifices Dr King and so many others made in their efforts to bring needed change, and commit ourselves to using, if necessary, the non-violent tools he used to fight injustice, poverty and war.

And surely King and his legacy are not to be abused by those who practice the very policies he gave his life fighting to end. That is why I was proud of what we did 32 years ago today and why I believe that Dr King would have been proud of us too.

So this year, on Martin Luther King Day, here are some things to do. First make an effort to learn more about America back in the 1950’s, the world which King gave his life fighting to change. It would also be important to try to understand what has changed and what has not, and to assess the danger that we may be back-sliding in areas of racial and economic justice. Then look at the broader world and American foreign policy and understand how King would have dealt with the many challenges we are facing. And then finally pick one issue of economic, social, racial, environmental injustice and resolve to spend the year fighting to bring justice where it is lacking. That, I believe, is the way to honour King.

*

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 UK has a housing crisis. According to the National Housing Federation, 8.4 million people in England alone are living in sub-standard housing and 400,000 people are either homeless or at risk of being homeless. For one of the largest economies in the world, this is a shameful statistic. And yet the housing crisis is not given the due attention it requires, neither by politicians, nor the media. Even during the build-up to the December election, the issue was overshadowed by Brexit and although we may be familiar with the pre-election campaign soundbites promising more ‘schools and hospitals’, housing never becomes a key issue.

Yet housing constitutes one of our most basic, primal needs. So why is the UK in such a predicament? This is currently being debated.  Many believe at the root of the failure is a lack of house building by the government. As Labour have pointed out, affordable housing was one of the first and biggest cuts the Conservative government made after coming to power in 2010. Official figures show that in 2018 the number of Government-funded affordable homes built for social rent fell by 90%, to fewer than 1,000, while Government figures suggest fewer than 3,000 council homes were built.

However a report published last year by the Tony Blair Institute concluded that a lack of house building was not the cause, and that construction was not the solution. According to Ian Mulheim, the report’s author, shortage of supply was a ‘red herring’ in the housing debate, with the real culprit being ‘low global interest rates that have made it easy for home owners and investors to take on large amounts of mortgage debt and pay ever more for houses’. He added that a ‘shrinking social rented sector, cuts to housing benefit and slow wage growth among young people are making rented housing less affordable for many, even though private sector rents are stable.’ Slow wage growth here is key. For while UK house prices have risen 160% since 1996, wages have not. Back in the 80s, for example, when my parents bought their house, prices were much more in line with people’s salaries. Your salary could be £30,000 and your house roughly the same amount.

However the sheer lack of houses cannot be ignored, and still plays a role. Problems began in 1979 with Margaret Thatcher’s ‘right to buy’ scheme. This allowed council house tenants to purchase the properties in which they were living, and it proved extremely popular. But it subsequently created a shortage of council houses which has not been addressed since. Back in 1979, for instance, around 42% of Brits lived in council housing; in 2008 the figure was closer to 12%.  As The Guardian journalist John Harris has written, the ‘right to buy’ scheme ‘led to fractured communities, the rise of exploitative landlordism and a lack of housing so severe that some councils are now trying to buy their old homes back’. He was writing over a decade ago; the situation has not improved since.

What is being built now are luxury, top-end houses that are out of reach for the majority. For many young people buying their own house is nothing more than a distant dream. The big obstacle is the deposit, as it can take years of saving to accumulate the amount needed for a house in many of Britain’s cities. The Bank of Mum and Dad has been increasingly relied on in recent years, and yet it shouldn’t have to be. Last year, the Office for National Statistics (ONS) revealed that over the last two decades, there has been a 46% increase in the number of young people aged between 20-34 still living at home with their parents. In cities such as London, this is a common phenomenon, and it all creates additional pressure on families and society as a whole.

This is why house building is so important. Britain is not alone in its predicament and needs to follow the lead of other countries. Japan for instance built far more properties than England between 2013 and 2017 – 728,000 to be precise, reducing the number of rough sleepers by 80%. Switzerland gives local governments incentives to encourage housing development, partly why there is almost twice as much per person as there is in the United States. Here, however, the obstacle seems to be firstly, acknowledgement of the housing crisis and secondly, a lack of will to overcome it.

It is extraordinary that major publications such as The Economist publish articles which suggest it is ‘The West’s obsession with home ownership’ what is causing the problem. To put the problem back to the people, to imply that it is the desire to have your own home which is the problem, is a deeply flawed approach. It is convenient for the government, as this stance avoids it taking the blame. But the reality is that the housing market has spiralled out of control, and people’s salaries can’t catch up. The answer is to build more affordable housing, and more council housing now.  It has to be made a priority.

*

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 Stephen Chung/London News Pictures/ZUMA Wire)

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on The UK Has a Housing Crisis – and We Need Actions, Not Words to Solve It
  • Tags: ,

Propaganda and Lies: Iran and Ukrainian Flight PS752

January 21st, 2020 by Kurt Nimmo

Here is the cardinal rule about government—everything it says through its spokespersons, hired guns, public relations adepts, and the mockingbird corporate media should be considered a self-serving lie, or at best a distortion hammered into shape to fit a predefined agenda.

For instance, we should question who is ultimately responsible for the shootdown of the Ukrainian airliner in Tehran following the assassination of Qassem Soleimani. 

Former CIA military intelligence officer Philip Giraldi believes there is a possibility Ukraine International Airlines flight PS752 was a false flag designed to put further pressure on the government of Iran and feed the USAID “opposition” to the mullahs. 

Giraldi writes “there just might  be considerably more to the story involving cyberwarfare carried out by the U.S. and possibly Israeli governments.”

What seems to have been a case of bad judgements and human error does, however, include some elements that have yet to be explained. The Iranian missile operator reportedly experienced considerable “jamming” and the planes transponder switched off and stopped transmitting several minutes before the missiles were launched. There were also problems with the communication network of the air defense command, which may have been related.

Giraldi explains the 

…SA-15 Tor defense system used by Iran has one major vulnerability. It can be hacked or “spoofed,” permitting an intruder to impersonate a legitimate user and take control. The United States Navy and Air Force reportedly have developed technologies “that can fool enemy radar systems with false and deceptively moving targets.” Fooling the system also means fooling the operator. The Guardian has also reported independently  how the United States military has long been developing systems that can from a distance alter the electronics and targeting of Iran’s available missiles.

Naturally, this possibility is not even mentioned by the corporate war propaganda media, with the notable exception of The Guardian. Instead, we are pelted with tweets and news articles purporting to show just how angry the Iranian people supposedly are over the shootdown, accidental or otherwise. 

The establishment media, long-serving as war propagandists, would have you believe the people of Iran care more about the shootdown of an passenger airliner than the four-decade long  economic war against them waged by the USG, Israel, and Saudia Arabia—a war that has the possibility of breaking out into a conflict that will kill far more than the 176 who died when two missiles hit flight PS752. 

This reminds me of a murderous trick pulled by the Israelis. In September 2018, Syrian anti-aircraft defenses shot down a Russian military plane near the Hmeimim airbase where the Russians stage military operations against USG supported terrorists in Syria (and invited, along with Iran and Hezbollah, to do so by Syria, unlike the illegal American occupation and the apparently endless Israeli air raids). 

“A Russian military spokesman said Israeli F-16 pilots were using the Russian plane as a shield while carrying out missile strikes against targets in Syria’s Latakia province and put it in the line of fire from Syrian anti-aircraft batteries,” The Guardian reported at the time. 

Russia’s defence minister, Sergei Shoigu, told a senior Israeli official that Israel bore “full responsibility” for the incident and the death of the Russian crew, a military spokesman said later on Tuesday. Israel’s ambassador in Moscow was summoned to the Russian foreign ministry over the incident.

Putin let it go, however, realizing that pushing the issue too far would worsen the conflict and possibly result in further Russian casualities.

Such caution, however, cannot be attributed to the USG and certainly not Israel. Bibi Netanyahu, the Israeli PM, said Bashar al-Assad and the Syrians were solely responsible for the attack. 

No such caution or diplomacy can be expected from the USG and its current loudmouth know-nothing president, Donald Trump. The death of nearly two hundred people is simply an excuse to whip up hysteria and push forward the covert war against Iran. 

First and foremost, when you read the “news” dispensed by the war propaganda media, you should assume, unless otherwise proven and verified independently, that what they say about Iran and the Middle East is nothing less than a carelessly and hastily assembled pack of lies, distortion, and omissions, all designed to destroy Iran and kill thousands, possibly millions of innocent men, women, and children. 

*

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

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

The Comey-Lynch Plausible Deniability Game

January 21st, 2020 by Renee Parsons

As the structure and form of institutions continue to breakdown offering new perspectives and unexpected revelations, it is fitting that former FBI Director James Comey continues to be scrutinized regarding his behavior on multiple aspects of the HRC email scandal, Russiagate and other adjacent activities.

Still under a dark cloud is the lack of a satisfactory explanation for Comey’s unprecedented decision to usurp the announcement (away from AG Loretta Lynch)  that Clinton (HRC) would not be  prosecuted for her mishandling of classified material as Secretary of State. Related to that decision, the DOJ is currently reported to be  investigating whether Comey, who has a history of leaking ‘sensitive’ data, also leaked a classified Russian intel document to reporters in 2017.

To better understand the depth of Comey’s malfeasance, it is worth noting that the IG Report ”Investigation of Former Federal Bureau of Investigation Director James Comey’s Disclosure of Sensitive Investigative Information and Handling of Certain Memoranda” of August 2019 determined that Comey willfully violated FBI rules and policies and was in violation of his Employment Agreement as he leaked ’sensitive’ information including his personal communications with President Trump. The Report concluded that

Former Director Comey failed to live up to this responsibility. By not safeguarding sensitive information obtained during the course of his FBI employment, and by using it to create public pressure for official action, Comey set a dangerous example...”  and

“We have previously faulted Comey for acting unilaterally and inconsistent with Department policy. Comey’s unauthorized disclosure of sensitive law enforcement information about the Flynn investigation merits similar criticism.” 

The Report’s conclusions were forwarded to the DOJ which declined to prosecute Comey.

Fast forward to the current DOJ investigation which again questions Comey’s penchant for the disclosure of “sensitive” information while opening a Pandora Box of unexpected proportions.

According to the Washington Post, in 2016, the Dutch secret services obtained a Russian intel document which contained a copy of an email in which then- DNC Chair Debbie Wasserman Schultz assured Leonard Bernardo of the Open Society Foundation that Attorney General Loretta Lynch would not prosecute HRC for use of her personal server for classified government documents. In the email, DWS also informed Benardo that Amanda Renteria, Clinton’s National Political Director, had spoken with Lynch who offered further assurance that the FBI investigation “would not go too far.”

While the document was forwarded to the FBI, it was dismissed as an unreliable Russian propaganda effort to influence the outcome of the HRC investigation.

As the FBI claimed the Russian document had no ‘investigative value,”  the Washington Post found that

Comey’s defenders still insist that there is reason to believe the document is legitimate and that it rightly played a major role in the director’s thinking.”

Even in denial of its veracity, the document was taken seriously enough for Comey to use its existence as an excuse for making his extraordinary announcement, according to the Washington Post, “on his own, without Justice Department involvement” or informing the Attorney General that he was closing the case and that HRC would not be criminally prosecuted.

Comey’s announcement came days after Lynch met with Bill Clinton on the tarmac in Phoenix and days before HRC was to be interviewed by the FBI and days before Comey made his shocking announcement.

  • June 29th Lynch – Bill Clinton meeting on tarmac in Phoenix;
  • July 2nd FBI interview with HRC;
  • July 5th Comey announced ‘no prosecution’

Existence of the email provided the perfect foil for Lynch to avoid having to make and announce the decision as if it were on her own volition.  Allegedly, Comey decided to move forward with the announcement which was intended to prove that the no-prosecution decision had been made without any bias or interference. If, so the thinking goes, Lynch had made and announced the decision after her meeting with Bill, she would have been accused of corruption or having been compromised and that a deal had been cut in HRCs favor. IG Horowitz found that Comey displayed a “troubling lack of direct substantive communication with AG Lorretta Lynch.

In other words, it was Lynch’s responsibility, as Attorney General, to retain sole authority over a decision of such national significance and be willing to take the heat, whatever the outcome.  One wonders if Lynch ever protested to Comey that, without her approval, he usurped her job and made a highly controversial decision that the entire country was watching.  Where were the women libbers when a man on a lower rung of the totem pole, seized a significant function away from its rightful superior authority which, in this case, was a black female.  In other words, Comey saved Lynch’s butt from charges of corruption by skillfully appropriating the announcement which otherwise would have been problematic for her to defend after having been caught publicly meeting with the defendant’s husband.   Does anything about this strike you as credible?

Not surprisingly as the email was dismissed, the Bureau never pursued routine investigative tools that would have been second-nature in any such top level investigation.  The FBI, as it dismissed the email as a fake, did not conduct a forensic exam to verify the document’s origin just as the FBI never subpoenaed the DNC server to conduct a forensic exam to determine the source of the Wikileaks emails.

While all the parties involved denied that any of them ever knew each other, the Bureau apparently never confirmed that or pursued obtaining a copy of the email from any of the parties and, most importantly, the Bureau never interviewed any of the parties –

In May, 2017, President Trump fired Comey as ‘no longer able to effectively lead the Bureau.

Here’s one version of how this scam could have played out. It’s called plausible deniability and is used routinely to shield a high level public office from public accountability.  It is an old political trick and most of the public remains blind to how easy it is to manipulate public opinion.  Here’s how it works: public official #1is protected from ‘knowing’ the truth about a certain political reality and since #1 is never informed, they can honestly say  “I didn’t know” “No one told me” “We never talked about it” “it came as a surprise to me.”  The invocation of plausible deniability is intentionally set up to allow an event to occur and yet allow #1 from ‘knowing’ the facts thereby being publicly and legally immune from accountabiity since no hard evidence exists proving that #1 had any foreknowledge of the matter at hand.

Since The Big Bottom Line was protecting HRC from prosecution and Comey alleged that he had not discussed the matter with Lynch, he did the AG a huge favor and she owes Comey a Big One as does HRC.  After Comey bit the bullet and saved Lynch from criticism that might have ruined her career, Lynch was free to play the plausible deniability game:  

Golly Gee, since I might be accused of favoritism toward HRC after the meeting with Bill which coincidentally led to a favorable decision for his wife,  it was best for  Comey to announce the decision thereby avoiding any claim of bias or favoritism.  I had no idea the charges against HRC would be dismissed.   

See how that works?

To sum up:  with the FBI blowing off the DWS email as a fraud and without Comey stepping up and bailing out the AG and HRC,  it would have looked bad, the deal would have been questioned, everyone wondering…but this way, with plausible deniability in play, every one is cool..right?

*

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 is a student of the Quantum Field.  She 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.  She can be found on Twitter @reneedove31. She is a frequent contributor to Global Research.

Libyan Peace Talks and Russian Diplomacy 101

January 21st, 2020 by Strategic Culture Foundation

Libya stands at a precarious watershed between a peaceful political settlement – or further civil war. But at least the two main warring factions this week entered into a process of dialogue when they attended a summit in Moscow hosted by Russia.

Turkey was the second party at the summit acting as a mediator, along with Russia. Ankara is a staunch supporter of the UN-recognized Libya’s Government of National Accord (GNA) based in Tripoli. Moscow recognizes the GNA too, but it also has strong links with the Libyan National Army (LNA) led by Field Marshall Khalifa Haftar which is based in the eastern city of Tobruk.

Potentially, the diplomatic process that has got underway could bring an end to nearly nine years of conflict in Libya. The constructive involvement of Russia and Turkey is analogous to what these two nations have achieved in forging a political settlement for ending the war in Syria.

Arguably, Libya could represent an even more challenging task compared with Syria. At least in Syria there was a central, functioning national state with which to build peace on. By contrast in Libya, there is no unifying national state. The conflict there is more defined as an archetypal civil war, whereas in Syria the conflict was based on the defense of a state in the face of foreign-backed aggression. The task of procuring a comprehensive peace accord in Libya could therefore be more complicated and elusive.

As Russia’s Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov pointed out this week:

“The Libyan statehood was bombed by NATO in 2011, and we are still facing the consequences of this illegal, criminal escapade, the Libyan people first of all.”

We may recall that the US and its European NATO allies conducted a seven-month aerial bombing campaign from March-October 2011 in Libya under the false and derisory pretenses of organizing “a humanitarian intervention”. That murderous NATO blitzkrieg resulted in the brutal lynching of Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi. The oil-rich country then became overrun by islamist extremists and warlords, and has remained in a state of chaos ever since. Syria could have fallen by the same nefarious fate of NATO-backed regime change, only for Russia’s military intervention at the end of 2015 to defend the state owing to their long-time alliance.

The NATO destruction of Libya has had disastrous geopolitical consequences. Extremists travelled from there to wage war against the state of Syria. This covert deployment of militants and weapons trafficking to Syria had the backing of the US and Turkey. That lethal conduit greatly exacerbated the war and death toll in Syria.

Libya, as a failed state, then became a gateway for millions of refugees from the Middle East and Africa attempting to enter Europe across the Mediterranean Sea. Hundreds of thousands of people have died from drowning in capsized shoddy boats. Crime and human trafficking have burgeoned. And Europe has borne sharp internal political divisions from the destabilizing inward migration.

For the past nine years, the NATO powers have washed their hands of their criminal destruction of Libya and the horrendous repercussions for the region.

Russia has shown commendable leadership in trying to piece Libya together through diplomatic engagement.

As an opinion article in the Washington Post observed:

“While President Trump spends his time tweeting insults and threatening to start Middle Eastern wars, Russia is filling the vacuum in international diplomacy. In the case of Libya, ending a bloody conflict at the doorstep of Europe in an oil-rich country is a major deal.”

The conference in Moscow this week produced a shaky ceasefire. GNA leader Fayez Sarrij signed up to the truce, but the LNA’s Khalifa Haftar left Moscow with-holding his signature, saying that he wanted more time to consider. A truce does seem to be holding, however.

A follow-up peace summit is taking place this weekend in Berlin, hosted by German Chancellor Angela Merkel. The two Libyan leaders are expected to attend, as are Russia and Turkey, the two main guarantors. Other nations invited to participate include the US, China, Britain, France and Italy. Arab states which back different factions in Libya are also slated to attend: Egypt, Saudi Arabia, UAE (which support the LNA) and Qatar (which backs the GNA).

Turkey has reportedly sent militia under its control from Syria to back up the GNA. Relations between Ankara and LNA leader Haftar are volatile. Turkey’s President Erdogan has threatened to deploy Turkish troops to Libya if Haftar’s forces resume their offensive to take over Tripoli.

Libya’s combustible conditions could yet explode into war, a war which may become another bloody proxy battlefield for international powers.

Nonetheless, Russia has created a diplomatic space for political progress towards stability and peace in the North African country. Can a government of national unity be formed by the warring sides? It’s not clear if the GNA has the inherent political stability to make a partnership work.

But one thing is clear. Russia’s diplomatic prowess has salvaged a chance for peace out of the unholy mess that NATO left behind.

*

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 New Eastern Outlook.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Libyan Peace Talks and Russian Diplomacy 101
  • Tags: ,

(Burying) ‘The Salt of the Earth’

January 21st, 2020 by Philip A Farruggio

The Rolling Stones created a great and meaningful song ‘The Salt of the Earth’ in 1968:

I wanna drink to the hard working people
Let’s drink of the lowly of birth
I wanna raise my glass to the good and the evil
Let’s drink to the salt of the earth.

Say a prayer for our hard fighting soldiers
Give some thought to their life-risking work
How about a prayer for their spouses and children
They keep the homefires burning and still till the earth.

And when I search the faceless crowd
A swirling mass of gray, black and white
They don’t look real to me
In fact, they look so strange.

Raise your glass to the hard working people
Let’s drink to the uncounted heads
I wanna make a toast to the wavering millions
We need leaders but get gamblers instead.

Spare a thought for the stay-at-home voter
Whose empty eyes gaze at reality shows
And a stream of gray suited grafters
Give you a choice of cancer, HIV or who knows.

And when I look into the faceless crowd
A swirling mass of grays, black and white
They don’t even look real to me
In fact they look so strange.

Let’s drink to the hard working people
Let’s drink to the salt of the earth
I wanna give a toast to the millions of people
Those who are born humble of birth.

Let’s drink to the hard working people
Let’s think about the lowly of birth
Let’s spare some kind of thought for all homeles people
Let’s drink to the salt of the earth.

It seems that nothing has changed for the better for we working stiffs since the year that song came out  (1968). Actually, things are now worse! Union membership was at 31.5% in 1950, regressing to 27.3% in 1970. This was the total of public and private sector unions. The public sector has remained steady with over 33% membership in 2018. However, private sector union membership has fallen to its lowest number in over a half century at 6.4%. Translated: over 93% of us who work for private interests have NO representation at the bargaining table, IF there is even one! Is this “Keeping Amerika Great”? For whom?

The supermarket cashier, someone who has never shown any sort of political thinking the many times I chatted with her over the years, summed it up best the other day. Out of seemingly nowhere, she volunteered the info about her store: “90% of our cashiers are part time. I have been full time since I started working here years ago. Some of these people have to work anywhere from two to three part time jobs to stay above water. That’s the reality in our country now.”

When I go on one of my early morning walks in my central Florida neighborhood, I see a stream of cars from before 7 AM right up until 9AM. People going to work, many with full or part time jobs with little or no benefits… or job protection. You see many of these same folks at the supermarket from 4 PM to 7 PM buying groceries after a day’s work…many with tired faces and expressions. Working stiffs like my ex wife many years ago, had to raise two ‘Latchkey sons’. There were very few after school programs for my sons in those days…now it is even worse. When this writer was a child, we not only had after school activities but a ‘Night Center’ that operated in the early evenings. The gymnasiums were open for kids to play ball or other games that young people play. Today, the kids stay at home playing video games or on facebook etc.

The main brunt of this empire’s tactics is to instill this ‘Dog eat Dog’ mentality into we working stiffs. The ‘Every man for himself’ attitude is prevalent. Working stiffs may go out together after work for a few drinks or a meal, but there is NO ‘Union of many’ mentality when it comes to the job. We are told to ‘Accept it or….’. This writer has been employed on straight commission for most of my adult life, with NO union, No contract. Thus, my merits were the only thing keeping me employed. If I was not making my bosses enough profits, I was OUT… period! This is what many working stiffs are forced to abide with.

The late and great Col. Bob Bowman, Vietnam era Navy pilot, had his own epiphany many years ago. He realized that the war he was fighting in was unjust and immoral. Col. Bowman became a staunch anti war activist and was outspoken about 9/11 Truth and the Iraq invasion. He realized what this empire was all about: Greed, power, control and selfishness. Fourteen years ago Col. Bowman ran for Congress in Florida. I had him as a guest on my radio interview show. We covered 9/11 Truth and the phony Iraq War. After the show we went for lunch. I asked him his feelings on the economy and the Stock Market. I’ll never forget what he answered me: “Philip, it’s easy to understand. When wages are up the Stock Market is down. When wages are down the market goes up. Period.”

*

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

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]

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on (Burying) ‘The Salt of the Earth’

I visited Palestine as a new MP and I was struck by the threats facing the next generation, the ferocity of the attacks they endure and the systematic denial of their rights. I met a three-year-old child whose house was surrounded by the Separation Wall and was growing up without daylight. I saw a 15-year-old shackled by the ankles, who had been held in administrative detention for months without any contact with his family, access to school or a lawyer. I saw families humiliated at checkpoints on a daily basis and the denial of basic medical care as a result.

Before I was elected to parliament, I worked with refugee children here in Britain. I fought for children in immigration detention and for others made forcibly destitute by their own government. Those children were frequently denied legal advice and we repeatedly had to fight off attempts to subject them to harmful and inaccurate X-ray examinations just to prove their age. After a decade working with some of the most marginalised children in the UK, I didn’t think I could be shocked anymore, but what I saw in the West Bank amounted to the deliberate destruction of the hopes of a generation.

Since that visit, the situation on the ground has worsened. Those young people look for hope but increasingly find there is none. “There is another kind of violence,” Bobby Kennedy said, “slower but just as deadly destructive as the shot or the bomb in the night. This is the violence of institutions; indifference and inaction and slow decay… This is a slow destruction of a child by hunger, and schools without books and homes without heat in the winter.”

Nothing characterises that violent indifference better than the reckless actions of the Trump administration, recently slashing funding to the UN agency that supports the children of Gaza, and the failure of the wider international community to ensure that international law and human rights are upheld. The Tory government’s reluctance to stand up for international law and the rights of those children makes the role of the Labour Party even more important.

For a decade, Labour Friends of Palestine and the Middle East has played a crucial role in the Labour Party. We ensure there is effective scrutiny of the situation in Gaza and the West Bank. We make the progressive case for a peaceful two-state solution in Palestine and Israel. We support initiatives of Israeli and Palestinian citizens to achieve peace and reconciliation. And for years we have worked to ensure that Labour’s policy is robust in defending international law and human rights. For as long as the blockade of Gaza and the illegal occupation continues, while Britain continues to sell arms to Israel, as Palestinian refugees continue to be denied their rights and while the lives of children remain under threat, we will strive harder.

LFPME has faced many of our own challenges over the years. We are a voluntary organisation without any paid staff and we rely entirely on our volunteers’ goodwill and small donations to do our work. I’m pleased to take on the role of LFPME chair now, when more than half of Labour MPs have signed up to support us and the strength of our solidarity is more important to the Palestinian people than ever. Our outgoing chair Grahame Morris has done so much to build the organisation and led the campaign that resulted in Labour recognising the state of Palestine under Ed Miliband’s leadership. But now is the time to do more. A 10-year-old child in Gaza has already lived through three wars. We must end this cycle of despair. We cannot afford to fail.

*

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.

Lisa Nandy is MP for Wigan and chair of Labour Friends of Palestine and the Middle East.

Featured image: Human rights activists, including Canadian Michaela Lavis, before being arrested by Israeli authorities in Khan Al-Ahmar

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Lisa Nandy MP: My Plans as the New Chair of Labour Friends of Palestine & the Middle East
  • Tags: ,

On Monday, Iranian Foreign Minister Zarif said “(i)f the Europeans continue their improper behavior or send Iran’s file to the Security Council, we will withdraw from the NPT,” adding:’’

“The Europeans’ remarks lack legal justification…(I)f (they)  keep up their actions based on political games, we have various options because their actions lack legal standing.”

Separately he tweeted:

 

E3 sold out remnants of #JCPOA to avoid new Trump tariffs.

It won’t work…You only whet his appetite. Remember your high school bully?

If you want to sell your integrity, go ahead. But DO NOT assume high moral/legal ground.

YOU DON’T HAVE IT.”

Fact: In May 2018, the Trump regime unlawfully abandoned the landmark JCPOA nuclear deal, unanimously adopted by Security Council members, making it binding international and US constitutional law under its Supremacy Clause (Article VI, Clause 2).

Britain, France, Germany and the EU followed suit, bowing to Washington’s will, breaching their mandated JCPOA obligations, falsely blaming Iran for their own wrongdoing, and more:

They triggered the agreement’s dispute resolution mechanism — threatening reimposition of nuclear related sanctions on Iran through the Security Council, a hostile action if things go this far, killing the JCPOA, handing the Trump regime a pretext for belligerent confrontation with Iran if wishes to use it — unlikely but possible.

Fact: E3 countries unjustifiably lodged a dispute mechanism complaint against Iran, pressured by Trump regime hardliners to take this step without just cause.

Invoking it is step one toward unravelling the JCPOA altogether, risking greater regional war and instability than already.

Time and again, EU countries bow to Washington’s will, even when harming their own self-interest. While rhetorically supporting the JCPOA, their actions largely killed it.

As long as Europe partners with US hostility toward Iran, the deal is heading for the dustbin of history, its obituary alone remaining to be written.

Zarif slammed what he called a “political game” by the E3.

According to Iran’s parliament Speaker Ali Larijani, if these countries pursue “unjust” Security Council action, Tehran’s cooperation with the IAEA will be reviewed.

On Monday, Iran’s Foreign Ministry spokesman Abbas Mousavi warned that his government could take “final and more effective” action if E3 countries remain in default of their legal obligations and pursue unjust Security Council punishment of Tehran in cahoots with the Trump regime, adding:

“If there is one party, who needs to be decisive, it is them, who should take a decision to either be independent or listen to a bully like the US.”

He also slammed UK Prime Minister Boris Johnson for urging an unacceptable “Trump deal” to replace the JCPOA.

Despite EU betrayal since May 2018, “the door to negotiation…has not been closed yet. The ball is in their court.”

E3 countries have a choice. Fully comply with JCPOA provisions they breached or the deal is dead — risking potentially serious consequences by their hostile to regional peace and stability action.

Note: Russia urged Iran not to abandon the NPT. Calling this step “counterproductive,” Deputy Foreign Minister Sergey Ryabkov said the following:

“Opponents of the JCPOA and those who are now trying to destabilize the situation in the region should not be given additional material to escalate the general situation.”

A Final Comment

Russia’s Foreign Ministry slammed unacceptable remarks by Trump’s envoy for regime change in Iran Brian Hook, regarding its legal NPT right to enrich uranium like all other nations with legitimate nuclear programs with no military components, saying:

“We consider it necessary to respond to…Hook about the existence of some kind of ‘UN standard,’ prohibiting the Islamic Republic of Iran from enriching uranium,” adding:

“(S)uch myth-making has long been part of the US approach toward nuclear non-proliferation.”

“In this case, we have, essentially, (a false) accusation against the UN Security Council of making decisions contradicting the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT).”

“The NPT puts no limitations on the non-nuclear countries regarding uranium enrichment or developing other stages of the nuclear fuel cycle.”

“There is only one condition: that all work must be directed toward peaceful ends and be under IAEA supervision.”

Iran is the world’s most intensively monitored country by IAEA inspectors — consistently affirming its compliance with NPT and JCPOA provisions.

Nuclear outlaw Israel permits no inspections of its bomb development and production facilities.

Ongoing for decades, world community silence about its unlawfully dangerous actions is deafening — the hypocritical double standard obvious.

*

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.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Iran Threatens to Quit NPT if EU Pursues Reimposition of Security Council Sanctions
  • Tags: , , ,

NATO al Qaeda ground operatives in Syria continue their recent acceleration of terrorist atrocities against Syria. Rocket bombs have again been fired into civilian neighborhoods of Aleppo. Armed human garbage continue to prevent civilians to be escorted to safe areas via humanitarian corridors from Idlib and Aleppo countrysides. Syrian air defense has shot down several drones near Lattakia.

Civilian Mohamad Hesso was murdered Sunday, 19 January, when NATO’s al Qaeda terrorists fired several rockets into the 3000 Apartments Project in the Halab al Jadida neighborhood of Aleppo city. Housing, businesses, and vehicles were destroyed, mostly courtesy of the US taxpayer (how many times has Trump complained that other NATO countries are not paying their “fair share”? These deadly weapons do not fall like manna from the heavens; they NATO weapons, and they are delivered to the savages in Syria.).

Over the past days, 11 civilians were martyred, more than 24 others were injured, and material damages were caused to the homes and properties of the people as a result of terrorist rocket shells attacks on safe neighborhoods in Aleppo city. — SANA

Also on Sunday, NATO’s al Qaeda terrorists fired a series of weaponized drones toward Hmeimim Airport, in Lattakia countryside. Syria’s air defense system neutralized these bombs, fired from that al Qaeda haven known as Idlib, that terrorist oasis supported by NATO countries, NATO stenography media, that Utopia that seems to have resurrected the degenerate work of Epstein, cheerfully showing photos of little Syrian girls who look as though they have been placed on the pedophiliac market — via a US-based ‘charity’ that claims to fund a women’s center in this women-less region.

WisdomHseSyria Tweet Idlib Children Make up

The tweet explaining that cosmetology students were tested for skills with make-up and skincare products using very little Syrian girls, in al Qaeda occupied Idlib.

The same Syria-haters  which recently gave NATO terrorists a six-months extension on their weaponry supply routes, courtesy of UNSCR 2504 (2020), have gone deaf, dumb, and blind while their beloved pathogens continue to prevent civilians from leaving al Qaeda occupied regions, into safe areas via corridors in place by Syrian authorities:

19 January, Aleppo/Idleb, SANA – Terrorist organizations in Idleb countryside and Aleppo southern countryside continued on Sunday to prevent civilians from exiting to safe areas through humanitarian corridors in Abu al-Duhour, al-Habbit, and al-Hader.

In news not related to immediate atrocities by NATO terrorists, the Electricity Ministry has begun rehabilitation of the 5th Group of the Aleppo Generation Plant, despite unilateral economic terrorism by NATO countries against the Syrian Arab Republic.

On 18 January, President Bashar al Assad issued Decrees which prohibit the use of non-Syria pound currency, increase the penalties for black marketeering of currency exchange, and make illegal the publication of fake news within the Republic.

Arrests of amoral black marketeers amenable to enriching themselves by helping to destroy their country’s financial system, have already begun.

nato

Arrests of corrupt black marketeers has begun.

Shall we anticipate that NATO media will soon be calling these criminals, “activists” — as has already been done with convicted felons and drug addicts such as Raed Fares — singing their praises, and that the P3 mobsters running the UN will demand their release?

*

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 Syria News

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on NATO Terrorist Attacks Continue in Aleppo; Drones Hit Near Lattakia

Huawei’s Meng Wanzhou’s Politicized Extradition Hearing

January 21st, 2020 by Stephen Lendman

On December 1, 2018, bowing to Trump regime pressure, Canadian authorities unlawfully arrested and detained Chinese telecom giant Huawei chief financial officer Meng Wanzhou in Vancouver on trumped up charges.

