India officially refused to join the Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership (RCEP) following several days of heated negotiations on the issue during the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) Summit in Bangkok. Prime Minister Narendra Modi is reported to have said,

“The present form of the RCEP Agreement does not fully reflect the basic spirit and the agreed guiding principles of RCEP.”

“When I measure the RCEP Agreement with respect to the interests of all Indians, I do not get a positive answer. Therefore, neither the Talisman of Gandhiji nor my own conscience permits me to join RCEP,” he said.

This strongly implies that the Indian leader has fallen under the influence of the American information warfare narrative that clinching a free trade deal with China would harm his country’s domestic industries.

It’s very telling that much smaller economies than his country don’t give any credence to those claims, with even tiny Cambodia and Laos having no problem with the final terms that were agreed to. The joint statement released after the event noted the situation with India.

“We noted 15 RCEP Participating Countries have concluded text-based negotiations for all 20 chapters and essentially all their market access issues,” the statement said. “India has significant outstanding issues, which remain unresolved…India’s final decision will depend on the satisfactory resolution of these issues.”

This makes it seem like there’s still a faint glimmer of hope that India might eventually join, pending a revision of the agreement’s terms, though that outcome appears to be very unlikely.

Going by Prime Minister Modi’s own words, domestic considerations played the largest role in his decision. India’s economy has been slowing over the past year despite overly optimistic forecasts about its supposedly inevitable growth, proving that there are indeed some fundamental issues at home that he needs to be mindful of.

They aren’t, however, connected to China or even any of India’s other economic partners, but could arguably be the result of irresponsible financial actions and the country’s historic protectionist measures which eerily resemble some of America’s in recent years. That might not be a coincidence either since the two countries have grown incredibly close over the past decade to the point of becoming strategic partners nowadays.

(From L to R) Singaporean Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong, Myanmar State Counselor Aung San Suu Kyi, Lao Prime Minister Thongloun Sisoulith, Cambodian Prime Minister Samdech Techo Hun Sen, New Zealand Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern and Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi react during a photo session of the 3rd Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership (RCEP) Summit in Bangkok, Thailand, November 4, 2019. /Xinhua Photo

The visible bonhomie on display between Prime Minister Modi and President Trump during their “Howdy, Modi” event in Houston in September and the very profound praise that they publicly showered on one another at that time confirm that the interpersonal relations between these two countries’ leaders are just as excellent as the international ones between their governments. It’s therefore not inconceivable that Prime Minister Modi might have been very receptive to Trump’s trade war rhetoric and his anti-Chinese fearmongering. After all, both leaders were brought to power by a base of supporters who are commonly characterized as extremely nationalistic and suspicious of multilateral trade deals.

What’s so surprising about Prime Minister Modi’s decision, however, is that he also appears to have a pretty positive relationship with President Xi, which was proudly displayed during what Indian media has since called their “Chennai Connect” from October. Moreover, India is a member of BRICS – a grouping of emerging economies that also includes Brazil, Russia, China and South Africa – and the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation (SCO), both organizations of which are committed to increasing integration between their participants in different spheres. But now New Delhi has suddenly decided to signal that there are certain limits to how far it’s willing to go with the economic dimension of this shared vision. This is really troubling because it could eventually pose problems for the planned Eurasian integration processes of its partners and the future of multipolarity more broadly.

Russia is openly pursuing the Greater Eurasian Partnership that it envisages as uniting the Eurasian Economic Union, the Belt and Road Initiative – which India is staunchly against, the SCO, and ASEAN. But with India refusing to go along with the economic component of this through RCEP, which entails free trade with China, questions now arise about the viability of this ambitious vision that was previously taken for granted.

Even more concerning is that it’s only natural that questions also begin to arise about India’s long-term strategic intentions in general and its newfound relations with the U.S. in particular, meaning that this single decision by Prime Minister Modi could have far-reaching geopolitical implications if he doesn’t win back his partners’ trust.

*

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 CGTN.

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: India’s Prime Minister Narendra Modi attends the 3rd Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership (RCEP) Summit in Bangkok, Thailand, November 4, 2019. /VCG Photo

Ask students to read for more than a couple of sentences and many will protest that they can’t do it. The most frequent complaint that teachers hear that it’s boring. It is not so much the content of the written material that is at issues here; it is the act of reading itself that is deemed to be boring.

What we are facing here is not just time-honored teenage torpor, but the mismatch between a post-literate New Flesh that is too wired to concentrate and the confining concentrational logics of decaying disciplinary systems. To be bored means simply to be removed from the communicative sensation-stimulus matrix of texting, You Tube and fast food; to be denied, for a moment, the constant flow of sugary gratification on demand. Some students want Nietzsche in the same way they want a hamburger; the fail to grasp—and the logic of the consumer system encourages this misapprehension—the indigestibility, the difficult is Nietzsche.Mark Fisher, Capitalist Realism: Is There No Alternative?

I am a substitute teacher (grades K-12) in a public school system located in Virginia, a state on the eastern seaboard of the United States. For many years prior to becoming a substitute teacher, I also taught at a private school in Virginia. Tuition and fees at the private school are approximately $42,000 (USD), the public schools are, of course, tuition free.

To be sure, there are highly motivated students in both educational settings that call into question Mark Fisher’s observation above. But in the main, both organization’s struggle with figuring out if they are working with their subjects as students or as consumers of services provided by teachers and administrators.

From what I have observed in the tiny microcosm in which I’ve worked, adults have not figured out how to teach Generation Z. It is as if K-12 students are; well, lab rats, in a messy experiment that reflects adult confusion about how to facilitate learning in an era when all the “book learning” education seeks to impart is largely available on the World Wide Web (WWW). Reality hits video screens before adults can interpret it for their children; that is, assuming the adults are up to the task. Twitter, a modern-day ticker-tape, dumbs down the American populace. Attention spans for students and adults are measured in 10 minute increments, if that.

Teachers are little more than circuits in America’s educational network and, as such, transmit surface information to the students and little more. The kids know a lot, for sure, but they, like the adults that school them and lead them, have no intellectual depth, something required for critical thinking. It is fitting, I suppose, that in these times when the United States is a polarized nation of cynics who believe in nothing, it’s not surprising that its educators teach the young to be cynics. But as Oscar Wilde noted through one of his characters, a cynic is “one who knows the price of everything but the value of nothing.”

And yet the very adults (academics, corporate leaders, politicians) that created this cynical, digitized short attention span world whine about students not being able to read and write, think critically or master math. There is a reason for that: They are not being taught effectively to do those things. All of which reaffirms something I wrote in 2013: The American Education System is creating Ignorant Adults.

The leaders of Boeing and Lockheed Martin worry out loud about the absence of US school aged students who can excel at science, technology, engineering and math disciplines (STEM). But they have no problem funding initiatives for Chinese students and aviation professionals in China.

Hocus Pocus

Back in the USA, school classrooms are a mishmash of technology, new wave/repackaged learning techniques and revisionist history. Apple I-Pads and Smart Boards are located in each classroom for student/teacher use. They are all connected to software that provides music, cartoons and learning platforms like Canvas for most grade levels. The latest teaching fads like Maker Learning with its “Digital Promise” backed by Google and Pixar, among others, competes with concepts like the Flipped Classroom, Blended Learning and other pedagogies that come in and out of vogue. And yet, along side all the technology are crayons, magic markers, pencils, paper and cardboard for writing and drawing.

It’s no stretch to say that I-Phones, Android and other hand-held devices may cause epigenetic changes. Students, teachers/coaches and administrators are constantly staring head down at their computing-communications devices. It is tough to get a face-to-face conversation going with most anyone in these groups as their eyes and heads are in the down position while sitting, walking or standing. Even if you are having a meatspace meeting, participants will incessantly dart their eyes to the handheld safely nearby the hand, in the hand, or on the lap (looking down again).

America’s past, woeful in many respects, is being revised again by adults to suit the agenda of those who seek to promote a narrative that seeks to change the political/cultural narrative of US society and its history, and it is aimed at young students in particular. The New York Times (NYT) 1619 Project is an example of this. According to the World Socialist Website,

“The 1619 Project, launched by the Times in August, presents American history in a purely racial lens and blames all white people for the enslavement of 4 million black people as chattel property. “

The NYT has provided teaching materials that are being used by colleges, universities and high schools across the United States. Who is willing or capable of debating the claims of the New York Times; or should we say, who is willing to be labeled a racist for disagreeing with The revisionist authors of the 1619 Project? At the collegiate level, at least, there may be debate on the matter but at the high school level, what teacher is going to argue against using 1619 teaching materials. After all it isthe New York Times.

What is very troubling about the NYT revisionism is that it makes the preposterous claim that racism is part of the DNA of all white people. The World Socialist Website claims that: “This is dangerous politics, and very bad history…[it] mixes anti-historical metaphors pertaining to biological determinism (that racism is printed in a “national DNA”) and to religious obscurantism (that slavery is the uniquely American “original sin”). But whether ordained by God or genetic code, racism by whites against blacks serves, for the 1619 Project, as history’s deus ex machina. There is no need to consider questions long placed at the center of historical inquiry: cause and effect, contingency and conflict, human agency and change over time. History is simply a morality tale written backwards from 2019.”

Sharpen My Pencils, Fool!

I have often winced at some of the practices I observed in classrooms. On a typical day as a substitute, I arrive at a school, pick up instructions left by the teacher who is absent (or has a meeting), and head to the classroom. Substitute teachers, or Subs, are a lower class of species, members of the gig economy, and treated as such by the “real” teachers and students. I remember one teacher I subbed for was headed off to a meeting and as she left said, “Sharpen my pencils for me.” I dutifully did. A majority of the teachers and administrators don’t ask for your name, you’re just known as “The Sub.”

Once students complete their work (if they even choose to do it), which for most does not take much class time, they are free to play video games, stick ear buds in and listen to music or hang out with friends via the handheld device. One of the popular video games with male 6th to 12th graders is Krunker, a first person shooter game. Is US society really that concerned about active shooters in schools?

The State and corporations can be found in some form in the public school system. One elementary school has Lockheed Martin as a sponsor of a science program. In another elementary school, a class is learning about Virginia’s geography: The students print and video work product will ultimately be used by a tourism association in the State.

In both institutions learning is calibrated to the SAT, ACT and various Advanced Placement tests. Student test scores serve as one metric for teacher performance reviews along with standards set by school boards, the State, or independent audits in the private school case.

Students are not required to stand or even pay attention to the United States Pledge of Allegiance that is carried via intercom into the classrooms each morning. Some schools don’t even bother with it. Yet, during sporting events like American contact football, students/athletes and fans are required, or let’s say by the pressure of custom are compelled, to stand for the playing of the United States’ National Anthem. American flags are stitched into football jerseys and prior to games one football player is selected to run the American flag onto the field amidst the adrenaline fueled shouts and growls of fellow teammates following close behind. A color guard  from a high school’s junior reserve officer training corps (JROTC) sometimes is present. They present in strict marching formation the American flag along with the flags of the US Navy, Marine Corps and Air Force.

To stand and recite the Pledge of Allegiance in a classroom takes one minute. To be upright for the National Anthem takes, perhaps, five minutes. The school band normally plays the latter and on occasion high school Madrigals will sing the National Anthem.

Yes, the militarization of US society and the deification of military personnel, even if they are accountants in uniform working at the Pentagon, is something to be concerned about. But saying the Pledge, and standing for the National Anthem, should be a requirement for students. There has to be some measure or display of loyalty to one’s country and the young must learn that. Still many want to wipe away any sense of citizenship, patriotism. Well, they are doing a fine job of that.

Mind the Inmates!

Students at both institutions are the beneficiaries of some serious force protection measures normally associated with protecting military personnel stationed at installations around the globe. The public schools in which I worked have armed police officers on site with a phalanx of civilian security/disciplinarians roaming the halls. Security cameras are everywhere indoors (hallways) and outside (entry and exit) recording movements. Public school buses are also outfitted with cameras and tracking systems.

The private school where I was once employed uses a less blunt force approach opting for a more subtle presence: security personnel are a bit less obvious and do not carry firearms. The school does employ a corporate style full-time director of security and safety with some serious emergency management credentials.

It is the same security scene at public and private schools across the United States which raises an interesting question: Are students really captive minds in minimum security enclosures subjected daily to social, emotional learning techniques or socialization/habilitation for entry into society? Or are they “free” learners allowed to be creative and explore beyond the confines of the pedagogy that seeks to “standardize” them.

No Student Untracked

There is a functioning big data brother at work tracking students as they make their way through K-12 known as the Common Core of Data (CCD). CCD is described by Marc Gardner in a presentation for the US National Center for Education Statistics (NCES) as “the annual collection of the universe of United States public elementary, secondary education agencies and schools. Data include enrollment by grade, race/ethnicity and sex, special education, english learners, school lunch programs, teachers, dropouts and completers.” The CCD also gathers information from state justice, health and labor departments. The NCES also collects data from private schools.

It doesn’t end there. Colleges and universities are tracking high school seniors as they begin their searches for schools they’d like to attend.  The Washington Post recently reported that many colleges and universities have hired data capture firms to track prospective students as they explore websites. “Records and interviews show that colleges are building vast repositories of data on prospective students — scanning test scores, zip codes, high school transcripts, academic interests, web browsing histories, ethnic backgrounds and household incomes…”

The owner of Canvas, referenced above, is Instructure. Their mission, according to their investor website is to “grow [the young] from the first day of school to the last day of work [retirement].” One of the capabilities that Instructure provides its clients is Canvas Folio Management. According to the investor webpage, it “delivers an institutional homepage and deep, real-time analytics on student engagement, skills and competencies, network connections, and interactions across various cohorts. Allows institutions to generate custom reports tied directly to student success initiatives and export accreditation-ready reports on learning outcomes at the student, cohort, course, program, or institutional level.”

Ah, yes, the thrill of being hunted for a life time by big data brother. Anyway, there is no escape.

Don’t try this in a Classroom

“Learning is an active process, not simply a matter of banking information in a recipient passive mind. Teaching therefore has to be a transactional process rather than just the transmission of information. The transactional aspect is essential to enabling students to challenge their situations in life, which they must learn to do if they are to play their parts as active citizens of a better world…teaching must be approached as an intellectually disruptive and subversive activity if it is to instill inquiry skills in learners and encourage them to think for themselves rather than mindlessly accept received ideas. We believe it is more important in the digital age than ever before.” (Ingenious: The Unintended Consequences of Human Innovation by Peter Gluckman and Mark Hanson, Harvard, 2019)

*

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

John Stanton can be reached at [email protected]. The article title is courtesy of Oscar Wilde. See inline link, paragraph 5 for more.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on America’s Education System: Teaching the Price of Everything and the Value of Nothing
  • Tags:

Algeria: Urrà! Sofiane Djilali ha ricevuto un premio!

November 5th, 2019 by Ahmed Bensaada

Ci sono mattine così. Uno si sveglia e la prima notizia che legge sul telefono lo lascia perplesso. Strabuzza gli occhi per essere sicuro che ha capito bene. Si lascia cadere sul cuscino per dimostrare a se stesso che è ancora tra le braccia di Morfeo. Ma no, è sveglissimo. Digita allora qualche parola chiave per verificare che non si tratti di una fake-news e si rende conto che le stessa informazione clonata è sbandierata, pubblicata e divulgata da tutti i media nazionali: El Watan, Liberté, Le Matin, Reporters, L’Expression, TSA e così via.
E’ diventata virale!«Sofiane Djilali ha ricevuto un premio internazionale!»Internazionale? Forse è uno di quei premi Nobel la cui stagione è in pieno svolgimento? Un riconoscimento per il suo contributo alla pace nel mondo? La salvaguardia del pianeta? O magari la difesa delle bertucce algerine?«Conferito a Sofiane Djilali il premio di “Leader della democrazia” a Washington»

Guarda un po’. Un premio conferito nella capitale della superpotenza mondiale per promuovere la democrazia in un paese arabo. Non sembra un déjà-vu?

«L’ONG POMED (Progetto per la democrazia in Medio Oriente) ha conferito, ieri mercoledì a Washington, il premio internazionale “Leader della democrazia” a sette personalità, tra cui il presidente del partito Jil Djadid, Sofiane Djilali [1]»

Sofiane Djilali, presidente del partito “Jil Jadid”, riceve il premio “Leaders for Democracy Award” a Washington

Tutto è diventato chiaro leggendo questo articolo di El Watan. Un premio conferito da POMED, «The

Project on Middle East Democracy»! Ma perché diavolo bisognava gridarlo ai quattro venti? Il «premiato» e i media che lo esaltano non sanno niente delle organizzazioni statunitensi specializzate nell’esportazione della democrazia? Non è un premio come questo che ti fa gonfiare il petto né ti consente di pavoneggiarti sulle colonne dei giornali del mattino. Al contrario, il «premiato» dovrebbe andare a nascondersi. Ed ecco perché.

Al contrario di quanto annuncia con grande pompa El Watan, questo giornale promotore della primaverizzazione del mondo arabo, POMED non è una ONG nel senso proprio del termine.

Come precisato nel suo sito internet, POMED è «un’organizzazione senza scopo di lucro e non di parte che si dedica alla ricerca delle forme in cui vere democrazie possano svilupparsi in Medio Oriente e di come gli Stati Uniti possano al meglio appoggiare questo processo» [2].

Come si legge chiaramente nelle sue dichiarazioni di intenti, POMED è direttamente associata alla politica statunitense.

In realtà, è facile verificare che il POMED lavora di concerto con Freedom House [3] ed è finanziariamente sostenuta dall’Open Society Institute (OSI) del miliardario statunitense George Soros [4]. Nel 2016, per esempio, POMED ha ricevuto una sovvenzione di 550 000$ dalla Fondation Open Society [5]. POMED è finanziata anche dalla National Endowment for Democracy (NED)[6].

Ecco che cosa scrivevo a proposito di questa organizzazione nel 2015 [7] :

«Tra gli indici rivelatori, è da notare che il Board of Advisors di POMED conta, tra i suoi membri, Lorne W. Craner, il presidente dell’IRI (International Republican Institute di cui è presidente del consiglio di amministrazione il senatore McCain) e Kenneth Wollack, il presidente del NDI (National Democratic Institute di cui è presidente del consiglio di amministrazione l’ex segretaria di Stato USA, Madeleine K. Albright) [8]».

Per cercare di «illustrare» il ruolo svolto da POMED nelle «primavere» arabe, il suo direttore esecutivo, Stephen McInerney, dichiarò al New York Times nel pieno delle «primavere» arabe: «Noi non li [i cyberattivisti arabi] finanziamo perché comincino le proteste, ma li abbiamo aiutati a sviluppare le loro competenze e il loro mettersi in rete». Aggiungendo: «Questa formazione ha giocato un ruolo in quello che alla fine è successo, ma si tratta della loro rivoluzione. Non siamo stati noi a farla» [9].

M. McInerney è una delle rare persone impegnate nella «esportazione» della democrazia a parlarne con tanta franchezza.

Per coloro che non hanno familiarità con questa miriade di organizzazioni, occorre precisare che la NED, il NDI, l’IRI, l’OSI e Freedom House fanno tutte parte dell’arsenale USA di «esportazione» della democrazia attraverso il mondo e, in particolare, il mondo arabo [10]. Finanziate dal governo statunitense (salvo OSI), il ruolo proattivo da esse svolto nelle rivoluzioni colorate e nelle «primavere» arabe non ha più bisogno di essere dimostrato [11].

Per la cronaca, POMED ha organizzato due eventi specialmente dedicati allo hirak algerino. Il primo a Washington, il 15 aprile 2019, ha visto come moderatore niente meno che Stephen McInerney [12], il direttore esecutivo di POMED. Il secondo ha avuto luogo a Tunisi, il 19 giugno 2019 e aveva per titolo: «L’Algeria e il Sudan: nuove ondate di cambiamenti democratici o sogni infranti? »[13]. Mentre uno degli oratori invitati, Ezzaddean Elsafi, si presentava come responsabile di programma dell’OSI, il moderatore era Amine Ghali, una vecchia conoscenza delle «primavere» arabe. Infatti il signor Ghali è un attivista tunisino che, dal 2008, è direttore di programma dell’organizzazione «Al Kawakibi Democracy Transition Center» (Centro Al Kawakibi per le transizioni democratiche — KADEM). Notiamo, en passant, che KADEM è un centro finanziato dal «Middle East Partnership Initiative» (MEPI), un programma che dipende direttamente dal Dipartimento di Stato USA.

In precedenza, Amine Ghali aveva lavorato per diverse organizzazioni, tra cui Freedom House [14].

In definitiva, risulta che POMED non è che un’altra organizzazione statunitense di esportazione della democrazia, specializzata nella regione MENA (Medio Oriente e Africa del Nord). E’ per questo, ad esempio, che POMED ha partecipato alla Nona Assemblea mondiale del Movimento Mondiale per la Democrazia (World Movement for Democracy, WMD), Messa solenne del «proselitismo» democratico «made in USA» che si è svolta nel 2018 a Dakar (Senegal). Quindi, tra i partecipanti all’evento, vi erano Carl Gershman (presidente della NED), Kenneth Wollack (presidente del NDI), Scott Mastic, (vice-presidente per i programmi dell’IRI), Andrew Wilson (direttore esecutivo del Center for International Private Enterprise – CIPE), Shawna Bader-Blau (direttrice esecutiva del Solidarity Center) e, ovviamente, Stephen McInerney, direttore esecutivo di POMED [15]. Ricordiamo che il NDI, l’IRI, il CIPE e il Solidarity Center sono i quattro organismi satelliti della NED [16].

Nel suo discorso di conferimento del premio «Leaders for Democracy Award», Stephen McInerney ha menzionato il fatto che Sofiane Djilali era uno dei fondatori di «Mouwatana» e ha posto l’accento sul ruolo svolto da questo movimento nell’ hirak [17]. Ciò vuol dire che POMED e il suo direttore seguono da vicino quanto sta accadendo in Algeria. Ma non sono gli unici.

In un articolo del 22 marzo 2019, vale a dire all’inizio dell’hirak, anche Slobodan Djinovic e Srdja Popovic si sono mostrati interessati alle manifestazioni algerine e hanno citato un solo movimento [18]. Indovinate quale ? Mouwatana !

Ah, è vero ! Non vi ho presentato Slobodan Djinovic e Srdja Popovic. Si tratta di due famosi Serbi, fondatori del Center for Applied Non Violent Action and Strategies (CANVAS), la scuola di formazione per rivoluzionari in erba di tutto il mondo. CANVAS è finanziato, tra gli altri, da Freedom House [19] e dall’International Republican Institute (IRI) [20].

Slobodan Djinovic e Srdja Popovic

Prima della creazione di CANVAS, Slobodan Djinovic e Srdja Popovic erano leader del movimento Otpor, in prima linea nelle manifestazioni che hanno provocato la caduta del presidente Slododan Milosevic. Fu questo successo «rivoluzionario» ad avviare il ciclo delle rivoluzioni colorate e, poi, delle «primavere» arabe [21].

Tanto premesso, sarà interessante sapere che cosa il signor Sofiane Djilali farà, alla fine, del suo trofeo: avrà il coraggio di esibirlo pomposamente in qualcuna delle prossime manifestazioni del venerdì, o preferirà buttarlo nella spazzatura della storia?

Ahmed Bensaada
Articolo originale in francese :

Algérie – Youpi! Sofiane Djilali, président du parti  » Jil Jadid », a reçu un prix!

Articolo tradotto dal francese : Ossia.org

Riferimenti:
 
[1] Farouk Djouadi, «Soufiane Djilali parmi les 7 lauréats du prix POMED pour la démocratie», El Watan, 17 ottobre 2019,
 
[2] POMED, «Mission Statement», https://pomed.org/about/#mission-statement
 
[3] POMED, «The State of Reform: Human Rights, Democratic Development and Individual Freedoms in Saudi Arabia and the Arab Gulf States», 1°novembre 2007,
 
          Atlantic Council, «Renewing US Engagement with Libya», 10 settembre 2013,
 
          Deirdre Paine, «Human Rights Groups Hold DC Event for Murdered Journalist Khashoggi», The DC Post, 24 settembre 2017,
 
          POMED, «Al-Sisi in Washington: Egyptian President Seeks Support for Power Grab», 9 aprile 2019,
 
[4] Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, , «Egypt’s Elections : Boycotts, Campaigns, and Monitors», 19 ottobre 2010,
 
[5] Open Society Foundations, «Awarded Grants», 2016,
 
[6] NED, «2009 Annual report : Egypt»,
 
[7] Ahmed Bensaada, «Arabesque$», Ed. Investig’Action, Bruxelles (Belgio) 2015 – Ed. ANEP, Algeri (Algeria) 2016.
 
[8] POMED, «Board of advisers», http://pomed.org/about-us/board-of-advisors/ (Pagina consultata nel 2015; Attualmente non è più online)
 
[9] Ron Nixon, «U.S. Groups Helped Nurture Arab Uprisings», New York Times, 14 aprile 2011,
 
[10] Ahmed Bensaada, «Otto anni dopo la primaverizzazione dell’Algeria», www.ossin.org, 13 aprile 2019
 
[11] Vedi rif. 7
 
[12] POMED, «Algeria: What’s Happened? What’s Next?», Washington 15 aprile 2019,
 
[13] POMED, «L’Algérie et le Soudan: nouvelles vagues de changements démocratiques ou rêves anéantis?», Tunisi, 19 giugno 2019,
 
[14] Bertelsmann Stiftung, «The Arab Spring: One Year After, Transformation Dynamics, Prospects for Democratization and the Future of Arab-European Cooperation», Europe in Dialogue 2012,
 
[15] Ahmed Bensaada, «Belalloufi, il RAJ e l’importazione della democrazia», www.ossin.org, 2 giugno 2019, 
 
[16] Vedi rif.10
 
[17] YouTube, «Sofiane Djilali Awarded the POMED 2019 Leaders for Democracy Award», 21 ottobre 2018,
 
[18] Slobodan Djinovic e Srdja Popovic, «Is It Spring Again?», Slate, 22 marzo 2019,
 
[19] Maidhc Ó. Cathail, «The Junk Bond “Teflon Guy” Behind Egypt’s Nonviolent Revolution», Dissident Voice, 16 febbraio 2011,
 
[20] Tony Cartalucci, «CIA Coup-College : Recycled revolutionary “props”», Info War, 20 febbraio 2011,
 
[21] Per maggiori dettagli, vedi rif.7 o rif.10
  • Posted in Italiano
  • Comments Off on Algeria: Urrà! Sofiane Djilali ha ricevuto un premio!

Akwasi Afrifa, military officer and political leader of Ghana, is a man whose legacy still polarises his countrymen to this day. Should he be remembered as a principled believer in democratic values who helped rescue Ghana from a “dictator” leading his nation to ruin? Or was he an unscrupulous and ambitious opportunist whose participation in Ghana’s first military coup set a precedent for political instability and corruption?

Akwasi Amankwa Afrifa was born into humble origins in the Ashanti region to a cobbler father he referred to as “a cowardly man” who was “short, bulky and ugly”, and a mother he remembered as a “tall, black and extremely beautiful woman.” He often wondered why his mother had married his father. A bright student, he received a scholarship to attend Adisadel College, an Anglican boys boarding school in the Cape Coast. He excelled academically, and in 1955, collected seven prizes in Latin, Greek, Religious Knowledge, History, English Language and Geography. On hand to present the tall, gangling 19-year-old with his prizes was none other than Kwame Nkrumah, the Prime Minister of the then Gold Coast (as pre-independent Ghana was named), the man who he would help overthrow in a military coup eleven years later.

Afrifa’s choice of a career in the military was not his first. He had intended to be trained in the law, but his expulsion from Adisadel put paid to those aspirations. In The Ghana Coup: 24th February 1966, a part memoir that served as his justification for the anti-Nkrumah coup, Afrifa claimed that his expulsion was for failing to take Religious Knowledge among the minimum six academic subjects in his final examinations. But the true reason was that Afrifa had led a student protest which had led to riotous acts including vandalism.

Afrifa entered the military and received training at Sandhurst Military Academy in England where the Adisadel website records that “he was listed among the best three of those cadets (drawn from various parts of the Commonwealth and other countries) who graduated and passed out as Second-Lieutenant(s) after the course.”

Afrifa was undoubtedly a bright and engaging individual, but at Sandhurst, as had occurred at Adisadel, there was a dark side to his personality; one which revealed his tendency to arrogance and resistance to authority. In The Ghana Coup, he candidly revealed his time at Sandhurst was consistently punctuated by punishment drills for various disciplinary infractions. He wrote:

I was always in trouble for breach of discipline. Almost every Wednesday I had an extra drill. Because I had so many punishment drills, I made my study timetable larger than usual in order to enter my defaulter drills into blank spaces. My punishment parades thus became a normal routine every morning.

His last punishment drill as a senior cadet was, he admitted “a very unusual occurrence.”

These brief glimpses into his formative years provide clues as to how Afrifa was able to rise to the pinnacle of political power, as well as offer some explanation as to why his life was prematurely ended on a military firing range.

A brief summary of his life and career after Sandhurst goes like this: As a young officer, he served several tours of duty as part of the Ghanaian Army’s peacekeeping contribution to the Congo. He grew disenchanted with the left-wing policies of the Nkrumah government, which he posited as being antithetical to the (British) values with which he had been inculcated.

As a major, he was a key participant in the anti-Nkrumah putsch of 1966 which was led by Colonel Emmanuel Kotoka. He consolidated his positions in both the military and the National Liberation Council (NLC) as the ruling junta styled itself, after the assassination of Kotoka in April 1967 during an abortive coup, and after the resignation of Lt. General Joseph Ankrah in April 1969, he became the Head of State.

He completed the NLC’s programme of transferring power to an elected civilian government led by Dr. Kofi Busia, during which for about a year, he served as one of a three-man Presidential Commission in lieu of a civilian president before the commission’s dissolution and his retirement from the military a year later. On his retirement he received the title of Okatakyie, a rarely bestowed award to a member of the Ashanti people who has demonstrated an exceptional level of bravery from the Ashantehene, Opoku Ware II.

In the days following Busia’s overthrow in January 1972 by Lt. Colonel Ignatius Acheampong, Afrifa attempted to mount a counter-coup to restore Busia, but was foiled and jailed by Acheampong.

Afrifa was subsequently released by Acheampong in December 1972, but appears to have been restricted to the vicinity of his hometown of Mampong-Ashanti where he farmed and involved himself in rural development projects. At some point his army pension appears to have been suspended by the Acheampong regime and in an article in the Tampa Bay Times of July 1st 1979, his brother-in-law, John Addaquay, claimed that Afrifa, together with his family, had gone into exile in London.  Afrifa, Addaqay continued, returned after Acheampong’s overthrow in July 1978 by a palace coup led by Lt. General Frederick Akuffo. Afrifa contested a seat and won it in parliamentary elections held in June 1979, but was executed along with two other Heads of State, Acheampong and Akuffo that month by edict of the Armed Forces Revolutionary Council (AFRC) which had come to power after an uprising by junior personnel within the Ghanaian military. Each had been found guilty of “corruption, embezzlement and using their positions to amass wealth.”

In a letter written to Acheampong while Acheampong was campaigning for UNIGOV, a form of government involving a combination of military and civilian rule, Afrifa had prophesied his own demise when in a letter to Acheampong, he had remarked on the levels of indiscipline and corruption among Ghana’s military rulers, and expressed a fear that he and other military rulers would be lined up and shot as a warning to others not to stage coups. “I feel greatly disturbed about the future,” Afrifa wrote. “In order to discourage the military from staging coups in the future, how about if they line all of us up and shot us one by one?”

What then to make of the legacy of this man whose life and eventual fate serves as a point of polarising contention?

After his death, the New York Times reported that he was “highly regarded among Western diplomats for his dynamism, his political skills, and his democratic views”. A good case can be made for Afrifa as a “democrat”, if one is prepared to accept his argument that he only helped to overthrow the government led by Kwame Nkrumah as a last resort. Here Afrifa could point to a drift towards authoritarianism by Dr. Nkrumah by referring to a series of developments such as the passage of the Preventative Detention Act, the One-Party State referendum, the dismissal of Ghana’s Chief Justice and other judges, as well as the apparent interference with judicial decisions. There were also issues to do with academic freedom in the universities.

Moreover, Afrifa presided over the return to civilian rule after spearheading a nationwide campaign to inform Ghanaians of their rights as citizens. Even the failed counter-coup he mounted against Acheampong could be interpreted as a measure attempting to restore democratic rule and not to usurp power for himself.

But the negative side is worth noting. To some he appears to have been an inveterate schemer from his youth and a manipulator whose machinations came to haunt him. He was undoubtedly an ambitious man, although some are keen to invest him with Machiavellian-like powers for intrigue that lack proof in a number of events. For instance, the frequently bandied allegation that he was the author of the abortive coup led by Lt. Samuel Arthur deliberately set up to fail after the elimination of his NLC colleagues, Kotoka and Ankrah seems rather fanciful. While Kotoka was assassinated by Lt. Moses Yeboah, Ankrah succeeded in escaping death at Castle Osu by jumping into the Atlantic Ocean. But even if the case can be made that Afrifa consolidated his power base and profited from Kotoka’s death and Ankrah’s later resignation, hard evidence available in the public domain is lacking which points to his having engineered both outcomes.

The contention that Afrifa was personally corrupt is not conclusive. He was after all cleared by the Sowah Assets Commission which reported in April 1979 prior to the parliamentary elections in which he was a contestant. But uncertainty as to whether he enriched himself while in power does not diminish what Afrifa’s critics claim to be his cardinal sin; that of participating in the overthrow of the constitutional government of Ghana, an action which established a dangerous precedent which was followed by other coups including those that led to an extended period of incompetent military rule in the 1970s which created unbearable living conditions for many Ghanaians.

John Stockwell, the CIA Station Chief in Accra at the time of the anti-Nkrumah coup specifically stated that the leaders of the coup were not only given “encouragement” once their plot was discovered by the Americans, but that they were paid in compensation for their efforts.

While his execution may have had much to do with the fear or apprehension junior officers had of him, Afrifa’s detractors hold that it was legally justified on the grounds that overthrowing a government, an act of high treason, was a capital offence by virtue of the Ghana Criminal Code of 1960. The Armed Forces Act of 1962, which was in operation at the time of the coup, also provided the basis for punishing by death those who acted treasonably. In his aforementioned book on the coup, Afrifa acknowledged this by writing that he would have been prepared to hang by the neck if the putsch had failed.

Apart from this legal rationale, Afrifa’s execution, some contend, was also morally justifiable because it served as a precedent for establishing or attempting to establish illegal, unconstitutional regimes. The abortive coup led by Lt. Arthur, who resented the profligacy of the senior officers after they overthrew Nkrumah, was an enterprise of emulation backed by the rationale of “If it is proper for you to seize power by the gun, why is it wrong for me, with my gun to overthrow you?” Afrifa was certainly conscious of the precedent that he had helped set when in the chapter of his book entitled “The Ghana Condition”, he asserted that “a corporal with the necessary courage and belief and love of his country can topple corrupt leaders and lead a coup in a just cause.” But he failed to acknowledge or even comprehend that corporals, subalterns and officers could have amoral reasons for staging a coup. Arthur’s coup, which Arthur dubbed “Operation Guitar Boy” appears to have been bereft of any ideological motivation, (it did not aim to bring Dr. Nkrumah back to power or establish a particular form of governance) instead it was an ego-driven enterprise that aimed not only to settle his grievance against the senior officers, but also to earn the accolade of being the first subaltern to successfully lead a coup.

And even where the soldier with a gun perceives his moral right to seize power, there is an inherent contradiction. Thus, Afrifa’s simultaneous acknowledgement of the coup d’état as a bad thing, while considering it as an effective mechanism for restoring the constitutional rights of citizens can be viewed as fundamentally flawed.

While Afrifa’s role in steering Ghana back to a constitutional democracy is rightly lauded, the argument that the NLC put the country back on a solid economic footing is a hugely contentious one. A key aspect toward remedying what they asserted was the economic mess into which Nkrumah had plunged Ghana was to seek closer relations with the United States and the rest of the Western world.

Afrifa was key to this strategy. His book, which the journalist R.Y. Adu-Asare claimed was ghost-written by Kofi Awoonor, the author, who started it, and Kofi Busia who completed it, was an exercise in unrestrained pro-Western sentiment. Afrifa’s strategy of consistently waxing lyrical about his love of British values alongside his constant ridiculing and demonising of Nkrumah, for whom the West had no love, arguably strays into the obsequious.

While it is understandable that a person like Afrifa by virtue of his Anglican education, British military training and circumstances of living in a British colony would, for better or for worse, be inculcated with a good measure of British culture (his love of Magna Carta and British notions of “fair play”), his assertion that he and other Ghanaians would be minded to fight alongside Britain “as Canadians and Australians have” is striking. One of the grievances members of the Ghanaian Army had against Nkrumah was claimed to be his decision to put them on standby to fight in Rhodesia. Afrifa expressed this view, but conveniently ignored the fact that Britain was operating a “Kith and Kin” policy in relation to the white minority in that country. UDI (Unilateral Declaration of Independence) was after all a rebellion against the authority of the crown. Instead, Afrifa naively expressed his confidence that Britain would find a solution to the issue.

The pivot towards the West thus appeared to be as extreme as Nkrumah’s detractors claimed was his gravitation towards China and the Eastern Communist bloc of nations. As early as March 1966, Robert W. Komer of the United States National Security Council informed President Lyndon Johnson that the NLC was “extremely pro-Western”. This was of course no surprise given the fact that the anti-Nkrumah conspirators who included Afrifa had given the CIA Station in Accra regular updates as to the progress of their enterprise.

But this treasonous conduct (as their critics often point out) and the close relations pursued after their assumption of power, paid little dividend. The NLC slavishly backed the United States in the United Nations over unpopular adventures such as the Vietnam war and received some aid and loans, but was disappointed at the scope of aid requested, particularly that to do with military assistance. Relations with the United States deteriorated because of the differences that materialised over the issue of decolonisation in Portuguese Africa and policy towards Apartheid South Africa and Rhodesia. Further, it failed to reach a cocoa agreement with Ghana. Ever dependent on the volatile cocoa market, the Ghanaian economy continued in its parlous state at the time Afrifa handed power over to the civilian government headed by Kofi Busia. Thus, Afrifa and his colleagues arguably only made themselves as subservient to the United States and the West as they claimed Nkrumah made himself subservient to the communist world with little reward.

Afrifa, who pronounced himself as a man committed to social order and who submitted himself to a career that mandated obedience to authority, was also a man with a capacity for rebellion. His expulsion from college, his disciplinary issues at Sandhurst, his facing a court-martial at the time of the February coup, his participation in that coup and his involvement in the attempted counter-coup of 1972 all attest to this. A bright and charismatic man, he also accommodated a healthy ego. Were his rapid promotions from major to colonel and then brigadier merely maintaining a rank in proportion to his burgeoning responsibilities? Or were they an exercise in hubris? He appears to have been a brigadier at the time of the hand over to civilian power, but in retirement was referred to as a lieutenant general – all before he had reached his 35th birthday.

The swiftness by which Afrifa and the others were executed suggests that he was not granted natural justice, albeit that military commissions even when properly constituted are inherently weighted against the defendant. His relative Addaquay recalled in 1979 that he “was arrested on Friday, jailed and shot at dawn on Tuesday morning.”

It has also been suggested that the legal justification for Afrifa’s execution trumpeted by Major Kofi Boakye-Gyan at the National Reconciliation hearings in the early 2000s were merely an afterthought, given that the bulletins issued to the press by the Armed Forces Revolutionary Council in 1979 made no explicit references to the Criminal Code (1960), the Armed Forces Act(1962) and the Superior Order Rule attendant to the Armed Forces regulation which Boakye-Gyan insisted were brought to his attention at the time after consulting widely with figures such as Colonel Peter Agbeko, the head of the Armed Forces Legal Services Directorate; Justice Mills Odoi, the Advocate-General of the Armed Forces; and Justice Austin Amissah, an eminent jurist.

Among his admirers, and the critics of the AFRC’s decision to execute him, are those who suspect a tribal motive in targeting Afrifa. Aside from considering Afrifa’s elimination as an insult to the Ashanti nation which had given him one of its highest titles, they see the half-Ewe Jerry Rawlings as being the instrument of vengeance for periodic episodes in Ghana’s history where Ewe power and influence has ebbed. Although Afrifa did not strike many as a man who was overtly tribally motivated -an accusation often leveled at the late Kotoka who was an Ewe- the aftermath of Kotoka’s death during which time Afrifa expanded his power base is perceived by many Ewes as a time when Ewe influence diminished. There had been a resurgence of Ewe’s within the corridors of power while Kotoka was alive after complaints of their marginalisation during the Nkrumah era.

Divisions among the members of the NLC during the transition to civilian government was noted by analysts who observed that Afrifa’s favoured politician was Kofi Busia, like him an Ashanti, while John Harlley, the NLC’s Vice Chairman favoured Komla Gbedemah, a fellow Ewe. The hand of Afrifa in helping engineer the decision to disqualify Gbedemah cannot be dismissed given the assessment of objective analysts that the use of the clause to effect the disqualification (on the grounds that he had misused public funds) was a device employed to neutralise a potential rival to Busia, Afrifa’s preferred candidate.

Akwasi Afrifa died a villain’s death, executed like a common criminal at a firing range and buried unceremoniously in a prison cemetery. But while his detractors view him with disdain as a consummate operator in the dark arts of political subterfuge and manipulation, he was clearly not a bloodthirsty Machiavellian who insisted on preserving his power as a head of state by murder and instituting a reign of terror as did Mengistu Haile Mariam of Ethiopia and Moussa Traore of Mali.

Claims that Afrifa was a coup-plotter who was essential a democrat do not ring as hollow as those made by the widow of the Chilean Air Force General, Gustavo Leigh Guzman who was a member of the junta which staged the violent overthrow of the Marxist-orientated government of Salvador Allende before inaugurating an era of widespread human rights abuse. But Afrifa did not have ‘clean hands’ in so far as the abuse of human rights is concerned: evidence was given at the National Reconciliation hearings of his supervision of the torture of members of President Nkrumah’s Presidential Detail Department (PDD). Afrifa “could not have been my hero” wrote R.Y. Adu-Asare in 2002 because, Adu-Asare charged, he had sanctioned to killing of one Brigadier Bawah, the commander of Nkrumah’s presidential guard, and, allegedly, members of Bawah’s household.

Moreover, the background to Afrifa’s execution, dominated by a groundswell of public anger and disgust at Ghana’s military rulers cannot be ignored. The executions, which were part of what the AFRC termed a ‘House Cleaning’ operation, were met with popular approval by the media, public organisations and individuals. For instance, the June 24th editorial of the Catholic Standard, which was titled “The Great Lesson” approved of the first batch of executions which it applauded as “a means of instilling discipline and justice” in the country.

Earlier, an editorial in the June 4tb edition of the Ghanaian Times urged the AFRC not to limit the scope of its House Cleaning to 1972, the year in which Colonel Acheampong seized power, but to hold to account what it described as “the many rogues who have committed economic crimes against the nation” to an earlier time frame. The editorial made it clear that “in looking behind 1972, we are not interested in picking on any individual or group.”

The AFRC did cast its net further back, and as a compromise between the opposing views of whether civilian collaborators (and police personnel) should be included among those against whom serious measures should be taken, those senior members who served in Ghana’s first military government came into its crosshairs. Kotoka was dead, General Albert Ocran had fled into exile and Ankrah was excused for not having been a participant in the 1966 coup (he had been invited to head the government before being forced to resign), so Afrifa alone from that era was made to pay the price.

Afrifa’s participation in the coup against Dr. Nkrumah had opened up a can of worms, and his justifications, no matter how well-meaning and seemingly well-reasoned, essentially posited a counter-intuitive logic that treason could prosper by ceasing to be treason.

It is worth bearing all of this in mind when assessing the legacy of Akwasi Amankwa Afrifa. The truth, as in most cases, lies somewhere in-between the extreme narratives of demonisation and hagiography.

*

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.

Adeyinka Makinde is based in London, England. He has a keen interest in history and geo-politics and writes on his blog, Adeyinka Makinde.

Featured image: Brigadier Akwasi Afrifa (1936-1979), Chairman of the National Liberation Council (NLC) of Ghana, seated in Osu Castle, Accra, during the swearing-in ceremony of government ministers of the in-coming civilian administration headed by Dr. Kofi Busia on Friday, September 12th 1969. Source of Photo Still: Reuters News.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Akwasi Afrifa: An Appraisal of Ghana’s One Time Military Ruler
  • Tags: ,

Media Debates as Russia Pushes into Africa

November 5th, 2019 by Kester Kenn Klomegah

In an effort to push its political and economic influence in Africa, Russia has begun identifying news outlets that could facilitate the distribution of its information products and contents (syndication of news reports) from Russian media organizations.

Since the collapse of the Soviet Union, this is the first significant step on media cooperation by official authorities to address the information gap between the two regions. The primary objectives are to promote Russia’s image more positively, overturn the negative perceptions among the public and to counteract anti-Russian propaganda mostly by western and European media in Africa.

Russia seeks a new image in Africa. On the other hand, Russian media continue presenting Africa as a region of diseases, conflicts and dangerous for business. At least, Africa’s middle-class, approximately 380 million constitutes a huge consumer market, is more than Russia’s population of 150 million and almost the same population size of the United States.

Indisputably, Africa also needs an excellent image among the Russian public. Russian experts and academics have consistently called for forging media cooperation as an instrument for promoting business opportunities and building positive perception, and offering knowledge about post-Soviet achievements in Russia and developments in Africa.

In an emailed interview, Professor Irina Abramova, Director of the Institute for African Studies under the Russian Academy of Sciences, said in the eyes of the Russian political establishment and business community, Africa is still viewed as a continent of poverty, endless wars and epidemics, stuck in the pre-industrial stage of development, and surviving only thanks to international aid.

Meanwhile, there is a different Africa, she maintains, Africa with rapid economic growth, dynamic formation of democratic management systems, modern structures and institutions of a market economy, a major player in the market of natural and human resources, a key source of growth in global demands and profitable spheres of investment operations.

“The media should more actively inform Russians about the prospects for the development of the African continent, its history and culture. Unfortunately, the Russian man in the street does not know much about Africa,” the director explained.

“For Africans, so far Russia is associated with the Soviet Union, the majority of Africans still have very warm feelings towards Russia. In general, the Russian Federation in Africa, and Africa in the Russian Federation are very poorly represented in the media. It is necessary to organize a special media entirely dedicated to Russia-Africa,” Abramova said.

Honorary President of the Africa Institute of the Russian Academy of Sciences and Editor-in-Chief of the Asia and Africa Today magazine, Professor Alexei Vasilyev, has also stressed that Russia and Africa have to raise media work so that people of both regions get to know much about each other.

“Measures are needed to enable us to better understand each other. Africa is different. As journalists, we have to report not only diseases, demonstrations and murders, but also about real achievements and successes (of the African continent),” he said.

TASS Director General, Sergei Mikhailov, noted that without African states it’s impossible to cultivate international economic ties, stable development of international ties, and to build a stable and cohesive system of international security. Thus, cooperation between media outlets has to be one of the most active areas of developing ties with Africa.

Reports have shown that TASS plans to actively develop cooperation with its colleagues in Africa and give Africans a chance to familiarize themselves with developments in the world and on the African continent, which is different from most Western media. The Russian news agency plans to significantly increase the number of its bureaus in Sub-Saharan Africa, Mikhailov informed at the panel session themed “Russian-African Relations: The Role of Media” held in Sochi.

“We hope this will contribute to improving mutual understanding between Russian and African peoples. We want the events in Africa and vital issues of its development to again become top news,” he added.

The Russian Foreign Ministry supports the plan by the TASS news agency to open new offices across Africa in 2020 and urges the agency to go ahead with widening its African network, according to Russian Deputy Foreign Minister Mikhail Bogdanov. He further suggested Angola, Guinea, Tanzania and Madagascar among the potential host countries for future TASS offices.

Over the years, media and policy experts have noted that nearly 30 years after the Soviet, Russia has not encouraged African media from south of Sahara in the Russian Federation. The Ministry of Foreign Affairs has largely ignored African media, south of Sahara. South Africa, Morocco and Egypt (the Maghreb region) are closer in their relationship to Russia.

Information presented at the Sochi summit explicitly confirmed this observation. Some 300 news bureaus from 60 countries are operating in Russia, including 800 correspondents and 400 technical personnel, while Africa represented by just three bureaus: South Africa, Egypt and Morocco, the Deputy Director of the Russian Foreign Ministry’s Information and Press Department, Artem Kozhin said at the panel discussion.

According to him, this extremely low representation of African media hardly meets the level of dynamically developing relations.

“We invite all interested parties to open news bureaus and expand media cooperation with Russia,” Kozhin said.

Some are not ready to spend money by bringing Africa media to Russia.

“We understand that getting to Moscow costs quite a bit of money, and this may well be too expensive for African newsrooms,” Alexei Volin, Russia’s Deputy Minister for Communications and Mass Media, said before making the pitch.

He further emphasized that information cooperation was developing not the way it should be.

The ministry has put forward proposals on expanding cooperation with Africa, including exchanging information with Russia’s state mass media, training courses for African journalists and trips of Russian specialists to Africa for training personnel.

According to various reports by Roscongress, the organizer of the first Russia-Africa Summit held in October, Russian officials have expressed readiness to collaborate with African media and would be at the forefront to highlight post-Soviet economic and cultural reality and shape the African perception about Russia. Senior media professionals on the African side are highly qualified and have appreciable professional experience in their employment.

From Eurasia Review investigations, TASS is currently strengthening its foothold in Africa. For instance, in September it appointed Vitaly Makarchev as the head of Pretoria office in South Africa. Director General of the Maghreb Arab Press news agency Khalil Hachimi Idrissi and FAAPA Secretary General Mohamed Anis have held talks earlier during the year with TASS First Deputy Director General Mikhail Gusman. The talks focused on widening media cooperation in Maghreb region.

Russian diplomats have also discussed media cooperation with Executive Director of Cabo Verdean News Agency Infopress, Jacqueline Furtado Carvalho; General Manager of Agence Congolaise de Presse, Anasth Wilfrid Mbossa; General Manager of Ghana News Agency, Albert Kofi Owusu, and Chief-Editor of the Seychelles News Agency, Rassin Vannier.

General Manager of Ghana News Agency, Albert Kofi Owusu, told the New York Times that the proposal to distribute stories from TASS, the Russian state-controlled news service, to newspapers, websites and television stations in the West African region made sense, especially since his agency was already sharing Chinese state media reports. But, this has to be done within a framework agreement of mutual benefits.

For decades, a number of foreign countries have been cooperating with African media and NGOs to push their strategic policy and business interests. For example, the Forum on China-Africa Cooperation has fixed China-Africa Press Exchange Centre in Shanghai to encourage and promote exchange and visits between Chinese and African media.

Last May, China hosted the fifth Forum on China-Africa Media Cooperation. A joint statement on further deepening exchanges and cooperation was adopted.

Similarly, the United States, European Union, and Asian States support African media enormously in their information and education activity, and with regular publications of economic and business reports to create public business awareness in Africa. They have adequately collaborated with African partners in attracting business to Africa.

Nevertheless, Moscow plans to boost its presence on the continent in the next four to five years. Aware of the common responsibility, Russia and Africa have to continue coordinating efforts at implementing the documents adopted at the summit since this meets the desires and aspirations of Russia and Africa.

As explicitly outlined in the joint declaration, both Russia and Africa have to begin pursuing the targeted goals such as:

  • facilitate the people-to-people contacts between Russia and African States using the potential of non-governmental organizations and various fora, including the youth ones.
  • encourage further exchanges, mutual learning and cooperation in culture and education.
  • facilitate the opening of Russian and African mass media hubs in the respective territories of African States and the Russian Federation.

Ultimately, these could be achieved by building on the existing friendly ties, as well as on the rich experience of multifaceted and mutually beneficial cooperation that serves the collective interests between the Russia and Africa.

