In the 1920s, the influential American intellectual Walter Lippman argued that the average person was incapable of seeing or understanding the world clearly and needed to be guided by experts behind the social curtain. In a number of books he laid out the theoretical foundations for the practical work of Edward Bernays, who developed “public relations” (aka propaganda) to carry out this task for the ruling elites. Bernays had honed his skills while working as a propagandist for the United States during World War I, and after the war he set himself up as a public relations counselor in New York City.
There is a fascinating exchange at the beginning of Adam Curtis’s documentary, The Century of Self, where Bernays, then nearly 100 years old but still very sharp, reveals his manipulative mindset and that of so many of those who have followed in his wake. He says the reason he couldn’t call his new business “propaganda” was because the Germans had given propaganda a “bad name,” and so he came up with the euphemism “public relations.” He then adds that “if you could use it [i.e. propaganda] for war, you certainly could use it for peace.” Of course, he never used PR for peace but just to manipulate public opinion (he helped engineer the CIA coup against the democratically elected Arbenz government in Guatemala in 1954 with fake news broadcasts). He says “the Germans gave propaganda a bad name,” not Bernays and the United States with their vast campaign of lies, mainly aimed at the American people to get their support for going to a war they opposed (think weapons of mass destruction). He sounds proud of his war propaganda work that resounded to his credit since it led to support for the “war to end all wars” and subsequently to a hit movie about WWI, Yankee Doodle Dandy, made in 1942 to promote another war, since the first one somehow didn’t achieve its lofty goal.
As Bernays has said, “The American motion picture is the greatest unconscious carrier of propaganda in the world today.”
He was a propagandist to the end. I suspect most viewers of the film are taken in by these softly spoken words of an old man sipping a glass of wine at a dinner table with a woman who is asking him questions. I have shown this film to hundreds of students and none has noticed his legerdemain. It is an example of the sort of hocus-pocus I will be getting to shortly, the sly insertion into seemingly liberal or matter-of-fact commentary of statements that imply a different story. The placement of convincing or confusing disingenuous ingredients into a truth sandwich – for Bernays knew that the bread of truth is essential to conceal untruth.
In the following years, Bernays, Lippman, and their ilk were joined by social “scientists,” psychologists, and sundry others intent on making a sham out of the idea of democracy by developing strategies and techniques for the engineering of social consensus consonant with the wishes of the ruling classes. Their techniques of propaganda developed exponentially with the development of technology, the creation of the CIA, its infiltration of all the major media, and that agency’s courting of what the CIA official Cord Meyer called in the 1950s “the compatible left,” having already had the right in its pocket. Today most people are, as is said, “wired,” and they get their information from the electronic media that is mostly controlled by giant corporations in cahoots with government propagandists. Ask yourself: Has the power of the oligarchic, permanent warfare state with its propaganda and spy networks increased or decreased over your lifetime. The answer is obvious: the average people that Lippman and Bernays trashed are losing and the ruling elites are winning.
This is not just because powerful propagandists are good at controlling so-called “average” people’s thinking, but, perhaps more importantly, because they are also adept – probably more so – at confusing or directing the thinking of those who consider themselves above average, those who still might read a book or two or have the concentration to read multiple articles that offer different perspectives on a topic. This is what some call the professional and intellectual classes, perhaps 15-20 % of the population, most of whom are not the ruling elites but their employees and sometimes their mouthpieces. It is this segment of the population that considers itself “informed,” but the information they imbibe is often sprinkled with bits of misdirection, both intentional and not, that beclouds their understanding of important public matters but leaves them with the false impression that they are in the know.
Recently I have noticed a group of interconnected examples of how this group of the population that exerts influence incommensurate with their numbers has contributed to the blurring of lines between fact and fiction. Within this group there are opinion makers who are often journalists, writers, and cultural producers of some sort or other, and then the larger number of the intellectual or schooled class who follow their opinions. This second group then passes on their received opinions to those who look up to them.
There is a notorious propaganda outfit called Bellingcat, started by an Englishman named Eliot Higgins, that has been funded by The Atlantic Council, a think-tank with deep ties to the U.S. government, NATO, war manufacturers, and their allies, and the National Endowment for Democracy (NED), another infamous U.S. front organization heavily involved in so-called color revolution regime change operations all around the world, that has just won the International Emmy Award for best documentary.