Charges against her are politically and economically motivated.

Canada operates as a virtual US colony, allying with Washington’s hostile agenda, time and again breaching international laws, norms and standards.

Washington’s anti-China strategy includes targeting its dominant companies, ones able to match or outdo America’s best for preeminence in key fields, notably high-tech ones.

That’s why Meng was targeted, part of US strategy to undermine Huawei’s leadership in the race to roll out cellular mobile communications 5G technology, trillions of dollars of economic value at stake.

Despite the hazards to human health from radiofrequency electromagnetic radiation (transmitted by radio waves) and privacy issues, 5G wireless technology is touted as able to support the next generation of Internet-connected devices infrastructure to smart cities and driverless cars.

On Monday in Vancouver, Meng’s extradition trial began. She’s been unjustly treated like a common criminal for over a year by Canadian authorities, serving US interests.

According to China’s Xinhua news agency, proceedings began Monday in the Supreme Court of British Columbia, Canada, adding:

“Both Meng and Huawei have repeatedly denied any wrongdoing.”

“Half an hour before the start of the hearing, Huawei” issued the following statement:

“We trust in Canada’s judicial system, which will prove Ms. Meng’s innocence,” adding:

“Huawei stands with Ms. Meng in her pursuit for justice and freedom.”

“We hope Ms. Meng will be able to be together with her family, colleagues and friends as soon as possible.”

Xinhua stressed “that what Canada and the United States did in Meng’s case counts as arbitrary detention and a serious violation of the legitimate rights and interests of a Chinese citizen.”

According to China’s Global Times (GT), “(m)ore evidence has emerged that the case against (Meng) is based on groundless allegations,” adding:

“The case was political oppression and needs to be solved through political solutions, Chinese analysts” explained.

Evidence GT claims to have shows “detailed alleged abuse of law enforcement procedures and violations of law for political purposes by Canadian authorities.”

“Canadian Border Services…and Royal Canadian Mounted Police abused its inspection powers to conduct an illegal, covert criminal investigation.”

“(D)ocuments (show) Meng did not deceive HSBC. (She’s) accused of making a fraudulent presentation to the bank about the company’s business dealing in Iran.”

A statement by HSBC says it’s “not a party to this case, so it would be inappropriate…to comment on any particular evidence.”

According to attorney Yue Dongxiao who’s following the case, “(a) condition for fraud is the other party involved is not aware of the situation, but if HSBC was already aware of it, that won’t be a fraud case that violates Canadian law.”

On Monday, China’s Foreign Ministry spokesman Geng Shaung said Meng’s “case is a severe political plot.”

According to Beijing-based technology think tank ChinaLabs founder Fang Xingdong, “(a) political issue needs to be solved through political (not judicial) measures.”

If justice is denied, China’s relations with Canada will have negative consequences, he added. They’ve already been negatively impacted since Meng’s unlawful arrest and detention, followed by house arrest.

Sino/US relations will be jeopardized if Chinese business officials, especially high-tech ones, feel unsafe traveling to the West.

The South China Morning Post (SCMP) reported that Meng  appeared “behind layers of bulletproof glass in the high-capacity, high-security courtroom…”

Her case “infuriated Beijing. (It) symbolizes challenges” China faces geopolitically — the US wanting its rise on the world stage undermined.

Attorney Richard Peck representing Meng said proceedings will likely continue for months, adding:

“Would we be here in the absence of (unlawful) US sanctions (on Iran)? The answer is no.”

False charges against Meng are based on allegations of breaching US sanctions, ones “Canada has repudiated.”

“It is a fiction (that the Trump regime is policing dealings)  “between a private bank and a private citizen halfway around the world.”

Peck referred to a 2013 meeting between Meng and HSBC officials on Huawei’s legitimate dealings with Iran.

Canadian lawyers representing the Trump regime unjustifiably claim the case against Meng is bank fraud.

Proceedings are to decide whether she’ll be extradited to the US for trial. Much rides on its outcome.

Following a momentary thaw in Sino/US relations because of a so-called phase one trade deal, major issues still unresolved, will Trump consider calling off extradition of Meng to the US as a good will gesture to China, hoping for concessions in follow-up talks?

While anything is possible, it’s highly unlikely, especially in an election year when softening his get tough on China policy could be used by Dems against him.

A Final Comment

If Meng is extradited to the US, she’ll face a 13-count indictment, charged with bank fraud, wire fraud, conspiracy to commit bank and wire fraud, and related charges.

Huawei is charged with bank fraud, wire fraud, money laundering, intellectual property theft, and obstruction of justice.

A second 10-count US indictment charges Huawei and its US affiliate with theft of trade secrets from T-Mobile USA, wire fraud, and obstruction of justice – also alleging Huawei “offer(ed) bonuses to employees who succeeded in stealing confidential information from other companies.”

China, Huawei and Meng deny all US charges. Attorneys for Meng argue that extraditing her would violate Ottawa’s extradition agreement with the US.

The ongoing legal battle for justice has miles to go before resolution, the outcome very much uncertain at this time.

*

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

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

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

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

Visit his blog site at sjlendman.blogspot.com.

Featured image is from Asia Times

A Post-Brexit Britain Will Necessarily be Aggressive

January 21st, 2020 by Padraig McGrath

On January 19th, following his brief meeting with Vladimir Putin at the Libyan peace conference in Berlin, British Prime Minister Boris Johnson’s press office released the following statement:

“The Prime Minister said there will be no normalization of our bilateral relationship until Russia ends the destabilizing activity that threatens the UK and our allies and undermines the safety of our citizens and our collective security.”

Russian officials expressed surprise at this statement, considering that Johnson himself had sought a one-on-one with Putin in Berlin. A government source in Moscow later added that

“his tone was closer to conciliatory, there were no harsh statements whatsoever… the main message of the British prime minister was a bid to improve relations with Russia.”

This is a classic case of a government official attempting unsuccessfully to appear naïve.

Both sides understand perfectly well that there is no contradiction whatsoever between the absence of hostility in Johnson’s demeanour toward Putin in Berlin and the wording of the subsequent statement released by his press-office.

In interpreting the machinations of international relations, it is almost always best to assume that all sides are rational actors in an amoral game. Behind closed doors, neither side will take the least offence if the other side publicly condemns them using the harshest moral language. Everybody understands that moralizing is just another cynical stratagem in the game. It has a strategic value. Use what you’ve got.

Let’s imagine, hypothetically, that Johnson and Putin were to have an entirely private, off the record, one-on-one conversation, allowing them both to speak with total candour. Of course, protocols make it impossible that this could ever happen, but if it did, it might sound something like this:

JOHNSON: Okay, Vladimir, you already know our game-plan. You know we’re going to press the Skripal button ad nauseam. You know we’re going to moan about human rights and international law. You know we’re going to use the collocation “Russian aggression” at every available opportunity. You know that we’re going to back US sanctions to try to freeze you out of markets. What else do you expect us to do? We’ve got business to protect. No hard feelings. It’s just business….

PUTIN: Don’t worry, Boris. Of course there are no hard feelings. I get it.

This will especially be the case in the post-Brexit era. Britain will once again have to be aggressive on multiple levels in order to protect its remaining markets and penetrate new ones. The inaugural UK-Africa Investment Summit on January 20th quickly followed the inaugural Russia-Africa Summit and Economic Forum held in Sochi in October last year. These developments provide yet 2 more thematically resonant illustrations of the idea that “the nineteenth century will never end.”

Firstly, with the global power-vacuum created by the steady contraction of American hegemony, there is a new economic scramble for Africa, just as there was in the immediate aftermath of the Napoleonic wars.

Secondly, Russia and Britain have decided to resume playing “the Great Game,” except this time on a different continent.

Furthermore, Johnson has to, at all costs, protect Britain’s core-business, which is offshorization. With the deindustrialization and financialization which has taken place in the British economy over the past half century, Britain’s global archipelago of tax-havens becomes even more important. In fact, it is highly arguable that protecting these channels for the washing of black money through the City of London was the main impetus behind Brexit in the first place. In economic terms, Brexit essentially hinged on the decision to switch to an almost totally financialized economy, based almost exclusively on offshorization (made easier through the dissolution of treaty-arrangements), rather than a normal economy based upon the production, import and export of goods. Now more than ever, economically, Britain is one giant, post-industrial laundromat.

It just so happens that some of the laundromat’s most voluminous clients are former Russian oligarchs. Boris has to keep his clients happy.

However, with this in mind, it immediately becomes clear how Britain’s economic interests would most concretely be served by the economic re-colonization of Russia, the re-oligarchization of Russia, or the balkanization of Russia. All and any of these developments would require a massive shadow-infrastructure for clandestine financial transactions. Whereas American interests would benefit from Russia’s balkanization principally through renewed direct access to cheap natural resources, Britain’s primary interest would consist in mediating the flows of illicit capital through a global labyrinth of financial entities. Nobody dreams of the balkanization of Russia more than fund-managers in Jersey, the British Virgin Islands or the Cayman Islands. Can you imagine the quantities of “chorny-nal” (“black cash”) that would generate?

Well, Britain and its dependencies have about 60% of the entire global financial clandestine infrastructure which would handle that kind of traffic.

So don’t blame Boris. What do you expect him to do? He’s got business to protect.

In many ways, the role of a prime minister can be thought of as analogous to the professional role of a criminal defence attorney. The criminal defence attorney’s job is to act in his client’s interests. The criminal defence attorney usually knows that his client is guilty, and should go to prison. But it’s not his place to make such judgments, because he is not acting in his capacity as a private moral agent. In his professional capacity as an attorney, he has a professional duty to try to get the client off. He has a professional duty to park his private moral impulses.

Analogously, the prime minister’s perspective must be “My country, right or wrong.”

It’s simply not his job to render an impartial moral assessment of the justifiability or otherwise of his nation’s conduct or its internal culture.

*

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.

Padraig McGrath is a political analyst.

Featured image is from EPA/ALEXEI NIKOLSKY/SPUTNIK/KREMLIN POOL / POOL MANDATORY CREDIT

US Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for South and Central Asian Affairs Alice G. Wells delivered a letter from President Donald Trump to President Gotabhaya Rajapakse during a one-day trip to Sri Lanka last Wednesday. The letter, according to the media, emphasised the White House’s “commitment and interest in furthering and deepening [its] partnership” with the island nation.

Wells held discussions with President Rajapakse and his brother, Prime Minister Mahinda Rajapakse, as well as Foreign Minister Dinesh Gunawardena, Tamil National Alliance chiefs R. Sambandan and M. A. Sumanthiran, and “civil society” leaders. Wells was accompanied by Liza Curtis, the Senior Director for South and Central Asia on the US National Security Council and Aliana Teplitz, the US ambassador to Colombo.

Significantly, Wells’ trip—part of a nine-day South Asia tour—followed Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi’s two-day visit to Sri Lanka, which began last Monday. Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov was also in Colombo on Wednesday.

These high-level visits underscore the increasing rivalry over influence in the Indian Ocean region, primarily between the US and India, Washington’s key ally in South Asia, on one hand, and China and Russia, on the other. Strategically-located, Sri Lanka straddles important Indian Ocean sea lanes. In its attempts to maintain world hegemony, the US is deepening its military buildup and trade war measures against China.

Washington’s concerns over Sri Lanka have deepened with Rajapaske’s election as president and his appointment of his brother, a former president, as prime minister. The US considers both men to be pro-China.

While the US previously backed Mahinda Rajapakse’s anti-democratic government and its brutal war against the separatist Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE), Washington was hostile to Colombo’s close relations with China. In late 2014, Washington initiated a regime-change operation to remove Mahinda Rajapakse, who was ousted in the January 2015 elections and replaced by Maithripala Sirisena as a pro-US president.

Wells told the media that she discussed with Gotabhaya Rajapakse “a wider and safer Indo-Pacific region [and] other issues of mutual interest.” The US wanted to strengthen ties by “expanding cooperation on economy and trade, counter-terrorism, security, military-to-military engagements, transitional justice and human rights.” These are code-words to justify the increasing build-up of US military forces across the region.

According to media reports, Wells reiterated Washington’s opposition to Beijing’s influence in Sri Lanka. She voiced concerns about Chinese investments and denounced the Hambantota Port agreement as “unsuccessful and an injustice to the Sri Lankan people.” In 2018, Sirisena’s government signed over Hambantota Port to a Chinese company in a 99-year lease as part of a deal to phase-out massive loans from Chinese banks for the facility’s construction.

Wells’ message from Trump was clear. Washington will not tolerate any weakening of the military and political relations it built-up over four years under Sirisena.

Wells praised increasing US-Sri Lanka military cooperation and hailed last year’s 18-ship US visit and the ever-closer integration of the Sri Lankan military into the US Pacific Command.

Washington is pushing for a renewal of the Status of Forces Agreement (SOFA) it secured with Sri Lanka in 1995, but with new provisions. The new clauses would permit American military bases and provide free access and immunity for all US forces operating in Sri Lanka. The Trump administration also wants Colombo to sign the Millennium Challenge Corporation (MCC) agreement, a US foreign policy aid deal.

During the recent presidential elections, Rajapakse’s Sri Lanka Podujana Peramuna criticised the MCC and SOFA in an attempt to capitalise on popular anti-imperialist sentiment. But once Rajapakse took office, he established a special body to assess the MCC’s “merits and demerits.”

Wells thanked Rajapakse for setting up this review committee but asked for an early response to its findings. She said “any concerns” about the SOFA could be discussed after the Sri Lankan parliamentary elections, due to be held in about four months.

The US, Wells warned, “is Sri Lanka’s largest export market and this was a partnership beneficial to both the countries.” She told the media that she discussed Colombo’s commitment to the UN Human Rights Council, the return of land seized during the war with the LTTE, the provision of information to relatives of missing individuals, and concerns by Tamils and other minorities and opposition parties over accountability.

This is a thinly-veiled threat that numerous issues can be exploited to force Sri Lanka to toe the US line. The Obama administration cynically used human rights violations by Mahinda Rajapakse’s regime to pressure Colombo to distance itself from Beijing.

A day earlier, Chinese Foreign Minister Wang had met with the Sri Lankan president, telling him that Beijing’s attitude toward Sri Lanka had always been consistent and that China would continue to be a “reliable” friend.

“As Sri Lanka’s strategic partner, China will continue to stand by Sri Lanka’s interests,” Wang declared. “We will not allow any outside influences to interfere with matters that are essentially internal concerns of Sri Lanka.” Wang did not name the “outside influences,” but clearly was referring to the US and India, which are seeking to scuttle Colombo’s relations with China.

The Sri Lankan government, which faces massive debt repayments and a deepening economic crisis, is seeking international financial assistance, particularly from China.

President Rajapakse, who is due to visit China early next month, responded to Wang’s remarks by declaring that he was “an admirer of President Xi Jinping” and “followed his speeches and statements closely.”

Wang indicated that China would offer financial help, including the phasing-out of debt repayments, and “meet with necessary parties that can help Sri Lanka in the areas of technology, tourism, infrastructure and other related fields.”

Russian Foreign Minister Lavrov met with Gunawardena, his counterpart, and voiced his readiness to strengthen relations with Sri Lanka. Lavrov said Russia would “provide the Sri Lankan forces with all the weapons they need for security” and wanted to boost annual bilateral trade—currently $US400 million—to $700 million.

Russia, which also faces aggressive US military encirclement, last year held joint military exercises with China and Iran. The three countries are targets in Washington’s over-arching military strategy to dominate the oil-rich Middle East and Eurasia.

Amid these developments, India is engaged in strenuous efforts to keep Sri Lanka under its strategic dominance. Indian Foreign Minister S. Jaishankar visited Sri Lanka three days after Rajapakse’s election, and Rajapakse then visited New Delhi to meet with Prime Minister Narendra Modi.

Last week, Foreign Minister Gunawardena visited India to meet his counterpart and a business delegation. In early February, Prime Minister Mahinda Rajapakse is scheduled to visit India at Modi’s invitation.

Gotabhaya Rajapakse, who has rapidly elevated key military figures into his administration, demagogically claims that he will maintain a “neutral foreign policy.” But under conditions of intensifying great power rivalry, the whole Indian sub-continent is being sucked into a geopolitical maelstrom and the danger of a catastrophic war between the nuclear-armed US and China.

*

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 Wikimedia Commons

Read our selection below on America’s hypocrisy and missile diplomacy.

Pompeo to Iraq: If You Kick Us Out, We Will Bury You

By Mike Whitney, January 21, 2020

The Trump administration is threatening to destroy Iraq’s economy by withholding a critical source of money that is controlled by the Federal Reserve. The threat is a response to the Iraqi parliament’s unanimous decision to end Washington’s 17 year-long military occupation. The Iraqi people and their representatives in parliament are incensed by the recent assassination of Iran’s most revered general, Qassem Soleimani, who was savagely incinerated by a Hellfire missile on the direct orders of Donald Trump. Iraqi prime minister, Adel Abdul-Mahdi, and his supporting MPs believe that the US committed a gross violation of Iraq’s sovereignty by killing a visiting dignitary without first obtaining the government’s permission. This is why the parliament and the prime minister have asked the administration to respect the wishes of the Iraqi people and withdraw all US troops from the country.

Attempts to Remove Morales’ Memory from Bolivia Will Likely Reinvigorate an Anti-Imperialist Struggle

By Paul Antonopoulos, January 21, 2020

Last Wednesday, the coup government of Bolivia launched a massive military operation claiming to be a pre-emptive strike against the expected violence to occur this Wednesday during Plurinational State Foundation Day celebrations that memorializes the change in the name of the country and the adoption of a new constitution in 2009 under the Presidency of Evo Morales. Heavily armed military personnel on the streets, arrest warrants and the denouncements of deputies who are intimidated by violent groups has just continued under the U.S.-backed coup government in La Paz.

US Boosts Funding of Tech Companies to Help Anti-Tehran Protests

By Katrina Manson, January 20, 2020

US government-funded technology companies have recorded an increase in the use of circumvention software in Iran in recent weeks after boosting efforts to help Iranian anti-regime protesters thwart internet censorship and use secure mobile messaging.

The outreach is part of a US government programme dedicated to internet freedom that supports dissident pressure inside Iran and complements America’s policy of “maximum pressure” over the regime.

The Roots of American Demonization of Shi’a Islam

By Pepe Escobar, January 20, 2020

The US targeted assassination, via drone strike, of Maj. Gen. Qassem Soleimani, apart from a torrent of crucial geopolitical ramifications, once again propels to center stage a quite inconvenient truth: the congenital incapacity of so-called US elites to even attempt to understand Shi’ism – thus 24/7 demonization, demeaning not only Shi’as by also Shi’a-led governments.

Pompeo Claims to Know Nothing, but Can We Believe Him?

By Steven Sahiounie, January 20, 2020

Secretary of State Mike Pompeo stated in a Friday radio interview that he had not been previously aware that former US Ambassador Marie Yovanovitch had been under surveillance in Ukraine. “Until this story broke, the best of my recollection, I’d never heard of this at all,” said Pompeo. During the interview, Pompeo failed to defend Yovanovitch or to express concern about the alleged stalking of a US diplomat.

Trump Is the Third President to Lie About Afghan War Success

By Prof. Marjorie Cohn, January 19, 2020

The Bush, Obama and Trump administrations all routinely lied to the American people about the success of the 18-year war in Afghanistan. They exaggerated progress and inflated statistics to create an illusion that that the war was winnable. But after the deaths of 157,000 people at a cost of $2 trillion, corruption is rampant and the carnage continues.

Remarks on the US/China “Trade Deal”

By Dr. Paul Craig Roberts, January 19, 2020

The purpose of tariffs is to protect domestic producers from foreign competition by raising the price of imported goods.  What Trump, his administration, and the financial press did not understand is that at least half of the US trade deficit with China is the offshored goods produced in China by such corporations as Apple, Nike, and Levi.  The offshored production of US global corporations counts as imports when they are brought into the US to be sold to Americans.  Thus, the cost of the tariffs were falling on US corporations and US consumers.

*

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

  • Posted in NO READ MORE LINK
  • Comments Off on Selected Articles: America’s Hypocrisy and “Missile Diplomacy”

A New Definition of Warfare

January 21st, 2020 by Philip Giraldi

Supporters of Donald Trump often make the point that he has not started any new wars. One might observe that it has not been for lack of trying, as his cruise missile attacks on Syria based on fabricated evidence and his recent assassination of Iranian general Qassem Soleimani have been indisputably acts of war. Trump also has enhanced troop levels both in the Middle East and in Afghanistan while also increasing the frequency and lethality of armed drone attacks worldwide.

Congress has been somewhat unseriously toying around with a tightening of the war powers act of 1973 to make it more difficult for a president to carry out acts of war without any deliberation by or authorization from the legislature. But perhaps the definition of war itself should be expanded. The one area where Trump and his team of narcissistic sociopaths have been most active has been in the imposition of sanctions with lethal intent. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo has been explicit in his explanations that the assertion of “extreme pressure” on countries like Iran and Venezuela is intended to make the people suffer to such an extent that they rise up against their governments and bring about “regime change.” In Pompeo’s twisted reckoning that is how places that Washington disapproves of will again become “normal countries.”

The sanctions can kill. Those imposed by the United States are backed up by the U.S. Treasury which is able to block cash transfers going through the dollar denominated international banking system. Banks that do not comply with America’s imposed rules can themselves be sanctioned, meaning that U.S. sanctions are de facto globally applicable, even if foreign banks and governments do not agree with the policies that drive them. It is well documented how sanctions that have an impact on the importation of medicines have killed thousands of Iranians. In Venezuela, the effect of sanctions has been starvation as food imports have been blocked, forcing a large part of the population to flee the country just to survive.

The latest exercise of United States economic warfare has been directed against Iraq. In the space of one week from December 29th to January 3rd, the American military, which operates out of two major bases in Iraq, killed 25 Iraqi militiamen who were part of the Popular Mobilization Units of the Iraqi Army. The militiamen had most recently been engaged in the successful fight against ISIS. It followed up on that attack by killing Soleimani, Iraqi militia general Abu Mahdi al-Muhandis, and eight other Iraqis in a drone strike near Baghdad International Airport. As the attacks were not approved in any way by the Iraqi government, it was no surprise that rioting followed and the Iraqi Parliament voted to remove all foreign troops from its soil. The decree was signed off on by Prime Minister Adel Abdul Mahdi, based on the fact that the U.S. military was in Iraq at the invitation of the country’s government and that invitation had just been revoked by parliament.

That Iraq is to say the least unstable is attributable to the ill-advised U.S. invasion of 2003. The persistence of U.S. forces in the country is ostensibly to aid in the fight against ISIS, but the real reason is to serve as a check on Iranian influence in Iraq, which is a strategic demand made by Israel and not responsive to any actual American interest. Indeed, the Iraqi government is probably closer politically to Tehran than to Washington, though the neocon line that the country is dominated by the Iranians is far from true.

Washington’s response to the legitimate Iraqi demand that its troops should be removed consisted of threats. When Prime Minister Mahdi spoke with Pompeo on the phone and asked for discussions and a time table to create a “withdrawal mechanism” the Secretary of State made it clear that there would be no negotiations. A State Department written response entitled “The U.S. Continued Partnership with Iraq” asserted that American troops are in Iraq to serve as a “force for good” in the Middle East and that it is “our right” to maintain “appropriate force posture” in the region.

The Iraqi position also immediately produced presidential threats and tweets about “sanctions like they have never seen,” with the implication that the U.S. was more than willing to wreck the Iraqi economy if it did not get its way. The latest threat to emerge involves blocking Iraq access to its New York federal reserve bank account, where international oil sale revenue is kept, creating a devastating cash crunch in Iraq’s financial system that might indeed destroy the Iraqi economy. If taking steps to ruin a country economically is not considered warfare by other means it is difficult to discern what might fit that description.

After dealing with Iraq, the Trump Administration turned its guns on one of its oldest and closest allies. Great Britain, like most of the other European signatories to the 2015 Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) has been reluctant to withdraw from the agreement over concern that Iran will as a result decide to develop nuclear weapons. According to the Guardian, a United States representative from the National Security Council named Richard Goldberg, had visited London recently to make clear to the British government that if it does not follow the American lead and withdraw from the JCPOA and reapply sanctions it just might be difficult to work out a trade agreement with Washington post-Brexit. It is a significant threat as part of the pro-Brexit vote clearly was derived from a Trump pledge to make up for some of the anticipated decline in European trade by increasing U.K. access to the U.S. market. Now the quid pro quo is clear: Britain, which normally does in fact follow the Washington lead in foreign policy, will now be expected to be completely on board all of the time and everywhere, particularly in the Middle East.

During his visit, Goldberg told the BBC: “The question for prime minister Johnson is: ‘As you are moving towards Brexit … what are you going to do post-31 January as you come to Washington to negotiate a free-trade agreement with the United States?’ It’s absolutely in [your] interests and the people of Great Britain’s interests to join with President Trump, with the United States, to realign your foreign policy away from Brussels, and to join the maximum pressure campaign to keep all of us safe.”

And there is an interesting back story on Richard Goldberg, a John Bolton protégé anti-Iran hardliner, who threatened the British on behalf of Trump. James Carden, writing at The Nation, posits “Consider the following scenario: A Washington, DC–based, tax-exempt organization that bills itself as a think tank dedicated to the enhancement of a foreign country’s reputation within the United States, funded by billionaires closely aligned with said foreign country, has one of its high-ranking operatives (often referred to as ‘fellows’) embedded within the White House national security staff in order to further the oft-stated agenda of his home organization, which, as it happens, is also paying his salary during his year-long stint there. As it happens, this is exactly what the pro-Israel think tank the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies (FDD) reportedly achieved in an arrangement brokered by former Trump national security adviser John Bolton.”

The FDD senior adviser in question, who was placed on the National Security Council, was Richard Goldberg. FDD is largely funded by Jewish American billionaires including vulture fund capitalist Paul Singer and Home Depot partner Bernard Marcus. Its officers meet regularly with Israeli government officials and the organization is best known for its unrelenting effort to bring about war with Iran. It has relentlessly pushed for a recklessly militaristic U.S. policy directed against Iran and also more generally in the Middle East. It is a reliable mouthpiece for Israel and, inevitably, it has never been required to register under the Foreign Agents Registration Act of 1938.

To be sure, Trump also has other neocons advising him on Iran, including David Wurmser, another Bolton associate, who has the president’s ear and is a consultant to the National Security Council. Wurmser has recently submitted a series of memos to the White House advocating a policy of “regime disruption” with the Islamic Republic that will destabilize it and eventually lead to a change of government. He may have played a key role in giving the green light to the assassination of Soleimani.

The good news, if there is any, is that Goldberg resigned on January 3rd, allegedly because the war against Iran was not developing fast enough to suit him and FDD, but he is symptomatic of the many neoconservative hawks who have infiltrated the Trump Administration at secondary and tertiary levels, where much of the development and implementation of policy actually takes place. It also explains that when it comes to Iran and the irrational continuation of a significant U.S. military presence in the Middle East, it is Israel and its Lobby that are steering the ship of state.

*

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

This article was originally published on The Unz Review.

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

Featured image is from LobeLog

The UN Security Council met in New York on Monday to discuss the investigation by the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW) into an alleged chemical attack that was said to have taken place in April 2018 in Douma, Syria. The alleged attack was blamed on the Syrian President Bashar al-Assad, and the US, UK, and France responded with an airstrike against Syrian government targets.

A former OPCW employee spoke to the UN Security Council and accused OPCW management of ignoring and suppressing findings of the investigative team that was deployed to Douma.

The OPCW released their final report on the Douma attack in March 2019, the report concluded that a chlorine chemical attack likely occurred. Two cylinders were found at two separate locations in Douma that were said to be the source of the chlorine gas. The idea that these cylinders were dropped from an aircraft is central to the allegation that the Syrian government was responsible.

An unreleased OPCW engineering assessment was leaked to the Working Group on Syria, Propaganda and Media and published in May 2019. The report was prepared by Ian Henderson, a long-time OPCW employee who was tasked with analyzing the cylinders. Henderson’s assessment concluded, “observations at the scene of the two locations, together with subsequent analysis, suggest that there is a higher probability that both cylinders were manually placed at those two locations rather than being delivered from aircraft.” Henderson’s findings were excluded from the final OPCW report.

Since November 2019, WikiLeaks has released multiple OPCW documents and internal emails that not only support Henderson’s claims but also deal with discrepancies in levels of chlorine found in the area of the alleged attack. Another OPCW employee that goes by the pseudonym “Alex” spoke with journalist Jonathan Steele more about the traces of chlorine. Other leaks address inconsistencies between the victims observed symptoms and a chlorine gas attack.

Ian Henderson addressed the UN Security Council by video on Monday. Henderson presented himself as a non-political professional who is concerned with the integrity of the organization he worked with for many years.

Henderson described himself as a “former OPCW inspection team leader who served for about 12 years.” Henderson said he was invited by the Chinese Minister Counselor to the UN to attend the Security Council meeting, but due to “unforeseen circumstances” with Visa waiver status, he was unable to attend. Henderson provided the council with a written statement, along with his video statement.

Henderson said, “I hold the OPCW in the highest regard, as well as the professionalism of the staff members that work there, the organization is not broken I must stress that. However, the concern I have does relate to some specific management practices in certain sensitive missions. The concern of course relates to the FFM investigation into the alleged chemical attack on the 7th of April in Douma, Syria.”

Henderson explained that there were two teams deployed to investigate the alleged attack, “One team, which I joined shortly after the start of field deployments, was to Douma in Syria, the other team deployed to Country X.”  WikiLeaks, and others, have speculated that “Country X” is Turkey, since OPCW investigators were deployed there to interview alleged witnesses.

Most of the information in Henderson’s statement has been revealed in the documents released by WikiLeaks over the past few months. One of the main gripes Henderson had was that the team only deployed to “Country X” had the most say in the final report, while the team deployed to Douma was largely ignored.

Henderson said, “The Findings in the FFM (Fact Finding Mission) report were contradictory, were a complete turnaround with what the team had understood collectively, during and after the Douma deployments.”

The OPCW published their interim report on the investigation in July 2018. WikiLeaks released the original version of the interim report last month, which drew a vastly different conclusion than the one the OPCW decided to publish. Henderson said, “By the time of the release of the interim report in July 2018, we had serious misgivings that a chemical attack had occurred.”

Henderson went on, “The (final FFM) report did not make clear what new findings facts, information, data, or analysis in the fields of witness testimony, toxicology studies, chemical analysis, engineering and/or ballistic studies had resulted in a complete turnaround in the situation from what was understood by the majority of the team, and the entire Douma team in July 2018.

“In my case, I had followed up with a further six months of engineering and ballistics studies into the cylinders. The results of which had provided further support for the view that there had not been a chemical attack. This needs to be properly resolved through the wringers of science and engineering. In my situation, it’s not a political debate.”

Henderson added a closing comment and said he led a “highly intrusive” investigation into the Barzah Syrian Scientific Research Center (SSRC), a laboratory outside of Damascus that was suspected of producing chemical weapons. The Barzah SSRC was the target of the coalition airstrike in April 2018 against the Syrian government in retaliation for the alleged Douma attack. Henderson said he wrote two reports on the SSRC before the attack and one report after. But Henderson said that “is another story all together,” and went on to end his video statement.

After Henderson’s comments were aired to the Security Council, the representative for the Russian Federation mentioned that they invited the OPCW Director-General, and other OPCW officials to attend the meeting, but they chose not to participate.

Much of the blame for the lack of pressure on OPCW management after all these leaks, lies on the media outlets that refuse to report on it. Bellingcat – the investigative firm that receives grants from the US government-funded National Endowment for Democracy – bears most of the blame, since many mainstream outlets parrot what they say on Syria. Just a few days before this Security Council meeting, Bellingcat published a smear job on Ian Henderson.

As of the writing of this story, the only major news outlets that covered this Security Council meeting are RT and Sputnik, so of course, it will be dismissed by many as Russian propaganda. Eliot Higgins, the founder of Bellingcat, even accused Henderson of appearing at the UN on “behalf of the Russians.” But through his work, his words, and his modesty, Henderson proves to be a sincere and honest professional who is concerned about a supposedly neutral international body being used to promote a false narrative.

*

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

A duchy is a medieval country, territory, fief, or domain ruled by a duke or duchess, a high-ranking nobleman hierarchically second to the king or queen in what is now a defunct European tradition.

The Duchy of Cornwall was created with the express purpose of providing income to the heir apparent to the throne; however, the terms of the original creation limit the title Duke of Cornwall to the eldest son of the monarch if and only if that son is also the heir-apparent; since 2015, the eldest child (regardless of sex) of the monarch would usually be her heir-apparent, but no change has been made to allow an eldest daughter to take the title Duke of Cornwall. The Duke of Cornwall has the ‘interest in possession’ of the duchy’s assets (such as estates) which means they enjoy its net income, do not have its outright ownership and do not have the right to sell capital assets for their own benefit.

The Duchy is a private estate established by Edward III in 1337. The revenues from the estate are passed to HRH The Prince of Wales and Duke of Cornwall, who chooses to use them to fund his public, charitable and private activities and those of his family.

Prince Charles’s net worth is now estimated between $100 million and $400 million. Most of his wealth stems from the medieval estate of the Duchy of Cornwall which consists of valuable land, commercial and residential property and other substantial financial assets.