*

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

Kester Kenn Klomegah writes frequently on Russia, Africa and BRICS. He is the author of the Geopolitical Handbook titled “Putin’s African Dream and The New Dawn: Challenges and Emerging Opportunities” devoted to the first Russia-Africa Summit 2019.

PLO Demands UK Apology for Balfour Declaration

November 5th, 2019 by Middle East Monitor

The umbrella Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) has called on Britain to apologise for the 1917 Balfour Declaration – a document that laid the groundwork for Israel’s creation.

“It’s time for Britain to act with responsibility to realise the political rights of the Palestinian people, which were denied a century ago,” PLO Secretary-General Saeb Erekat said in a statement on Saturday. He added:

Palestine remains a victim to this colonialist pledge…which denied the political rights of our people and their legitimate right to self-determination

The Balfour Declaration, dated November 2, 1917, was a letter sent by Britain’s then foreign secretary, Arthur James Balfour, to Lord Walter Rothschild, a prominent Zionist leader.

In the letter, Balfour declares his government’s support for a “national home for the Jewish people” in Palestine.

The infamous declaration was the result of three years of talks between the British government, Britain’s Jewish community and the International Zionist Organisation.

Two years ago, the centenary of Balfour was marked by Britain’s then Prime Minister, Theresa May, inviting her Israeli counterpart, Benjamin Netanyahu, to commemorate the anniversary “with pride”. This was despite the fact that over 13,500 people had signed a parliamentary petition launched by the Palestinian Return Centre calling for the government to apologise to the Palestinians.

Britain is yet to acknowledge its historic responsibility for the calamitous situation facing the Palestinians. Successive governments have avoided the injustice by simply making statements of goodwill, instead of progressive actions to end the Israeli occupation and support the Palestinian right to self-determination.

Last month, Husam Zomlot, the Palestinian ambassador to the UK called Britain’s delay in recognising the state of Palestine is illegal.

*

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.

Malaysian Prime Minister Mahathir Mohamad says his country cannot carry out trade with Iran, one of its big trading partners, as a result of Washington’s unilateral sanctions against Tehran, noting that US bans on Iran contravene the United Nations’ provisions.

Mahathir made the remarks while speaking at a press conference on the sidelines of the 35th ASEAN Summit and Related Summits in Thailand on Sunday.

“There is no provision in the United Nations that a country, which is dissatisfied with another country, can impose sanctions on that country and other countries trading with that nation,” the Malaysian prime minister said, while criticizing the inhibitory impact of US unilateral sanctions against Iran on Kuala Lumpur’s trade with Tehran.

He also dismissed applying sanctions against countries as an act “against the law.”

“The sanctions don’t apply to one country alone,” he said, adding that Malaysia is now being sanctioned.

The Malaysian premier further criticized those who “talk so much” about the rule of law, rule-based trade and relations, but fail to adhere to their own principles without singling out any country.

Mahathir’s remarks came amid reports denoting that banks in Malaysia are closing the accounts of Iranian individuals and companies, in what is believed to be a measure linked to sanctions imposed by Washington against Tehran after the former left the landmark Iran nuclear deal, officially known as the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA).

Since quitting the JCPOA, US President Donald Trump has been running what he refers to as a “maximum pressure” campaign, which seeks to pressure Iran into negotiating a new deal that addresses its ballistic missile program and regional influence.

The spokesman for Iran’s Foreign Ministry said on Thursday that the country’s embassy in Malaysia is doing its best to solve problems resulting from banking restrictions considered for Iranian nationals by some financial institutions in Malaysia.

Mousavi said,

“Unfortunately, under the influence of the United States’ economic terrorism, some Malaysian banks have considered restrictions for opening accounts and providing services to Iranian nationals.”

Malaysia has maintained good diplomatic relations with Iran despite sanctions Washington imposed against Tehran. Iranian Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif made an official visit to Kuala Lumpur in August on the last leg of his three-nation Asian tour, which also took him to China and Japan.

*

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

During the Soviet-Afghan conflict from 1979 to 1988 between the capitalist and communist blocs, Saudi Arabia and the Gulf Arab States took the side of the former because the Soviet Union and the Central Asian states produced more energy and consumed less. Thus, the Soviet bloc was the net exporter of energy, whereas the capitalist bloc led by Washington was the net importer of energy.

It suited the economic interests of the oil-rich Gulf countries to maintain and strengthen a supplier-consumer relationship with the capitalist bloc. Now the BRICS countries are equally hungry for the Middle East’s energy, but it’s a recent development. During the Cold War, an alliance with the industrialized world was predicated upon the economic interests of the Gulf states, which was given a religious color of purportedly “anticommunist” Islamist ideology by the Salafist preachers of Saudi Arabia.

All the celebrity terrorists, whose names are now heard in the mainstream media every day, were the spawns of the Soviet-Afghan War: including Osama bin Laden, Ayman al Zawahiri, the Haqqanis, the Taliban, the Hekmatyars etc. But that war wasn’t limited only to Afghanistan. The alliance between the Western powers and their regional client states during the Cold War funded, trained, armed and internationally legitimized the Islamic jihadists all over the Islamic World. We hear the names of jihadist groups operating in regions as far a field as the Central Asian States, the North Caucasus and even in Bosnia and Kosovo in the Balkans.

Regarding the objectives of the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan in December 1979, then American envoy to Kabul, Adolph “Spike” Dubs, was assassinated on the Valentine’s Day, on 14 Feb 1979, the same day that Iranian revolutionaries stormed the American embassy in Tehran.

The former Soviet Union was wary that its forty-million Muslims were susceptible to radicalism, because Islamic radicalism was infiltrating across the border into the Central Asian States from Afghanistan. Therefore, the Soviet Union invaded Afghanistan in December 1979 in support of the Afghan communists to forestall the likelihood of Islamist insurgencies spreading to the Central Asian States bordering Afghanistan.

According to documents declassified by the White House, CIA and State Department in January, as reported [1] by Tim Weiner for The Washington Post, the CIA was aiding Afghan jihadists before the Soviet Union invaded Afghanistan in 1979. President Jimmy Carter signed the CIA directive to arm the Afghan jihadists in July 1979, whereas the former Soviet Union invaded Afghanistan in December the same year.

The revelation doesn’t come as a surprise, though, because more than two decades before the declassification of the State Department documents, in the 1998 interview [2] to The Counter Punch Magazine, former National Security Advisor to President Jimmy Carter, Zbigniew Brzezinski, confessed that the president signed the directive to provide secret aid to the Afghan jihadists in July 1979, whereas the Soviet Army invaded Afghanistan six months later in December 1979.

Here is apoignant excerpt from the interview. The interviewer puts the question:

“And neither do you regret having supported the Islamic jihadists, having given arms and advice to future terrorists?”

Brzezinski replies:

“What is most important to the history of the world? The Taliban or the collapse of the Soviet empire? Some stirred-up Moslems or the liberation of Central Europe and the end of the Cold War?”

Despite the crass insensitivity, one must give credit to Zbigniew Brzezinski that at least he had the courage to speak the unembellished truth. It’s worth noting, however, that the aforementioned interview was recorded in 1998. After the 9/11 terror attack, no Western policymaker can now dare to be as blunt and forthright as Brzezinski.

Regardless, that the CIA was arming the Afghan jihadists six months before the Soviets invaded Afghanistan has been proven by the State Department’s declassified documents; fact of the matter, however, is that the nexus between the CIA, Pakistan’s security agencies and the Gulf states to train and arm the Afghan jihadists against the former Soviet Union was forged years before the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan.

Pakistan joined the American-led, anticommunist SEATO and CENTO regional alliances in the 1950s and played the role of Washington’s client state since its inception in 1947 as a former colony of the British Empire. So much so that when a United States U-2 spy plane was shot down by the Soviet Air Defense Forces while performing photographic aerial reconnaissance deep into Soviet territory, Pakistan’s then President Ayub Khan openly acknowledged the reconnaissance aircraft flew from an American airbase in Peshawar, a city in northwest Pakistan.

Historically, Pakistan’s military first used the Islamists of Jamaat-e-Islami as proxies during the Bangladesh war of liberation in the late 1960s against the Bangladeshi nationalist Mukti Bahini liberation movement of Sheikh Mujib-ur-Rahman – the father of current prime minister of Bangladesh, Sheikh Hasina Wajed, and the founder of Bangladesh, which was then a province of Pakistan and known as East Pakistan before the independence of Bangladesh in 1971.

Jamaat-e-Islami is a far-right Islamist movement in Pakistan, India and Bangladesh – analogous to the Muslim Brotherhood political party in Egypt and Turkey – several of whose leaders have recently been imprisoned and executed by the Bangladeshi nationalist government of Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina Wajed for committing massacres of Bangladeshi civilians on the orders of Pakistan’s military during the Bangladesh war of liberation.

Then during he 1970s, Pakistan’s then Prime Minister Zulfikar Ali Bhutto began aiding the Afghan Islamists against Sardar Daud’s government, who had toppled his first cousin King Zahir Shah in a palace coup in 1973 and had proclaimed himself the president of Afghanistan.

Sardar Daud was a Pashtun nationalist and laid claim to Pakistan’s northwestern Pashtun-majority province. Pakistan’s security establishment was wary of his irredentist claims and used Islamists to weaken his rule in Afghanistan. He was eventually assassinated in 1978 as a consequence of the Saur Revolution led by the Afghan communists.

Pakistan’s support to the Islamists with the Saudi petro-dollars and Washington’s blessings, however, kindled the fires of Islamist insurgencies in the entire region comprising Afghanistan, Pakistan, the Soviet Central Asian States, and even in the Indian-administered Kashmir.

Regarding the Kashmir dispute, there can be no two views that the right of self-determination of Kashmiris must be respected in accordance with the UN Security Council resolutions on the right of plebiscite to the Kashmiri people, and the international community must lend its moral, political and diplomatic support to the Kashmiri people. But at the same time, the militarization of any dispute, including Kashmir, must be avoided due to human suffering that militancy and wars anywhere in the world inevitably entail.

The insurgency in Kashmir erupted in the fateful year 1984 of the Orwellian-fame when the Indian armed forces surreptitiously occupied the whole of Siachenglacier, including the un-demarcated Pakistani portion, on the Pakistan-India border in Kashmir.

Now, we must keep the backdrop in mind: those were the heydays of the Cold War and Pakistan army’s proxies, the Afghan jihadists, were triumphantly waging a guerrilla warfare during the Soviet-Afghan War in the 1980s, and the morale of Pakistan’s military’s top brass was touching the sky.

In addition, Pakistan’s security establishment wanted to inflict damage to the Indian armed forces to exact revenge for the dismemberment of Pakistan at the hands of India during the Bangladesh War of 1971, when India provided support to Bangladeshi nationalists and took 90,000 Pakistani soldiers as prisoners of war after Pakistan’s defeat in the Bangladesh war of liberation.

All the military’s top brass had to do was to divert a fraction of its Afghan jihadist proxies toward the Indian-administered Kashmir to kindle the fires of insurgency. Pakistan’s security agencies began sending jihadists experienced in the Afghan asymmetric warfare across the border to the Indian-administered Kashmir in the late 1980s; and by the early 1990s, the Islamist insurgency had engulfed the whole of Jammu and Kashmir region.

*

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

Nauman Sadiq is an Islamabad-based attorney, columnist and geopolitical analyst focused on the politics of Af-Pak and Middle East regions, neocolonialism and petro-imperialism. He is a regular contributor to Global Research.

Notes

[1] CIA was aiding Afghan rebels before the Soviets invaded in 1979

[2] Brzezinski Interview: How Jimmy Carter and I Started the Mujahideen

Our Kurdish Hero…the Terrorist?

November 5th, 2019 by Scott Ritter

In the past month, the name and image of General Mazloum Adbi, the commander of the Kurdish Syrian Democratic Forces, or SDF, has become well known to Americans. The decision by President Trump to precipitously withdraw U.S. forces from northeastern Syria, thereby greenlighting a Turkish military incursion which targeted Mazloum and his forces, prompted a widespread discussion about the American “abandonment” of its Kurdish allies, and General Mazloum quickly became the face of the Kurds.

After the targeted killing of ISIS leader Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, by elite commandos from the Joint Special Operations Command (JSOC), General Mazloum’s status as a heroic figure was cemented, given the role he and the SDF played in that effort. But Mazloum has a dark past which makes his relationship with the U.S. highly problematic.

To hear the Kurds tell it, the attack on al-Baghdadi wouldn’t—indeed, couldn’t—have happened without their support.

“Since 15 May [2019],” Polat Can, a senior adviser to the SDF, declared via Twitter, “we have been working together with the CIA to track Al Baghdadi and monitor him closely.”

The operation to kill Baghdadi was supposed to take place a month ago, Mr. Can tweeted, but the decision by President Trump to pull American troops out of northeastern Syria, followed by the Turkish incursion into the evacuated territory, caused a postponement. Eventually, however, the mission was a “go.”

The Genesis of the assault on al-Baghdadi, officially known as Operation Kayla Mueller, in honor of the American aid worker who was captured, tortured and killed by al-Baghdadi, did not originate with the Kurds, but rather in Turkey, where in February 2018 Turkish intelligence agents arrested Ismael al-Ethawi, one of al-Baghdadi’s closest aides. The Turks turned al-Ethawi over to Iraqi authorities, who under interrogation by the Iraqis and the CIA revealed the identities of other close associates of al-Baghdadi, who were in turn detained and questioned.

From this information, the Iraqis and the CIA were able to piece together a pattern of activity used by al-Baghdadi to avoid detection. Armed with this information, the CIA approached the Syrian Kurds of the SDF, whose intelligence service deployed a network of human agents to try and locate al-Baghdadi, which they succeeded in doing in May 2019.

According to General Abdi, his forces were able to identify the house where al-Baghdadi was staying, and then insert an informant who was able to provide critical details about its physical properties. Abdistated that the SDF set up a secret intelligence cell to control the informant and invited the CIA to participate. The intelligence produced by this cell was instrumental in the planning of the assault on al-Baghdadi’s compound. According to Abdi, the informant was one of two adult men detained by the assault force and evacuated from the site once the mission was completed.

U.S. Special Operations Forces have a history of close cooperation with Syrian Kurds in carrying out anti-ISIS operations. This cooperation began in the fall of 2014, when Joint Tactical Air Control (JTAC)-qualified U.S. Special Operators, skilled in directing close air support of forces engaged in combat, began controlling coalition air strikes in support of Kurdish forces defending the Syrian city of Kobani from ISIS attack. The Americans had never worked with the Syrian Kurds before, and there was a steep learning curve on the part of both the Americans and their Kurdish counterparts. The arrival of Iraqi Kurdish Special Forces who had a history of working with American JTACs in Iraq helped the targeting process immensely.

Since 2012 both the CIA and the U.S. Department of Defense had been engaged in dual equip and train missions to field viable opposition forces capable of overthrowing the government of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad. By 2014, these efforts had failed abysmally. At the same time, the regime change focus was overtaken by the rise of ISIS, and the need to field a force capable of defeating this new threat.

From the Kobani experience, the U.S. identified the People’s Protection Unites, or YPG—the military arm of the Democratic Union Party, or PYD, as an ideal partner in the counter-ISIS fight. There was, however, one major hitch—the PYD was an affiliate of the Kurdish Worker’s Party, or PKK, a Kurdish group that has been fighting a war of independence against Turkey for more than 30 years, and which both the U.S. and Turkey, a key NATO ally, identified as a terrorist organization.

The U.S. Department of State designated the PKK as a foreign terrorist organization in 1997 under section 219 of the Immigration and Nationality Act; in 2001 the U.S. Government followed up by designating the PKK as a Specially Designated Global Terrorist Entity pursuant to Executive Order 13224.  These designations were designed to restrict fundraising opportunities by denying the PKK access to U.S. financial systems, as well as facilitate the capture and prosecution of persons affiliated with the PKK. If the United States were to engage in a train and equip program with the YPG, the Department of Defense would run afoul of U.S. law, 18 U.S. Code sections 2339B and 2339A, prohibiting the provision of material support to designated foreign terrorist organizations.

As the saying goes, therein lies the rub; in order to defeat ISIS, the United States would need to ally itself with a terrorist group it was prohibited by law from doing so. Moreover, it would need to provide weapons and training to an organization which had, over the course of 30-plus years, killed tens of thousands of Turks through hundreds of terrorist actions.

The Turks had witnessed the Kobani fight up close and personally and were able to be persuaded of the necessity of a U.S.-Kurdish alliance in order to defeat ISIS, with one catch—the U.S. needed to keep careful track of all the weapons it supplied to the YPG, and promise to recover them all once the threat from ISIS had been eliminated. By October 2015, President Obama had authorized a force of 50 JSOC operators to enter Syria to work with the SDF; this number soon grew to more than 300.

From its very inception, the U.S.-SDF relationship was a study in contradiction and controversy. The sleight of hand rebranding ploy by the U.S. was a transparent gimmick that fooled no-one; when the elite soldiers of the YPG’s anti-terrorism force (YAT) started using expensive U.S.-made equipment, such as night-vision goggles and specially fitted out M-4 assault weapons, the Pentagon was quick to note that it had not provided the equipment, since that would violate U.S. law (the equipment instead made its way to the Kurds via a circuitous route that by-passed Congressional oversight.)

Moreover, the U.S. backtracked from its assurances that it would recover the weapons it had supplied to the SDF, extending the timeline until it became obvious to all the weapons were there to stay.

Most problematic of all was the fact that the U.S., through its interaction with the SDF, was working closely with personalities the Turks reviled as senior leadership figures within the PKK, including General Abdi. While the Turks were able to turn a blind eye to this cozy relationship, when the Kurds proclaimed their own autonomous region within Syria, which they called Rojava, in May 2016, the Turks were quick to condemn both it and the U.S.-Kurdish military relationship.

Abdi, whose real name is Ferhad Abdi Şahin, participated in PKK attacks on Turkish villages and military outposts in the mid- to late-1990’s which killed dozens of Turkish civilians and soldiers. After serving as a PKK fundraiser in Europe, Mazloum returned to northern Iraq where he commanded PKK special operations forces who were responsible for dozens of violent attacks against targets inside Turkey. In 2011 the Turks petitioned Interpol to issue a Red Notice on Mazloum, designating him as a top tier terrorist who should be detained on sight. Mazloum returned to Syria in 2013 to take command of the YPG.

Today General Abdi finds himself feted by President Trump, Congress and the U.S. media for his role in defeating ISIS and killing al-Baghdadi. Trump has indicated a desire to meet General Mazloum, while Senator Lindsay Graham has pushed the State Department to help expedite a visa so Abdi can travel to the United States.

For its part, Turkey has drawn up a formal request that the United States arrest General Mazloum, citing the Interpol Red Notice, and extradite him to Turkey to face justice. In a world where hypocrisy and double standards are more commonplace than consistent application of the rule of law, the American relationship with General Mazloum—our man in Rojava—stands out: to wage a war against terror, the United States has allied with a man who, by any measure, meets the definition of terrorist. Consistency has never been the forte of American diplomacy, yet in the coming weeks and months the U.S. will have to decide whether it values its relationship with Turkey, a NATO ally, over a man the Turks revile as a terrorist, and yet has provided the U.S. with yeoman’s service in the fight against ISIS.

Postscript—the status of General Mazloum as a pro-American heroic figure was further cemented with the killing of al-Baghdadi’s alleged successor, Abu Hesen al Mouhjir, on October 29, in a coordinated assault by SDF commandos and U.S. Delta Force operators.

*

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 leader of the Kurdish-led Syrian Democratic Forces, General Mazloum Abdi. (Source: TAC)

“Robbing” Syria’s Oil to Thwart Syria’s Recovery

November 5th, 2019 by Salman Rafi Sheikh

In the name of what the US president called “securing the oil” or what the Pentagon chose to describe as an attempt to “protect” Syria’s oil, the US is basically indulging in what can, in simple terms, be described as purposeful pillaging of Syria’s natural resources.

There are three objectives that the US aims to achieve through this “control” of Syria’s oil. First, it can thwart all attempts towards Syria’s territorial reunification under Damascus. Secondly, it can keep a lid on a critical source of Syria’s economy and can thus thwart Syria’s economic recovery and reconstruction. Thirdly, by “controlling” the oil, the US can clip Kurds and prevent their bid to make a deal with the Russians and the Syrians for integration with Damascus; hence, Pentagon’s “warning” to everyone—Russians and Syrians in particular—-against any attempts at recovering the oil fields. This, however, is equally going to make US-Turkey rapprochement extremely difficult, if not impossible.

The US, by deciding to directly control Syria’s oil, has re-intensified its geopolitical struggle in and around Syria. The US position close to the critical M2 Baghdad-Damascus highway indicates how it intends to stay militarily engaged in the Levant after the defeat of the Islamic State and Syria’s strong drive, supported as it is by Russia and Iran, towards re-establishing Damascus’ authority all over Syria.

During the recently concluded NATO summit in Brussels, Esper confirmed that that the US is sending an unspecified number of troops and materiel to “guard the oil fields” held presently by Kurdish forces, adding also that reinforcements “will continue until we believe we have sufficient capability” [to hold the oil fields for as long as we want].

The decision to “control” oil fields has, unsurprisingly enough, come at a time when Russia, Iran and Turley, have advanced well enough into bringing peace to Syria and creating a new constitution. Even the Syria opposition groups have confidently said that a political deal will be clinched next year. According to co-chair Hadi al-Bahra,

“I hope that the 75th anniversary of the United Nations next year will be an opportunity to celebrate another achievement by the universal organization, namely the success of efforts under the auspices of a special envoy for political process, who will bring peace and justice to all Syrians.”

The joint statement released after a meeting of the foreign ministers of Russia, Iran and Turkey in Geneva emphasised the same. All the parties, said the statement,

“Confirmed the continued commitment of the guarantor countries of the Astana format to the sovereignty, independence, unity and territorial integrity of the Syrian Arab Republic.”

Even if a deal happens, lack of enough resources available to rebuild Syria will start causing new crisis, weakening Damascus’ hands. A “struggle for resources” might tear Syria apart. Given the US plan that goes specifically to this direction and mindful of the consequences that a minus-oil Syria will have to face, Russia is all the more critical of US policies. With the Russian foreign minister calling US policies “arrogant”, “illegal” and a violation of international law, the tempo for intense geo-political struggle has been set. This puts the US on one side, and the Astana countries on the other.

Notwithstanding the US ‘permission’ to let Turkey do its military operation in Syria, the fact that the US has once again started supporting Kurds (although it is more like thwarting Kurdish attempts to make peace with Damascus) means that Ankara will have some serious objections to it. This puts Russia, Iran and Turkey on the same page, reinforcing the Astana peace process.

Turkey, without any doubt, will see in the US “control” of Syrian oil fields and a tactical support for Kurds a threat to its interests… a process that might continue to gain momentum towards the ultimate objective of creating an autonomous Kurdistan in Syria – a territory that is supposed to become the bedrock of US and Israeli activities in the whole region.

This means that the prospects of a US-Turkey rapprochement will become a lot weaker than they seemed three weeks ago. There can perhaps be nothing more inflammatory to the Turkish national security establishment and public alike than collaboration between Kurdish militias and a NATO ally, the US. Within Turkey’s national security calculation, this collaboration can have no objective other than breaking Turkey from within and creating an independent state of Kurdistan in the Middle East.

The US’ renewed attempts at creating a mess in Syria through controlling the life-line of its economy is, therefore, going to have many consequences that will, once again, leave it surrounded by foes (Russia and Iran) and estranged allies (Turkey). It is obvious that the bid to control Syria’s oil has nothing with the fight against terrorism; it signifies a renewed US geo-political struggle to stay alive in the Middle East – something that no country in the region, save Israel and Saudi Arabia, will appreciate and welcome.

*

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.

Salman Rafi Sheikh, research-analyst of International Relations and Pakistan’s foreign and domestic affairs, exclusively for the online magazine “New Eastern Outlook”.

Featured image is from Al-Masdar News

5G Cell Phone Technology Contravenes Human and Environmental Laws

November 5th, 2019 by Stop Smart Meters Australia

Attorney-at-law Christian Jensen, of Bonnor Lawyers in Denmark, examined potential health damages and risks of 5G in relation to human rights and environmental conventions.

The legal opinion is centred around results that have positively documented actual damages or risks to humans, animals and plants.  Jensen points out that this research is “inherently of much greater significance than examinations which have been incapable of identifying a damage or risk thereof, since the latter group does not in itself exclude the possibility that there exist real damage or risks”.

He explains that

“If it has on one occasion defensibly been scientifically proven that there is a damaging effect or risk of damage, then the fact that ten other defensible trials did not show such an effect or risk is irrelevant.  It is then merely up to the scientific community to clarify why the ten defensible trials did not show what is scientifically proven, in order to better understand why and how the damages occur or could occur”.

In his final remarks, on page 64 of the 75-page document, Jensen states that:

“It is the conclusion of this legal opinion that establishing and activating a 5G-network, as it is currently described,  would  be  in  contravention  of  current  human  and  environmental  laws enshrined in the European Convention on Human Rights, the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, EU regulations, and the Bern- and Bonn-conventions.

The reason is the very significant body of scientific documentation available, showing that radiofrequency electromagnetic radiation is harmful and dangerous to the health of humans (particularly children), animals and plants.

This also applies when the radiation remains within the limits recommended by ICNIRP and currently used in Denmark as well as broadly within the EU.”

The legal opinion was provided at the request of the Danish Institute for Public Health, the Council for Health-Safe Telecommunications, the EHS-association and the Danish Health Association May Day.

This opinion is also relevant to Australia.  Australia is a signatory to both the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child and the Bonn convention (also known as the Convention on the Conservation of Migratory Species of Wild Animals).  European Union directives don’t apply in Australia; however, decisions made by the European Court of Human Rights, which has responsibility for monitoring compliance with the rights and freedoms set out by the European Convention on Human Rights, influence the development of human rights law in Australia.

Access the Danish legal opinion document 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.

Featured image is from TruePublica

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on 5G Cell Phone Technology Contravenes Human and Environmental Laws
  • Tags: ,

Can the UK Election Solve the Brexit Impasse?

November 5th, 2019 by Johanna Ross

UK Prime Minister Boris Johnson said on Sunday it was a matter of ‘deep, deep regret’ that he was unable to meet the Brexit deadline of October 31st – the date by which he promised the country would leave the European Union. In an interview with Sophie Ridge on Sky News he was asked how he felt about breaking his vow to instigate Brexit ‘come what may’ at the end of October, to which he said that he was ‘deeply disappointed’.  Johnson also went further to express his frustration that the negotiation period had been further extended, stating: ‘It’s so painful to have these extensions, it’s not cause of, you know, my promises or my ego or whatever, it’s because the uncertainty that it means for the whole country.’

Last week the UK parliament voted to approve the Prime Minister’s Brexit deal in principle, but also to a general election which is to be held on December 12th. This means that the overall vote on the government’s Brexit bill has been postponed until a new parliament has been voted in. However it’s not clear that the election will make any great difference to the outcome of the vote. Britain remains a country divided over the Brexit issue, and Westminster reflects this. Opinion polls continue to broadly reflect the result of the 2016 EU referendum of 51.89% for leave and 48.11% to remain. And polls which have asked if people would vote the same way if a second referendum was to be held on Brexit have also found that the vast majority would indeed cast their votes in the same way as before.

So far analysts have speculated that a hung parliament is once again a likely option. With the two main political parties in disarray over Brexit; the Conservatives themselves have lost a significant number of pro-Remain politicians to the Liberal Democrats over the issue and the Labour party is also split; it is a strong possibility that neither party will gain the majority needed. The Conservatives have also declined to strike any pact with Nigel Farage’s Brexit party, despite Farage even winning US President Trump’s approval of such a union. This is fundamentally because Farage is demanding Johnson abandons his precious, long-awaited EU withdrawal agreement, something which would be far too politically risky for the Conservatives, and something which quite frankly Johnson will not do. One only has to remember how politically unstable things became several weeks ago at the prospect of a No Deal Brexit – not to mention economically with the fall of the pound – to ascertain how much more widespread support there is for leaving the EU with a deal.

Indeed just a couple of months ago it was quite a different story, reflecting just how quickly things change in this Brexit game. No Deal Brexit was still a real possibility as Boris Johnson proclaimed he’d rather ‘die in a ditch’ than not see Brexit through on October 31st. Back then the Conservative party was only leading by 3 percentage points. The Brexit party was as high as 14 percent – trouble for both major parties but a real threat to the Tories.  But now, with Johnson having managed to secure a deal with the EU, Nigel Farage’s popularity is down to single figures. If there hadn’t been a deal, in the midst of all the chaos, his proposal of a ‘clean break Brexit’ may have sounded more appealing to Leave voters and seen him steal some seats from the Tories.

One party which is predicted to make significant gains in the December election is the Liberal Democrats – the one major party which stands on a Remain platform. At the moment polls are showing they could take as much as 19% of the vote. The Conservatives feel the threat of this and have warned any pro-European Conservative voters to think carefully before voting Lib Dem.  Tory Deputy Chairman Paul Scully said: ‘No matter what they say, a vote for the Liberal Democrats will create another hung parliament and risks putting Corbyn into Downing Street – meaning years more confusion, delay and indecision’.  However with the Conservatives having moved further to the right in recent years and Labour to the left, the Lib Dems firmly occupy the centre ground and as such are likely to appeal to many voters, and not just those who are anti-Brexit.

As for Labour, it has faced criticism from party members and non-members alike over its murky Brexit strategy. Although many expected Corbyn to fight for Remain in the early stages, he has refused to do so, maintaining a position that there ought to be a People’s Vote on the issue. Last week Corbyn repeated his position that Labour’s pledge is to renegotiate the current Brexit deal and then put it to a referendum, with Remain as an option. He is determined that Labour will not take a more concrete position on Brexit until after the general election. Whether this strategy will cost them seats come December, is the question.

Everything is to play for therefore at this ‘Brexit election’. The outcome will be historic and it will have major consequences not just for Britain’s future in the EU, but also for the UK’s political parties and their leaders alike.

*

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.

Featured image is from InfoBrics

In response to a recent escalation in northern Lattakia, the Syrian Army has deployed a batch of reinforcements south of the militant-held town of Kbani. According to pro-government sources, the Syrian military leadership is also considering to deploy units from the Tiger Forces to the area. If this is confirmed, the Syrian military may undertake offensive actions around Kbani in the near future. During the past few years, militants used Kbani as a foothold to shell and attack government-controlled areas. The liberation of this town may become a turning point in restoring security and defeating the terrorism in this part of Syria.

Turkish-backed forces shelled a US military column near Tell Tamer in northeastern Syria, Maj. Gen. Yuri Borenkov, the head of the Reconciliation Russian said on November 3. No casualties were reported. Nonetheless, such developments indicate that the situation around the Ras-al-Ayn-Tell Abyad zone still remain tense.

Watch the video here.

Clashes between Kurdish armed groups and Turkish-backed militants are ongoing near Sakiru, Masoudia and Umm Baramil. Both sides claim that they killed lots of enemy fighters. However, video and photo evidence from the area indicate that most of the developments are never-ending artillery duels.

Meanwhile, the US-led coalition has increased its military presence in the Rumeilan oil field area. Local sources say that the number of US-linked mercenaries deployed there has also increased. US forces regularly conduct patrols between the Omar oil fields and the Rumeilan oil field. While the number of US troops deployed in northern Syria is decreasing, the US military presence along the eastern bank of the Euphrates is growing.

*

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

We call upon Global Research readers to 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: Syrian Army Prepares for Advance in Northern Lattakia

The visit of new Indian Defense Minister Rajnath Singh to Moscow from 5-7 November along with a 50-member military-technical business delegation will continue the trend of improving Russian-Indian defense ties after their comparative weakening over the past few years, though this must be balanced with improved Russian-Chinese connectivity through the Eurasian Union’s planned integration with the Belt & Road Initiative via the proposed vision of N-CPEC+ otherwise Beijing might understandably come to believe that improved Russian-Indian defense ties are aimed at countering its growing military capabilities and thus risk inadvertently triggering a security dilemma.

New Indian Defense Minister Rajnath Singh will visit Moscow from 5-7 November along with a 50-member business delegation to attend the India-Russia Intergovernmental Commission on Military-Technical Cooperation, during which time Indian media expects the two to make progress on agreeing to joint ventures for producing Russian spare parts in the South Asian state and possibly also making progress on fulfilling one of the goals of the joint statement made after September’s Eastern Economic Forum to “prepare a framework for cooperation on reciprocal logistics support.” The “Reciprocal Logistics Support Agreement” (RLSA), as it’s being called in Indian media, would be the Russian version of the “Logistics Exchange Memorandum Of Agreement” (LEMOA) that India already agreed to with the US in 2016 to allow each other’s military forces the right to use relevant facilities in their partner’s countries on a case-by-case “logistical” basis. LEMOA functionally enables the Indian Navy to use American bases in the Afro-Asian (“Indian”) Ocean Rimland for “containing” China in that waterway, while RLSA would give it its warships the right to regularly dock in Vladivostok, en route to which they would provocatively traverse the South China and East China Seas.

They’re already able to do the latter through the recently signed logistics pact with South Korea, but incorporating Russia into this trans-regional Chinese “containment” framework (even if that’s not Moscow’s intent at all whatsoever but is New Delhi’s unstated strategic motivation) risks provoking a security dilemma between India’s two nominal BRICS and SCO partners that could indirectly advance the US’ strategic goal of driving a wedge between them for divide-and-rule ends. From the Chinese perspective, the Indian Navy is dramatically broadening its operational reach all throughout the Afro-Pacific in line with the US’ vision in accordance with the Pentagon’s “Indo-Pacific” strategy that ultimately aims to “contain” China. Approached from the Russian standpoint, however, Moscow is simply trying to make up for its declining position in India’s military marketplace after its exports there fell a whopping 42% over the past decade as proven by the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute’s (SIPRI) report that was released earlier this year. Russia has obvious interests in recovering its lost market share and the billions of dollars of revenue associated with it as it continues its economic systemic transition of building the “Great Society” through the “National Development Projects” that are estimated to cost $400 billion.

As innocent as Russia’s intentions may be, the fact of the matter is that the country would be passively facilitating the regular patrol of Indian warships up and down the Chinese coast and through the country’s eponymous East and Southern Seas if RLSA is agreed to whether during the Defense Minister’s current trip or sometime in the future, so Moscow must accept that Beijing will feel uncomfortable with this outcome even if it doesn’t directly say so but instead obliquely hints as much. This isn’t just the realm of “speculation” like some critics might allege, but has already occurred through Hu Zhiyong’s analysis “India-Russia Ties Rest On Strategic Calculations” for the Global Times newspaper that’s indirectly under the influence of the Communist Party and thus wouldn’t have been published had the Chinese leadership not wanted to send a subtle message through it. The research fellow at the Institute of International Relations at the Shanghai Academy of Social Sciences ended the piece that he wrote right after the end of the Eastern Economic Forum by warning that “stronger Russia-India ties, especially their military-technical cooperation, would have a negative impact on China’s national security. Consolidating and developing ties with Russia implies India’s strategic intention to contain China’s rise. It would pile more geopolitical pressure on China and increase the instability in China’s periphery.”

His worries are legitimate and based off of the expectation that the Vladivostok-Chennai Maritime Corridor (VCMC) that was agreed to between these newly established “global partners” during that event could pair with the prospective logistics pact to result in the military scenario that was outlined above of Indian warships regularly patrolling up and down the Chinese coasts. The solution to this impending security dilemma is for Russia to improve its connectivity with China in parallel with improving its military ties with India in order to balance the two out and retain Beijing’s trust, which it can do by making progress on advancing President Putin’s plan from earlier this year to integrate the Eurasian Union (EAU) with the Belt & Road Initiative (BRI). This can realistically be achieved in the most tangible sense by the expansion of BRI’s flagship project CPEC along the northern vector (N-CPEC+) through Afghanistan and Central Asia that would thus connect Russia with the global pivot of state of Pakistan that’s also China’s chief ally anywhere across the world, which would simultaneously strengthen trust with China while keeping India’s pro-American pivot in check. It’s through these creative win-win means that Russia can improve its military ties with India while assuaging Chinese suspicions, thus representing a masterful expression of its 21st-century grand strategy to become the supreme “balancing” force in Afro-Eurasia.

*

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

This article was originally published on 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

Iraqi security forces managed to arrest a terrorist plotting to carry out terrorist bombings against the protesters in a special operation south of Baghdad, he goes by the pseudonym ‘Abu Haroun’.

The counter-terrorist unit discovered a stash of weapons, explosives, remote control detonators, and communication devices as a result of the interrogations with the terrorist.

Iraqi security foil a terrorist attack

Image from Twitter: source

Iraq is witnessing a deadly Saudi-backed wave of chaos under ‘peaceful protests’ guise for two weeks already, the terrorist wanted to take advantage of the insecurity status and carry out his assigned plot to fuel further chaos and unrest by killing more protesters who the same suspected chorus of Pentagon propagandists would instantly accuse the Iraqi government of. Already, dozens of Iraqi civilians have been killed and injured in the past couple of weeks.

The current chaos is called for by the Shia leader Muqtada Sadr shortly after he returned from a visit to Saudi, he called for the dissolving of the government for its ties with Iran and its cooperation with Syria to open the borders with Syria, his group has a major bloc in the Iraqi parliament, and is one of the two parties forming the current government under Prime Minister Adil Abdul Mahdi.

Mr. Qais Khazali, The commander of the popular paramilitary group Asa’ib Ahl Al-Haq (AAH) “League of the Righteous”, that fought ISIS in Iraq disclosed that one of the 3 ‘presidents’ in Iraq (the country’s president, the prime minister, and the parliament speaker), in addition to the head of one of the main Iraqi security agencies, are also involved in steering the chaos.

Khazali also revealed that in addition to the US strong ‘intelligence’ presence in Iraq, there’s an even stronger presence of the Israeli secretive Mossad agency, most known for assassinations of scientists, religious leaders, and politicians. Mr. Khazali stated the Mossad is operating from a large base in Kurdistan (2nd Israel).

Khazali’s group was part of the Muqtada Sadr movement fighting the US invasion in Iraq and parted from it when Sadr made his first flip-flop Erdogan style and gave up the fight against the occupation forces in 2004. When ISIS grew mysteriously fast and was threatening the Iraqi capital Baghdad and Shia’s main sites in Karbala and Najaf, Khazali’s group joined the Popular Mobilization Forces ‘PMU’ in fighting ISIS in Iraq and across the borders into Syria in coordination with the Syrian Arab Army.

The current chaos and the terrorist plots against in Iraq are a desperate attempt from the camp that failed in taking control of Syria and Iran through Al-Qaeda and its affiliates ISIS, Nusra Front, and other terrorist organizations under Turkish, Saudi, Qatari, and other Gulfies and NATO command. Obviously, the NATO camp is trying to destabilize both Iraq and Lebanon, which also started to witness similar ‘peaceful protests’, as a trophy after failing in Syria and in Iran.

The US’s main goal, along with its allies, is to block any land connection between Iran and Syria through Iraq at any cost, not for any US interest, it’s merely to protect Israel and its ‘Greater Middle East (Israel)’ expansionist project.

*

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

Featured image is from Syria News

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on US Sponsored Chaos: Iraqi Security Foil a Terrorist Attack Against Baghdad Protesters
  • Tags:

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

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

.

.

.

*     *     *

Sentence First, Crime Later?

By Rep. Ron Paul, November 05, 2019

Attorney General William Barr recently sent a memo to law enforcement officials announcing a new federal initiative that would use techniques and tools developed in the war on terror, such as mass surveillance, to identify potential mass shooters. Those so identified would be targets of early interventions, which would include the disregarding of Second Amendment rights, as well as the imposing of mandatory counseling and involuntary commitment.

Syrian Army Defends Civilians from Sectarian Terrorist Threat in Northeast

By Steven Sahiounie, November 05, 2019

Kurdish-dominated Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF) have continued to pull back as agreed, while the Syrian Arab Army (SAA) and their Russian military allies have taken positions through much of the northeast of Syria, to counter the Turkish invasion.  There are clashes sporadically, and the Turkish backed sectarian militias have committed murders of unarmed civilians reportedly.  Generally, the agreement between Turkey and the US, and between the SDF and the Syrian government, brokered by Russia, has been holding.

We Are All Palestinians

By Philip Giraldi, November 05, 2019

In spite of the fact that Israeli snipers continue to shoot scores of unarmed protesting Gazans every Friday with virtually no coverage from the media, there are some signs that the ability of Israel and its friends to control the narrative regarding the Jewish state’s appalling human rights violations is beginning to weaken. To be sure, The Lobby still has sharp teeth and is prepared to use them as in last week’s report of a Florida high school principal with 26 years of experience and an otherwise impeccable record who was fired because he said that “Not everyone believes in the holocaust.”

California of Fire and Profit

By Luca Celada, November 05, 2019

Last year, the Santa Ana winds pushed the flames toward Malibu, sowing panic among the Hollywood glitterati: among the dwellings that went up in smoke were those belonging to Kim Basinger, Miley Cyrus and Neil Young. But the real tragedy took place 500 km further north, in the town of Paradise, which was turned into an inferno worthy of a Stephen King novel, engulfed by a wall of flame which also cut off the only exit road, trapping hundreds of cars that were trying to escape to safety. It was a tragedy that took the lives of 85 people.

Islamic State (ISIS-Daesh) Exacts Revenge on Turkey for Selling Al-Baghdadi Out

By Nauman Sadiq, November 04, 2019

It’s important to note in the news coverage about the killing of al-Baghdadi that although the mainstream media had been trumpeting for the last several years that the Islamic State’s fugitive chief had been hiding somewhere on the Iraq-Syria border in the east, he was found hiding in the northwestern Idlib governorate, under the control of Turkey’s militant proxies and al-Nusra Front, and was killed while trying to flee to Turkey in Barisha village five kilometers from the border.

The morning after the night raid, the Syrian Observatory for Human Rights reported[2] on Sunday, October 27, that a squadron of eight helicopters accompanied by warplanes belonging to the international coalition had attacked positions of Hurras al-Din, an al-Qaeda-affiliated group, in Idlib province where theIslamic State chief was believed to be hiding.

Dams, Rivers and Lakes: “Dammed” Good Questions About “The Green New Deal”. Ten Problems

By Don Fitz, November 04, 2019

Hydroelectric power from dams might be the thorniest question that proponents of the Green New Deal (GND) have to grapple with.  Providing more energy than solar and wind combined, dams could well become the backup for energy if it proves impossible to get off of fossil fuels fast enough.

Rivers and lakes are an integral part of human existence, with virtually all major inland cities being located next to one of them.  They provide water for drinking, bathing, food, and medicine. Their sustenance is not just for humans but for untold numbers of tiny organisms, insects, reptiles, amphibians, birds and mammals.

Pakistan: “Father of the Taliban” Attempts to Oust Imran Khan Government

By Junaid S. Ahmad, November 04, 2019

“After more than a year in power, the popular Prime Minister Imran Khan‘s PTI (Movement for Justice) ruling government is confronting its most dangerous assault yet. Despite the country being dogged by unscrupulous, criminal, and illegal capital flight by the ruling elites of the country as soon as Khan took power, as well as a concerted campaign of economic warfare from foreign powers to compel the PTI government to accept an IMF loan package, Khan’s supporters knew that he would face such opposition, both internally and externally, and have steadfastly weathered a very difficult storm in Pakistan’s political 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 NO READ MORE LINK
  • Comments Off on Selected Articles: Islamic State (ISIS-Daesh) “Exacts Revenge” against Turkey

Trump Impeachment Scam as Theater and Distraction

November 5th, 2019 by Stephen Lendman

Trump is virtually certain to be impeached for illegitimate reasons by the Dem-controlled House — even though majority senators are highly likely to defeat the scheme.

What’s going on is one of the most disturbing spectacles in US history that’s pockmarked with shameful chapters from inception.

The plot against Trump is a coup attempt to remove a sitting president for winning an election he was supposed to lose.

Most fourth estate members are complicit in what’s going on, seeking revenge for his triumph over media darling, war goddess, Wall Street favorite Hillary.

There’s nothing redeeming about Trump, plenty to hold him and his regime accountable for. It’s arguably the most extremist in US history, a wrecking ball against peace, equity and justice.

For the first time in US history, a billionaire businessman, reality TV personality, geopolitical know-nothing, is US president and commander-in-chief — performing daily on the world stage, the role of a lifetime for someone addicted to theater.

The vast majority in Washington from both right wings of the one-party state share guilt in how the nation is ill-governed, the vast majority of Americans ill-served.

Dems and Republicans are complicit in waging endless wars of aggression against nations threatening no one, serving privileged interests exclusively at the expense of the public welfare, and enforcing their agenda by police state toughness against resisters.

The US is a fantasy democracy, a notion its ruling authorities tolerate nowhere, especially not domestically, pretending otherwise, establishment media promoting the pretense, concealing reality.

The plot to remove Trump from office distracts attention from Washington’s disturbing domestic and geopolitical agenda, harming countless millions at home and abroad, things worsening not improving. More on this below.

Impeaching Trump is daily establishment media proliferated theater, drowning out journalism the way it should be, long ago abandoned by the fourth estate, available only through independent sources, largely online.

Reliable sources are threatened by US dark forces, wanting truth-telling on major issues suppressed, journalists reporting it arrested, detained and abused — for the “crime” of explaining what’s vital for everyone to know.

While burning Trump in effigy goes on literally worldwide, figuratively in Washington, and in daily media reports, countless trillions of dollars continue to be poured down a black hole of waste, fraud and abuse.

They’re used for militarism, expanding and maintaining the Pentagon’s global empire of bases, endless wars of aggression, undermining democratic governments and popular movements worldwide, interfering in the internal affairs of virtually all nations, corporate handouts, and homeland police state repression against nonbelievers — growing tyranny at the expense of eroding social justice.

Establishment media suppress all of the above, as well as increasing economic weakness.

In his latest report, economist John Williams, noted for reengineering manipulated data to how it was correctly reported decades earlier, said the following.

Out-of-control federal debt tops $23 trillion, continuing to increase exponentially at over $1 trillion annually.

It “threatens domestic financial stability and the survival of the republic.”

The Wall Street owned and control Federal Reserve is fueling the fire, pretending economic conditions are sound, sustainable/moderate growth continuing.

Williams: “There is no sustainable moderate expansion in place…Major downside revisions to economic growth loom, including to the GDP.”

Illusory October payroll growth “was bloated by inconsistent seasonal adjustment revisions and was weak year-to-year.”

Real unemployment is 21%. Most Americans with jobs are way underemployed, earning poverty wages with few or no benefits — a few missed paychecks from food insecurity, homelessness and despair.

Williams: A “liquidity crisis intensifies, reflecting deepening financial system instabilities…Overly optimistic economic assumptions are falling apart.”

Economic downturn is “deepening.” Real GDP growth is “not meaningfully different from zero.” Manufacturing, construction and mining are declining.

Inflation-adjusted wages have been stagnant for years, failing to keep up with the real cost of living, concealed by manipulated data.

The myth of economic growth persists despite protracted main street depression conditions since 2008.

According to the Economic Collapse Blog, “the US economy has not even had a ‘good’ year in ages,” adding:

It’s “abundantly clear that a new economic slowdown has begun,” shown by numerous examples.

The latest ones include a three-month decline in consumer confidence. Bloomberg’s Consumer Comfort Index “suffered its biggest weekly decline in more than eight years  on a pullback in Americans’ assessments of the economy, personal finances and the buying climate, possibly signaling more moderate household spending approaching the holiday-shopping season.”

Manufacturing is in recession. A promised “renaissance” doesn’t exist. “(M)anufacturing is now the smallest share of the US economy in 72 years” — its lowest level since 1947.

“The US economy is seriously deteriorating, and things are only going to get worse in the months ahead.”

“(B)usinss hiring (fell) to the lowest level in 7 years…You know that things are getting tough when even beer companies start laying people off.”

The “retail apocalyse” keeps escalating, 100s of stores closing nationwide. Progress on achieving a Sino/US trade deal is more illusion than reality, resolution of major bilateral differences nowhere in prospect.

Chinese officials expressed doubt that a full/meaningful bilateral deal can be reached. It’s highly unlikely because of unacceptable US demands.

Reality at home and abroad belies notions of world peace, stability, security, and economic growth.

The plot to remove Trump from office conceals and distracts attention from reporting on what’s most important to ordinary Americans.

Instead of serving the public interest with full and accurate reporting, establishment media are part of the problem by featuring disinformation on major issues and daily anti-Trump bashing — notably the NYT, today alone headlining:

“Trump Serves Notice to Quit Paris Climate Agreement”

“Ex-Ukraine Envoy Testifies She Felt Threatened by Trump”

“Trump Must Turn Over 8 Years of Tax Returns, Appeals Court Rules”

“On Ukraine, Trump Is a Con Man, but He’s Also a Mark”

“The Presidency Is Not Enough” — referring to wanting Dem control of the White House and Congress

“Trump Has to Choose Between the Circus and the White House”

In its daily editions, the Times features a steady anti-Trump blitzkrieg for the wrong reasons, ignoring key right ones, instead of “all the news that’s fit to print” on major world and national issues, essential for everyone to know.

A Final Comment

On Tuesday, the Economic Collapse Blog discussed Deutsche Bank, Europe’s largest in economic powerhouse Germany.

Its economy is in recession, affecting others in Europe, Deutsche Bank “rapidly bleeding cash (and) laying off thousands of workers…in the process of imploding.”

If it collapses as some observers expect, will it be Europe’s Lehman Bros. on steroids, adversely affecting Western economies?

It’s hemorrhaging billions of euros and dying a slow death, “a zombie bank that is stumbling along until someone finally puts it out of its misery,” said the Economic Collapse Blog.

Noted investor Jim Rogers earlier warned that if Deutsche Bank goes under, the global financial system will be jeopardized, stressing:

“(I)f Deutsche Bank fails, that is the end of it. In 1931, when one of the largest banks in Europe failed, it led to the Great Depression and eventually the WWII. Be worried!”

*

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 Trump Impeachment Scam as Theater and Distraction

Die F-35 waren Teil von Pompeos geheimer Agenda in Rom

November 5th, 2019 by Manlio Dinucci

Der Tarnkappenjäger F-35 kann sich nicht nur vor dem Radar, sondern auch vor der Politik verstecken – es gibt keine Spur davon in Berichten über die Treffen von US-Außenminister Mike Pompeo in Rom. Der Corriere della Sera verrät jedoch, dass Pompeo Italien aufgefordert hat, die Rückstände der bereits erhaltenen Kampfjets zu bezahlen und die Bestellungen für künftige Verkäufe freizugeben, durch die erhaltene Zusicherung von Premierminister Giuseppe Conte, dass „wir unseren Vereinbarungen treu bleiben werden“.

Bislang hat Italien vierzehn F-35-Kampfjets vom US-Unternehmen Lockheed Martin gekauft, von denen dreizehn bereits ausgeliefert und „vollständig finanziert“ sind. Dies wurde dem Senat am 3. Juni von der damaligen Verteidigungsministerin Elisabetta Trenta (M5S) mitgeteilt, die weitere Verkäufe ankündigte, wodurch sich die Gesamtzahl der Flugzeuge bis zum Jahr 2022 auf 28 erhöhen würde. Italien hat zugesagt, neunzig F-35 für einen geschätzten Betrag von rund 14 Milliarden Euro zu kaufen. Zu diesem Betrag kommen die Kosten für die ständige Aktualisierung der Jetsoftware (alle operationellen Programme) hinzu, die exklusiv von Lockheed Martin durchgeführt wird. Wenn man nur die bisher gekauften Programme für die Kampfjets betrachtet, muss Italien bereits rund eine halbe Milliarde Euro aufwenden. Italien ist nicht nur der Käufer, sondern auch der Bauherr der F-35 als Partner der zweiten Ebene. Das Unternehmen Leonardo (ex-Finmeccanica) – das bedeutendste und größte italienische Militärunternehmen, dessen einziger Anteilseigner das Wirtschafts- und Finanzministerium mit einem Anteil von etwa 30% ist – verwaltet die Montagelinie und testet die F-35 auf dem Gelände in Faco di Cameri (Piemont), der Quelle der für Italien und die Niederlande bestimmten Kampfjets.