The film with the Orwellian title, Bellingcat: Truth in a Post-Truth World, received its Emmy at a recent ceremony in New York City. Bellingcat is an alleged group of amateur on-line researchers who have spent years shilling for the U.S. instigated war against the Syrian government, blaming the Douma chemical attack and others on the Assad government, and for the anti-Russian propaganda connected to, among other things, the Skripal poisoning case in England, and the downing of flight MH17 plane in Ukraine. It has been lauded by the corporate mainstream media in the west. Its support for the equally fraudulent White Helmets (also funded by the US and the UK) in Syria has also been praised by the western corporate media while being dissected as propaganda by many excellent independent journalists such as Eva Bartlett, Vanessa Beeley, Catte Black, among others. It’s had its work skewered by the likes of Seymour Hersh and MIT professor Theodore Postol, and its US government connections pointed out by many others, including Ben Norton and Max Blumenthal at The Gray Zone. And now we have the mainstream media’s wall of silence on the leaks from the Organization for the Prohibition on Chemical Weapons (OPCW) concerning the Douma chemical attack and the doctoring of their report that led to the illegal U.S. bombing of Syria in the spring of 2018. Bellingcat was at the forefront of providing justification for such bombing, and now the journalists Peter Hitchens, Tareq Harrad (who recently resigned from Newsweek after accusing the publication of suppressing his revelations about the OPCW scandal) and others are fighting an uphill battle to get the truth out.
Yet Bellingcat: Truth in a Post-Truth World won the Emmy, fulfilling Bernays’ point about films being the greatest unconscious carriers of propaganda in the world today.
Note to readers: please click the share buttons above or below. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.
Distinguished author and sociologist Edward Curtin is a Research Associate of the Centre for Research on Globalization. Visit the author’s website here.
Have you paid for an ancestry report? Perhaps someone gave it to you as a gift. Either way, pharmaceutical giant GlaxoSmithKline now owns your genetic fingerprint.
In a paradigm shift that is making some people uneasy, human DNA has been dubbed a commodity. The company 23andMe boasts the world’s largest database of genetic code. This extensive library of DNA has been acquired by offering the public a genealogy report in exchange for a fee.
Many people excitedly paid to hand over their DNA to the company not realizing it would become the “new frontier” for pioneering drugmakers. Pharmaceutical companies now stand to profit greatly from the DNA people paid to send in.
GlaxoSmithKline (GSK) purchased a $300 million share in the genlogy company 23 and me, which provides ancestry reports to those who submit their DNA. GSK’s CEO stated that this “merger” will accelerate the development of “novel treatments and cures.”
Now that GSK has access to customers’ genetic blueprints, the company says it can use this DNA in studies in order to fast track new drugs for approval, according to the press release.
Reports indicate that 80% of 23andMe customers opt-in to share their genetic fingerprint along with information about their health and lifestyle through a survey. This survey is simply framed to be for research purposes.
More than 5 million people have willingly submitted their DNA to 23andMe in exchange for a chance to access details about their ancestry.
Privacy Concerns
“If people are concerned about their social security numbers being stolen, they should be concerned about their genetic information being misused,” says Peter Pitts, president of the Center for Medicine in the Public Interest.
“This information is never 100% safe. The risk is magnified when one organization shares it with a second organization. When information moves from one place to another, there’s always a chance for it to be intercepted by unintended third parties.”
What is Pitts talking about when he says third parties? Health insurance companies is a big one. Here’s an alarming quote straight from the 23andMe website:
“Your genetic data, survey responses, and/or personally identifying information may be stolen in the event of a security breach. In the event of such a breach, if your data are associated with your identity, they may be made public or released to insurance companies, which could have a negative effect on your ability to obtain insurance coverage.” [emphasis mine]
Big pharma is laughing all the way to the bank seeing as how pharmaceutical companies can now use this DNA data to create experimental drugs. These experimental drugs can then be marketed to consumers based merely on their genetic profiles which may or may not be very accurate in the first place.
Even the FDA has pointed out that false positives or false negatives for certain genetic traits do occur. Of course this won’t stop them from approving fast-tracked experimental drugs based on genetic data.
If you want to close your account at 23andMe you can access that here, however, the company outright states,
“Any research involving your data that has already been performed or published prior to our receipt of your request will not be reversed, undone, or withdrawn.”
Tough luck for those who have willingly paid to hand over their DNA.
*
Note to readers: please click the share buttons above or below. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.
In an October article, I made the argument that Yemen has become Saudi Arabia’s “Vietnam” because despite their technological, demographical and economical advantage over Yemen, it has completely failed to break the Yemeni resistance, headed by the Houthi-led Ansarullah Movement. Although “Saudi Arabia mobilized about 150,000 of its soldiers and mostly Sudanese mercenaries,” this large force has not been able to break the dogged Yemeni resistance.