However, the Duchy of Cornwall is, astonishingly, exempt from all capital gains tax, income tax and corporation tax as the government has considered the duchy to be a ‘Crown’ body. This tax position has been previously challenged by various politicians who have asked HM Revenue and Customs to investigate why the duchy should be exempt from tax.

The principal activity of the duchy is the management of its land holdings in England of an estimated 135,000 acres or 550 km2.  However, it is also involved in substantial retail and commercial activities. The majority of the estate lies outside Cornwall, with half being on Dartmoor in Devon, with other large holdings in Herefordshire, Somerset and almost all of the Isles of Scilly. The duchy also has a portfolio of financial investments.

In addition, the duchy has special legal rights, such as the rules on bona vacantia. This right to ownerless property operates in favour of the duchy rather than the Crown, such that the property of anyone who dies in the county of Cornwall without a will or identifiable heirs, and assets belonging to dissolved companies whose registered office was in Cornwall, pass to the duchy.

The proposition that one individual should be gratuitously entitled to millions of pounds annually in income from land and estates that properly are part and parcel of the common land assets of England, being within the ownership of all the citizens of the United Kingdom, is no longer tenable.  The lands and estates that today comprise the Duchy of Cornwall, were never sold and never bought. If anything, they were ‘acquired’ by a former ‘ruler’ in mediaeval times for the benefit of his son.  That ‘transaction’ for which there was no consideration would now be considered null and void. Just as Rhodesia is no longer owned by the family of Cecil Rhodes or the Crown, so all the land in Cornwall and elsewhere in Britain that were previously designated ‘Crown Property’ should now revert back to the people of Britain for their use, enjoyment and profit.

Rhodes, colonialism and the grabbing of land and property by powerful war lords – subsequently transmogrified into ‘royalty’, is an anachronism now largely remedied in most parts of Europe and the wider world.

None of the foregoing detracts from the fact that Elizabeth ll has proved to be an admirable public servant for very many decades. However, the tradition of subservience and royal prerogative is now well past its sell-by date particularly as there is no other member of the House of Windsor even remotely qualified to be a head of state – or, in truth, head of anything else.

*

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.

Hans Stehling (pen name) is an analyst based in the UK. He is a frequent contributor to Global Research.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on The Many Millions from the Duchy of Cornwall Properly Belong Not to Prince Charles but to the British People
  • Tags: ,

Pompeo to Iraq: If You Kick Us Out, We Will Bury You

January 21st, 2020 by Mike Whitney

The Trump administration is threatening to destroy Iraq’s economy by withholding a critical source of money that is controlled by the Federal Reserve. The threat is a response to the Iraqi parliament’s unanimous decision to end Washington’s 17 year-long military occupation. The Iraqi people and their representatives in parliament are incensed by the recent assassination of Iran’s most revered general, Qassem Soleimani, who was savagely incinerated by a Hellfire missile on the direct orders of Donald Trump. Iraqi prime minister, Adel Abdul-Mahdi, and his supporting MPs believe that the US committed a gross violation of Iraq’s sovereignty by killing a visiting dignitary without first obtaining the government’s permission. This is why the parliament and the prime minister have asked the administration to respect the wishes of the Iraqi people and withdraw all US troops from the country.

In response to parliament’s request, President Trump has threatened to impose harsh economic sanctions on Iraq while the State Department has issued a defiant statement that flatly rejects Iraq’s demands and refuses to even discuss the matter. Here is an excerpt from the statement:

“America is a force for good in the Middle East. Our military presence in Iraq is to continue the fight against ISIS and as the Secretary has said, we are committed to protecting Americans, Iraqis, and our coalition partners….At this time, any delegation sent to Iraq would be dedicated to discussing how to best recommit to our strategic partnership—not to discuss troop withdrawal, but our right, appropriate force posture in the Middle East. …. There does, however, need to be a conversation between the U.S. and Iraqi governments not just regarding security, but about our financial, economic, and diplomatic partnership. We want to be a friend and partner to a sovereign, prosperous, and stable Iraq.”

It would interesting to know whether ‘shadow president’, Mike Pompeo, composed the communique himself or if he was assisted by his fellow neocon advisors at State. In any event, the terse directive leaves no doubt that Iraq remains the exclusive property of the US government who will not permit any challenge to its iron-fisted rule. By any definition, Iraq remains an American colony, that is, “a country that is under the full or partial political control of another country and occupied by (soldiers) from that country.” Pompeo’s imperious response shows that, despite the nonsensical hype in the western media, Iraq is neither independent nor sovereign.

A closer look at the State Department’s communique hints at the manner in which Pompeo intends to keep Iraq under Washington’s thumb. When he says, “There .. needs to be a conversation … about our financial, economic, and diplomatic partnership.” What he appears to mean is: ‘We have no intention of launching another costly counterinsurgency operation in Iraq. Instead, we will withhold the proceeds from Iraq’s oil revenues, which will drive the government into bankruptcy thrusting the country into another agonizing period of sectarian conflict.’

This new strategy, which is tantamount to blackmail, was fleshed-out in a number of recent articles which garnered only modest attention in the media. According to the Wall Street Journal:

“The State Department warned that the U.S. could shut down Iraq’s access to the country’s central bank account held at the Federal Reserve Bank of New York, a move that could jolt Iraq’s already shaky economy, the officials said….

The warning regarding the Iraqi central bank account was conveyed to Iraq’s prime minister in a call on Wednesday,….The Federal Reserve Bank in New York, which can freeze accounts under U.S. sanctions law… said it doesn’t comment on specific account holders.

“The U.S. Fed basically has a stranglehold on the entire [Iraqi] economy,” said Shwan Taha, chairman of Iraqi investment bank Rabee Securities….” (“U.S. Warns Iraq It Risks Losing Access to Key Bank Account if Troops Told to Leave”, Wall Street Journal)

This is how the Trump administration does business. After invading Iraq on false pretenses, killing a million of its people, and reducing large swaths of the country to an uninhabitable wastelands, the US is now conducting a financial ‘scorched earth’ campaign aimed at forcing Iraq to comply with Washington’s diktats. It is hard to see how the State Department can characterize this behavior as “a force for good” but perhaps they are being facetious. In any event, the danger to Iraq’s fragile economy is quite real as can be seen in this article by the French News Agency AFP. Here’s an excerpt:

“Iraqi officials fear economic “collapse” if Washington imposes threatened sanctions, including blocking access to a U.S.-based account where Baghdad keeps oil revenues that feed 90% of the national budget….

The PMO (Prime Ministers Office) got a call threatening that if U.S. troops are kicked out, ‘we’ – the U.S. –will block your account at the Federal Reserve Bank in New York,”….The Central Bank of Iraq’s account at the Fed was established in 2003 following the U.S.-led invasion that toppled ex-dictator Saddam Hussein…Under United Nations Security Council Resolution 1483, which lifted the crippling global sanctions and oil embargo imposed on Iraq after Saddam’s invasion of Kuwait, all revenues from Iraqi oil sales would go to the account.

Iraq is OPEC’s second-biggest crude producer and more than 90% of the state budget, which reached $112 billion in 2019, derives from oil revenues… To this day, revenues are paid in dollars into the Fed account daily, with the balance now sitting at about $35 billion, Iraqi officials told AFP…..Every month or so, Iraq flies in $1-$2 billion in cash from that account for official and commercial transactions.

“We’re an oil-producing country. Those accounts are in dollars. Cutting off access means totally turning off the tap,” the first Iraqi official said… The second official said it would mean the government could not carry out daily functions or pay salaries and the Iraqi currency would plummet in value. “It would mean collapse for Iraq,” the official said.” (“Iraq warns of ‘collapse’ if Trump blocks oil money”, Daily Sabah)

This article is key to understanding US policy in Iraq, so let’s take a minute to summarize:

1– Iraq’s wealth is in the hands of the Fed

From the earliest days of the invasion (2003) the Federal Reserve has held the revenues from Iraq’s oil proceeds. That money has never been directly under the control of the Iraqi people or their elected representatives.

2–The proceeds from Iraqi oil do not benefit the Iraqi people

Iraq is presently OPEC’s second-biggest crude producer and more than 90% of the state budget, which reached $112 billion in 2019, derives from oil revenues. While this may sound like a significant amount of money, it’s worth noting, that Iraq’s petroleum contracts were drawn up under US supervision which means that Iraq is neither being adequately compensated for its oil nor are the revenues being fairly distributed among the Iraqi people.

3– The Fed is a political actor that is deeply involved in the implementation of U.S. foreign policy

The Federal Reserve is a political actor that plays a essential roll in spreading neoliberalism. The Fed works with government agents to prevent countries like Iraq from controlling their own wealth or from establishing their own sovereign independence.

4– The Iraqi government remains in Washington’s death grip

Iraq currently has $35 billion in an account at the Fed that it does not control, does not have access to, and cannot be used to improve the lives of the Iraqi people. Instead, the Iraqi government must wait for its American overlords to release the money in dribs and drabs as it sees fit. Now that parliament has angered Uncle Sam with their demand that US troops leave the country, Washington is threatening to “turn off the tap” paving the way for an economic collapse followed by widespread social unrest.

5–Iraq must sell its oil in USD

Iraqi oil is solely denominated in US Dollars which strengthens the petrodollar system that recycles revenues into US debt. This, in turn, helps to maintain the dollar’s dominance as the world’s reserve currency which is a political tool Washington uses to impose its own development model on foreign countries.

This brief recap helps to illustrate that US policy in Iraq is a shameless extortion racket that only serves the interests of Washington and its ally, Israel. What these bullet-points do not cover, however, is the way that US policy has failed to address Iraq’s battered and neglected infrastructure, its perennially-high unemployment, its largely-polluted drinking water or the grinding, demoralizing poverty faced by a large percentage of the population. (“23% of the Iraqi people live below the poverty line while more “than half of the urban population lives in slum-like conditions.” Electricity is only available for roughly 8 hours a day while summer temperatures frequently top 100 degrees Fahrenheit. 20% of households in Iraq use an unsafe drinking water source, while 65% must use public networks as a main source of drinking water.
Unemployment stands at 13% while youth unemployment is soaring at 25%.)

So while the oil giants continue to rake in burgeoning profits on record oil extraction, millions of Iraqis are living hand-to-mouth in an increasingly hardscrabble and dystopian environment.

The media typically scapegoats the government for Iraq’s problems, (“mismanagement, bureaucratic inefficiency, and corruption”) but the real source of the troubles is the US invasion. Before the invasion, Iraq was a relatively-secure, moderately-prosperous country. Now it is a broken, dysfunctional failed state that remains helplessly pinned beneath Washington’s boot-heel. That is unlikely to change under the present administration which has already expressed its intention to extend the occupation into perpetuity.

The Iraq war is the greatest catastrophe of our time. Aside from a handful of fanatical Likudniks and behemoth oil companies, no one has benefited at all. A 5,000 year-old civilization was sadistically bombed into oblivion so Washington and its ally, Israel, could redraw the map of the Middle East and establish their hegemony over a strategically-critical region of the world.

Author Nir Rosen summed it up like this in an interview on Democracy Now 10 years ago. He said,

“We’ve destroyed Iraq and we’ve destroyed the region, and Americans need to know this.”

*

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

Mike Whitney is a frequent contributor to Global Research.


150115 Long War Cover hi-res finalv2 copy3.jpg

The Globalization of War: America’s “Long War” against Humanity

Michel Chossudovsky

The “globalization of war” is a hegemonic project. Major military and covert intelligence operations are being undertaken simultaneously in the Middle East, Eastern Europe, sub-Saharan Africa, Central Asia and the Far East. The U.S. military agenda combines both major theater operations as well as covert actions geared towards destabilizing sovereign states.

ISBN Number: 978-0-9737147-6-0
Year: 2015
Pages: 240 Pages

List Price: $22.95

Special Price: $15.00

Click here to order.

Charged with bribery, fraud, and breach of trust by attorney general Avichai Mendelblit, Netanyahu is fighting for his political life and personal freedom.

According to Mendleblit, Netanyahu “damaged the image of the public service and public trust in it (by abusing his office), knowingly “taking a bribe as a public servant in exchange for actions related to your position.”

Attempting to dismiss charges against him last fall, he falsely claimed there’s “an attempted government coup against the prime minister through blood libels and a biased investigation process (sic),” adding:

“I will not allow lies to win (sic). I will continue to lead this country, according to the letter of the law” he breached, according to serious charges against him.

His last recourse is seeking Knesset immunity, in early January saying:

“I intend to approach the speaker of the Knesset in accordance with chapter 4C of the law, in order to fulfill my right, my duty and my mission to continue to serve you for the future of Israel (sic),” adding:

“It’s my intention to stand before the court to shatter all the fabricated accusations against me (sic).”

“The immunity law is meant to protect elected officials from tailored lawsuits, from serving political cases whose aim is to harm the will of the people (sic).”

In April and September 2019 elections, his Likud party won 26% and 25% of Knesset seats respectively, around three-fourths of the Israeli electorate (“the will of the people”) voting against him.

On Sunday, Knesset speaker Yuli Edelstein said the body will convene in special session next week to vote up or down on forming a panel to consider Netanyahu’s immunity from prosecution bid, adding:

“Even though I disagree with the position of the Knesset legal adviser (Eyal Yinon), I believe that, in order to maintain trust in the institution of Knesset speaker by all the factions, it is important to accept it.”

He considers Netanyahu’s bid “invalid…constituting contempt of the legislature” that’s in recess ahead of March 2 elections.

As things now stand, his immunity request from prosecution in three criminal cases with considerable evidence against him is expected to be rejected.

He and Likud party members supporting him sought to delay Knesset action, knowing a majority of its members likely oppose his immunity bid.

He wants things delayed until after March 2 elections, hoping for a mandate to rule along with coalition partners he failed to achieve in April and September elections.

Key Likud political opponent Blue and White party leader Benny Gantz said the following:

“Netanyahu is applying every possible form of pressure in an attempt to prevent the discussion of the immunity request, but despite the delay tactics, the immunity discussions will begin next week, will be conducted in a to-the-point manner and fairly, and will be completed before the election.”

Hard-right Yisrael Beiteinu party leader Avigdor Lieberman said if Edelstein tries to postpone Knesset debate on Netanyahu’s immunity bid, he may try to oust him as speaker.

According to Israeli media, Knesset debate on this issue is likely to begin next week and continue until about two weeks before March 2 elections.

Last year, Israeli police and state prosecutors recommended Netanyahu be indicted. AG Mendleblit published detailed information on charges against him.

Polls show most Israelis oppose immunity. According to a yearend 2019 Channel 12 poll, 51% of Israelis oppose immunity. Only 33% support it.

Israeli Law Professor Suzie Navot said immunity is unlikely for bribery, fraud and breach of trust, only for minor offenses under Israeli law.

On December 30, Haaretz editors called Netanyahu’s immunity bid an attempt “to garner public support for his reckless conduct and his flight from the arm of the law,” adding:

His request “for immunity is tantamount to an admission of guilt.”

“His attempt to portray this as something temporary…reaches new levels of cynicism, constituting a blatant attempt to avoid a trial.”

“Requesting immunity is a cowardly act by someone who has something to hide.”

Have years of wrongdoing caught up to him? Will this year be his time of reckoning?

Will he be denied Knesset immunity, prosecuted, convicted, and imprisoned later this year, ending his political career and personal freedom?

No Israeli politician or military official was ever held accountable for crimes of war, against humanity, apartheid persecution, illegal occupation, and state terror — far more serious offenses than civil wrongdoing.

*

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

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

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

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

Visit his blog site at sjlendman.blogspot.com.

Turkey is increasing its military involvement in the Libyan conflict. After officially sending its military advisers and officers to support the Tripoli-based Government of National Accord (GNA), Turkey set up air defense systems near Mitiga Airport. The airport hosts warplanes of the GNA Air Force, and Turkish-supplied Bayraktar TB2 combat drones. According to photos and videos available online, the deployed Turkish systems included the MIM-23 Hawk, the ACV-30 Korkut SPAAG, and the AN/MPQ-64 Sentinel 3D radar.

Since the start of the advance of the Libyan National Army (LNA) led by Field Marshal Khalifa Haftar on Tripoli in April 2019, Mitiga Airport repeatedly became a target of airstrikes. These strikes led to notable losses in GNA military aircraft. The Turkish move is apparently aimed at securing operations from Mitiga Airport. Despite this, the facility still remains too close to the frontline and thus any aircraft deployed there remains in a constant danger.

Meanwhile, the number of members of Turkish-backed Syrian militant groups deployed in Libya reportedly grew to 2,400. According to reports, 1,700 more Syrian fighters are now passing training in military camps in Turkey before being deployed to fight on the side of the GNA. The total number of Turkish proxies in Libya remains unconfirmed. However, photos and videos appearing online indicate that hundreds of Turkish-backed fighters arrive Libya via planes on a regular basis.

On January 18, the Benghazi-based government allied with the LNA blocked oil exports at ports under his control, slashing output by more than a half. According to Libya’s National Oil Corp., oil output will fall by about 800,000 barrels a day, costing $55 million daily. The corporation declared Force Majeure, which can allow Libya, which holds Africa’s largest-proven oil reserves, to legally suspend delivery contracts. The LNA says that the ports were closed in response to ‘demands of the Libyan nation’ that stands against the GNA-requested Turkish intervention.

The move came ahead the Berlin conference demonstrated to international players the LNA readiness to provide own course regardless the possible cost. The conference took place on January 19 involving top delegations from the GNA, the LNA, as well as global and regional players, including the USA, Turkey, the UAE, Egypt, Russia, France, Italy and Germany.

The participants of the Berlin conference declared their support the ceasefire between the GNA, the LNA, declared their commitment to a political solution of the conflict. German Chancellor Angela Merkel said that the warring sides in Libya’s conflict agreed to respect an arms embargo and not to provide the varying sides with military support. The representatives of the Libyan conflict agreed to form a five-by-five military commission that should work on resolving the existing tensions. The document on Libya will have to be approved by the UN Security Council. This makes the Libyan peace process dependent on other geopolitical issues.

On top of that, the unconditional ceasefire goes against interests of the LNA, which has an upper hand in an open military confrontation with the GNA. Haftar may regret that he agreed to participate in the Berlin negotiations format, where he faced a joint pressure from Western powers involved in the conflict.

*

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

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Video: Thousands of Turkish Proxy Fighters Flood into Libya Amid Berlin Peace Talks
  • Tags: ,

Moroccan Agriculture and Rural Development

January 21st, 2020 by Dr. Yossef Ben-Meir

In recent years, Morocco has put in place the right frameworks for mobilizing rural communities to advance the nation’s sustainable development goals, yet it falls woefully short when it comes to implementation. As someone who has been engaged in rural development in Morocco for the past 26 years, I have analyzed how these frameworks can work together and complement each other. Since 2000, I have led a Moroccan-U.S. civil organization that assists local communities in their identification and management of priority development projects—in agriculture, education, health, and women’s and youth empowerment—and achieved initiatives located in the 12 regions of Morocco. The community-driven data-gathering, assessments, consensus-building, and overall project experiences engaging with most ministries and administrative tiers have afforded me realistic local and national contextual perspectives.

Morocco’s agricultural development programs to promote product cultivation, processing, and commercializing are not making a sufficient difference for the majority of families who farm five hectares or less of land and who experience intractable poverty. Despite immense local and national potential, rural poverty is the “Achilles’ heel” of Morocco’s stability and prosperity. Engaging and empowering local communities through financial grants and technical contributions is the best way to successfully address systemic poverty afflicting most rural households along the entire agricultural value-chain – from nurseries to processing.

Agricultural programs understandably put pressure on the entire upstream value chain of raw and processed product. Enormous value is lost by family farmers due to tree and seed dependency, irrigation inefficiency, ineffectual cooperatives, and selling through traditional local market channels. The vast majority of farming families are without the production capacity, partnerships, and means to add value and reach a consistent standard and quality necessary to enter more rewarding markets. These stifling barriers keep the average household income as low as one fifth what it could be if a viable system were in place, based on my conservative calculation. Thus, rural people’s potential savings, income, and revenue for reinvestment only serve to improve livelihoods elsewhere while they themselves reap no benefit.

Ensuring and expanding rural irrigation infrastructure must be the top priority. Local people are deeply frustrated with the anemic progress made in implementing rural development projects. Farming communities know and consistently prioritize exactly the needed irrigation infrastructure to uplift all village households, yet even when the local beneficiaries would gladly contribute their in-kind labor, there has been no construction. Project priority solutions in irrigation – water canals, basins, towers, pipes, and pumps – can conserve water by 50% or more. Such projects are prohibitively expensive, especially in mountain areas, yet hardly any other project will more greatly improve agricultural production, food security, and income.

In addition, one simple policy shift would make a profound difference for tens of thousands of families – fig and walnut trees (depending on water availability) should be allowed to be planted at high elevations on public domain lands, just as carob is allowed on public domain lands in lower lying ones. Rural development conditions are very problematic; there are the near complete losses of local fruit tree varieties of fig, apple, pear, grape, clementine, carob, date, and others that are endemic in the north, and other varieties elsewhere in Morocco. They offer a genetic resource for small farmers, enhancing food security in the face of water scarcity and climate change. However, agrobiodiversity remains seriously undermined because of a few high-yielding varieties that cause genetic erosion.  Government tree nurseries have been closing over the years when they should be at maximum production capacities based on the enormous public demand for trees.

The obvious counter-response to the irrigation recommendation is that there are already similar government subsidy programs (pressure drip systems, for example). However, those programs need to be brought to the farmers where they are, with partnerships that aid their strategic planning and experiential learning. Programs should fund nurseries on public land lent to community associations to reduce risk and cost to farmers, as the Moroccan High Commission of Waters and Forests, public schools, universities, and others have done with the High Atlas Foundation (HAF), the U.S.-Moroccan nonprofit organization I founded and help lead that works to strengthen cooperative capacity-building in management and technical areas; organic, food safety, and other certifications; and revolving lines of credit so cooperatives can acquire certified product for processing and sale. These actions have typically resulted in a surge in cultivation and market-ready product, along with improved local organization. The HAF model can be adopted and adapted by other community-based organizations.

But how do we get there? The Municipal Charter, forming community development plans driven by the intended beneficiaries, women and men of all ages, is key for sustainable agricultural project identification and implementation. Project development facilitation is helpful and needed; establishing centers of participatory planning to assist with dialogue, meeting space, and coordination is vital. Provincial governors and other local leaders who understand the important contribution such centers make should exercise greater authority to assign underutilized public or civil building infrastructure for this purpose.

The Moroccan frameworks for development enumerate what is needed to catalyze sustainable development of marginalized areas and groups, and a few instructive cases have brought ideas to full implementation with replicable and enduring results. These successful cases encourage decentralization in order to enable local communities and civil and public agencies to make decisions and allocate resources for people’s projects. They target rural communities, women, and youth in recognition of their disadvantaged situations, and their role as key drivers of transformational change. Taken together, these frameworks provide the needed comprehensive pathways for the people of Morocco to achieve the future they want, providing a course and means to help reach their human development goals. Moroccan agriculture and agroforestry, with its income-generating and environmental-enhancing potential, can and should be the engine for self-reliant financing of the people’s projects, especially in rural areas that need it the most.

*

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. Yossef Ben-Meir is a sociologist and president of the High Atlas Foundation, a Moroccan-U.S. not-for-profit organization dedicated to sustainable development in Morocco.

Featured image: An olive tree planted in a schoolyard in the Marrakech region of Morocco. (Source: Author)

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Moroccan Agriculture and Rural Development
  • Tags:

Macedonian-Albanian leader Ali Ahmeti revealed late last week that he refused to go along with the plot to partition his country, which naturally begs the question of why he didn’t want to “pull a Kosovo” when powerful forces were obviously lobbying him real hard to do so.

USAID Fake News Exposed

Ali Ahmeti, the Macedonian-Albanian leader of the “Democratic Union For Integration” (DUI), revealed late last week that he refused to go along with a plot to partition his country. The author has been consistently warning about this scenario for over five years beginning in January 2015and continuing for the subsequent half-decade into the present day, though it was dismissed as nothing more than a “conspiracy theory” by the Mainstream Media. The USAID-financed “Media Fact Checking Service” in Macedonia went even further by slandering the author in February 2016 when they alleged without any evidence whatsoever that he was participating in a secret Kremlin “propaganda” campaign together with Russian philosopher Alexander Dugin and famous Russian media host Dmitry Kiselyov just because he held firm with his position that the partition of the Republic of Macedonia was the ultimate outcome of the long-running Hybrid War against it. That malicious fake news has since been debunked and the author therefore vindicated by none other than Ahmeti’s public admission that such a plot was indeed in the works this entire time.

Ahmeti’s Excuses

The Macedonian-Albanian leader didn’t say exactly who approached him, but it can be reasonably suspected that the US government played some sort of role in this literal conspiracy after so actively working to smear those such as the author who exposed it. Whoever the culprit(s) may or may not be, the question that naturally follows is why Ahmeti refused to “pull a Kosovo” in Macedonia when all prior indicators strongly suggested that he’d be susceptible to sympathizing with this scenario. He claims that he wanted to avoid bloodshed and that “I wanted to have our symbols and language and we achieved those goals. We have a university, the language in the Assembly and in the institutions, as well as our symbols.” Whether or not he’s telling the truth, the point that he wants to convey is that his goal was basically to set up a “state within a state” on Macedonian territory as opposed to separating from it as its own self-professed “state” or merging into “Greater Albania”. In other words, Ahmeti is saying that he already got all that he wanted from former Prime Minister Zaev (who came to power after a Color Revolution) so there was no reason to go any further.

“Greater Albania” Or Greater Dystopia?

There was a time, however, where it was far from certain that the Albanians would set up their own “state within a state” on Macedonian territory, so one obviously wonders why Ahmeti didn’t make any moves to join the partition plot during that time. It could be that he was either biding his time in the expectation that the Color Revolution would succeed and subsequently give him all that he demanded or that he had more Machiavellian calculations in mind that have to do with the dystopia that’s “Greater Albania”. The author wrote a twopart article series in November 2015 about how “‘Greater Albania’ Is A Myth To Preserve The Country’s Unity” which basically asserted that this geopolitical project is a smokescreen to distract Albania’s population from their many socio-economic woes. Even worse, the only real instance where it was executed in practice, the NATO-occupied Serbian Province of Kosovo & Metohija, has failed to merge with Albania owing to clan and other types of conflicts (including over criminal enterprises). The Albanian Prime Minister is even suing his “counterpart” in Kosovo for “defamation” nowadays, showing how strained ties between the two have become.

Self-Interested Political Calculations

Seeing what a failure neighboring Kosovo has been, it’s understandable why Ahmeti didn’t want the Albanians within his “sphere of influence” in Macedonia to experience the same fate. More to the point, though, he might have also worried about his own political future since he’d either be the leader of yet another artificial landlocked “statelet” with only partial international recognition or the regional capo of newly annexed “Albanian Lebensraum”, neither of which are attractive. Instead, he preferred to play the role of kingmaker in Macedonia where he knew that he could count on foreign assistance for his plans without any “legal” reservations from his patrons. It just so happened that “making the right choice for the wrong reason” did indeed prevent a lot of needless bloodshed so he can thus present his decision as being “noble”, “peaceful”, and “principled” even though it was mostly likely determined solely by his own political self-interests. Understanding this, everything makes sense in hindsight, though that shouldn’t be taken to mean that neither he nor any other Macedonian-Albanian leader won’t reconsider this option sometime in the future.

A “Second Kosovo” In The “New Balkans”?

The plan for the “New Balkans”, as the author described it in one of his works from last year, is still going forward. Concerted efforts are being made behind the scenes by all players of relevance to get Serbian President Vucic to openly “recognize” the “independence” of Kosovo, whether de-facto or de-jure, which in turn might regenerate interest in Macedonian-Albanian separatism sometime down the line. More than likely, however, the Macedonian-Albanians will opt to take a “wait and see” approach before recommencing any separatist campaign since they already live better than their ethnic compatriots elsewhere in the region and do indeed have their own “state within a state” as it is nowadays. Instead of being a “privileged minority” in Macedonia which could easily earn the “sympathy” of the so-called “international community” anytime they decide to make more demands, they’d just be “one among many” other Albanians within “Greater Albania” if they decided to split from their internationally recognized state into what would ultimately be only a partially recognized one at best. As such, they probably won’t secede, but the scenario still can’t be entirely ruled out.

*

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

This article was originally published on OneWorld.

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

Featured image is from OneWorld

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on “Greater Albania” Or Greater Dystopia? Why Did Macedonian-Albanian Leader Refuse to “Pull a Kosovo”?
  • Tags: , ,

Berlin Conference Has Not Brought Peace to Libya

January 21st, 2020 by Paul Antonopoulos

The Berlin Conference on Libya held on Sunday will not end the conflict in the North African country, especially as the leaders of the two opposing Libyan factions refused to face each other. In fact, Fayez al-Sarraj of the Muslim Brotherhood-affiliated government in Tripoli and Field Marshal Khalifa Belqasim Haftar of the opposing Libyan National Army (LNA) could not even tolerate each other so much so that they could not be in the same room during the conference.

Many commentators who denounce U.S. intervention across the world were surprisingly disappointed by the so-called void left by Washington in certain regions of the globe, particularly in Libya where a division of pro-Haftar and pro-Sarraj factions have emerged. The U.S. has been unusually quiet about the situation in Libya, suggesting it is not willing to get involved despite the critical role it played in destroying the country in 2011. The torture, sodomy and murder of long-time Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi by NATO-backed jihadists, divided the country into differing competing factions, with the latest flareup killing 2,000 people and leaving a further 160,000 displaced, according to the UN.

The fact that Haftar and Sarraj refused to even be in the same room gives an indication of ​​the little progress the Berlin conference made towards a peaceful settlement in Libya, despite the organization of the conference by German leader Angela Merkel after her contacts in Moscow with Russian President Vladimir Putin. This was even despite the participation of all five members of the UN Security Council (U.S., UK, France, China and Russia), as well as Germany, Italy, Turkey, the United Arab Emirates, Algeria and the Republic of Congo. Tunisia were invited at the last minute, in which they rejected in protest to the disrespect, and Greece, who has had a key role and position in the latest destabilization in Libya, was not even invited by Merkel to much confusion by many analysts.

Although discussions went on all day with a point of the final draft of the conference’s resolution calling for a “permanent ceasefire,” fighting broke out between Sarraj and Haftar forces within hours of the end of the conference. The resolutions also called for an end of air warfare using drones. This is unlikely to occur with militias belonging to Sarraj receiving Turkish-made drones and the LNA using UAE supplied drones. Despite a supposed arms embargo, there is little secret that both sides are receiving significant war material from their backers. Haftar mostly receives his equipment over the Egyptian border while Sarraj gets it via sea, which can then become very complicated for his militias if a sea blockade is imposed by Greece, Egypt or an international coalition.

Being a key reason for the flareup in violence in Libya, French president Emanuel Macron did not hold back on his criticisms of Turkey for sending mercenaries from Syria, that Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov described as “extremists,” to Libya. It has to be remembered that The Guardian revealed that each extremist fighting in Libya from Syria gets paid $2,000, has healthcare guarantees and receives Turkish nationality.

With Turkey adamant in continuing to support the Tripoli government, they have also pulled Greece into Libyan affairs because of the Memorandum of Understanding signed between Turkey President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan and Sarraj to steal Greek maritime space that is rich in oil and gas. Because Greece was dragged into this complex situation in Libya, Haftar before the Berlin Conference made a visit to Greece where he met top officials in the country, including the Prime Minister, Foreign Minister and top intelligence figures to seek diplomatic and political support against Turkish actions. With Turkey having adversarial relations with Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates, alliances are forming to counter Erdoğan’s hegemonic attempts in the region, with Greece strengthening relations with both Arab countries, as well as Egypt, Cyprus, Israel and Haftar. Ankara has failed to find any external support in the region and has made itself isolated. Erdoğan left the Berlin conference early, with reports speculating that he was dismayed with the provision that the Turkish-backed militias in Libya had to be disarmed.

Libya is an oil rich country and strategically located in the middle of the Mediterranean. It is also the gateway between Europe and terrorist organizations based in the Sahel. Because of these reasons, there are far too many conflicting interests from international players for the conflict to conclude with negotiated agreements, let alone in one day without the participation of other key players, Greece and Saudi Arabia.

Erdoğan days ago, said that the Mediterranean will be the center of focus for Turkey’s foreign policy in 2020, meaning that the situation in Libya is unlikely to be resolved so long as the Eurasian country continues to back jihadist forces operating in the North African country. With Turkey failing to remove Syrian President Bashar al-Assad from power since it became a key organizer in anti-government efforts in 2011, the LNA advancing on Tripoli which will mean the removal of Sarraj from power, and finding no international support to steal Greek maritime space, Erdoğan has failed in his attempts for Eastern Mediterranean hegemony, which will increasingly make him irrational in decision-making. For these reasons, the Berlin Conference was nothing but a failure to achieve peace in Libya so-long as Turkey searches for regional dominance and backs radical forces.

*

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 EPA/OMER MESSINGER

Last Wednesday, the coup government of Bolivia launched a massive military operation claiming to be a pre-emptive strike against the expected violence to occur this Wednesday during Plurinational State Foundation Day celebrations that memorializes the change in the name of the country and the adoption of a new constitution in 2009 under the Presidency of Evo Morales. Heavily armed military personnel on the streets, arrest warrants and the denouncements of deputies who are intimidated by violent groups has just continued under the U.S.-backed coup government in La Paz.  