Leonardo produziert auch komplette Tragflächenkomponenten für die in den USA gebauten Flugzeuge aus Materialien, die in Einrichtungen in Foggia (Apulien), Nola (Kampanien) und Venegono (Lombardei) hergestellt werden. Die US-Regierung hat die Niederlassung in Cmeri als europäisches Regionalzentrum für die Wartung und Aktualisierung des Rumpfes ausgewählt.

In der Fabrik in Faco gibt es etwa tausend Arbeitsplätze, von denen viele prekär sind, insgesamt etwa ein Sechstel der geplanten. Die Kosten für den Bau der Einrichtungen und den Kauf der Kampfjets sind weitaus höher als die in den Verträgen der italienischen Unternehmen für die Produktion der F-35 genannten Beträge – und wir dürfen nicht vergessen, dass, während die Gewinne fast ausschließlich in die Kassen der Privatunternehmen fließen, das Geld aber aus dem öffentlichen Haushalt stammt, der die italienischen Militärausgaben auf die heutigen Kosten von 70 Millionen Euro pro Tag ansteigen lässt.

Außenminister Mike Pompeo betonte bei seinen Treffen mit Präsident Mattarella und Premierminister Conte, dass Italien und andere europäische Länder ihre Investitionen in das gemeinsame Verteidigungsprogramm der NATO erhöhen müssen. Zweifellos wurde dieses Anliegen  von Pompeo in privaten Sitzungen nicht auf diplomatische Weise, sondern in Form eines Befehls unterbreitet. Zweifellos, während das Außenministerium Italien dafür schmeichelt, dass es „mehr als 30.000 Militärangehörige und Pentagonmitarbeiter in fünf großen Basen und mehr als fünfzig kleinen Anlagen willkommen geheißen hat“, hatte Mike Pompeo in privaten Treffen die Einrichtung anderer Militärbasen in Italien gefordert (vielleicht im Austausch für einige US-Steuererleichterungen für italienischen Parmesan).

Zweifellos gab es in der geheimen Agenda von Pompeo auch die Vorbereitung auf die bevorstehende Ankunft der neuen US-Atombomben B61-12 in Italien, die die bisherigen B-61 ersetzen werden.

Neue Atomwaffen, die insbesondere für die Jagdbomber F-35A geplant sind, darunter sechs der italienischen Luftwaffe, wurden im Oktober von der NATO als voll einsatzfähig bestätigt.

Mike Pompeo kümmerte sich nicht nur um materielle Angelegenheiten in Rom, wie die F-35 und Parmesan. In einem vatikanischen Symposium am 1. Oktober hielt er eine Kanzelrede über Menschenwürde und Glauben in freien Gesellschaften[1]: Er erklärte, dass „die Vereinigten Staaten etwas später als der heilige Petrus kamen, aber seit  wir da sind, haben wir die Religionsfreiheit immer geschützt“ und damit die „Menschenwürde“”. Er warf China, Kuba, dem Iran und Syrien vor, diese Freiheit zu unterdrücken. Diese Worte wurden vor einem großen Kreuz gesprochen, von einem heiligen Mann, der, als er der Kopf der CIA wurde, dem Kongress erklärte, dass er beabsichtige, „die Wiedereinführung von Waterboarding (ein Beinahe-Tod durch vorgetäuschtes  Ertrinken) und anderen Maßnahmen der extremen Befragung“, also Folter, in Betracht zu ziehen.

Manlio Dinucci

 

 

L’F-35 nell’agenda segreta di Pompeo a Roma

il manifesto, 8. Oktober 2019

Übersetzung: K.R.

  • Posted in Deutsch
  • Comments Off on Die F-35 waren Teil von Pompeos geheimer Agenda in Rom

4 de Novembro, ver Nápoles e depois morrer

November 5th, 2019 by Manlio Dinucci

Nápoles, e não Roma, foi ontem, o centro do Dia das Forças Armadas. No Lungomare Caracciolo, desfilaram 5 batalhões. Mas o ponto alto foi a área de exposições das várias Forças, que atraiu durante cinco dias, para a Piazza del Plebiscito, sobretudo, jovens e crianças. Eles puderam embarcar a bordo de um caça, conduzir um helicóptero com um simulador de voo, admirar um drone Predator, entrar num tanque, treinar com instrutores militares, para depois ir ao porto visitar um navio de assalto anfíbio e duas fragatas de mísseis. Uma grande «Feira da guerra» criada com um propósito específico: o recrutamento.

70% dos jovens que desejam alistar-se, vivem no sul, especialmente na Campânia e na Sicília, onde o desemprego juvenil é de 53,6%, em comparação com uma média da União Europeia de 15,2%. O único que lhes oferece uma ocupação “segura” é o exército. No entanto, após as selecções, o número de recrutas é menor do que o necessário.

As Forças Armadas precisam de mais pessoal, pois estão envolvidas em 35 operações em 22 países, desde a Europa Oriental aos Balcãs, desde África ao Médio Oriente e à Ásia. São as “missões de paz” efectuadas, sobretudo, lá, onde a NATO sob o comando USA fomentou, com a participação activa da Itália, as guerras que demoliram Estados inteiros e desestabilizaram regiões completas.

Para manter as forças e os armamentos adequados – como os F-35 italianos enviados pela NATO para a Islândia, mostrados pela Rai em 4 de Novembro – são gastos na Itália, com dinheiro público, cerca de 25 biliões de euros por um ano. Em 2018, a despesa militar italiana aumentou do 13º para 11º lugar no mundo, mas os USA e a NATO pressionam para um aumento adicional, em função, sobretudo, da escalada contra a Rússia.

Em Junho passado, o governo do Conte I “desbloqueou” 7,2 biliões de euros para adicionar à despesa militar. Em Outubro passado, no encontro do Primeiro Ministro com o Secretário Geral da NATO, o governo do Conte II garantiu um compromisso de aumentar a despesa militar em cerca de 7 biliões de euros a partir de 2020 (La Stampa, 11 de Outubro de 2019).  Assim, está a passar-se de uma despesa militar de cerca de 70 milhões de euros por dia para cerca de 87 milhões de euros por dia. Dinheiro público subtraído aos investimentos produtivos fundamentais, especialmente em regiões como a Campânia, para reduzir o desemprego a partir do desemprego juvenil.

Bem diferentes  são os “investimentos” feitos em Nápoles. Ela adquiriu um papel crescente como sede de alguns dos mais importantes comandos USA/NATO.

Em Nápoles-Capodichino, existe a sede das Forças Navais USA, na Europa, sob as ordens de um almirante americano que comanda, ao mesmo tempo, as Forças Navais dos EUA para a África e a Força Conjunta Aliada (JFC Nápoles), com sede em Lago Patria ( Nápoles).

A cada dois anos, a JFC Nápoles assume o comando da Força de Resposta NATO, uma força conjunta para operações militares na “área de responsabilidade” do Comandante Supremo Aliado na Europa, que é sempre um general USA, e “para além dessa área”.

No quartel general de Lago Patria, está em função desde 2017, o Hub da Direcção Estratégica para o Sul, um centro de inteligência/serviços secretos, ou seja, de espionagem, concentrado sobre o Médio Oriente e sobre África.

Do comando de Nápoles depende a Sexta Frota, com base em Gaeta, que – informa a Vice Almirante USA, Lisa Franchetti – opera “do Polo Norte ao Polo Sul”.

Esta é a função de Nápoles no âmbito da NATO, definida pelo Presidente Mattarella, na mensagem de 4 de Novembro: “Uma aliança para a qual escolhemos livremente contribuir para a tutela da paz no contexto internacional, para a salvaguarda dos mais fracos e oprimidos e dos direitos humanos”.

Manlio Dinucci

Artigo original em italiano :

4 Novembre, vedi Napoli e poi muori

Tradutora: Maria Luísa de Vasconcellos

  • Posted in Português
  • Comments Off on 4 de Novembro, ver Nápoles e depois morrer

4 Novembre, vedi Napoli e poi muori

November 5th, 2019 by Manlio Dinucci

Napoli, e non Roma, è stata ieri al centro della Giornata delle Forze Armate. Sul Lungomare Caracciolo  sono sfilati 5 battaglioni. Ma il pezzo forte è stata l’area espositiva interforze, che ha richiamato per cinque giorni in Piazza del Plebiscito soprattutto giovani e bambini. Essi hanno potuto salire a bordo di un caccia, guidare un elicottero con un simulatore di volo, ammirare un drone Predator, entrare in un carrarmato, addestrarsi con istruttori militari, per poi andare al porto a visitare una nave da assalto anfibio e due fregate missilistiche. Una grande «Fiera della guerra» allestita con un preciso scopo: il reclutamento.

Il 70% dei giovani che vogliono arruolarsi vive nel Mezzogiorno, soprattutto in Campania e Sicilia dove la disoccupazione giovanile è del 53,6%, rispetto a una media Ue del 15,2%. L’unico che offre loro una occupazione «sicura» è l’esercito. Dopo le selezioni, il numero dei reclutati risulta però inferiore a quello necessario.

Le Forze armate hanno bisogno di più personale, poiché sono impegnate in 35 operazioni in 22 paesi, dall’Europa orientale ai Balcani, dall’Africa al Medioriente e all’Asia. Sono le «missioni di pace» effettuate soprattutto là dove la Nato sotto comando Usa ha scatenato, con l’attiva partecipazione dell’Italia, le guerre che hanno demolito interi Stati e destabilizzato intere regioni.

Per mantenere forze e armamenti adeguati – come gli F-35 italiani schierati dalla Nato in Islanda, mostrati dalla Rai il 4 novembre – si spendono in Italia, con denaro pubblico, circa 25 miliardi di euro annui. Nel 2018 la spesa militare italiana è salita dal 13° all’11° posto mondiale, ma Usa e Nato premono per un suo ulteriore aumento in funzione soprattutto della escalation contro la Russia.

Lo scorso giugno il governo Conte I ha «sbloccato» 7,2 miliardi di euro da aggiungere alla spesa militare. Lo scorso ottobre, nell’incontro del premier col Segretario generale della Nato, il governo Conte II ha assicurato l’impegno ad aumentare la spesa militare di circa 7 miliardi di euro a partire dal 2020 (La Stampa, 11 ottobre 2019). Si sta così per passare da una spesa militare di circa 70 milioni di euro al giorno a una di circa 87 milioni di euro al giorno. Denaro pubblico sottratto a investimenti produttivi fondamentali, specie in regioni come la Campania, per ridurre la disoccupazione a partire da quella giovanile.

Ben altri sono gli «investimenti» fatti a Napoli. Essa ha acquistato un ruolo crescente quale sede di alcuni dei più importanti comandi Usa/Nato.

A Napoli-Capodichino ha sede il Comando delle Forze navali Usa in Europa, agli ordini di un ammiraglio statunitense che comanda allo stesso tempo le Forze navali Usa per l’Africa e la Forza congiunta Alleata (Jfc Naples) con quartier generale a Lago Patria (Napoli).

Ogni due anni il Jfc Naples assume il comando della Forza di risposta Nato, una forza congiunta per operazioni militari nell’«area di responsabilità» del Comandante Supremo Alleato in Europa, che è sempre un generale Usa,  e «al di là di tale area».

Nel quartier generale di Lago Patria è in funzione dal 2017 l’Hub di direzione strategica Nato per il Sud, centro di intelligence, ossia di spionaggio, concentrato su Medioriente  e Africa.

Dal comando di Napoli dipende la Sesta Flotta, con base a Gaeta, che – informa la vice-ammiraglia Usa Lisa Franchetti  –  opera «dal Polo Nord fino al Polo Sud».

Questo è il ruolo di Napoli nel quadro della Nato, definita dal presidente Mattarella, nel messaggio del 4 Novembre, «alleanza alla quale abbiamo liberamente scelto di contribuire, a tutela della pace nel contesto internazionale, a salvaguardia dei più deboli e oppressi e dei diritti umani».

Manlio Dinucci

 

  • Posted in Italiano
  • Comments Off on 4 Novembre, vedi Napoli e poi muori

California of Fire and Profit

November 5th, 2019 by Luca Celada

California is burning. This sentence is all too familiar by now, a kind of mantra that is repeated every year with the onset of “fire season,” when live television broadcasts start to show homes threatened by flames and the wails of fire sirens cutting through the sweltering air.

This year as well, the fires have targeted mainly the cities of wine country above San Francisco and the upscale neighborhoods on the west side of Los Angeles. Both regions have been hit by blazes fanned by the desert winds that kick up every fall here, with an ominous rustle of leaves that is a harbinger of more and more devastating disasters.

Two years ago, the “Diablo winds” blowing in the north of the state caused a firestorm that consumed 1,200 homes in Santa Rosa. The fire reduced the town of Snoopy to less than a ghost town, with nothing left but row after row of blackened foundations on gray ash-covered plots, the only remnants of the suburban homes abandoned by the thousands of fleeing residents.

Last year, the Santa Ana winds pushed the flames toward Malibu, sowing panic among the Hollywood glitterati: among the dwellings that went up in smoke were those belonging to Kim Basinger, Miley Cyrus and Neil Young. But the real tragedy took place 500 km further north, in the town of Paradise, which was turned into an inferno worthy of a Stephen King novel, engulfed by a wall of flame which also cut off the only exit road, trapping hundreds of cars that were trying to escape to safety. It was a tragedy that took the lives of 85 people.

The Plains of Id

History keeps repeating itself, worse and worse every time – partly because of human pressures affecting ecosystems in which fires, much like in all Mediterranean-type areas, are part of the ecological cycle of growth, drought and natural fertilization, something to which the local fauna and native vegetation have adapted. This cycle, however, cannot accommodate the permanent presence of villas, SUVs and golf courses (“the Plains of Id,” as the architect Rayner Banham memorably described this architecture born of hubris and wealth).

The evacuations and scenes of mass panic are partly a result of a pattern of consumption-driven urban growth which is simply unsustainable, and whose unsustainability is all the more evident now that these phenomena are being exacerbated by climate change.

The 200,000 displaced persons in California have joined the ranks of all the victims of hurricanes and floods across the world who are suffering the effects of a climate out of balance.

These are alarming symptoms of a climate crisis already taking place right before everyone’s eyes, including the politicians hell-bent on regressive policies, or, as in the case of the current US administration, devoted to militant denialism in the name of development (and the fat checks they get from the industrial lobby). The climate crisis is already here – without the immediate catastrophic impact of a meteor strike, but with the inexorability of a car crash in slow motion – as California’s ashes are unmistakably spelling out.

Failing Infrastructure

This year, the fires were accompanied by another, unprecedented problem: blackouts that have left millions of people without power in at-risk areas. The story behind them starts with the fact that in recent years, many forest fires have been caused by damaged power lines. In 2017 alone, 18 blazes were confirmed (and a further 12 are likely) to have been caused by sparks due to short circuits when power lines were brought into contact with trees by the high winds. This year, the power companies tried to get in front of the problem by voluntarily cutting the power supply.

It was an “unprecedented” and desperate measure that highlights the state of deterioration and obsolescence of a power infrastructure that is almost entirely unprotected, consisting of wooden poles and trusses which can be seen across the state supporting tangles of power lines that look almost exactly as they did a century ago (for a total of 40,000 km of high-voltage cables and another 380,000 kilometers of household voltage lines).

These intentional blackouts for prevention purposes have caused countless problems, without being able to prevent the start of new fires. It’s a case which sheds light on the equally untenable condition of capitalism applied to public administration. Much of the state’s power grid is in private hands.

The energy sector in California is organized in a mixed system. Around one third is the responsibility of public companies, such as the Department of Water and Power (DWP), but over two-thirds is controlled by private utilities, such as PG&E (Pacific Gas and Electric) and California Edison: publicly traded companies that have been given the public utility service in concession, in a sector where competition is nothing more than an illusion.

Like every private corporation, these companies have one overarching goal: to maximize their profits. Instead of modernizing the network, for example, PG&E has chosen to pay lavish bonuses to managers and dividends to shareholders, as well as $50-million on lobbying to influence the political authorities. In other words, PG&E behaved exactly like every other corporation with a guaranteed market and a de facto monopoly.

Privatized Profits and Socialized Costs

This model of privatized profits and socialized costs is the same one that has allowed Wall Street firms to speculate and reap enormous profits, while always counting on the public coffers to bail them out in a crisis. In the case of PG&E, the enormous damages they have had to pay for the fires caused by their infrastructure have led the company to declare bankruptcy, a condition from which it will have to be bailed out with public funds in order to ensure the continuous supply of electricity.

The logic is the same as that underlying the US system in which public health is left completely in the hands of private insurers (with their hefty profit margins), and it’s the same logic which allows, for instance, Facebook to reap huge profits by providing services that also have profound side effects on public life.

However, the vicious cycle of neoliberalism is rarely as evident as in the case of the entirely predictable Californian disasters: a fatal combination of infrastructural deficiencies, climate change and the privatization of public services, which threatens to bring the state to its knees.

Over the last week, Governor Gavin Newsom – who has declared a state of emergency – has often railed at length against the private companies and the responsibility they bear; however, there’s not much that can be done in practical terms short of nationalizing these utilities.

*

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.

Translated from Italian to English by The Bullet

Luca Celada is a freelance writer and reporter. Follow his tweets at @lucacelada.

Featured image is from The Bullet

Sentence First, Crime Later?

November 5th, 2019 by Rep. Ron Paul

Attorney General William Barr recently sent a memo to law enforcement officials announcing a new federal initiative that would use techniques and tools developed in the war on terror, such as mass surveillance, to identify potential mass shooters. Those so identified would be targets of early interventions, which would include the disregarding of Second Amendment rights, as well as the imposing of mandatory counseling and involuntary commitment.

The program would likely match data collected via mass surveillance with algorithms designed to identify those with mental problems that would lead them to commit violent crimes. So, this program would deprive Americans of respect for their rights not because they committed, or even threaten to commit, a violent act but because their tweets, texts, or Facebook posts trigger a government algorithm.

In order to enhance the government’s ability to conduct mass surveillance, Barr has been trying to force tech companies to allow the government to have a “backdoor” for accessing electronic information. This would allow the government to read all messages — even those that are encrypted, making it all but impossible to escape the government’s watchful eye.

Many mental health professionals admit that diagnosing mental health issues involves a degree of subjectivity. So how can we trust a government-designed computer algorithm to accurately identify those with mental health problems? The answer is we can’t. Barr’s program will no doubt result in many individuals who are not a threat to anyone being deprived of respect for their rights. The program will also fail in detecting future mass shooters.

Some mental health professionals argue that holding certain political beliefs is a sign of mental illness. Not surprisingly, federal agencies like the FBI agree that those expressing “anti-government extremism”— like supporting a constitutional republic instead of a welfare-warfare state — are potential threats.

A recent internal FBI memo warned that a belief in “conspiracy theories” is a sign that someone could be a domestic terrorist. “Conspiracy theorist” is an all-purpose smear used against anyone who questions the government’s official narrative on an event or issue. Tying a belief in “conspiracy theory” to terrorism is an effort to not just stigmatize but actually criminalize dissenting thoughts on matters such as foreign policy, climate change, gun control, and the Federal Reserve.

Some people support using political beliefs as a basis for labeling someone as “mentally disturbed” because they think it will mainly affect “right-wing extremists.” These people are ignoring the FBI’s history of harassing civil rights and antiwar activists, as well as the recent controversy over the FBI labeling “black identity extremists” as a threat.

A government program to monitor electronic communications to identify potential mass shooters puts all Americans at risk of losing their liberty due to their political views or a few social media posts. All those who value liberty must oppose this dangerous 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.

Kurdish-dominated Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF) have continued to pull back as agreed, while the Syrian Arab Army (SAA) and their Russian military allies have taken positions through much of the northeast of Syria, to counter the Turkish invasion.  There are clashes sporadically, and the Turkish backed sectarian militias have committed murders of unarmed civilians reportedly.  Generally, the agreement between Turkey and the US, and between the SDF and the Syrian government, brokered by Russia, has been holding.

On Oct. 29 the US House of Representatives voted overwhelmingly to officially recognize the Armenian genocide at the hands of the Turkish Ottoman Empire.  Turkey has spent the last 100 years denying the crimes, while the belated condemnation is aimed at rebuking Turkey for their recent invasion of Syria.

There was a time when Erdogan was a respected leader of a large modern nation and member of NATO.  However, after 19 years in power, he has become a rogue leader who is chastised by the US, the EU, Saudi Arabia, and Egypt.  Erdogan rules Turkey with a heavy hand, and he does not tolerate criticism as over 150 people have been detained for posts on social media critical of the  Syrian invasion, including the well-known journalist Nurcan Baysal who was arrested and later released on bail.

The Eastern Europe and Central Asia Chair of ‘Reporters Without Borders’, Johann Bihr, said

“The new flood of propaganda, the increase in the witch hunt against critics and the almost complete absence of any debate about this military offensive all highlight the degree to which pluralism has collapsed in Turkey… Not content with its stranglehold on the media landscape, the government is now trying to assert complete control over everything that the media report, at the risk of undermining public trust and fueling tension.”

Protesters in Turkey tried to stage a demonstration, and to hang posters against the military invasion of Syria; however, they were arrested. One of the posters read:

“The occupiers will be defeated, the resisting peoples will win.”

The SDF has been supported by the US and received funding and weapons.  The SDF saw themselves as military allies of the US in their joint fight against ISIS.  However, the US treated the SDF as an armed militia who were expendable.

President Bashar al-Assad has said he will eventually reclaim all Kurdish-held areas of the country.  Aron Lund, a fellow with The Century Foundation, said “the SDF bubble has burst”:

“Sooner or later, Kurdish-held cities in the northeastern interior are going to fall under his sway again. That means agriculture, hydroelectric dams, borders,” he predicted. “There are armed groups and we cannot expect they would hand over weapons immediately, but the final goal is to return to the previous situation, which is the complete control of the state,” President Assad said.

The Seyfo massacre was the slaughter of an estimated 300,000 Christians by the Turkish Ottoman Empire during World War I, and some are predicting Erdogan’s sectarian militia will ‘cleanse’ the area they invaded, which includes about 100,000 Syrian Christians, who had lived in harmony alongside their Muslim neighbors.

The Syrian conflict began in 2011 in Deraa, but was well planned in foreign capitals years before the first BBC news reports claimed to show the ‘peaceful protesters’. President Obama and President Sarkozy were the architects of the US-NATO attack on Syria, for ‘regime change’.  Obama needed ‘boots on the ground’ and Syrian followers of the Muslim Brotherhood, which is a global political party which follows Radical Islam as a political ideology, presented themselves as “The Free Syrian Army” (FSA).  They were funded, trained, and organized by the CIA office in Southern Turkey.  Senator John McCain and Vice President Joe Biden became their lobbyists in the US Congress, and they were officially supported with weapons, paychecks, training and Turkey hosted their families as refugees, safely tucked away just over the border.  VP Biden admitted that the FSA was not the moderate ‘freedom-fighters’ that the US media was pushing.

The Western media portrayed them as young Syrians fighting for freedom and democracy in white tennis shoes.  The fact they were sectarian murderers, serial rapists, kidnappers, and church burners was kept out of the US nightly-news.  However, their war crimes were noticed and the atrocities they committed have been documented.

The FSA was forced to call upon their brothers in arms, Al Qaeda, who came pouring through Turkey from the four corners of the globe.  The FSA became just a name, with no hold on the ground in Syria, as the various radical groups occupied the areas, and the FSA was finally cut off entirely by President Trump.  At that point, they went over the border to Turkey and the Turkish government formally adopted them as a Muslim Brotherhood armed militia.  President Erdogan became their supporter and protector, and he knew there would be a day when he needed an armed militia, who were vicious, blood-thirsty and expendable.

Recent videos have been posted by the Erdogan backed FSA in northeast Syria, as they torture, maim and kill men and women who they call “infidels”.  The fact that most of the people they have killed are Sunni Muslims like themselves doesn’t register with their ideology, which is not based on a religion or a sect, but has been described by experts as a “Death Cult”.  The FSA has consistently acted as sectarian serial murderers from 2011 on the Obama payroll, to 2019 on the Erdogan payroll.

“Many people fled because they’re very concerned about these Turkish-supported Syrian opposition forces,”James Jeffrey, US special envoy for Syria, told Congress. “We’d say that Turkey-supported Syrian opposition forces who were under general Turkish command, at least in one instance did carry out war crimes.”

Turkey has been supporting terrorists in Syria since 2011.

“I ran the ISIS [Islamic State group] campaign – 40,000 foreign fighters, jihadists from 110 countries around the world, all came into Syria to fight in that war and they all came through Turkey,” Brett McGurk, former US President Special Envoy in the coalition against IS, told CNN last month.

*

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 Mideast Discourse

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Syrian Army Defends Civilians from Sectarian Terrorist Threat in Northeast
  • Tags:

We Are All Palestinians

November 5th, 2019 by Philip Giraldi

In spite of the fact that Israeli snipers continue to shoot scores of unarmed protesting Gazans every Friday with virtually no coverage from the media, there are some signs that the ability of Israel and its friends to control the narrative regarding the Jewish state’s appalling human rights violations is beginning to weaken. To be sure, The Lobby still has sharp teeth and is prepared to use them as in last week’s report of a Florida high school principal with 26 years of experience and an otherwise impeccable record who was fired because he said that “Not everyone believes in the holocaust.”

Questioning the established view of Israel is long overdue. It was first challenged by Illinois ex-congressman Paul Findley in his 1985 book They Dare to Speak: People and Institutions Confront Israel’s Lobby, but received a considerable boost when two leading academics John Mearsheimer of the University of Chicago and Stephen Walt of Harvard wrote The Israel Lobby And U.S. Foreign Policy in 2006. Virtually overnight it became acceptable in some circles to begin to discuss the powerful influence that the Israel Lobby has over foreign policy formulation in the United States. More recently, the final taboo was broken when two junior congresswomen began to talk about Israel’s baleful influence and linked it to its obvious source: the Benjamins. Jews and money and political power exercised on behalf of Israel, something that had been clear for many years but forbidden territory, suddenly became a hotly debated issue, even in some of the mainstream media.

Talking about money and Israel has also freed up some other lines of inquiry. Liberal Democratic critics of the Jewish state’s human rights record, who were shut out by the party leadership at the 2016 nominating convention, have started to speak out and, surprisingly, some of the candidates for the 2020 nomination have begun to test the waters by suggesting that Israel’s behavior just might be a whole lot better.

The recently concluded J Street conference demonstrated that loving Israel and all its works is hardly a rock-solid bipartisan issue any more, at least for many Democrats who actually believe in principles like freedom of speech and democracy. J Street is a relatively liberal Jewish group that promotes itself as being pro-Israeli, pro-Palestinian and pro-American. It keeps pushing a two-state solution for Palestine-Israel, a ship that has sailed long ago because expanding Israeli settlements have made such an outcome inconceivable. Many, including myself, regard J Street as a gatekeeper for Israel as it is frequently rather timid in its criticisms, but it is useful to have its voice out there.

This year’s J Street conference actually considered cutting U.S. military aid to Israel to force it to take steps to end its occupation of the Palestinian West Bank. It’s president Jeremy Ben-Ami led the discussion by observing that “Our aid is not intended to be a blank check.” Some Democratic Party speaker/participants like Senator Amy Klobuchar predictably dodged the issue by saying “I think we are at this moment and time where it is not a good idea to negotiate these things right now,” but Senator Michael Bennet and Julian Castro said that they would consider such a step. Castro noted that it might be used if Israel sought to annex the West Bank.

South Bend Mayor Pete Buttigieg agreed and was also open to cutting aid to stop settlement expansion, but to no one’s surprise the most powerful endorsement of a shift in policy came from Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders, who also reportedly received the loudest cheers from the mostly young audience. Sanders suggested that part of the current U.S. assistance should immediately go to help alleviate Gaza’s humanitarian crisis.

“My solution is to say to Israel: you get $3.8 billion every year, if you want military aid you’re going to have to fundamentally change your relationship to the people of Gaza, in fact I think it is fair to say that some of that should go right now into humanitarian aid.”

There have also been suggestions of possible funding options made by other Democrats who were not at the J Street conference. Last week presidential candidate and Massachusetts Senator Elizabeth Warren said that

“Right now, Netanyahu says he is going to take Israel in a direction of increasing settlements, [but] that does not move us in the direction of a two-state solution. It is the official policy of the United States of America to support a two-state solution, and if Israel is moving in the opposite direction, then everything is on the table…Everything is on the table.”

Some Democrats who have benefited particularly from the Benjamins remain unconvinced, however, believing as they do that Israel has a permanent license to tap the U.S. treasury. Reliable Zionist toady Joe Biden, who was also not at J Street and probably would not be caught dead near it, responded to a question on cutting aid by saying that

“…the idea that we would draw military assistance from Israel, on the condition that they change a specific policy, I find it to be absolutely outrageous. Anyway, no I wouldn’t condition it and I think it’s a gigantic mistake.”

Coming at the Israel human rights issue from another direction is H.R.2407, a bill introduced by Congresswoman Betty McCollum (D-MN) in April. The legislation would amend the Foreign Assistance Act to ensure that none of the aid given to Israel could be used to arrest and detain children. An earlier version of McCollum’s bill in 2017 died at the end of that congressional session and this year’s bill will likely suffer a similar fate, but it is a sign that perceptions are changing, even in a largely bought and subservient Congress.

Unfortunately the Trump Administration continues to embrace Israel ever more tightly and it is hard to find a Republican politician who will in any way criticize the special relationship even when it manifestly serves no U.S. interest. The White House continues to promote its completely dead peace plan, though it is on hold until the upcoming Israeli election in December. In any event, everyone involved in the planning process as part of the team assembled by presidential son-in-law Jared Kushner is both Jewish and Zionist, as are most of the relevant players at the state department like Assistant Secretary of State for Near Eastern Affairs David Schenker. The U.S. Ambassador to Israel David Friedman works harder at being an apologist for the Jewish state’s many crimes more than as a representative for American interests. Gentiles who are at least peripherally engaged in Middle Eastern developments like Mike Pompeo and Mike Pence tend to be Christian Zionists, meaning that there is little room for dissenting views and a disengaged Donald Trump often seems to be going along for the ride, though he understands that pandering to Israel is certainly a lot easier than opposing it.

One might reasonably suggest that even though change is in the air, the process of disencumbering from the Israeli grip will be both long and painful. For the present, the U.S. government policy on the Middle East is both shaped and managed by Zionists working on behalf of Israel both from inside and outside the system. That is one compelling reason why the handling of the Palestinian issue since President Trump took office is best described as both driven by Israeli interests alone and morally shameful.

The Trump administration has been unusually effective in working to systematically dismantle the Palestinian state and make the Palestinians a non-people, something that many Israeli leaders have been urging for decades. This push to make the Palestinians go away has been achieved through a variety of actions: taking Jerusalem off the table; removing settlements from any discussion; changing U.S. policy as it relates to assistance provided to Palestinian refugees; supporting Congress in changing U.S. law related to families of Palestinians killed or imprisoned by Israel; and, acting to delegitimize and shut down the offices of both the Palestine Liberation Office and Palestinian Authority. Moreover, the Trump Administration’s endorsement of Israel’s annexation of the Golan Heights suggests that a similar move by the Jewish state over the West Bank would also meet with White House approval.

America’s support of Israel is both morally wrong and, worse, contrary to actual U.S. interests. It behooves all of us who care about the well-being of the United States to speak up and support those brave individuals in the Democratic Party who are pushing for change. Those of us who actually believe that Palestinians are “endowed by their creator with certain inalienable rights” should be particularly active since our country’s endorsement of Israel’s inhumanity makes us Americans complicit in the war crimes. In this struggle, we are all Palestinians.

*

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 The Unz Review

The State Department issues annual reports on global terrorism by country. What’s omitted is most important.

What’s reported about nations on the US target list for regime change is fabricated, part of its propaganda campaign against sovereign independent countries Washington doesn’t control.

The world’s leading state sponsor of terrorism USA blames nations, entities and individuals it targets for its own high crimes committed against them.

US law defines terrorism as “violent acts or acts dangerous to human life…(that) intimidate or coerce a civilian population…influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion…(and engage in) mass destruction.”

In 1994, the UN General Assembly called terrorism

“(c)riminal acts intended or calculated to provoke a state of terror in the general public, a group of persons or particular persons for political purposes are in any circumstance unjustifiable, whatever the considerations of a political, philosophical, ideological, racial, ethnic, religious or any other nature that may be invoked to justify them.”

Historian Howard Zinn once asked:

“How can you make war on terrorism, if war is terrorism…Governments are terrorists on an enormously large scale.”

ISIS, al-Qaeda, its al-Nusra offshoot, and other terrorist groups are US creations, used as proxy troops to advance its imperium in Syria, Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, Yemen, and elsewhere.

The US, NATO, Israel, and their imperial allies are state sponsors of terrorism — unmentioned in the annual State Department reports.

They falsely call Iran, Syria and North Korea “state sponsors of terrorism” — despite providing no credible evidence proving it because none exists.

In 1984, the State Department falsely designate the Islamic Republic of Iran a state sponsor of terrorism.

Its 2018 report falsely accused Tehran of

“continued…terrorist-related activity in 2018 (sic), including support for Hizballah, Palestinian terrorist groups in Gaza, and various groups in Syria, Iraq, and throughout the Middle East (sic).”

Fact: Hezbollah is a legitimate part of the Lebanese government, its military wing for self-defense against genuinely feared US and/or Israeli aggression.

Fact: Hamas is Palestine’s legitimate government, elected in January 2006 — falsely called a terrorist organization at the behest of Israel, the same true for Hezbollah.

Fact: “(V)arious (terrorist) groups (in) Syria, Iraq, and throughout the Middle East” are US creations.

Claiming Iran’s IRGC and Quds Force are “mechanism(s) for cultivating and supporting terrorists abroad” is a bald-faced Big Lie.

The same is true about falsely claiming Tehran “uses regional proxy forces to provide sufficient deniability to try to shield it from the consequences of its aggressive policies (sic).”

Aggression in multiple theaters is a US/NATO/Israeli speciality, not how the Islamic Republic ever operated throughout its 40-year history — the region’s leading proponent of peace, stability, and elimination of nuclear weapons it abhors.

Its legitimate nuclear program has no military component, never had one, despite false claims otherwise — polar opposite nuclear armed and dangerous Israel and America’s regional presence with chemical, biological, radiological, and other banned weapons.

As in previous years, the entire State Department report on Iran is an exercise in mass deception.

The same is true about Syria, falsely designated a state sponsor of terrorism by the US in 1979 — for its sovereign independence.

Without just cause, Washington demonizes all nations unwilling to subordinate their sovereign rights to its interests.

The State Department falsely accused Syria “of political and military support to various terrorist groups” — how the US and its imperial allies operate, not Damascus.

Syria and Iran were accused of being “staunch defender(s)” of each other, what deserves praise, not vilification.

Bashar al-Assad and other Syrian government officials were falsely accused of “statements supporting terrorist groups” — a bald-faced Big Lie.

The Syrian Arab Republic was falsely accused of “purchas(ing)  oil from ISIS through various intermediaries, adding to the terrorist group’s revenue.” [It was in fact Turkey which was purchasing oil from ISIS]

The absurdity of the above accusation about the US-supported terrorist group needs no elaboration — the same is true for the entire falsified report about Syria.

North Korea is no state sponsor of terrorism. Not a shred of evidence suggests it. Yet the US falsely accused the DPRK of “international terrorism,” adding:

“In 2017, the Secretary of State determined the DPRK had repeatedly provided support for acts of international terrorism since its State Sponsor of Terrorism designation was rescinded in 2008”

 

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

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

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

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

Visit his blog site at sjlendman.blogspot.com.

A carbomb exploded [1] in northern Syria killing 13 and wounding 20. The blast on Saturday ripped through a crowded market in Tal Abyad, a town recently occupied by Turkish-backed militant proxies. The Syrian Observatory for Human Rights said the blast targeted pro-Turkey fighters and civilians were also among the dead.

Even though the Turkish Defense Ministry promptly laid the finger of blame on Turkey’s arch-foe,the Kurdish YPG militia, without conducting an investigation, car bombing as a tactic for causing widespread fear is generally employed by jihadist groups and not by the Kurds.

It’s important to note in the news coverage about the killing of al-Baghdadi that although the mainstream media had been trumpeting for the last several years that the Islamic State’s fugitive chief had been hiding somewhere on the Iraq-Syria border in the east, he was found hiding in the northwestern Idlib governorate, under the control of Turkey’s militant proxies and al-Nusra Front, and was killed while trying to flee to Turkey in Barisha village five kilometers from the border.

The morning after the night raid, the Syrian Observatory for Human Rights reported[2] on Sunday, October 27, that a squadron of eight helicopters accompanied by warplanes belonging to the international coalition had attacked positions of Hurras al-Din, an al-Qaeda-affiliated group, in Idlib province where theIslamic State chief was believed to be hiding.

According to“official version” [3] of Washington’s story regarding the killing of al-Baghdadi, the choppers took off from an American airbase in Erbil, the capital of IraqiKurdistan, flew hundreds of miles over the enemy territory in the airspace controlled by the Syrian and Russian air forces, killed the self-proclaimed “caliph”of the Islamic State in a Hollywood-style special-ops raid, and took the same route back to Erbil along with the dead body of the “caliph” and his belongings.

Although Washington has conducted several airstrikes in Syria’s Idlib in the past, those were carried out by fixed-wing aircraft that fly at high altitudes, and the aircraft took off from American airbases in Turkey, which is just across the border from Syria’s northwestern Idlib province. Why would Washington take therisk of flying its troops at low altitudes in helicopters over the hostileterritory controlled by myriads of Syria’s heavily armed militant outfits?

In fact, several Turkish journalists, including Rajip Soylu, the Turkey correspondent for the Middle East Eye, tweeted[4] on the night of the special-ops raid that the choppers took off from the American airbase in Turkey’s Incirlik. As for al-Baghdadi, who was “hiding” with the blessing of Turkey, it now appears that he was the bargaining chip in the negotiations between Trump and Erdogan, and the quid for the US president’s agreeing to pull out of Syria was the pro quo that Erdogan would hand Baghdadi to him on a silver platter.

After the betrayal of its erstwhile allies, the Islamic jihadists, by the Erdogan administration, a tidal wave of terrorism in Turkey was expected, and its first installment has apparently been released in the form of a car bombing in Tal Abyad in northern Syria occupied by Turkish-backed militant proxies.

The reason why the Trump administration is bending over backwards to appease Ankara is that Turkish President Erdogan has been drifting away from Washington’s orbit into Russia’s sphere of influence. Even though the Kurds too served the imperialist masters loyally for the last five years of Syria’s proxy war, the choice boiled down to choosing between the Kurds and Turkey, and Washington understandably chose its NATO ally.

Turkey, which has the second largest army in NATO, has been cooperating with Russia inSyria against Washington’s interests for the last several years and has also placed an order for the Russian-made S-400 missile system, whose first installment has already been delivered.

In order to understand the significance of relationship between Washington and Ankara, it’s worth noting that the United States has been conducting airstrikes against targets in Syria from the Incirlik airbase and around fifty American B-61hydrogen bombs have also been deployed there, whose safety became a matter of real concern during the foiled July 2016 coup plot against the Erdogan administration; when the commander of the Incirlik airbase, General Bekir Ercan Van, along with nine other officers were arrested for supporting the coup; movement in and out of the base was denied, power supply was cut off and the security threat level was raised to the highest state of alert, according to a report[5] by Eric Schlosser for the New Yorker.

Perceptive readers who have been keenly watching Erdogan’s behavior since the foiled July 2016 coup plot against the Erdogan administration must have noticed that Erdogan has committed quite a few reckless and impulsive acts during the last few years.

Firstly, the Turkish air force shot down a Russian Sukhoi Su-24 fighter jet on the border between Syria and Turkey on 24 November 2015 that brought the Turkish and Russian armed forces to the brink of a full-scale confrontation in Syria.

Secondly, the Russian ambassador to Turkey, Andrei Karlov, was assassinated at an art exhibition in Ankara on the evening of 19 December 2016 by an off-duty Turkish police officer, Mevlut Mert Altintas, who was suspected of being an Islamic fundamentalist.

Thirdly, the Turkish military mounted the seven-month Operation Euphrates Shield in northernSyria, immediately after the attempted coup plot, from August 2016 to March 2017 that brought the Turkish military and its Syrian militant proxies head-to-head with the Kurdish-led Syrian Democratic Forces and their American backers.

Fourthly, Ankara invaded Idlib in northwestern Syria in October 2017 on the pretext of enforcing a de-escalation zone between the Syrian militants and the Syrian government, despite official protest from Damascus that the Turkish armed forces were in violation of Syria’s sovereignty and territorial integrity.

Fifthly, Turkey mounted Operation Olive Branch in the Kurdish-held enclave Afrin in northwestern Syria from January to March 2018.

And lastly, the Turkish armed forces and their Syrian jihadist proxies invaded and occupied 120 kilometers stretch of Syrian territory between the northern towns of Tal Abyad and Ras al-Ayn on October 9, even before the American forces had a chance to fully withdraw from their military bases in northern Syria, as soon as an understanding between Trump and Erdogan was reached in a telephonic conversation on October 6.

To avoid confrontation between myriads of local militant groups and their regional and international backers, Russia once again displayed the stroke of a genius by playing the role of a peace-maker in Syria, and concluded an agreement with Turkey in a Putin-Erdogan meeting in Sochi, Russia, on October 22 to enforce a “safezone” in northern Syria.

According to the terms of the agreement, Turkish forces would have exclusive control over120 kilometers stretch between Tal Abyad and Ras al-Ayn to the depth of 32 kilometers in northern Syria. To the west and east of the aforementioned area of the Turkish Operation Peace Spring, Turkish troops and Russian military police would conduct joint patrols to the depth of 10 kilometers in the Syrian territory, and the remaining 20 kilometers “safe zone” would be under the control of Syrian government which would ensure that the Kurdish forces and weapons are evacuated from Manbij, Kobani and Tal Rifat to the west and the Kurdish areas to the east, excluding the city of Qamishli.

*

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.

Nauman Sadiq is an Islamabad-based attorney, columnist and geopolitical analyst focused on the politics of Af-Pak and Middle East regions, neocolonialism and petro-imperialism.

Notes

[1] Car bomb explodes in Syrian town captured by Turkey from Kurds

[2] Islamic State leader Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi killed in US raid

[3] Official story of the night raid killing al-Baghdadi

[4] Trump Confirms ISIS Leader Al-Baghdadi Killed In US Raid

[5] The HBombs in Turkey by Eric Schlosser

Hydroelectric power from dams might be the thorniest question that proponents of the Green New Deal (GND) have to grapple with.  Providing more energy than solar and wind combined, dams could well become the backup for energy if it proves impossible to get off of fossil fuels fast enough.

Rivers and lakes are an integral part of human existence, with virtually all major inland cities being located next to one of them.  They provide water for drinking, bathing, food, and medicine. Their sustenance is not just for humans but for untold numbers of tiny organisms, insects, reptiles, amphibians, birds and mammals.

Rivers integrate plant and animal life forms and connect human communities to each other.

As capitalism grew, rivers transported huge quantities of lumber from clear cuts, oil from under the ground and coal ripped from mountains.  Rivers have been used for trash disposal, as if carrying it somewhere else would make it vanish.  Nor can rivers make industrial and agricultural poisons disappear but can only carry them until they create huge dead zones.  Victors of battles have let rivers float human bodies to remind those living downstream of their military prowess.

The advent of electricity meant that those seeking to dominate nature found an extraordinary tool at their disposal – hydro-electric power from dams.  There are 57,000 large dams in the world and more could be on the way.  Thus, it is important that GND advocates clarify whether they support building more dams or endorse a moratorium on their construction.

Dams were an integral part of economic expansion under Franklin Roosevelt’s original New Deal.  Building new dams continued past FDR, providing about a third of US electrical power in the 1950s. That has declined in the twenty-first century, mainly because of expanded fossil fuel use.  The greatest wave of global dam-building has been since World War II and 80% of their current use is for hydro-power.  Dams have fragmented over two-thirds of long rivers.

Protestors against the dam. The sign translates to “Beautiful pile of shit”. (CC BY 3.0 br)

One of the most infamous is Brazil’s Belo Monte Dam on the Xingu River.   Planned in 1975, it would be the second largest dam system in Brazil and the fourth largest in the world; but opposition stalled it.  After being revived, in May 2016 the first turbine went online; 16 main turbines were functioning in September 2019, and completion is scheduled for 2020.

Mongolia hopes to use dams as part of a strategy to move away from fossil fuels. It’s action plan is called the “Green Development Policy,” which seems to echo “Green New Deal” proposals of western countries.  The Selenge River, a transnational body of water originating in Mongolia, contributes over half the water to Russia’s Lake Baikal which is so huge that it contains about “20% of the worlds unfrozen fresh water.”  Area lakes are already shrinking due to water withdrawal and Lital Khaikin writes that “encroachment of heavy industry threatens the fragile balance of the Baikal and the river-systems that are connected to it.”

With many calling for expansion of large dams, it is necessary to consider what this would mean for river life forms, people living next to or downstream from dams, economics of hydro-power, climate change and unforeseen dangers. Here are 10 potential problems with dams.

1. Dams destroy species and disrupt balances between species that make up ecosystems.

According to International Rivers “The number-one cause of species extinction is habitat loss.”  Due to the assault on rivers, freshwater ecosystems probably have the highest reduction in biodiversity, higher even than those on land.

The decline of a species often has ripple effects on other species.  When salmon reproduction is interrupted on the lower Snake River Dams in the Pacific Northwest orcas may starve because so few reach the ocean. River dolphins of the Yangtze were the first human-caused extinction of dolphins, due to construction of China’s Three Gorges Dam.  Less well-known examples abound.  The Kihansi Spray Toad of Tanzania became extinct in the wild because of the Kihansi Dam in the southern Udzungwa Mountains.  The dam reduced the spray zone around the waterfall by 90%, dooming the toad.

Plants, are likewise threatened by dams. Rowan Jacobsen’s 2019 article describes how the Falls-of-the-Ohio scurfpea, whose habitat was limited to a few Ohio River islets, became extinct in the 1920s due to dam construction.  Another 2019 Scientific American article explains that 85% of bugs along the Colorado River lays eggs along its banks.  As water levels go up and down according to power needs, the insect eggs often get too dry to survive, upsetting the balance between species in the ecosystem. This is particularly unnerving because a 2017 paper in PLOS ONE documented a greater than 75% decline in flying insect mass in Germany.

2. Dams drive people out of their homes.

Those of us who grew up watching American TV in the 1950s and 60s had a steady diet of troops driving Indians off the landscape of the country’s West.  An even more effective tool of America’s ethnic cleansing was undermining the species on which Indians depended, such as buffalo and fish.  Roosevelt’s New Deal promised that building dams would help lift people out of poverty.

2017 Aerial view Hoover Dam 4774.jpg

Aerial view of Hoover Dam, Nevada-Arizona. (CC BY-SA 4.0)

Unfortunately, the Hoover Dam took reservation land from Yuma Indians during 1933-35. By the early 1940s, 22 dams were planned for North Dakota which required evacuating 20,000 people, including many Indians.

In Mexico, building 4000 dams from 1936 to 2006 involved the removal of 185,000 people.  As Brazil built Belo Monte, the government claimed that only 16,000 people were displaced.  But those affected indicated that a more realistic number was 40,000.  As dams expanded, they pushed an estimated 80,000,000 out of their homes globally.

3. Dams undermine indigenous cultures.

Cultural traditions are often closely connected to specific plants, animals, landmarks and bodies of water.  When the New Deal’s Grand Coulee Dam robbed land from Native Americans, it broke their connection to salmon.  Little known in the western world are efforts by Mongolia to expand dam construction in its norther provinces on the Selenge River and its tributary Eg River.  The proposed Shuren Dam on the Selenge would flood sacred heregsuurs (graveyards) and archaeological sites in neighboring areas. The Egiin Gol Dam on the Eg would cause extensive displacement which would include Mongolian herder communities whose link to (Omul whitefish) would be severed.  Though opposition led to both projects’ being canceled in 2017, what remains is Mongolia’s hopes to attract foreign investment from multinational corporations seeking resource extraction and hydro-electricity to power mining operations.  Similar projects are reaching their tentacles across the planet.

4. Dams affect far more people than they displace.

People do not have to be pushed out of their homes or watch the flooding of sacred places to be affected by dams.  An estimated 400-800 million people in the world who live downstream from dams lose access to clean water, are poisoned by industrial development, and watch resources such as fish shrink along with the quantity of water flowing through rivers.  Especially those living in tropical areas can experience an increase in diseases such as malaria, filariasis, yellow fever, dengue, and schistosomiasis.

5. Conflicts over dams result in the arrest and killing of earth protectors.

Since 2009, the massive growth of dams in Mexico led to the arrest of over 250 and at least 8 deathsGlobal Witness tabulated that “dams and other water resources” were the third leading industries (behind mining and agribusiness) to be associated with deaths of environmentalists in 2018.

Dams have also been linked to imprisonment and/or killings in many countries, including Burma, China, Colombia, Ethiopia, Guatemala and Sudan.  The greatest number of indigenous people massacred was when 440 were killed “to make way for Guatemala’s Chixoy Dam in 1982.” Extreme civil rights violations will undoubtedly rise in proportion to efforts to expand hydro-electric power.

6. Dams can increase the likelihood of wars over water resources.

Any time a river runs through two or more countries, there is a potential conflict over dam-building.  Shortly after Pakistan was created, on April 1, 1948 India began taking water from canals that went into Pakistan.  A permanent solution was stalled until 1960 when Jawaharlal Nehru of India and Mohammad Ayub Khan of Pakistan signed the Indus Water Treaty.  But in 2017 India built the Kishanganga Dam in Kashmir and developed the Ratle hydro-power station in the Chenab River despite objections from Pakistan. With Narendra Modi’s siege of Kashmir, dams can only intensify hostilities.

Access to water is central to tensions in the Middle East.  The Tigris-Euphrates basin, which includes Turkey, Syria, Iraq and western Iran, is rapidly losing water.  Conn Hallihan writes “For Syria and Iraq, the problem is Turkey and Ankara’s mania for dam building. Since 1975, Turkish dams have reduced the flow of water to Syria by 40% — and to Iraq by 80%…  Israel also takes 87% of the West Bank aquifers, leaving the Palestinians only 13%.”  Water conflicts will get worse over time – by 2030, 4 out of every 10 people in the world may not have access to water.

7. Dams contribute to climate change.

It would be a tragic irony if dams were used to combat climate change because they are a huge source of greenhouse gases (GHGs).  Currently, rivers remove about 200 million tons of CO2 from the atmosphere annually, both by carbon absorption and by carrying silt to the sea where it feeds plankton.  Yet, dams interfere with rivers’ being a carbon sink and increase their functioning as a carbon source in multiple ways.

Building the giant Hoover Dam required 6.6 million tons of concrete.  The larger Grand Coulee Dam required 24.3 million tons. Since enormous heat must be used to produce concrete, each ton manufactured releases one ton of CO2 into the atmosphere.  In addition, producing steel to reinforce the concrete and build other dam components requires enormous heat, resulting in CO2 releases.  Of the tens of thousands of large dams in the world, these two required creating 30.9 million tons of CO2 just for the concrete: building dams has taken a huge bite out of the carbon sequestered by rivers.

In addition to CO2 release during manufacture of building materials for dams, organic matter rots in their reservoirs and produces the potent GHG methane. Far from being a minor source of carbon, this methane is estimated to “account for 4% of all human-made climate change, equivalent to the climate impact of aviation.”

8. Dams increase differences between rich and poor.

Approval for building dams often begins with investors’ going to politicians who act as a link between them and the population.  Politicians promise that the project will bring wealth to all.  By the time it becomes clear that this is not happening, the politician is out of office or distracting people with another big promise.