The increased militarization has occurred despite violence, vandalism and looting decreasing since November when Morales was driven out of Bolivia. However, the fear continues and justice has been politicized to such a degree that the coup government has itself reported that there are more than 64,000 judicial proceedings in progress against former authorities and officials associated with Morales’ administration – all leading up to the elections on May 3.

However, the dilemma for the putschists is a fear that Morales’ Movement to Socialism (MAS) Party may win. Morales has refused to legitimize the current leader of Bolivia, Jeanine Añez, further complicating the upcoming elections. It is for this reason, with the huge popularity of Morales remaining, that the coup government fears what might occur on Wednesday, which is not only a Morales-era public holiday, but also the date on which the constitutional mandate of the Executive and Legislative powers ends. Even if the parliament decides to ratify the extension of the mandate by the Constitutional Court, the frustrations of the people might explode.

This comes as the Bolivian people were reinvigorated with Morales stating “If between now and in a little while… I were to return [to Bolivia] or someone else goes back, we must organize as in Venezuela, armed militias of the people,” referring to Bolivarian people’s militias organized by Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro. However, this could be a dangerous statement that could serve to justify further repression and the militarization of Bolivia.

Evo Morales then went to Twitter to say

“Peace, reconciliation and unity in Bolivia they will only be achieved by restoring the rule of law, eliminating motorcycle groups and fighting, ultimately, against inequality, discrimination and poverty.”

It is this very symbol of Bolivian sovereignty and independence that Añez has prioritized the removal of statues and images of Morales from the public sphere. However, it is very unlikely that this would be enough to remove the memory of Morales that Bolivians have for the country’s first indigenous president. Bolivians people know the removal of references to Morales publicly will not erase his achievements from their memory.

With Bolivia being mired by a political crisis for months that still has no solution, the next few days before the anniversary of the founding of the Plurinational State on January 22 has put the government on top military alert, which now realizes that it cannot erase a country’s history at a stroke or deny its identity. However, Añez has decided to silence those voices and as she cannot dissuade them by deploying the army and police to the streets.

The little widespread popularity that the coup government has will continue to decline, especially after the visit of Special Assistant to the President and Senior Director of the United States National Security Council’s Western Hemisphere Affairs directorate, Mauricio Claver-Carone, to Bolivia who reiterated his support for Añez on behalf of Trump. Claver-Carone and Añez talked about Trump’s priorities in this so-called transitional period. In the regional domain scheme, Trump cannot let the Andean country escape from his hands, which is why it is likely that he pushed Añez to rename the anti-imperialist school that Morales created in the Armed Forces of Bolivia in 2016, which was renamed on Friday to Heroes of Ñancahuazu – after the Bolivian military unit that killed revolutionary figure Ernesto “Che” Guevara in 1967, according to TeleSUR. This was of course part of a wider effort to destroy the memory of Morales in Bolivia.

The arrival of Áñez to power, by a coup d’etat in November, gave a twist to Bolivia’s international policy, which during the almost 14 years of Morales’ administration had assumed an “anti-imperialist” position, including the expulsion of the U.S. ambassador and the U.S. anti-drug (DEA) and cooperation (USAID) agencies. Claver-Carome visit certainly improved several steps of rapprochement between La Paz and Washington after the fall of Morales in November.

Although Claver-Carome said that his visit sought to deepen the links between the two countries, of which he said they had the same democratic interests and values, the attempts to destroy the memory of Morales is likely to backfire and create a renewed vigor for support behind the MAS. It is for this reason that Áñez must consider scaling down the violence and persecution against Morales’ supporters, especially as Wednesday will be a highly charged and emotive day, in which Morales supporters view the resistance to her putschist government as part of an anti-imperialist struggle.

*

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: Deputy Senate speaker Jeanine Anez speaks from the balcony of the government Quemado Palace in La Paz after proclaiming herself the country’s interim president (AFP / Aizar RALDES)

Na Conferência de Berlim, o Secretário de Estado dos EUA, Mike Pompeo, pediu “o fim da interferência estrangeira na Líbia, o embargo de armas e um cessar-fogo duradouro”. O mesmo fizeram a França, o Reino Unido e a Itália, os mesmos países que há nove anos formavam, juntamente, com os Estados Unidos,  a ponta de lança da guerra NATO contra a Líbia.

Antes tinham armado contra o governo de Trípoli, sectores tribais e grupos islâmicos, e infiltrado forças especiais entre as quais, milhares de comandos do Catar. Em seguida, declarando que queriam imobilizar Kadafi, o “carrasco do seu povo”, foi lançada a operação de guerra sob comando USA. Em sete meses, a aviação da NATO efectuou 30 mil missões, das quais 10 mil de ataque com mais de 40 mil bombas e mísseis. A Itália colocou à disposição da NATO, 7 bases aéreas e empreendeu com os seus caça-bombardeiros, mais de 1.000 missões na Líbia.

Foi demolido, assim, aquele Estado que, na costa sul do Mediterrâneo, registava “níveis elevados de crescimento económico e indícios avultados de desenvolvimento humano” (como documentado em 2010 pelo próprio Banco Mundial), onde encontravam trabalho cerca de dois milhões de imigrantes africanos.Assim, foi demolido o projecto da Líbia de criar, com os seus fundos soberanos, organismos económicos independentes da União Africana.

Os EUA e a França concordaram em bloquear com a guerra o plano líbio de criar uma moeda africana, em alternativa ao dólar e ao franco CFA imposto a 14 antigas colónias africanas: provam-no os emails da Secretária de Estado, Hillary Clinton, trazidos à luz pelo WikiLeaks ( “Crime” pelo qual Julian Assange está detido numa prisão britânica e arrisca, se for extraditado para os EUA, desde a prisão perpétua até à pena de morte).

Os fundos soberanos, cerca de 150 biliões de dólares investidos no estranjeiro pelo Estado líbio e “congelados” na véspera da guerra, estão em grande parte desaparecidos. Dos 16 biliões de euros líbios bloqueados pelo Euroclear Bank, desapareceram 10 biliões e o mesmo aconteceu noutros bancos da União Europeia (UE).

Agora, a UE, como declarou na Conferência de Berlim, está empenhada em dotar a Líbia da “capacidade de construir instituições nacionais, como a Companhia Petrolífera, o Banco Central e a Autoridade para os Investimentos”. Tudo no âmbito das “reformas económicas estruturais”, ou seja, da privatização das empresas públicas. Dessa forma, pretende-se legalizar o sistema actual, segundo o qual as entradas da exportação de energia, estimadas em mais de 20 biliões de dólares em 2019, são divididas entre grupos de poder e multinacionais. Além das reservas petrolíferas (a maior da África) e do gás natural, existe o imenso aquífero núbio de água fóssil, em perspectiva mais preciosa do que o petróleo, que o Estado líbio começou a usar transportando água através de condutas de 1.300 poços no deserto, para as cidades costeiras.

Está em jogo o controlo do mesmo território líbio de grande importância geoestratégica: recorde-se que, em 1954, os EUA instalaram a Wheelus Field nos arredores de Trípoli, a sua principal base aérea no Mediterrâneo, com caça-bombardeiros também armados com bombas nucleares.

Um dos principais objectivos da política russa de hoje é, certamente, impedir a instalação de bases militares USA/NATO na Líbia. De qualquer forma, a NATO, convidada de pedra na Conferência de Berlim, continuará a desempenhar um papel de primeiro plano na situação da Líbia, em particular através da base de Sigonella. Uma eventual “missão de paz” da União Europeia na Líbia, veria a participação dos países da NATO, que usariam, de facto, os serviços secretos/inteligência, a rede de telecomunicações e o apoio logístico da Aliança, sob comando USA. No entanto, existe a  máxima garantia: em Berlim, os USA e a União Europeia comprometeram-se, solenemente, a “continuar a apoiar fortemente a soberania da Líbia”.

Manlio Dinucci

 

Artigo original em italiano :

Gli aggressori garanti della «sovranità» libica

il manifesto, 21 de Janeiro de 2020

Tradutora : Maria Luísa de Vasconcellos

  • Posted in Português
  • Comments Off on Os agressores, são agora os responsáveis pela “soberania” da Líbia

Gli aggressori garanti della «sovranità» libica

January 21st, 2020 by Manlio Dinucci

Alla Conferenza di Berlino il segretario di stato Usa Mike Pompeo ha richiesto «la fine dell’interferenza straniera in Libia, l’embargo sulle armi e un durevole cessate il fuoco».  Lo stesso hanno fatto Francia, Regno Unito e Italia, gli stessi paesi che nove anni formavano insieme agli Usa la punta di lancia della guerra Nato contro la Libia.

Prima avevano armato contro il governo di Tripoli settori tribali e gruppi islamici, e infiltrato forze speciali tra cui migliaia di commandos qatariani. Quindi, dichiarando di voler fermare Gheddafi «massacratore del suo popolo», veniva lanciata l’operazione bellica sotto comando Usa. In sette mesi, l’aviazione Nato effettuava 30 mila missioni, di cui 10 mila di attacco con oltre 40 mila bombe e missili. L’Italia metteva a disposizione della Nato 7 basi aeree ed effettuava con i propri cacciabombardieri oltre 1.000 missioni sulla Libia.

Veniva così demolito quello Stato che, sulla sponda sud del Mediterraneo, registrava «alti livelli di crescita economica e alti indicatori di sviluppo umano» (come documentava nel 2010 la stessa Banca Mondiale), dove trovavano lavoro circa due milioni di immigrati per lo più africani. Veniva così affossato il progetto della Libia di far nascere, con i suoi fondi sovrani, organismi economici indipendenti dell’Unione africana.

Usa e Francia si accordarono per bloccare con la guerra il piano libico di creare una moneta africana, in alternativa al dollaro e al franco Cfa imposto a 14 ex colonie africane: lo provano le mail della segretaria di stato Hillary Clinton portate alla luce da WikiLeaks («reato» per cui Julian Assange è detenuto in un carcere britannico e rischia, se estradato negli Usa, dall’ergastolo alla pena di morte).

I fondi sovrani, circa 150 miliardi di dollari investiti all’estero dallo Stato libico e «congelati» alla vigilia della guerra, sono in gran parte spariti. Dei 16 miliardi di euro libici bloccati nella Euroclear Bank ne sono spariti 10, e lo stesso è avvenuto in altre banche della Ue.

Ora la Ue , come ha dichiarato alla Conferenza di Berlino, si impegna a dotare la Libia della «capacità di costruire istituzioni nazionali, tipo la Compagnia petrolifera, la Banca Centrale e l’Autorità per gli investimenti». Il tutto nel quadro di «riforme economiche strutturali», ossia della privatizzazione delle aziende pubbliche. Si intende così legalizzare nella sostanza il sistema odierno, secondo cui gli introiti dell’export energetico, stimati in oltre 20 miliardi di dollari nel 2019, vengono spartiti tra gruppi di potere  e multinazionali. Oltre alle riserve petrolifere (le maggiori dell’Africa) e di gas naturale, vi è l’immensa falda nubiana di acqua fossile in prospettiva più preziosa del petrolio, che lo Stato libico aveva cominciato a usare trasportando l’acqua attraverso condotte da 1.300 pozzi nel deserto fino alle città costiere.

E’ in gioco il controllo dello stesso territorio libico di primaria importanza geostrategica: va ricordato che nel 1954 gli Usa avevano installato a Wheelus Field, alle porte di Tripoli, la loro principale base aerea nel Mediterraneo con cacciabombardieri armati anche di bombe nucleari.

Uno dei principali obiettivi dell’odierna politica russa in Libia è certamente quello di impedire che qui si installino basi militari Usa/Nato. In qualsiasi caso la Nato, convitato di pietra alla Conferenza di Berlino, continuerà a svolgere un ruolo di primo piano nella situazione libica, in particolare attraverso la base di Sigonella. Una eventuale «missione di pace» Ue in Libia vedrebbe la partecipazione di paesi Nato, che userebbero di fatto  l’intelligence, la rete di telecomunicazioni  e il supporto logistico dell’Alleanza sotto comando Usa. C’è però la massima garanzia: a Berlino Usa e Ue si sono solennemente impegnati a «continuare ad appoggiare fortemente la sovranità della Libia».

il manifesto, 21 gennaio 2020

  • Posted in Italiano
  • Comments Off on Gli aggressori garanti della «sovranità» libica

Support Independent Media: Global Research Needs Your Help

January 20th, 2020 by The Global Research Team

At Global Research we have always sought out ways to make the articles we publish accessible to as many people as possible. We want the information on our website to circulate freely which is why we don’t use paywalls, you can read the news and analysis we publish free of charge.

Unfortunately, our monthly running costs still put us in the red. Despite a welcomed surge in readership over the past few weeks, less than 1% of our readers have so far made a financial contribution to support our work. If we are to survive, we’ll need your help. We are now asking the remaining 99% to join in and contribute to keeping independent media alive!

Click to donate:

Click to make a one-time or a recurring donation


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

Click to view our membership plans


We understand that times are tough for everyone. If you cannot make a financial contribution but you would like to help out, please see below for details on becoming a Global Research Volunteer…

With measures being put in place to reduce our reach (such as tacit online censorship of independent media) there are a number of ways you can help us make sure that the questions we ask continue to be heard:
  • Establish an email list of some fifty friends and family and forward the Global Research Newsletter and/or your favourite Global Research articles to this list on a daily basis.
  • Use the various instruments of online posting and social media creatively to “spread the word”. Click the “like” and “share” buttons on our article pages for starters.
  • Post one or more Global Research articles to internet discussion groups and blogs to build a dialogue around the subject matters we cover.
  • Do you have friends who would benefit from our articles? Consider signing them up for our daily newsletter.
  • Are you part of a community group or organized discussion group? Submit a topic we have covered or a specific article from our website for discussion at your next meeting.

Thank you for supporting independent media.

The Global Research Team

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Support Independent Media: Global Research Needs Your Help

Just as one New Year’s festivities end, another begins. China is set to celebrate the Year of the Rat on January 25. Folklore says it’s a good year for business and fertility. But it also marks an economic and political milestone.

For the first time since the 18th century China is entering a decade as an established global economic power. Ten years ago, with the West battling a financial crisis, people were talking about the future rise of China as if it were some distance away, if ever. Many in the West thought China would have its own financial crisis. Instead, the Chinese economy, six years ago, became the world’s largest, measured by purchasing power parity, according to the World Bank. Its new status, and its purchasing power, helped the West recover. It kept on replenishing the global economic punch bowl.

A $600 billion stimulus package was launched in 2008 to boost domestic demand and spur growth. In comparison, the United States and Japan pumped a comparatively meager $152 billion and $100 billion respectively, into their domestic markets.

True, today its turbo-charge advance has slowed, with the official growth rate at 6.2 percent, down from the double digit growth. Those are the official statistics. The actual growth rate may be much lower but there is no disputing the fact that the economy is more than twice as large as it was in 2010.

China, a decade ago, was synonymous with cheap manufacturing and consequently not taken too seriously. The same misconception was prevalent in the 1960s about what turned out to be another Asian powerhouse, Japan. In the 1980s property around the imperial palace in Tokyo was worth more than all the real estate in California. Massive bank debt, leading to stagnation since the early 1990s, ended that bizarre situation. China, on the other hand, has seen a marked rise in property prices, but nothing anywhere near as extravagant.

The West, in the first decade of the century, believed that China would remain essentially defined by imitation, unable to match its capacity for innovation.

Then came Huawei, Tencent and Alibaba to challenge Microsoft, Google, Facebook and Amazon. Shenzhen can look Silicon Valley firmly in the eye. One indicator of its rising intellectual power is that China accounts for almost half of all global patent filings.

“Asia continues to outpace other regions in filing activity for patents, trademarks, industrial designs and other intellectual property rights that are at the center of the global economy,” World Intellectual Property Organisation Director General Francis Gurry said in October. “China alone accounted for almost half of all the world’s patent filings, with India also registering impressive increases. Asia has become a global hub for innovation.”

The Belt and Road Initiative, a global network of highways, railways, ports, train stations and airports, was launched by China in 2013.

The Eurasian landmass, home to more than 60 percent of the world’s population, could be transformed. More than 140 countries, overwhelmingly from the developing world, have now signed up.

But as Chinese leaders toast their success at New Year banquets they will be aware of challenges they face.

A brutal crackdown in the restive western region of Xinjiang is ongoing, tarnishing China’s global image. Hong Kong continues to seethe, but has been unable to attract any sympathy on the mainland.  The trade war with the US, or at least the first phase, has been resolved. Crucially, the deal did not tackle some of the major issues, such as industrial subsidies for Chinese companies or foreign companies facing forced technology transfers for market access.

A caveat also accompanied China’s pledge to buy more US goods. Chinese purchases of $40bn worth of US farm goods a year over the next two years would be “based on market conditions”.

But it is debt levels that could cause indigestion at the banquets.

At more than 300 percent of GDP, debt is a clear and present danger.

This is mostly financed by Chinese banks and off-the record lending by financial institutions in the “shadow bank” sector to provincial governments.  Like the sub-prime crisis in the US, much of this debt, like non-performing mortgages, is hidden from plain sight to evade a law in China that forbids banks lending directly to provincial governments.

What is not hidden is that hundreds of billions of dollars are owed by Chinese companies in debt that is coming due this year.These companies must pay back $90 billion in debt denominated in American dollars, according to S&P Global. This shows that the lenders are global companies and investors outside China. In 2021, an additional $110 billion is due.

How this issue is tackled will determine not only China’s financial health but also that of the global economy.

*

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

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Is 2020 China’s Year of Economic and Political Milestone?
  • Tags:

 

SELECTED ARTICLE

How Mercenaries and Advisers Fight the Wars the UK Won’t Own

By Paul Rogers, January 20, 2020

The Bahraini repression of dissent in 2011-12 caused controversy around the world, but the British government – then a Conservative/Liberal Democrat coalition – only mildly condemned it and the media in western Gulf states scarcely mentioned it. Behind the scenes, though, UK armed forces personnel were clearly helping the Saudis support the Bahraini government’s repression, just as they have been taken part more recently in Saudi actions in Yemen.

General Haftar Still Holds All the Cards After Berlin’s Libya Summit

By Andrew Korybko, January 20, 2020

Berlin’s Libya summit ended without any real changes to the status quo despite all relevant foreign parties to that country’s civil war superficially agreeing to some key points such as the need to abide by the arms embargo and commit to a ceasefire as soon as possible, meaning that General Haftar still holds all the cards so the fate of the country is ultimately his and his GCC+ patrons’ to decide, though Turkey will do its utmost to deter them from making another military push on the capital.

The People of Colombia Are Cracking Up the Walls of War and Authoritarianism

By Justin Podur, January 20, 2020

In Colombia, after winning the runoff in 2018, President Duque may have felt that he had a mandate to enact right-wing policies, which in Colombia have usually included new war measures in addition to the usual austerity. But combining pension cuts with betraying the peace process was simply stealing too much from the future: Young people joined the November 21 protests in huge numbers (the lowest estimates are 250,000).

“Orders to Kill” Dr. Martin Luther King: The Government that Honors MLK with a National Holiday Killed Him

By Edward Curtin, January 20, 2020

Revolutionaries are, of course, anathema to the power elites who, with all their might, resist such rebels’ efforts to transform society.  If they can’t buy them off, they knock them off.  Forty-eight years after King’s assassination, the causes he fought for – civil rights, the end to U.S. wars of aggression , and economic justice for all – remain not only unfulfilled, but have worsened in so many respects.  And King’s message has been enervated by the sly trick of giving him a national holiday and urging Americans to make it “a day of service.”  Needless to say, such service does not include non-violent war resistance or protesting a decadent system of economic injustice.

The Roots of American Demonization of Shi’a Islam

By Pepe Escobar, January 20, 2020

Washington had been deploying a Long War even before the concept was popularized by the Pentagon in 2001, immediately after 9/11: it’s a Long War against Iran. It started via the coup against the democratically elected government of Mosaddegh in 1953, replaced by the Shah’s dictatorship. The whole process was turbo-charged over 40 years ago when the Islamic Revolution smashed those good old Cold War days when the Shah reigned as the privileged American “gendarme of the (Persian) Gulf”.

Pompeo Claims to Know Nothing, but Can We Believe Him?

By Steven Sahiounie, January 20, 2020

Secretary of State Mike Pompeo stated in a Friday radio interview that he had not been previously aware that former US Ambassador Marie Yovanovitch had been under surveillance in Ukraine. “Until this story broke, the best of my recollection, I’d never heard of this at all,” said Pompeo. During the interview, Pompeo failed to defend Yovanovitch or to express concern about the alleged stalking of a US diplomat.

NAFTA 1.0: Was It a “Legal Agreement”? One of Its Signatories Linked to Organized Crime. And What About NAFTA 2.0?

By Prof Michel Chossudovsky, January 19, 2020

There is evidence that one of the signatories of NAFTA 1.0 had  links to organized crime. The Mexican President Carlos Salinas de Gortiari had pervasive family ties to the Mexican Drug Cartel. In turn, the President of the United States had a long standing personal relationship to the Salinas family.

While this was known and documented prior to the signing of the agreement in 1992, the information was withheld. It was not an object of legislative debate nor was it revealed to the broader public until AFTER the official launching of NAFTA on January 1st 1994.

 

 

 

  • Posted in NO READ MORE LINK
  • Comments Off on Selected Articles: The Government that Honors MLK with a National Holiday Killed Him

The Libya Conference and “The New Scramble for Africa”

January 20th, 2020 by Johannes Stern

A major international conference on Libya will convene in Berlin on Sunday. At the invitation of Germany’s Chancellor Angela Merkel, heads of state and top officials of the leading imperialist powers in Europe and the US will come together to determine the fate of the resource-rich country and ultimately the entire continent. Also in attendance will be representatives of Russia, China and the most important regional powers, including Egypt, Algeria and Turkey, together with the leaders of the opposing factions in Libya’s civil war, Prime Minister Fayez al-Sarraj and Gen. Khalifa Haftar, and representatives of the African Union.

In both its form and venue, the meeting is reminiscent of the infamous Congo Conference, which was also held in Berlin from November 15, 1884 to February 26, 1885 at the invitation of German Chancellor Bismarck. Its outcome was the “General Act of the Berlin Conference,” adopted by representatives of the US, the Ottoman Empire, the European powers and Russia. This agreement accelerated the division of Africa into colonies and ultimately intensified the tensions between the imperialist powers, culminating in the mass slaughter of the First World War that began in August 1914.

Even before the Congo Conference, the scramble for Africa was already in full swing. France occupied Tunisia in 1881 and Guinea in 1884. In 1882, British troops invaded Egypt, which at that time was officially part of the Ottoman Empire. Italy subdued parts of Eritrea in 1870 and 1882. In April 1884, the German Reich annexed German Southwest Africa (today Namibia), moving into Togo and Cameroon in July of the same year.

With the Congo Conference, the colonial subjugation of Africa, accompanied by a previously unknown level of imperialist barbarism, gathered pace. Within a few years, the European powers had carved up virtually the entire continent. The Congo fell to Belgium, most of the Sahara and the Sahel to France, Berlin secured German East Africa (today’s Tanzania, Burundi and Rwanda, as well as part of Mozambique) and Britain conquered Sudan by finally crushing the Mahdist Revolt in 1899. This was followed by the subjugation of South Africa by Britain in the Second Boer War (1899 to 1902), the division of Morocco by France and Spain, and Italy’s conquest of Libya in 1912.

As at the end of the 19th and the beginning of the 20th century, the major powers pursued their predatory imperialist interests under the guise of “diplomacy” and “peace.” Today, they act even more nakedly to achieve the same objectives.

In a commentary on the Libya conference, the daily Tagesspiegel states quite bluntly: “Libya’s strategic importance is the reason why so many people want to get involved there—although it is generally not attractive to invest soldiers or mercenaries and billions in a civil war with an uncertain outcome. Libya has oil. Whoever controls Libya controls what is currently the most important migration route to Europe—and thus becomes an indispensable partner of the EU.”

The author, Christoph von Marschall, whose aristocratic ancestors were high-ranking foreign policy-makers of the German Reich, openly expresses the traditions to which Berlin is returning. “Germany now needs the cool perspective of Otto von Bismarck on realpolitik. And it calls for his diplomatic skills as an ‘honest broker.’” But “the role of the honest broker does not mean that he has to be altruistic and cannot represent his own interests. Germany has these: stability in Libya, reducing pressure on Europe through uncontrolled migration.”

Then, as now, the “honest broker” is really an imperialist brigand, who is seeking a “place in the sun.” While the German government did not participate in the NATO bombing of Libya in 2011, it has been all the more aggressive in its involvement in Africa since its about-face in foreign policy in 2013–2014. Now, Germany is engaged with more than 1,000 soldiers deployed in the French-led occupation of Mali, maintains a military camp in neighbouring Niger and advances its imperialist aims across the continent with increasing aggressiveness.

Last March, Berlin updated its “Africa Policy Guidelines,” which were first adopted in May 2014. This revision evokes the “growing relevance of Africa for Germany and Europe,” which is due, among other things, to the continent’s increasingly dynamic economy and “rich natural resources.” The government therefore called for the strengthening of “Germany’s political, security and development policy commitment in Africa in a targeted manner,” to act “early, quickly, decisively and substantially” and to “deploy the entire spectrum of its available resources cross-departmentally.”

The other imperialist powers are pursuing similar objectives and have also increased their military and political intervention on the continent in recent years. France has massively expanded its engagement in the Sahel zone, and the US is also escalating its intervention in Africa, especially to curb Russian and Chinese influence. Nine years after the NATO bombing of Libya—which reduced much of the country’s infrastructure to rubble, left thousands of civilians dead and wounded and led to the lynch-mob murder of Colonel Gaddafi—the country is once again at the centre of imperialist intrigues. But now the stakes are even greater, with all of the belligerents of the previous war arrayed against each other, fighting for control of the booty.

Last year, France, in alliance with Russia, Egypt and the United Arab Emirates, supported Haftar, at least unofficially, while Italy and Qatar worked closely with the internationally recognized transitional government (GNA) of al-Sarraj. Turkey began sending soldiers to Tripoli on January 5 of this year to strengthen the GNA against Haftar’s military offensive. The decision was criticized not only by the general’s open allies, but also by Trump and the German government.

Berlin, in particular, is trying to use its contacts with both of the opposing factions in the Libyan civil war to bring the belligerents together and increase its own influence.

There are many indications that, behind the scenes, Berlin and the European Union are preparing a comprehensive military intervention. On Friday, EU Foreign Affairs Commissioner Josep Borrell did not rule out a European Union military intervention in Libya. “It is crucial that we assert our interests more strongly and, if necessary, robustly,” he said in an interview with Der Spiegel. “If there is a ceasefire in Libya, then the EU must be prepared to help implement and monitor this ceasefire—possibly also with soldiers, for example as part of an EU mission.”

Borrell left no doubt that such a military operation could be quickly extended to large parts of North Africa to more aggressively enforce European interests against Russia, China and the US. “The situation in the Sahel is no better—on the contrary,” he said. “Last year, 1,500 soldiers were killed in the fight against terrorists in Mali, Burkina Faso and Niger alone.” The entire region is “a powder keg,” he added.

But Europe has “many opportunities to exercise power,”  he insisted. He declared: “We just have to want it. I’m not talking about military power, at least not only. The New Year has hardly begun, and it almost seems as if there are only crises everywhere. So, we should know what our goals are. And we must be ready, if necessary, to defend these goals even if they run counter to those of our allies.”

This situation of growing conflict, paired with threatening gestures on the eve of the conference, confirms the analysis Lenin made in his classic work Imperialism: “… the only conceivable basis under capitalism for the division of spheres of influence, interests, colonies, etc. is a calculation of the strength of those participating, their general economic, financial, military strength, etc. And the strength of these participants in the division does not change to an equal degree, for the even development of different undertakings, trusts, branches of industry, or countries is impossible under capitalism.”

Therefore, alliances between imperialist powers, according to Lenin, “no matter what form they may assume, whether of one imperialist coalition against another, or of a general alliance embracing all the imperialist powers, are inevitably nothing more than a ‘truce’ in periods between wars.” He continued: “Peaceful alliances prepare the ground for wars, and in their turn grow out of wars; the one conditions the other, producing alternating forms of peaceful and non-peaceful struggle on one and the same basis of imperialist connections and relations within world economics and world politics.”

As with the murder of Tehran’s Gen. Qassem Suleimani, in violation of international law, and US war preparations against Iran, workers and young people must understand that the Libya conference constitutes a warning. The profound crisis of the capitalist system is driving the great powers ever deeper into the abyss of imperialist war and barbarism. The preparation of new neocolonial wars of aggression in Africa and the Middle East, which pose the danger of a Third World War, can be prevented only through the mobilization of the international working class on the basis of a socialist and revolutionary program.

*

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

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on The Libya Conference and “The New Scramble for Africa”

Israel and Bedouins Face Off in the Negev Desert

January 20th, 2020 by Jack Dalton

Mohammad Danfiri stands at the edge of his Bedouin family’s sheep enclosure in the Negev Desert, looking out at a pair of cell phone towers at the top of a nearby hill. They are situated in an open spot between one end of his village and the other – an area, he explains, where an extension of Israel’s major eastern highway will be built.

A row of houses stands about 60 metres from the towers, where highway plans have been approved. But the Israeli government is advancing plans to evict not only the residents closest to the planned road.

The entire 5,000-person village – and many surrounding ones – will be placed in temporary housing units under the government’s plan, severely limiting their ability to herd sheep and develop agriculture, the primary means of employment in Bedouin communities.

Danfiri is one of at least 36,000 Bedouins in Israel’s Negev (known in Arabic as the Naqab) facing eviction due to a host of projects like the highway expansion.

In order to implement these development plans put forth by government bodies, the Israeli military, private companies and non-profit groups, Israel’s Bedouin Development Authority – the governmental body responsible for handling interactions between Bedouins and the state – is aiming to move tens of thousands of people into short-term housing.

Bedouins refer to the temporary housing as “caravans”, as they are small mobile homes that Israel intends to host whole families. In October, an Israeli district planning committee began to deliberate on whether to approve these transfer plans.

The residents facing displacement live in villages the government deems “unrecognised”, though most have lived on or near the land since the country was established in 1948. During the past 50 years, Israel has attempted to move Bedouins into “recognised” communities, repeatedly arguing that those in unrecognised areas have no claim to the land.

Unrecognised villages are denied any infrastructure or support from the government. There are no means of transportation, no roads, no schools, and Israeli authorities don’t accept or negotiate with their local leadership.

As a result, the communities live a bare-bones life in a harsh terrain. Many herd sheep to sell meat products. Some are able to get work at nearby Israeli companies.

‘No solution’

Danfiri, 47, remembers growing up in the village with the only water source being a well that collected rainwater. He and his friends would bring up the water, and his mother would use her scarf to drain out the dirt. On Fridays, adults would hook up a television to a car battery to watch cartoons and Egyptian movies.

“Kids today have everything,” Danfiri says, referring to the solar panels that are now built on top of many Bedouin houses. “Fridges, internet, everything is available on the spot.”

Danfiri said in order to protect the lifestyle of his community, Bedouins will reject the government’s transfer plans. If they absolutely have to move, he says, they’ll shun the “caravans” and stay as close to their original homes as possible – even if that’s right next to a construction site.

“We’re not moving, we’re going to fight it,” he says. “It’s not going to happen… A project like this would erase the Bedouin culture and heritage.”

Mohammad Danfiri with a horse (MEE/Jack Dodson)

Mohammad Danfiri with a horse (MEE/Jack Dodson)

For a community that defines itself around a traditional, agriculture-based lifestyle, the planned evictions are seen as the latest move in a decades-long government campaign to concentrate them into specific areas. For people like Danfiri, that means giving up part of their identity.

“Everywhere I go, the thing I’m most proud of is being Bedouin. Specifically in the unrecognised villages, Bedouins much more preserve traditional culture,” he says.

Adalah, a Haifa-based NGO that focuses on legal rights for Arabs in Israel, opposes the plans on multiple grounds. For one thing, the organisation argues, the planned housing units aren’t fit for occupancy under the law because they don’t have adequate infrastructure and spacial standards.

The NGO also published a white paper last month arguing that the plans constituted a “separate but equal” approach to Israeli citizens in the Negev.

“One system relies on a planning network that works for the benefit, well-being and future development of Israeli Jewish citizens and communities, and places the Israeli Jewish citizen at the centre of the process,” it wrote.

“The second system relies on a planning network that seeks displacement and transfer of Bedouin citizens to temporary housing, and subordinates the entire Palestinian Bedouin population to an oppressive reality without their consultation.”

Adalah also argues that the plan will increase poverty among Bedouins who are evicted and those who live in the communities where the camps will be built, because it can harm both groups’ access to work.

Myssana Morany, an attorney with Adalah, says it’s not clear how quickly the plans will be carried out and how many people will be moved in the end. Because the government’s wording was vague in the plans they filed, she says, it reveals a broader plan that could affect up to 80,000 people. Similarly, the lack of a specific number of housing units means the government can evict as many people as it would like to.

“To us it means they have no solution for the people they are planning to evict,” Morany says.

Myssana Morany stretches out a map she made manually because the unrecognised villages aren't listed on other maps (MEE/Jack Dodson)

Myssana Morany stretches out a map she made manually because the unrecognised villages aren’t listed on other maps (MEE/Jack Dodson)

Hussein El Rafaiya, a 58-year-old from an unrecognised village called Birh Hamam, served as the head of a council that represents the unrecognised villages from 2002 to 2007. Israel doesn’t recognise the council’s authority and doesn’t negotiate with it.