In 1933, construction of the New Deal’s Hoover Dam meant pushing the Yumas off their reservation land so that a boom in energy production could swell corporate profits in the US Southwest.  As a sop for losing the reservation, Yumas received five acres apiece with assurance that they could grow more crops due to new irrigation systems. Meanwhile, land was “sold to whites in 40- to 100- acre parcels.”

Construction of the Belo Monte Dam reflects a common occurrence.  Though thousands of Indians were displaced, the energy created did not benefit them, but businesses such as aluminum smelters.

9. Dams cost much more than promised.

Many factors feed into making dams hyper-expensive.  The most obvious is construction costs which amounts to $2 trillion since 1950.  A small country persuaded to use hydro-power as its major source of energy can find that the average cost overrun of 96% leaves it more indebted to and controlled by international lenders than it ever anticipated.

Dams lead to more dams.  As investors and industrial manufacturers and mine owners reap riches from one dam, they have an incentive to construct more.  This contributed to the US Colorado River’s being fragmented by at least 60 dams.  Awareness that the Belo Monte Dam would make more upstream dams economically viable was a major source of opposition to it.

A third reason for dams’ being more expensive than promised is that maintenance is hardly, if ever, fully accounted for.  Silt eventually interferes with the dam’s functioning.  Turbines malfunction, cracks occur, design flaws appear and maintenance can be insufficient.  For a combination of reasons, over 1000 dams have been removed in the US and the price of removal is rarely mentioned in cost projections.

The fourth, and most costly source of expense overruns for dams, is when they break. This brings us to the last of 10 problems.  When negotiating over price, the construction company is highly unlikely to admit its life expectancy.

10. Dams break.

Unlike the extinction they cause, dams are not forever.  And with today’s standards for privatized construction, they can be expected to last for shorter time periods than Roman coliseums.  As Worster wrote:

“Steel penstocks [structures that carry water from the forebay tunnel to the power house to run the turbines] and headgates must someday rust and collapse.  Concrete, so permanent-seeming in is youth, must turn soft and crumble.  Heavy banks of earth, thrown up to trap a flood, must eventually, under the most favorable circumstances, erode away.”

The New England Historical Society documented the first major disaster as the Mill River Dam collapse of 1874 which caused 139 deaths. The worst such disaster in the US happened only 15 years later when warnings regarding the South Fork Dam near Johnstown, Pennsylvania were followed by its collapse, which killed 2209.

Eric Fish penned the disturbing story of the 1975 Banqiao Dam collapse, by far the most deadly the world has experienced to date.  As part of the “Harness the Huai River” campaign, the dam was completed in 1952 in China’s Henan Province.  By the 1970s, thousands of dams had been built across China. Scientific studies warned that projects could raise Henan’s water tables over safe levels.  More warnings were issued that deforestation and mining could further increase the danger of building yet more dams in an earthquake-prone zone already fraught with landslides.  Committed to rapid economic growth, the government ignored the warnings.

Cracks appeared almost as soon as the reservoir began filling up.  With Soviet help, the structure was reinforced and it was called the “Iron Dam” to assure everyone of its safety.  Nevertheless,

“… on Aug 5, 1975, a typhoon collided with a cold front over Henan and dropped the area’s average yearly rainfall in less than 24 hours. The 106 cm of rain that fell that day dwarfed the 30 cm daily limit the dam’s designers had anticipated. Witnesses said that the area was littered with birds that had been pummeled to death by the intense rainfall.”

“In an effort to mitigate downstream floods that were already severe, Banqiao was ordered not to fully open its sluice gates early in the storm. Then communication lines were knocked out, leaving operators guessing as to how the situation outside was unfolding. By the time the gates were fully opened, it was too late. Water was rising faster than it could escape.”

A hydrologist had recommended building 12 sluice gates (which let water flow out at the base of a dam), but only 5 went into the final design and they were partially blocked by silt.  Collapse of the Banqiao unleashed a 50 km/hour tidal wave down the river that knocked out 62 additional dams.  Entire villages were swept away within minutes.  One survivor recalled “I didn’t know where I was – just floating around in the water, screams and cries ringing in my ears. Suddenly, all the voices died down, leaving me in deadly silence.”

During the six hours that water poured out of the reservoir 26,000 lives were lost. Those living downstream soon envied the dead.  The same torrent that flooded the reservoirs also washed out roads and knocked out rescue communication systems.  When the rescue teams finally arrived, they found people standing on rooftops, holding onto trees or stranded on bits of dry land.  They had kept themselves alive by eating tree leaves, animal carcasses that floated by or scavenged food that was often rotten.  Hunger was joined by disease and summer heat.

For every person who died after the initial dam collapse, five more died from disease or plague.  The total estimated death count was 171,000.

Perhaps the greatest tragedy of the Banqiao is that the same dynamics for economic growth that laid its foundations continue to flourish.  In 2011,  Zhang Jinxuan, director of the Nujiang National Development and Reform Commission, spoke of China’s growth: “We must proceed.  The resources here are too good. Not to develop is not an option.”  China has thousands of dams at risk of breach, either because they are wearing out due to age or they are newer with poor construction.

China is hardly the only country which refuses to learn from Banqiao. Scientists still make recommendations that are ignored, either from a corporate desire to make more profits or from a bureaucratic state desire to expand its power.  In the US, 24 of every 25 US dams are privately owned, with financial incentives to minimize repairs.  Across the globe, more and more industrial plants full of toxic chemicals are located next to rivers, increasing potential hazards of flooding.  Decision makers refuse to understand that climate crisis means that weather events which cause dam disasters are becoming more frequent and more extreme.  They continue to build multiple dams on the same river.  They seek to assure their citizens that past disasters were due to design problems and that “Generation Next” dams will be safe.

After thousands of years of warnings from philosophers and religious prophets that humanity can live prosperously by having less grandiose desires, political leaders insist that happiness flows from a fountain of possessions, which, in the 21stcentury, is a fountain of energy.  The more power that leaders have over other people, the more power they seek over nature.  Instead of trying to work with nature to strengthen local communities, they cling to technocratic ideologies that “bigger and more complicated” is better. If a previous dam broke, they fail to see the problem as the dam’s existence – they insist that if the next dam is bigger, with more concrete and more electrical parts, then the river can be controlled.

Though efforts to subdue rivers have long caused problems, modern capitalism has transformed this pathological view to cultural psychopathy.  Psychopathy reflects a lack of guilt or shame over the damage that one causes.  A corporation is a social entity which is unable to feel guilt or shame for undermining the survivability of humans and millions of other life forms.

After thousands of years of disrupting natural water flow, which has been exponentially accelerated during recent decades, it is past time for humanity to restore rivers and streams while maintaining a high quality of life.  This is why “500 organizations from 85 countries call on governments, financiers and other institutions to keep large hydro-power projects out of their initiatives to address climate change.”

A critical question addresses what would happen if the goal of eliminating fossil fuels usage within 10 years cannot be accomplished with solar and wind power. It is becoming increasingly obvious that the massive growth of solar/wind technology cannot expand at such an enormous rate in this time period, and, if it were seriously attempted, it would cause disastrous ecological and human health problems.  Though every source that provides data on sources of energy assigns different percentages to each sector, a reasonable estimate is that in 2018, global energy was supplied by 85% fossil fuels, 7% hydro-power, 4% nuclear power and 4% solar and wind power.  Hydro-electric power from dams and nuclear power are obviously next in line for huge increases in sources of energy if solar/wind cannot replace fossil fuels rapidly enough.

There is another option; but GND plans are silent on it.  That option is called “energy conservation.”  It includes using vastly less energy by having compact communities that require less transportation, smaller home space that requires less heating and cooling, less production of energy-absorbing gadgets designed to fall apart or go out of style and a shorter work week via manufacturing fewer non-necessities.

GND enthusiasts need to say which road they advocate traveling.  Should we build more dams and nuclear plants even if that means sacrificing biodiversity and human health?  Or, would it better to abandon the dream of infinite economic growth? Are GND proponents willing to consider the possibility that life would be better for all species, including humans, if corporations and governments are not allowed to increase energy production? If so, we might even save a few aquatic ecosystems.

*

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.

Don Fitz ([email protected]) has taught Environmental Psychology at Washington University and Fontbonne University in St. Louis. He is on the Editorial Board of Green Social Thought, newsletter editor for the Green Party of St. Louis and was the 2016 candidate of the Missouri Green Party for Governor.  A version of this article appeared in GreenSocialThought.org

“After more than a year in power, the popular Prime Minister Imran Khan‘s PTI (Movement for Justice) ruling government is confronting its most dangerous assault yet. Despite the country being dogged by unscrupulous, criminal, and illegal capital flight by the ruling elites of the country as soon as Khan took power, as well as a concerted campaign of economic warfare from foreign powers to compel the PTI government to accept an IMF loan package, Khan’s supporters knew that he would face such opposition, both internally and externally, and have steadfastly weathered a very difficult storm in Pakistan’s political economy. …

Maulana Fazl-ur-Rehman, called the ‘father of the Taliban’ because of his vast network of madrassas (Muslim religious seminaries that have been turned into the production factory of ‘warriors of Islam’), and his political party JUI(F), desire to maintain a monopoly over all things religious. …

“[He] has urged and paid for huge caravans from all provinces to converge in Islamabad, where they are now. There is little question that the Maulana’s [religious leader’s] own irrelevance could not bring out these vast numbers. All serious analysts know that, at the very least, he is being lavishly supported from New Delhi and Washington. All of these external powers cannot fathom a clear-headed and sensible leader of Pakistan [who doesn’t] subordinate his country to Western diktat, maintains the country’s sovereignty, desires peace in the region and beyond, and advances social justice and pluralism at home. …

“However, a significant amount of these protesters are heavily armed. This does not bode well, and will probably amount to a bloody showdown in the already cordoned off city of Islamabad.”

*

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.

Junaid S. Ahmad is director of the Center for Global Studies and Professor of Middle Eastern politics at the University of Lahore, Pakistan. See his interviews on The Real News. He is a frequent contributor to Global Research.

At least 19 civilians were killed and others injured in a car explosion in the center of the occupied city of Tal Abiad, northern Raqqa countryside, and two others injured by mortars in the Nile Street Market in the city of Aleppo.

Eyewitnesses from the city of Tal Abiad reported that at least 19 civilians were killed and unidentified others were injured when a rigged with explosives detonated in the city’s main market.

The large explosion caused material damage in the area. The regime of Erdogan hastily accused the Kurdish dissolved separatist SDF militia for the explosion.

However, if it was not for the Turkish invasion and the Turkish evil interference in Syria hundreds of thousands of Syrians would not have faced any harm and would still be living among us, Syria was top of the list of safe countries in the whole world before NATO using Erdogan unleashed the world’s largest terrorist army to ‘spread democracy’ in the Syria financed and armed by the world’s most authoritarian regimes of Saudi Arabia, Qatar, and Turkey.

Tal Abiad is a border town with Turkey, it was occupied by Erdogan forces and terrorists loyal to the Turkish pariah during the latest Turkish aggression after the Kurdish separatist militia fled the city without fight and without agreeing to handover the control of the city to the Syrian state, leaving its people to experience hellish living conditions under the anti-Islamic medieval brain-minded loyalists to the Muslim Brotherhood head of NATO member state Turkey. This explosion and other terrorist acts are what to expect from NATO terrorists like these.

The bombing on Nile Street hit the ‘Fatat Yateemah’ Market and injured a young boy and a woman who were buying bread at the local bakery. The mortars shelling caused material damage to houses, cars, and shops as well.

Erdogan’s Terror in Aleppo

Simultaneously, terrorists loyal to the Turkish pariah Erdogan positioned in the northwest of Aleppo bombed a market street in the city with mortars.

Watch this video report by Syria’s Ikhbariya news channel:

*

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

Featured image is from Syria News

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Erdogan Terrorists on Terror Frenzy in Tal Abiad and Aleppo City
  • Tags: ,

The UN Special Rapporteur on torture, Nils Melzer, has expressed alarm at the continued deterioration of Julian Assange’s health since his arrest and detention earlier this year, saying his life was now at risk.

Mr. Assange was sent to a UK high-security prison on 11 April 2019 where he continues to be held in connection with a US extradition request on espionage charges for having exposed evidence for US war crimes and other misconduct in Iraq and Afghanistan. “While the US Government prosecutes Mr. Assange for publishing information about serious human rights violations, including torture and murder, the officials responsible for these crimes continue to enjoy impunity,” said Melzer.

The Special Rapporteur and his medical team visited the imprisoned Wikileaks founder in May and reported that he showed “all the symptoms typical for prolonged exposure to psychological torture” and demanded immediate measures for the protection of his health and dignity.

“However, what we have seen from the UK Government is outright contempt for Mr. Assange’s rights and integrity,” Melzer said. “Despite the medical urgency of my appeal, and the seriousness of the alleged violations, the UK has not undertaken any measures of investigation, prevention and redress required under international law.”

Under the Convention against Torture, States must conduct a prompt and impartial investigation wherever there is reasonable ground to believe that an act of torture has been committed.

“In a cursory response sent nearly five months after my visit, the UK Government flatly rejected my findings, without indicating any willingness to consider my recommendations, let alone to implement them, or even provide the additional information requested,” the UN expert said.

As predicted by Melzer, shortly after the Special Rapporteur’s visit, Mr. Assange had to be transferred to the prison’s health care unit.

“He continues to be detained under oppressive conditions of isolation and surveillance, not justified by his detention status,” said Melzer, adding that having completed his prison sentence for violating UK bail terms in 2012, Mr. Assange was now being held exclusively in relation to the pending extradition request from the United States.

“Despite the complexity of the proceedings against him led by the world’s most powerful Government, Mr. Assange’s access to legal counsel and documents has been severely obstructed, thus effectively undermining his most fundamental right to prepare his defence,” said Melzer.

“The blatant and sustained arbitrariness shown by both the judiciary and the Government in this case suggests an alarming departure from the UK’s commitment to human rights and the rule of law. This is setting a worrying example, which is further reinforced by the Government’s recent refusal to conduct the long-awaited judicial inquiry into British involvement in the CIA torture and rendition programme.

“In my view, this case has never been about Mr. Assange’s guilt or innocence, but about making him pay the price for exposing serious governmental misconduct, including alleged war crimes and corruption. Unless the UK urgently changes course and alleviates his inhumane situation, Mr. Assange’s continued exposure to arbitrariness and abuse may soon end up costing his life.”

In his urgent appeal to the UK Government, the Special Rapporteur strongly recommended that Mr. Assange’s extradition to the United States be barred, and that he be promptly released and allowed to recover his health and rebuild his personal and professional life.

*

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

Mr. Nils Melzer, Special Rapporteur on torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment; is part of what is known as the Special Procedures of the Human Rights Council. Special Procedures, the largest body of independent experts in the UN Human Rights system, is the general name of the Council’s independent fact-finding and monitoring mechanisms that address either specific country situations or thematic issues in all parts of the world. Special Procedures’ experts work on a voluntary basis; they are not UN staff and do not receive a salary for their work. They are independent from any government or organization and serve in their individual capacity.

Featured image is from 21st Century Wire

Evidence that could lead to criminal charges against the pro-Brexit campaign led by Boris Johnson and his key adviser, Dominic Cummings, has now been passed by police to the criminal prosecution authorities, openDemocracy has learned.

Last year, the Electoral Commission found that Vote Leave broke electoral law by overspending during the 2016 European Union referendum, after the campaign funnelled £675,000 through another pro-Brexit group to avoid spending limits.

After nearly 16 months of investigating Vote Leave, the Metropolitan Police Service (MPS) handed a file of evidence to the Crown Prosecution Service last month. The initial formal referral by the police means they are now seeking legal advice from the Crown Prosecution Service on how to further build their case against Vote Leave, and where they need further evidence to advance the prospect of charges being brought. Vote Leave have always denied any wrongdoing.

The timing of the submitted file by the Met for what is termed “Early Investigative Advice” from the CPS could not be worse for the prime minister.

Green Party MP Caroline Lucas, a prominent advocate for a second Brexit referendum, said:

“I’m pleased that the Metropolitan Police have finally taken action on this, after sitting on the papers for 16 months. Vote Leave was the campaign fronted by the man who is now our prime minister, Boris Johnson, and his chief advisor, Dominic Cummings. It’s hard to imagine a more serious matter for our democracy. The CPS needs to reach a decision on this quickly so that trust in the electoral process is not further undermined.”

Conservatives’ headache

On the eve Conservatives’ general election campaign launch – a campaign widely regarded as designed and controlled by Cummings – there is now fresh controversy surrounding the 2016 Leave campaign, also masterminded by Cummings and fronted by Johnson.

With Brexit still unresolved despite years of parliamentary wrangling, and the general election widely regarded as a vote on whether or not to rubber-stamp the 2016 referendum result, the prospect of Johnson and Cummings being linked to potential criminal charges will be an extremely unwelcome development for the Conservative campaign.

Although the Met have made no public announcement, a Scotland Yard spokesman, responding to a question on the state of the Vote Leave investigation, stated:

On Thursday, 17 Oct 2019 the MPS submitted a file to the CPS for Early Investigative Advice in relation to the second investigation, which followed a referral by the Electoral Commission on 19 July 2018 and concerns Vote Leave and Be Leave.

Highly damaging for key politicians

The Metropolitan Police had also investigated the pro-Brexit campaign group Leave.EU, headed by Arron Banks and Nigel Farage. However, in September Scotland Yard announced it would be halting its criminal inquiries. The Met said that “technical breaches” of electoral law had been committed by Leave.EU, but decided there was “insufficient evidence” to justify any further criminal investigation.

In this context, the Met’s decision to make a formal referral to the CPS on its Vote Leave inquiries is potentially highly damaging for those associated with its governance.

Alongside the leading roles of Johnson and Cummings, others involved in Vote Leave included the former Lord Chancellor and Justice Secretary, Michael Gove; the leader of the European Research group of MPs, Steve Baker; Nigel Dodds, the DUP MP for Belfast North; the Home Secretary, Priti Patel; the Foreign Secretary, Dominic Raab; and the Environment Secretary, Theresa Villiers.

A full file of evidence

A Home Office source told openDemocracy:

“This EIA (early investigative advice) is effectively the Met asking the CPS what it needs to bring charges. It would not be doing this if it was not planning to deliver a full file of evidence on Vote Leave. It will of course be the CPS’s decision on whether charges are brought.”

In the three years following the Brexit referendum, multiple alleged breaches of electoral law, false declarations and covert campaign over-spending were investigated by the Electoral Commission.

Last year, the Commission found that Vote Leave exceeded its £7 million spending limit after failing to include in its spending return £675,000 that it donated to BeLeave, a pro-Brexit youth campaign headed by Darren Grimes. The money was spent on targeted Facebook ads in the final days of the campaign.

Vote Leave was fined a total of £61,000 and referred to the Metropolitan police. Grimes was initially fined £20,000 but this ruling was later quashed on appeal. The judge ruled that the Electoral Commission had set too high a threshold for determining whether Grimes’s campaign group was correctly registered – and further ruled that even if Grimes had committed an offence, the fine imposed was too high.

‘Political sensitivities’

In October last year, after holding the Electoral Commission’s files for four months, openDemocracy discovered that the Met’s investigation had effectively stalled. A Met spokesman told openDemocracy that “political sensitivities” had to be taken into account – an admission which was widely condemned, with questions asked in the House of Commons. Labour’s deputy leader, Tom Watson, said that breaking the law during “one of the most critical moments in the UK’s history” made it of “urgent national interest that the police investigate what happened, how it happened and who was responsible.”

Although such demands are now closer to being met, sources inside the Met told openDemocracy that it is “almost impossible” to imagine anything further on this being released during a general election campaign.

Sarah Clarke from Unlock Democracy, a group which campaigns for political accountability through a written UK constitution, told openDemocracy today:

“It’s the eve of what looks set to be one of the dirtiest general election campaigns in memory. Boris Johnson and one of his closest advisors are fighting a Brexit election based on a campaign won through potentially criminal activity. It has taken significant effort on the part of campaigners and journalists to even get to this point. Whatever the outcome of the Met’s investigation, damage has already been done to the integrity of our elections.”

She added:

“There’s no chance of election law violations being dealt with seriously when the Electoral Commission doesn’t have real investigatory or fining powers. Even with action now being taken by the Met, money is coursing through the veins of elections and referendums in the UK. The insubstantial penalties for wrongdoing serve as an advertisement to those with deep pockets that breaking the law is a price worth paying.”

*

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 Cusick is a former political correspondent at The Independent and The Independent on Sunday. This article was also published at openDemocracy.

Featured image is from TP

We had spent most of the day in the destroyed Armenian quarter of Aleppo. Nothing remained to be salvaged, the foreign mercenaries, supported by the US and its lapdogs had made sure of it. The most beautifulplace in Aleppo was rubble, the streets empty except for the lone parked car orboy on a bike navigating the wreckage.

Our ebullient guide, Abdul, a man who had spent his life escorting people around Syria and was now in his 60s, started to talk about the quarter, how magnificent it once was. He stood in the middle of what was once asquare surrounded by lush greenery, cafés, stores and apartments. Only twolone, stripped trees at the end of the square bore testament to what was.

He began to cry, “Why? Why did your government do this? What was the reason? There is nothing strategic here. It was a deliberate attack on our heritage, our beauty. The terrorists destroyed the gem of Aleppo and for what? Can you tell me?”

And we had no answers. There are no answers. From October 17-26, we eight Americans traveled to Syria to see for ourselves.  Most of us are longtime activists in the Middle East.

The US/NATO/Israeli axis of evil spent eight years trying to destroy Syria in the same way they decimated Iraq. The fact they didn’t succeed is a combination of Syrian civilian determination, Syrian military prowess, and the intervention (asked for by the Syrian government) of Russia. But at such a terrible price: 500,000 Syrians killed, over 3/5 of them, young soldiers, millions fleeing their homes and businesses to other countries as the juggernaut of foreign fighters forced them out, millions more internally displaced.

We walked Damascus…Homs…Maaloula…Palmyra…Hama…Aleppo…Lattakia and many small villages during our 10-day “witness trip” through Syria. We had no minders. We had no one telling us who we could talk to, so we talked to everyone… on the street, in the cafés and hotels, in shops and restaurants and playing backgammon in the ruins of Aleppo. Everyone wanted to talk to us, totell us the stories.

“Welcome, welcome, we are happy to see Americans here. Come…have tea, sit with us, let me tell you our story, we know it’s not your fault, Welcome, welcome, have some tea.”

And our hearts broke every time, the stories of rape, beheadings and pillage committed by foreign mercenary terrorists (as the Syrians called them), part of the so-called ‘moderate rebels’.

“They were being paid with American dollars through proxies in the Gulf. Some of them fought for $300.00 a month, then when things got really tough, the stakes were raised, and we heard some were being paid $1000.00 plus a month.” Said one of the waiters at a restaurant.

Few of the mercenaries were Syrian. They poured into Syria from Turkey, had been taught guerrilla warfare in camps in Jordan and, if injured, were treated in Israeli hospitals in the occupied Golan Heights. They were armed to the teeth with smuggled munitions that had been brought through Jordan and Turkey after the fall of Libya with the approval of the US government.

At one point, one of our guides told us the Syrian army rounded up 100,000 Toyota jeeps, all from the US given to the foreign fighters.

On one of our last days, we went to the famous Baron Hotel in Aleppo, the place where Agatha Christie wrote, where TE Lawrence (Lawrence of Arabia) stayed, as well as dignitaries like Churchill. No one stays at the hotel any longer even though fighting has stopped for over a year. The famous bar that used to serve exotic drinks looks exactly as it did 45 years ago when I was there, except the hotel maintenance people went down to the cellar and drained several wine kegs into bottles, put them in the bar to make it look the way it once did.

The Armenian/Syrian woman who owned the hotel sat down and talked to us. When we reached out to say we were sorry, she said, ”I don’t want to hear you’re sorry. What good does that do? Will it bring the hotel back? Does it compensate for the terrorist snipers who shot across our porch for months, preventing anyone from coming in and destroying the business? Will itbring the people who were murdered back? Do you think that’s what we need to hear, ‘I’m sorry?’ We need answers. Do you have any?”

She was so angry, and we were so ashamed. We listened to her, for that’s all we could do.

Our visit was not about politics. It wasn’t about whom to blame as there are plenty to go around. We were eight civilian Americans talking to dozens of civilian Syrians. It’s the only way there will be any kind of reconciliation.

It is our only hope.

*

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.

Greta Berlin is the Co-Founder of the Free Gaza movementwww.freegaza.org and the author/editor of Freedom Sailors, a book about the first successful trip to Gaza in August 2008. She is also an English teacher and has spent the past few years (after her retirement) teaching English in Morocco, Spain and Iraq.

Featured image is from the author

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Walking Through Aleppo: “Why Did Your Government Do This”. I Don’t Want to Hear You Say, “I’m Sorry.”

The interview that Russian Prime Minister Medevedev gave to the Bangkok Post during his recent visit to Thailand to attend the ASEAN Summit there served to remind everyone of Russia’s skepticism towards the US’ “Indo-Pacific” concept, which he believes reduces the bloc’s centrality in regional affairs and also unnecessarily pressures its members to depart from their historic position of non-alignment, though this stance shouldn’t be interpreted as signaling that Russia is against this strategy’s publicly proclaimed goals of free trade and improved regional connectivity.

***

Keen observers were already aware that Russian Foreign Minister Lavrov slammed the US’ “Indo-Pacific” concept as an “artificially imposed” construct back in February, but so much has happened around the world since then that regular folks are forgiven for either never hearing about this in the first place or promptly forgetting about it shortly thereafter, but Prime Minister Medvedev reminded everyone about this principled position in an interview that he gave over the weekend to the Bangkok Post during his recent visit to Thailand to attend the ASEAN Summit there. In his words, “it can weaken the Association’s position and strip it of its status as a key player in addressing regional security problems”, as well as being “at odds with ASEAN fundamental principles, such as non-alignment and non-aligned status.” Russia won’t say it too openly out of consideration for its ASEAN and Indian partners’ differing degrees of coordination with the US through this initiative, but two of its unstated goals are to “contain” China and exclude Russia from this mega region, neither of which its predecessor concept of the Asia-Pacific had done and the reason why Moscow is opposed to its replacement with the “Indo-Pacific”.

Russia’s representatives must be mindful at all times that the ASEAN and other countries that participate in the “Indo-Pacific” are doing so because they believe that this strategy advances their own interests as they understand them, and none of them would ever openly admit to “containing” China or excluding Russia from this broader region, hence why Medvedev and Lavrov before him didn’t level any direct accusations of this sort against them but only strongly implied as much. Being skeptical of “Indo-Pacific” concept doesn’t mean that Russia isn’t interested in some of its other concepts such as enhancing trade with the many countries of this extended Rimland region, however, since Medvedev elaborated in his interview about the means through which Moscow intends to expand its influence in Southeast Asia. Some of the methods include closer military (and especially naval) cooperation, the possible export of floating nuclear power plant technology, and the clinching of free trade agreements between the Eurasian Union (EAU) and some of ASEAN’s members such as Brunei, Cambodia, the Philippines, and Thailand in order to expand the regional reach of the existing one that it already has with Vietnam, the last-mentioned approach of which is intended to advance the Greater Eurasian Partnership that Russia envisages replacing the “Indo-Pacific”.

This strategic concept is an all-inclusive one that isn’t aimed against any third country and, in Medvedev’s words, “is about creating an entire economic and cultural space where people can freely communicate, trade, travel and discover new opportunities for themselves.” In essence, the Greater Eurasian Partnership is supposed to embody the publicly proclaimed principles of the “Indo-Pacific” that are undermined by its de-facto American leader’s unstated goals against China and Russia, and the modality through which Russia wants to replace its rival’s concept is by tacitly co-opting it with India’s help. This is a risky strategy that isn’t guaranteed to succeed and could actually backfire if it ends up offsetting the country’s delicate “balancing” act between China and India, but it nevertheless presents the most realistic opportunity that Russia has under these circumstances. Despite India’s pro-American pivot in recent years, it’s still retaining some vestiges of its increasingly outdated “multi-alignment” policy by recently prioritizing the reinvigoration of relations with Russia as seen by Prime Minister Modi’s participation in the Eastern Economic Forum back in September as President Putin’s guest of honor.

The two countries agreed to take their newfound “global partnership” to the next level by establishing the Vladivostok-Chennai Maritime Corridor (VCMC), which could in practice actualize the author’s 2015 vision of an “Asian Sea Arc” connecting that Far Eastern port city with ASEAN (and further afield India of course), thereby making Russia a more active player in regional affairs contrary to the US’ “Indo-Pacific” wishes. The strategic catch, however, is that Russia will also continue conducting “military diplomacy” there by selling more arms to the ASEAN states including the possible export of Brahmos supersonic cruise missiles, all with a view towards “balancing” their capabilities with China’s so as to facilitate the political resolution of their territorial disputes in the South China Sea unlike the purpose of American arms shipments that aim instead to disrupt this balance in favor of the US’ regional partners. Reinforcing their “neutral non-aligned” status, Russia might even include these countries in the “new Non-Aligned Movement” (Neo-NAM) that some of its strategists envisage it jointly leading with India, but despite these well-intended efforts at promoting peace and stability in the Southeastern corner of the Eurasian supercontinent, China might understandably perceive everything in a different way since Russia would objectively be improving the ASEAN countries’ military capabilities against China in parallel with encouraging them to pool their efforts together in “balancing” between the People’s Republic and the US.

It goes without saying that Russia must do everything in its power to clearly communicate its intentions to China and assuage it of any latent suspicions that it’s coming under the sway of pro-American India, whether wittingly (which is extremely unlikely) or inadvertently in the sense that New Delhi might be setting Moscow up to fail by tempting it to “balance” too much at China’s possibly perceived expense prior to dumping it for Washington once it goes too far, thus leaving the Eurasian Great Power in the strategic lurch of “losing” both China and India all at once. There’s nothing wrong with Russia “balancing” in the way that was described in this analysis, and it can even be argued that it’s perhaps the most responsible policy that it could pursue considering the prevailing uncertainties associated with the ongoing global systemic transition, but Moscow must always remember the enormous risks involved if Beijing were to believe that these moves are being made at its expense. That’s why it’s important to ensure that Russia’s de-facto support of the “Indo-Pacific’s” publicly proclaimed goals of free trade and regional connectivity don’t end up misinterpreted as its de-facto support of its unstated one to “contain” China in its historic region of interest, hence the pivotal role that its diplomats are destined to play in seeing to it that no security dilemma arises throughout the course of their country’s 21st-century quest to become the supreme “balancing” force in Afro-Eurasia.

*

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

This article was originally published on 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

President Bashar al-Assad: “As for Trump, you might ask me a question and I give you an answer that might sound strange.  I say that he is the best American President, not because his policies are good, but because he is the most transparent president.  All American presidents perpetrate all kinds of political atrocities and all crimes and yet still win the Nobel Prize and project themselves as defenders of human rights and noble and unique American values, or Western values in general.”

***

President Bashar al-Assad stressed that the scenario broadcast by the US about the killing operation of Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, leader of Daesh organization, is part of the US tricks and we should not believe  what they say unless they give the evidence.

The President added in an interview given to Al-Sourea and al-Ikhbariya TVs on Thursday, that the Russian-Turkish agreement on northern Syria is temporary one, and it reigns in Turkish aspirations to achieve more damage through occupying more Syrian territories and cut the road in front of the US.

President Al-Assad affirmed that the entrance of the Syrian Arab Army into regions of northern Syria is an expression of the entrance of the Syrian State with all services it offers, adding that the army has reached the majority of the regions, but not completely.

The President underlined that Syria hasn’t offered any concessions regarding the formation of the committee of discussing the constitution.

Below is the English transcript of the interview.

***

Journalist: Hello and welcome to this special interview with the President of the Syrian Arab Republic, His Excellency Dr Bashar al-Assad.  Thank you for receiving us Mr President.  Your last interview with Syrian media was several years ago and therefore we have a lot of questions.  We will begin with political questions and then move into internal issues.

President Assad: You are welcome, and as always let us speak with full openness.

Journalist: Mr President, thank you very much for receiving us.  Since the political issues are pressing at the moment we will start with politics, Mr President. The United States announced a few days ago that the leader of the terrorist organization ISIS, Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, was killed. And it thanked Russia, Syria, Iraq, the Turks and the Kurds for helping kill Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi. Trump thanked Syria, but we have not heard any comment from Damascus. What is your take on Trump thanking Syria? Did Syria really take part in this operation?

President Assad:  Absolutely not, we heard about this only through the media. Maybe, the reason behind including a number of countries as participants in this operation is to give it credibility so these countries will feel not embarrassed, but have the desire to be that they are part of a “great” operation, as the Americans have tried to portray it. And in this way, they are credited with fighting terrorism.  We do not need such credit.  We are the ones fighting terrorism.  We have no relations and have had no contact with any American institutions.

More importantly, we do not really know whether the operation did actually take place or not.  No aircraft were detected on radar screens.  Why were the remains of Baghdadi not shown?  This is the same scenario that was followed with Bin Laden.  If there are going to use different pretexts in order not to show the remains, let us recall how President Saddam Husain was captured and how the whole operation was shown from A to Z; they showed pictures and video clips after they captured him.  The same happened when they killed his sons several months later; they showed the bodies.  So, why did they hide everything about the Bin Laden operation and now also the Baghdadi operation?  This is part of the tricks played by the Americans.  That is why we should not believe everything they say unless they come up with evidence.  American politicians are actually guilty until proven innocent, not the other way around.

Journalist: Mr President, if Baghdadi has actually been killed, does it mean the end of his organization, or is it as usual that there will be new leaders and new organizations which are being prepared for the moment when the cards of their predecessors have been burned out?

President Assad:  First, Baghdadi represents ISIS, and ISIS represents a type of doctrine, which is the extremist Wahhabi doctrine.  This type of thought is more than two centuries old.  As long as this thought is alive and has not receded, this means that the death of Baghdadi, or even the death of ISIS as a whole, will have no effect on this extremist thought.

Regarding Baghdadi as an individual, it is well-known that he was in American prisons in Iraq, and that they let him out in order to play this role.  So, he is someone who could be replaced at any moment.  Was he really killed? Was he killed but through a different method, in a very ordinary way?  Was he kidnapped?  Was he hidden?  Or was he removed and given a facelift?  God only knows.  American politics are no different from Hollywood; it relies on the imagination.  Not even science fiction, just mere imagination.  So, you can take American politics and see it in Hollywood or else you can bring Hollywood and see it through American politics.  I believe the whole thing regarding this operation is a trick.  Baghdadi will be recreated under a different name, a different individual, or ISIS in its entirety might be reproduced as needed under a different name but with the same thought and the same purpose.  The director of the whole scenario is the same, the Americans.

Journalist: Questions have been raised about the Russian-Turkish agreement, particularly the item related to maintaining the status quo in the region which was subject to the Turkish aggression, Tal Abyadh and Ras al-Ain with a depth of thirty-two kilometers.  What some people understood from this was that it legitimized the Turkish occupation, particularly that the agreement did not include any Syrian role within these areas which were discussed in the agreement.  What is your response to that?

President Assad:  First, the Russian principles have been clear throughout this war and even before the Russian base that started supporting the Syrian army in 2015.  These principles are based on international law, Syrian sovereignty and Syria’s territorial integrity.  This has not changed, neither before, nor after, nor with changing circumstances.  However, Russian policy deals with the realities on the ground.  These realities on the ground have achieved two things; the withdrawal of armed groups from the north to the south in coordination with the Syrian Army, and as such the advance of the Syrian Army to the north, to the area not occupied by the Turks. These two elements are positive, but they do not cancel out the negative aspects of the Turkish presence until they are driven out one way or another.  This agreement is a temporary one, not permanent.  If we take for example the de-escalation areas at a certain period of time, some people believed that they were permanent and that they will give terrorists the right to remain in their areas indefinitely.  The fact was that it was an opportunity to protect civilians, and also to talk to the terrorists with the objective of driving them out later.  So, we have to distinguish between ultimate or strategic goals on the one hand, and tactical approaches on the other.

In the short term, it is a good agreement – and let me explain why; the Turkish incursion, not only reflects Turkey’s territorial greed but also expresses American desire.  The Russian relationship with Turkey is positive because it reigns in Turkish aspirations. On the other hand, it outmaneuvers the American game in the north.  Let me explain this. The recent German proposal which was immediately supported by NATO – and the Germans would not make this except on behalf of the Americans, NATO is the same thing as America.  The proposal talked about restoring security to this region under international auspices. This means that the area would be outside the control of the Syrian state and thus making separation a reality on the ground.  Through this agreement, the Russians reigned in the Turks, outmaneuvered the Americans and aborted the call for internationalization which was proposed by the Germans.  That is why this agreement is a positive step.  It does not achieve everything, in the sense that it will not pressure the Turks to leave immediately. However, it limits the damage and paves the way for the liberation of this region in the future, or the immediate future, as we hope.

Intervention: God willing

Journalist:  Since you described the agreement as temporary, but Turkey, as we have known it, does not abide by agreements.  Consequently, the question is what if Turkey continued to occupy the areas which it has controlled as a result of its recent aggression?  You said repeatedly that the Syrian state will use every possible means to defend itself.  But practically, did not the Russian-Turkish agreement prevent the ability to try and use such means?

President Assad:  Let us take another example, which is Idlib.  There is an agreement through the Astana Process that the Turks will leave.  The Turks did not abide by this agreement, but we are liberating Idlib.  There was a delay for a year; the political process, the political dialogue, and various attempts were given an opportunity to drive the terrorists out.  All possibilities were exhausted.  In the end, we liberated areas gradually through military operations.  The same will apply in the northern region after exhausting all political options.

We must remember that Erdogan aimed, from the beginning of the war, to create a problem between the Syrian people and the Turkish people, to make it an enemy, which will happen through a military clash. At the beginning of the war, the Turkish Army supported the Syrian Army and cooperated with us to the greatest possible extent, until Erdogan’s coup against the Army.  Therefore, we must continue in this direction, and ensure that Turkey does not become an enemy state.  Erdogan and his group are enemies, because he leads these policies, but until now most of the political forces in Turkey are against Erdogan’s policies.  So, we must ensure not to turn Turkey into an enemy, and here comes the role of friends – the Russian role and the Iranian role.

Journalist: Picking up on this idea, Mr President, the actions taken by the Turks recently, and by Erdogan, in particular, like Turkishization, building universities, imposing the use of certain languages. These are actions taken by someone who is not thinking of leaving – just a follow up on your idea, since you said that they will leave sooner or later.  What about these actions?

President Assad:  If he was thinking of getting out, he would have left Idlib.  You might say that there is no Turkish army, in the technical sense in Idlib.  But we are in one arena, the whole Syrian arena is one – a single theatre of operations.  From the furthest point in the south to the furthest point in the north Turkey is the American proxy in this war, and everywhere we have fought we have been fighting this proxy.  So, when he does not leave after we exhaust every possible means, there won’t be any other choice but war, this is self-evident.  I am saying that in the near future we must give room to the political process in its various forms.  If it does not yield results then this is an enemy and you go to war against it; there is no other choice.

Journalist: Nevertheless, some people said that the American withdrawal from northern Syria, after which came the Turkish aggression, and then the Russian-Turkish agreement.  All of that came within an American-Russian-Turkish agreement.  What do you say to that?

President Assad:  This was meant to show that Russia accepted the Turkish incursion, or that Russia wanted to turn a blind eye in the fact that. In fact, it is not true. For over a year, the Russians were concerned about the seriousness of such a proposition.  We all knew that the Turkish proposition was serious, but it was shackled by American orders or desires.  Some people might criticize the Russians for this outcome, due to their position at the United Nations.  As I said a short while ago, the Russians deal with realities on the ground, consequently, they try to ensure that all political conditions are in place in order to pave the way for their departure from Syria and limit the damage by the Turks or reign in the Turkish recalcitrance aimed at inflicting more damage and occupying more land.  But the Russians were certainly not part of this agreement – Russian agreements are always public.  The Russian-Turkish agreement was announced immediately, with all its items; the agreement between us and the Kurds, with Russian mediation and support was also made public right from the very beginning.  There is no hidden agenda in Russian policies, which gives us assurances.

Journalist: But the American-Turkish meetings are not announced. You said repeatedly that Erdogan’s objective, or creating the buffer zone, was Erdogan’s main objective from day one of the war on Syria. President Obama refused to accept this buffer zone, while today we are seeing certain actions on the ground. Does this mean that Obama was better than Trump?

President Assad:  We should not bet on any American President.  First, when Erdogan says that he decided to make an incursion or that they told the Americans, he is trying to project Turkey as a super power or to pretend that he makes his own decisions; all these are theatrics shared between him and the Americans.  In the beginning, nobody was allowed to interfere, because the Americans and the West believed that demonstrations will spread out and decide the outcome. The demonstrations did not spread as they wanted, so they shifted towards using weapons. When weapons did not decide the outcome, they moved towards the terrorist extremist organizations with their crazy ideology in order to decide the outcome militarily.  They were not able to.  Here came the role of ISIS in the summer of 2014 in order to disperse the efforts of the Syrian Arab Army, which it was able to do, at which point came the Russian intervention.  When all bets on the field failed, it was necessary for Turkey to interfere and turn the tables; this is their role.

As for Trump, you might ask me a question and I give you an answer that might sound strange.  I say that he is the best American President, not because his policies are good, but because he is the most transparent president.  All American presidents perpetrate all kinds of political atrocities and all crimes and yet still win the Nobel Prize and project themselves as defenders of human rights and noble and unique American values, or Western values in general.  The reality is that they are a group of criminals who represent the interests of American lobbies, i.e. the large oil and arms companies, and others.  Trump talks transparently, saying that what we want is oil. This is the reality of American policy, at least since WWII.  We want to get rid of such and such a person or we want to offer a service in return for money.  This is the reality of American policy. What more do we need than a transparent opponent?  That is why the difference is in form only, while the reality is the same.

Journalist: The leader of the dissolved Syrian Democratic Forces, Mazloum Abdi, made statements to the media in which he said that Trump promised them that before withdrawal he will contact the Russians to find a solution to the Kurdish question by making an agreement with the Russians and the Syrian state to give the Kurds an opportunity to defend themselves. Was there really such an agreement, and what is the fate of non-border regions in the Syrian Jazeera, the regions which were under the control of the armed militias called SDF? Have these regions been handed over to the Syrian state, and if so in what way? Is it only in the military sense; or ultimately has the return of the Syrian institutions to these regions taken place?

President Assad: Do you mean an American-Kurdish agreement?

Journalist: The Americans promised the Kurds to find a solution to their cause by influencing the Russians to reach an understanding with the Syrian state to give them an opportunity to defend themselves.

President Assad:  Regardless of whether contact has been made or not, as I said before what ever the Americans say has no credibility, whether they say that to an enemy or a friend, the result is the same – it is unreliable.  That is why we do not waste our time on things like this.  The only Russian agreement with the Kurds was what we talked about in terms of a Russian role in reaching an agreement with Kurdish groups – we should not say with the Kurds, because this is inaccurate and we cannot talk about one segment – the groups which call themselves SDF with the Syrian Army to be deployed.  Of course, the Syrian Army cannot be deployed only to carry out purely security or military acts. The deployment of the Syrian Army is an expression of the presence of the Syrian state, which means the presence of all the services which should be provided by the state.  This agreement was concluded, and we reached most regions but not completely.  There are still obstacles.  We intervene because we have direct and old relations – before the Turkish incursion – with these groups.  Sometimes they respond, in other places they don’t. But certainly, the Syrian Arab Army will reach these areas simultaneously with full public services, which means the return of full state authority.  I want to reiterate, that this should take place gradually.  Second, the situation will not return as before.  There are facts on the ground which need to be addressed, and this will take time. There are new facts related to people on the ground which took place when the state was absent. There are armed groups; we do not expect them to hand over their weapons immediately.  Our policy should be gradual and rational, and should take the facts into account.  But the ultimate goal is to return to the situation as it used to be previously which is the full control of the state.

Journalist: After everything that happened: they targeted the Syrian state, Syrian citizens, the Syrian Arab Army. Throughout the war years, they played a bad role and were American proxies, after all this, are we as Syrians able to live with the Kurds once again?

President Assad: To be accurate, this issue is raised repeatedly, and sometimes in private gatherings.  And I know that part of your role is to repeat what you hear, regardless of personal conviction.  What happened during this war is a distortion of concepts; to say that this group has a certain characteristic, negative or positive, is neither objective nor rational.  It is also unpatriotic.  Among the Kurds there were people who were American agents or proxies.  This is true, but among the Arabs there were similar cases in the Jazeera area and in other areas in Syria.  This applies to most segments of Syrian society.  The mistake which was made was that this action was made by a group of Kurds who made themselves representatives, not only of the Kurds, but of the Arabs and others segments of society in al-Jazeera region.  The Americans, through their support with weapons and money – of course the money is not American, it comes from some gulf Arab states – helped establish the authority of these groups over all segments of the society, leading us to believe that those in the area were all Kurds.  So, we are actually dealing with the various Kurdish parties.  As for the Kurds themselves, most of them had good relations with the Syrian state, and they were always in contact with us and proposed genuine patriotic ideas. In some of the areas we entered, the reaction of the Kurds was no less positive, or less joyful and happy than the reaction of other people there. So, this evaluation is not accurate. Yes, very simply, we can live once again with each other. If the answer were no, it means that Syria will never be stable again.

Journalist: But what is the problem with the Kurds, even before the war? Where does the problem with them lie?

President Assad: Although we stood with these groups for decades, and we could have paid the price in 1998 through a military clash with Turkey because of them, we stood with them based on the cultural rights of these groups or of this segment of Syrian society. What do they accuse the Syrian state of?  They accuse it of being Chauvinistic, and sometimes they accuse the Ba’th Party of being a Chauvinistic party although the census conducted in 1962 was not under the Ba’th Party, because it was not in power at the time.  They accuse us of depriving this group of their cultural rights.  Let us presume that what they say is correct.  Can I, as an individual, be open and close-minded at the same time?  I cannot.  Can the state be open or tolerant and intolerant and close-minded at the same time?  It cannot.  If we take an example of the latest group which joined the Syrian fabric, the Armenians. The Armenians have been a patriotic group par excellence.  This was proven without a shadow of doubt during the war.  At the same time, this group has its own societies, its own churches and more sensitively, it has its own schools.  And if you attend any Armenian celebration, a wedding, or any other event – and I used to attend such events because I used to have friends among them previously – they sing their traditional songs but afterwards they sing national, politically-inclined songs.  Is there any form of freedom that exceeds this?  The Syrian Armenians are the least, among other Armenians of the world, dissolved in society.  They have integrated, but not dissolved into Syrian society.  They have maintained all their characteristics.  Why should we be open here and unopen with others?  The reason is that there are separatist propositions.  There are maps showing a Syrian Kurdistan as part of a larger Kurdistan.  Now, it is our right to defend our territorial integrity and to be wary of separatist propositions.  But we do not have a problem with Syrian diversity.  On the contrary, Syrian diversity is rich and beautiful which translates into strength.  We do not have an adverse view of this; but richness and diversity are one thing and separating and fragmenting the country is something else, something contrary. That is the problem.

Journalist: Just to pick up on this idea, Mr President, living with each other. In your answer, you said that we must ultimately live with each other. The problem here is not only with the Kurdish component. There were groups of the population who lived in different areas outside the control of the Syrian state for years. What about those? What is the state’s plan to reintegrate them under the idea of living together, particularly the children among them, because with children we are talking about Syria’s future generation? What is the plan for these people?

President Assad:  Actually, the problem is primarily with children and then with young people in the second instance.  There are several issues, one of which is that this generation does not know the meaning of the state and the rule of law.  They have not lived under the state, they have lived under armed groups.  But the worst and most dangerous impact is on the children, who in some areas have not learned the Arabic language, and others who have learned wrong concepts – extremist concepts or concepts against the state or the homeland and other concepts which were proposed from outside Syria and taught to them in formal school curricula.  This was the subject of discussion during the past few weeks, particularly during the past few days, because the deployment of the Syrian Army in large areas in the northern regions highlighted this problem on a large scale.  Currently ministries, particularly the Ministry of Education and also the Ministries of Defence and the Interior are studying this issue.  I believe there will be a statement and a solution proposed shortly, albeit general in the first phase which will be followed by administrative measures in order to assimilate these people within the system of the Syrian state.  For instance, who will enroll in the Syrian Army, who will enroll in the police, who will enroll in schools?  Somebody who is twelve years old: how will they integrate into the Syrian school system if they know nothing of the curriculum?  The same applies to those who are in primary schools. I believe the solution is to assimilate all within the national system, but there should be special measures in order to reintegrate them into this system, and I believe in the next few days we will have a final picture of this.

Journalist: returning to politics, and to the United States, in particular, President Donald Trump announced his intention to keep a limited number of his troops in Syria while redeploying some of them on the Jordanian borders and on the borders of the Israeli enemy, while some of them will protect the oil fields. What is your position in this regard, and how will the Syrian state respond to this illegitimate presence?

President Assad: Regardless of these statements, the reality is that the Americans are occupiers, whether they are in the east, the north or the south, the result is the same.  Once again, we should not be concerned with his statements, but rather deal with the reality.  When we are finished with the areas according to our military priorities and we reach an area in which the Americans are present, I am not going to indulge in heroics and say that we will send the army to face the Americans.  We are talking about a super power.  Do we have the capabilities to do that?  I believe that this is clear for us as Syrians.  Do we choose resistance?  If there is resistance, the fate of the Americans will be similar to their fate in Iraq.  But the concept of resistance needs a popular state of mind that is the opposite of being agents and proxies, a patriotic popular state which carries out acts of resistance.  The natural role of the state in this case is to provide all the necessary conditions and necessary support to any popular resistance against the occupier. If we put to one side the colonial and commercial American mentality which promotes the colonization of certain areas for money, oil and other resources, we must not forget that the main agents which brought the Americans, the Turks and others to this region are Syrians acting as agents of foreigners – Syrian traitors.  Dealing with all the other cases is just dealing with the symptoms, while we should be addressing the causes.  We should be dealing with those Syrians and try to reformulate the patriotic state of the Syrian society – to restore patriotism, restore the unity of opinion and ensure that there are no Syrian traitors.  To ensure that all Syrians are patriots, and that treason is no longer a matter of opinion, a mere difference over a political issue.  We should all be united against occupation.  When we reach this state, I assure you that the Americans will leave on their own accord because they will have no opportunity to remain in Syria; although America is a superpower, it will not be able to remain in Syria.  This is something we saw in Lebanon at a certain point and in Iraq at a later stage.  I think this is the right solution.

Journalist: Last week, you made a tour of the front lines in Idlib with which you surprised the Syrians and the world. Addressing the soldiers of the Syrian Arab Army, you said that the battle is in the east, but Idlib is an advanced outpost of the enemy in the west which aims at dispersing the forces of the Syrian Army. Some saw the visit as the go-ahead sign, or the zero hour for the coming battle of Idlib. Is it so?

President Assad: No, there was no link between my visit and the zero hour.  First, I conduct tours every so often to the areas which are considered hot spots and dangerous, because these heroes are carrying out the most difficult of tasks, and it is natural for me to think of visiting them.  This has been common practice for me; the visit to Idlib in particular was because the world perhaps believed that the whole Syria question is summed up in what is happening in the north, and the issue has now become a Turkish Army incursion into Syrian territory, and forgetting that all those fighting in Idlib are actually part of the Turkish Army, even though they are called al-Qaeda, Ahrar al-Sham and other names. I assure you that those fighters are closer to Erdogan’s heart than the Turkish Army itself.  We should not forget this, because politically and in relation to Turkey in particular, the main battle is Idlib because it is linked to the battle in the north-eastern region or the Jazeera region.  This is the reason – I wanted to stress that what is happening in the Jazeera region, despite its importance and despite the wide area of operations does not distract us from the significance of Idlib in the overall battle.

Journalist: You say, Mr President, that there is no link between your visit to Idlib and the zero hour but is there a link between your visit to Idlib and the meeting which took place on the same day between Turkey and Russia?

President Assad:  Actually, when I was there, I had forgotten completely that a summit was being held on the same day.  I did not remember that.  I knew that a summit would be taking place and that it would be on Tuesday but…

Journalist: But your statements gave the impression that it was a preemptive rejection or something against the meeting.

President Assad:  That is true.

Journalist: Or against this meeting.

President Assad: Some articles and comments even said that there was a feeling of anger against the summit, and that the summit was against us.  The fact is that I was not angry, and my statements against Erdogan are continuous.  I said that he was a thief, and from the first days he started stealing everything related to Syria. So, he is a thief.  I was not calling him names; I was describing him.  This is an adjective and this description is true.  What do you call somebody who steals factories, crops and finally land?  A benefactor?  He is a thief, there is no other name.  Previously in my speech before the People’s Assembly, I said that he is a political thug.  He exercises this political thuggery on the largest scale.  He lies to everyone, blackmails everyone. He is a hypocrite and publicly so.  We are not inventing an epithet; he declares himself through his true attributes. So, I only described him

As to the agreement, as I said a while ago, we believe that Russian involvement anywhere is in our interest, because our principles are the same and our battle is one.  So, Russian involvement will certainly have positive results and we started to see a part of that.  Contrary to what you said, we were happy with this summit, and we are happy with the Russian-Turkish relationship in general, contrary to what some people believe, that the Russians are appeasing the Turks.  It does not matter whether the Russians are appeasing the Turks or not or whether they are playing a tactical game with them.  What is important is the strategy.  That is why I can say that there is no link at all between my statements and the summit.

Journalist:  Remaining with Idlib, but from a different perspective, the UN Special Envoy for Syria, Geir Pedersen, and in an interview with a newspaper about the situation in Idlib, described it as complicated, and I’ll mention the points he made: he called for a solution which guarantees the security of civilians.  He also talked about the presence of terrorist organizations and the importance of avoiding an all-out military campaign which, in his opinion, will, far from solving the problem, have a serious humanitarian consequence.  What do you think of what he said, and will the operation be postponed or stopped because of international pressure or based on Pedersen’s remarks?

President Assad:  If Pedersen has the means or the capacity to solve the problem without an all-out military operation, it will be good.  Why does he not solve the problem? If he has a clear plan, we have no objection.  It is very simple. He can visit Turkey and tell the Turks to convince the terrorists, or ask Turkey to separate the civilians from the militants.  Let the civilians stay in one area and the militants in another.  It would be even easier if he could identify who is a militant and who is not.  Fighting terrorism is not achieved by theorizing, making rhetorical statements or by preaching.  As for postponing, had we waited for an international decision – and by international decision I mean American, British, French and those who stand with them – we would not have liberated any region in Syria since the first days of the war.  These pressures have no impact. Sometimes we factor in certain political circumstances; as I said, we give political action an opportunity so that there is no pretext, but when all these opportunities are exhausted, military action becomes necessary in order to save civilians, because I cannot save civilians when they are under the control of the militants.  Western logic is an intentionally and maliciously up-side-down logic.  It says that the military operation should be stopped in order to protect civilians, whilst for them the presence of civilians under the authority of terrorists constitutes a form of protection for the civilians.  The opposite is actually true.  The military intervention aims at protecting the civilians, by leaving civilians under the authority of terrorists you extend a service to terrorists and take part in killing civilians.

Journalist: You are not waiting for an international decision but are you waiting for a Russian one? Can the Russians delay the beginning of the military operation? We saw earlier that military operations were stopped in Idlib, to the extent that some people said that the Russians put pressure every time to stop the operations as a result of special understandings with the Turks.  Is that true?

President Assad:  “Pressure” is not the right word.  We, the Russians and the Iranians are involved in the same military battle and the same political battle.  We are always in talks with each other to determine the circumstances which allow for an operation to go ahead.  On several occasions, we agreed on a specific timing for a certain operation, which was later postponed because of military or political developments.  This dialogue is normal.  There are issues we see on the internal arena, and there are issues seen by Iran on the regional arena and there are those issues seen by the Russians on the international arena.  We have an integrated approach based on dialogue.  In the past month, I have held five meetings with Russian and Iranian officials, so less than a week apart.  Between each two meetings there were military and political developments such that what had been agreed in the first meeting was then changed or modified in the second, third and fourth meetings and the last of which was yesterday.  The fast pace of developments makes it necessary sometimes to postpone operations.  On the other hand, we have contacts with civilians in those areas.  We really try hard to make it possible for civilians to move from those areas into our areas in order to save lives; moreover, if a political solution was possible, and sometimes we succeeded in finding such a solution, it would save the lives of Syrian soldiers, which is a priority that we should not ignore.  So, there are many elements, which are difficult to go into now, which affect this decision and postpone it; it is not a matter of pressure. The Russians are as enthusiastic about fighting terrorism as we are, otherwise why would they send their fighter jets?  The timing depends on dialogue.

Journalist: But President Putin announced the end of major military operations in Syria.  Would Russia be with us in Idlib? Would it take part in the military operation?

President Assad:  Russia was with us in liberating Khan Skeikhoon and its environs; announcing an end to military operations does not mean an end to fighting terrorism.  Indeed, the major battles have almost finished, because most areas either surrender voluntarily or are subject to limited operations.  The Khan Sheikhoon operation might look on the map as a major battle, but there was in fact a collapse on the part of the militants. So, maybe this is what was meant by the end of the major operations.  Their statements that Idlib should return under the control of the Syrian state and their determination to strike at terrorism have not changed.

Journalist: Remaining in Idlib and on the same point, because there is a lot being said about this. Concerning the terrorists in Idlib, and they are the same terrorists Pedersen talked about, how are they going to be handled? Are they going to be deported?  There have been cases like this before: terrorists being deported from different regions in Syria to Idlib.  Now, terrorists are in Idlib. Would the Turks accept the terrorists to be deported to Turkey, or how are they going to be dealt with?

President Assad:  If Turkey does not accept that, it is Turkey’s problem and it does not concern us.  We are going to deal with them in the same way we have in the past. Some might ask: in the past there were areas to which terrorists were permitted to retreat to, but now there is no other place to which terrorists might be sent from Idlib.  So, where should they go?  If they do not go to Turkey, they have two options: either return to the Syrian state and resolve their issues or face war.  There is no other choice, neither for us nor for them. These are the two only options.

Journalist: Some media outlets have circulated leaks about meetings with the Turks.  Is that true, on what level, and what was the outcome of those meetings, if they had taken place?

President Assad: All those meetings were held between security officers but at different levels.  Few meetings, probably two or three, were held in Kasab inside the Syrian borders or close to the joint borders, and one or more meetings were held in Russia.  I do not recall the number exactly, because they took place in the space of the past two years.  But there have been no real results.  At least we had expected to reach a solution concerning the withdrawal agreed upon in Astana for fifteen kilometers west and north in the de-escalation zone in Idlib.  It did not happen.

Journalist: So, you confirm that there have been meetings with the Turkish side, but that was before the agreement…

President Assad: Of course, there were tripartite meetings with Russian mediation and Russian presence.  We insisted on the Russian presence because we do not trust the Turks, so that there are witnesses.

Journalist: not bilateral meetings?

President Assad: No, trilateral meetings.

Journalist: Trilateral, with the Russians present? Was that before the last Russian-Turkish meeting?

President Assad: Of course.

Journalist: Are you prepared today to sit with the Turks after the aggression and after the agreement?

President Assad:  If you are asking me how would I feel if I, personally, had to shake hands with a person from the Erdogan group, or someone of similar leanings or who represents his ideology – I would not be honoured by such a meeting and I would feel disgusted.  But we have to put our personal feelings aside when there is a national interest at stake.  If a meeting would achieve results, I would say that everything done in the national interest should be done.  This is the responsibility of the state.  I do not expect a meeting to produce any results unless circumstances change for the Turks.  And because the Erdogan-type Turks are opportunists and belong to an opportunist organization and an opportunist ideology, they will produce results according to changing circumstances, when they are under pressure, depending on their internal or external circumstances or maybe their failure in Syria. Then, they might produce results.

Journalist: The sensitive question in this regard is: the Turks are occupiers, so if I am willing, or if I have the chance, or if I believe that I might meet the Turks, the Turks are occupiers, exactly like Israelis, so it would be possible to meet the Israelis. This is a sensitive issue, but it is being raised.

President Assad: It was actually raised when we started these meetings: how can we meet occupiers in Afrin or other areas, even if there are not occupiers, they support terrorism; they are enemies in the national sense.  The difference between them and Israel is that we do not recognize the legitimacy of its existence as a state. We don’t recognize the existence of the Israeli people. There is no Israeli people except the one that existed for several centuries BC, now they are a diaspora who came and occupied land and evicted its people.  While the Turkish people exist, and they are a neighbouring people, and we have a common history, regardless of whether this history is good or bad or in between; that is irrelevant.  Turkey exists as a state and it is a neighbouring state.  The Alexandretta issue is different from the situation in which a people without land replace a land and a people; the comparison is not valid.  Even when we negotiated with Israel in the 1990s, we did not recognize it.  We negotiated in order to achieve peace.  If this was achieved and the rights were returned, we would recognize it; as I said, the comparison is invalid.  Turkey will continue to exist and the Turks should remain a brotherly people.  Erdogan was betting at the beginning to mobilize the Turkish people behind him in order to create hostility with the Syrian people, and consequently be given a free hand.  We have to be careful not to look at things in the same way.  I stress again that some people, not the political forces, but within the Turkish Army and security institutions are against Erdogan.  This was the reason behind our drive to meet them.

Furthermore, and this was the subject of discussion with our Russian and Iranian friends – who said that yes, we are defending you, but in the end, you are the owners of the cause.  This is true, the land is ours, and the cause is ours and so we have a duty to carry out by meeting them directly, even if we do not expect results.  Maybe there will come a day when we can achieve results, particularly with changing circumstances inside Turkey, in the world and within Syria.

Journalist: Concerning Israel, some people describe it as the absent present in the events in Syria, the greatest beneficiary of what happened in Syria. Indeed, it is more comfortable now than in any other time before in comparison with weakening Syria, Hizbollah and Iran, as analysts say.

President Assad:  It is the always-present.  It has never been absent.  It might be absent in terms of language, because we fight its proxies, agents, flunkies or tools, in different ways, some military some political.  They are all tools serving Israel directly or through the Americans.  Since the battle on the ground is with these forces, it is normal that the terminology describes these forces and not Israel.  Israel is in fact a main partner in what is happening, and as an enemy state, that is expected.  Will it stand by and watch?  No. it will be proactive, and more effective in order to strike at Syria, the Syrian people, the Syrian homeland and everything related to Syria.

Journalist: Benefiting practically from what happened?

President Assad:  This is self-evident.  Even if we do not discuss it, it is one of our national givens in Syria.

Journalist: After all the aggressions carried out by the Israeli enemy on Syria, we have never seen an Arab position, and the Arab League has never moved. When the Turkish aggression started, the Arab League met at the level of Foreign Ministers. The first impressions were good, and the final communique was described as positive. In return, we have not heard a statement from the Syrian state.

President Assad:  Do you recall when Syria’s membership in the Arab League was frozen?  Did we issue a statement? We did not.  So, if we did not issue a statement as a result of Syria’s departure from the Arab League, why would we issue one when they started discussing Syria’s return to the Arab League? I think the implications of my answer are clear for all those who want to understand.  I do not think that your viewers believe that raising this issue merits more than the few sentences I have just said.

Journalist:  True. If we move to pure politics concerning the constitutional committee.  What is your explanation of the criticism made by the other side to this committee, although it has been one of their demands for years?

President Assad:  Very simply, they believed that we would reject the formation of this committee, and maybe they were shocked that we were able to form it, because they used to raise obstacles and blame the Syrian government.  We dealt with these obstacles in a specific diplomatic manner, not making concession on fundamental issues, but on some issues which we consider related to form.  They were shocked in the end, and that is why they launched a severe attack on it.  That is what happened, in brief.

Journalist: The Syrian state made no concessions under Russian or Iranian pressure?

President Assad:  No. Had we made real concessions, they would not have attacked it.  They would have praised the formation of the committee.  Their attack shows that we have not made any concessions and no concessions can be made.  The constitutional committee and the outcomes it might produce later would be used as a launching pad to attack and strike at the structure of the Syrian state.  This is what the West has been planning for years, and we know this. That is why it was not an option to concede on fundamentals and particular stances related to Syria’s interest.  There were other details which were insignificant, like the fact that they camouflaged themselves under the umbrella of the so-called moderate opposition.  In many instances, they proposed names affiliated to al-Nusra Front, which we rejected because of this affiliation.

Journalist: Terrorists?

President Assad: They are terrorists.  In the end we agreed to a number of those, which might have come as a surprise.  We determined that the result would be the same regardless: the same background, the same affiliation, the same master.

Journalist: True

President Assad:  And decision maker, and so the signal for the decision would be from the same source.  So, what difference does it make?

Journalist: Puppets, no more.

President Assad:  Exactly.  We agreed.  This is only an example.  There are many other details, but this is what surprised them.  We have not made any concession on fundamental issues.

Journalist:  Pedersen talked about meetings of the constitutional committee in Geneva saying that it would open the door to reaching a comprehensive solution to the Syrian crisis, and in his view, that solution includes holding parliamentary and presidential elections under the supervision of the United Nations and in accordance with Security Council Resolution 2254.  He also talked about ensuring the participation of Syrian expatriates. Would you accept international supervision on parliamentary and presidential elections?  And is this issue within the preview of this committee?  And who has the right to vote, practically?

President Assad: For him to say that this committee prepares the ground for a comprehensive solution, this is not true.  It provides part of the solution, maybe.  But by saying this he ignores the presence of the terrorists.  A constitutional committee while the terrorists are still there will solve the problem – how? This is impossible; it is rejected.  The solution starts by striking at terrorism in Syria.  It starts by stopping external interference in Syria.  Any Syrian-Syrian dialogue complements, contributes and plays a certain role, but it does not replace the first and second elements. I am saying this in order not to leave part of the statement as if we have agreed to it.

If he believes that Resolution 2254 gives the authority to any party, international or otherwise, to supervise the elections, this means that they are returning to the era of the mandate.  I would like to recall that the first part of the resolution refers to Syria’s sovereignty, which is expressed by the Syrian state alone and no one else.  The elections that will be held will be under the supervision of the Syrian state from A to Z.  If we want to invite any other party – an international body, certain states, organizations, societies, individuals or personalities, it will still be under the supervision of the Syrian state and under the sovereignty of the Syrian state.  The constitutional committee has nothing to do with the elections it is only tasked with the constitution.  If they believe that they will return to the days of the mandate, then that would only be in their dreams.

Journalist: Again, on Pedersen’s statements, he said that the mere acceptance to form the constitutional committee is an implied acceptance of the other side and constitutes a joined commitment before the Syrian people to try and agree, under the auspices of the United Nations, on the constitutional arrangements for Syria. Some people objected to this implied acceptance of the other side by the committee, since it does not represent the Syrian people and is not elected by the Syrian people. What is your response to that?

President Assad:  All your questions are valid, at least from a legal perspective.  First, let us identify the first party and the second; some people believe the first party is the Syrian state or the Syrian government.  No, this is not the case, the first party represents the viewpoint of the Syrian government, however the Syrian government is not part of these negotiations nor of these discussions.

Journalist: The first party is supported by the Syrian government.

President Assad:  Exactly.  The government supports this party because we believe that we share the same viewpoint.  They are people who belong to the same political climate of the Syrian government.  This does not imply that the government is part of the negotiations.  Legally, we are not a part of the constitutional committee and this does not imply the government’s recognition of any party; this issue is should be clear.  So, he is referring to a side which represents the viewpoint of the Syrian government.  Here we have to question: what does he mean by “implied acceptance,” what is it we are accepting?

The first party initially accepted to be part of Sochi and to sit down with the second party in Sochi; it later accepted to set up a constitutional committee and discuss ideas regarding the constitution.  Accepting to sit down with them, does not imply that we accept their nature.  The first party exists in Syria, lives in Syria, belongs to all segments of the Syrian people; similarly, there is a state which has the same viewpoint, is elected by the Syrian people and enjoys the support of the majority of people.  The second party is appointed by whom?  It is appointed by Turkey.  Why was the formation of the constitutional committee delayed? For a whole year, we have been negotiating with Turkey via the state-guarantors, Russia and Iran.  The second party was not appointed by any Syrian side; a few represent the terrorists and the majority represent the states which imposed them; it is exclusively Turkey, and of course those standing in the background, the Americans and others.  And there is the other party, which, as I said, represents the terrorists. So, what is it I am accepting?  I accept the terrorist to be a patriot, or I accept those appointed by others, or I accept agents to be patriots. Let us speak frankly.  Why should we lie and speak diplomatically?  The reality is that there is a patriotic party dealing with a party which is an agent and a terrorist, its as simple as that. But in order to be diplomatic and to not anger everyone, I will call it a Syrian-Syrian dialogue, but only in terms of an identity card, passport and nationality.  But as for belonging, that is a different discussion, to which we all know the answer too aside from the diplomatic discourse.

Journalist: Pedersen considered that the launch of the work of the committee is actually a return to Geneva. Have we returned to Geneva after four years? And what about Sochi and Astana?

President Assad:  No, we have returned to Geneva only geographically, whereas politically, we are part of Sochi, and everything that is happening has its frame of reference as Sochi and is a continuation of it.  There is no Geneva, it is not part of this process.  The fact that the UN is represented and participates in Sochi gives it an international dimension, which is necessary; but it does not mean that Geneva undercuts Sochi.  There is no Geneva.

Journalist: Could Pedersen’s statements, all the statements we have reviewed here, aim at preempting the work of the committee, or are they completely outside the context of its work? And concerning the constitution, in particular, is what is happening a complete change of the constitution, a discussion on the constitution, or the amendment of some provisions of the constitution?

President Assad:  There will be an attempt to direct the work of the committee in a certain direction.  This is for sure, and we are fully aware of this and won’t allow it.  That is why everything announced outside the committee has no value; it is absolute zero, as simple as that.  Therefore, we should not waste our time on such statements or give it any importance. What is the second point?

Journalist:  About the nature of the committee’s work: is it discussing the provisions of the constitution, amending some provisions or a complete change of the constitution?

President Assad:  This constitutes a large part of the discussion on setting up the constitutional committee: shall we amend the constitution or have a new constitution?  Our position was that when we amend a provision of the constitution and put it to a referendum, it becomes a new constitution.  So, there is no real difference between amending the constitution or having a new one, because there is nothing to define the new constitution, a completely new constitution.  This is all theoretical and has no real meaning.  What concerns us is that everything produced by the meetings of this committee and is in line with national interest – even if it is a new constitution from A to Z, we shall approve.  And if there is an amendment of a single provision in the constitution, which is against national interest, we would oppose it.  So, in order not to waste our time in such sophistry, we should focus on the implications.  We are fully aware of the game they are going to play. They aim to weaken the state and transform it into a state which cannot be controlled from within and, consequently is controlled from the outside.  The game is clear, as is happening in neighboring countries which we don’t need to mention.  This is not going to happen; but they will try and we will not accept.  This is the summary of months of future dialogue, and maybe longer, I don’t know. Of course, I mean future dialogue.

Journalist:  We discussed at length the constitutional committee and all the statements made about it. I will move to talking about the internal situation in Syria, since we are talking about attempts to influence, what matters is the internal situation.  During the war years, the Syrian’s suffered from high prices, lack of production, shortage of job opportunities, many consequences of terrorism, the sanctions, and the difficult military situation over large parts of the Syrian territory.  The natural outcome was a deterioration in the living conditions of Syrian families.  But now, conditions on the ground militarily have improved, most of the land has returned to the control of the Syrian state.  What about the living conditions? Are there signs of an improvement of this situation, or will the situation remain as it is until all Syrian territory is liberated?

President Assad:  If the cause was only due to the situation on the ground, terrorism, etc., then yes, it is better to wait.  But this does not make sense.  As you know, some people tend to blame everything on the security situation and whilst there is no doubt that it has a great impact, but it is not absolute.  This answers the last part of the question.  Do we wait?  No, because if we were to wait, even if the situation on the ground changed, living conditions would not improve.  Living conditions will not improve unless we move, very simply, as a state and as a society on all levels.  Liberating some areas might have an impact on the economic situation if these areas were employed and integrated into the development and economic cycle in Syria.

Journalist:  Areas in which there are resources in particular.

President Assad:  There might be resources, or it might be a tourist area.  Currently there is no tourism, so this area will not have an impact on the economic situation, but an agricultural area like the northern regions, this is essential; today we import some of the things which we used to export and because they are imported in a round-about way in order to circumvent the sanctions, we are paying more for them.  If we take Aleppo for instance, it is the heart of Syrian industry, and with Damascus they are the centre of the Syrian economy.  So, areas are different but if we liberate areas without taking the necessary measures to invigorate the economy, things will not improve.  So, as a state, we need to accelerate the rebuilding of infrastructure – like restoring electricity and other utilities, and the role of state institutions, in order to facilitate the return of the productivity cycle.  Here I am not referring to major industries and large projects.  Even before the war, we had the view that large projects are important but they are not the solution.  For a country like Syria, the strength of its economy lies in small and medium-sized enterprises. This will help invigorate the economy.  The problem is that some people wait; they say that let us wait to see what happens.  If we are to wait, then we should not expect to see the signs that you referred to.  Are there signs? Yes, of course, there are improvements, there are industries which have emerged, workshops that have returned to work.  The number of people who have returned to the country is higher than the development of the economy, and consequently some might say these improvements are intangible, this is correct.  The challenge now is to integrate these people into the economic cycle.  The answer to the question: (can we do it?) of course, we can.  We should not say that circumstances prevent us, no; we have some laziness, we have some dependencies and sometimes we do not have the vision of how to move.  And by we, I mean all of us as a society, as a state and as citizens.  The state is responsible to provide the necessary conditions and the infrastructure, but it cannot open all the shops, workshops, and industries.

Journalist:  If we can, why do we not see a real response by the government to your continued directives to the ministers to deal transparently with the citizens.  Why is this indifference and improvisation in the work of government institutions and the absence of any planning or a preemptive alternative, as some people say, some people who hold the government responsible directly for squandering the blood of the martyrs and the wounded and the sacrifices of the Syrians.

President Assad:  First, if we want to address government institutions, and in order to be objective, I cannot talk about them collectively; there are those ministries that are working, while there is laziness and inefficiency in others.  Within ministries, there are institutions which are functioning properly and others which are not fulfilling their duties.  So, if we want to talk objectively, we need to identify specific sectors in order to distinguish between them; any generalities do not properly reflect reality.  In our own private discussions, we can talk in general terms – the state is not functioning, the government is not functioning etc., but I am an official and I cannot but speak in a scientific, objective and tangible manner.  In reality, there are cases of negligence and there is the opposite.  If I look at the positive aspects, if all the institutions are not working, where are we getting salaries from?  How do students go to school?  There are martyrs in the education and electricity sectors.  Electricity plants were targeted and then problems solved and solutions found.  Despite the difficulties due to the sanctions, we are able to provide basic commodities like oil, wheat and others.  So, there is work being done.  Of course, you will tell me that it is only normal for talk about pain.  This is natural and I do not expect people to refer to the positives.  It is human nature to talk about pain. When I am healthy, I do not talk about being in good health every day, but when I’m sick, I will talk about my illness; again, this is only natural.   But in order to evaluate properly the situation we should consider all angles.  As to the negatives, the challenge lies in distinguishing between causes related to the crisis and the war and causes related to our dereliction? When people criticize the state, they speak as if there is no war.   Similarly, when an official speaks, they often blame everything on the war; the challenge is how to separate the two.  This is what we are doing now. When we had the gasoline and diesel crisis, the problem was indeed caused by the sanctions and our ability to provide these resources.  The problem is that the state itself is under sanction, so it cannot import.  It imports using other channels, which I won’t divulge, to source these resources.  Most of the time we succeed, but other times we do not; these latter cases are beyond our control.  As for electricity, the plants and infrastructure are continuously targeted, do we hold the officials responsible for the terrorist rockets?  We need to be objective about certain issues, for example we were able to reclaim some gas wells, which improved the electricity situation, but the needs of the returnees and the workshops which have reopened are much larger than the electricity we were able to restore.  We need to see all these issues.  So, we are able to produce, but we go back to the same question: how do we distinguish between dereliction and valid causes.  This is what we should be considering, but we are not discussing the situation from this perspective.  At the level of the state, we are trying to reach these results, and we have been able to reach them in relation to dereliction.  Officials who do not fulfill their duties should be removed; dereliction should not be given an opportunity to continue.  There is also the issue of corruption.  Dereliction of duty is one thing and corruption is something else. The outcome may be the same sometimes, but here I am referring to an official who is not corrupt but is either unable to carry out their duty or does not have a clear vision.  When it becomes apparent that they do not have either of these qualities, then they should leave immediately.

Journalist:  On this subject of having a clear vision, if we talk about the rate of exchange for the dollar, it is logical that during the war the exchange rate increases if not as a result of the war itself, as a result of the embargo and the economic sanctions on our country, but recently rises are incomprehensible and affect the details of the daily life.  What is your explanation of this incomprehensible rise?

President Assad:  As I said some issues are self-evident, first, sanctions have an impact on state revenues in dollars or hard currency in general.  This affects the exchange rate, which in turn affects prices.  State revenues have also receded as a result of fewer exports and the lack of tourism; no tourists will visit a country during a war.  Countries that we depend on for exports are contributing to the sanctions in one way or another.  Nonetheless, we have managed to identify unofficial channels for exports, which has contributed to the inflow some hard currency. There is also the speculation game, some of which happens inside Syria and some of which happens outside; additionally, there is speculation on social media, which we get dragged into.

The most dangerous of these factors is the psychological.  When we hear that the Syrian pound has dropped, we rush to buy dollars.  We believe in this way that we have saved money by turning our pounds into dollars, but as a consequence, the exchange rate drops in a severe and accelerated manner and consequently prices rise significantly; what citizens have saved by converting pounds to dollars they have lost due to higher prices.  There are many aspects to this issue. Now, can the state intervene?  Yes it can, but with limited revenues and tremendous demand – due to higher prices of basic commodities like wheat, oil, fuel and others, there is a trade off between exhausting dollars on speculation or spending on basic needs.  If dollars are exhausted, this will mean we will have no wheat and oil; this is our reality.  Our revenues are not what they used to be and as such our priorities have been on focused on arms and ammunition and squeezing what we can in order to provide the necessary weapons.

Journalist:  Are there no measures that the state can take to control the rate of the exchange?

President Assad:  Of course, there are.  If you compare our situation with other countries in our region, when the dollar exchange rate is affected, you find that it increases multiple times in a matter of days.  So, it is a miracle that the exchange rate, which was in the upper forties or fifties before the war, is still around six hundred nine years on.  This does not make sense; the pound was expected to collapse at the end of 2012. Had it not been for particular methods, which unfortunately I cannot divulge due to their covert nature, the pound would have collapsed.  Let me give you an example: one factor which people are not aware of, is that the liberation of an area does not necessarily serve the Syrian Pound, because by liberating an area, we are removing its access to dollars which were paid to the terrorists to cover their needs and expenses.  This is one of the tools we benefited from. I mean that things are not absolute, and we cannot say that terrorists were serving us in this regard.  Not every positive step has a positive impact.  That is why I am saying that the issue is complicated.  Some experts say that there is a process of drying the region up of dollars and the whole region is paying the price of the dollar.  But notice the difference between us and neighbouring countries.  The Turkish Lira, for instance, lost about two percent of its value in the last few days; yesterday I believe, due to a decision taken by the American Congress.  Countries are totally subject to these fluctuations.  Despite our circumstances, we do not succumb entirely – we suffer, we defend, we fight all the whilst having a war waged against us.  Whereas these other countries do not have a war waged against them, yet they can barely support their currency, and moreover, the currency is supported by external financial and political measures.  So, there are challenges but once again the solution is not difficult.  The solution is not the dollar game, but an economic game.  If we go back to your first question and start to look at the economic cycle as being the foundation, not speculation.  If we are able to get the economic cycle moving, then we can create more tools for the monetary authorities and for society to improve the economic conditions and reduce dependency on the dollar.  Small or medium-sized industries help us reduce our dependency on importing materials and hence reduce the pressure on the Syrian Pound.  We have many tools which we can use, but the speculation game is not the solution. This is what I believe.

Journalist: So, I understand from what your excellency said that these policies or measures might take a longer time to produce results, but they are more effective and successful.

President Assad: What I want to say in answer to all economic questions is that the solution is there. There are those who say that when I present all these factors, it is because we do not have a solution.  No, solutions do exist and are not impossible and what we have done proves that they are not impossible; but this does not mean that we have done our best.  This is the starting point and this requires an economic dialogue, I am presenting the larger headlines that we are capable of achieving.  Actually, the dollar, the economy and the living conditions are all part of one cycle.  They are not separate parts.  The solution lies in accelerating state services and facilities to push projects forward and this is what we are doing; we are waiting for a response, because there is a lot of pressure on foreign investors not to invest in Syria.

Journalist: And the solution also lies in fighting corruption. There is a lot of talk about that now. There is talk about a wide-ranging campaign which included a number of business men and officials who are suspected of corruption. Is that true, Mr President? Is this campaign part of the measures taken to combat corruption, and would it include other individuals?

President Assad:  That is true, but it is not a campaign, because the word “campaign” gives the impression that we have just started, because a campaign has a beginning and an end, and is temporary.  This is not true, for either we used to accept corruption and suddenly we don’t accept it any longer, or we did not acknowledge it.  No, it is visible, and the beginning is now over three years old. Why?  Because at the start of the war the internal situation was not a priority at all.  We used to think of providing our basic needs, just to live, but there was process of tearing up the state and the homeland by terrorists and, on a larger scale, by the corrupt.  That was the problem. The country cannot stand it and the state cannot stand it.

Journalist: We just wanted to stay alive.

President Assad:  In the first years.  Afterwards when the tearing up increased, we returned to fighting corruption which we had started before, but the circumstances were different before the war, and priorities were different.  Now fighting corruption was given priority because of the economic conditions we are living and because this reservoir, which is the state, is punctured in many places, so any revenues going into it were syphoned out and so we were not able to benefit from them.  Where did we start? We started with the military establishment. No state starts accountability at the heart of the military establishment during a war; this institution is sacred.  However, because it is sacred especially during the war, and because it stands for discipline, this establishment doe not allow itself to be, at the same time, be a symbol of corruption.  So, accountability started in the military establishment and many high-ranking officers were put in jail with other officers at different levels.  Those who were proven innocent were released and there are those who are still being tried up till now and after many years; so, there was no favouritism.  The question was raised: is it possible while the military establishment is involved in a war.  We said that the military establishment is fighting terrorism and fighting corruption. It fights everything, and because it is the military establishment it should be at the forefront in everything.  The same process was also followed in the Ministry of the Interior, the Ministry of Telecommunications. Many institutions were involved.  But, the issue was raised because there are aspects of society, personalities and institutions which are the subject of people’s attentions, in the spotlight of society, the issue was given prominence, while in actual fact, there is nothing new.  As to accountability, it is an ongoing process.  In answer to your question, yes, it is ongoing.

Journalist:  Are we going to see other individuals brought to account?

President Assad:  As long as there is corruption, fighting it we will continue. That’s for sure. In these circumstances and in other circumstance.  This is part of developing the state. We cannot talk about developing the state in terms of administration and other aspects without fighting corruption. This is self-evident.

Journalist: there are those who floated the idea that the state needed money, or that our allies asked the state to pay for debts, so the state appropriated money from merchants, in a vengeful way, to the extent that some people described it as Ritz Carlton Syria.  How do you comment on this?

President Assad:  They always describe Syria as a regime.  They do not say a state. Their objective by saying so is to make us appear as a gang, a junta, etc.  Whereas the state has basic principles, a constitution, regulations, clear controls.  We are a state, not a sheikhdom as is the case in some countries.  The state has a constitution and a law.  The first thing in the constitution, or one of its most important provisions, is the protection of private property.  We cannot tell somebody, under any title, we take this property.  There are many appropriations of properties belonging to terrorists, which have been appropriated temporarily, but they have not become state property, because there is no court decision, although these individuals are terrorists, there is still a need for a court decision. It doesn’t mean that this property goes automatically to the state. It needs a court decision.  In this framework, the state cannot say, under any title, “you are corrupt, so give me your money.”  This is at odds with the basic principles of the state.

Journalist: These are measures taken on legal grounds.

President Assad:  Of course.  There are many cases which people confuse.  There was a meeting between a group of business men and state officials in order to support the Syrian Pound when it started to drop quickly because of the state of fear and anxiety. Otherwise, there was no economic cause for the collapse of the Syrian pound.  They were asked to help state institutions, particularly the Central Bank, and they did it.  This does not mean that they made donations to the state, they contributed hard currencies and took Syrian Pounds in return. Nobody offers the state anything for free.

Journalist: Just moving the economy.

President Assad:  Yes, in a certain way and according to a certain agreed plan. They did it and it gave quick results. There is also corruption fighting which you asked about a short while ago.  There are officials and individuals in the private sector, because corruption is done in partnership.  In the private sector, all those who squandered state money were asked to return it because the objective is to get the money without necessarily being vindictive, before we prosecute and go to the courts for years. There are documents. Are you prepared to return state money? Many of them expressed a willingness to do so. So, there are aspects to the issue.

Journalist: But why was the issue promoted, or people understood sometimes the reasons you mentioned to mean that prosecution or accountability targeted business men only, but we have not heard about officials. We heard only about merchants or business men.

President Assad:  And that is why I said that accountability started in the army, the Ministry of Interior, the Ministry of Transport and other institutions and it is still ongoing, all of this targeted officials in the firs place.  And all those in prison are state officials at different levels.  You cannot prosecute one party when they have another partner. There is always a partnership, but sometimes the name of official is not mentioned because people are not interested or the name of the person from the private sector is not mentioned because people don’t know this individual. The question is that of media marketing, and we have never relied, and will never rely, on media marketing or propaganda to say that we are fighting corruption.  We are more interested in actually fighting corruption rather than making a big fuss abut it.

Journalist:  That is why there is talk of a law on disclosure of financial assets of all those working in the public sector.

President Assad:  Discussions started a few months ago, and there was a workshop last week under the auspices of the Ministry of Administrative Development.  It is an important law. In fact, this is not new. It was raised a year before the war but at that time it was not formulated as a law. It was rather in the form of a decision for any individual employed by the state to disclose their financial assets so that this declaration becomes a frame of reference for the assets he gains during his employment.  Many people were asking why state officials were not being asked about their assets and how they were acquired.  To do so, would require a legal framework and that is what we are doing at the moment.  The essence in fighting corruption lies in the laws. By disclosing financial assets means this law which will constitute an important reference for any person employed by the state; after one year or twenty years you can ask them how they acquired their assets.

Journalist: What are the measures that will be taken in this regard?

President Assad:

The law for the disclosure of financial assets is part of it, prosecuting corrupt individuals for certain wrongdoings is another.  However, if you go back to the discussion about corruption, particularly on social media, people talk about everything except the source of corruption.  In our case, the source lies in the laws and the related executive decrees and measures etc.  The legal structure of corruption is the problem, most of the cases referred to the courts are found to be an implementation of the law, which is very vague and has many loopholes.  As long as this is the case, even if you are fully-convinced that they are corrupt, they are legally innocent, because they have ‘implemented the law.’  Our laws give far reaching authorities, and allow for many exemptions.  This is why in my previous meeting with government, after the reshuffle, I talked about setting up a committee to amend the laws and in particular cancelling exceptions.  Exceptions are not necessarily in the form of allowing for officials to issue them but also in the form that they may implement in various manner at their own discretion.  I might implement it in good faith and create discrepancies between people, and I might implement it in bad faith and receive money and consequently become corrupt in the financial sense of the word.  That is why we started by focusing on the exceptions given to the President of the Republic.  By allowing for exceptions, if I wanted to implement the law fairly, I cannot because I will give you the opportunity to implement the provision in a certain way while somebody else is deprived of this possibility, because I did not encounter him or he did not have access to me.  As I said we started by canceling the exceptions of the President of the Republic.  Furthermore, any exceptions that are required in particular areas, for example the Customs Law; in these instances, there should be clear boundaries and controls over these exceptions. They should not be left to the discretion of any official regardless of their seniority.  So, we used to have so many exceptions without any controls, including in employment and other areas.  Again, our laws are full of loopholes which need to be fixed by passing new laws.  This has already begun, particularly with local administration laws because the violations we see everywhere are partly legal.  This is what we need to do. We are focusing on the anti-corruption law because what we are doing now in terms of fighting corruption is merely addresses the symptoms but does not solve the problem.

Journalist: So, it is about fighting the corrupt environment and not the corrupt individuals.

President Assad: Exactly.

Journalist: And here I ask about our role in the media, finally, and thank you for your patience with us, Mr President, and for answering all these questions.

Mr President: Not at all, you are welcome.

Journalist:  As the media, within the framework of fighting the corrupt environment, do we have a role and how do you see it?

President Assad:  You have a crucial role in two areas.  By the way, my last meeting with the government was dedicated solely to the role of the media.  First because I know that the media will have many enemies from within the state, especially when it addresses the question of corruption.  This is for many reasons, not only because of interests but also because it is our nature and our culture that we do not like criticism.  Even when it is general, we turn it into something personalized, and reactions start to appear, which create a great number of problems – either through fighting the media in principle or fighting the information which you need in order to do your job in this case.

So, the meeting was dedicated to advancing the state media; first because it constitutes the most important tool in fighting corruption.  Corruption is wide-ranging and includes many sectors, the relationship between people and the state, the relationship of different sectors within the state is not only a daily relationship, it is manifested on an hourly basis.  Consequently, we cannot, using any mechanism, follow up on all these cases. Here comes the role of the media, since the media are supposed to be in all corners of society.  So, it constitutes a major auxiliary instrument to expose cases of corruption.  The more important point which I touched on earlier when I referred to the laws, is the environment which needs radical reform.  The media should lead the dialogue around this reform.  The state has brought in legal experts to study the flaws, but legal experts do not necessarily have the vision.

Lawyers can formulate the laws, which is only part of the process.  The other part is the vision.  Who has this vision?  The officials alone – no.  There are details that officials, in their experience and position do not see.  And every individual in society, by virtue of their presence in a certain domain cannot see the whole solution, they can see part of the solution.  The media can bring us together to discuss this solution. From another perspective, we are seeing the chaos of discussion on social media.  Here is the role of the national media to shift this discussion from superficiality, personalization, gloating, revenge and manipulation from the outside, even unknowingly.  The media can create a real methodology for a serious dialogue, a mature dialogue, a national and consequently productive dialogue.  In fact, there are great hopes pinned on you, although you are still at the beginning through the programmes which you have started recently.  The opportunity to upgrade this dialogue, to fight corruption, address the laws, and the corrupt – the horizons for you are broad and open for you to play an important role. I personally pin great hopes on you and support the official media in this regard.

Journalist:  Thank you for your support, Mr President, which is practically empowering but also entrusts us with a great responsibility.

President Assad:  Thank you. I am happy to have this dialogue with two important and major national media institutions.  No doubt people have high hopes on the role of officials and the state in the future of Syria, whether in fighting corruption, fighting terrorism or the many other issues which you have tried to pass through the views of the Syrian citizens;  In turn we pin our hopes on you in the media to be – as you have been – part of the battle against terrorism, against corruption and against any flaw which might take the country backward instead of moving it forward.

You are welcome.

Journalist: Thank you, Mr President.

Ladies and gentlemen, this brings to an end this interview. Thank you very much.

*

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 video is from Syrian Presidency’s youtube.

All images in this article are from SANA

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Video: President Assad: “Trump is the Best American President … Because He is the Most Transparent”
  • Tags: ,

US Blames Palestinians for Israeli State Terror Against Them

November 4th, 2019 by Stephen Lendman

Israel is a police state, masquerading as democratic, State terror is the favored strategy against millions of Palestinians. They endure mass arrests, abductions, imprisonments for political reasons, torture, and other forms of persecution.

In its latest quarterly report through September, the Addameer Prisoner Support and Human Rights Association said the following:

  • Around “5,000 Palestinian political prisoners” languish under gulag conditions in Israeli prisons, justice denied them.
  • Among them are “425…administrative detainees” — held uncharged and untried, one of many examples of Israeli apartheid ruthlessness.
  • Included are 190 children, 43 women, and seven Palestinian legislators for the “crime” of belonging to the wrong party.

Addameer explained that attacks on human rights workers in Israel and the Territories continue unabated. Prisoners are tortured and otherwise abused. Medical neglect is longstanding policy, seriously ill prisoners denied treatment.

Palestinian Legislative Council (PLC) member, civil society leader, human rights champion Khalida Jarrar was arrested, detained, and abused four times in the past 30 years.

Most recently, she was held for 20 months uncharged, released in February, then rearrested last week for the “crime” of wanting to live free from Israel’s repressive boot.

Scores of heavily armed Israeli soldiers stormed her home pre-dawn. Explaining what happened, her daughter Suha said the following:

“Israel’s goal is to rob from us our stability and our lives, and to keep us living in a state of anxiety and waiting, but we know very well that it is an occupation, and we believe that we will not break in spite of everything they do,” adding:

Her mother suffers from various illnesses, requiring medications, and regular care — not gotten in detention.

Israel and the US partner in each other’s high crimes of war and against humanity.

Historic Palestine is occupied and controlled by Israeli combat troops, police and other security forces, its people persecuted, their fundamental rights denied.

In its annual country report on terrorism, the State Department falsely called Israel a US “counterterrorism partner.”

Polar opposite it true, both countries partnered in state terrorism against sovereign nations, groups and individuals.

The report falsely claimed Israel faces a “broad range of threats in the Middle East.” The only threats faced by the Jewish state and US are invented. No real ones exist.

Calling Hezbollah in Lebanon, Hamas in Gaza, and other Palestinian liberation groups threats ignores reality on the ground — these organizations and their members threatened by the US and Israel, not the other way around.

The same goes for the Islamic Republic of Iran, a nation that never attacked another country throughout its 40-year history — victimized by US/Israeli state terror.

The State Department report lied, claiming “Israel experienced numerous terrorist attacks in 2018 involving weapons ranging from rockets and mortars to small arms and knives.”

Resistance groups in Gaza fire rockets at Israeli territory in response to preemptive IDF attacks — not the other way around.

Isolated incidents happen in the Territories unrelated to terrorism. They pale in comparison to daily state terror against millions of Palestinians, including lethally shooting them in cold blood, attacking peaceful protesters, and conducting multiple daily raids in Palestinian communities, terrorizing families, traumatizing young children.

The report ignored hundreds of nonviolent Gazan demonstrators lethally shot, many thousands wounded since March 2018 in weekly Great March of Return protests — Palestinians falsely blamed for Israeli crimes against them.

The report gave scant attention to crimes committed by Israeli settlers against Palestinians, practically all of it devoted to vilifying them, ignoring the scourge of daily Ziofascist tyranny, devastating their lives and welfare.

The US gives Israel $4 billion or more in largely military aid annually, around $11 million daily, used for police state repression, terror-bombing Syria, and other high crimes.

US/NATO/Israeli state terror threatens everyone everywhere, an unparalleled menace to humanity — supported by establishment media, suppressing what’s vital to report.

*

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: Palestinian take cover as Israeli forces fire at protesters at the Gaza border on 14 December 2018 [Mohammed Asad/Middle East Monitor]

Lying is a money making activity and lies are commodities. There is a profitable global market for media and public figures committed to spreading disinformation.

Needless to say, “Telling the Truth”, on the other hand, Is Not a Money-Making Proposition. The monthly deficit we have been faced with over the past year is proof of this concept.

With this in mind, can you spare a dollar a day to keep disinformation away? Your support could make the difference and ensure that GlobalResearch.ca is here for a long time to come!

Click to donate:

*     *     *

The Missing Pieces of the Al-Baghdadi Execution Puzzle

By Nauman Sadiq, November 04, 2019

It’s important to note in the news coverage about the killing of al-Baghdadi that although the mainstream media had been trumpeting for the last several years that the Islamic State’s fugitive chief had been hiding somewhere on the Iraq-Syria border in the east, he was found hiding in the northwestern Idlib governorate, under the control of Turkey’s militant proxies and al-Nusra Front, and was killed while trying to flee to Turkey in Barisha village five kilometers from the border.

The reason why the mainstream media scrupulously avoided mentioning Idlib as al-Baghdadi’s most likely hideout in Syria was to cover up the collusion between the militant proxies of Turkey and the jihadists of al-Nusra Front and the Islamic State.

Glyphosate: US Pressures Thailand Over Monsanto Poison Ban

By Joseph Thomas, November 04, 2019

Under Thailand’s new government, efforts to ban toxic pesticides and herbicides including those made by US agricultural giant Monsanto were first accelerated, and have now finally succeeded.

Thailand’s Deputy Prime Minister and Health Minister Anutin Charnvirakul bluntly stated that “the US was worried only about trade. The Thai government was concerned about the health of Thai consumers,” in response to complaints from the US embassy over the ban, Bangkok Post would report in its article, “Govt rejects US opposition to farm chemicals ban.”

MH17: The Quest for Justice

By Askiah Adam, November 04, 2019

On Saturday, 17th August 2019, an international conference, “MH17: The Quest for Justice” was held at the International Islamic University Malaysia (UIIM) in its Main Auditorium in response to the Joint Investigation Team (JIT) Report made public in June. The Conference was jointly organised by the International Movement for a Just World (JUST), The Perdana Global Peace Foundation (PGPF) and the Montreal based Centre of Research on Globalisation (CRG) in collaboration with UIIM. The JIT Report had accused three Russian nationals and a Ukrainian of having shot down the MAS flight MH17 overflying the war zone of East Ukraine on July 17th, 2014.

“Japanization” and Abenomics: The Saga of Japan’s Falling Economy

By Prof. Joseph H. Chung, November 04, 2019

The disappointing performance of the Japanese economy and the amazingly inefficient Tokyo’s policies have produced the “Japanzation” of the economy meaning the three-decades of  economic recession followed by depression and deflation.

There is no reason why other economies will not share the same hateful experience in the future. In fact, there were some voices, thought weak, of worry about such possibility in Korea before the take- over of power by Moon Jae-in in 2017.

Julian Assange: The Lynching of the Charismatic Geek

By Diana Johnstone, November 04, 2019

The original sin of Julian Assange was the same as that of Galileo Galilei. Galileo sinned by revealing to the people things the elite already knew or at least surmised, but wished to keep secret from the masses, in order not to shake the people’s faith in the official truth. Assange did the same thing with the formation of WikiLeaks The official version of reality was challenged. All lies should be exposed. By far the most sensitive targets of his wide-ranging reality revelations were the lies, the hypocrisy, the inhuman brutality of the United States in its wars of global hegemony. To Assange, these things were simply wrong.

Japan – Ending a War and Saving Lives?

By Larry Romanoff, November 04, 2019

A couple of years ago an American writer named Greg Mitchell wrote an informative book on the huge cover-up orchestrated by the US government on the dropping of the first atomic bomb on Japan, and the censorship of the first Hollywood movie on the subject. (1) The government was in possession of much live film footage shot by the US military of both Hiroshima and Nagasaki that Mitchell says would have shocked viewers, with ghostlike ruins and babies with burned faces. He includes many of these original photos in his book, and details the extensive efforts to hide the facts and evidence of the use of the atomic bombs and the tapestry of lies created after the fact to justify this atrocity and present it as a necessary evil.

President Assad of Syria Tells the Truth regarding ISIS-Al Baghdadi, for All Who Care to Listen

By Mark Taliano, November 03, 2019

Western politicians are perception managers, puppets, deep state stooges. They bow to diktats from largely unelected polities. They are hollow, straw figures who sell out their countries and those whom they proclaim to represent with a whim. They have failed to “Stand on guard for thee”. They project “progressive perceptions” as they support Al Qaeda/ISIS and the conduct of war crimes under a fake humanitarian mandate.

*

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: President Assad Tells the Truth About ISIS-Al Baghdadi

The country of Yemen, known in the medieval period as “Green Yemen,” is one of the most extensively terraced areas of the world. There, Yemeni farmers transformed rugged mountain slopes into terraces and built dams like the Great Marib, a structure whose history spans long enough that it was mentioned in the Quran. During the medieval period, Yemen had one of the widest ranges of agricultural crops in all of the Middle East. 

Farhan Mohammed is one of the richest farmers in Qama’el, a rural village in the region of Baqim in northwestern Yemen. He owns 50 hectares of land which he uses to cultivate corn, pomegranates, and apples. Now, Farhan is struggling to keep his farm afloat after Saudi airstrikes targeted his fields, burning his crops and rendering the soil so toxic that it’s no longer able to sustain life. Saudi Arabia’s now nearly five-year-old project in Yemen has decimated the incomes of Farhan and most other Yemeni farmers. Fuel is hard to come by thanks to a Saudi-led coalition blockade and the fuel that is available has become prohibitively expensive. Airstrikes targeting farm fields and orchards have rendered large swaths of Yemen’s arable land too toxic to use.

Almost immediately after March 2015, when the war began, the Saudi-led Coalition began targeting Yemen’s rural livelihood, bombing farms, food systems, markets, water treatment facilities, transportation infrastructure, and even agricultural extension offices. In urban areas, fishing boats and food processing and storage facilities were targeted.

Before the war began, over 70 percent of Yemen’s population lived in villages dispersed in the mountains and small towns with irregular, and at times torrential, summer rainfall. These rural residents relied on agriculture and animal husbandry and grew fruits and vegetables to feed their own families and to sell to markets. Yet that way of life has all but disappeared since the Saudi attacks began, undermining rural livelihoods, disrupting local food production, and forcing rural residents to flee to the city.

Now, Yemen’s nationwide level of household food insecurity hovers at over 70 percent. 50 percent of rural households and 20 percent of urban households are now food insecure. Almost one-third of Yemenis do not have enough food to satisfy basic nutritional needs. Underweight and stunted children have become a regular sight, especially amongst the holdouts in rural areas. Families that have fled to cities are often forced to beg or to pick through the trash for food scraps.

According to a recent report by the United Nations Development Program (UNDP), poverty in Yemen has jumped from 47 percent of the population in 2014 to a projected 75 percent by the end of 2019 because of the war. The report warned, “If fighting continues through 2022, Yemen will rank the poorest country in the world, with 79 percent of the population living under the poverty line and 65 percent classified as extremely poor.”

The intentional targeting of agriculture 

The targeting of the Yemeni agriculture sector and rural livelihoods is not merely accidental collateral damage incurred while targeting military sites. Data from the country’s Ministry of Agriculture shows that in the period between March 2015 and March 2019, the Saudi-led Coalition launched at least 10,000 airstrikes that struck farms, 800 that struck local food markets, and about 450 airstrikes that hit silos and other food storage facilities in the country.

According to the Ministry, crop-area cultivation declined an average of 40 percent and crop yields by 45 percent in rural areas. Many farmers in these areas reported that they could no longer produce yields at pre-war levels due to the extensive damage to infrastructure, the high cost of diesel fuel and other agricultural inputs, a collapse in markets and the destruction of roads and storage facilities.

According to a field survey carried out by the Ministry of Agriculture in the period between March 2015 and March 2018, Saudi attacks completely destroyed 270 agricultural buildings and facilities, 43 agricultural associations, 9,017 traditional irrigation canals, 54 agricultural markets, and 45 export centers.

High precision U.S. bombs dropped by Saudi-led coalition warplanes destroyed at least 1,834 irrigation pumps, 109 artesian and surface wells, 1,170 modern irrigation networks, 33 solar irrigation units, 12 diggers, 750 pieces of agricultural equipment, 940,400 farms, 7,531 agricultural reserves, 30 productive nurseries, 182 poultry farms, and 359,944 beehives.

Yemen has no major rivers like the Euphrates in Iraq and Syria or the Nile River, which supplies water to farmers in a number of African countries. This leaves farmers reliant on irrigation canals that channel rain and floodwaters into weirs and bunds built by local communities that are vulnerable to Saudi attacks. Attacks that have already completely destroyed at least 45 water installations (dams, barriers, reservoirs) and partially destroyed at least 488, including the ancient Marib Dam.