Rafaiya pointed to historical examples of Israeli pressure on Bedouin communities to force them away from their homes, like decades of home demolitions and evictions by the government.

“We have no possibility of addressing the situation through the courts or the laws,” Rafaiya says, explaining that Israeli law simply doesn’t recognise Bedouin claims to the land or housing.

“This is not the behaviour of a state: it’s criminal behaviour… All these efforts weren’t effective enough in the eyes of the Bedouin Authority, so they decided to create these temporary displacement camps.”

In early 2020, Israel’s southern district planning committee will decide whether to move forward. The government’s two temporary housing plans emphasise the need to “urgently” evict Bedouins on the basis of development projects. In the eyes of human rights groups, it’s a way to come up with a fast but ineffective legal solution in order to evict people.

Expanding presence

In recent years, the Israeli military has moved bases to the Negev in an effort to expand the military and industrial presence there, and as a way to increase the population. The government has also invested resources into helping the south’s largest city, Be’er Sheba, rebrand itself as a hub for technology and entrepreneurship.

The Negev has become a home to a wide range of projects, including solar farms, power plants, greenhouses and other industrialisation efforts. The government has expressed interest in supporting the cultivation of medical marijuana crops, manufacturing and cyber defence, all through the use of grants and subsidies.

The idea, according to the state’s Ministry of Economy, is to compete with Silicon Valley.

One of the key players in this process is the Jewish National Fund (JNF), a US- and Jerusalem-based organisation that is granted special governmental authorities by the Israeli government to purchase and develop land for Jewish settlement.

It oversees many projects across the region, often clearing massive expanses of land to build forests. Some unrecognised Bedouin communities are in areas marked for eviction due to JNF projects.

On the JNF’s website introducing its Negev blueprint, it outlines a plan to settle 500,000 people from elsewhere in the region.

“The Negev Desert represents 60 percent of Israel’s landmass but is home to just 8 percent of the country’s population,” it wrote. “And in those lopsided numbers, we see an unprecedented opportunity for growth.”

The JNF’s “Blueprint Negev” plan features a prominent priority to support Bedouin communities in the region, but it only lists partnerships with recognised Bedouin towns.

A JNF spokesperson did not respond to an emailed request for comment.

Thabet Abu Rass, the co-director of Abraham Initiatives, an NGO focused on political rights in Israel, said he disagreed with the government’s plan primarily because it doesn’t take into account any of the Bedouin community’s needs.

“It’s a different terminology of uprooting people. The problem here is uprooting people,” Rass said.

“The government of Israel is investing a lot of money in planning. In one point, it’s good to plan for people, but on another point, it’s not good to plan against their will… the Bedouins have nothing to say about it.”

Rass recalled multiple instances where the Israeli government has made plans for the Negev without consulting the Bedouins, and without accepting or even addressing their claims to land.

“The issue of land in Israel is ideologically motivated,” Rass said. “Israel is defining itself as a Jewish state, and it’s important for them to control more and more land.”

For Rafaiya, the plans are simply unacceptable. Bedouins from recognised communities won’t move, he said.

“This plan is a disaster for us,” Rafaiya says. “The state can come and demolish houses and communities. But we will only be moved as bodies, we will be buried on our land.”

*

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 unrecognised Bedouin village of Birh Hamam in the Negev Desert (MEE/Jack Dodson)

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Israel and Bedouins Face Off in the Negev Desert
  • Tags: ,

On 3 January 2020 a drone, believed to be operated by the United States, fired a missile upon a convoy of cars departing Baghdad airport, killing at least nine persons. Amongst the victims was Major General Qassem Solemani, a high ranking Iranian general who at the time of his murder was engaged in what is accurately described as a peace mission. He was carrying documents from the government of Saudi Arabia that are understood to have been peace proposals, including a possible cessation of Saudi military actions in the region.

The content of the documents has not been disclosed in detail, and in the flurry of events following Solemani’s assassination, they have tended to disappear from the news cycle. If they were in fact proposals governing a possible ceasefire agreement, then there would be ample motivation for their disappearance.

It has been further suggested that the Saudi initiative was with the knowledge of and tacit consent of the Americans. If this is true, and again there has been a general silence on the point, then it would represent a new level of double-dealing by the Americans.

Trump certainly boasted about killing Solemani, although whether or not he was aware of the nature of Solemani’s mission is another undisclosed detail. If he had such knowledge then the level of betrayal and double-dealing reached new heights, even by the amoral standards of United States foreign policy.

Following the assassination, Iran retaliated with precision strikes on two United States military targets in Iraq. Reports have suggested that the strikes were forewarned via the Swiss embassy with the result that the United States troops in the two targeted sites were moved to safety, resulting in no US casualties from the strike.

Again, there are conflicting reports, none of which make much sense. Some reports have suggested that the United States allowed the retaliation to explain the complete absence of any attempt at defence. Why go to the trouble of killing a senior Iranian officer (undoubtably a war crime in the circumstances prevailing here) and then permit a free retaliation by the Iranians? It makes no logical or military sense.

The more logical explanation is that the much vaunted, and generally inaccurate, reports of the effectiveness of United States military defence was simply unable to respond effectively. The care taken by the Iranians to avoid human casualties, and the precision with which the targets were hit, was making a different point: nowhere within the Iranians range is safe.

Within hours of the Iranian’s strike, a Ukraine airliner, carrying among others a large contingent of Canadian citizens was shot down by the Iranian defence system close to Tehran. On the face of it, there was no logical reason for Iranian air defence to shoot down a civilian aircraft. The rush to blame Iran for the tragedy has tended to avoid analysis of several curious features as to what actually happened.

All civilian commercial aircraft carry an and electronic system, the constant emission of signals from which identifies the plane as civilian and therefore prima facie not an object to be of concern. Precisely what happened to the aircraft’s civilian transmission is at this stage unknown, but clearly something must have happened to it to cause the military defence system to fail to make the appropriate identification. Reports of the air defence system being on high alert etc simply make no rational sense as a reason for shooting down a civilian aircraft.

Something caused the ground defence system to mis-identify the plane and to fire its missiles. That the plane was experiencing a degree of difficulty before it was fired upon and had in fact turned away from its approved flight path reinforces the suspicion that it was experiencing difficulties before the air defence system was activated.

The complete absence of any reports of communication from the pilot to air-traffic control prior to the plane being shot down reinforces the suspicion that the plane was in fact experiencing difficulties before the air defence missile was fired.

Again, this is not rocket science. Something caused the pilot to change his flight path. The most obvious answer is electronic and/or mechanical failure. That same trouble prevented the pilot from communicating with air-traffic control. Whatever occurred to cause the plane trouble must also have damaged or disabled the aircraft‘s civil identification system.

Initial reports from the Iranian’s air defence system describing the planes transmitter identifying it as a civilian aircraft, as having ceased communications several minutes before the missiles were fired. Those missiles, known as TOR, by their Russian manufacturers, have an inbuilt system that enables them to identify friend or foe. These are obviously there to prevent any accidental shooting down of friendly civilian aircraft.

What is of material importance in the present case is that the capacity also exists for an unfriendly power to electronically hack both an aircraft and a missile defence system. The missiles used by the Iranian defence system have such a vulnerability. The logical inference to draw from the known sequence of events is that the Ukrainian airliner suffered a technical failure that caused it to alter course, probably intending to return to the airport.

The loss of radio contact and the non-functioning of its electronic identification system resulted in the defence system being unable to identify the aircraft as civilian. The big question which currently remains unanswered is whether the aircraft’s electronic failure was an unfortunate mechanical defect or whether it was the result of malfeasance by an exterior actor.

The fact that the aircraft’s scheduled departure was significantly delayed may have created a time opportunity for its electronic system to be sabotaged. The close proximity of the time of the Iranian’s missile assault on the American targets in Iraq and the embarrassing failure of the Iranians air defence system stretches any belief in it being only a tragic coincidence beyond a rational limit.

In the context of the long ongoing warfare between Iran and the United States, it would be foolish to rule out the very real possibility that this was not a tragic accident but rather the inevitable result of an act of warfare of whom innocent civilians, not for the first time, are the main victims.

*

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.

James O’Neill, an Australian-based Barrister at Law, exclusively for the online magazine “New Eastern Outlook”.

Featured image is from NEO

After over three years of chaotic and often bad-tempered negotiations to leave the EU – part one of Britain’s bitter separation becomes a reality in just two weeks.

The vast majority of the British public had no idea just how powerful Britain was as a member of the EU. First of all, we should not forget that the EU is a modern-day empire. It is a bloc of 520 million people in 28 countries organised from a political hub that Britain was at the centre of.

It was Welshman Roy Jenkins, who rose to become European Commission president in 1977, and Arthur Cockfield, the U.K.’s commissioner from 1985, who were architects of the monetary union and the single market, respectively. It was the U.K.’s rebellious nature combined with its long free-trade instincts that guaranteed the bloc wasn’t taken over by the isolationists and nationalists.

Yes, it was Britain who helped design and create the very institution it now seeks to tear apart.

It’s ironic is it not that throughout its membership, Britain served as a substantial counterbalance to the competing powers of France and Germany. Germany is now at the beginning of a recessionary cycle and is soon to lose its tenacious and forceful leader in Angela Merkel to a much weaker model of authority. France’s president Macron is attempting to take the lead role in Europe but has many domestic issues and France does not have the gravitas and poise of Britain’s once-famous diplomatic skill sets. If Britain had chosen to stay a member, by now it would be the nation leading it. A new empire staring up at a country with a long history of being stable in an uncertain world.

But what now? Sajid Javid, Britain’s Chancellor of the Exchequer has just told the Financial Times the UK would not be a “rule-taker” after Brexit, urging businesses to “adjust”. The chancellor said the Treasury would not support manufacturers that favour staying aligned with EU rules, as companies had known since 2016 that the UK was going to leave the EU.

But what terms were they? We still don’t know and won’t for some time to come.

With the new Johnson majority, Javid is now saying something that simply could not be said before – that some companies, no matter how big or structurally important to the UK will suffer because of Brexit.

The chancellor also said in the same interview he wanted to double the UK’s annual economic growth to between 2.7 and 2.8% – just as the economy is flatling and without saying how.

As a direct result of the 2016 EU referendum, Britain’s economy is now 3 per cent smaller. The latest research finds, even accounting for the weaker global economy, Britain’s competitor’s and by international standards, Britain will have lost £200billion in economic activity by the end of this year. In little over four years, the ideology of Brexit will have cost more than the combined financial contribution it made to the EU in 47 years of membership.

And while senior government ministers have been quietly threatening business leaders to not express their negative views on Brexit – a position that is unlawful for business leaders in public companies, these very business leaders have finally lost their collective tempers with forceful resentment and publicly reacted.

The aerospace, automotive, chemicals, food and drink and pharmaceutical sectors have now jointly warned that this government and its economic policies aimed at Brexit could pose “serious risk to manufacturing competitiveness”. Together, these sectors employ 1.1 million people, contributing £98bn to the UK economy each year. And yet, the government appears emboldened enough to treat them exactly the same as Britain did the coal and steel industry. There’s a reason. Before the news came to be public knowledge that the government would shift its political and economic position after the election, government policy was being reshaped for a post-Brexit world.

As is further proof is needed as to the economic realities approaching Britain, one only has to listen to eurosceptic Prof. Patrick Minford. He was a notable defender of Margeret Thatcher’s economic policies, was given an OBE by the Tory government in the late 1990s and is a notable member of the Economists for Brexit group which advocated the UK leaving the European Union. Minford genuinely believes that Brexit could substantially increase Britain’s GDP (by 6.8%).

In a recent meeting with government ministers, Minford confirms a new reality and these are his very words (watch Minford HERE):

“It’s perfectly true that if you remove protection of the sort that has been given, for instance, to the car industries, you are going to have a change in the situation facing that industry – and you are going to have to run it down. And it will be in your interests to do so in just the same way as you ran down the coal industry and the steel industry. These things happen. You have to deal with the compensation problems along the route. It will be a process that can’t be entertained without compensation. Reform always requires compensation.”

This is what the aerospace, automotive, chemicals, food and drink and pharmaceutical sectors have suddenly started warning about. They understand that their future in Britain is no longer assured. British industry wrote to the government as a collective in an attempt to be heard. Their worries are primarily about ‘regulatory alignment’ with the EU.

Pan-European regulatory alignment has been a success in our industries, supporting continued creation and retention of highly skilled manufacturing jobs in the UK. It is important this regulatory alignment should continue after Brexit as a critical element of the UK’s future relationship with the EU”.

The government have just confirmed that ‘regulatory alignment’ has been sacrificed on the altar of the free-market. Minford believes that whilst these industries will be the sacrificed, design, marketing and hi-tech will benefit.

It should be noted that Prof Minford fully supported Thatchers Community Charge (Poll Tax) reforms that led directly to the Poll Tax riots and Conservative ministers to oust her in 1990. The Poll Tax was then abolished because of its economic failure and the political meltdown it caused.

*

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

International Life Sciences Institute (ILSI), an American nonprofit with an innocuous sounding name has been quietly infiltrating Indian government’s health and nutrition bodies influencing India’s food policy on behalf of the chemical industry.

New Food Packaging Labeling Rules

Last year the Food Safety and Standards Authority of India (FSSAI) proposed to introduce a traffic light labelling measure, with red spots being used to warn of high fat, sugar or salt content in packaged foods. The FSSAI said these would form the Food Safety and Standards (Labelling and Display) Regulations, 2018.

The draft regulation states that packaged food manufacturers and firms are required to declare nutritional information such as calories (energy), total fat, trans-fat, total sugar and salt per serve, as well as per serve percentage contribution to the recommended dietary allowance (RDA).

The new label will be front-of-pack. Other requirements in the comprehensive set of guidelines include a symbol on the label indicating whether it is vegetarian or non-vegetarian food (a green triangle or brown circle, respectively).

Red list

Most significantly, it would be mandatory for food products with high fat, sugar or salt content to display a red-coloured mark on the front-of-pack label.

“The blocks of nutrients for “High Fat, Sugar and Salt” (HFSS) food shall be coloured red in the case where the value of energy (kcal) from total sugar is more than 10 percent of the total energy (kcal) provided by the 100 g/100 ml of the product; the value of energy (kcal) from trans-fat is more than 1 percent of the total energy (kcal) provided by the 100 g/100 ml of the product; and total fat or sodium content provided by the 100 g/100 ml of the product is more than the threshold values,” the draft regulation stated.

It added: “The Food Authority may introduce colour coding system in addition to marking of foods as ‘Red’ within the specified thresholds from time to time.” Furthermore, it stated that it would be prohibited for HFSS food products to be advertised, in any form, to children.

Mandatory GM labelling

In a first, the draft regulation also stated a need to declare genetically modified ingredients on the labels. “All food products having total Genetically Engineered (GE) ingredients of 5 percent or more shall be labelled,” it said. “The total GE ingredients shall be of top three ingredients in terms of their percentage in the product. The labelling shall be as: ‘Contains GMO/Ingredients derived from GMO!.”

Recently, the FSSAI also proposed introducing a traffic light labelling scheme for foods sold in school canteens and vending machines, in a bid to curb consumption of sugary drinks, heavily processed foods and confectionery by children.

The draft also stated that authorities will ensure that there will be no sale of high fat, salt and sugar (HFSS) content foods such as deep-fried foods, sugar-sweetened beverages, processed foods and confectionery in or within 50m of the school premises. In Western Australia, a similar traffic light labelling policy for food and drinks provided in some schools has had a positive impact on children’s health.

Expert Review Panel

Soon after an expert panel was set-up to review India’s proposed new packaged foods labelling rules. FSSAI established the three-member committee after food firms expressed concerns about the proposals.

However, Pawan Agarwal, FSSAI CEO said the plans would now be looked at again, despite the draft already being sent to the Health Ministry for finalisation. Industry stakeholders have expressed concerns,” he said. “So we have decided to set-up a panel of experts with health and nutrition background to look into the draft regulations.”

When the Indian government bowed to powerful food companies last year and postponed its decision to put red warning labels on unhealthy packaged food, officials also sought to placate critics of the delay by creating an expert panel to review the proposed labeling system, which would have gone far beyond what other countries have done in the battle to combat soaring obesity rates.

Dr. Boindala Sesikeran

The man chosen to head the three-person committee was Dr. Boindala Sesikeran who is a veteran nutritionist and former adviser to Nestle. However, Dr. Sesikeran is also a trustee of the International Life Sciences Institute (ILSI), an American nonprofit with an innocuous sounding name that has been quietly infiltrating government health and nutrition bodies around the world.

Dr. Sesikeran’s leadership role on the food labeling committee has raised questions about whether regulators will ultimately be swayed by processed food manufacturers who say the red warning labels would hurt sales. “What could possibly go wrong?” Amit Srivastava, the coordinator of the advocacy group India Resource Center, asked sarcastically. “To have a covert food lobby group deciding public health policy is wrong and a blatant conflict of interest.”

In many ways, Dr. Sesikeran is the ideal ILSI recruit: a former top government official and marquee nutritionist. In the seven years since he retired as director of India’s National Institute of Nutrition, Dr. Sesikeran has advised companies like Nestle, the Japanese food giant Ajinomoto and the Italian chocolate maker Ferrero.

Since 2015, Dr. Sesikeran has been a trustee of both ILSI-India and the organization’s global operation based in Washington, and he is a frequent speaker at ILSI events, where he has lectured about the benefits of artificial sweeteners and genetically modified crops. The ILSI positions are unpaid, but they come with all-expense-paid travel to meetings around the world.

Last year, when the Food Safety and Standards Authority of India needed someone to lead its panel on warning labels, officials chose Dr. Sesikeran. Pawan Kumar Agarwal, the authority’s chief executive, had spoken at ILSI seminars alongside Dr. Sesikeran, and in 2016, he tapped Dr. Sesikeran for a committee weighing the pros and cons of genetically modified mustard plants.

In addition to Dr. Sesikeran’s roles, Dr. Debabrata Kanungo, an ILSI member and former official with the Indian Ministry of Health, sits on two scientific food panels: one considering the safety of pesticide residues, and another on additives in processed foods. Ms. Sinha, ILSI-India’s executive director and an economist by training, briefly served on a government nutrition panel along with Dr. Sesikeran, but both were removed after they failed to declare their relationship with ILSI as a conflict of interest.

International Life Sciences Institute (ILSI)

The International Life Sciences Institute (ILSI) is a global nonprofit science organization headquartered in Washington, DC, United States. It was founded in 1978 by Alex Malaspina, a former Coca-Cola executive, and it is financed by food and chemical industries such as BASF, Coca-Cola, Nestlé, McDonald’s, Monsanto, Syngenta and Pepsi.

Created four decades ago by a top Coca-Cola executive, the institute now has branches in 17 countries. It is almost entirely funded by Goliaths of the agribusiness, food and pharmaceutical industries, reported the New York Times in a detailed piece.

The organization, which championed tobacco interests during the 1980s and 1990s in Europe and the United States, has more recently expanded its activities in Asia and Latin America, regions that provide a growing share of food company profits. It has been especially active in China, India and Brazil, the world’s first, second and sixth most populous nations.

In China, the institute shares both staff and office space with the agency responsible for combating the country’s epidemic of obesity-related illness. In Brazil, ILSI representatives occupy seats on a number of food and nutrition panels that were previously reserved for university researchers.

The organization rejects allegations that it works to advance the interests of its corporate members. “Under no circumstance does ILSI protect industry from being affected by disadvantageous policy and laws,” the group said in a statement.

After decades largely operating under the radar, ILSI is coming under increasing scrutiny by health advocates in the United States and abroad who say it is little more than a front group advancing the interests of the 400 corporate members that provide its $17 million budget, among them Coca-Cola, DuPont, PepsiCo, General Mills and Danone.

Last year, the candy maker Mars withdrew from ILSI, saying it could no longer support an organization that funds what a Mars executive described as “advocacy-led studies.” In 2015, ILSI lost its special access to governing bodies at the World Health Organization after critics raised questions about its industry ties.

In the 40 years since its creation, ILSI has methodically cultivated allies in academia and government through the conferences it sponsors around the world, and by recruiting influential scientists to committees that work on issues like food safety, agrochemicals or the promotion of probiotic supplements.

Although conference topics seldom touch on politically contentious matters, critics say they serve a larger purpose: cultivating scientists and officials who might normally avoid an event directly sponsored by McDonald’s or Kellogg’s.

“It also helps that they are always held at five-star hotels, and that they serve you lunch,” said Dr. Shweta Khandelwal, a nutritionist with the nonprofit Public Health Foundation of India. “We certainly don’t have the money to pay for people’s lunch.”

As it expands across the globe, ILSI is drawing unflattering attention. Over the past year, researchers have documented how the organization’s China affiliate helped shape anti-obesity education campaigns that stressed physical activity over dietary changes, a strategy long espoused by Coca-Cola that critics say was designed to protect corporate profits.

In Beijing, relations between ILSI and the government are so intertwined that ILSI’s top leaders double as senior officials at China’s Center for Disease Control and Prevention.

Through freedom of information requests, authors of a recent study in the United States obtained emails between ILSI trustees, its corporate members and the group’s allies in academia urging them to step up their fight against the W.H.O.’s increasingly tough stance on sugar.

In one exchange in 2015, Alex Malaspina, the founder of ILSI, sought suggestions from ILSI trustees and an official at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention in Atlanta about how to influence Dr. Margaret Chan, then the W.H.O.’s director-general.

“We must find a way to start a dialogue,” wrote Mr. Malaspina, who retired as ILSI’s president in 2001 but was still in frequent contact with its staff, trustees and corporate members. “If not, she will continue to blast us with significant negative consequences on a global basis. This threat to our business is serious.”

James Hill, an ILSI trustee and expert on weight management, responded, “I agree that we need to do something to try and prevent W.H.O. from taking a completely anti-food industry stance in the obesity field.”

In a statement, ILSI, based in Washington, said claims that it sought to influence the W.H.O. were “unfounded and inaccurate.” Although it did not provide further details or respond to specific questions about its activities overseas, the organization said in another statement that ILSI entities are allowed to provide regulators “information relating to factual matters within ILSI’s scientific expertise.”

In addition to its far-flung offices, ILSI runs a research foundation and an institute focused on health and environmental issues that is largely funded by the chemical industry. It also publishes the academic journal Nutrition Reviews and organizes scores of scientific conferences around the world.

Much of ILSI’s work in recent years has focused on fostering relationships in developing countries.

“Emerging economies are where the action is,” said Laura A. Schmidt, a professor of health policy at the University of California, San Francisco. “These are places where the health infrastructure is less established and populations may be less informed about health hazards. If corporations can get in on the ground floor, they can shape the narratives and policies around unhealthy products.”

The organization’s annual report and website brim with assurances about its commitment to transparency. According to its code of ethics, ILSI projects “must address issues of broad public health interest.”

But the organization has a long history of championing corporate interests. In 2001, a W.H.O. report criticized the group for its role in financing studies that cast doubt on the dangers of smoking, and in 2006, the agency barred ILSI from activities involving the setting of standards for food and water after its stealth efforts to sway policy in favor of industry came to light.

Over the past decade, ILSI has received more than $2 million from chemical companies, among them Monsanto, which was bought by Bayer last year. In 2016, ILSI came under withering criticism after a U.N. committee issued a ruling that glyphosate, the key ingredient in Monsanto’s weed killer Roundup, was “probably not carcinogenic,” contradicting an earlier report by the W.H.O.’s cancer agency. The committee, it turned out, was led by two ILSI officials, one of them Alan Boobis, the vice president of ILSI-Europewho has done consulting work for the chemical sector.

Monsanto along with USAID is also responsible for influencing disastrous agricultural policies causing severe air pollution in New Delhi. Delhi’s air pollution problem started right after the controversial USAID and Monsanto backed law was implemented. Before this law was passed, the problem in Delhi was limited to vehicular and industrial pollution and there were no reports of the entire metropolitan area being enveloped by smoke. Over a period of several years, it has used the fraudulent excuse of preventing the decline of groundwater to push their agenda. More information on how Monsanto is waging biological warfare by infiltrated Indian government is detailed in the book India in Cognitive Dissonance.

In India, ILSI’s expanding influence has coincided with mounting rates of obesity, cardiovascular disease and especially diabetes, which affects more than 70 million Indians. Experts say that number could soar to 123 million in the next decade as more people embrace processed foods high in fat, sugar and salt.

The government has responded with bold measures, including a 40 percent tax on sugar-sweetened soda introduced in 2017. But other efforts, including a ban on junk food sales in and around schools, have stalled amid opposition from food and beverage companies.

“The power of this industry is even greater than that of the tobacco industry,” said Sunita Narain, the director of the Center for Science and Environment in New Delhi. Four years ago, she took part in a government panel on warning labels whose report was promptly shelved. “But they are so shadowy that these players don’t dare come to the table representing the food industry, because no one would accept Coca-Cola or Pepsi in the room.”

Even as its influence in the developing world grows, ILSI has faced occasional pushback. An ILSI-funded research project on childhood obesity in Argentina was canceled three years ago after parents whose children were enrolled in the study learned more about the organization. And in 2015, ILSI officials in Washington shuttered ILSI-Mexico after the news media there wrote unfavorably about a conference it organized on sweeteners.

Many of the speakers, it turned out, were well-known advocates for the beverage industry, and at the time, the Mexican government was considering modifications to a newly enacted tax on sugary drinks.

It did not help that the head of ILSI-Mexico was Raul Portillo, a former Coca-Cola executive in charge of regulatory and scientific affairs.

In an email to one of the group’s trustees, Mr. Malaspina, ILSI’s founder, called the incident a “mess” and said he was saddened by the decision to suspend ILSI-Mexico. “I hope we have now reached bottom and eventually we will recover as Coke and ILSI are concerned,” he wrote.

The suspension, it turns out, lasted less than a year, and ILSI-Mexico is up and running with a new executive director: J. Eduardo Cervantes, the former director of public affairs at Coca-Cola of Mexico.

Besides traditional media, even the scientific community has come out in force against ILSI. The British Medical Journal (BMJ) recently published a study that detailed how Coca Cola has shaped obesity science and policy in China. In her report, author Dr Susan Greenhalgh, a Harvard academic and China scholar says “in China, Coca-Cola has exerted its influence since 1999 through a Chinese offshoot of ILSI”.

ILSI Sponsored Survey

Recently, the Indian Council of Medical Research (ICMR) and under it the National Institute of Nutrition (NIN), had conducted a survey on consumption levels of sugar in seven Indian metro cities. The survey, which was sponsored by the International Life Sciences Institute (ILSI), was well represented in the media, with stories such as “Men like sweet, Women love sweeter”.

The Alliance Against Conflict of Interest (AACI) has strongly objected to the country’s top health agency conducting a survey sponsored by them. AACI is an alliance of organisations and individuals working in various sectors – doctors, lawyers, women’s and children’s health groups. In it’s letter written to the ICMR and the NIN under it, the alliance called it an “incompatible partnership” and said that “ILSI has been pursuing policy influence in India and elsewhere, in particular, with respect to sugary foods and beverages”.

The letter written by AACI points out the obvious conflict of interest in having ILSI sponsor studies conducted by government health bodies, when they have been caught in nefarious activities trying to influence public health opinion and policy across the globe.

“We wonder what strategic direction ICMR-NIN, the premier research agency of India, is giving to the people of India when this survey’s findings projected in the media may potentially perpetuate more sugar consumption while pretending to be concerned about non-communicable diseases,” the letter by the AACI reads.

Concerned about increasing the non-communicable disease burden in India, AACI has urged the government to adopt and follow a higher standard of principles when associating itself with organisations such as ILSI. They have asked the ICMR to respond to questions such as conclusions of the study, how was a conflict of interest managed and plans to use this study for policy development in public interest.

Niti Aayog Partner

The true nature of ILSI has been publicly made available through several articles, exposés and reports in the media as well as in scientific journals. Surprisingly, organisations in India such as the ICMR are still conducting surveys sponsored by ILSI and two years ago, even Niti Aayog had chosen to include ILSI in their working group on nutrition policies.

One would have thought the government would do a background check on those it involved, to safeguard against vested interests hijacking public policy. In spite of such abundant evidence of multinational companies and their fronts like ILSI playing a dubious role in defeating or diluting regulation of the food, beverage and even tobacco industry, we are continuing to see several ministries and top government bodies associate with ILSI.

*

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 GreatGameIndia.

Featured image is from GGI

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on How an “International Shadowy Group” Is Influencing India’s Food Policy
  • Tags: , , ,

On the eve of a planned right-wing gun-rights rally in Richmond, Virginia, fascists and white supremacists are reportedly heading for the Virginia state capitol, hoping to create a “second Charlottesville,” modeled on the neo-Nazi riot in 2017 which killed one anti-fascist demonstrator and attracted the praise of President Donald Trump, who called the fascist marchers “good people.”

Trump signaled his support for the Richmond event, tweeting Friday that the Democratic-controlled state government in Virginia was engaged in violating the Second Amendment rights of the state’s gun owners.

“Your 2nd Amendment is under very serious attack in the Great Commonwealth of Virginia,” he wrote. “That’s what happens when you vote for Democrats, they will take your guns away. Republicans will win Virginia in 2020. Thank you Dems!”

Trump’s tweet was a gesture of open encouragement to ultra-rightists and neo-Nazis only days before the president’s trial before the US Senate begins, on impeachment charges brought by the Democratic-controlled House of Representatives. It is a clear demonstration that Trump is not relying merely on the Republican majority in the Senate to safeguard his hold on power but aims to mobilize forces entirely outside the existing two-party structure of capitalist politics.

Monday’s rally was called by the Virginia Citizens Defense League, a gun-rights organization that is well to the right of the National Rifle Association. The NRA has declined to join the planned demonstration, urging its supporters to take part in a separate effort to lobby the state legislature against prospective gun regulations that have passed the Virginia state Senate and are now before the General Assembly.

Hundreds of neo-Nazis and white supremacists have indicated on social media that they are traveling to Richmond, either to participate in the rally on the capitol grounds—where firearms are now prohibited under a state of emergency declared by Governor Ralph Northam—or in the crowd that will assemble just outside the rally perimeter, where gun possession will be legal.

Under the state of emergency, which extends from 5 p.m. Thursday to 5 p.m. Tuesday, the area around the state capitol has been turned into a fortress. State police have fenced off the capitol grounds, with a single point of entry for protesters, where they must divide into lines to pass through 17 metal detectors in order to enter a pie-shaped pen. Those found to be in possession of firearms will be denied admission.

Northam has banned not only firearms, but torches, bats, laser pointers and scissors from the capitol grounds. The Virginia state Supreme Court upheld the temporary ban on Friday after it was challenged by several gun rights groups.

The Federal Aviation Administration has imposed temporary flight restrictions for Richmond’s airspace, making it illegal to fly drones or small planes anywhere near the state capitol. Northam said that officials were concerned about possible threats from weaponized drones.

The actual gun regulations being enacted by the Virginia state legislature are quite modest. There are several separate bills limiting handgun purchases to one per month, banning military-style weapons and silencers, allowing local governments to ban guns in certain public spaces, and expanding background checks.

Democrats won control of the state legislature in November and pledges to adopt such legislation played a major part in the final months of the election campaign. Governor Northam, a Democrat, has said he will sign the restrictions into law. None of the measures violates the Second Amendment to the Constitution, even under the current interpretation by the US Supreme Court as an individual right to bear arms, and most of them are in effect in several other states already, without a noticeable effect either on gun ownership or on gun violence.

The initial response of right-wing groups and the Republican Party has been the adoption of “Second Amendment sanctuary” proclamations, in which officials of villages, towns and counties have pledged not to enforce the restrictions, claiming they are unconstitutional. These proclamations have been adopted by more than 110 local jurisdictions in the state, most of them small and rural.

In his annual State of the Commonwealth Address to the state legislature last week, Northam sought to appease the right-wing campaign over the gun regulations. He declared, “No one is calling out the National Guard. No one is cutting off your electricity or turning off the internet. No one is going door-to-door to confiscate guns.”

The birthday of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. has become the customary day for various groups, both liberal and conservative, to lobby the Virginia state legislature, but the Coalition to Stop Gun Violence, which supports the gun restrictions, canceled its planned rally because of the danger of a confrontation with the ultra-rightists.

The holiday is now suffused with the threat of violence by the gun-rights demonstrators, either directly against the state capitol itself, or, more likely, against any counter-protesters who may attempt to challenge them, as was the case in Charlottesville, some 60 miles away, three years ago.

In an indication of the lack of popular support for the white supremacists, barely 100 people took part Friday in a Lee-Jackson Day parade in Lexington, Virginia, in the Shenandoah Valley about 40 miles west of Charlottesville. The parade was supposedly a staging ground for Monday’s much larger rally in Richmond.

At least seven neo-Nazis were arrested in three separate operations by the FBI last week. Three were arrested in Delaware, suspected of planning a violent provocation during the Richmond rally. Three more were arrested in Georgia, on suspicion of plotting to “overthrow the government and murder a Bartow County couple,” according to a police statement. The fascists targeted the Florida couple because they believed they were members of the anti-Nazi Antifa group. It was not known whether the three men in Georgia had been planning to travel to Richmond.

In Racine, Wisconsin, another member of the same group, which calls itself “the Base,” was arrested on charges of vandalizing a synagogue.