Yemen’s fishing sector has not been spared either. By the end of May 2019, every fish off-loading port in Yemen had been targeted by Saudi attacks. At least 220 fishing boats have been destroyed, 222 fishermen have been killed and 40,000 fishermen lost their only source of income. According to Yemen’s Ministry of Fishing Wealth, this has affected the lives of more than two million people living in coastal cities and villages.

Data shows that Saudi Coalition forces have stopped at least 4,586 fishing boats from leaving port in the directorates of Midi, Hajjah, Dabab, Bab al-Mandab, and in the Mukha districts in the Taiz governorate. Thirty fishing industry companies have left the country and about fifty fish factories have closed, causing catastrophic damage to Yemen’s fishing industry. Even before the war, Yemen’s fishermen were amongst the poorest segments of society.

As the war nears its fifth year, the Saudi-led coalition has continued to target the livelihoods of Yemen’s food producers. The coalition has expanded its military offensive to include large areas of agricultural lands and valleys in the K16, Durahami, Al-Jah, A-Tahita, Al-Faza, Jabaliya, Al-Mughrous, Al-Khokha and Hays countrysides.

Yemen’s breadbasket withers

With family in tow, Haddi Ibrahim Koba fled his family home in Al-Shaab in northwestern Tihama months ago after Saudi airstrikes destroyed his farm. The Koba family now struggles to eke out an existence 60 km away in the populous Hajjah province. Once proudly self-sufficient, relying on animal husbandry and farming for their livelihood, they now depend on handouts from humanitarian organizations, the meager bodies of their children already show signs of malnutrition.

Yemen Famine

13-year-old Fatima Haddi Ibrahim Koba is pictured in a Hajjah hospital, October, 28, 2019. Riadh al Hussam | MintPress News

According to a study by the Sana’a University-based Water & Environment Centre (WEC) in collaboration with the Flood-Based Livelihoods Network issued in November 2017 to assess the impact of the current war on food security in Yemen, the war is already drastically aggravating Yemenis’ ability to earn a livelihood, rapidly deteriorating the availability of food and elevating the complexity of an already dire humanitarian crisis in the country.

The study, The War Impact on Food Security in the Tihama, (Tihama is a region of Yemen traditionally known to be the country’s breadbasket) showed how agriculture in Tihama, which sustains most of the country’s population, has been seriously disrupted by the war. This, the study’s authors say, is undermining the productivity and investment capacity of the entire country.

Wadi Zabid is one of Tihama’s main valleys located in the Houthi stronghold of Hodeida, the second-largest governorate in Yemen. It is the second-largest valley in Tihama, with an area of 4,639 square kilometers. Before the war, Wadi Zabid was a model of sustainable agriculture and food security, but as of June 2017, when the WEC study was released, 43 percent of the valley’s residents were going hungry every night. Land cultivation has decreased by 51 percent and crop yields per hectare have declined between up to 61 percent. The production of fruits and vegetables has been wiped out as has the livestock population. Today, conditions for farmers in Tihama are likely even more dire than they were when the study was released.

Tihama’s woes are not due to climate change or local mismanagement. Instead, they are a direct result of the destruction of irrigation and water infrastructure resulting from Saudi attacks on the valley’s diversion dams and irrigation systems. Water in the irrigation canals in the downstream villages of both of Tihama’s main valley’s has decreased by about 60 percent since the war began, according to the study.

That damage has also created a massive impact on upstream areas that rely heavily on floodwater irrigation and has damaged irrigation systems and diversion dams affecting up to 75 percent of Tihama’s households.

Creating a toxic legacy

The Saudi-led coalition’s blockade on Yemen’s ports, airports and borders has only exacerbated the suffering of the country’s farmers and rural residents. The coalition has prevented the export of their products, especially to wealthy Gulf countries which imported thousands of tons of pomegranates and vegetables from Yemen before the war began. Importing pesticides, agricultural fertilizers and fuel has also become difficult due to the frequent seizure of seafaring vessels by the coalition.

For 77 days, the coalition, led by Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates, has continued to hold ships loaded with oil derivatives at sea, preventing them from entering the port of Hodeida.  The four ships that were allowed in carried transport fuel, not the fuel needed to power generators on which farmers rely.

Like in Tahamah, the blockade and attacks on agricultural targets across Yemen have not only destroyed machinery and infrastructure, it has had acute ecological impacts that may take decades to reverse. The accumulation of sediment in flood channels due to damaged gates and automatic barriers has caused trees to begin to reclaim now-dormant stream beds and flood plains, hampering the arrival of much-needed floodwaters to agricultural fields.

Yemen Farmers

A Yemeni farmer tries to chase locusts off of his fields. Photo | UNFAO

Fertile soil, especially in the border areas in Saada and Hajjah, has become environmentally polluted due to the number of weapons dropped in more than half a million airstrikes. That pollution has not only affected the soil, experts fear it could genetically alter the pomegranates, grapes and coffee that were once staple crops in Yemen. Farmers and their families are at constant risk from unexploded ordnances, especially cluster bombs like the one that killed a young boy on his family farm in Hodeida last Thursday.

Agricultural and environmental experts that spoke to MintPress said that the effects of the Saudi coalition’s targeting of the agricultural sector will likely last for decades. The Director of Agricultural Extension in Yemen, Salah al-Mashreqi, said that more catastrophic effects will appear in the medium and long term, including genetic changes to pomegranates, for which Yemen is famous.

The deliberate targeting of food is prohibited by article 54 of the Geneva Conventions and the May 24, 2018, UN Security Council resolution 2417 on the protection of civilians in wartime, specifically reiterates this principle. Article 14 of the 1977 Protocol Additional to the Geneva Conventions clearly states that starvation as a means of combat is not allowed: ‘’It is prohibited to attack, destroy, remove, or render useless objects indispensable for the survival of the civilian population.” Yet the international community has done little to curb the Saudi-led coalitions use of starvation as a tactic of war in Yemen.

This, in large part, according to many Yemenis and legal scholars alike, is because Saudi Arabia enjoys the near-total diplomatic protection of the United States. Without that support, Saudi Arabia’s airstrikes, which rely on American contractors, targeting software, training, weapons, and technicians to target farmers that are concerned with little more than feeding themselves and their country, would not be possible.

*

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.

Ahmed AbdulKareem is a Yemeni journalist. He covers the war in Yemen for MintPress News as well as local Yemeni media.

Featured image: 13-year-old Fatima Haddi Ibrahim Koba is pictured in a Hajjah hospital. The Koba family had to flee their farm in Tihama after it was attacked by the Saudi-led coalition, October 28, 2019. Riadh al Hussam | MintPress News

British Labour: The Future Is Ours to Make, Together

November 4th, 2019 by Jeremy Corbyn

Today we are launching the most ambitious and radical campaign our country has ever seen to bring real change to our country.

If you want to live in a society that works for everybody and not just the billionaires, if you want to save our hospitals, schools and public services from Tory cuts and privatisation, if you want to stop the big polluters destroying our environment then this election is your chance to vote for it.

The choice could not be clearer. We put our faith in the British people’s spirit and commitment to community. It’s your country. That’s why we stand with you.

Labour will put wealth and power in the hands of the many. Boris Johnson’s Conservatives, who think they’re born to rule, will only look after the privileged few.

They’ve slashed taxes for the richest and slashed vital services and support for everyone else. But real change is coming.

This election is a once in a generation chance to transform our country, to take on the vested interests holding people back and ensure that no community is left behind.

Some people believe that real change isn’t possible. They say that we’re asking too much. Really?

A health service people can be proud of, where tens of thousands of cancer patients aren’t waiting months for treatment and prescriptions are free. Is that asking too much?

A social care system that doesn’t leave our older people isolated and afraid, but gives them dignity with free personal care. Is that asking too much?

How about a decent pay rise? A real living wage of at least £10 an hour, right away including for young workers from the age of 16. Is that asking too much?

Secure homes that families can afford, rents that don’t break the bank and an end to rough sleeping. Is that too much to ask?

Thirty hours’ free childcare for all two to four year olds. A good education, from cradle to grave, as a right not a privilege and no tuition fees. Is that too much?

Ending the Conservatives’ great rip-off by putting rail, mail and water into public ownership so they work for everyone, not just Tory donors and shareholders in tax havens. Is that asking too much?

What about real action on the climate crisis by creating hundreds of thousands of new, green energy jobs in communities where they’re most desperately needed?

No, that’s not asking too much. Because we have to radically change course now to avoid living on a hostile and dying planet.

This election is our last chance to tackle the climate emergency with a Green Industrial Revolution at the heart of Labour’s plan to transform Britain.

Friends, today is the 31st of October, the day Boris Johnson promised we would leave the EU. He said he would rather be “dead in a ditch” than delay beyond today. But he has failed. And that failure is his alone. You can’t trust Boris Johnson.

After three long years of Brexit division and failure from the Tories, we have to get this issue sorted. We need to take it out of the hands of the politicians and trust the people to have the final say.

Labour will get Brexit sorted within six months. We’ll let the people decide whether to leave with a sensible deal or remain. That really isn’t complicated.

We will carry out whatever the people decide so that we can get on with delivering the real change Britain needs after years of Conservative cuts to vital services and tax handouts to the richest.

Labour is determined to bring a divided country together, while the Tories and the Liberal Democrats only seek to divide us further.

The Lib Dems want to cancel a democratic vote with a parliamentary stitch-up and Boris Johnson’s planned trade deal with Trump will mean yet more National Health Service (NHS) money taken away from patients and handed to shareholders.

Despite his denials, the NHS is up for grabs by US corporations in a one-sided Trump trade sell-out.

Channel 4 Dispatches revealed this week that the cost of drugs and medicines has repeatedly been discussed between US and UK trade officials. Remember Johnson’s famous promise of £350-million a week for the NHS? Well his toxic Brexit trade deal with Trump could hand over £500-million a week of NHS money to big drugs corporations.

We will stop them. Labour won’t let Donald Trump get his hands on our National Health Service. It’s not for sale, to him or anyone.

Johnson’s sell-out deal would lead to years of continuing negotiations and uncertainty. Labour will get Brexit sorted by giving the people the final say in six months.

Britain needs to get beyond Brexit and deal with the damage done to our communities by a decade of Tory cuts and economic failure.

I travel all around our country and listen to people. This is what I learn from them: they don’t see politics like the media and political class do.

After a decade when real wages have fallen, for too many people, what they see is the community they love being run down through years of deliberate neglect. The evidence of a decade of economic vandalism is all around them.

It’s there in the boarded up shops. In the closed library and swimming pool. In youth centres that have closed their doors. The high street like a ghost town. The elderly couple who are scared to walk down their road because violent crime has doubled. The army veteran sleeping under blankets in a doorway. People struggling to make ends meet. The mother and her children eating from a food bank because they’ve been forced onto Universal Credit. That’s the evidence of Conservative cuts. Well I say, no more.

Labour will end damaging Tory austerity and scrap Universal Credit. We’ll tear down the barriers to success that the Conservatives have put in people’s way.

We will invest in every nation and region, rebuild our public services and give our NHS, schools and police the money they need by taxing those at the top to properly fund services for everyone.

We will give people back their pride in their communities and give everybody the quality of life they deserve. And by everybody, we mean everybody.

The Prime Minister wants you to believe that we’re having this election because Brexit is being blocked by an establishment elite. People aren’t fooled so easily. They know the Conservatives are the establishment elite.

And you know what really scares the elite? All of us, the British people. What the elite are actually afraid of is paying their taxes.

So in this election, they’ll fight harder and dirtier than ever before. They’ll throw everything at us because they know we’re not afraid to take them on.

So we’re going after the tax dodgers. We’re going after the dodgy landlords. We’re going after the bad bosses. We’re going after the big polluters. Because we know whose side we’re on.

And the big question of this election is: whose side are you on? Are you on the side of the tax dodgers, who are taking us all for a ride? People who think it’s OK to rip people off and hide their money in tax havens so they can have a new super yacht.

Or are you on the side of the children with special educational needs who aren’t getting the support they deserve because of Tory and Lib Dem government cuts?

Whose side are you on? The dodgy landlords like the Duke of Westminster, Britain’s youngest billionaire, who tried to evict whole blocks of families to make way for luxury apartments? Or the millions of tenants in Britain who struggle to pay their rent each month?

Whose side are you on? The bad bosses like Mike Ashley, the billionaire who won’t pay his staff properly and is running Newcastle United into the ground? Or his exploited workforce like the woman who was reportedly forced to give birth in a warehouse toilet because she was terrified of missing her shift?

Whose side are you on? The big polluters like Jim Ratcliffe, Britain’s richest man, who makes his money by polluting the environment? Or the children growing up in our cities with reduced lung capacity because of choking pollution?

Whose side are you on? The greedy bankers like Crispin Odey, who makes millions betting against our country and has donated huge sums to Johnson and the Conservative Party? Or are you on the side of working people who create the wealth that’s then squirreled away in tax havens?

And whose side are you on? The billionaire media barons like Rupert Murdoch, whose empire pumps out propaganda to support a rigged system. Or the overwhelming majority who want to live in a decent, fair, diverse and prosperous society?

You know whose side Labour’s on – a Labour government will be on your side. Together, we can pull down a corrupt system and build a fairer country that cares for all.

And we have something that the Rupert Murdochs, the Mike Ashleys, and the Boris Johnsons don’t have. We have people. Hundreds of thousands of people in every part of our country who will make this the biggest people-powered campaign in history.

We’re young, we’re old, we’re black, we’re white, we’re straight, we’re gay, we’re women, we’re men, we’re people of all faiths and none, from the North and from the South. And when Labour wins, the nurse wins, the pensioner wins, the student wins, the office worker wins, the engineer wins. We all win.

Boris Johnson thought he was being smart holding this election in a dark and cold December. He thinks you won’t go out to vote. He thinks you won’t go out to campaign.

Well, I say this: Labour will be out there in every city, town and village with the biggest and most confident campaign that our country has ever seen, bringing a message of hope and change to every community.

Even if the rivers freeze over, we’re going out to bring about real change for the many, not the few. All we need to keep us warm is the thought of removing Boris Johnson’s Conservatives from government – and the chance to rebuild and transform our country.

This is the most radical and exciting plan for real change ever put before the British electorate. Friends, the future is ours to make, together. It is now time for real change.

*

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 Bullet

Although it is situated in a war zone, the Syrian village of Barisha is a largely sleepy and picturesque place.

Some 6,000 people live in the village that lies 5km from the Turkish border, and there are also about 1,000 Syrians displaced from Idlib and elsewhere who have pitched their tents in the red earth among olive trees on the village’s outskirts.

Syrians in Idlib, the last rebel redoubt, are largely controlled by militant groups and subject to sporadic bombing by the Russian and the Syrian government.

All the mountain village’s residents have experienced air strikes first hand, however the ferocious sounds of a US raid on Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi’s hideout on Saturday night shocked them to their core.

“I was sitting with my family […] at first we heard the sound of helicopters hovering at a very low altitude and then we heard shooting from the ground,” Muhammad Mustafa al-Khalil told Middle East Eye.

Inside one of the tents where Syrians, displaced from other parts of the country, are living at Barisha's edge (MEE/Mustafa Dahnon)

Inside one of the tents where Syrians, displaced from other parts of the country, are living at Barisha’s edge (MEE/Mustafa Dahnon)

“We did not know what was happening. So I hid with my family thinking there were Syrian regime planes targeting our area.”

Khalil and his family live in Barisha’s outskirts after being displaced from the southern Idlib countryside, and their home was hit by shrapnel.

“I can’t describe my family’s situation at the time,” he said.

“The children were screaming and the women were in horror because we did not know what was happening. The whole area was like an erupting volcano. Luckily, none of my children or family suffered any injuries.”

Eight helicopters and a warplane sped into Idlib province at low altitude late on Saturday, eyewitnesses told MEE.

“We were surprised at night by the sounds of approaching aircraft. When I opened the door of my house to see what was there, I was shocked that the aircraft was no more than 15 metres above the ground,” Ahmed Mohammed, another Barisha resident, said.

According to Mohammed, Baghdadi’s companions started firing at the choppers, which prompted the aircraft to pummel the area they were shooting from, before hitting the roads to cut off access to the house.

General Kenneth McKenzie, the operational leader of the US mission, told reporters on Wednesday that when the Americans landed, militant fighters who were not Islamic State members, headed to towards the compound, some in a white van shot at by US gunships.

“There were other militant groups in the area that probably did not know he was there,” McKenzie said. “Once they saw the helicopters land and begin to operate, they began to flow toward [sic] it…but they were not flowing to reinforce him, they were flowing toward [sic] what they saw.”

The fighters may have thought it was a Turkish, Russia or American military operation, he added.

During the same press conference, the US military released footage of the raid for the first time, with grainy aerial video showing at least 10 US special forces members closing in on the compound from two sides.

People living in tents close to the house said soldiers told them to stay away and then they heard a voice in Arabic calling on the owner of the house to surrender himself and anyone with him.

Watching the operation unfold from the ground, Mohammed said that after the special forces raided the compound – and after Baghdadi reportedly set off an explosive vest when cornered – a warplane struck the building with three missiles.

“The bombs shattered the windows in all the village’s houses,” he said.

Once the aircraft had disappeared, Mohammed and other residents rushed to the battleground and saw the house flattened to rubble. There were bodies everywhere, among them women and children.

“I do not know anything about the owner of the house, but I know that he was a civilian who used to sell grain and olives,” he said. “I was shocked to learn that the operation targeted the leader of the Islamic State, who was inside.”

A day after the raid, residents and journalists walk through rubble where Baghdadi had been hiding (MEE/Mustafa Dahnon)

A day after the raid, residents and journalists walk through rubble where Baghdadi had been hiding (MEE/Mustafa Dahnon)

Ahmad Saud al-Hussein, who lives in the area after he and his family were displaced from the countryside outside of Hama, said his wife was injured when the compound was bombed.

“The main roads in the area were also bombed. They wanted no one to move while the operation was ongoing,” he told MEE.

Hussein said he had to rush his wife to the nearest hospital under the guise of darkness and feared they would be caught up in the aftermath.

“I heard the voices of foreign soldiers on the ground when I was moving away from my house, which was a great risk [to take] at the time,” he said.

He said he was as surprised as other residents to learn that IS members, let alone high-level figures like Baghdadi, had been dwelling among them in the house at the edge of the village.

Abu Khaled, another displaced Syrian living in a tent close to the house, echoed Hussein.

“What we knew is that it belongs to a civilian who comes out of the house normally and returns to it and that he is a merchant,” he said. “But we didn’t know who was inside the house with him.”

*

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

Featured image: A van which US officials say carried fighters not associated with IS who shot at US special forces, potentially thinking they could also be Turks or Russians (MEE/Mustafa Dahnon)

This week, Denmark granted Gazprom approval for its Nord Stream 2 gas pipeline project, a project that is set to bring 55 billion cubic meters of Russian gas into Europe annually. It is one of the most controversial pipeline projects in the world and is now moving ahead despite strong opposition from multiple EU members and the United States.

The geopolitical tensions surrounding the development of Nord Stream 2 are unprecedented. To begin with, Russia has very poor relations with the Baltic states and Poland, nations who will almost always fight against anything they see as empowering Russia geopolitically. Then there is Ukraine, a nation that is strongly against the pipeline due to its fear of losing the transit fees that it currently charges Russia for exporting gas to Europe. Finally, and perhaps most importantly, the United States sees this pipeline as a direct threat to its soft power in Europe as well as a threat to its growing LNG exports.

But for all the politics and attention that this pipeline is attracting, the simple truth of the matter is that Europe, and more specifically Germany, needs this natural gas. Germany plans to shut down all its nuclear reactors by 2022. Many have questioned the wisdom—and some even the sanity—of that decision, but it remains government policy. The generation capacity the is being lost in that sector will need to be replaced, in the short term at least, by natural gas.

Despite its green reputation, Germany is a country that generates a surprisingly large portion of its total energy from coal. Its total installed coal-fired capacity is close to its solar capacity, at 44.9 GW, versus 47.9 GW for solar. At today’s growth rates, it’s current solar and wind capacity will not be enough to replace the retired nuclear plants. The only other option, which would be boosting the share of coal in the country’s energy mix, is a political non-starter in Germany. Natural gas is, therefore, the only viable replacement and Germany is fully aware that its gas consumption is set to soar in the coming years.

Now, this gas doesn’t have to come from Russia, of course. It could come from the United States in LNG tankers. In fact, the European Union as a whole earlier this year promised President Trump to double its imports of U.S. LNG over the next five years. But they didn’t make the promise voluntarily. It came in response to a threat from Trump to slap import tariffs on European cars.

One may wonder why the EU, for all its anti-Russian rhetoric and sanctions, and legislative amendments aimed at curbing Gazprom’s role on the European gas market would need the incentive of a tariff threat to diversify away from Russian gas. The answer is, again, simple. It’s the price.

U.S. liquefied natural gas has to be, well, liquefied first, then loaded on a tanker and shipped across the ocean to Europe. Russian gas runs through pipelines as is. And, even if LNG were there answer, there is Novatek’s Yamal LNG plant that is exporting the liquefied fuel to Europe, which is much nearer Yamal than the Gulf Coast.

Abundant natural gas production and the subsequent low prices have made the U.S. a growing exporter and a force to be reckoned with. Yet producers still want to make profits rather than pump gas for political purposes. Ultimately it all comes down to one simple fact, Europeans pay more for U.S. LNG.

“Given our heavy dependence on imports, U.S. liquefied natural gas, if priced competitively, could play an increasing and strategic role in EU gas supply,” said the European Energy Commissioner, Miguel Arias Canete, earlier this year.

The operative phrase is “if priced competitively”, as supported by the statement of a Total official commenting on Trump’s tariff threat at the time.

“We need to create the demand in order to justify these logistics and this investment,” said Total’s president of gas operations, Laurent Vivier in May. “That will come to European policy and setting what role we want gas to play in Europe”.

Ultimately, for all the political posturing and threats of sanctions, the Trump administration and its allies on this matter have never been in a position to stop Nord Stream 2.  While geopolitics are powerful, the fundamentals will almost always win out. If there is demand, supply will follow. The message to the U.S. from Europe when it comes to natural gas is loud and clear, “Make it competitive and we’ll take it”.

*

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

Irina Slav is a writer for Oilprice.com with over a decade of experience writing on the oil and gas industry.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Nord Stream 2: There’s No Stopping the World’s Most Politically Charged Pipeline
  • Tags: , ,

Life in the Most Drone-bombed Country in the World

November 4th, 2019 by Ali M. Latifi

Khalid still remembers the first time he heard about drones. He was 10 years old, sitting in his school classroom in Khogyani, a district near the Durand Line in eastern Afghanistan’s Nangarhar province. A group of his friends animatedly discussed the recent death of a local man.

“Then the drone came,” one of them said, imitating the whistling noise of an unmanned aircraft, “and he was dead.”

Khalid didn’t understand what they were saying. It was as if he was the only one left out of a secret. He finally decided to ask his teacher. What did the other boys mean? What was a drone?

The teacher’s response was both ominous and prescient. “It’s something that, once you come to its attention, you will not be left to live,” he told Khalid.

That was in 2007. Khalid is 22 now, a young man. American military involvement in Afghanistan—sparked by Al Qaeda’s attacks on September 11, 2001—was already six years deep by the time he learned about drones, but the strikes go back nearly as far.

The first instance of a drone killing civilians in Afghanistan was in 2002, when a man by the name of Daraz Khan was killed by a Hellfire missile dropped by a Predator drone in the eastern province of Khost. The US suspected that he was Osama bin Laden; residents maintain that Khan was merely out searching for scrap metal.

Since then, Khalid’s province of Nangarhar has become a hub for armed groups—first the Taliban, and later forces claiming allegiance to ISIS—and a bustling drug trade. It has also become one of the most drone-bombed provinces in the most drone-bombed country in the world.

The American public, though, has largely forgotten this. The war in Afghanistan has been running for 18 years, making it the longest conflict in American history (it passed the previous milestone, set by the Vietnam War, in February 2019). Over the years, press coverage has fallen dramatically. According to the Pew Research Center for Journalism and the Media, Afghanistan accounted for 1% of all media coverage in the US in 2007 and just under 4% in 2010, when the Pentagon deployed 100,000 troops and dropped 5,101 bombs on the country. Today, the level of coverage is insignificant: Pew no longer even tracks it as a topic.

In fact, military activity in Afghanistan is on the increase again. The number of US troops there started rising again under the Trump administration; there are now 15,000 American military personnel officially deployed in the country. Air strikes are at a record high, according to the US Air Forces Central Command: 2018 saw 7,362 bombs dropped by US forces in Afghanistan.

As of August 31 this year, the Bureau of Investigative Journalism had documented at least 4,251 aerial strikes in Afghanistan for 2019, more than double the total for the whole of 2018. Most of these, it says, are thought to be by drones. These attacks are exacting an increasing toll on the Afghan people. This year, according to the United Nations, foreign coalition forces were responsible for more civilian deaths than the Taliban or ISIS-allied forces for the first time since its Afghanistan mission began recording civilian casualties in 2009. Between January 1 and June 30, international military forces were responsible for 89% of the 519 civilian casualties—363 deaths and 156 injuries—caused by aerial operations.

It’s not just drone warfare that has expanded dramatically, however. The US military has used the war to test and improve other tactics, too.

Information warfare

In 2007, American forces began taking photographs, fingerprints, and iris scans of almost every Afghan they came across. By 2011, almost two million people—more than 5% of the population—had had their biometric details captured by the US military. In most cases it was claimed that this was done in a check for suspected militants, or as part of the application process for jobs with government security forces or on coalition bases, but it could happen at any time, and for almost any reason.

The Pentagon said the move, a tactic it calls “identity dominance,” was intended to spot insurgents and prevent infiltration. But it’s believed that US Navy Seals used their identity system to confirm that they had found Osama bin Laden during the raid on his compound in Pakistan in 2011. And in Iraq, where the US had previously tried biometric capture, it was used to control people’s movements, especially in high-conflict areas like Fallujah.

Unsurprisingly, perhaps, the fear of surveillance is pervasive among ordinary Afghans. Rumors circulate about new techniques being used to spy on people: Khalid and his friend Naimatullah tell stories about a substance that can be rubbed on your clothes to make you more easily traceable. These tales have apparently led to a new defense mechanism among Nangarharis. “You just take off your clothes and run into some water. They say that somehow jams the signals,” said Naimatullah.

Obaid Ali, a Kabul-based analyst at the Afghanistan Analysts Network, who has written extensively on aerial operations, says he has been told about physical tracking devices—albeit slightly more traditional ones. “They’re really small electronic devices that are slipped into someone’s clothing,” he told me.

A Department of Defense spokeswoman said the Pentagon could not comment on tactics, techniques, or procedures for operational security reasons. Rahmatullah Nabil—a presidential candidate who twice served as Afghanistan’s chief of intelligence during 2010 to 2015—says people are definitely tracked: but that most of that is done through mobile-phone signals. This, says Nabil, has led the Taliban to rely on some familiar tactics to keep them from being traced: “They use the simplest possible mobile phones and are constantly changing their locations every few hours. They never spend more than 48 hours in a single area.”

In many areas of the country, phone service is cut off, usually by the Taliban, at sundown. And in August, the Taliban announced that they would begin targeting employees of the state-run provider Salaam Telecom, saying the company’s workers are “tied to intelligence agencies.”

In many areas under Taliban control, simply owning a smartphone can create suspicion that someone is an intelligence agent. That means even though people often use phones to check on loved ones after a terrorist attack or security operation, some have chosen to give up on them altogether.

But even if you throw away your mobile phone, avoid bumping into a US soldier on patrol, and can keep your biometric information to yourself, you can still get caught up in the war.

Mother load

The device that fell on a small village in Nangarhar’s Achin district, an hour’s drive along a treacherous road from Jalalabad, in April 2017 wasn’t just any bomb. The GBU-43/B Massive Ordnance Air Blast Bomb, or MOAB, weighed 21,600 pounds (9,800 kilograms) and cost $170,000. It was the most powerful non-nuclear weapon ever used, capable of destroying an area the size of nine city blocks. It quickly became known as the “Mother of All Bombs.”

The Afghan government tried to justify the strike by saying it had killed at least 94 ISIS fighters. But former president Hamid Karzai called it a prime example of how the US was using Afghanistan for what amounted to experimental warfare. “This is not the war on terror but the inhuman and most brutal misuse of our country as testing ground for new and dangerous weapons,” he wrote on Twitter.

Nabil, the former intelligence chief, agrees. “Did they ever use such a weapon anywhere else in the world? No,” he told me. “It’s clear that Achin was just a convenient place for them to test out their weapons.”

The government claims that the bomb killed foreign fighters from a number of countries. But in the days and weeks following the bombing, the village itself was still under the watch of the US military. Journalists were not allowed within 10 kilometers, and it became clear that local military and government officials had not been given access either. In the two and a half years since, journalists and investigators have still not been able to get to the exact site of the attack in order to decipher what happened.

So why was such a large bomb used? A few days after MOAB dropped, Vice President Mike Pence suggested one motive: as a demonstration of power. “Just in the past two weeks,” he said in an address in Seoul, “the world witnessed the strength and resolve of our new president in actions taken in Syria and Afghanistan. North Korea would do well not to test his resolve or the strength of the armed forces of the United States in this region.” He added, “The era of strategic patience is over.”

Uninvestigated

All this is made worse because the US military has not always been transparent about its operations. Human Rights Watch said in a 2018 report that neither the American nor Afghan governments have been doing enough to investigate possible violations of the laws of war.

Afghans on the ground agree. I have spoken to hundreds of people since 2015, in provinces all over the country. Each time, they have said that not enough people have inquired about strikes in their areas. And even when there are independent reports, they are accused of political bias by officials in Kabul and the US-led coalition.

Emran Feroz, an Afghan-Austrian journalist and author who has been tracking aerial operations in Afghanistan since 2011, concurs: “The central problem is most of these strikes are conducted under the cover of night in hard-to-reach areas, often under the control or influence of groups like the Taliban, which makes it very difficult for anyone to go and investigate in a timely manner.”

Nearly 20 years in, and with the conflict once more intensifying, there are no signs of an ending. Diplomacy between the Taliban, the Afghan government, and the Trump administration seems to be making little progress. Trump, who claimed to have canceled a secret meeting with the Taliban on US soil planned for September, has vowed to halt talks so long as Taliban fighters keep attacking Afghan civilians and US forces.

As long as military intelligence is weak, however, it is not just the Taliban that Afghans have to fear. In July, the deaths of at least seven civilians, including three women, led to protests in the Eastern province of Maidan Wardak, where residents threatened to boycott the upcoming presidential election unless action was taken. But the outcry has done little to change military action. In September, at least 30 civilians were killed in a US drone strike near a pine nut field in Khogyani. Provincial officials say the attack was meant to target a hideout of ISIS forces, but residents say it was civilians who paid the price once again.

Nabil, the former intelligence chief, says the best way to improve things is to shift away from technology and back toward proper intelligence gathering. “We have to be better than the Talibs—we must ensure that we protect civilian life at all costs,” he says. During his tenure at the National Directorate of Security, he says, aerial operations were allowed to take place only when he had verified information on suspected targets. “You can’t go from the word or suspicions of just one or two people. You must do your due diligence, otherwise you end up in a situation like today where civilians are constantly being killed by our own forces,” he told me.

Khalid and Naimatullah agree that the increasing frequency of strikes serves no purpose. “Even people in the villages know where the Taliban and Daesh [ISIS] are, but why is it that civilians keep dying in these attacks?” they asked.

“I was 16 when I saw someone die from a drone strike,” said Naimatullah. “Since then I’ve cleaned up so many bodies, their blood, their brains. My heart is stone now, because it’s always innocent people dying.”

*

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.

Ali M. Latifi is a journalist based in Kabul.

The Missing Pieces of the Al-Baghdadi Execution Puzzle

November 4th, 2019 by Nauman Sadiq

Casting aspersions over the death of Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, Russia’s seasoned Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov claimed [1] while speaking to Rossiya 24 broadcaster that the Islamic State and its slain “caliph” were the spawns of the United States. Being a skilled diplomat having intimate knowledge of happenings on the ground in Syria, his statement merits serious consideration.

It’s important to note in the news coverage about the killing of al-Baghdadi that although the mainstream media had been trumpeting for the last several years that the Islamic State’s fugitive chief had been hiding somewhere on the Iraq-Syria border in the east, he was found hiding in the northwestern Idlib governorate, under the control of Turkey’s militant proxies and al-Nusra Front, and was killed while trying to flee to Turkey in Barisha village five kilometers from the border.

The reason why the mainstream media scrupulously avoided mentioning Idlib as al-Baghdadi’s most likely hideout in Syria was to cover up the collusion between the militant proxies of Turkey and the jihadists of al-Nusra Front and the Islamic State.

In fact, the corporate media takes the issue of Islamic jihadists “commingling” with Turkey-backed “moderate rebels” in Idlib so seriously – which could give the Syrian government the pretext to mount an offensive in northwest Syria – that the New York Times cooked up an exclusive report [2] a couple of days after the Special Ops night raid, on October 30, that the Islamic State paid money to al-Nusra Front for hosting al-Baghdadi in Idlib.

The morning after the night raid, the Syrian Observatory for Human Rights reported [3] on Sunday, October 27, that a squadron of eight helicopters accompanied by warplanes belonging to the international coalition had attacked positions of Hurras al-Din, an al-Qaeda-affiliated group, in Idlib province where the Islamic State chief was believed to be hiding.

Despite detailing the operational minutiae of the Special Ops raid, the mainstream news coverage of the raid deliberately elided over the crucial piece of information that the compound in Barisha village five kilometers from Turkish border where al-Baghdadi was killed belonged to Hurras al-Din, an elusive terrorist outfit which had previously been targeted several times in the US airstrikes.

Although Hurras al-Din is generally assumed to be an al-Qaeda affiliate, it is in fact the regrouping of the Islamic State’s jihadists under a different name in northwestern Idlib governorate after the latter terrorist organization was routed from Mosul and Anbar in Iraq and Raqqa and Deir al-Zor in Syria and was hard pressed by the US-led coalition’s airstrikes in eastern Syria.

Here, let me try to dispel a myth peddled by the corporate media and foreign policy think tanks that the Islamic State originated from al-Qaeda in Iraq. Many biased political commentators of the mainstream media deliberately try to muddle the reality in order to link the emergence of the Islamic State to the ill-conceived invasion of Iraq in 2003 by the Republican Bush administration.

Their motive behind this chicanery is to absolve the Obama administration’s policy of nurturing the Syrian opposition against the Syrian government since the beginning of Syria’s proxy war in 2011 until June 2014, when the Islamic State overran Mosul in Iraq and the Obama administration made a volte-face on its previous “regime change” policy of providing indiscriminate support to Syrian militants and declared a war against a faction of Syrian rebel groups, the Islamic State.

After linking the creation of the Islamic State to the Iraq invasion in 2003, interventionist hawks deviously draw the risible conclusion that the Obama administration’s premature evacuation of American troops from Iraq in December 2011 gave birth to the Islamic State.

Moreover, such duplicitous spin-doctors misleadingly try to find the roots of the Islamic State in al-Qaeda in Iraq; however, the Anbar insurgency in Iraq was fully subdued after “The Iraq Surge” in 2007. Al-Qaeda in Iraq became a defunct organization after the death of Abu Musab al Zarqawi in June 2006 and the subsequent surge of troops in Iraq.

The re-eruption of insurgency in Iraq was the spillover effect of nurturing militants in Syria since 2011-onward, when the Islamic State overran Fallujah and parts of Ramadi in January 2014 and subsequently reached the zenith of its power after capturing Mosul in June 2014.

The borders between Syria and Iraq are highly porous and it’s impossible to contain the flow of militants and arms between the two countries. The Obama administration’s policy of providing funds, weapons and training to Syrian militants in training camps located at the border regions of Turkey and Jordan bordering Syria was bound to backfire sooner or later.

Notwithstanding, during the eight-year proxy war in Syria, Abu Mohammad al-Jolani, the chief of al-Nusra Front which currently goes by the name of Hayat Tahrir al-Sham (HTS), emerged as one of the most influential militant leaders, second only to the Islamic State’s slain “caliph” al-Baghdadi. In fact, since the beginning of Syria’s proxy war in early 2011 to April 2013, the Islamic State and al-Nusra Front used to be a single organization that followed Saudi Arabia’s Salafi ideology and chose the banner al-Nusra Front.

Although the current al-Nusra Front has been led by Abu Mohammad al-Jolani, he was appointed[4] as the emir of al-Nusra Front by Abu Bakr al Baghdadi, the leader of Islamic State, in January 2012. Thus, al-Jolani’s Nusra Front is only a splinter group of the Islamic State, which split from its parent organization in April 2013 over a leadership dispute between the two organizations.

In early 2011, Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, who was based in Iraq, began sending Syrian and Iraqi jihadists experienced in guerrilla warfare across the border into Syria to establish an organization inside the country. Led by a Syrian known as Abu Mohammad al-Jolani, the group began to recruit fighters and establish cells throughout the country. On 23 January 2012, the group announced its formation as al-Nusra Front.

In April 2013, Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi released an audio statement in which he announced that al-Nusra Front had been established, financed and supported by the Islamic State. Al-Baghdadi declared that the two groups were merging under the name the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS). The leader of al-Nusra Front, Abu Muhammad al-Jolani, issued a statement denying the merger and complaining that neither he nor anyone else in al-Nusra’s Syria-based leadership had been consulted.

Al-Qaeda Central’s leader, Ayman al Zawahiri, tried to mediate the dispute between al-Baghdadi and al-Jolani but eventually, in October 2013, he endorsed al-Nusra Front as the official franchise of al-Qaeda Central in Syria. Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, however, defied the nominal authority of al-Qaeda Central and declared himself the caliph of the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria.

Keeping this background in mind, it becomes abundantly clear that a single militant organization operated in Syria and Iraq under the leadership of al-Baghdadi until April 2013, which chose the banner of al-Nusra Front, and that the current emir of the subsequent breakaway faction of al-Nusra Front, al-Jolani, was actually al-Baghdadi’s deputy in Syria.

Thus, the Islamic State operated in Syria since early 2011 under the designation of al-Nusra Front and it subsequently changed its name to the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS) in April 2013, after which it overran Raqqa and parts of Deir al-Zor in the summer of 2013. And in January 2014, it overran Fallujah and parts of Ramadi in Iraq and reached the zenith of its power when it captured Mosul in June 2014.

In conclusion, it would be misleading to fall for the ruse of finding the roots of the Islamic State in al-Qaeda in Iraq. Although the remnants of al-Qaeda in Iraq might have joined the ranks of Syria-bound militants in Iraq in 2011, the principal cause of the creation of the Islamic State, al-Nusra Front and myriads of other militant outfits in Syria and Iraq was the “regime change” policy pursued by the Obama administration from 2011 to 2014 to topple the government of Bashar al-Assad in Syria.

During the course of Syria’s proxy war, billions of dollars [5] worth weapons and ammunition, including American-made antitank missiles, were provided to militants in training camps located in border regions of Turkey and Jordan, and possibly in Iraq too, by the Western powers and the Gulf states. It also bears mentioning that for the initial several months of Syria’s proxy war, American troops were still deployed next door in Iraq, as the war in Syria began in early 2011 whereas the US forces evacuated from Iraq in December 2011.

*

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.

Nauman Sadiq is an Islamabad-based attorney, columnist and geopolitical analyst focused on the politics of Af-Pak and Middle East regions, neocolonialism and petro-imperialism. He is a regular contributor to Global Research.

Notes

[1] Al-Baghdadi was US ‘spawn’, his death is still an open question – Lavrov

[2] ISIS Leader Paid Rival for Protection but Was Betrayed by His Own

[3] Islamic State leader Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi killed in US raid

[4] Al-Jolani was appointed as the emir of al-Nusra Front by al-Baghdadi

[5] U.S. Relies Heavily on Saudi Money to Support Syrian Rebels

Featured image is from Flickr

The Circus Never Left!

November 4th, 2019 by Philip A Farruggio

Remember, those who can, the utter joy of going to the circus as a child? It was quite an experience to walk through the sideshow, watching the clowns or viewing the main acts on center stage. This writer sat there, mesmerized by all this for the two hours running. The colors, the costumes, the music all transported me into a wonderland!

Well, stroll down the dial of your boob tube and catch any of those news talk shows to revisit such an experience. The best bumper sticker I have seen recently was ELECT A CLOWN AND GET A CIRCUS! Imagine that  around 50% of those who actually voted chose an orange haired, deep tanned reality television and multi bankrupted man to be our president. Now, those with even an iota of intelligence realize that if the Democrats ran Donald Duck in 2016 they would have defeated Donald Trump. They chose not to and we got President Cheetos. Rather than ‘Drain the Swamp’ he went ahead and filled it! Of course, if Ms Hillary got in, as with Mr. Obama, working stiffs nationwide would have seen little in the way of dynamic change.. maybe even an increase in a new Cold War with the Russians. Regardless of whichever of the two phony parties occupy 1600 Pennsylvania Ave, the thing they all claim they cherish, the Middle Class, would be strangled.

Look, we all know there are so many issues that working stiffs should care about, as was always the case.  What is disgusting is when both parties keep on sucking up to the super rich. The mainstream media, from both sides of this phony political spectrum, even criticizes Ms. Warren as being radical  for her ridiculous plan to ‘level the playing field’ by an added 2% Surtax on all wealth over $50 million.

Wow! That must really have those jet setters trembling in their $ 2000 shoes and high heels! For my Door #1, this writer has always trumpeted a real plan of taxing all income of one million dollars and over at a 50% Flat Surtax… with Zero deductions. Your first million is taxed at the current rate, and thereafter the Surtax would kick in. THAT would fill our treasury with enough moola to fix our infrastructure, give viable Medicare for All (without needing the private insurers), begin subsidizing public banking, especially nonprofit mortgage banking at rates which only include overhead… to name but a few ideas.

Door #2 is because of the disgraceful bowing by both parties at the altar of the War Economy. This obscene spending signed off by both the Republicans and Democrats that equals HALF of our federal tax revenue is slowly bankrupting this empire. With even a modest 25% cut in military spending  and the closing of most of our 1000+ overseas military bases, added to the aforementioned savings from a real Surtax of the super rich, there would be enough funding for what I already mentioned, plus so much more.

Sorry, this circus only wishes to show us the Forever Food Fight between the two parties, hosted by the clown of clowns.

*

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].

Featured image is from GMWatch

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on The Circus Never Left!

Under Thailand’s new government, efforts to ban toxic pesticides and herbicides including those made by US agricultural giant Monsanto were first accelerated, and have now finally succeeded.

Thailand’s Deputy Prime Minister and Health Minister Anutin Charnvirakul bluntly stated that “the US was worried only about trade. The Thai government was concerned about the health of Thai consumers,” in response to complaints from the US embassy over the ban, Bangkok Post would report in its article, “Govt rejects US opposition to farm chemicals ban.”

The article also reported that:

In particular, the United States is opposing the ban on glyphosate, an informed source said, citing a copy of a US embassy letter sent to the prime minister and seven other cabinet ministers requesting a delay in imposition of the ban, and a review. 

A copy of a document from the US Department of Agriculture supporting the US assertion that a ban on glyphosate will affect Thai imports of US soybeans and US wheat was enclosed with the letter.

The article would also note:

The [Thai] government has rejected US opposition to its decision to ban use of three toxic farm chemicals, the herbicides paraquat and glyphosate and the pesticide chlorpyrifos.

The current government’s refusal to bend to US demands has received wide praise from both the public and organisations such as the Biothai Foundation involved in pushing for the ban, Thai PBS would report in their article, “PM praised for not responding to US appeal to postpone the ban on glyphosate.”

The ban will go into effect on December 1 of this year.

Who Does the US Embassy Serve?  

Contrary to what many believe, US embassies around the globe do not represent the American people, but rather the small handful of corporate-financier interests that own a vast, disproportionate majority of America’s wealth.

The US embassy in Bangkok demonstrates this by peddling poisons facing backlash even back home, while contesting decisions made by Thailand’s sovereign government and attempting to place pressure on Thailand to reverse decisions made about its own internal affairs.

Complaints passed by the US embassy to the Thai government were written by US Under-Secretary of Agriculture for Trade and Foreign Agricultural Affairs Ted McKinney.

Thai PBS would reveal in its article that:

Delving into McKinney’s background, Biothai said the US official had spent about 19 years working for Dow Agro-Sciences, a wholly-owned subsidiary of Dow Chemical Company, which specializes in not only farm chemicals, but also seeds and biotechnology solutions. 

Biothai said McKinney’s letter was an attempt to protect the interests of US chemical companies and not the interests of the American people or Thai farmers and consumers.

Of course, Biothai is correct. McKinney’s letter, McKinney himself along with the US embassy, protect and serve the interests of large US companies and not the interests of the American people or the Thai people the US embassy is supposed to be building constructive relationships with.

The US embassy in Bangkok not only serves as a conduit for imposing the interests of these large companies onto Thailand, but also cultivates opposition figures in Thailand to serve US interests over those of the Thai nation and the Thai people themselves.

US-funded “Public Advocates” Silent Over Publicly Popular Ban 

As the embassy bemoans Thai policies protecting public health from US-manufactured agricultural poisons, supposed “pro-democracy” groups and fronts posing as “nongovernmental organisations” (NGOs) claiming to represent public interests eagerly take US government money and coordinate with the embassy to advance US interests inside Thailand, while in no way actually upholding genuine public interests.

Such groups include Prachatai, iLaw, Thai Netizens, Issan Record, Thai Lawyers for Human Rights, the Cross Cultural Foundation and many others who have all been relatively silent over the agricultural chemical ban issue despite its relevance to public interests.

This is especially so regarding the US government-funded front “ENLAWTHAI” which claims to fight specifically for environmental issues in Thailand but appears to have no articles at all, past or present, regarding the growing backlash against foreign-manufactured pesticides and herbicides. The front instead spends most of its time impeding local industry and development under the guise of “environmental” concerns.

Because the Thai government’s recent move to ban big-agricultural poisons is so popular with the public and legitimate local NGOs, US-funded fronts are unlikely to directly oppose the ban.

Instead, they will continue their efforts to undermine the current Thai government through political means under the guise of defending “human rights” and advancing “democracy” while promoting and protecting opposition figures likely to reverse the ban if able to one day take power.

Thailand’s opposition led by abusive billionaires Thaksin Shinawatra who already has a long track record of serving US interests and Thanathorn Juangroongruangkit who has vowed to reverse Thai-Chinese relations in favour of deals with the US and Europe, would be perfect candidates for reversing this landmark agricultural chemical ban. Unsurprisingly the above mentioned US-funded groups are strong supporters of both opposition leaders.

For now, Thailand’s bold decision to ban dangerous big-agricultural chemicals despite US pressure not to, not only bodes well for the environment and public health in Thailand, it is also yet another indicator of waning American influence over Asia as nations in the region continue to develop, assert themselves and their interests regionally and escape out from under the long shadow US primacy in the region has cast for over a century.

*

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

Joseph Thomas is chief editor of Thailand-based geopolitical journal, The New Atlas and contributor to the online magazine “New Eastern Outlook”. 

Featured image is from NEO

Before the evacuation of 1,000 American troops from northern Syria to western Iraq, the Pentagon had 2,000 US forces in Syria. After the drawdown of US troops at Erdogan’s insistence in order for Ankara to mount a ground offensive in northern Syria, the US has still deployed 1,000 troops, mainly in oil-rich eastern Deir al-Zor province and at al-Tanf military base.

Al-Tanf military base is strategically located in southeastern Syria on the border between Syria, Iraq and Jordan, and it straddles on a critically important Damascus-Baghdad highway, which serves as a lifeline for Damascus. Washington has illegally occupied 55-kilometer area around al-Tanf since 2016, and several hundred US Marines have trained several Syrian militant groups there.

It’s worth noting that rather than fighting the Islamic State, the purpose of continued presence of the US forces at al-Tanf military base is to address Israel’s concerns regarding the expansion of Iran’s influence in Iraq, Syria and Lebanon.

Regarding the oil- and natural gas-rich Deir al-Zor governorate, it’s worth pointing out that Syria used to produce modest quantities of oil for domestic needs before the war – roughly 400,000 barrels per day, which isn’t much compared to tens of millions barrels daily oil production in the Gulf states.

Although Donald Trump crowed in a characteristic blunt manner in a tweet after the withdrawal of 1,000 American troops from northern Syria that Washington had deployed forces in eastern Syria where there was oil, the purpose of exercising control over Syria’s oil is neither to smuggle oil out of Syria nor to deny the valuable source of revenue to the Islamic State.

There is no denying the fact that the remnants of the Islamic State militants are still found in Syria and Iraq but its emirate has been completely dismantled in the region and its leadership is on the run. So much so that the fugitive caliph of the terrorist organization was killed in the bastion of a rival jihadist outfit, al-Nusra Front in Idlib, hundreds of kilometers away from the Islamic State strongholds in eastern Syria.

Much like the “scorched earth” battle strategy of medieval warlords – as in the case of the Islamic State which early in the year burned crops of local farmers while retreating from its former strongholds in eastern Syria – Washington’s basic purpose in deploying the US forces in oil and natural gas fields of Deir al-Zor governorate is to deny the valuable source of income to its other main rival in the region, Damascus.

After the devastation caused by eight years of proxy war, the Syrian government is in dire need of tens of billions dollars international assistance to rebuild the country. Not only is Washington hampering efforts to provide international aid to the hapless country, it is in fact squatting over Syria’s own resources with the help of its only ally in the region, the Kurds.

Although Donald Trump claimed credit for expropriating Syria’s oil wealth, it bears mentioning that “scorched earth” policy is not a business strategy, it is the institutional logic of the deep state. President Trump is known to be a businessman and at least ostensibly follows a non-interventionist ideology; being a novice in the craft of international diplomacy, however, he has time and again been misled by the Pentagon and Washington’s national security establishment.

Regarding Washington’s interest in propping up the Gulf’s autocrats and fighting their wars in regional conflicts, it bears mentioning that in April 2016, the Saudi foreign minister threatened [1] that the Saudi kingdom would sell up to $750 billion in treasury securities and other assets if the US Congress passed a bill that would allow Americans to sue the Saudi government in the United States courts for its role in the September 11, 2001 terror attack – though the bill was eventually passed, Saudi authorities have not been held accountable; even though 15 out of 19 9/11 hijackers were Saudi nationals.

Moreover, $750 billion is only the Saudi investment in the United States, if we add its investment in Western Europe and the investments of UAE, Kuwait and Qatar in the Western economies, the sum total would amount to trillions of dollars of Gulf’s investments in North America and Western Europe.

Furthermore, in order to bring home the significance of the Persian Gulf’s oil in the energy-starved industrialized world, here are a few stats from the OPEC data: Saudi Arabia has the world’s largest proven crude oil reserves of 265 billion barrels and its daily oil production exceeds 10 million barrels; Iran and Iraq, each, has 150 billion barrels reserves and has the capacity to produce 5 million barrels per day, each; while UAE and Kuwait, each, has 100 billion barrels reserves and produces 3 million barrels per day, each; thus, all the littoral states of the Persian Gulf, together, hold 788 billion barrels, more than half of world’s 1477 billion barrels of proven oil reserves.

No wonder then, 36,000 United States troops have currently been deployed in their numerous military bases and aircraft carriers in the oil-rich Persian Gulf in accordance with the Carter Doctrine of 1980, which states: “Let our position be absolutely clear: an attempt by any outside force to gain control of the Persian Gulf region will be regarded as an assault on the vital interests of the United States of America, and such an assault will be repelled by any means necessary, including military force.”

Additionally, regarding the Western defense production industry’s sales of arms to the Gulf Arab States, a report [2] authored by William Hartung of the US-based Center for International Policy found that the Obama administration had offered Saudi Arabia more than $115 billion in weapons, military equipment and training during its eight-year tenure.

Similarly, the top items in Trump’s agenda for his maiden visit to Saudi Arabia in May 2017 were: firstly, he threw his weight behind the idea of the Saudi-led “Arab NATO” to counter Iran’s influence in the region; and secondly, he announced an unprecedented arms package for Saudi Arabia. The package included between $98 billion and $128 billion in arms sales.

Therefore, keeping the economic dependence of the Western countries on the Gulf Arab States in mind, during the times of global recession when most of manufacturing has been outsourced to China, it is not surprising that when the late King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia decided to provide training and arms to the Islamic jihadists in the border regions of Turkey and Jordan against the government of Bashar al-Assad in Syria, the Obama administration was left with no other choice but to toe the destructive policy of its regional Middle Eastern allies, despite the sectarian nature of the proxy war and its attendant consequences of breeding a new generation of Islamic jihadists who would become a long-term security risk not only to the Middle East but to the Western countries, as well.

Similarly, when King Abdullah’s successor King Salman decided, on the whim of the Crown Prince Mohammad bin Salman, to invade Yemen in March 2015, once again the Obama administration had to yield to the dictates of Saudi Arabia and UAE by fully coordinating the Gulf-led military campaign in Yemen not only by providing intelligence, planning and logistical support but also by selling billions of dollars’ worth of arms and ammunition to the Gulf Arab States during the conflict.

In this reciprocal relationship, the US provides security to the ruling families of the Gulf Arab states by providing weapons and troops; and in return, the Gulf’s petro-sheikhs contribute substantial investments to the tune of hundreds of billions of dollars to the Western economies.

Regarding the Pax Americana which is the reality of the contemporary neocolonial order, according to a January 2017 infographic [3] by the New York Times, 210,000 US military personnel were stationed all over the world, including 79,000 in Europe, 45,000 in Japan, 28,500 in South Korea and 36,000 in the Middle East.

Although Donald Trump keeps complaining that NATO must share the cost of deployment of US troops, particularly in Europe where 47,000 American troops are stationed in Germany since the end of the Second World War, 15,000 in Italy and 8,000 in the United Kingdom, fact of the matter is that the cost is already shared between Washington and host countries.

Roughly, European countries pay one-third of the cost for maintaining US military bases in Europe whereas Washington chips in the remaining two-third. In the Far Eastern countries, 75% of the cost for the deployment of American troops is shared by Japan and the remaining 25% by Washington, and in South Korea, 40% cost is shared by the host country and the US contributes the remaining 60%.

Whereas the oil-rich Gulf Cooperation Countries (GCC) – Saudi Arabia, UAE, Kuwait and Qatar – pay two-third of the cost for maintaining 36,000 US troops in the Persian Gulf where more than half of world’s proven oil reserves are located and Washington contributes the remaining one-third.

*

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 Eurasia Review.

Nauman Sadiq is an Islamabad-based attorney, columnist and geopolitical analyst focused on the politics of Af-Pak and Middle East regions, neocolonialism and petro-imperialism. He is a regular contributor to Global Research.

Featured image: Location of Syria. Source: CIA World Factbook.

National improved Medicare for all is making tremendous progress during the 2020 election cycle. Democratic presidential candidates, Senators Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren, who advocate for it, are achieving record numbers of contributions and performing strongly in the polls. Candidates like former Vice President Joe Biden, who opposes Medicare for all, and Senator Kamala Harris, who came out with a phony plan she called Medicare for all, are losing ground.

This is happening because of the decades of work by the single-payer movement to educate people, organize and build consensus for National Improved Medicare for All (NIMA). The opposition is gearing up too but the Medicare for All movement is responding to their false claims, which are repeated in the corporate media and by insurance-funded candidates. If the movement continues to build support and keeps Medicare for all a central issue in the 2020 election, we can win National Improved Medicare for All in the early 2020s.

To learn more about NIMA, sign up for the HOPE campaign and join the national calls. The next call will be on Monday night, November 4 at 9:00 pm Eastern/6:00 pm Pacific. Wendell Potter will speak about the opposition’s tactics and how to counter them. Register here.

People want health care, not health insurance

A whistleblower for the insurance industry tells the truth:

“The business model of for-profit health insurance depends on denying care to people who need it. These corporations can’t be reasoned with, only defeated.”

One of the false talking points of opponents of NIMA is that people want to keep their private insurance. In reality, the employer-based healthcare system is not working for employers or employees. The current system is resulting in very high costs to individuals, now surpassing $20,000 annually for the average family. The cost of insurance is rising faster than incomes, making insurance impossible to afford. This is one reason why the number of uninsured, now 27.5 million, is growing.  The soaring cost of healthcare is one reason why 58 percent of small business owners support Medicare for all.

A recent poll found that pollsters can manipulate the outcome by using anti-Medicare talking points, but when voters are told the truth they prefer Medicare for all. For example, this survey found that when people hear that under Medicare for All you can keep your preferred doctors and hospitals, support climbs to a clear majority of 55 percent. Support among Democrats gets to 78 percent. For independents, 56 percent support Medicare for all. People also said they trust the federal government over private insurers to control healthcare costs, by 20 points. Kaiser, which has been tracking public opinion of the issue, finds a majority of the public supports Medicare for all.

Polls actually find that what people hate is instability in their health insurance. Instability is inherent in private health plans as employers will change insurance, shrink coverage or increase prices. They will even cut-off insurance due to the cost or when there is a labor conflict. Medicare for all is the most stable option — from birth to death people would be fully covered by NIMA. This allows people to change jobs or stop working to take care of children or elderly parents and still keep their health coverage.

NIMA means real choices for people as they can go to any doctor, hospital, clinic or other providers they prefer while with private insurance, patients are limited to narrow insurance networks of providers and limited choices of care. People believe in universal access and only Medicare for all can accomplish that. And, people understand that healthcare should be treated as a right, not as a commodity. Healthcare is a human right, not something employees should have to bargain for.

The truth is that people don’t love their insurance, they love having access to health care and put up with insurance companies because that is how the current healthcare system is financed. Health insurers use their media connections and the politicians they fund to put forward the false message that private insurance is essential. We do not need private insurance as it is an expensive middleman that adds nothing to health care except tremendous administrative costs and bureaucracy accounting for one-third of total healthcare spending.

Bogus Argument: We can’t afford it

One of the most senseless arguments against NIMA is that we can’t afford it. In reality, the current system is the most wasteful, inefficient and costly in the world. The spectre of high costs is a bogeyman promulgated by industry astroturf groups. Medicare for all will save money by cutting the bureaucracy and negotiating for fair prices for goods and services. We can’t afford NOT to move to a Medicare for All single-payer healthcare system.

Currently, nearly one third the cost of healthcare is due to the complex for-profit health insurance industry. About half of that is insurance company costs, e.g., advertising, executive salaries, dividends, real estate. The other half is the administrative cost they create for providers. Many hospitals have more staff working on billing to deal with the insurance industry than they have nurses. Healthcare is approaching 20 percent of GDP. Under NIMA, it will gradually go down to about 12 percent, similar to other wealthy countries with single-payer or national health service systems.

There is a lot of fearmongering about Medicare for all but the reality is people will pay less, have better care and more choice. Groups that oppose single-payer, like the Urban Institute, use false assumptions to heighten the cost of Medicare for all. Unfortunately, the false information on cost is likely to continue as the Congressional Budget Office has packed its 19-member panel that advises them on health policy with insurance, pharmaceutical, and hospital interests.

One way to confuse people on cost is by claiming federal spending on healthcare will go up.  Of course, it would because Medicare for all is a federally-funded program. While total spending will decrease and costs for people and businesses will go down, federal spending will go up.
When the media reports on the cost of NIMA, it often seems like they have lost the ability to do the math. They do not report that over a decade the cost would be $2.1 trillion less than projections of spending under the current US healthcare system. Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting finds that the Washington Post does not want voters to know that Medicare will save money. This is part of an effort by the media to make it seem like Medicare for all is impossible to afford.

Sanders has not put forward a specific plan for paying for improved Medicare for all because there are many ways to pay for improved Medicare for all. This week, Elizbeth Warren released her plan to pay for Medicare for all. She described it as the biggest tax cut in history because she does so without adding taxes on working people.

A major cost problem is the high price charged by hospitals. The current system allows them to charge just about whatever they like, prices vary wildly, and they fleece the poor. Some hospitals even sue people over their medical bills, though some have stopped collecting medical bills because of exposure and public pressure.  Other hospitals are closing, leaving towns without access to healthcare and creating a crisis in many rural and poor urban areas.  Medicare for all would control hospital pricing and ameliorate the problem of hospitals closing.

Pushing False Alternatives to Medicare

As Medicare for all becomes more popular, opponents put forward false solutions. The medical industry gives tens of millions of dollars to House candidates who oppose Medicare for all. The movement has exposed these false approaches. Rep. Pramila Jayapal, the lead sponsor of the health bill in the House, has criticized Democrats for using the Medicare label for policies that are not Medicare for all.

Presidential candidate Pete Buttigieg, the biggest recipient of health care dollars, is pushing a false approach, Medicare for Some, which is merely a public option and cannot solve the health crisis. Biden, who urges fixing the Affordable Care Act, puts out false information about Medicare for all. The ACA is fundamentally flawed as it is based on the inefficient private health insurance industry. Harris has waffled on her support for Medicare for all. Her bad policy was also bad politics as it coincided with her drop in the polls.

The Republicans don’t have a realistic solution to the healthcare crisis. When they sought to shrink health insurance coverage in the 2018 elections, there were massive protests. Trump’s actions to further privatize Medicare are also counterproductive. The insurance industry’s Medicare Advantage, which the industry is pushing because they profit from it, is more expensive and provides less coverage than traditional Medicare.

Real Solutions to the Healthcare Crisis

The US is in a healthcare crisis. This is a snapshot of the gravity of that crisis.

  • 28,300,000 – People uninsured in the United States in the first quarter of 2018.
  • 530,000 – Estimated number of families who file bankruptcy each year due to medical issues and bills.
  • 44% – People who didn’t go to a doctor when they were sick or injured because of the cost.
  • 34% – Cancer patients who borrowed money from friends or family to pay for care in 2016.
  • 79% – Increased death rate for cancer patients who filed for bankruptcy in 2016.
  • $75,375 – Cost of a heart bypass operation in 2016 in the U.S.
  • $15,742 – Cost of a heart bypass operation in 2016 in the Netherlands.
  • $1,443 – US per capita spending on pharmaceutical costs in 2016, the highest in the world.
  • 840% – Increase in spending for insulin from 2007 to 2017 on Medicare Part D (Medicare’s prescription drug plan).
  • $5,110,000,000,000 – Estimated 10-year cost savings of a single-payer healthcare system

Medicare for all would be transformative in many ways.  It would not only solve the healthcare crisis but would also cut poverty by more than 20 percent and would be a big tax cut for workers.

The first step to solve the US health crisis is National Improved Medicare for All. A majority of House Democrats have signed on to the Medicare for all bill, HR 1384. They need to be pushed to be more active in their advocacy for it. Presidential candidate, Howie Hawkins, has a plan that goes beyond NIMA to a fully public, community-controlled healthcare system. Hawkins’ system would prevent the healthcare profiteers from being able to game the system.

We have come a long way in the past ten years from single-payer healthcare being “off the table” to it being a major topic in the 2020 presidential election. We have the opportunity to win this if we keep educating, organizing and pushing candidates and elected officials. Visit our HOPE campaign for the tools and information you need to be an effective advocate for National Improved Medicare 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.

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

All images in this article are from Popular Resistance

MH17: The Quest for Justice

November 4th, 2019 by Askiah Adam

Introduction

On Saturday, 17th August 2019, an international conference, “MH17: The Quest for Justice” was held at the International Islamic University Malaysia (UIIM) in its Main Auditorium in response to the Joint Investigation Team (JIT) Report made public in June. The Conference was jointly organised by the International Movement for a Just World (JUST), The Perdana Global Peace Foundation (PGPF) and the Montreal based Centre of Research on Globalisation (CRG) in collaboration with UIIM. The JIT Report had accused three Russian nationals and a Ukrainian of having shot down the MAS flight MH17 overflying the war zone of East Ukraine on July 17th, 2014..  

The aim of the Conference, as the name suggests, was to try and see that justice is done. It determined the flow, structure and sub-titles of the six sessions. It was a whole day conference, starting at 8.45 am and winding up around 7 pm. The pre-lunch sessions of the screening of the documentary, “ MH17: Call for Justice”; “Review of Evidence and Background’ and” The Legal Dimension”were followed after lunch with sessions giving the whole tragedy a human dimension: “Ground Zero: The Unsung Heroes” and “In Memory”, talks by Malaysians on the ground, firstly, in Donetsk, East Ukraine, where the aircraft fell and, secondly, in The Hague where the then Malaysian ambassador to the Netherlands was tasked with identifying and the logistics of arranging for the return of, the remains of the Malaysian victims, home. The final session was an attempt at drawing a framework for further action to meet the main objective of the conference.

Experts, who have been following the progress of the JIT and the Dutch Safety Board (DSB) Reports were flown in, all speaking before lunch making their cases to together draw a picture of flawed investigations led by the Dutch. The decision to leave the Dutch to lead the investigations were agreed upon because a majority of the victims were Dutch.

The Opening

The conference opened with introductory remarks by Dr Chandra Muzaffar, President of the International Movement for a Just World (JUST). He spoke of the objective of the Conference given the state of global geopolitics where the hegemon has no qualms about lying and staging false flag events to engineer a public consensus for war as in the Gulf of Tonkin incident and the Iraq invasion where lies were blatantly orchestrated to justify the Vietnam war and the invasion of Iraq, respectively.

Officiating the event was Tan Sri Dzulkifli bin Abdul Razak, the UIIM Rector, who made available to the organisers the auditorium for free.

Session 1: Documentary — Call for Justice

The body of the Conference began with the screening of a documentary followed by questions and answers from the floor. The director of the Film Ms Yana Yerlashova and the Malaysian sound expert interviewed in the documentary, Mr Akash Rosen, who declared the sound bites used by JIT as evidence to charge the four accused had been tampered with. During the Q and A session which ensued, it emerged from the floor that Malaysia refused to lead the investigation because the authorities were busy with the disappearance of MH370 which happened in March 2014. Significantly, too, an answer elicited by a question to Ms Yerlashova drew the distinction between the Dutch Safety Board (DSB) and the Joint Investigative Team (JIT) investigations, the latter included Malaysia appointed only later. The former investigated the technical aspects of the shooting while JIT conducted a criminal investigation. Another important information that emerged during the session was that of the black-boxes of MH!7 which was retrieved by the East Ukraine separatist rebels and handed over to Malaysia who then brought them to Farnborough , England, to be deciphered. A preliminary report was given to the Malaysian government. Yana asked whether the black boxes were returned to Malaysia, the answer to which was “NO” because all evidence was kept by the Dutch as lead investigator.

Ms Yarleshova concluded that there is a need for a neutral investigation done by a neutral country.

Session 2: Review of Evidence and Background

Speaker 1

Professor Michel Chossudovsky of the CRG then kicked off Session 2, which was moderated by Tan Sri Ahmad Fuzi Haji Abdul Razak, former Secretary-General of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs Malaysia. Chossudovsky lamented the state of the contemporary world where “Lies have become the consensus” thus indicating his position quite unequivocally. He contended that the US Administration fronted by Obama’s Secretary of State, John Kerry, carried a narrative that was to suit their lies. Even without hard evidence their immediate action was to pin the blame on Russia. Meanwhile, both the DSBand JIT investigations had relied on information from the SBU, the corrupt Ukraine Intelligence outfit. All other evidence not from the SBU were discarded.

Professor Chossudovsky then pointed out that there was a second aircraft flying overhead at the same time. This is according to a BBC report which carried eyewitness accounts but has since been removed. He pointed out that there were bullet holes in the fuselage of MH17, which was later corroborated by the next speaker, Peter Haisenko. A BUK missile — identified by the JIT report as the weapon used — cannot make these holes. The third point raised as evidence that the JIT report is flawed is the fact that there was no BUK missile fired in the vicinity at the pertinent time because it would have left a visible vapour trail that would remain in the air for at least 10 minutes before evaporating. There is no satellite evidence of such a trail. Professor Chossudovsky concluded from this that a BUK was never fired and that, therefore, MH17 was not downed by a BUK missile. There was also no evidence that the separatist rebels had deployed BUK neither before nor after the event.

Another absurdity pointed out by Professor Chossudovsky was the position adopted by the JIT before Malaysia was allowed to join the body that all JIT decisions should be by consensus. This gave all four members of the JIT at that time – Netherlands, Belgium, Australia and kraine — a veto each. Since there were grave doubts from the outset about the role of the Ukrainian authorities in the July 17th incident, this implied that Ukraine could disallow all evidence except those from its SBU.

He ended his presentation with the question, “Is the shooting of MH17 deliberate?” to which he answered that one can only speculate since there is no proof.

Speaker 2

The next speaker was Mr Peter Haisenko a German pilot formerly of Lufthansa Airlines with considerable flying hours under his belt flying wide bodied jets. He went for the jugular by asserting that it was not a BUK that brought down flight MH17. BUK was not intended to bring down commercial airplanes but rather small fighter planes. It was not a BUK for three reasons. Firstly, because there was no loud boom heard nor a vapour trail sighted. Secondly, there were no exit markings of BUK shrapnel. The circular holes present in the wreckage of the MH17’s body could not have been made by the BUK system. Thirdly, there is some evidence suggesting that another aircraft, a SU-25, was present. He asked why the JIT Report carried blurry pictures when there are available sharp, focused pictures ?

Mr Haisenko concluded that there must be a new, neutral investigation because the JIT Report is technically flawed.

Speaker 3

The third speaker in Session 2, Professor Kees van der Pijl from Amsterdam dealt with the geopolitical and economics contexts of the tragedy. He began his presentation by praising the Malaysian Prime Minister’s courage when declaring he was not convinced given the evidence presented and the powers behind the JIT Report. The JIT Report says there was murder. If there is murder what is the motive, the Professor asked. The geopolitics and economic context would provide some answers.

Before addressing the geopolitical context to establish motive Professor Kees Van der Pijl touched on the DSB investigations which, he remarked did not identify who brought down MH17. He argues that the DSB itself is compromised. Established in 2010 it cannot report on anything that is against the interest of the Netherlands and anything that might mar the relations between Netherlands and NATO and the EU. The choice of people sitting on the DSB suggests that there was intention to curb its independence.

Professor van der Pijl touched briefly on the missiles and then went on to suggest that the 1.3 tons of lithium-ion battery that was carried by MH17, a commercial flight was a threat to air safety.Who allowed this to happen? A question not investigated by the DSB. He charged, too, that other than the SBU the information taken into consideration was from Bellingcat, a proven unreliable source of information. The question asked was why were more reliable sources of information not used?  Why were national intelligence outfits, other than the SBU, not tappedfor information?

Professor van der Pijl also asked why the JIT rejected the information offered by a German investigator, Mr Joseph Resch. His extensive documents amounting to 10 packages were rejected. He argued that the investigator is now a man afraid for his life hence his demand that the handing over of the documents must be in the presence of the media. According to Professor van der Pijl, Resch has now offered the information to Malaysia and Russia but to date there has been no response.

He then arrived at the geopolitical context citing the “race between the US and post-USSR Russia where the prize was Ukraine. Crimea which hosts Ukraine’s most strategic port voted to be reintegrated into Russia. On 16 July 2014 US declared this was unacceptable and imposed sanctions on Russia but the Europeans were reluctant to follow suit given their reliance on Russian gas.

Then the Middle East happened and the jostling for oil and gas pipelines to supply Europe. Whose territory would the pipelines pass through?

The Question and Answer Session that followed the presentations raised the need to make mandatory the closing of airspace over war zones to commercial flights. According to Professor van der Pijl, this issue was addressed in the 2nd part of the DSB Report. As to the restrictions on carrying lithium-ion batteries on commercial flights the Professor pointed out that within two weeks after the MH17’s downing the US banned lithium batteries on commercial flights. There was mention of the fabric of power that can make white black at which point Professor Chossudovsky intervened, remarking that the statements by Obama and Kelly on the very day of the tragedy suggest conspiracy.

Session 3: The Legal Dimension

The last session of the morning, Session Three dealt with the legal dimensions of the shooting down of MH17. Moderated by Professor Datin Dr Mary George of University Malaya’s Law Faculty, the first speaker, Canadian lawyer and human rights specialist Mr John Philpot began by stating that warfare is transitioning into lawfare, the continuation of war into law. Mr Philpot felt that the JIT Report was unfair and biased with no respect for the Rule of Law. He pointed out the use of “could” to establish guilt cannot be the basis for making a charge in law because the word “could” suggests a measure of doubt.

His assertion was that the JIT Report is primarily flawed. Firstly, the initial non-inclusion of Malaysia in the Investigation Team, despite the fact that as operator of MH17, Malaysia was entitled to lead the investigation. Secondly, the suspect country, Ukraine, however, was part of JIT from the beginning. Finally, with the March coup, US influence over Ukraine is overwhelming.  Mr Philpot said that Holland was not in a position to run the prosecution because the case is based on a flawed investigation.

Furthermore there is no extradition treaty with Russia nor Ukraine. So a trial would be inabsentia.This would mean that the evidence which is based on a flawed report cannot be countered.

He also contended that the Dutch legal system allows the victim a voice. As a result, in order to control the narrative the Dutch is said to be trying to shape that voice. He did not see the International Criminal Court (ICC) as a solution either, given its track record.

Mr Philpot ended his presentation with possible solutions. He proposes a Commission of Enquiry more or less formal be established given the volume of evidence that has not been looked into by the JIT investigation. It could be led by Malaysia and could take place in Holland. The other solution is to establish diplomatic contact to persuade Holland to change its direction. He pointed out, too, that in international law the forthcoming trial is dangerous because it can end in a declaration of guilt that cannot be expunged if the decision is found to be unfounded later.

Finally, to a question whether international law can be a recourse for the pursuit of justice, Philpot’s reply was that it cannot. International law is being manipulated to serve geopolitical goals. The trial is set to go on in Holland in March next year but the Dutch prosecutor does not view the evidence as flawed.

Speaker 2

The second speaker of the Session was Dato’ Dr Gurdial Singh Nijar, a Malaysian advocate and solicitor who started by pronouncing that the MH17 air tragedy was a complicated legal issue. Here was a civilian aircraft, a shared coach between KLM and MAS flying from Holland to Kuala Lumpur overflying a war zone that the country does not control. Dato’ Gurdial Singh plunged directly into the challenges and what can be done in the face of a pending prosecution, to demonstrate the inequities etc. To start with,there is an abundance of evidence that has been ignored. How to introduce them during trial? Family witnesses, who to determine who to be heard?

Malaysia as operator of the airlines can take the initiative. Should this become futile then and only then can there be a commission after demonstrating that there has been perpetration of injustice

He said that trial in absentia is inevitable and does not provide opportunities. If it is not possible then it is clear that parties involved are not allowing for justice to be done. Then there can be civil recourse to establish wrongdoing. Where? In Ukraine to establish the negligence of the State.

After Session Three the Conference broke for lunch and resumed with Session Four.

Session 4: Ground Zero: The Unsung Heroes

The session, was moderated by Ms Amy Chew, a freelance journalist. The speaker was Colonel Haji Mohd Sakri Hussin the officer who headed a team of 12 to go into the war zone and retrieve MH17’s black boxes. Colonel Sakri recounted his mission from the moment he left Kuala Lumpur for Kiev with some 150 personnel of the Royal Malaysian Police and the Armed Forces. In Kiev he received orders from the then Malaysian Prime Minister to retrieve the flight and data recorders, the black boxes from the leader of the separatists. This he succeeded in doing, going through a war zone, through ten check points of the Kiev government despite the Malaysian ambassador’s warning that Kiev was aware of his mission and that they did not approve. Orders being orders Colonel Sakri ignored the advice which made the journey even more dangerous.

He recounted, too, how after retrieving the black boxes, the Kiev government and the FBI had tried to persuade him to hand over the black-boxes but he refused and instead surrendered them to the Dutch after which the boxes were brought to Farnborough in England to be deciphered. So ended his mission. He was not party to what happened afterwards to the black boxes.

Session 5: In Memory

The programme of the following session had to be altered at the final hour because of the last-minute withdrawal of the speakers, next of kin to two victims both part of the crew of the ill-fated flight. Instead those attending the conference were given a picture of what happened in Holland where the remains were being handled and made ready for their return to Malaysia by the then Malaysian ambassador to Holland, Datuk Dr Fauziah Mohd Taib. During a brief session she spoke of how her embassy was turned into an Operations Room, of her staff and herself staying back and manning it overnight to handle all administrative work involved for the Malaysian government. What took her aback was the ‘quick-to-blame the Russians’ attitude which they criticised her for not supporting. The Dutch took immediate action to block exports to Russia of fresh produce and flowers. She was disappointed by their attitude towards the Russian ambassador to the Netherlands who was suddenly shunned. At the end of her talk she briefly mentioned that the speakers who had withdrawn from the Conference were both very supportive of the JIT Report and wanted nothing to do with the Conference, which they felt was against the JIT Report. She had little knowledge of what happened outside of her purview of handling grieving family members and arranging for the return of the remains of 43 Malaysians who lost their lives needlessly.

The ensuing question and answer session was brief and did not give rise to any new information.

Session 6: Formulation of an Action Plan

The Final Session, Session Six was made up of a panel of four moderated by Tan Sri Jawhar Hassan, a member of the JUST Executive Committee. The panel was made up of Professor Chossudovsky of CRG, Datuk Dr Zulaiha Ismail of PGPF, Ms Askiah Adam, the JUST Executive Director and Dr. Chandra Muzaffar, the JUST President. The objective was to draw up a Plan of Action to map the way forward.

Professor Chossudovsky started the session by saying that the direction of this endeavour has been set by the legal dimensions, the finding that this Conference cannot participate nor accept the flawed JIT findings and process. Where the interests of the families are not served then the way to go would be a civil legal suit. For the Malaysians it should be in Malaysia. With regard to MH17 there is a fragile consensus because it is based on lies. The consensus must be reversed. This consensus built on lies is a consequence of the media’s uncritical reporting. There must be a relationship with the media towards the reversal of the consensus.

The organisers of the Conference are considering the setting up of a study group to achieve justice including for the families. Datuk Dr Zulaiha was in full agreement with Professor Chossudovsky. She was concerned that the ICAO a UN agency, up to this day, has not taken Ukraine to task for having kept its airspace over a war zone open. She is not sure whether a tribunal of conscience or a formal legal suit against Ukraine should be the way forward. Ms Askiah Adam as the day’s rapporteur gathered the proposals and opinions voiced throughout the day that might fill the Plan of Action. As such what was contained in her presentation is already found in the earlier parts of the proceedings of the Conference.

The final speaker, Dr Chandra Muzaffar outlined four points that have emerged from the proceedings. Firstly, it was to suspend the JIT process since the investigation is flawed. Any conviction in a court of law arising from such an investigation would be a gross travesty of justice. To alert the Malaysian Prime Minister about this so that he can get in touch with his Dutch counterpart. This would be the most important recommendation from our Conference.  Secondly, if the first point succeeds there is a need for an alternative process to bring closure. We could set up a committee of legal minds to suggest alternative routes to justice for the families of the victims.  Thirdly, civil society organisations should come together to support this alternative process. This would be part of the mobilisation of public opinion. Fourthly, to develop an alternative narrative about the entire episode with the help of the media. The most critical dimension of this narrative would be to show how MH 17 is part of the unfolding geopolitical scenario related to the attempt by the dominant hegemonic forces to perpetuate their power and control in the midst of the most serious challenge ever to Western dominance in the last 200 years.

The most striking feature of the Question and Answer session that followed the presentations was the inability of media practitioners to see as hard evidence the points raised to show the flawed nature of the JIT investigations which were at best opaque and at worst fraudulent. The media practitioners have no appreciation of this. It shows that there is much work to be done ahead.

The Conference ended at about 7pm.

*

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 above report was prepared by the Conference Rapporteur, Ms. Askiah Adam.

For last thirty years, the world has been watching the saga of downfall of the Japanese economy.

In particular, the world has been watching with curiosity and even worry about the amazing adventure of Abenomics.

The disappointing performance of the Japanese economy and the amazingly inefficient Tokyo’s policies have produced the “Japanzation” of the economy meaning the three-decades of  economic recession followed by depression and deflation.

There is no reason why other economies will not share the same hateful experience in the future. In fact, there were some voices, thought weak, of worry about such possibility in Korea before the take- over of power by Moon Jae-in in 2017.

Since the declaration of Abenomics, in 2013, the growth rate of Japan’s GDP is no longer of minus figure, but still the lowest among the advanced OECD countries.

The per capita GDP fell from US$ 44,674 in 2010 to US$ 39,295 in 2018.

True, there are a few encouraging signs. The number of jobs has increased; the consumer price index is no longer zero but still below 2% which had been the policy target. The value of Yen fell by 20% but did not help much Japan’s exports.

You may say that these data mean a success of Abenomics, but, if it is, its social cost is high. The fiscal incentive policy has imposed on the Japanese people a national debt ratio of 250%, the highest in the world of advanced countries.

The central bank of Japan has applied so called “quantity easing” in order to prepare and inject liquid money amounting as much as 88% of GDP into the financial market with no convincing results.

But, before anything else, the suffering that the Japanese people had to endure because of the wrong policies of the government should deserve our attention.

Declining real household income and increasing non-regular jobs, the lack of adequate care for the elderly, the refusal of the young to get married are some of the collateral damages of the wrong judgements of policy choices and execution.

What is really surprising is this. Despite such long deflation and suffering, Japanese people have not shown massive protest. Is this due to their legendary docility? Or is it attributable to their fear of severe punitive reaction by the government?

Many will ask the question: Is Abenomics a failure or a success?” This question is of course important, but the more important question is: “What is the lesson of the deflation of thirty years?” I will try to answer this question later.

This paper has four parts.

First, we will see how the Japanese economy has evolved since WWII. Here, we borrow some of the ideas found in the theory of economic development by stage.

Second, we will see who were responsible for the creation of the bubble in the first place and its explosion in 1989.

Third, we will discuss the policy measures adopted by the government.

Fourth, the focus will be on the reason for the policy failure. And we will seek for policies better suited for the recovery of the Japanese economy.

1. Evolution of the Japanese Economy

There can be several indicators of economic growth and development, but GDP is, perhaps, one of the useful yardsticks. The evolution of the Japanese economy has gone through the following stages: take-off, accelerated growth, stable growth and stagnation followed by deflation.

It appears that the Japanese economy took off in the 1950s and the first half of 1960s. During this period, Japanese economy grew, at time, as fast as more than 20% per year in the 1950s, 9.2 % in the first half of the 1960s and 11.4 % in the latter half of the 1960s.

This period of rapid growth was attributable to American Dodge Plan, the Korean War, the successful adaptation of American high technologies to Japan’s needs, managerial innovations undertaken by major corporations such as “just in time delivery” and the Confucian human resource management such as life-time job and seniority-based wage system.

This period was one of the “Japanese Miracle.” Japan was admired; Japan was envied; Japan was imitated.

Then, from 1970s for two decades, the Japanese GDP grew at about 4.5% per year. This period was the stage of stable growth. One thing unusual was that the rate of GDP growth dramatically fell by 60% (6.9 percentage point), compared to previous stage (11.4%); this was unusually violent fall.

This could have been due to Japan’s loss of technological edge. In fact, much of Japanese technologies were modified versions of American technologies; they were not the original technologies invented by Japan; they were relatively easily transferred to other countries, such as South Korea and Taiwan

Moreover, this period was the beginning of significant moving of a number of Japanese firms to low-wage countries. This was another factor responsible for the decrease in the GDP growth rate.

However, the most significant factor was the weakening global competitiveness of Keiretsu firms (large industrial, financial and trade corporations) which were the post-WWII version of Meiji Era’s Zaibatsu. The Zaibatsu played the central role for the success of the Meiji Restoration in the latter half of the 19th century.

This period was also the period of the creation of the bubble and dramatic bursting of the bubble. We will come back later to this issue.

The decades of stable growth was followed by the decades of deflation and stagnation. After the bubble explosion in 1989, the average annual rate of GDP growth in the first half of the 1990s dropped to 1.72% from 5% of the preceding five years. This was the beginning of three decades of painful stagnation and deflation.

During the period of 1996-2018, the annual GDP growth rate never exceeded 1.0% with the exception of the first half of the 2000s when the growth rate was 1.22%

There were periods of minus growth rates. In 1998, GDP fell by 2.0% and in the following year, it came down by 0.2%. In 2007, the growth rate was minus 1.0%, while it was as low as minus 5.5% in 2008. In 2011, the Japanese GDP shrank by 0.5%.

Such is the saga of the incomprehensible breakdown of the number-two economy of the world

2. The Bubble and the Oligarchy

The world was shocked by the explosion of the huge bubble in 1989. The value of stocks fell by 60% in 1990; the value of real estate had a free fall of 80%. This bubble bursting hit hard Japan, very hard.

Why such a dramatic fall? The answer: “It is because the price went up too high in the past!” In 1988, the price of Ginza area land of one square meter was US$139,000.

The area of the Japan’s territory was 37% of that of the U.S., but the value of Japanese real estate was in 1988, four times that of the U.S. The value of stocks in the Tokyo stock market soared from 60% of GDP in 1985 to 152% of GDP in 1989.

Who and what were responsible for such a bubble? It is true that the Plaza Accord of 1985 was perhaps responsible in part. The resulting dramatic appreciation of Yen in comparison with the value of US dollar might have attracted foreign capital to be invested in real estate and stocks for speculative purpose.

In 1985, to get one US dollar, Japan had to pay 242Yens, but in 1988 the cost of one US dollar declined to 120 Yens. This was an increase of 50% in the value of Yen.

But the real factor was, most likely, the speculative investments in stocks and real estate undertaken by the well connected Japanese individuals, big business firms and banks.

The 1980s were an era of economic honeymoon for Japan. GDP grew more slowly, but things were plenty for most of the Japanese people. Japanese were proud of having caught up with the U.S. economy, in part any way.

Catching up with US in economic development was the ardent dream of the Japanese; this was perhaps their way of revenging for Hiroshima-Nagasaki humiliation.

The money was abundant. There was a lot of savings at banks. The amount of postal savings alone was 70% of the regular government annual budget. The liberalization of the global finance opened the door for banks and companies to international money market. The Keiretsu corporations had their own banks.

So they had the money, they had the chance to make money in the stock market and the real estate market. In fact, the members of the Japanese elite groups engaged themselves in the game of “Zaitech” meaning “techniques of making quick money”; it was the favoured pass time for the elite groups to make money by buying and selling assets for capital gains.

Some of the Japanese investors went to the country of Uncle Sam and bought the Rockefeller Center, the Columbia Picture Company and, even the Pebble Beach Golf Course.

The champion of speculative investors in real estate and stocks was, most likely, the powerful tripartite oligarchy composed of policy maker (politicians), policy executors (bureaucrats) and money makers. (Keiretsu).

The interesting and important question is why the government let the human greed to go wild and paralyze the whole economy.

The possible answer lies in the complicity of the oligarchy members to ignore the danger of the bubble so that they all can become millionaires.

If the oligarchy was responsible for the creation of the bubble, it was also responsible for the failure of properly dealing with the post-bubble problems.

There is no doubt that the oligarchy was the master of the Japan Inc. which made the Japan miracle possible. But, the oligarchy’s policies designed to restore the Japanese economy after the bubble relied on the conventional economic policies, namely the monetary policy, the fiscal policy and the structural adjustment policy.

True, these conventional policies were strengthened by Abe to make it, in 2013, his Abenomics policies, but still they were conventional policies.

Japan should have applied non-conventional policies such as a bold reform of Keiretsu and the expansion of the domestic market through more equal income distribution in favour of the ordinary people

 3. Government Policies

The monetary policy applied before global financial crisis of 2007-2008 was the monetary policy based on the manipulation of interest rate. This policy was applied during the violent recession after the explosion of the asset price bubble in 1989.

The price of assets rose so high and increased so rapidly that the Bank of Japan had to do something; it did something all right; it jacked up the bank rate from 2% to 6 % in order to stop possible hyper-inflation.

This was too much. Everything came down. The stock price index in Tokyo hit the ground from 30,000 to less than 15,000; the average real estate price had a free fall of 80%. The panic was inevitable. Japan had to face the threat of a huge recession which could invite deflation.

The phenomenon of deflation is something which happens rarely. It starts with the drastic fall of asset (real estate) price below the value of mortgage (debt). This means that the debtor has no longer the capacity to pay back the debt. The debtor has one realistic choice; the debtor has to sell the property. If many debtors do the same thing, then price falls more.

Since the amount of debt is greater than the value of the asset, the borrower cannot pay the debt, the banks end up with huge amount of bad debts. Then, cash crunch follows; banks cannot make new loans. The consumer demand weakens; the production of goods and services falls; the number of jobless increases. The household income goes down and the vicious circle gets worse. The vicious circle continues until such time as the economy crumbles.

This was what happened in 1991 in Japan. The policy measure needed immediately was the downward adjustment of the central bank rate. But, the Bank of Japan waited until 1994 before its rate came down almost to 0 %.  Here, Japan made the first mistake. The pulling down of interest rate came too late; the recession after the bubble explosion never recovered; the period of deflation followed.

The post-1994 policy was the conventional monetary policy of adjusting the central bank interest rate in order to adjust the demand for money for business investment and consumer demand. Given the depth of the deflation, the Bank of Japan had to keep the interest as low as possible to near 0 % until the middle of the 2000s.

Once you have zero interest rate, you have what is called “liquidity trap” and the conventional monetary policy is no longer working.

Having failed to produce expected results with the conventional monetary policy, the Bank of Japan began the policy of “quantity easing” (QE) in the 2000s. It became the major tool of Abenomics in 2013. The QE policy consists in opening at the central bank the current account of commercial banks. This means the creation of money which can be used by the commercial banks

It amounted to no less than US$ 923 billion in 2013, US$ 1,055 billion in 2014 and US$ 656 billion in 2015. By 2018, the cumulated amount of QE was as much as 88% of GDP in Japan as compared to 24% in the U.S., 34% in EU and 24% in UK.

Many countries including the U.S. and China used QE after the 2007-2008 global financial crisis produced by the American financial sector. But no country was flooded with liquid money as much as Japan.

Such huge injection of money has ended up by increasing the supply of money (M3) so much that, in the early 2010s, it accounted for 252.1% of Japanese GDP as against 151.5 % in Korea, 199.1% in China and 89.5% in the U.S. Money was not scarce; there was huge money flood in Japan.

The question is: “What did QE do in order to revitalize the ailing Japanese economy?” Most of the money was spent for prolonging the life of companies which were unproductive, insolvent and uncompetitive. This policy has prevented the Japanese companies from improving their global competitiveness. The money was spent for giving grants, bailing out and nationalizing companies in trouble.

In 1997, the Sanyo Securities and the Yamaichi Securities were bailed out. In 2000, the Deici Retail chains were bailed out. In 2013, Rosana Bank got the same treatment. Countless zombie firms were saved.

In 1999, Daiwa Bank and Asahi Bank were given large amount of grants. Similarly in 2002, the Sogo Retail Store chain received generous financial aid.

It is true that the government has also tried the M&A of banks; in 2008, 27 banks were merged into 4 banks groups.

What did the commercial banks do with the flood of liquid money apart from financing the bailouts of troubled companies? Not much; the QE policy was not able to restore the Japanese economy.

The primary reason was that there was not much demand for money.

This is explained by two reasons.

First, for decades, the household income stopped to increase; so, there was not much new demand for money needed for the consumption of goods and services. The increasing inequality of income distribution has worsened the income situation of the Japanese people

The inequality of income distribution is measured by the Gini coefficient which goes from zero to 100. The lower the Gini, the more equal the distribution of income is; the higher the Gini, the more unequal the distribution becomes.

The Gini coefficient in Japan has increased from 32.1 in 2008 to 37.9 in 2011. If this trend continued, the Gini in 2019 could be much higher.

Second, there was not enough demand for money by exporters, for Japanese exports did not increase due to the loss of global competitiveness of Japanese companies, especially the Keiretsu companies.

Under this situation, the banks had the burden of managing the huge stock of idle liquid money. So, they made loans to pay back existing debts; they could invest the interest-free money in assets abroad.

The second policy was the fiscal policy. The government of Japan spent an astronomical amount of money in order to recover from the decades-long deflation. For this, the government had to borrow heavily; in fact, the public debt is now more than 250% of GDP amounting 13 trillion USD.

Most of these funds were used for the construction of infrastructure facilities including a bridge in the Tokyo area, a bridge which went nowhere..

The fiscal policy has not done any better than the monetary policy in saving the Japanese economy from deflation. It is possible that much of money spent went to constructions firms which were directly or indirectly related to the oligarchy members.

Now, the third Arrow of structural adjustment policy was designed, in theory, to change the structure of the whole system of the economy. This was announced in 2015 when the second stage of Abenomics was explained.

The policy tackled the problems of education, labour force, innovations, fee trade and host of other problems. But this policy came too late and did not deal with the real problems of improving the competitiveness of large corporations and the underdevelopment of SMEs.

4. Conclusion

Three sets of policies were applied: monetary policy, fiscal policy and the structural adjustment policy. None of these policies was successful in restoring the sinking Japanese economy. Why?

The primary factor responsible seems to be the loss of global competitiveness of the Japanese economy. The loss of the strength of Japan’s global competitiveness is primarily due to the poor performance of Keiretsu corporations.

Between 2005 and 2011, the foreign market share (percentage of sales abroad) of Japanese auto makers’ production dropped in a dramatic manner. The foreign market share of Toyota fell from 51% to 41%, while that of Honda dropped from 39% to 29%.

The performance of the electronic industry was even worse. For instance, from 1995 to 2007, Japan’s foreign market share of the production of DRAM Memory came down from 42% to 9%. In the case of car navigation equipment, the foreign market share which had been 100% collapsed to 0%.

The picture of auto makers profit was not pretty either. Between 2001 and 2011, Mazda’s profit slipped from 4.3% to 2.8%; in the case of Toyota, it came down from 9.9% to 1.9%; in the case of Honda, it dropped from 8.8% to 2.9%

These figures show by what extent the Keiretsu companies have lost their place in the global market.

There is another factor which must be dealt with, if Japan wants to restore its economy.

It is Japan’s isolationism. Japan should come out of isolationism. One of the challenges which Japan must deal with is the declining population. The absolute number of population has been declining to reach 126.5 million in 2019 and it will go down to 100.0 million by 2050.

To make the matter worse, the proportion of elderly of 65 years or more has reached already 28.0% in 2018 from 17.4% in 2000. This means the decrease of active population of 15-64 years which accounted for 67.9% in 2013 dropped to 59.3% in 2019, or a decline of 1.4% point per year. This is too much.

This demographic aspect of the Japanese society must be dealt with, but it seems rather difficult to do so, because of Japan’s isolationism or racism. Perhaps, the only way to deal with declining population and the shortage of working population is immigration.

Japan is one of the most anti-immigration nations in the developed world. In 2016, immigrants in Japan were merely 1.6% of the total population as against 12.2% in OECD countries. In Canada, immigrants represent more than 25% of its total population

Japan’s isolationism is also represented by the reluctance of Japanese youth to go abroad to study. Japan’s another problem is its reluctance of accepting foreign direct investments (FDI). It was only 5% of GDP in 2019 as compared to 15% in Korea and 50% in the UK.

I was told that Ph.D. obtained abroad is not as much valued as Ph.D. obtained in Japan

Such anti-foreign things could be a factor which prevents Japan from importing new technological know-how and needed labour force.

Another factor which might be included in the strategy of revitalizing the economy is the mechanism through which the people can prevent any given party from monopolizing the power for ever, as did the LDP (Liberal Democratic Party) of Abe.

There is close positive correlation between the longevity of political party power and the corruption of the government. The corruption of the government can easily lead to policies which can be used for the selfish interests of the oligarchy at the expense of the national interests.

So, it is important for the Japanese people not only to watch closely government policies but also participate actively in the policy making process

To conclude, the saga of “japanization” provides a very useful lesson for us all.

The lesson is this. In Japan, Korea and in many other countries, the oligarchy plays a vital role in the early stage of economic development for the mobilization of national resources, capital formation, construction of industrial and social infrastructure facilities, market development and the development of all sorts of institutions needed for the take-off and the sustained growth of the economy.

But, there is a trouble. In order to accelerate the development of the economy, at the early stages of the economic development, the government allocates most of available resources to large corporation at the expense of the development of SMEs and the welfare of the people.

As long as the large corporations remain competitive, the economy continues to grow, but when they lose their competitiveness, we have problems.

Large corporations lose their competitiveness primarily because of the intensifying international competition and the lack of flexibility due to large size.

But there is another reason. Their global competitiveness has been assured, in part, owing to government subsidies and other forms of aids. But as the rate of economic growth slows down, the government can no longer provide such aids

When this happens, the growth of the economy slows down.

SMEs should take over the big firms and restore the economy. After all, SMEs in Japan account for 99.7% of the total number of firms and 87% of job creation. But the SMEs could not have developed because of the government’s pro-large corporation policies; SMEs cannot be a great help.

The only solution is the bold structural reforms which should aim at the following objectives: supply of needed labour force through immigration of people, liquidation of non-competitive large corporation, strengthening SMEs competitiveness, widening and deepening the domestic market through more balanced income distribution and sustained communication between the government and the ordinary people.

What has happened in Japan is the story of how the economic miracle can be realized owing to the devotion and strong will of the oligarchy; it shows, at the same time, how the economy can crumble because of wrong policy choices made by the oligarchy and the unfair distribution of the fruits of the miracle.

This can happen to many countries, especially developing countries. There is only way to prevent it; it is the direct participation of the ordinary people in policy decision making.

It is happening in Korea where, since Moon Jae-in took over the power in 2017, if more than 200,000 people ask the Blue House to take certain measures, the government must reply and react.

Moreover, the greater freedom of press and the interventions of NGOs constitute effective mechanism of watching over public policies and preventing the abuse of power and privileges by the elite of the society

*

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

Professor Joseph H.Chung is professor of economics and co-director of the East Asia Observatory (OAE) of the Study Center for Integration and Globalization (CEIM), Quebec University in Montreal (UQAM). He is a Research Associate of the Center for Research on Globalization (CRG).

Julian Assange: The Lynching of the Charismatic Geek

November 4th, 2019 by Diana Johnstone

Once upon a time, there was a very bright little boy who grew up moving around Australia, never really taking roots. As an adolescent he found his own world in cyberspace, which offered a field for his insatiable curiosity. As he learned about that great world out there and its secrets, he developed his very own rigorous ethic: his vocation was to search for true facts and share them with the public. His moral compass developed free of conformist social codes. Truth was truth, deception was wrong, lies on the part of the powerful should be exposed.

The original sin of Julian Assange was the same as that of Galileo Galilei.  Galileo sinned by revealing to the people things the elite already knew or at least surmised, but wished to keep secret from the masses, in order not to shake the people’s faith in the official truth. Assange did the same thing with the formation of Wikileaks. The official version of reality was challenged. All lies should be exposed. By far the most sensitive targets of his wide-ranging reality revelations were the lies, the hypocrisy, the inhuman brutality of the United States in its wars of global hegemony. To Assange, these things were simply wrong.

At first, Wikileaks attracted a great deal of popular attention and even acclaim. Julian Assange became famous. He was a geek, but he didn’t look like a geek. Tall, handsome, striking with his nearly white hair, Julian was something strange: a charismatic geek.

He arrived in Sweden with near superstar status. Swedish women contrived to get him into their beds. They bragged about having sex with Julian: he was a trophy lover. But the charismatic geek didn’t know the social codes of the peculiar Swedish forms of virtuous promiscuity. This lacuna was exploited by his enemies in extravagantly unpredictable ways.

Julian Assange tried to straighten out what seemed to be a serious misunderstanding before leaving Sweden. But the Swedish side failed to make matters clear and he left for London.

In London, he was quickly taken up by the radical chic branch of the British upper class, the champagne and caviar humanitarians. The naïve charismatic geek who didn’t know the social codes no doubt thought he was among friends. He didn’t belong to any political or social movement in the UK, he depended on the beautiful people who for a time found him an interesting outsider, one of their latest causes.

Julian Assange may have been socially naïve, but he very acutely perceived what the imperial powers were working up against him. The totally unjustifiable demand for extradition to Sweden for questioning – unjustifiable because they had declined to question him while he was there and then declined to question him in the UK – appeared to Julian to be an obvious device to enable Sweden to extradite him to the United States, given the total obedience of post-Olof Palme Sweden to the wishes of Washington. Others didn’t see this so clearly, except for the excellent President of Ecuador at the time, Rafael Correa. Correa offered Assange asylum in the tiny Ecuadorian embassy in London. Assange, unconventional, negligent of the codes, but with a clear view of the danger stalking him, jumped the bail set up for him and moved into the embassy.

This was the beginning of his alienation from the caviar humanitarians. At first the smart set defended him. Such glamorous personalities as Jemima Khan and Amal Amamuddin (not yet Clooney) initially defended him and then lost interest. He was not of their world. He did not know how to compromise, he was a geek after all, less and less charismatic as he faded in the shadows of the embassy of Ecuador. It’s all very well to denounce lies and tell the truth, but one mustn’t overdo it. It’s delightful to have a cause when you have a solid social and financial background to fall back on, and when you know how to play the game so as to be in and out at the same time. Julian had none of those social graces. He was honest, intent, stubborn. He was incapable of hypocrisy, even in his own interest. He would not abjure, as Galileo did.

Such stubborn honesty on the part of someone who has nothing – no influential family, no fortune, no social status, no political party, nothing but his stubborn devotion to truth – is unbearable in a society based on lies. The media who profited from his scoops became the most zealous in denouncing him. No wonder: his honesty was a living reproach to the scribblers who had sold out all down the line, who get ahead by adding new touches to the mendacious “common narrative” required by the masters of their careers.

Lies were spread. Someone so honest must have hidden vices. He must be as bad as we are, or worse. The mob gathers. This man who knows the truth but not the social codes is an insult to us all, a freak, a monster, who must be destroyed.

The lynch mob is enormous. The media, politicians, even the judicial authorities. There are no loud shouts for blood but silent cruelty as the Anglo-American ruling Establishment shamelessly contrives to halt the last breath of the outsider who dared expose them for what they are.

*

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 AntiWar.com.

Diana Johnstone is the author of Fools’ Crusade: Yugoslavia, NATO, and Western Delusions. Her new book is Queen of Chaos: the Misadventures of Hillary Clinton. The memoirs of Diana Johnstone’s father Paul H. Johnstone, From MAD to Madness, was published by Clarity Press, with her commentary.

Diana Johnstone is a Research Associate of the Centre for Research on Globalization (CRG)

She can be reached at [email protected].

Featured image is from 21st Century Wire

Trump Bulldozes New Wall Through Wildlife Refuge, Jaguar Country

November 4th, 2019 by Center For Biological Diversity

New border-wall construction in southeastern Arizona is imperiling the San Bernardino National Wildlife Refuge, and encroaching into an active jaguar movement corridor where the jaguar known as “Sombra” most likely crossed the border into the United States.

The new 30-foot-high bollard wall will block the natural migration of wildlife, replacing existing waist-high vehicle barriers that allow most wildlife to move freely. Massive groundwater pumping for the project threatens to destroy rare desert springs that harbor several imperiled species that live nowhere else in the United States.

“Trump’s wall is destroying some of the most beautiful, fragile landscapes in the borderlands,” said Laiken Jordahl, borderlands campaigner with the Center for Biological Diversity. “Construction here could push the endangered species in this wildlife refuge to extinction and encroach on vital jaguar territory. The Border Patrol’s reckless pumping of desert groundwater threatens to dry up the single most valuable resource for wildlife, ranchers and border communities. This lawlessness shows outrageous disrespect for our public lands and most vulnerable wildlife.”

The 20-mile-long segment also cuts through the historic Slaughter Ranch and neighboring public and private lands. Drone footage of the construction site shows the damage already being done.

Crews have cleared land for a concrete batching plant and staging area just west of the wildlife refuge. They have also tapped a well to extract limited groundwater resources to mix concrete during construction. Water usage estimates for the project run from 70,000 to 700,000 gallons per day.