*

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

Featured image is from Shutterstock

‘Mercenary’ is an evocative word, conjuring thoughts of adventure in foreign lands and elastic personal ethics, but probably not the bureaucratic calculations of British foreign policy. That is a tribute to the success of governments in keeping their use of private military forces in the shadows.

It’s worth pointing out that even soldiers on the state payroll get involved in dubious work abroad. A year or so after the 2011 upheavals in Tunisia and Egypt I was asked to speak at a conference on Middle East security, held in Dubai. It was not long after disturbances in Bahrain had inspired the security forces of the kingdom’s Sunni leadership to violently repress its Shia majority with the help of Saudi Arabia and the Emirates.

Over coffee one morning I happened to be talking to another participant. As we exchanged small talk he explained that he was there as a British Army officer on secondment to the Saudi army. He was advising them as a communications specialist, not least in operations in Bahrain.

The Bahraini repression of dissent in 2011-12 caused controversy around the world, but the British government – then a Conservative/Liberal Democrat coalition – only mildly condemned it and the media in western Gulf states scarcely mentioned it. Behind the scenes, though, UK armed forces personnel were clearly helping the Saudis support the Bahraini government’s repression, just as they have been taken part more recently in Saudi actions in Yemen.

The UK’s resolute support for Bahrain should cause little surprise, given that we have a fully operational naval base there, HMS Juffair, which is currently the home port for four minehunters and an anti-submarine frigate, HMS Montrose. Last year’s Oxford Research Group briefing ‘Confronting Iran: the British Dimension’ showed that Juffair would be a key part of any British involvement in a Trump war with Iran. In a sense, that army officer at the Dubai conference was just the tip of the iceberg.

Like the US and other ex-colonial powers, the UK has for decades given military support to regimes overseas, often extending to the deployment of serving military with local forces, sometimes going right through to direct combat. Any of the popular accounts of post-war British military developments written for enthusiasts will demonstrate this, a fascinating example being Vic Flintham’s comprehensive ‘High Stakes: Britain’s Air Arms in Action 1945-90’ (Pen and Sword, 2009).

Much less recognised is the much more extensive use by states such as the UK of a wide range of mercenary security companies. These operate mostly below the radar, with little detail getting into the public domain, despite their size: The Economist reported in 2012 that the US government had 20,000 private guards in Iraq and Afghanistan alone, while the African Union forces operating in Somalia were trained by a South African company. Sometimes the companies are so large that they may include in their logistics floating arsenals as support bases for state-funded operations such as the anti-piracy operations off the Horn of Africa and Yemen. In this respect the Omega Research Foundation’s studywith Oxford Research Group five years ago was an eye-opener for many.

Occasionally we get a really good analysis and one of the best is Phil Miller’s remarkable ‘Keenie Meenie: The British Mercenaries Who Got Away with War Crimes’, published next week by Pluto Press.

Keenie Meenie Services operated from 1975 through to the late 1980s before being transformed into Saladin Security, which is still in business today. Its main office is in London’s Kensington, with regional offices in Afghanistan, Iraq, Dubai, Ghana, Kenya and South Sudan, operating in many countries across the world for government and commercial customers.

Miller’s book is primarily concerned with the early Keenie Meenie years, not least the company’s extensive involvement in the terribly violent Sri Lankan civil war, and one of his main points is that mercenary companies, then and now, allow states to intervene in wholly deniable ways. For the UK, as he puts it, “as long as British governments want to intervene militarily in the affairs of other countries, mercenaries will remain an important tool in their arsenals, to be used in the most sensitive circumstances where Parliament, the press and the public would not stomach official British involvement”.

What distinguishes Miller’s book is the depth of research. Investigative reporters often have to rely on personal information from anonymous sources, but Miller has also done extensive documentary research, principally at the National Archives, backed up by frequent recourse to Freedom of Information requests.

Sustained research is essential if one wants credibility in such a controversial area, but the end result of such work, especially if university-based, is often a dry academic treatise that might be very valuable but deter the general reader. This is why Miller’s achievement is so welcome: a book that contains close to 500 references and footnotes yet is thoroughly readable throughout.

So what of his conclusions? Can mercenary activities on behalf of states be made more transparent and accountable? Not if the UK is an example. “Any legislation that reins in private military companies would also have the effect of constraining British foreign policy makers from dabbling in secret wars.” he writes. “And perhaps that is why mercenaries are unlikely to be outlawed any time soon.”

*

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

Featured image: Sri Lankan refugees, 2005, MM/JRS/Climatalk .in/Flickr. CC BY-NC 2.0. Some rights reserved.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on How Mercenaries and Advisers Fight the Wars the UK Won’t Own
  • Tags:

US government-funded technology companies have recorded an increase in the use of circumvention software in Iran in recent weeks after boosting efforts to help Iranian anti-regime protesters thwart internet censorship and use secure mobile messaging.

The outreach is part of a US government programme dedicated to internet freedom that supports dissident pressure inside Iran and complements America’s policy of “maximum pressure” over the regime.

A US state department official told the Financial Times that since protests in Iran in 2018 — at the time the largest in almost a decade — Washington had accelerated efforts to provide Iranians more options on how they communicate with each other and the outside world.

The US-supported measures include providing apps, servers and other technology to help people communicate, visit banned websites, install anti-tracking software and navigate data shutdowns. Many Iranians rely on virtual private networks (VPNs) that receive US funding or are beamed in with US support, not knowing they are relying on Washington-backed tools.

“We work with technological companies to help free flow of information and provide circumvention tools that helped in [last week’s] protest,” a second US state department official told the FT. “We are able to sponsor VPNs — and that allows Iranians to use the internet.”

The US Treasury department has issued waivers for such software and services, despite the Trump administration’s imposition of swingeing sanctions when it withdrew from the 2015 international nuclear accord.

To read the complete Financial Times article, click here

*

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

Berlin’s Libya summit ended without any real changes to the status quo despite all relevant foreign parties to that country’s civil war superficially agreeing to some key points such as the need to abide by the arms embargo and commit to a ceasefire as soon as possible, meaning that General Haftar still holds all the cards so the fate of the country is ultimately his and his GCC+ patrons’ to decide, though Turkey will do its utmost to deter them from making another military push on the capital.

A Lot Of Blah-Blah In Berlin

Sunday’s Libya summit in Berlin represented an unprecedented push towards peace after the top representatives from the most relevant foreign parties to that country’s civil war met in the German capital to discuss an end to the long-running conflict with the leaders of that North African state’s two main warring factions, Prime Minister Serraj of the UN-recognized Government of National Accord (GNA) and General Haftar of the Libyan National Army (LNA). The event ended without any real changes to the status quo apart from the non-Libyan parties superficially agreeing to some key points such as the need to abide by the arms embargo and commit to a ceasefire as soon as possible, meaning that General Haftar still holds all the cards so the fate of the country is ultimately his and his GCC+ patrons’ to decide, though Turkey will do its utmost to deter them from making another military push on the capital.

Background Basics

The author analyzed last week’s developments which paved the way for this summit in two articles titled “Who’d Have Thought 9 Years Ago That Russia & Turkey Would Bring Peace To Libya?” and “Russia’s Unsuccessful Libyan Peace Summit Was A Good Start“, which should be skimmed by the reader if they’re not already familiar with them but can be summarized as asserting that Russia and Turkey’s joint efforts over a week ago set into motion the first stage of what’s bound to be an extended peace process. It was concluded in the last analysis that nothing of significance will change unless the LNA’s Egyptian, Emirati, and Saudi (GCC+) backers decide that it’s in their interests for this to happen, which hasn’t yet occurred and might never will. It doesn’t matter what they superficially agreed to in Berlin since there isn’t any enforcement mechanism to compel their compliance.

Agreements Without Enforcement Mechanisms Are Meaningless

The UN or a “coalition of the willing” would have to simultaneously launch maritime and mainland operations to search every car and piece of cargo coming into the country, which is beyond their capabilities, let alone mandate. The GCC+ could easily send support to General Haftar through Egypt, Sudan, or in the worst-case scenario, even Chad and Niger if it came down to it whereas the GNA’s foreign supporters such as Turkey are entirely dependent on maritime and air routes that are much easier to identify and intercept. The Libyan Civil War has long been a proxy struggle between many forces but its latest manifestation can be simplified as being between the secular-supporting GCC+ and the Muslim Brotherhood-backing Turkey, which is ironic since the Gulf Kingdoms are religious monarchies whereas Turkey is officially a secular republic. The other relevant foreign powers support one side or the other, while Russia is trying to “balance” between both.

There is no trust whatsoever between these two opposing camps, which support their proxy of choice for varying reasons that are in one way or another connected to their belief that that faction will most likely advance their national interests as they understand them if it’s successful in winning the civil war. As such, it can be expected that neither the GCC+ nor Turkey will curtail their support to the LNA and GNA respectively, especially since there aren’t any enforcement mechanisms compelling them to do so. The LNA is the more militarily powerful of the two after already conquering most of the country and nowadays being positioned just outside of the capital while the GNA is totally on the defensive and can only hope that Turkey’s recent military intervention can save it from collapse. The international community, excluding the GCC+ of course, appears to be siding with the GNA given their calls for an immediate ceasefire to save it, but it might not be enough.

The GCC+’s Strategic Calculations

It really all depends on whether General Haftar and his GCC+ backers are confident enough with their military capabilities (which might no longer include the speculative Russian mercenaries that were reportedly fighting in his support as hypothesized by the author in the first of his two hyperlinked analyses from earlier in this article) and have the political will to defy the rest of the world. About the first, it’s unclear at this point in time exactly what Turkey has done to improve the GNA’s defenses, but whatever it is appears to have had at least a temporary deterrence effect on the LNA. Concerning the second-mentioned, because of the lack of any enforcement mechanisms, the international community cannot impose any serious costs on the LNA other than forthcoming sanctions which could be countered by the GCC’s financial reserves if need be. Eventually, the rest of the world would just have to accept that General Haftar rules Libya if he’s successful in capturing the capital.

Turkish “Mission Creep”

His forces don’t want war, however, and would rather have a “clean victory” that sees the GNA capitulate to their demands to disarm and demobilize all the militias that they regard as terrorist groups as well as remove Turkish forces from the country, ergo why they’ve shut down the country’s oil supply in recent days in order to drain the internationally recognized government of its precious finances. This in turn increases the costs for the GNA’s foreign supporters, especially Turkey, who might have to extend emergency financial assistance to their proxies for an indefinite period of time, which might not be economically feasible for them unless they all come together again in another Berlin-like conference and work out each parties’ contribution to the cause (in parallel with sanctioning the LNA for its actions). It’s unrealistic that Turkey would abandon Tripoli at this point, so it’s tempted to continue with “mission creep” by possibly commencing a “financial intervention” too.

From Civil War To Standoff

So long as Turkish military support to the GNA continues to provide credible deterrence to the LNA, then the rest of the internationally recognized government’s foreign supporters will feel more comfortable extending it other means of assistance as well, especially financial. Nobody wants to invest hundreds of millions and potentially even several billion dollars into the side that might be about to lose at any moment, so the GNA’s survival hinges on how serious Turkey is about comprehensively supporting it. Ankara’s political will hasn’t wavered one bit, which inspires confidence in its peers to seriously consider following suit. Likewise, the GCC+ hasn’t wavered at all in its support of General Haftar, hence why he’s refused to “compromise” despite heavy international pressure to do so (though crucially without any enforcement mechanisms to compel him, at least not yet). In other words, the Libyan Civil War has now turned into the Libyan Standoff, with this new state of affairs either lasting a short while or becoming the new status quo depending on subsequent developments.

*

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

This article was originally published on OneWorld.

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

Featured image is from OneWorld

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on General Haftar Still Holds All the Cards After Berlin’s Libya Summit
  • Tags: , ,

Diminishing Returns: Calculated Misery in Air Travel

January 20th, 2020 by Dr. Binoy Kampmark

If there comes a point when people will decide not to fly, the issue may well be less to do with any moral or ethical issue with climate change than the fact that commercial flights have become atrocious. They are naked money-making concerns with diminishing returns on quality.  The key factor that plays out here is what economists like to term inelastic demand.  Prices can be raised; service quality can be reduced, but customers will keep coming.  The demand remains, even if the supply leaves much to be desired. 

The phenomenon is distinct over the long-haul carriers, which have, at least until recently, been spared the stripping phenomenon.  Singapore Airlines, which prides itself for an almost aristocratic bearing towards its customers, proved skimp its Melbourne to Singapore leg.  An insulting sampling of “toasties” was offered as a starter, a culinary outrage that did not go unnoticed.  Indian passengers who had selected special meals in advance were on the money; pungent curries and dhal filled the cabin as this ridiculous excuse of a meal was handed out to customers.  A few desperate, and disgusted punters asked the flight attendants if there were spare vegetarian options.

Budget airlines may have something to explain in this regard.  The revolution of the cheap fare came with the reduction of expectations.  No frills travel came with a certain contempt on the part of the service providers: food and drink would no longer be gratis; seat allocations would have to be purchased in advance and check-in or carry-on luggage would have to be paid for.  A turning point was Dublin-based Ryanair’s attempt to go easy on toilet numbers – one per aircraft – and charge customers for their use.  As the company’s penny-pinching CEO Michael O’Leary said at the time, “We rarely use all three toilets on board our aircraft anyway.”  Bladders be damned.

Instead of aspiring to a higher level of service, the traditionalists have voted to go down a notch or three.  What budget airlines do badly, we can do worse.  The law of diminishing returns is pushing all air travel carriers downwards in what has been seen to be an exercise of “calculated misery”.  The experience is appalling and unpleasant, but need not necessarily be intolerable.  The result is a curious revision of the term “upgrade”.  As Alex Abad-Santos laments in Vox, passengers upgrade their seats, not to get a more spectacular service or experience, but “to avoid hell.” 

Managing such misery is hardly original, though Tim Wu of Columbia Law School can be credited for giving a good overview of it when writing in 2014 for The New Yorker.  “Here’s the thing: in order for fees to work, there needs to be something worth paying to avoid.  That necessitates, at some level, a strategy that can be described as ‘calculated misery’.  Basic service, without fees, must be sufficiently degraded in order to make people want to pay to escape it.  And that’s where the suffering begins.” 

Nothing says such suffering than crammed economy seats on a long-haul flight.  Shoulders and arms are jammed; legs can barely move.  The trend was such that Bill McGee, a writer with more than a passing acquaintance with the airline industry, would note, referring to the United States, that the most spacious economy seats “you can book on the nation’s four largest airlines are narrower than the tightest economy seats offered in the 1990s.”

Things are not much better in terms of the European market.  Mediocrity mixes with indifference, even on flights which are half-full.  A flight from London Heathrow to Copenhagen with Scandinavian Airlines was characterised by a certain snooty indifference on the part of the flight attendants.  Much babbling was taking place in Finnish – why would you want to assist passengers?  Little by way of interest in the customers was afforded.  Curt instructions were issued; requests for coffee were received with glacial stares.  Naturally, to receive a meal and drink that wasn’t water that had seen better days required forking out of the plastic fantastic.  Gone are the days when international airlines behaved as such, wishing to make matters decent, comfortable and even pleasantly bearable; the European air space finds itself populated by the stingy and the tight-belted.

Commercial airlines from SAS to Singapore Airlines have taken whole sheafs of extortion from the budget airline book of making customers pay for selecting seats.  The stress here is budget service at caviar prices.  This cheeky form of thieving imposes a cost on the act of jumping the queue for a better place on the flight.  And this is not all.  You book a ticket with a flight, only to find at the airport that you had purchased a “light” version, meaning that you have to pay for carryon luggage.    

High time for a customer revolt, but the industry is distinctly programmed.  Even when airlines have been well disposed to their customers, such as JetBlue, the corporate monsters of Wall Street have howled.  It’s bad form to provide decent service within reasonable expectations.  Efficiency, and filling the seats, is what matters, whatever the quality.  Fee-free services, being conscious of the brand and a “customer-focussed” approach was simply not on.  Eventually, JetBlue caved in and joined the market of calculated misery. 

*

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]

Featured image is from Flickr

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Diminishing Returns: Calculated Misery in Air Travel

This week’s UK-Africa Investment Summit will send a clear signal. The UK government’s aid policy will not be driven by evidence about how to best fight global poverty, but instead by naked free market ideology and the interests of British business.  

Since coming to power, Boris Johnson’s new government has already threatened to scrap the Department for International Development (DFID) and its Secretary of State.

Now, the Conservative party is ramping up its long-standing policy of repurposing taxpayers’ aid funds away from helping the world’s poorest people. Instead they are redirecting it towards helping British bmentsusiness elites invest in – and of course, make returns from – Africa.

The ideological dogma is familiar and well-rehearsed: British investment and trade means more jobs at home and abroad. British businesses profit, but wealth generated in the recipient countries will also trickle down. Apparently, everyone wins.

The trouble is, the evidence simply does not bear this out. The UK government is unable to guarantee and demonstrate that the kind of investments it will use the summit to promote will help the world’s poorest – a clear requirement of Official Development Assistance (ODA).

Take the case of Feronia, one of Africa’s largest palm oil companies where the UK’s development finance bank, the CDC Group, has invested to the tune of $54 million since 2013. In December 2019, Feronia’s investors had to respond to a Human Rights Watch report alleging widespread abuses – including exposure to toxic pesticides and extreme poverty wages. This exposé came on top of an existing inquiry opened by the CDC Group in August 2019 after the alleged murder of Joël Imbangola Lunea, a local lands rights activist, by a security guard employed by Feronia in Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC).

Or take the example of Bridge International Academies, the controversial company running low-cost schools across Africa which has investments in excess of $10.4 million from the UK government.

International Development Secretary Alok Sharma wrote recently – to promote the upcoming summit, that investments like these in vital public services ‘gives young people the opportunity to shape their own futures and reach their potential’. Yet, amid allegations of poor teaching standards, squalid classrooms and fees that exclude the poorest, parliament’s own International Development Committee has argued that evidence of the company’s impact on poverty is likely too weak to justify continued investment.

Nor is it clear that the government is using the Africa Investment Summit – which is co-organized by the Department for International Development and the Department for International Trade – to target funds where it’s needed most, such as countries recovering from conflict or crisis, or to help develop vital public services.

According to BOND, the body representing the international development sector, in 2018 half of all foreign direct investment into Africa went into just five countries – South Africa, Morocco, Ethiopia, Egypt and Congo – leaving behind many of the continent’s poorest countries.

Blue Skies Fruits, on the other hand, a company highlighted by Alok Sharma as an inspiration for the upcoming summit, does benefit from investmentfrom the UK taxpayer. Yet the British company, which operates in seven countries importing fresh fruit to the UK, hit huge revenues of $130 million in 2018.

No-one denies that investment, trade, business and economic development have a part to play in fighting poverty. But using aid money to prop up multi-million-pound British businesses is a far cry from what’s needed to end global poverty.

The truth is, the role of government aid should be to channel scarce resources to where they are needed most. Our aid policy should aim to reverse centuries of damage wrought by the British Empire – and by British governments for many, many years after – rather than extracting resources, profit and wealth from Africa under the guise of ‘investment.’

DFID and the UK parliament should – at the very least – insist that investments of the kind the summit is promoting – especially those funded through ODA – are measured against a rigorous ‘development impact’ framework; that they demonstrably tackle poverty, inequality and the climate crisis, and that the money could not be spent better.

The British public deserve to see our aid budget used properly to fight poverty and inequality – not used to subsidize British business interests and the City of London to profit from some of the poorest countries in the world.

Alok Sharma claimed last week that the summit will be a ‘milestone for international relations’. If it proves so, then it will be for all the wrong reasons: just when we should be standing in genuine solidarity and partnership with people across Africa, this summit instead threatens to take Britain’s relations with countries in the Global South backwards, renewing a relationship of exploitation and extraction.

*

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.

Dan Carden is the UK’s acting Shadow Secretary of State for International Development.

Featured image is from Simon Berry/Flickr

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Africa: For-profit Investments Are Not ‘Development’

The protests that started with the national strike called by Colombia’s central union on November 21 to protest pension reforms and the broken promises of the peace accords have persisted for two months and grown into a protest against the whole establishment. And the protests have continued into the new year and show no signs of stopping.

The end of the decade has seemed to bring an unstoppable march of the right wing in Latin America as elsewhere. The 2016 coup in Brazil that ended with fascist Jair Bolsonaro in power, the 2019 coup in Bolivia, the continuously rolling coup in Venezuela, all showcased the ruthlessness of the US in disposing of left-wing governments in the region. Right-wing victories at the ballot box occurred in Chile in 2017 and in Colombia in 2018, where the electorate rejected the left-wing Gustavo Petro and embraced Iván Duque, a protege of the infamous former president Álvaro Uribe Vélez. But with the new wave of protests, the unstoppable right-wing juggernaut is facing many challenges.

In Chile, three months of protests, still going, are demanding the resignation of President Sebastián Piñera and the reversal of a range of neoliberal policies. Even in the face of the police and army using live fire against protesters, they have not let up.

New Wave of Protests are Spreading

Ecuador is another peculiar case, in which Lenín Moreno ran as a candidate who would continue left-wing policies, but who promptly reversed course upon reaching power in 2017, including revoking the asylum of Julian Assange, who is now in a UK prison. Reopening drilling in the Amazon, opening a new US airbase in the Galapagos, getting rid of taxes on the wealthy, and doing a new package of International Monetary Fund austerity measures was enough to spark a sustained protest. Moreno’s government was forced to negotiate with the protesters and has withdrawn some of the austerity measures.

In Haiti, protests have gone on for over a year. Sparked in July 2018 by a sharp increase in fuel prices (the same spark as for the Ecuador protests), they have expanded to call for the president’s resignation. In Haiti, as the protests have dragged on, some of the country’s elite families have joined the call for the president’s resignation, which will make it even more difficult to find a constitutional exit from the crisis.

In Colombia, after winning the runoff in 2018, President Duque may have felt that he had a mandate to enact right-wing policies, which in Colombia have usually included new war measures in addition to the usual austerity. But combining pension cuts with betraying the peace process was simply stealing too much from the future: Young people joined the November 21 protests in huge numbers (the lowest estimates are 250,000).

The sustained nature of the protests is striking. Rather than one-offs, the protests have been committed to staying on until change is won. We may hear more this year from post-coup Brazil and Bolivia as well.

At the heart of Colombia’s protest is the issue of war and peace. To say Colombians are war-weary is an understatement. The war there that began (depending on how you date it) in 1948 or 1964 has provided the pretext for an unending assault on people’s rights and dignities by the state. Afro-Colombians were displaced from their lands under cover of the war. Indigenous people were dispossessed. Unions were smeared as guerrilla fronts and their leaders assassinated. Peasants and their lands were fumigated with chemical warfare. Narcotraffickers set themselves up inside the military and intelligence organizations, creating the continent’s most extensive paramilitary apparatus. Politicians signed pacts with these paramilitary death squads. The war gave the establishment an excuse for the most depraved acts, notably the “false positives” in which the military murdered completely innocent people and dressed their corpses up as guerrillas to inflate their kill statistics. Even though the guerrillas, with their kidnapping and too-frequent accidental killings of innocents, were never popular with the majority, Colombians have backed peace processes when given the chance. And Colombians didn’t look kindly at the major betrayals of peace processes in the past, like the one in the 1980s, when ex-guerrillas entering politics were assassinated by the thousand. From 2016, when the new peace accords were affirmed, until mid-2019, the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia (FARC) tallied 138 of their ex-guerrillas murdered; more than 700 other activists were killed in the same period, including more than 100 Indigenous people since Duque came to power in 2018.

At the end of August, a group of FARC members led by their former chief negotiator, Iván Márquez, announced that they were returning to the jungle and to the fight. They argued that the assassination of their members and the refusal of the government to comply with the other aspects of the accords demonstrated that there was no will for peace on the side of the government. Those FARCs who announced they were giving up on the accords were treated as having gone rogue: The government labeled them as criminal groups. Aerial bombardment (a war measure not normally the first recourse in dealing with “criminals”) quickly followed. When a bombing (also in August) by the Colombian air force of one of these rogue groups in Caquetá killed eight children and Duque labeled it “strategic, meticulous, impeccable, and rigorous,” he was greeted with much-deserved public revulsion. Duque was shaping up to deliver the same kind of war as always, only now under the flag of peace, its victims labeled criminals instead of guerrillas.

Eternal war does benefit some: those in the arms and security business especially, and those who want to commit crimes under the cover of war. But despite the many benefits of eternal war for the elite, normalcy also exerts a powerful draw. When Duque’s mentor Álvaro Uribe Vélez was elected president in 2002 and 2006, it was with the promise of normalcy – of peace – through decisive victory over the guerrillas. Instead, he delivered narco-paramilitarism, false positives, and, very nearly, regional wars with Ecuador and Venezuela.

One of Uribe’s early acts was to negotiate a peace agreement with the paramilitaries. Since the paramilitaries were state-backed, organized, and armed, this was a farcical negotiation of the government with itself. But when some of the paramilitary commanders began to speak publicly about their relationships with the state and multinational corporations, they found themselves deported to the US. At the time, the scandal was given a name – “para-política.” But to some of the investigators, it was better-termed “para-Uribismo.” Paramilitary commander Salvatore Mancuso – who had the temerity to talk about the Chiquita banana corporation and who is apparently going to return to Colombia sometime soon – is just the best-known name. Many others have found that being a paramilitary leads to a considerably shortened lifespan. Uribe, mayor of Medellín and governor of Antioquia during the heyday of the cartels, is named in numerous official documents as being close to both the narcotraffickers and the paramilitaries. The evidence keeps coming, as courts, now trying Uribe’s brother, keep getting closer to the man himself.

“Uribismo”

After the first round of “Uribismo,” it was time to try a peace process. The betrayal of that process, initiatedin 2012, and the new president Duque’s promise of yet another decade of “Uribismo,” has been a motivating force of the recent protests.

Uribismo entangles endless war with austerity and inequality. In a recent Gallup poll, 52 percent of Colombians surveyed said the gap between rich and poor had increased in the past five years; 45 percent struggled to afford food in the previous 12 months; and 43 percent lacked money for shelter. The social forces that typically fight for social progress and equality – unions and left-wing political parties – have traditionally been demonized as proto-guerrillas. With the government declaring the war over – and with great fanfare – people want the freedom to make economic demands without being treated as civil war belligerents.

But when faced with the November 21 protests, the government went straight to the dirty war toolkit, murdering 18-year-old protester Dilan Cruz on November 25, imposing curfew, detaining more than 1,000 people, and creating “montajes,” the time-tested use of agents provocateurs to commit unpopular and illegal acts to provide a pretext for state repression. Government officials have also tried to claim that Venezuela and Russia (of course) were behind the protests.

Part of the dirty war toolkit is to negotiate, and the government has been doing so with the National Strike Committee. No doubt hoping that the protests will exhaust themselves and any agreements can be quietly dropped as numbers dwindle, the government is dangling the possibility of dropping some austerity demands. Meanwhile, the negotiators are being threatened by paramilitary groups, and another mass grave of those murdered as military “false positives” has been unearthed. Uribismo has wormed its way into every structure of the state: Real change will have to be deep. By not giving up easily, the protesters have shown the way. These protests could be a crack in the walls of fascism that seem to have sprung up everywhere in the past decade.

*

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 produced by Globetrotter, a project of the Independent Media Institute.

Justin Podur is Associate Professor at York University’s Faculty of Environmental Studies and a writing fellow at Globetrotter, a project of the Independent Media Institute. He is the author of Haiti’s New Dictatorship (Pluto, Between the Lines, and Palgrave-Macmillan 2012), and the novel Siegebreakers. His writings can be found at podur.org.

Featured image is from The Bullet

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on The People of Colombia Are Cracking Up the Walls of War and Authoritarianism
  • Tags: ,

The Mad Geopolitics of Israel’s EastMed Gas Pipeline

January 20th, 2020 by F. William Engdahl

At just a time when the world holds its collective breath over risk of a World War over the US assassination of Iran’s leading general and other provocations, Israel has chosen to sign a natural gas pipeline deal with Greece and Cyprus that is the equivalent of tossing a loaded hand grenade into the hyper-tense region.

Until some months ago it was doubtful whether Israel’s long-touted EastMed gas pipeline deal with Cyprus and Greece would see the light of day. Despite being backed by the US and the EU as an alternative to Russian gas, the EastMed as it is known, is dubious on many grounds, not the least its high cost compared with alternatives. The January 2 signing by the governments of Israel, Greece and Cyprus is directly connected to provocative moves by Turkey’s Erdogan to conspire with Libya to illegally declare almost all of the Eastern Mediterranean waters to be a Turkish and now Libyan Exclusive Economic Zone.

If Mideast tensions were not already at the breaking point, the Israeli move throws a huge monkey wrench into the region’s troubled geopolitics.

As recently as December, 2019 the Israeli companies involved in their offshore Leviathan gas field were openly discussing further options for export of the gas following an export agreement with Egypt and Jordan. The EastMed pipeline was not mentioned in Israeli media.

What has changed the situation was the announcement by Turkey’s President Erdogan that he was sending Turkish troops to defend the Tripoli UN-backed Government of National Accord (GNA) in Tripoli of Fayez al Sarraj, on their request, to counter the forces of General Khalifa Haftar’s Libyan National Army (LNA).

Libya has the potential to become a major new explosion point in the rapidly-deteriorating Middle East terrain. Haftar is backed by Russia, Egypt, the UAE, Saudi Arabia and yes, France, and secretly since 2017 by Israel. Since April 2019 Haftar has been moving to take Tripoli from his stronghold in the oil-rich east. The GNA in Tripoli in turn is backed by Turkey, Qatar and Italy. The EU is desperately trying to mediate a truce between the GNA and Haftar after Putin failed some days ago.

The Mediterranean energy clashes

As Cyprus has discovered rich offshore fields of natural gas in addition to those of Israel at Leviathan, Turkey, who so far lacks its own major gas resources, began to aggressively interfere in Cyprus offshore waters. On January 1, 2020 Turkey and Russia opened the Black Sea Russian TurkStream with first deliveries of gas to EU member Bulgaria.

On December 11, Turkish Foreign Minister Mevlut Çavuşoğlu hinted that Ankara could use its military to prevent gas drilling in waters off Cyprus that it now claims. “No one can do this kind of work without our permission,” he said. Since early 2019 Turkish ships have entered Cyprus exclusive waters claiming rights to drill. In December 2019, the Turkish navy intercepted Bat Galim, an Israeli ship in Cypriot waters and forced it to move out of the area. The ship was of the Israeli Oceanographic and Limnological Research Institution, doing research in Cyprus’s territorial waters in coordination with Cypriot officials. The US State Department warned Turkey to back off and the EU imposed sanctions on Turkish persons, to little effect so far.

Turkey’s recent interest in Libya is directly related to blocking Cyprus gas exploration and declaring vast Turkish offshore space legal for its drilling ships.

On November 27, 2019 Turkey’s President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan signed a bilateral agreement on maritime boundaries in the southeastern Mediterranean. It would redraw existing recognized sea boundaries to give Libya exclusive rights for some 39,000 square kilometers of maritime waters belonging to Greece. The new joint zone of Tripoli-Turkey runs directly between the both countries and completely ignores the fact it violates Greek waters off Crete. Conveniently, it would cut directly across the planned Israel-Cyprus-Greece EastMed pipeline route. Without Turkey’s approval, Turkey has suggested the Greek EastMed pipeline would be a non-starter.

The ongoing war between Haftar and Tripoli’s GNA becomes even more complex, as Israel is also backing Haftar who now controls Benghazi and much of Tobruk along the Mediterranean coastline. Since 2017 the Israeli military have secretly been supporting Haftar in his attempt to gain control of Libya.

The EastMed Project

The just signed agreement between Israel, Greece and Cyprus is more fantasy than reality at this point. It calls for a hugely expensive $7 billion 1,900 km (1,180 mile) subsea pipeline, “the longest and deepest gas pipeline in the world,” that should initially bring up to 10 billion cubic meters of gas a year from Israeli and Cypriot waters to Crete and then on to the Greek mainland and ultimately to Italy. That would amount to roughly 4% of total EU gas consumption, far less than Russia’s present 39% share, let alone Gazprom’s increased share once NordStream 2 and TurkStream are fully completed in the coming months. TurkStream, where the first of two pipelines opened on January 1, 2020, will supply a total of more than 31 bcm, with half available for the EU gas market and NordStream2 will add another 55 bcm annually to the EU gas market.

It has been ten years since gas was discovered at Israel’s Leviathan. The first gas deliveries only began early this month to Egypt and to Jordan leaving 80% available for export following numerous delays. However prospects of finding finance for the huge project are grim at best. The EU, while greeting a rival to Russian gas, has made clear it has no money for the project. Greece financing is hardly possible after the 2010 Greek crisis and Cyprus is similarly depleted after its 2013 banking crisis. According to a statement from the Israeli Finance Ministry it will be financed by “private companies and institutional lenders.” To find private financing for such a politically risky undertaking at a time of growing risk aversion in finance is dubious. With a current glut of gas on the world market and the increasing availability of LNG sources it is not at all clear that a politically risky Israeli EastMed undersea pipeline makes economic sense.

Notably, Greek state television channel ERT refers to the EastMed project as a “protective shield against Turkish provocations.” That makes clear Greece sees it as a response to the recent rapprochement between Turkey and the government in Libya and Erdogan’s announcement he is sending troops to support the GNA in Tripoli to make pressure against Haftar. Were Haftar to ultimately take Tripoli, clearly the Turkish-Libya bilateral agreement on maritime boundaries would be repealed.

As if the conflict was not already messy enough, the Greek government just announced that it is willing to send Greek troops in order to monitor the ceasefire between the Libyan National Army (LNA) and the Tripoli-based Government of National Accord (GNA). The offer was put forward after Greek Foreign Minister Dendias met with LNA leader General Khalifa Haftar. This potentially pits NATO member Greece against NATO member Turkey in the widening geopolitical power plays over control of Eastern Mediterranean and other gas flows to the EU. And the prospect of a revived Iran-Iraq-Syria gas pipeline has not even entered the calculus.

The EastMed gas pipeline of Israel, far from being a positive energy alternative, is rather a geopolitical intervention into an already conflicted region adding new levels of tension that only increase prospects for military escalation on all sides.

*

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

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 at the Centre for Research on Globalization.

Featured image is from NEO


seeds_2.jpg

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.

Making America Great Again in a New Wild West

January 20th, 2020 by William deBuys

A new Wild West has taken root not far from Tombstone, Arizona, known to many for its faux-historical reenactments of the old West. We’re talking about a long, skinny territory — a geographic gerrymander — that stretches east across New Mexico and down the Texan Rio Grande to the Gulf of Mexico. It also runs west across hundreds of miles of desert to California and the Pacific Ocean. Like the old Wild West, this one is lawless, save for the law of the gun. But that old West was lawless for want of government. This one is lawless because of it.

The Department of Homeland Security, under authority conferred by Congress, has declared more than 50 federal laws inoperable along sections of the U.S. boundary with Mexico, the better to build the border wall that Donald Trump has promised his “base.” Innumerable state laws and local ordinances have also been swept aside. Predictably, the Endangered Species Act is among the fallen. So are the National Historic Preservation Act, the Wilderness Act, laws restricting air and water pollution, and measures protecting wildlife, landscapes, Native American sacred sites, and even caves and fossils.

The new Wild West of the border wall is an authoritarian dreamscape where the boss man faces no limits and no obligations. It’s as though Marshall Wyatt Earp, reborn as an orange-haired easterner with no knowledge of the actual West, were back in charge, deciding who’s in and who’s out, what goes and what stays.

Prominent on the list of suspended laws is the 1970 National Environmental Policy Act, or NEPA, which, until recently, was the nation’s look-before-you-leap conscience. The environmental analyses and impact statements NEPA requires might not force the government to evaluate whether a palisade of 30-foot-high metal posts — bollards in border wall terminology — were really a better way to control drug smuggling than upgrading inspection facilities at ports of entry, where, by all accounts, the vast majority of illegal substances enter the country. They would, however, require those wall builders to figure out in advance a slew of other gnarly questions like: How will wildlife be affected by a barrier that nothing larger than a kangaroo rat can get through? And how much will pumping scarce local water to make concrete draw down shallow desert aquifers?

The questions get big, fast. One that might look easy but isn’t concerns the flashfloods that stream down desert washes. The uprights of the border wall are to be spaced only four inches apart, which means they’ll catch flood debris the way a colander catches spaghetti.

Let’s get specific. The San Bernardino National Wildlife Refuge abuts the border in the far southeastern corner of Arizona. Black Draw, a gulch running through the middle of the refuge, is normally as dry as a hot sidewalk. When thunderstorms burst over the vast San Bernardino Valley, however, the floodwaters can surge more than 20 feet high.  Imagine a wall of chocolate water sweeping up tree trunks, uprooted bushes, the occasional dead cow, and fence posts snarled in wire. Imagine what happens when that torrent meets a barrier built like a strainer. The junk catches and creates a dam. Water backs up, and pressure builds. If the wall were built like the Hoover Dam, it might hold, but it won’t be and it won’t.

In 2014, a flood in Black Draw swept vehicle barriers aside, scattering pieces downstream. Local ranchers have shown me the pictures. You could say the desert was making a point about how wet it could be. In fact, there’s no mystery about what will happen when such a flood hits a top-heavy palisade. If a NEPA document were to evaluate the border wall, the passage discussing this eventuality might require its writer to invent a term for what a wall becomes when it lies flat on the ground.

On the other hand, if you leave gaps for floods to pass through, then smugglers and — for Donald Trump and his base — people of unacceptably dark skin color might come the other way. Not that they necessarily would. As local residents I talked to attest, active patrols, remote sensing, and improved coordination among law enforcement agencies have reduced illegal crossings in the San Bernardino Valley almost to zero, something current government officials don’t point out but a NEPA document would.

With NEPA out of the picture, the responsible parties only have to claim that they’ll figure out a solution later and, when “later” comes, maybe they’ll have conveniently moved on to other jobs.

Pittsburgh on the Border

Meanwhile, there’s another question that won’t have to be dealt with: How much water will the wall’s construction require? The answer matters in an area where water’s scarce. Again, the San Bernardino National Wildlife Refuge offers a useful vantage point for considering the question.

To get to the refuge, you drive east from the town of Douglas along the Geronimo Trail, an unpaved two-lane country road that earns its name honestly.  Nineteenth-century Apache leader Geronimo surrendered to the U.S. military in the mountains on the horizon just ahead of you. Shortly before you reach the refuge, you top a low rise overlooking what the local assessor initially mistook for a new industrial park.  It was as if a section of Pittsburgh or Youngstown had suddenly sprouted from the desert, with enough mesquite and creosote bush scraped away to accommodate a concrete-batching plant, office trailers, and a massive staging area and machinery yard.

Stacks of steel bollards stand taller than houses, covering the space of a neighborhood. A grid of steel rails for laying out those bollards and welding them into pre-fab wall sections occupies another acre or two, beyond which stacks of completed sections cover yet more acres. In front of those stacks, a few scraps of wall stand vertical but disjointed, like shrines to a metal god — probably practice erections, if you’ll pardon the phrase. Scattered through the site are forklifts, graders, loaders, bulldozers, excavators, pickup trucks, flatbeds, and cranes. Generators and floodlights on wheeled rigs are parked at the margins, ready to illuminate round-the-clock shifts. Close to the batching tower, which may rival the Gadsden Hotel in Douglas as the tallest structure in Cochise County, cement trucks cluster like a litter of puppies.

And more steel keeps arriving. An approaching cloud of dust on the Geronimo Trail signals a line of incoming semis loaded with still more bollards. They pass newly posted signs that say: “Be Aware: Equipment Has the Right of Way” and “Risk Takers Are Accident Makers.”

These details, however, are prelude to the main event. If you look toward Mexico, a half-mile of wall already stands in place, undulating with the hills. Think of it as a dark, linear Steelhenge, a monolith screening the shimmering Sonoran mountains to the south. You can see where the next sections will be raised. Construction has already reached the refuge.

Where the Deer and the Antelope Better Not Play

The surface and subsurface flow of water from nearly the entire San Bernardino Valley converges at the refuge, creating an oasis in the heart of the desert. If this were the Sahara, caravansaries would have stopped by its green pools for thousands of years. As it is, Apaches, Yaquis, Tohono O’odham, and their predecessors have used its waters since time out of mind, as did the Spaniards, Mexicans, and Americans who later strove to take the land from them and from each other. The ponds lie half-hidden amid jungles of reeds.

San Bernardino National Wildlife Refuge is modest as refuges go — only 2,369 acres — but it was once part of the sprawling, 73,240-acre Slaughter Ranch, two-thirds of which lay in Mexico. Next to the refuge, the ranch headquarters, now a historic site, has its own big pond. From that pond or any of those on the refuge, a major-league slugger could knock a baseball out of the country.

Contractors building the wall have drilled three wells along the border and leased a fourth. Tanker trucks constantly shuttle between the wells and the concrete plant. Nobody is saying how much water wall construction will consume. The foundation for the wall will be — what? A yard wide and seven-feet deep? Ten-feet deep? Sorry, that’s privileged information, not for public consumption.

Anyway, the foundation just in this area will run for scores of miles, farther than you can see, and consume enough concrete to build a small town — and concrete requires water. Lots of it.

How much will the pumping deplete local aquifers? Nobody knows because, absent NEPA, nobody has had to figure it out. There’s been no modeling, no serious testing, no reliable calculations. Still, local ranchers would like to know the answer. They depend on wells and water tanks scattered through the desert scrub where their cattle drink.

Good luck to them. And good luck, as well, to the critters for which the refuge is supposed to provide… well, refuge.

I could print a list of the unusual fish, frogs, snails, snakes, and other living things that are found here and almost nowhere else on Earth, not to mention the rare plants, the itinerant mammals (some also rare), and the hundreds of species of birds that use this place. In the desert, reliable water is a kind of miracle that attracts and creates other miracles.

San Bernardino National Wildlife Refuge, you might say, is a cluster of miracles. There are too many to list. And a long list of weird names would take up a lot of space and sound pinheaded. I care a lot about those creatures, but I don’t want to sound like that.

To be honest, I’m almost afraid to learn the names of some of the refuge’s creatures because then it would only hurt all the more if they decline to extinction. The wall will certainly nudge, or maybe shove, many of them in that direction. Nevertheless, I have to mention two of them. Their names suggest a kind of taxonomic poetry, a nature music. They aren’t necessarily the rarest, but they sound the best: Yaqui topminnow. Chiricahua leopard frog. The words fall on the ears like melodies, evoking the mystery of tender life in a harsh land. As members of a species, you and I are as common as coal. In the big biological scheme of things, creatures like these are rubies and sapphires.

Forget Policy, Follow the Metaphor

It’s impossible to understand the wall, at least in the San Bernardino Valley, in terms of policy. As one rancher put it to me over coffee at the Gadsden Hotel, “This [wall] may be needed someplace, but it isn’t needed here.”

If Trump’s wall were really about policy, its advantages and disadvantages would be weighed against other strategies requiring different kinds of investment. But this is the new Wild West, where rational judgment, laws, and procedures only get in the way.

The truth of the wall lies in metaphor. If Chiricahua leopard frog conveys a kind of poetic resonance to people like me, then for millions of others chanting “Build the Wall!” is like hitting a big bass drum. Everybody understands wall! Even if the structure doesn’t actually work in physical space, it works in your mind. It stands between you and everything bad you can imagine. The core truth that unites Trump and his supporters is that he hates who we hate — and the border wall stands for keeping out those unwanted people and all they represent.

This is why the wall can’t coexist with NEPA. Impact statements don’t do imagery. If you really want to crack down on drug smuggling, for example, you’d concentrate your efforts at established ports of entry, where billions of dollars of goods and millions of people cross from one country to the other every day. The bulk of the fentanyl, cocaine, heroin, and other hard drugs entering the U.S. is reportedly concealed among legitimate imports in railroad cars and trucks of every description. Or they get stashed in secret compartments in buses, vans, cars, and pickup trucks. (The U.S. mail is another major conduit.) Currently, it’s estimated that more than $4 billion in new scanners, inspection lanes, and the people to staff them are needed. Making that investment would have infinitely more impact on drug flow than using the same money to install bollards where they aren’t needed and won’t last. There are better ways to handle people, too, but let’s not get distracted from the real story.

Expenditures on wall construction in Fiscal Year 2019 ran to approximately $10 billion. Only a third of that amount was actually appropriated by Congress for border security structures. Delivering the rest of the money required masterful circumventions of constitutional intent.

Here’s one of them: each year Congress appropriates so-called 2808 funds to the Department of Defense for construction projects on military bases, including schools, clinics, roads, and other infrastructure. Such expenditures are restricted to military property and the international border with Mexico isn’t — or wasn’t — a military base. For the Trumpistas, however, not a problem.

In 1907, President Teddy Roosevelt reserved a 60-foot easement from the public domain along the southern border to keep it “free from obstruction as a protection against the smuggling of goods between the United States and Mexico.” Since then, the “Roosevelt easement” has been administered by the Bureau of Land Management, but last year the Trump administration transferred the easement to the Department of Defense, which obligingly assigned it as a real-estate asset to Fort Bliss, Texas.

Voilà! Now, the Roosevelt Easement is part of a military base and a tendril of Fort Bliss officially extends into Arizona, New Mexico, and California — but not Texas. (The Lone Star State reserved its public land for itself when it entered the union, so no Roosevelt Easement there.) Technically, border wall construction within the easement now constitutes an improvement to Fort Bliss, enhancing military preparedness, yadda, yadda, yadda. There’s more to it than that, including the president’s formal declaration of a national emergency last February, which enabled certain other steps, but you get the idea. Where there’s a will, there’s an imperial way.

As it happens, however, the Pentagon’s money for funding wall construction across the foot of the San Bernardino refuge itself comes from a different pot: “284” funds, intended for counter-narcotics work. Diverting $2.5 billion of these monies to the border wall was, to say the least, a stretch, so a coalition of humanitarian and environmental groups sued. A district court found in their favor and issued an injunction, halting the use of the funds for construction. A rapid series of appeals went to the Supreme Court and the Supremes said, Hmmm, interesting question, which will take time for the lower courts to resolve; meanwhile, the injunction is lifted. And so funding again flowed like a flash flood. If the courts ultimately decide that the transfer of funds is really not okay, the wall may already have been built. Thank you, Supremes.

Dollars and Nonsense

I forgot to mention something: in addition to suspending more than 50 laws protecting lands, wildlife, and the public interest, the government has also waived many procurement laws and also buried a lot of contract information. This means you and I will have a hard time learning what anything actually costs, even though our tax dollars are paying for it.

Example: the barrier to be built along the edge of the San Bernardino refuge, cutting off its terrestrial wildlife from the Mexican half of its world and quite possibly draining the ponds where some of the planet’s rarest creatures survive, is part of a contract for 63 miles of border wall awarded to Southwest Valley Constructors (SWVC), a subsidiary of Kiewit, a Fortune 500 company with $9 billion in annual sales.

The original May 2019 contract awarded $646 million to SWVC, putting the cost of the refuge wall at $10.25 million per mile, a veritable steal. But you would need to know someone who can log into the relevant government database to discover that the fifth modification of the original contract, signed on August 29th, added another $653 million to the kitty. Now, those 63 miles are going to cost $1.3 billion, or almost $21 million per mile.

And by the way, did I mention that construction will include a power line and floodlights on 60-foot masts to illuminate the wall all night long, every night of the year? I have friends in the San Bernardino Valley who just about weep — and they aren’t weepy people — when they think about the lights on that wall blazing away in what used to be the immense, holy darkness of their formerly unblemished land.

I can get pretty choked up about it myself, but you can be sure that smugglers won’t. Here’s where things get truly weird: believe it or not, darkness is an ally of the U.S. Customs and Border Patrol (CBP). Its people have night vision goggles and its drones and other sensors have infrared detectors. They don’t need light. Flood the border with light and, counter-intuitively, the CBP is blinded, losing an advantage. Whose idea was this? Nobody’s saying, but it seems to have come from, ahem, the highest level. Good thing NEPA doesn’t apply.

Let’s turn up the weirdness a little bit further: out in western Arizona, close to the California line, you come to the Barry M. Goldwater Range (BMGR). Here, young Air Force and Marine pilots learn to strafe and bomb. Migrants have been known to cross the international border at the BMGR but, according to court filings, over the past five years migrants have gotten in the way of only 195 of 255,732 air sorties – less than 0.1%.

An already existing pedestrian barrier along much of the range’s border possibly contributes to this low level of trespass — and the bombs and bullets may help, too. But the decisive factor is undoubtedly the range’s spectacular heat and aridity and the mortally long distances a migrant would have to walk to reach any possible pick-up or rendezvous spot. Nevertheless a second wall, backing up the first, is now slated for construction at BMGR, with a road sandwiched between the two walls, down which CBP patrols will race like hamsters on a flattened wheel.

Let’s just agree, as former Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman General Joseph Dunford, Jr., did in a memorandum to then-acting Secretary of Defense Patrick Shanahan, that double-walling the BMGR makes no sense in terms of policy. In terms of metaphor, however, double-walling a border where essentially nobody goes is perfectly logical. If the goal is to build miles of wall, costs and benefits be damned, you might as well build them where there’s nobody to get in the way. Build the wall!

And so it is indeed being built, at the cost of violating not just the San Bernardino National Wildlife Refuge, but Cabeza Prieta National Wildlife Refuge, Organ Pipe National Monument, the Lower Rio Grande National Wildlife Refuge, the Santa Ana National Wildlife Refuge, the historic town center of Roma, Texas, and other sublime and exceptional places. One might ask why so much uniqueness and rarity lies along our southern border. The short answer is that the borderlands are the meeting place of biological communities as well as cultures. As Chicano performance artist Guillermo Gómez-Peña puts it, “The border is the juncture, not the edge.”

But an edge is exactly what President Trump’s wall would make it. Wall construction was and remains his foremost campaign pledge: 500 miles of wall by November of 2020, or 450 miles, or whatever the number du jourhappens to be. Speaker Nancy Pelosi, the Washington Post, and others have tried to deflate the president’s boasts by asserting that he’s actually built no new wall and his promises are empty.

In their calculations, substituting a 30-foot-tall wall for vehicle barriers is only “replacement” and therefore doesn’t constitute “new” construction. That’s like arguing that mooring an aircraft carrier where a rowboat used to be changes nothing because there’s still just one vessel in the harbor. Such semantic jousting only camouflages the pervasive damage already being done both to people and to the land on the border — and there’s no end in sight. The congressional budget agreement hammered out in December 2019 appropriates another $1.375 billion for wall construction for fiscal year 2020, while removing obstacles to yet more transfers of Pentagon funds. And Trump is not being shy about those transfers.  He evidently plans to divert $7.2 billion more from legitimate Pentagon projects to wall building this year.

The international drug cartels should be thanking us. The wall will not curb their principal business of smuggling and the Trump administration’s new immigration policies have turned what was formerly a minor sideline — kidnapping people for ransom — into a growth industry. Tens of thousands of asylum seekers to whom the U.S. has refused entry are now huddled in cardboard slums in Mexico’s border towns, vulnerable to human predators. Their relatives in the United States — the people they were trying to reach — will beg, borrow, or steal to pay the ransoms that the increasingly busy (and brutal) kidnappers in Mexico demand.

That, however, is just collateral damage in the land of the free. Of course, we treat asylum seekers as though they were an inferior variety of human being. They talk funny. They aren’t like us. And we treat the borderlands and its creatures with the same loyalty we showed the Kurds. After all, we are America. Behind our wall, we are great again.

*

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

William deBuys, a TomDispatch regular, is the author of nine books, including The Last Unicorn: A Search for One of Earth’s Rarest Creatures and A Great Aridness: Climate Change and the Future of the American Southwest.

Featured image: Homeland Security Secretary Kirstjen Nielsen speaks during a visit to President Trump’s border wall in the El Centro Sector in Calexico, California. © Reuters / Earnie Grafton

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Making America Great Again in a New Wild West
  • Tags:

How Perception Management Has Wrecked Reality

January 20th, 2020 by Greg Guma

In The Secret Man, Bob Woodward’s book about his Watergate source Deep Throat, he notes, “Washington politics and secrets are an entire world of doubt.” And that was before Trump and cyberwar.

Even though Woodward knew the identity of his source — W. Mark Felt, then associate director of the FBI — what he could not be sure about was why Felt decided to gradually reveal the details of the Nixon administration’s illegal activities. Decades later, it is immeasurably more difficult to be sure about what motivates many sources of information, on and off the record, or to trust that what we hear and see via the media will turn out to be true.

In July 2005, Jeff Ruch, director of Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility, issued a relevant but discouraging warning to the Subcommittee on Regulatory Affairs of the U.S. House Committee on Government Reform. “The federal government is suffering from a severe disinformation syndrome,” he said. It’s been mostly downhill from there, especially in the years since Donald Trump’s hostile takeover of the Republican Party turned national politics into surrealistic satire.

Weaponizing the term “fake news,” he and his accomplices have also effectively used it in a stream of misleading counter-attacks on critical press outlets. Hard as it is to believe, the targets have been mainly what used to be called mainstream media.

Fifteen years ago, Ruch’s reference to a “disinformation syndrome” referred specifically to surveys by his organization and the Union of Concerned Scientists revealing that federal scientists were routinely pressured to amend their findings. One in five scientists contacted said they were directed to inappropriately exclude or alter technical information, Ruch testified, and more than half reported cases where “commercial interests” forced the reversal or withdrawal of scientific conclusions.

But even then government agencies weren’t alone in confusing public understanding of crucial issues. Media outlets also contributed. One poignant example was Newsweek magazine’s Aug. 1, 2005 cover story on Supreme Court nominee John G. Roberts, which aggressively dismissed reports that Roberts was a conservative partisan. Two primary examples cited were the nominee’s role on Bush’s legal team in the court fight after the 2000 election, described by Newsweek as “minimal,” and his membership in the conservative Federalist Society, which was pronounced an irrelevant distortion.

Roberts “is not the hard-line ideologue that true believers on both sides had hoped for,” the publication concluded, and “seems destined to be confirmed.” That general description has pretty much stuck.

The facts suggested a different appraisal, however. According to the Miami Herald, Roberts was a significant “legal consultant, lawsuit editor and prep coach” for Bush’s arguments before the U.S. Supreme Court in December 2000, and, as the Washington Post revealed, he was not just a Federalist Society member, but on the Washington chapter’s steering committee in the late 1990s.

More to the point, his roots in the conservative vanguard dated back to his days with the Reagan administration, when he provided legal justifications for recasting the way government and the courts approached civil rights, defended attempts to narrow the reach of the 1965 Voting Rights Act, challenged arguments in favor of busing and affirmative action, and even argued that Congress should strip the Supreme Court of its ability to hear broad classes of civil-rights cases. Nevertheless, most press reports on Roberts before his elevation — and since — echoed Newsweek’s excitement about his “intellectual rigor and honesty.”

Whether that early coverage qualifies as disinformation remains debatable. We may soon find out, as Roberts presides over the impeachment of a Republican president. However that turns out, his early press nevertheless serves as a relevant example of how journalists can assist political leaders, albeit unwittingly at times, in framing public awareness. As a practice, this is known in both government and public relations circles as “perception management.”

An evolving tactic

In 1987, the Department of Defense developed a propaganda and psychological warfare glossary that included an official definition of the term. Perception management incorporates tactics that either convey or deny information to influence “emotions, motives, and objective reasoning,” explained the DoD. For the military, the main targets are supposedly foreign audiences, and the goal is to promote “actions favorable to the originator’s objectives. In various ways, perception management combines truth projection, operations security, cover and deception, and psychological operations.”

The Reagan administration preferred a different term, “public diplomacy,” while the Bush administration called it “strategic influence,” but both referred to the same thing. In The Art of the Deal, Trump called it “truthful hyperbole,” a misleading euphemism for making things up.

Organized federal efforts to manipulate public perceptions date back at least to the 1950s, when people at more than 800 news and public information organizations carried out assignments for the CIA, according to The New York Times. By the mid-1980s, CIA Director Bill Casey had taken the practice to the next level: a systematic, covert “public diplomacy” apparatus designed to sell a “new product” — counter-insurgency in Central America — while reinforcing fear of communism, Nicaragua’s Sandinistas, Libya’s Muammar Qaddafi, and other designated enemies. Sometimes this involved “white propaganda,” stories and editorials secretly financed by the government, much like the videos and commentators later funded by the Bush administration. But other operations went “black;” that is, they pushed obviously false story lines.

During the first Bush administration, domestic disinformation was handled through the CIA’s Public Affairs Office. This operation was charged with turning intelligence failures into successes by persuading reporters to postpone, change, hold, or even scrap stories that could adversely affect purported national security interests. The Clinton administration’s version, outlined in Directive 68, was known as the International Public Information System (IPI). Again, no distinction was made between what could be done abroad and at home. To defeat enemies and influence minds, information for U.S. audiences was “deconflicted” through the IPI’s work.

One strategy was to insert psyops (psychological operations) specialists into newsrooms. In February 2000, a Dutch journalist revealed that CNN and the U.S. Army had agreed to do precisely that. The military was proud enough of this “expanded cooperation” with mainstream media to publicly acknowledge the effort.

As the Iraq War began, word leaked out that a new Pentagon Office of Strategic Influence was gearing up to sway leaders and public sentiment by disseminating sometimes-false stories. Facing censure, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld publicly denounced and supposedly disbanded it. But a few months later, he quietly funded a private consultant to develop another version. The apparent goal was to go beyond traditional information warfare with a new perception management campaign designed to “win the war of ideas.”

How does perception management work? One important tactic is to influence opinion by presenting theories as if they are facts. For example, “Bad as things are in Iraq,” began an Associated Press story in April 2004, “a quick U.S. departure would make them worse; encourage terrorists, set the stage for civil war, send oil prices spiraling, and ruin U.S. credibility throughout the Middle East.” Only two sources, both obscure Middle East scholars, were directly quoted in the story, plus unnamed “regional experts.”

Another approach is to “massage” the information, thus promoting the preferred spin. For example, stories that asserted the Iraq insurgency was losing momentum stressed the number of incidents during a specific period, but ignored data such as the number of wounded, civilian contractor deaths, and Iraqi military casualties.

Sometimes, though, the only approach that works is to fabricate the news.

Selling a war

The jailing of New York Times reporter Judith Miller for refusing to reveal how she learned the identity of CIA agent Valerie Plame, who was outed by columnist Robert Novak with White House assistance, sparked widespread condemnation from the press. Many journalists expressed deep concerns that their future ability to gain the trust of confidential sources would be undermined. Miller was, after all, a Pulitzer Prize-winner and the author of best-selling books; in short, an eminently reputable journalist who didn’t deserve punishment for protecting sources.

However, Miller’s real importance in the world of unnamed sources leads in a different direction. It illustrates how perception management techniques were applied during the Iraq War — something to keep in mind as Iran becomes a convenient election-year target. On April 21, 2003, the front page of the Times carried a story by Miller titled, “Aftereffects: Prohibited Weapons; Illicit Arms Kept Till Eve of War, An Iraqi Scientist Is Said to Assert.” In the lead paragraph, Miller claimed that she had discovered the proof of weapons of mass destruction, a central Bush Administration argument for the war.

Based upon what members of Mobile Exploitation Team (MET) Alpha related to Miller, she reported that a mysterious, unnamed scientist had led them to a site where he had buried evidence of an illicit weapons program. Her story included the scientist’s charges that Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein had transferred illegal weapons to Syria, and was cooperating with al-Qaeda. The revelation supported White House accusations that Iraq was developing such weapons, and had lied about it to the United Nations.

The catch was that Miller’s story came entirely from secondary sources and had no independent confirmation. She never met the scientist and her copy was submitted to military officials before it was released. Yet, when Miller appeared on PBS’ NewsHour the same day, she said, “Well, I think they found something more than a smoking gun,” and turned her one unnamed scientist into several. Other news outlets quickly jumped on her article and statements to argue that the war was justified after all. By the next day, headlines across the country proclaimed “Illegal Material Spotted.”

As it turned out, the evidence wasn’t there, and a day later Miller was reporting that there had been a “paradigm shift.” Now she said MET Alpha was looking for “building blocks” and “precursors” to those weapons, another effort that ultimately proved fruitless. Next, her unnamed source informed her that the focus had changed to a search for scientists who could prove there had once been a WMD program.

This was only one of many stories produced by Miller that backed up administration arguments, only to be proven wrong or obsolete later. In many cases, she subsequently “clarified” or backed away from an initial characterization. But just as important as the content, disseminated widely through her appearances on programs like Oprah and Larry King Live, were her associations and actual sources of information.

By her own admission, the majority of stories she wrote about weapons of mass destruction came from Ahmad Chalabi, the exiled leader of the U.S.-backed Iraqi National Congress who hoped to replace Saddam Hussein. “I’ve been covering Chalabi for about 10 years,” Miller told Baghdad Bureau Chief John Burns, another New York Times Pulitzer Prize winner who became angry with her over an article on Chalabi. “He has provided most of the front page exclusives on WMD to our paper.” Furthermore, MET Alpha used “Chalabi’s intel and document network for its own WMD work,” she admitted.

Equally relevant was Miller’s association with the Middle East Forum, which promoted her as a speaker on “militant Islam” and “biological warfare.” Founded by Daniel Pipes, the forum was in the forefront of the push for an invasion of Iraq before the war. Pipes in turn maintained close relationships with Douglas Feith, an undersecretary at the Department of Defense, and leading neoconservative Richard Perle.

In Bob Woodward’s book on the Iraq War, Plan of Attack, Secretary of State Colin Powell described Feith as running a “Gestapo office” determined to find a connection between Saddam Hussein and 9/11. In A Pretext for War, a book on the abuse of U.S. intelligence agencies before and after 9/11, James Bamford described how Feith and Perle developed a blueprint for the Iraq operation while working for pro-Israeli think tanks. Their plan, called “A Clean Break: A New Strategy for Securing the Realm,” centered on taking out Saddam and replacing him with a friendly leader. “Whoever inherits Iraq,” they wrote, “dominates the entire Levant strategically.” The subsequent steps they recommended included invading Syria and Lebanon.

After joining the Bush administration, Feith created the Office of Strategic Influence. Senior officials have called it a disinformation factory. He later launched the Office of Special Plans (OSP). Officially, its job was to conduct pre-war planning. But its actual target was the media, policymakers, and public opinion. According to London’s Guardian newspaper, the OSP provided key people in the administration with “alarmist reports on Saddam’s Iraq.” To do that, it circulated cooked intelligence from its own unit and a similar Israeli group. There was also a close relationship with Vice President Cheney’s office.

According to Bamford, OSP’s intelligence unit cherry-picked the most damning items from the streams of U.S. and Israeli reports and briefed senior administration officials. “These officials would then use the OSP’s false and exaggerated intelligence as ammunition when attempting to hard-sell the need for war to their reluctant colleagues, such as Colin Powell, and even to allies like British Prime Minister Tony Blair,” he reports. Senior White House officials received the same briefings.

The final step was to get Powell to make the case to the UN. This was handled by the White House Iraq Group (WHIG), a secret office established to sell the war. WHIG provided Powell with a “script” for his speech, using information developed by Feith’s group. Much of it was unsourced material fed to reporters like Miller by the OSP. Such techniques continued to prove useful after the invasion.

Shaping the environment

Like other forms of perception management, the manipulation and misuse of reporters isn’t new. In the 1960s, the FBI used large dailies like the San Francisco Chronicle to place unfavorable stories and leak false information. In Chicago, such “friendly media” assisted with smears of black nationalist groups on the radio and in print. Sometimes reporters were unwittingly exploited, but often they knew what they were doing: writing dubious stories that made FBI speculation and falsehoods sound true. When challenged, they too vigorously protected their sources.

Vermont’s media saw perception management at work in 1978, when a young woman named Kristina Berster was caught crossing the border illegally from Canada into Vermont. The FBI knew only that she was a West German citizen and was wanted for something called “criminal association,” a crime that didn’t exist in the United States. But FBI Director William Webster realized that her arrest could help buttress his claims that urban terrorism was increasing. He was in the process of lobbying for more agents and expanded authority to investigate those who were “reasonably believed” to be involved in “potential” terrorist activities.

Within a few days, Webster had organized a press conference to announce that a foreign terrorist had been caught in a conspiracy with U.S. citizens. FBI agents quickly contacted their favorite reporters as off-the-record sources, and U.S. newspapers, including those in Vermont, spread the news in bold headlines: “Terrorist held after attempt to enter U.S.”

Initially, journalists presented the government’s version without asking many questions. After all, why else the high bail, 24-hour guard for the judge, metal detectors, and armed officers on the courthouse roof? As the trial proceeded in U.S. District Court in Burlington, new information about potential “threats” was distributed to the press, reinforcing the idea that foreign terrorism loomed over the Green Mountains.

However, once local reporters had time to observe the defendant, a small, fair-haired woman with a mild demeanor and open smile, the huge security team began to look like overkill. And as the media coverage shifted, the general public also gave the case a second look and the story gradually unraveled.

The verdict, delivered on Oct. 27, 1978 after more than five days of deliberations, was a felony and misdemeanor conviction for lying to a customs official, but acquittal on the crucial conspiracy charge. The government had lost its main case. Afterward, several jurors said that they found Berster’s situation compelling and expressed hope that the guilty verdict on minor charges wouldn’t prevent her from winning asylum.

But beyond this small New England state, the smear campaign rolled on. In New York City, a banner headline in the New York Post the day after Berster’s conviction trumpeted, “No Asylum for Terrorist.”

This story has a happy ending at least: When Berster returned home to Germany, the old charges against her were dropped. Still, it demonstrates how perception management works. Manipulating the press and exploiting fear are powerful tools, too often used to justify bigger budgets or intrusive security measures.

Today, controlling public opinion involves more than what was once simply labeled propaganda. Over the years, both business interests and governments have developed a creative toolbox of tactics to promote the stories they want to see and prevent others from being aired or published. In some cases, this involves what has become known as spin, or “white propaganda,” arguments that tend to move opinion in a specific direction.

For journalists, the pitfalls include institutional constraints, commercial imperatives, relationships with sources that have hidden agendas, the temptation to focus on easy targets, and a tendency toward self-censorship. There is also an increasing likelihood, exacerbated by the Internet and social media, that rumors or speculation will be confused with reality.

In other words, perception management is about more than censoring or pushing an individual story. Rather, it involves the creation of an environment that promotes false narratives, the uncritical acceptance of questionable assumptions, and media willing to exploit them.

As Noam Chomsky put it, “The point is not that the journalists or commentators are dishonest; rather, unless they happen to conform to the institutional requirements, they will find no place in the corporate media.” The fact that the interests of owners shape what is defined as news is one of the main structural “filters” underlying newsgathering, he notes.