The San Bernardino National Wildlife Refuge is home to eight threatened and endangered species, including four species of endemic fish, Chiricahua leopard frogs, Huachuca water umbel, Mexican garter snakes and Aplomado falcon. The only known population of San Bernardino springsnails in the world is limited to just a couple of fragile springs in the area.

Beyond jeopardizing wildlife, endangered species and public lands, the U.S.-Mexico border wall is part of a larger strategy of ongoing border militarization that damages human rights, civil liberties, native lands, local businesses and international relations. The border wall impedes the natural migrations of people and wildlife that are essential to healthy diversity.

*

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: An excavator sits at the eastern edge of the San Bernardino National Wildlife Refuge. Photo: Laiken Jordahl

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Trump Bulldozes New Wall Through Wildlife Refuge, Jaguar Country

The late Chalmers Johnson, a CIA consultant from 1967 – 1973, called for Langley’s abolition, stressing that democracy and the agency’s existence are incompatible.

Along with collecting and disseminating intelligence, agency operatives “perform such other functions and duties related to intelligence affecting the national security as the National Security Council may direct.”

The above quote is all about the CIA’s dark side, an unaccountable force unto itself, operating extrajudicially worldwide.

The late William Blum documented its involvement in assassinating foreign leaders, removing others by coup d’etats, propping up friendly despots, operating secret torture prisons, and other unlawful practices. Its agenda includes virtually every conceivable form of wrongdoing.

It tried or succeeded in toppling scores of governments worldwide, Blum saying:

“If you flip over the rock of American foreign policy (throughout) the past century, this is what crawls out: invasions, bombings, (subversion), overthrowing governments, suppressing (popular) movements for social change, assassinating political leaders, perverting elections, manipulating labor unions, manufacturing ‘news,’ death squads, torture, (chemical), biological (and nuclear) warfare, (radiological contamination), drug trafficking, mercenaries,” police state repression, and endless wars on humanity.

From 1968 – 1973 in Southeast Asia, the CIA ran or was involved in the Phoenix Program with US Special Forces and its own Military Assistance Command Vietnam-Special Operations Group (MACV-SOG).

Their mission was crushing National Liberation Front (Viet Cong) resistance to US imperialism.

One individual involved called what went on “depersonalized murder” to remove opposition elements and terrorize the population into submission.

An analyst at the time said it was “the most indiscriminate and massive program of political murder since the Nazi death camps of world war two.”

Even US military personnel and members of the South Vietnamese government were targeted for elimination if considered security risks.

An estimated 80,000 victims were murdered before Operation Phoenix ended. In the 1980s, CIA-recruited death squads were responsible for over 300,000 deaths in Nicaragua, Honduras and Guatemala, countless thousands more brutally tortured, and millions forced into exile.

An International Tribunal on Genocide in Central America said years of extreme violence during the period was responsible for “genocide and ethnocide…against indigenous groups,” accountability never forthcoming.

High crimes included massacres, torture, forced military service, land seizures, arbitrary arrests and imprisonments, population relocations, and attacks amounting to genocide under the UN Convention.

Since Bush/Cheney preemptively attacked Afghanistan without just cause in October 2001, the CIA and US special forces have been involved in extrajudicial killings, torture and other atrocities in the country, wanting elements opposed to US aggression and occupation eliminated.

Investigative journalist Seymour Hersh earlier said the US has been (and continues to be) responsible for targeted assassinations and other lawless actions in numerous countries.

“It’s been going on and on and on,” he said, no matter which right wing of the US war party is in power.

On Thursday, Middle East Eye (MEE) reported about continued CIA orchestrated assassinations in Afghanistan.

Even during Trump regime/Taliban talks, seeking accommodation between both sides, its officials were targeted for elimination, one of countless examples why the US can never be trusted.

Last March, MEE reported that Mohammed bin Zayed Al Nahyan, Abu Dhabi crown prince in the UAE, offered to assassinate senior Taliban officials during a meeting with Pompeo.

Since established on September 18, 1947, a day that will live in infamy, the CIA has been involved in orchestrating targeted killings and other high crimes worldwide on a massive scale.

Afghan forces recruited and trained by the US have been involved in CIA atrocities. MEE said “community elders, health workers and others” called what’s going on “a daily fact of life” in the country, death squad assassinations a Langley specialty.

The agency falsely claims its operations comply with the rule of law. Polar opposite is true. Countless numbers of corpses in numerous countries attest to its brutality.

*

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 CIA Death Squads Operate Globally. The Assassination of Foreign Leaders and Officials
  • Tags: ,

People being killed by wildfires in California, and people dying because they can’t afford their insulin are the same thing. Both represent the capture of government by corporations — in other words, both are symptoms of democracy in the United States being replaced by a corporate state with little regard for morality, life or the law.

In 1976, for the first time in America’s history, five conservatives on the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that rich people owning their own personal politicians was constitutionally protected because the money they were using to buy legislators and legislation was “free speech.” The case was Buckley v. Valeo. In 1978, SCOTUS extended that logic to corporations in First National Bank of Boston v. Bellotti.

The result was predictable. Rich people and corporations rose up and took over the government, as money poured into Reagan’s coffers and the corporate-funded GOP began to dominate the American political scene. And, also predictably, the most predatory and least scrupulous among those billionaires and corporations ended up with the most influence.

This Supreme Court-written law, reaffirmed in 2010’s Citizens United decision, was never proposed by any legislature, governor, or president, and, in fact, struck down a series of “good government” laws restricting money in politics that went all the way back to 1907.

And it has largely reduced democracy in the United States to its trappings. The public is engaged in a series of rather empty rituals, at least for the moment.

A representative democracy, of course, is generally agreed to mean that the majority of the people vote for what they want from government and most often then get it via the people they elected. When the majority wanted, for example, the right to unionize, a minimum wage, unemployment insurance, Social Security, civil rights laws, and Medicare, our government brought those things into existence.

All that was, of course, before the Supreme Court eradicated what democracy we had in 1976 and 1978.

Those decisions brought a river of money into politics and thus swept Reagan into office. He did pretty much everything his donors wanted and screwed the rest of us.

The corporate and billionaire takeover of the American government that began with Reagan in 1981 (based on the Supreme Court decisions of 1976 and 1978) has gotten more complete and more brazen with every election.

In 2014, Martin Gilens and Benjamin I. Page, professors at Princeton and Northwestern universities, respectively, published an extraordinary study that found that in this post-Reagan era, the political goals — the legislative outcomes hoped for — of Americans in the bottom 90 percent of income were, essentially, ignored by the U.S. Congress and presidency, at least when it came to actually passing and signing legislation. The probability of their wants and needs being addressed legislatively was even less likely than random chance.

The political goals of the top 10 percent, however, predictably happened, with the most elite and wealthy Americans getting the legislation they wanted, when they wanted it.

This is not democracy; it’s oligarchy or, at the very least, a corporate state. President Franklin D. Roosevelt challenged the corporate state that had emerged in the deregulated Hoover administration head-on, and his efforts largely kept it under control until the Reagan era.

In a 1938 speech to Congress, FDR said:

“[T]he liberty of a democracy is not safe if the people tolerate the growth of private power to a point where it becomes stronger than their democratic state itself. That, in its essence, is fascism — ownership of government by an individual, by a group, or by any other controlling private power.”

We’ve reached that point that FDR warned us about, regardless of the word you use to describe it.

As Gilens and Page wrote for the Washington Post, explaining their research, “strong support among the affluent is associated with about a 25 point greater probability of a policy being adopted… while strong support among the middle-class is actually associated with a small decline in the likelihood that a policy will be adopted….

“In other words,” they continued, “strong support among high-income Americans roughly doubles the probability that a policy will be adopted; strong support among the middle class has essentially no effect.”

What Professors Gilens and Page documented is that the Supreme Court killed democracy in the United States. The will of the people — the very definition of democracy — no longer matters.

As a result, Pacific Gas and Electric Company (PG&E) felt safe diverting billions of dollars that could have been used for maintenance or burying their high-tension lines into bloated executive salaries and fabulous shareholder dividends; after all, they owned or could strongly influence the majority of California politicians.

As Judge William Alsup ruled, “PG&E pumped out $4.5 billion in dividends and let the tree [trimming] budget wither.”

Now they feel free to cut off people’s power and tell San Francisco to go screw itself when it tried to buy their SF operations.

It’s also why one of the largest purchasers of drugs in the U.S. — Medicare — is now barred by law (the Medicare Modernization Act of 2003) from negotiating prices for those drugs and must pay full retail for everything, a windfall worth hundreds of billions to the pharmaceutical companies.

This law, promoted by the Bush administration, was passed back in 2003 but is still on the books because the drug industry owns the majority of our federal politicians, even though 93 percent of Democratic and 74 percent of Republican voters agree that the government should be able to negotiate prices. In addition to being a Medicare-funded windfall for pharmaceutical CEOs, it has led to drug prices exploding across the board, and that has led to dying Americans.

Most Americans want clean air, pure water, and a healthy environment; every administration since Reagan has, instead, cut thousands of corners or even driven roadways through previous laws and regulations protecting us. The majority of Americans want affordable college, strong Social Security, and a livable minimum wage; instead, since 1980, the trendlines have all been in the opposite direction.

Industry after industry has poured their largesse into political coffers, and in nearly every case they get what they want, the voting public be damned.

Americans know this. It’s one of the reasons why, when a buffoonish reality TV star and mobbed-up New York real estate mogul ran for president promising to “drain the swamp” and “break Washington,” millions voted for him. But he’s not giving us democracy, either; he’s just accelerating the slide to a totally corporate-owned state.

When the five conservatives on the Supreme Court betrayed America by handing our political system over to the morbidly rich and corporations, the Reagan administration, bowing to newly empowered corporate pressure, stopped enforcing a century of anti-trust and anti-monopoly laws.

No administration since has felt the need to reverse that, as industry after industry — from media to airlines to insurance to hotels to social media to food — have become dominated by cartels of a small handful of companies.

At this scale, it’s much easier to purchase and lead legislators, as we learned this week happened when it was revealed that last year a paid-off member of Congress slipped language into law written by or for Boeing that essentially put them in charge of FAA airworthiness certification. The result was the 737 Max and 346 dead human beings.

In the Democratic primaries, several candidates started backing away from Medicare for All when people from drug, hospital, doctor and insurance interests began to financially support their campaigns. The Republican Party sold their souls back in the 1980s; only about half of the Democratic Party is in a similar condition of servitude, which has put the party at a severe electoral disadvantage since that era.

When I asked President Jimmy Carter about Citizens United and this doctrine of money as speech in 2015, he said: “It violates the essence of what made America a great country in its political system. Now it’s just an oligarchy, with unlimited political bribery being the essence of getting the nominations for president or to elect the president. And the same thing applies to governors and U.S. senators and Congress members.

“So now we’ve just seen a complete subversion of our political system as a payoff to major contributors, who want and expect and sometimes get favors for themselves after the election’s over,” said President Carter.

In nation after nation throughout modern history, every time government has been taken over by oligarchs and corporations, democracy has died — usually to be replaced by a strongman form of oligarchy or outright fascism.

Congress could have reversed the Supreme Court’s decision at any time with either legislation that explicitly says money is not speech and that (per Article 3, Section 2 of the Constitution) this issue is an “exception” on which the Supreme Court may not rule.

It could also be done by two-thirds of Congress and three-fourths of the states passing a constitutional amendment declaring that money is not the same thing as speech, and that corporations are not persons.

Because of a corrupt Supreme Court, oligarchs and the corporations that made them rich have taken over the American political system. If we don’t take it back from them soon, the entire experiment of an American democratic republic will come to an end.

*

This article was produced by Economy 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.

Thom Hartmann is a talk-show host and the author of “The Hidden History of the Supreme Court and the Betrayal of America” and more than 25 other books in print. He is a writing fellow at the Independent Media Institute.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on How the US Supreme Court and America’s Multi-billionaires Are Ruining Democracy in America
  • Tags: ,

The Real US Mission in Syria

November 3rd, 2019 by Stephen Lendman

US involvement in Syria has nothing to do with regional peace, stability and security, nothing to do with combatting ISIS-Daesh terrorists. It’s all about killing a nation, partitioning it for easier control, installing puppet rule, eliminating an Israeli rival, isolating Iran, and confiscating its oil resources. 

On Thursday, US war secretary Mark Esper repeated what he said days earlier. Heavily armed Pentagon forces will continue controlling Syrian oil producing areas, on the phony pretext of “deny(ing) their access to ISIS — the scourge created and supported by the US he failed to explain.

During a Thursday joint press conference with his Australian counterpart Linda Reynolds at the Pentagon, Esper said the following:

“Our National Defense Strategy emphasizes that our principal concern is the Indo-Pacific region” — to counter China’s sovereign independence, its growing regional and global influence, it economic, financial, military and technological development, he failed to explain, adding:

“I need to redeploy (Pentagon) forces to the area” to increase the US military footprint in a part of the world not its own.

Asked to comment on Trump’s remark about wanting to take Syrian oil, Esper said the following:

“Yeah, the – the mission is, as – as I’ve spoken to, and I’ve conveyed it to the commander, and that is, we will secure oil fields to deny their access to ISIS and other actors in the region (sic), and to ensure that the SDF has continued access, because those resources are – are important, and so that the SDF can – can do its mission, what it needs to do in the region (sic).”

Asked “(i)s that a new mission, he failed to say it’s part of the overall Pentagon objective to transform Syria into a US vassal state, plunder its resources, and achieve the other aims explained above.

On Thursday, Russian Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Maria Zakharova said the US is stealing and smuggling $30 million worth of Syrian oil monthly “under the pretext of fighting ISIL.”

Separately, Zakharova explained that US/NATO-supported al-Qaeda-connected White Helmets are planning a new chemical weapons attack to be falsely blame on Damascus, saying:

“New confirmations of the information about the White Helmets’ activities emerge all the time.”

“According to the existing information, which the Syrian government regularly provides to the United Nations, the White Helmets, jointly with terrorists, are preparing new chemical provocations in Syria. They obviously aim at disrupting the peace process in the country,” adding:

They’re working with (US-supported) al-Nusra jihadists in Idlib province, the last major terrorist stronghold in the country — these elements heavily armed with US, other Western, Turkish, and Saudi-supplied weapons.

So-called ceasefire in northern Syria is illusory. On Friday, Russian reconciliation center head General Yuri Borenkov said 14 ceasefire breaches occurred in the last 24 hours alone — in Hama, Idlib, Aleppo, and Latakia provinces, adding:

Syrian forces in “Acre, Tel Rasha and Zuweiqat in Latakia province have been shot at by (US-supported) Hayat Tahrir al-Sham (al-Nusra) and foreign militants.”

On Friday, Southfront reported that “al-Qaeda (and) Turkish-backed radical militants launch(ed) (a) large-scale attack in northern Latakia” province “on Syrian military positions and civilian areas,” adding:

The assault “reportedly (was) led by” (US/Ankara-supported) al-Nusra jihadists, along with “(o)ther factions of the terrorist group and elements of the Turkish-backed Syrian National Army (SNA).”

“The new attack…coincides with a Turkish offensive on Kurdish-majority areas in northeast Syria. Radical SNA militants are leading the offensive, committing war crimes against civilians in the region.”

The struggle to liberate Syria from foreign occupation and plunder has miles to go because of US, NATO, Turkish, Saudi, and Israeli rage to eliminate the Syrian Arab Republic as it now exists.

*

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 Grayzone

Video: Syrian Oil and US Troop Withdrawal, Explained

November 3rd, 2019 by South Front

The United States is to keep forces at the oil fields in Syria despite the troops’ withdrawal from the north of the country. The formal justification of the move is the need to “deny ISIS access” to the oil fields. Defense Secretary Mark Esper said that the US military is already “taking some actions” to strengthen and reinforce their position in Deir Ezzor. This, Esper said, will include “some mechanized forces”.

US military convoys already started entering Syria from Iraq and moving towards the US-controlled oil fields on the eastern bank of the Euphrates. The Pentagon provided few details regarding numbers of troops and equipment that will remain in the area. Media reports speculate that around 500 personnel reinforced with dozens of pieces of military equipment  will be stationed there. For example, Newsweek reported that the US is seeking to deploy a half of an US Army armored brigade combat team battalion that includes as many as 30 Abrams battle tanks to the oil fields. The US is also going to keep its military garrison in the al-Tanf area, on the Damascus Baghdad highway, where about 150-200 troops remain.

The version of the troops’ withdrawal from Syria that the media is trying to sell its audience says that the US is leaving the country. In reality, the US actions look more like re-deployment than withdrawal.

Firstly, the withdrawal of “a majority of 1,000 troops” is hardly possible if, at the same time, 650-700 troops are to remain in the Deir Ezzor oil fields and al-Tanf.

Secondly, the Trump administration, including the Defense Secretary, said that it was moving troops out of northern Syria, but not that they would be leaving the country. Trump himself described the withdrawal from Syria as a “process”.

Watch the video here.

Thirdly, the US military convoys which left northern Syria during the active phase of Turkey’s Operation Peace Spring for western Iraq are now returning. Dozens of US military vehicles accompanied by fuel tankers entered Syria on October 26 and 27 alone. US forces also remained deployed at the Qasrak base on the Tell Tamr-Qamishli highway.

Therefore, in the best case the US contingent is being reduced, while the rest of the forces just change their deployment area. The stance of Iraq, which at the highest level rejected the long-term presence of the US troops withdrawing from Syria to western Iraq, also played its own role. Some experts initially suggested that Washington could keep forces on the Iraqi side of the border to project military power to Syria while keeping the troop withdrawal promise at the same time. However, this plan caused too much resistance from the Iraqi government, which is already in much closer relations with Iran than the US has ever wanted.

Another factor is money. The control of a part of Syrian oil does not impact the US economy in general. However, it does open particular prospects for the US campaign in the region and gives the Trump administration additional leverages of pressure on Syria and its allies.

Before 2011, Syria had a lucrative oil industry, pumping about 400,000 barrels a day and having 2.5 billion barrels of reserves. The ensuing war and wide-scale Western sanctions devastated the country’s economy, cutting production by around 90% and forcing the Assad government to rely heavily on foreign imports of oil, mainly from Iran.

The known oil reserves are mainly in the eastern part of the country near its border with Iraq and along the Euphrates River. The largest and most mature fields are the Omar and Jbessa fields, which reportedly had production capacities of 100,000 and 200,000 barrels a day, respectively, in 2010. This is the area where the US is planning to keep its military presence. It is estimated that around 75% of Syrian oil reserves are under the direct or indirect control of the US. A number of smaller fields are located in the center of the country, which is controlled by the Syrian Army, and in the country’s northeast, which is now under the joint control of the Syrian Army and the Kurdish-led Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF).

When the SDF and the US-led coalition seized the fields, the revenue from smuggling of Syrian oil was estimated at around $10 million a month with the price of around $30 per barrel. However, thanks to assistance from companies affiliated with US intelligence agencies and private military companies the oil output and thus revenue grew significantly.

According to an October 26 report by the Russian Defense Ministry, the US military and private military contractors are now actively involved in protecting and managing oil smuggling in eastern Syria. The oil production itself is carried out using equipment provided by Western corporations bypassing all US sanctions. The oil exportation is implemented by the US-controlled company «Sedkab», created under the so-called Autonomous Administration of Eastern Syria, a political body created by the SDF, when US troops were deployed in northern Syria. The income from the smuggling goes through brokerage companies interacting with various accounts of US private military companies and US intelligence agencies. The Russian side says that the barrel cost of smuggled Syrian oil is $38 and estimates a monthly revenue for the US “business” involved in the operation of over $30 million.

The business interests of US agencies and entities involved in the operation offer more reasons for the US presence in the area. It can be expected that if the situation in this part of Syria remains unchanged, the Trump administration will indeed go forward with its withdrawal “process” and more and more US troops will be replaced by US-linked private military contractors. Meanwhile US agencies and private military corporations will use revenue from the oil smuggling for further operations across the Middle East.

*

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

We call upon Global Research readers to support South Front in its endeavors.

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

The Global Research News Hour radio program depends on listener donations to maintain and improve the quality of our broadcasts. We thank everyone who donated generously during our October fundraiser. We welcome donations throughout the year, so please consider a monthly or one time donation. We offer incentives as our way of saying thank you. Please go to Global Research’s main donation page and tag your gift ‘GRNH.’

 LISTEN TO THE SHOW

Click to download the audio (MP3 format)

“Neoliberalism was born in Chile and will die in Chile.”

– rallying cry from Chilean protest movement. (October, 2019) [1]

During the first two weeks of October, Ecuadorians took to the streets by the thousands, with Indigenous communities reportedly blocking major roads and protesters occupying oil fields and government offices as well as reportedly looting businesses. This all in response to IMF-brokered austerity measures announced by Ecuadorian President Lenin Moreno at the beginning of the month. In spite of the president’s initially defiant stance and violent State reprisals, the government eventually backed away from its package of reforms and has resolved to working within a UN-mediated joint commission alongside Indigenous representatives to create a new economic development package. [2][3][4]

Just as the Ecuadoran protests were winding down, Chile started to flare up with anger over a 30 peso increase in Santiago subway fares escalating into generalized protests against 3 decades of neoliberal policies instigated under fascist dictator Augusto Pinochet and built on by his successors. By October 25th, more than one million Chileans took to the streets in opposition to President  Sebastian Piñera’s economic medicine and the brutal measures he was taking against demonstrators. According to an October 31st statement from the Chilean prosecutor’s office, 23 people died in the week following the October 19th declared state of emergency. Amnesty International has raised concerns about human rights abuses carried out under the military crackdowns. By October 30th, the president announced the cancellation of two major international summits in November and December which were to have been hosted by the South American country – a necessary measure given the instability in the country. [5]

As pointed out by Bloomberg, Chile has been experiencing during the month of October “the worst civil unrest since the end of the dictatorship of Augusto Pinochet in 1990, and hundreds have been detained.”

Elections held in Uruguay, Argentina and Bolivia all revealed the advancement or maintenance of left-leaning leaders critical of IMF-backed austerity measures. Argentina’s President-elect Alberto Fernández, in particular just publicly thanked Venezuela’s Nicolás Maduro for congratulating him on his election victory, while proposing Latin Americans “work together to overcome the poverty and inequality it suffers. “ It would seem Argentina’s days as a member of the Lima Group of countries calling on the ouster of Maduro are likely numbered.

Western capitals are convincing themselves that the Venezuelan, Cuban and possibly Kremlin agents are playing a role in fostering these popular revolts, since, apparently, the neoliberal policies pushing the bulk of the population into increassed hardship and destitution presumably has nothing to do with it. [6]

If we can, however take these developments at face value as a wide-spread resistance to the a status quo putting the interests of the ruling classes ahead of those of the general population, then it stands to reason that true democracy on the South American continent is expressing itself and putting predatory capitalist interests on the defensive.

On a week following a month of protest and resistance, the Global Research News Hour attempts to analyze some of the currents shaking up the continent with three former guests.

Professor Michel Chossudovsky was a visiting Professor of Economics in the 1970s and lived through the coups both in Chile and in Argentina. In our first half hour he shares his personal perspective and places the events of this past October in a historical context, including the the development of neoliberalism since the days of Pinochet in Chile.

Following this discussion, Pepe Escobar addresses some of the geopolitical dimensions of these uprisings, including the recent cancellation of two international conferences which had formerly been planned for Chile, and the prospect of Argentina under Fernandez functioning as a ‘game-changer’ for other Latin American countries.

Finally, John Schertow, of Intercontinental Cry focuses on the role specifically of Indigenous peoples, both in Ecuador and beyond, in confronting the exploitative neoliberal policies that are putting lives and communities at risk.

Professor Michel Chossudovsky is professor emeritus of economics at the University of Ottawa and the award-winning author of 11 books including his most recent The Globalization of War: America’s Long War Against Humanity. He is also the founder and director of the Centre for Research on Globalization and editor of Global Research.

Pepe Escobar is a veteran Brazilian Journalist, geopolitical analyst and Correspondent at large for Asia Times based out of Hong Kong. He has written for Tom Dispatch, Sputnik News, and Press TV, and RT.  He is frequent contributor to Global Research

John Ahniwanika Schertow is an award-winning journalist and multimedia artist of Mohawk and European descent. He is the founder and lead editor of Intercontinental Cry, an on-line media source of news of world-wide Indigenous struggle and resistance. As a poet and freelance journalist, John’s work has been featured in the Guardian, Toward Freedom, the Dominion, Madre, Swerve Magazine and many other publications. To support his work, including an upcoming ‘Indigenous Report’ podcast and television broadcast, please leave a donation at the site https://donorbox.org/ic-magazine.

(Global Research News Hour episode 275)

LISTEN TO THE SHOW

Click to download the audio (MP3 format)

The Global Research News Hour airs every Friday at 1pm CT on CKUW 95.9FM out of the University of Winnipeg. The programme is also podcast at globalresearch.ca .

The Global Research News Hour now airs Fridays at 6pm PST, 8pm CST and 9pm EST on Alternative Current Radio (alternativecurrentradio.com)

Community Radio Stations carrying the Global Research News Hour:

CHLY 101.7fm in Nanaimo, B.C – Thursdays at 1pm PT

Port Perry Radio in Port Perry, Ontario –1  Thursdays at 1pm ET

Burnaby Radio Station CJSF out of Simon Fraser University. 90.1FM to most of Greater Vancouver, from Langley to Point Grey and from the North Shore to the US Border.

It is also available on 93.9 FM cable in the communities of SFU, Burnaby, New Westminister, Coquitlam, Port Coquitlam, Port Moody, Surrey and Delta, in British Columbia, Canada. – Tune in  at its new time – Wednesdays at 4pm PT.

Radio station CFUV 101.9FM based at the University of Victoria airs the Global Research News Hour every Sunday from 7 to 8am PT.

CORTES COMMUNITY RADIO CKTZ  89.5 out of Manson’s Landing, B.C airs the show Tuesday mornings at 10am Pacific time.

Cowichan Valley Community Radio CICV 98.7 FM serving the Cowichan Lake area of Vancouver Island, BC airs the program Thursdays at 6am pacific time.

Campus and community radio CFMH 107.3fm in  Saint John, N.B. airs the Global Research News Hour Fridays at 10am.

Caper Radio CJBU 107.3FM in Sydney, Cape Breton, Nova Scotia airs the Global Research News Hour starting Wednesday Morning from 8:00 to 9:00am. Find more details at www.caperradio.ca

RIOT RADIO, the visual radio station based out of Durham College in Oshawa, Ontario has begun airing the Global Research News Hour on an occasional basis. Tune in at dcstudentsinc.ca/services/riot-radio/

Radio Fanshawe: Fanshawe’s 106.9 The X (CIXX-FM) out of London, Ontario airs the Global Research News Hour Sundays at 6am with an encore at 3pm.

Los Angeles, California based Thepowerofvoices.com airs the Global Research News Hour every Monday from 6-7pm Pacific time.

Notes:

  1. mintpressnews.com/chile-protests-revolt-against-neoliberalism-media-refuses-acknowledge/262565/

  2. https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2019/10/ecuador-unrest-led-mass-protests-191010193825529.html
  3. https://sputniknews.com/latam/201910151077050428-ecuadors-president-calls-back-controversial-decree-says-people-will-get-needed-subsidies/
  4. https://intercontinentalcry.org/victory-ecuadors-president-repeals-austerity-decree-and-ends-violence/
  5. https://www.mintpressnews.com/chile-protests-revolt-against-neoliberalism-media-refuses-acknowledge/262565/
  6. https://www.mintpressnews.com/chile-protests-revolt-against-neoliberalism-media-refuses-acknowledge/262565/

Western politicians are perception managers, puppets, deep state stooges. They bow to diktats from largely unelected polities. They are hollow, straw figures who sell out their countries and those whom they proclaim to represent with a whim. They have failed to “Stand on guard for thee”. They project “progressive perceptions” as they support Al Qaeda/ISIS and the conduct of war crimes under a fake humanitarian mandate. 

So, it is refreshing when a political figure tells the truth and takes a bold stand against the international cancer that is destroying international law, nation-state sovereignty, and humanity itself, with its war lies and its international terrorism.

President Assad of Syria tells the truth, for all who care to listen. In an interview with al-Sourya and al-Ikhbarya TV he discusses a number of important issues.

In reference to the Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi Hollywood-inspired narrative, he succinctly notes:

“This is part of the tricks played by the Americans.  That is why we should not believe everything they say unless they come up with evidence.  American politicians are actually guilty until proven innocent, not the other way around.”

Very true. He might have added that the evidence must be from non-partisan sources, and certainly not from Western terrorist-embedded sources.

When questioned about the Russian-Turkish agreement, Assad immediately iterated another important, but neglected truth.

“Russian principles,” he notes, “have been clear throughout this war and even before the Russian base that started supporting the Syrian army in 2015.  These principles are based on international law, Syrian sovereignty and Syria’s territorial integrity.”

Russian principles present a stark contrast to the unprincipled Western rogue coalition (Washington-led NATO and allies) that daily commits Supreme International war crimes in its Regime Change war against Syria and its peoples.

Whereas most Westerners refuse the truth and thus share responsibility for the crimes committed by those who falsely claim to represent them, Assad shines light on foundational truths. He understands the root of the cancer destroying the world, and he understands the imperative for a correct “diagnosis”. In the following statements he shatters the lies of “Fake Progressives”, of “humanitarian interventions”, of those who pretend to be “liberal” whilst at the same time supporting al Qaeda and ISIS:

“As for Trump, you might ask me a question and I give you an answer that might sound strange.  I say that he is the best American President, not because his policies are good, but because he is the most transparent president.  All American presidents perpetrate all kinds of political atrocities and all crimes and yet still win the Nobel Prize and project themselves as defenders of human rights and noble and unique American values, or Western values in general.  The reality is that they are a group of criminals who represent the interests of American lobbies, i.e. the large oil and arms companies, and others.  Trump talks transparently, saying that what we want is oil. This is the reality of American policy, at least since WWII.  We want to get rid of such and such a person or we want to offer a service in return for money.  This is the reality of American policy. What more do we need than a transparent opponent?  That is why the difference is in form only, while the reality is the same.”

When asked about the Kurds, Assad again shattered orientalist, divisive notions, with these observations:

“As for the Kurds themselves, most of them had good relations with the Syrian state, and they were always in contact with us and proposed genuine patriotic ideas. In some of the areas we entered, the reaction of the Kurds was no less positive, or less joyful and happy than the reaction of other people there.”

He understands the imperial machinations behind balkanization projects and refuses to demonize all “Kurds”, especially since most would likely prefer to remain in a sovereign, pluralist, democratic Syrian state.

Finally, with reference to the Constitution, Assad underscores the importance of international law and UN Resolution 2254 which reinforces foundational rights of sovereignty and self-determination: UN Resolution 2254 reaffirms

“its strong commitment to the sovereignty, independence, unity and territorial integrity of the Syrian Arab Republic, and to the purposes and principles of the Charter of the United Nations …. ”

Indeed, the failure of the UN and its agencies to implement and enforce its own stated principles has been self-evident throughout the course of this hideous, holocaust-generating imperial war against Syria, and against civilization itself.

*

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

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


Order Mark Taliano’s Book “Voices from Syria” directly from Global Research.

Mark Taliano combines years of research with on-the-ground observations to present an informed and well-documented analysis that refutes  the mainstream media narratives on Syria. 

Voices from Syria 

ISBN: 978-0-9879389-1-6

Author: Mark Taliano

Year: 2017

Pages: 128 (Expanded edition: 1 new chapter)

List Price: $17.95

Special Price: $9.95 

Click to order

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on President Assad of Syria Tells the Truth regarding ISIS-Al Baghdadi, for All Who Care to Listen
  • Tags: ,

Grenfell Tower in North Kensington, London, was completed in 1974, as part of the first phase of the Lancaster West Estate. The Owner being Kensington and Chelsea, London Borough Council whilst the Landlord was Kensington and Chelsea Tenant Management Organisation (KCTMO).  The building’s top 20 storeys eventually consisted of 127 flats and 227 bedrooms, after a major refurbishment in 2016.

Plans by Studio E Architects for renovation of the tower were publicised in 2012. The £8.7 million refurbishment, undertaken by Rydon Ltd of East Sussex in conjunction with Artelia for contract administration and Max Fordham as specialist mechanical and electrical consultants. As part of the project, the concrete structure received new windows and new aluminium composite rainscreen cladding, in part to improve the appearance of the building.

Two types were used: Arconic’s Reynobond PE, which consists of two coil-coated aluminium sheets that are fusion bonded to both sides of a polyethylene core; and Reynolux aluminium sheets. Beneath these, and fixed to the outside of the walls of the flats, was Celotex RS5000 polyisocyanurate (PIR) thermal insulation. The work was carried out by Harley Facades of Crowborough, East Sussex, at a cost of £2.6 million.

In January 2016, the residents Grenfell Action Group (GAG) warned that people might be trapped in the building if a fire broke out, pointing out that the building had only one entrance and exit, and corridors that were allowed to fill with rubbish. GAG published an online article attacking KCTMO as an “evil, unprincipled, mini-mafia” and accusing the council of ignoring health and safety laws. In the blog post, they warned that “only a catastrophic event” would “expose the ineptitude and incompetence of [KCTMO]” and “bring an end to the dangerous living conditions and neglect of health and safety legislation” at the building.

Critically, the London Fire Service was never consulted and was never told that this then structurally sound, fire safe building was to be transformed by the landlord into a potential death trap by the decision to cosmetically clad the entire structure in inherently dangerous, isocyanate based, polymer foam panels that were a fire accelerant which under conditions of high temperature would also emit lethal hydrogen cyanide gas that could kill in minutes and which was then banned from use in residential buildings in many parts of the world.

In fact, a fire broke out on 14 June 2017 and lasted 72 hours. Emergency services received the first report of the fire at 00:54 local time and it burned for around 24 hours. Initially hundreds of firefighters and 45 fire engines were involved in efforts to control the fire, with many firefighters continuing to attempt to control pockets of fire on the higher floors after most of the rest of the building had been gutted. Residents of surrounding buildings were evacuated due to concerns that the tower could collapse, though the building was later determined to be structurally sound.

There was no way that all those in the building at the time of the fire could have been evacuated and saved by the emergency services and to endeavour to lay the blame on the London Fire Service for what was a prima facie gross criminal negligence on the part of the owners and managers of the building, is clearly an overt attempt to shift the blame and responsibility for the loss of 72 lives away from those who were actually responsible.

That is both a failure of both central and local government, and of justice, which must be rectified without delay – and not in another two years. The incoming government must take immediate action to identify and prosecute those responsible for the greatest civilian loss of life in a residential building since World War 2.

A further public enquiry is, at this juncture, considered both unnecessary and an unacceptable postponement of justice as the names of those alleged criminally responsible are already in the public domain and, as far as is known, are now still within the jurisdiction of the British courts.

*

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 Grenfell Tower: Local Authority Accused of Multiple Manslaughter and Government Officers of Dereliction of Duty
  • Tags: ,

There is a certain irony in President Donald Trump’s frequently expressed desire to withdraw from the endless wars that have characterized the so-called “global war on terror” initiated by George W. Bush in 2001. The problem is that Trump has expressed such sentiments both when he was running for office and also as recently as last week without actually doing anything to bring about change. In fact, the greatly ballyhooed “withdrawal” from Syria turned out to be more like a relocation of existing military assets, with soldiers moving from Syria’s northern border to take up new positions to continue control of the Iraqi oil fields in the country’s southeast. Indeed, the number of American soldiers in Syria may have actually been increased with armor units being transferred from their base in Iraq.

The all too characteristic Trumpean flip-flop on Syria may have been due to pressure from Congress and the media, who were bleating over how the departure of U.S. troops was a grave mistake, but if that is true it is a tribute to the abysmal ignorance of America’s Solons on the Potomac and the presstitutes who echo their bipartisan myopia. In truth, clinging to the Syrian oil wells makes no sense just as the war in the north served no purpose. The petroleum production is not enough to pay for the occupation, even if the oil is successfully stolen and sold, by no means a certainty as the rest of the world minus Israel regards it as the property of Damascus.

And to be sure, congress-critters know all about winners and losers. The mainstream media has been full of utter nonsense, including claims that Russia, Iran and Syria were all winners due to the American pull-out while neoliberal democracy promotion in the Middle East has suffered a defeat and Israel is now under threat. And, of course, the United States has to its shame betrayed yet another ally in the Kurds while also losing all credibility worldwide.

No one has, of course, examined any of the claims being made by the interventionist crowd. How Russia has won in taking on a client state that it cannot afford, or Iran in maintaining an extraterritorial presence that is regularly bombed by Israel, is by no means clear. President al-Assad meanwhile has the not so enviable task of putting his country back together. Meanwhile the Kurds will manage by cutting their own deal with Syria and Turkey with Russia serving as guarantor of the arrangement.

The real reasons for maintaining a U.S. military presence in Syria all have to do with Israel, which has long supported a fracturing of that country into its constituent parts both to weaken it as an adversary and to enable the Jewish state to steal still more of its land, possibly to include the sparsely populated oil producing region. Israel also wants a robust American military presence in Syria to prevent Iran from turning it into a base for attacks across the border, an unlikely prospect but one that has resonated with the U.S. Congress. Indeed, deterring Iran is the reason most often cited by both Washington and Tel Aviv for American interference in Syria, where it has no other actual interest apart from an apparent demented desire to remove President Bashar al-Assad.

In fact, all of the turmoil about what Trump might or might not do, plus the killing of ISIS leader Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, has enabled the White House to move quietly ahead with its major foreign policy objective, which is, not surprisingly, destroying Iran. On October 28th, Secretary of the Treasury Steven Mnuchin was in Israel – of course – where he announced at a press conference with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu that the United States would increase economic pressure on Iran over its nuclear program, saying that  “We have executed on a maximum pressure campaign for sanctions. They have worked, they are working, they are cutting off the money. We will continue to ramp up, more, more, more …” Turning to Netanyahu he added “I just came from a very productive working lunch with your team. They gave us a bunch of very specific ideas that we will be following up.” Netanyahu responded “So I want to thank you for what you’ve been doing and encourage you, Steve, to do more – more, a lot more.”

Mnuchin the Poodle, who did not seem to know that Iran does not have a nuclear weapons program, was referring to the latest round of sanctions, announced in Washington three days before, that are clearly intended to make it impossible for Iran to use the international banking system to engage in any commerce at all. To achieve that objective, the Trump administration sought to exclude Iran from the global financial system by declaring that the country is a “jurisdiction of primary money laundering concern.”

The new designation, which comes on top of the Office of Foreign Assets Control’s (OFAC) similar designation for the Iranian Central Bank, requires U.S. banks to conduct “special due diligence” on accounts maintained by foreign banks if those foreign banks themselves hold accounts for Iranian financial institutions. The chain of secondary sanctions means that, in practical terms, U.S. banks will press their foreign correspondents to close any accounts maintained on behalf of Iranian banks so as to eliminate sanctions risk. This will further sever Iran from the global financial system, as Iran’s few remaining non-designated banks will find it increasingly difficult to maintain accounts abroad.

Treasury’s designation of Iran as a primary jurisdiction of money laundering will make it impossible for the few Iranian banks that deal internationally to maintain what limited overseas accounts continue to be available to them. The blocking of those accounts, either held directly by the Iranians or through other banks, will mean that Iranian importers will be unable to pay for medicine or food coming into the country, the so-called humanitarian goods that are normally exempted from sanctions. The new OFAC regulation does provide a framework for banks to continue hold Iranian accounts by filing detailed monthly reports, but the paperwork and other procedures are deliberately onerous and it is likely that few international banks will be interested in making the effort to comply.

That there is a coordinated scheme being pursued to continuously increase the punishment of the Iranian people was also suggested last Wednesday when the Trump administration joined six Persian Gulf nations in sanctioning over two dozen corporations, banks and entities that, it was claimed, are connected to Iranian support of Hezbollah and other groups the Department of State designates as terrorists. In a statement, the Treasury Department announced the sanctions mark the “largest joint designation to date” by the Terrorist Financing Targeting Center (TFTC) — which includes Bahrain, Kuwait, Oman, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates and the U.S. According to the Treasury Department, several of the companies sanctioned were financially supporting a subsidiary of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps, which the U.S. designated as a terrorist organization earlier this year.

Treasury Secretary Mnuchin, on his tour of the Middle East, remarked that “This action demonstrates the unified position of the Gulf nations and the United States that Iran will not be allowed to escalate its malign activity in the region.”

Make no mistake, the United States is conducting an economic war against Iran that is undeniably aimed at making the Iranian people so miserable that they will rise up in revolt. And the punishment being meted out will hurt the poorest and weakest most of all while also hardening support for the regime rather than weakening it. Not only is the White House action directed against Iran immoral, it is also illegal as Iran and the United States are not at war and Iran does not threaten Americans in any way. The whole affair is just one more example of how powerful domestic constituencies, in this case that of Israel, have distorted U.S. foreign policy and driven it in directions that are both shameful and that serve no plausible national interest.

*

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

This article was originally published on American Herald Tribune.

Philip M. Giraldi is a former CIA counter-terrorism specialist and military intelligence officer who served nineteen years overseas in Turkey, Italy, Germany, and Spain. He was the CIA Chief of Base for the Barcelona Olympics in 1992 and was one of the first Americans to enter Afghanistan in December 2001. Phil is Executive Director of the Council for the National Interest, a Washington-based advocacy group that seeks to encourage and promote a U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East that is consistent with American values and interests.

Featured image: Secretary of the Treasury Steven Mnuchin in meeting with PM Netanyahu, on October 28, 2019. Credit: U.S. Embassy Jerusalem/ flickr

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on The White House Plan to Strangle Iran. Trump’s Flip Flop Foreign Policy
  • Tags: ,

China Breaks the Western Debt Stranglehold on the World

November 3rd, 2019 by Peter Koenig

The west has colonized, exploited, ravaged and assassinated the people of the Global South for hundreds of years.

Up to the mid-20th century Europe has occupied Africa, and large parts of Asia.

In Latin America, though much of the sub-Continent was “freed” from Spain and Portugal in the 19th century – a new kind of colonization followed by the new Empire of the United States – under the so-called Monroe Doctrine, named after President James Monroe (1817 -1825), forbidding Europeans to interfere in any “American territory”. Latin America was then and is again today considered Washington’s Backyard.

In the last ten years or so, Washington has launched the Monreo Doctrine 2.0. This time expanding the interference policy beyond Europe – to the world. Democratic sovereign governments in Latin America that could choose freely their political and economic alliances in the world are not tolerated. China, entering into partnership agreements with Latin American countries, sought after vividly by the latter – is condemned by the US and the west, especially vassalic Europe.

Therefore, democratically elected center-left governments had to be “regime-changed’ – Honduras, Argentina, Chile, Ecuador, Brazil, Peru, Paraguay. So far, they stumbled over Venezuela, Cuba, Nicaragua – and maybe Mexico.

Venezuela and Cuba are being economically strangled to exhaustion. But they are standing tall as pillars in defending the Latin American Continent – with economic assistance and military advice from China and Russia.

Latin America is waking up – and so is Africa.

In Latin America, street protests against the US / IMF imposed debt trap and de consequential austerity programs, making the rich richer and the poor poorer, are raging in Honduras, Nicaragua, Ecuador, Chile, Argentina and even in Brazil. In Argentina, in a democratic election this past weekend, 27 October, the people deposed neoliberal President Macri. He was put in the Presidency via “tricked” elections by Washington in 2015. Macri ruined the prosperous country in his 4 year-reign. He privatized public services and infrastructure, education, health, transportation – and more, leading to hefty tariff increases, worker layoffs, unemployment and poverty. Poverty, at about 15% in 2015, when Macri took office, soared to over 40% in October 2019.

In 2018 Macri contracted the largest ever IMF loan of US$ 57.2 billion – a debt trap, if there was ever one. The new, just elected Fernandez-Fernandez center-left Government will have to devise programs to counter the impact of this massive debt.

All over in Latin America, people have had enough of the US / western imposed austerity and simultaneous exploitation of their natural resources. They want change – big style. They seek to detach from the economic and financial stranglehold of the west. They are looking for China and Russia as new partners in trade and in financial contracts.

The same in Africa– neocolonialism by the west, mostly France and the UK, through financial oppression, unfair trading deals and wester imposed – and militarily protected – despotic and corrupt leaders, has kept Africa poor and desolate after more than 50 years of so-called Independence. Africa is arguably still the Continent with the most natural resources the west covets and needs to preserve its luxury life style and continuous armament.

People, who do not conform, especially younger politicians and economists, who protest and speak out, because they see clearly through the western imposed economic crimes committed on a daily basis, are simply assassinated or otherwise silenced.

Africans are quietly seeking to move out of the claws of the west, seeking new relations with China and Russia. The recent Russian-African summit in Sochi was a vivid example.

China is invited to build infrastructure, fast trains, roads, ports and industrial parks – and the Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) is more than welcomed in Africa, as it projects common and equal development for all to benefit. BRI is the epitome for building a Community with a Shared Future for Mankind. China also offers a gradual release from the US / western dominated dollar-debt claws. Freeing a country from the dollar-based economy, is freeing it from the vulnerability of US / western imposed sanctions. This is an enormous relief that literally every country of the Global South – and possibly even Europe – is hoping for.

However, as could be expected, the west, led by the US of A, is pouncing China for engaging in “debt trap diplomacy” (see this). Exactly the contrary of what is actually happening.

The truth is, though, countries throughout the world, be it in Africa, Asia, South Pacific and Latin America, are choosing to partner with China by their free will. According to a statement by a high-level African politician “China does not force or coerce us into a deal, we are free to choose and negotiate a win-win situation.” – That says it all.

The difference between the west and east is stark. While anybody and any country that does not agree with the US dictate and doctrine, risks being regime-changed or bombed, China does not impose her new Silk Road – the BRI – to any country. China invites, respecting national sovereignty. Who wants to join is welcome to do so. That applies as much to the Global South, as it does to Europe.

China’s President Xi Jinping launched the BRI in 2013. In 2014 Mr. Xi visited Madame Merkel in Germany, offering her to be at that time the western-most link to the BRI. Ms. Merkel under the spell of Washington, declined. President Xi returned and China continued working quietly on this fabulous worldwide economic development project – BRI – THE economic venture of the 21st century, so massive that it was incorporated in 2017 into the Chinese Constitution.

It took the west however 6 years to acknowledge this new version of the more than 2000-year-old Silk Road. Only in 2019, the western mainstream media started reporting on the BRI – and always negatively, of course. The preaching was and still is – beware of the Chinese Dragon, they will dominate you and everything you own with their socialism.

This train of thought is typically western. Aggression seems to be in the genes of western societies, of western culture, as the hundreds of years of violent and despotic colonization and exploitation – and ongoing – are proving. Does it have to do with western monotheistic doctrines? – This is pure speculation, of course.

Again, the truth is multi-fold. – First, China does not have a history of invasion. China seeks a peaceful and egalitarian development of trade, science and foremost human wellbeing – a Tao tradition of non-aggression. Second, despite the “warnings” from the throne of the falling empire, about a hundred countries have already subscribed to participate in BRI – and that voluntarily. And third, China and Russia and along with them the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO) are in a solid economic and defense alliance which encompasses close to half of the world population and represents about one third of the globes total economic output.

Hence, SCO members are – or may be, if they so choose – largely detached from the dollar hegemony. The western privately run and Wall Street controlled monetary transfer system, SWIFT, is no longer needed by SCO countries. They deal in local currencies and / or through the Chinese Interbank Payment System (CIPS).

It is no secret, that the empire, headquartered in Washington, is gradually decaying, economically as well as militarily. It’s just a matter of time. How much time, is difficult to guess. But Washington’s everyday behavior of dishing out sanctions left and right, disrupting international monetary transactions, confiscating and stealing other countries assets around the world, puts ever more nails in the Empire’s coffin. By doing this, America is herself committing economic and monetary suicide. Who wants to belong to a monetary system that can act willy-nilly to a county’s detriment? There is no need for outside help for this US-sponsored pyramid fiat monetary system to fall. It’s a house of cards that is already crumbling by its own weight.

The US dollar was some 20-25 years ago still to the tune of 90% the domineering reserve currency in the world. Today that proportion has declined to less than 60% – and falling. It is being replaced primarily by the Chinese yuan as the new reserve currency.

This is what the US-initiated trade war is all about – discrediting the yuan, a solid currency, based on China’s economy – and on gold. “Sanctioning” the Chinese economy with US tariffs, is supposed to hurt the yuan, to reduce its competition with the dollar as a world reserve currency. To no avail. The yuan is a worldwide recognized solid currency, the currency of the world’s second largest economy. By some standards, like accounted by PPP (Purchasing Power Parity), the most important socioeconomic indicator for mankind, China is since 2017 the world’s number one economy.

This, and other constant attacks by Washington, is a typical desperate gesture of a dying beast – thrashing wildly left and right and above and below around itself to bring down into its grave as many perceived adversaries as possible. There is of course a clear danger that this fight for the empire’s survival might end nuclear – god forbid!

China’s and Russia’s policy, philosophy and diplomacy of non-aggression may save the world from extinction – including the people of the United States of America.

*

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

This article was originally published on New Eastern Outlook.

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. 

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on China Breaks the Western Debt Stranglehold on the World
  • Tags: ,

Police State Escalates War on Freedom of Speech

November 3rd, 2019 by Kurt Nimmo

According to the MAGA nationalists, the “deep state” only persecutes “conservatives” while liberals get a free pass. 

The Gestapo-style raid of liberal journalist Max Blumenthal earlier this week demonstrates quite vividly that the state does indeed attack leftist or left-leaning activists and journalists, not only MAGA supporters and “New Right” nationalists.

MAGA has deluded itself into the false belief the deep state is primarily comprised of Democrats on the warpath against “conservative” Republicans and New Right types. In fact, the state is apolitical in regard to national partisan politics. It favors Democrats and Republicans only if they tote the neoliberal and corporate line. If they deviate, they may suffer the fate recently experienced y Max Blumenthal. For now, this fate is reserved for those with high visibility such as Blumenthal. 

For really serious violations of the neoliberal code and the establishment’s prearranged political construct, the state prefers torture and slow death. It is currently doing this to Julian Assange. For the national security state, it is a cardinal sin and high crime to expose the dirty and murderous secrets of the state. 

Assange will not be killed outright like the journalists Michael Hastings and Gary Webb. Both Hastings and Webb exposed the crimes of the national security state and paid for it with their lives. Assange, on the other hand, will be slowly and sadistically tortured to death, thus revealing how the state responds when “national security secrets” are exposed and disseminated to millions of people. 

As should be expected, zero corporate media propaganda conduits have thus far reported on the Blumenthal raid, which is supposedly connected to his behavior at the Venezuelan embassy in Washington. 

At least one establishment connected organization that claims to protect journalists from government persecution has refused to defend Blumenthal. 

This is, of course, a technicality. Blumenthal is a journalist. He was reporting on the effort by Juan Guaido’s thugs to starve out and intimidate activists defending the Venezuelan embassy—with the permission of the elected Venezuelan government—although at the time of the purported incident he wasn’t writing or reporting. 

This should be expected. The US Freedom Tracker has partnered with Poynter, an organization working to circumvent alternative media. It is funded by George Soros’ Open Society and the Omidyar Network. Together both organizations pledged nearly a million and a half dollars to fund a supposed fact-checking network, that is to say identify and eradicate media that strays from permissible parameters established by the state.  

“Poynter has a longstanding history as an anchor in the journalism business. Its board of trustees includes execs from The New York Times, ESPN, Harvard, Vox, CBS, ABC, and The Washington Post. Poynter is currently working with Facebook and Google for its fact-checking programs,” writes Corinne Weaver.   

MAGA types and conservatives believe the jihad against media freedom by the corporate state is aimed exclusively at them and the perpetrators are largely Democrats and a handful of RINOS. This mindset is an unfortunate result of an ongoing operation to polarize and divide those holding differing political ideologies, a tactic that goes back to Julius Caesar, Niccolò Machiavelli, and Immanuel Kant. 

*

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.

Featured image is from the author