When confronted with such a critique, many journalists reject it as “conspiracy” thinking. Translation: it’s paranoid, extreme, and therefore irrelevant. Especially now, when most reporters and unnamed sources are assumed to be part of the Trump “resistance.” Unlike any other employees, most journalists insist that they are free of direct supervisory control, outside influences, or serious bias, and thus free to pursue any story, wherever it leads.

But as anyone who has worked in a real news organization knows, every story involves a series of decisions and judgments about what is important, relevant, permissible and appropriate. And almost every source, from a disgruntled bureaucrat to Deep Throat, brings an agenda of his or her own. It may all add up to news, but that doesn’t make it true.

At the time he was developing this analysis, Greg Guma was co-editor of Vermont Guardian, a statewide weekly. An earlier version appeared in the August 12, 2005 issue. The ideas were more fully explored in Censored 2008 as Chapter 14, Perception Management: Media & Mass Consciousness in an Age of Misinformation.

*

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.

Greg Guma writes on his blog, For Preservation & Change, where this article was originally published. 

All images in this article are from the author

Trump’s Legal Team Responds to Dems Impeachment Scam

January 20th, 2020 by Stephen Lendman

There’s overwhelming just cause to impeach and remove Trump from office for legitimate high crimes.  

The same is true for most of his predecessors, along with most current and former congressional members.

The Constitution’s Article II, Section 4 states “(t)he President, Vice President and all civil officers of the United States, shall be removed from office on impeachment for, and conviction of, treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors.”

Evidence supporting the removal of Trump from office for abuse of power and obstruction of Congress, rising to the level of impeachable offenses as constitutionally defined, is lacking — charges against him by undemocratic Dems politicized.

Unrelated to removing him from office by Senate trial, they’re all about wanting him delegitimized and weakened ahead of November 2020 elections.

Ahead of proceedings to begin on Tuesday, Trump’s legal team formally slammed what’s going on as a “brazen and unlawful attempt” to overturn results of the 2016 presidential election. More on this below.

How would Abraham Lincoln fare today. He illegally suspended the Constitution and habeas rights, forcefully closed courts, arbitrarily ordered arrests, conscripted US citizens without congressional consent, closed newspapers opposing his policies, and ordered generals to commit war crimes.

Under his command, General William Sherman’s march to the sea involved rape, pillaging and mass murder.

His Emancipation Proclamation didn’t free a single slave. He wanted them deported at war’s end to maintain America as a white supremacist society.

Glorifying him as one of the nation’s greatest presidents ignores his dark side.

History taught Americans in secondary school, college, graduate school and in doctoral studies conceals the US dark side.

Slave owners Washington, Jefferson, and other US presidents diminished their moral and ethical standing, clearly not believing that all Americans are created equal.

Despite his lofty rhetoric and intellectual pursuits, Jefferson knew slavery was wrong, but owned them anyway, never freeing them like Washington.

He had a slave as mistress and lied about it. He or Washington could have set an example by freeing the nation’s slaves, neither figure having the courage to do the right thing.

Samuel Johnson asked: “How is it that we hear the loudest yelps for liberty from the drivers of Negroes?”

According to historian Stephen Ambrose, “(o)f all the contradictions in Jefferson’s contradictory life, none is greater,” adding:

“Of all the contradictions in America’s history, none surpasses its toleration first of slavery and then of segregation.”

Ambrose omitted endless US wars throughout most of the nation’s history — from exterminating Native Americans to ongoing war on humanity.

Washington reviled the nation’s native people, calling them “wolves” and “beasts of prey.”

He dispatched General John Sullivan to attack noncombatant Onondaga people in 1779, ordering him to destroy their villages, homes, fields, food supplies, cattle herds and orchards, wanting as many as possible killed. He stole Indian land.

Dem Woodrow Wilson’s tenure was defined by US involvement in WW I — after pledging to keep America out of Europe’s war.

It was also disgraced by signing the 1913 Federal Reserve Act into law, giving Wall Street control of the nation’s money, the supreme power above all others.

Policies under Franklin Roosevelt pressured imperial Japan to attack the US, giving FDR the war he wanted.

US history isn’t pretty, Trump the latest in a long line of presidents whose policies supported wealth, power and privilege exclusively over peace, equity and justice, notions considered un-American — based on policies pursued by its ruling class throughout US history.

The Clinton co-presidency was anti-New Deal, anti-Great Society, pro-war, pro-business, anti-populist, anti-labor, anti-public welfare.

Bush/Cheney waged US war OF terror, not on it in Afghanistan, Iraq, and against Muslims in America, numerous police state laws enacted on their watch.

Obama bragged about terror-bombing seven countries in eight years.

He institutionalized indefinite detention, authorizing the military to indefinitely detain anyone anywhere without charge, including US citizens, based on suspicions or spurious allegations.

His disposition matrix kill list ordered the elimination of alleged enemies of the state.

Trump exceeded the worst of his predecessors’ domestic and geopolitical policies — filling the swamp he pledged to drain with neocon hardliners, militarists, and super-wealthy individuals like himself.

He broke virtually everyone positive promise made, operating in bad faith, never to be trusted, while waging war on humanity at home and abroad.

Yet none of his legitimate wrongdoing is included in impeachment charges against him.

On Saturday, his legal team led by White House counsel Pat Cipollone and personal attorney Jay Sekulow submitted a six-page response to impeachment charges against him — ahead of Senate trial proceedings to begin this week.

Rejecting charges by Dems, it said “articles of impeachment (they) submitted are a dangerous attack on the right of the American people to freely choose their president,” adding:

“This is a brazen and unlawful attempt to overturn the results of the 2016 election and interfere with the 2020 election — now just months away.”

“Nothing in these Articles could permit even beginning to consider removing a duly elected President or warrant nullifying an election and subverting the will of the American people. They must be rejected.”

Rejection is virtually certain in the GOP-controlled Senate, trial proceedings likely to conclude in two or three weeks.

No president in US history was removed from office by impeachment, Trump highly unlikely to be the first.

*

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

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

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

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

Visit his blog site at sjlendman.blogspot.com.

Featured image is from The Bullet

The Roots of American Demonization of Shi’a Islam

January 20th, 2020 by Pepe Escobar

The US targeted assassination, via drone strike, of Maj. Gen. Qassem Soleimani, apart from a torrent of crucial geopolitical ramifications, once again propels to center stage a quite inconvenient truth: the congenital incapacity of so-called US elites to even attempt to understand Shi’ism – thus 24/7 demonization, demeaning not only Shi’as by also Shi’a-led governments.

Washington had been deploying a Long War even before the concept was popularized by the Pentagon in 2001, immediately after 9/11: it’s a Long War against Iran. It started via the coup against the democratically elected government of Mosaddegh in 1953, replaced by the Shah’s dictatorship. The whole process was turbo-charged over 40 years ago when the Islamic Revolution smashed those good old Cold War days when the Shah reigned as the privileged American “gendarme of the (Persian) Gulf”.

Yet this extends far beyond geopolitics. There is absolutely no way whatsoever for anyone to be capable of grasping the complexities and popular appeal of Shi’ism without some serious academic research, complemented with visits to selected sacred sites across Southwest Asia: Najaf, Karbala, Mashhad, Qom and the Sayyida Zeinab shrine near Damascus. Personally, I have traveled this road of knowledge since the late 1990s – and I still remain just a humble student.

In the spirit of a first approach – to start an informed East-West debate on a crucial cultural issue totally sidelined in the West or drowned by tsunamis of propaganda, I initially asked three outstanding scholars for their first impressions.

They are: Prof. Mohammad Marandi, of the University of Tehran, expert on Orientalism; Arash Najaf-Zadeh, who writes under the nom de guerre Blake Archer Williams and who is an expert on Shi’a theology; and the extraordinary Princess Vittoria Alliata from Sicily, top Italian Islamologist and author, among others, of books such as the mesmerizing Harem – which details her travels across Arab lands.

Two weeks ago, I was a guest of Princess Vittoria at Villa Valguarnera in Sicily. We were immersed in a long, engrossing geopolitical discussion – of which one of the key themes was US-Iran – only a few hours before a drone strike at Baghdad airport killed the two foremost Shi’a fighters in the real war on terror against ISIS/Daesh and al-Qaeda/al-Nusra: Iranian Maj. Gen. Qassem Soleimani and Iraqi Hashd al-Shaabi second-in-command Abu Mahdi al-Muhandis.

Martyrdom vs. cultural relativism

Prof. Marandi offers a synthetic explanation: “The American irrational hatred of Shi’ism stems from its strong sense of resisting injustice – the story of Karbala and Imam Hussein and the Shi’a stress on protecting the oppressed, defending the oppressed and standing up against the oppressor. That is something that the United States and the hegemonic Western powers simply cannot tolerate.”

Blake Archer Williams sent me a reply that has now been published as a stand-alonepiece. This passage, extending on the power of the sacred, clearly underlines the abyss separating the Shi’a notion of martyrdom from Western cultural relativism:

“There is nothing more glorious for a Moslem than attaining to martyrdom while fighting in the Way of God. General Qāsem Soleymānī fought for many years for the objective of waking the Iraqi people up to the point where they would want to take the helm of the destiny of their own country in their own hands. The vote of the Iraqi parliament showed that his objective has been achieved. His body was taken away from us, but his spirit was amplified a thousand fold, and his martyrdom has ensured that shards of its blessed light will be embedded in the hearts and minds of every Moslem man, woman, and child, inoculating them all from the zombie-cancer of the Satanic Novus Ordo Seclorum cultural relativists.”

[a point of contention: Novus Ordo Seclorum, or Saeculorum, means “new order of the ages”, and derives from a famous poem by Virgil which, in the Middle Ages, was regarded by Christians as a prophecy of the coming of Christ. To this point, Williams responded that “while that etymological sense of the phrase is true and still stands, the phrase was hijacked by one George Bush The Younger as representative of the New Worldly Order globalist cabal, and it is in this sense that is currently predominant.”]

Enslaved by Wahhabism

Princess Vittoria would rather frame the debate around the unquestioning American attitude towards Wahhabism:

“I do not think all this has anything to do with hating Shi’ism or ignoring it. After all the Aga Khan is super embedded in US security, a sort of Dalai Lama of the Islamic world. I believe the satanic influence is from Wahhabism, and the Saudi family, who are much more heretic than the Shi’a to all Sunnis of the world, but have been the only contact to Islam for the US rulers. The Saudis have paid for most of the murders and wars by the Islamic Brothers first, then by the other forms of Salafism, all of them invented on a Wahhabi base.”

So, for Princess Vittoria,

“I would not try so much to explain Shi’ism, but to explain Wahhabism and its devastating consequences: it has given birth to all extremisms as well as to revisionism, atheism, destruction of shrines and Sufi leaders all over the Islamic world. And of course Wahhabism is so close to Zionism. There are even researchers who have come up with documents which seem to prove that the House of Saud is a Dunmeh tribe of converted Jews expelled from Medina by the Prophet after they tried to murder him despite having signed a peace treaty.”

Princess Vittoria also emphasizes the fact that

“ the Iranian revolution and Shi’a groups in the Middle East are today the only successful force of resistance to the US, and that causes them to be hated more than others. But only after all other Sunni opponents had been disposed of, killed, terrified (just think of Algeria, but there are dozens of other examples) or corrupted. This is of course not only my position, but that of most Islamologists today.”

The profane against the sacred

Knowing of Williams’ immense knowledge of Shi’a theology, and his expertise in Western philosophy, I prodded him to, literally, “go for the jugular”. And he delivered:

“The question as to why American politicians are incapable of understanding Shi’a Islam (or Islam in general for that matter) is a simple one: unrestrained neoliberal capitalism engenders oligarchy, and the oligarchs “select” candidates that represent their interests before they are “elected” by the ignorant masses. Populist exceptions such as Trump occasionally slip through (or don’t, as in the case of Ross Perot, who pulled out under duress), but even Trump is then controlled by the oligarchs through threats of impeachment, etc. So the role of the politician in democracies seems not to be to try to understand anything but simply carry out the agenda of the elites who own them.”

Williams’ “go for the jugular” response is a long, complex essay that I’d like to publish in full only when our debate gets deeper – along with possible refutations. To summarize it, he outlines and discusses the two main tendencies in Western philosophy: dogmatists vs. skeptics; details how “the holy trinity of the ancient world were in fact the second wave of the dogmatists, trying to save the Greek city states and the Greek world more generally from the decadence of the Sophists”; delves into the “the third wave of skepticism”, which started with the Renaissance and peaked in the 17th century with Montaigne and Descartes; and then draws connections “to Shi’a Islam and the failure of the West to understand it.”

And that leads him to “the heart of the matter”:

“A third option, and a third intellectual stream over and above the dogmatists and the skeptics, and that is the tradition of the traditional (as opposed to the philosophical) Shī’a scholars of religion.”

Now compare it with the last push of the skeptics,

“as Descartes himself admits, by the ‘daemon’ which came to him in his dreams and which resulted in his writing his Discourse on the Method (1637) and Meditations on First Philosophy (1641). The West is still reeling from the blow, and it would seem has decided to put away its stilts of reason and the senses (which Kant tried in vain to reconcile, making things a thousand times worse and more convoluted and discombobulated), and just wallow in the self-congratulatory form of irrationalism known as post-modernism, which should rightly be called ultra-modernism or hyper-modernism as it is no less rooted in the Cartesian ‘Subjective Turn’ and the Kantian ‘Copernican Revolution’ than are the early moderns and the moderns proper.”

To summarize a quite complex juxtaposition,

“what all this means is that the two civilizations have two utterly different views of what the world order should be. Iran believes that the order of the world should be what it has always been and actually is in reality, whether we like it or not, or whether we even believe in reality or not (as some in the West are wont not to do). And the secularized West believes in a new worldly (as opposed to other-worldly or divine) order. And so it is not so much a clash of civilizations as it is a clash of the profane against the sacred, with profane elements in both civilizations arrayed against the sacred forces in both civilizations. It is the clash of the sacred order of justice versus the profane order of the exploitation of man at the hands of his fellow man; of the profaning of God’s justice for the (short-term or this-worldly) benefit of the rebels against God’s justice.”

Dorian Gray revisited

Williams does provide a concrete example to illustrate these abstract concepts:

“The problem is that while everyone knows that the 19th and 20th century exploitation of the third world by Western powers was unjust and immoral, this same exploitation continues today. The continuation of this outrageous injustice is the ultimate basis for the differences that exist between Iran and the United States, which will ineluctably continue as long as the US insists on its exploitative practices and as long as it continues to protect its protectorate governments, who only survive against the overwhelming will of the people they rule because of the bullying presence of the US forces that are propping them up in order for them to continue to serve their interests rather than the interests of their peoples. It is a spiritual war for the establishment of justice and autonomy in the third world. The West can continue to look good in its own eyes because it controls the reality studio (of world discourse), but its real image is plain for all to see, even though the West continues to see itself as Dorian Gray did in Oscar Wilde’s only novel, as a young and handsome person whose sins were only reflected in his portrait. Thus the portrait reflects the reality which the third world sees every day, whereas the Western Dorian Gray sees himself as he is portrayed by the CNN’s and the BBC’s and the New York Times’s of the world.”

“Western imperialism in Western Asia is usually symbolized by Napoleon Bonaparte’s war against the Ottomans in Egypt and Syria (1798–1801). Ever since the beginning of the 19th century, the West has been sucking on the jugular vein of the Moslem body politic like a veritable vampire whose thirst for Moslem blood is never sated and who refused to let go. Since 1979, Iran, which has always played the role of the intellectual leader of the Islamic world, has risen up to put a stop to this outrage against God’s law and will, and against all decency. So it is a process of revisioning a false and distorted vision of reality back to what reality actually is and should be: a just order. But this revisioning is hampered both by the fact that the vampires control the reality studio, and the ineptitude of Moslem intellectuals and their failure to understand even the rudiments of the history of Western thought, be this in its ancient, medieval, or modern period.”

Is there a chance to smash the reality studio? Possibly:

“What needs to happen is for world consciousness to shift from the paradigm wherein people believe a maniac like Pompeo and a buffoon like Trump represent the paragon of normality, to a paradigm where people believe that Pompeo and Trump are just a couple of gangsters who go about doing whatever they please, no matter how disgusting and depraved, with almost complete and utter impunity. And that is a process of revisioning, and a process of awakening to a new and higher state of political consciousness. It is a process of rejecting the discourse of the dominant paradigm and of joining the Axis of Resistance, whose military leader was the martyr General Qāsem Soleymānī. Not least, it involves a rejection of the absurdity of the relativity of truth (and the relativity of time and space, for that matter; sorry, Einstein); and the abandonment of the absurd and nihilistic philosophy of humanism, and the awakening to the reality that there is a Creator, and that He is actually in charge. But of course, all this is too much for the oh-so-enlightened modern mentality, who knows better.”

There you go. And this is just the beginning. Input and refutations welcomed. Calling all informed souls: the debate is on.

*

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

This article was originally published on The Unz Review.

Pepe Escobar is a frequent contributor to Global Research. 

Featured image is from The Unz Review

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on The Roots of American Demonization of Shi’a Islam
  • Tags: ,

Ike Was Right

January 20th, 2020 by Eric Margolis

“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. Now 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 Statehouse, every office of the Federal government. We recognize the imperative need for this development. Yet, we must not fail to comprehend its grave implications. Our toil, resources, and livelihood are all involved. So is the very structure of our society.” — General Dwight D Eisenhower, Farewell address 1961

Congress just passed a near trillion dollar military budget at a time when the United States faces no evident state threats at home or abroad. Ike was right.

Illustrating Ike’s prescient warning, Brown University’s respected Watson Institute just released a major study which found that the so-called ‘wars on terror’ in Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria and Pakistan have cost US taxpayers $6.4 trillion since they began in 2001.

The extensive study found that over 800,000 people have died as a result of these military operations, a third of them civilians. An additional 21 million civilians have been displaced by US military operations. According to the Pentagon, these US wars have so far cost each American taxpayer $7,623 – and that’s a very conservative estimate.

Most of this money has been quietly added to the US national debt of over $23 trillion. Wars on credit hide the true cost and pain from the public.

As General Eisenhower warned, military spending has engulfed the nation. A trillion annual military budget represents just about half the world’s military expenditures. The Pentagon, which I’ve visited numerous times, is bustling with activity as if the nation was on a permanent war footing.

The combined US intelligence budget of some $80 billion is larger than Russia’s total military budget of $63 billion. US troops, warplanes and naval vessels are stationed around the globe, including, most lately, across Africa. And yet every day the media trumpets new ‘threats’ to the US. Trump is sending more troops to the Mideast while claiming he wants to reduce America’s powerful military footprint there. Our military is always in search of new missions. These operations generate promotions and pay raises, new equipment and a reason for being.

Back in the day, the Republican Party of General Eisenhower was a centrist conservative’s party with a broad world view, dedicated to lower taxes and somewhat smaller government. It was led by the Rockefellers and educated Easterners with a broad world view and respect for tradition.

Today’s Republican Party is a collection of rural interests from flyover country, handmaidens of the military industrial complex and, most important, militant evangelical Christians who see the world through the spectrum of the Old Testament. Israel’s far right has come to dominate American evangelists by selling them a bill of goods about the End of Days and the Messiah’s return. Many of these rubes see Trump as a quasi-religious figure.

Mix the religious cultists – about 25% of the US population – with the farm and Israel lobbies and the mighty military industrial complex and no wonder the United States has veered off into the deep waters of irrationality and crusading ardor. The US can still afford such bizarre behavior thanks to its riches, magic green dollar, endless supply of credit and a poorly educated, apathetic public too besotted by sports and TV sitcoms to understand what’s going on abroad.

All the war party needs is a steady supply of foreign villains (preferably Muslims) who can be occasionally bombed back to the early Islamic age. Americans have largely forgotten George W. Bush’s lurid claims that Iraqi drones of death were poised to shower poisons on the sleeping nation. Even the Soviets never ventured so deep into the sea of absurdity.

The military industrial complex does not care to endanger its gold-plated F-35 stealth aircraft and $13 billion apiece aircraft carriers in a real war against real powers. Instead, the war party likes little wars against weak opponents who can barely shoot back. State-run TV networks thrill to such minor scraps with fancy headlines and martial music. Think of the glorious little wars against Panama, Grenada, Somalia, Iraq, Syria, Afghanistan and Libya. Iran looks next.

The more I listen to his words, the more I like Ike.

*

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 Truth About the Trump Economy

January 20th, 2020 by Joseph E. Stiglitz

It is becoming conventional wisdom that US President Donald Trump will be tough to beat in November, because, whatever reservations about him voters may have, he has been good for the American economy. Nothing could be further from the truth.

As the world’s business elites trek to Davos for their annual gathering, people should be asking a simple question: Have they overcome their infatuation with US President Donald Trump?

Two years ago, a few rare corporate leaders were concerned about climate change, or upset at Trump’s misogyny and bigotry. Most, however, were celebrating the president’s tax cuts for billionaires and corporations and looking forward to his efforts to deregulate the economy. That would allow businesses to pollute the air more, get more Americans hooked on opioids, entice more children to eat their diabetes-inducing foods, and engage in the sort of financial shenanigans that brought on the 2008 crisis.

Today, many corporate bosses are still talking about the continued GDP growth and record stock prices. But neither GDP nor the Dow is a good measure of economic performance. Neither tells us what’s happening to ordinary citizens’ living standards or anything about sustainability. In fact, US economic performance over the past four years is Exhibit A in the indictment against relying on these indicators.

To get a good reading on a country’s economic health, start by looking at the health of its citizens. If they are happy and prosperous, they will be healthy and live longer. Among developed countries, America sits at the bottom in this regard. US life expectancy, already relatively low, fell in each of the first two years of Trump’s presidency, and in 2017, midlife mortality reached its highest rate since World War II. This is not a surprise, because no president has worked harder to make sure that more Americans lack health insurance. Millions have lost their coverage, and the uninsured rate has risen, in just two years, from 10.9% to 13.7%.

One reason for declining life expectancy in America is what Anne Case and Nobel laureate economist Angus Deaton call deaths of despair, caused by alcohol, drug overdoses, and suicide. In 2017 (the most recent year for which good data are available), such deaths stood at almost four times their 1999 level.

The only time I have seen anything like these declines in health – outside of war or epidemics – was when I was chief economist of the World Bank and found out that mortality and morbidity data confirmed what our economic indicators suggested about the dismal state of the post-Soviet Russian economy.

Trump may be a good president for the top 1% – and especially for the top 0.1% – but he has not been good for everyone else. If fully implemented, the 2017 tax cut will result in tax increases for most households in the second, third, and fourth income quintiles.

Given tax cuts that disproportionately benefit the ultrarich and corporations, it should come as no surprise that there was no significant change in the median US household’s disposable income between 2017 and 2018 (again, the most recent year with good data). The lion’s share of the increase in GDP is also going to those at the top. Real median weekly earnings are just 2.6% above their level when Trump took office. And these increases have not offset long periods of wage stagnation. For example, the median wage of a full-time male worker (and those with full-time jobs are the lucky ones) is still more than 3% below what it was 40 years ago. Nor has there been much progress on reducing racial disparities: in the third quarter of 2019, median weekly earnings for black men working full-time were less than three-quarters the level for white men.

Making matters worse, the growth that has occurred is not environmentally sustainable – and even less so thanks to the Trump administration’s gutting of regulations that have passed stringent cost-benefit analyses. The air will be less breathable, the water less drinkable, and the planet more subject to climate change. In fact, losses related to climate change have already reached new highs in the US, which has suffered more property damage than any other country – reaching some 1.5% of GDP in 2017. 

The tax cuts were supposed to spur a new wave of investment. Instead, they triggered an all-time record binge of share buybacks – some $800 billion in 2018 – by some of America’s most profitable companies, and led to record peacetime deficits (almost $1 trillion in fiscal 2019) in a country supposedly near full employment. And even with weak investment, the US had to borrow massively abroad: the most recent data show foreign borrowing at nearly $500 billion a year, with an increase of more than 10% in America’s net indebtedness position in one year alone.

Likewise, Trump’s trade wars, for all their sound and fury, have not reduced the US trade deficit, which was one-quarter higher in 2018 than it was in 2016. The 2018 goods deficit was the largest on record. Even the deficit in trade with China was up almost a quarter from 2016. The US did get a new North American trade agreement, without the investment agreement provisions that the Business Roundtable wanted, without the provisions raising drug prices that the pharmaceutical companies wanted, and with better labor and environmental provisions. Trump, a self-proclaimed master deal maker, lost on almost every front in his negotiations with congressional Democrats, resulting in a slightly improved trade arrangement.

And despite Trump’s vaunted promises to bring manufacturing jobs back to the US, the increase in manufacturing employment is still lower than it was under his predecessor, Barack Obama, once the post-2008 recovery set in, and is still markedly below its pre-crisis level. Even the unemployment rate, at a 50-year low, masks economic fragility. The employment rate for working-age males and females, while rising, has increased less than during the Obama recovery, and is still significantly below that of other developed countries. The pace of job creation is also markedly slower than it was under Obama.

Again, the low employment rate is not a surprise, not least because unhealthy people can’t work. Moreover, those on disability benefits, in prison – the US incarceration rate has increased more than sixfold since 1970, with some two million people currently behind bars – or so discouraged that they are not actively seeking jobs are not counted as “unemployed.” But, of course, they are not employed. Nor is it a surprise that a country that doesn’t provide affordable childcare or guarantee family leave would have lower female employment – adjusted for population, more than ten percentage points lower – than other developed countries.

Even judging by GDP, the Trump economy falls short. Last quarter’s growth was just 2.1%, far less than the 4%, 5%, or even 6% Trump promised to deliver, and even less than the 2.4% average of Obama’s second term. That is a remarkably poor performance considering the stimulus provided by the $1 trillion deficit and ultra-low interest rates. This is not an accident, or just a matter of bad luck: Trump’s brand is uncertainty, volatility, and prevarication, whereas trust, stability, and confidence are essential for growth. So is equality, according to the International Monetary Fund.

So, Trump deserves failing grades not just on essential tasks like upholding democracy and preserving our planet. He should not get a pass on the economy, either.

*

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 E. Stiglitz, a Nobel laureate in economics, is University Professor at Columbia University and Chief Economist at the Roosevelt Institute. His most recent book is People, Power, and Profits: Progressive Capitalism for an Age of Discontent.

Featured image is from Project Syndicate

Pompeo Claims to Know Nothing, but Can We Believe Him?

January 20th, 2020 by Steven Sahiounie

Secretary of State Mike Pompeo stated in a Friday radio interview that he had not been previously aware that former US Ambassador Marie Yovanovitch had been under surveillance in Ukraine. “Until this story broke, the best of my recollection, I’d never heard of this at all,” said Pompeo. During the interview, Pompeo failed to defend Yovanovitch or to express concern about the alleged stalking of a US diplomat. 

Lev Parnas, a US citizen of Ukrainian birth, worked closely with Giuliani in searching for political dirt on Joe Biden in Ukraine. Messages Parnas provided to the House Intelligence Committee make for sensational reading between the lines. Some texts are between Parnas and Robert F. Hyde, a Connecticut landscape contractor running for Congress, which details the stalking of Yovanovitch.  Other texts were between Parnas and Giuliani, and several include Jay Sekulow, President Trump’s personal White House lawyer.

Hyde claims the texts were innocent banter, and without substance, while Parnas claims he didn’t take it seriously. The FBI visited the Connecticut home and office of Hyde on Thursday after the messages were made public. Hyde is also involved in stalking case against him, in which he violated the restraining order against him filed last summer by a woman who works in DC, and fears for her safety.  Hyde had posted disparaging remarks about Yovanovitch on his Twitter account, and the text messages to Parnas were suspicious. The FBI may find the truth, and Hyde and Parnas might be cleared of any allegations of stalking; however, regardless of whether those 2 were involved, the US State Department and senior Ukrainian officials were aware that Yovanovitch’s personal safety was endangered, and they informed her in the past.

According to State Department records, Pompeo and Rudy Giuliani, President Trump’s personal lawyer, spoke at least twice in late March, at which time Giuliani reported to Pompeo the details of his Ukraine research into digging up dirt on former VP Joe Biden, now running for President in 2020. This was precisely the time that Pompeo was being urged to get rid of Yovanovitch, at the behest of Trump and Giuliani.  The next month Yovanovitch was recalled from Ukraine.

Carol Z. Perez is a career diplomat and was appointed by Trump to be Director-General of the Foreign Service and Director of Human Resources (HR) at the Department of State on January 30, 2019. Her job description used to be referred to in business circles as the ‘personnel department manager’.  Employees would have likely thought of that position as the ‘hire-fire’ person, who would be tasked with filling work schedules, vacations, work-related complaints, and more.  Getting a phone call from the head of HR usually means your shift is changing or you’re getting laid off, or perhaps even fired. Perez manages a workforce of 25,000 domestic and overseas American employees and nearly 14,000 Foreign Service employees.

Yovanovich was asleep in her home in Kyiv on April 25 when the phone rang about 1 am.  It was Perez, and her instructions were simple: get to the airport, get to Washington, DC. as soon as possible. Yovanovitch asked the reason why, and Perez said, “I don’t know, but this is about your security. You need to come home immediately. You need to come home on the next plane.”

On the flight home, Yovanovitch was probably thinking back to all the advice she had received from various Ukrainian officials that had warned her that Giuliani and other allies of Trump were planning to “do things, including to me” and were “looking to hurt” her.  In her sworn testimony to Congress, she recalled that a senior Ukrainian official told her that “I really needed to watch my back.”  Yovanovitch she said was told by Ukrainian officials in November or December 2019 that Giuliani was in touch with Ukraine’s former top prosecutor, Yuri Lutsenko, “and that they had plans, and that they were going to, you know, do things, including to me.” She said she was told Lutsenko “was looking to hurt me in the U.S.”

Yovanovitch realized that Giuliani, Parnas and Igor Fruman were the trio who were trying to get her removed from the Embassy. The trio, working on behalf of Trump, was promoting personal business in Ukraine and saw her as an obstacle to their plans. They needed an ambassador who would ‘play ball’, but she was not willing to play along.

Once back in DC., she met with Deputy Secretary of State John Sullivan, who told Yovanovitch that she had done nothing wrong as ambassador, but that Trump had lost confidence in her, and she was removed from her position in May.

After reading the transcript of the July phone called between Trump and Ukrainian President Zelensky, Yovanovitch was shocked to see that Trump had disparaged her in the call, with remarks such as “bad news” and that she was “going to go through some things”, which caused her to feel threatened by the President.

Michael McKinley, a 37-year veteran career diplomat, testified that he decided to resign from his post as a senior adviser to Pompeo after his repeated efforts to get the State Department to issue a statement of support for Yovanovitch after the transcript of the Trump-Zelenskiy phone call was released. “To see the impugning of somebody I know to be a serious, committed colleague in the manner that it was done raised alarm bells for me,” he said.

The US government does not run by itself. There is a chain of command, much like the military, or any organization.  Carol Perez works for Mike Pompeo, and he works for President Donald Trump. Perez would never have called Yovanovitch without an order to do so.  Perez, a professional of the highest order, would have received instructions from her boss, Mike Pompeo. The threat to Yovanovitch was real, and it was personal, as evidenced by the late-night call.

Yovanovitch and the FBI should call Perez and ask her to name the person who instructed her to call.  Undoubtedly, that person is a senior official at the State Department, and that may prove Pompeo lied when he said he knew nothing.  Recalling a US Ambassador from abroad, in the middle of the night, is not done lightly, and could never be executed by anything other than an order by the Secretary of State.

*

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

This article was originally published on Mideast Discourse.

Steven Sahiounie is a political commentator. He is a frequent contributor to Global Research.

Featured image is from High North News

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Pompeo Claims to Know Nothing, but Can We Believe Him?

On Dr. Martin Luther King’s day (January 20, 2020), we remember a global icon that has been an inspiration to men and women across the globe struggling for human rights for all. Despite all the serious human rights and civil rights challenges that are increasing nationally and internationally, we still believe that Dr. Martin Luther King’s vision continues to inspire around the around.

King’s dream continues to inspire all peace and justice loving people in America and across the world to continue the struggle to transform the dream to reality.

We in the human rights community cherish Dr. King’s legacy as one human rights hero and legend who left a lasting mark in America and the world. His dream is the dream of all the victims of racism, discrimination, hate, injustice and inequality.  Dr. King’s dream, just like America’s ideals, is universal and appeals to all who are committed to equality and justice regardless of their background.

What is remarkable and most relevant for us today as a nation is the civility of Dr. King. He did not demonize his adversaries. He called them brothers and sisters in humanity. It is civility that we miss most today. We have grown up politicians demonizing and mocking those they disagree with.

This year’s M. L King’s Day let us remember that despite massive indignities and hate, Dr. King and his friends and supporters, those who believed in his leadership, remained honorable and dignified.

In the spirit of this year’s M.L. King Day that we hope that our politicians, from both parties, as well as fellow citizens, restore civility to our national conversation. All are urged to rise above divisions and live up to the legacy of civility as lived by Dr. King. Let’s join hands and stand shoulder to shoulder building bridges of respect and understanding.

Dr. King’s struggle for equality and justice through peaceful means has universal appeal. It is as relevant and important today as it was when he started his struggle.

On this special day, let’s affirm our unwavering commitment to protecting and advancing human rights and helping create a culture of respect for human rights, human dignity and human respect for all.

*

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.

Imad Hamad is AHRC Executive Director.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Dr. Martin Luther King as an Inspiration and a Role Model
  • Tags: ,