The Ansarullah Movement announced in November that 4,335 Sudanese soldiers have been killed in the ongoing conflict in the country since 2015, with military spokesman Yahya Seri, saying that the Sudanese people, like other peoples in the region, were subjected to false propaganda by the media to conceal facts. Seri revealed that the 15,000 Sudanese mercenaries were divided on the northern border under the supervision of Saudi Arabia and on the south and west coast under the supervision of the United Arab Emirates (UAE). He then went onto to allege that Sudanese soldiers in the last two years have conducted sexual abuse against women and children, war crimes and violations of human rights – reminiscent of Sudanese war crimes in Darfur and South Sudan.
Many parties and deputies in Sudan have stated that the presence of Sudanese military forces in Yemen had a negative effect on the relations of the peoples of the two countries and called for the withdrawal of these forces. Former President Omar al-Bashir, who was overthrown by the military coup in Sudan earlier this year, argued that Sudanese forces should take part in the Yemeni war at every opportunity possible to help their Saudi friends.
However, Sudanese Prime Minister Abdullah Hamdok said that he would recall Sudanese troops from the Saudi-led coalition in Yemen, correctly asserting that
“There is no military solution to the conflict in Yemen, either from us or from the other side of the world. The problem needs to be solved by political means.”
This is part of Sudan’s efforts to normalize relations with the West by demonstrating it is a responsible country, with Hamdok even having talks with U.S. officials to discuss the process of removing Sudan’s name from the list of countries that support terrorism. Although Washington lifted the economic sanctions imposed on Sudan since 1997 in October 2017, they did not remove Sudan from the “list of countries supporting terrorism” that was imposed in 1993 for hosting al-Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden.
Yemeni Defense Minister Mohammed Nasser al-Atıfi asked Sudan to withdraw its troops from the country just days ago in a written statement, explaining that the UAE does not want peace in Yemen, before reiterating their call “to the Sudanese regime to withdraw its troops from Yemen before it is too late.” With this, Hamdok announced the reduction of Sudanese forces in Yemen from 15,000 to 5,000. Part of this effort to completely withdraw from the impoverished Arab country.
The question then remains why Sudan is now withdrawing from Yemen. Sudan has now demonstrated that it wants to act to serve its own direct interests, in which it has none in Yemen. Hamdok has a clear vision for Sudan, that is becoming ever closer to the U.S. His vision for Sudan is to become a leading country in the region that yields significant influence, however, it appears Hamdok does not have much self-confidence and believes this can only be achieved by aligning with Washington.
Discussing the Grand Ethiopian Renaissance Dam that has been a source of tensions between Egypt and Ethiopia, Hamdok added that he wanted to bring the two rival countries together with the Washington to reach an agreement between the three African countries. These tensions started when Ethiopia began construction of a dam in 2011 to increase its electrical capabilities, which worries Egypt as it relies on for 90% of its water needs from the Nile. Egypt believes this waterflow from the Ethiopian highlands could be affected by the dam. Although it was Egyptian President Abdel Fattah al-Sisi who requested Trump to help mediate during a meeting on the sidelines of the UN General Assembly summit in September, Sudan is demonstrating that it also wants to spearhead efforts to normalize relations between Ethiopia and Egypt.
Hamdok’s efforts to expand Sudanese influence has been in complete opposition to former Sudanese President Omar al-Bashir who wielded the military with great power. By withdrawing from Yemen and supporting dialogue so that the tense relations between Ethiopia and Egypt can be eased shows a Sudan that is changing dramatically. With its improving relations with the U.S., Sudan could become a state in northeast Africa that is more aligned to Washington in a region that is increasingly coming under Chinese influence, and it all begins with Sudan’s slow withdrawal from Yemen.
*
Note to readers: please click the share buttons above or below. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.
This article was originally published on InfoBrics.
Paul Antonopoulos is a Research Fellow at the Center for Syncretic Studies.
On Tuesday, Russian Foreign Minister Lavrov met with Pompeo at the State Department as well as Trump in the White House Oval Office.
Several issues discussed including “Russiagate”
[Careful timing??:
“House Democrats will begin work on completing their articles of impeachment against President Trump on Wednesday evening, setting the stage for a vote by the full House.
The Judiciary Committee is expected to convene at 7 p.m. ET to amend the impeachment legislation introduced Tuesday by House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., and her top committee chairmen and women.
A second session is expected on Thursday morning at 9.” GR Editor ]
Following their meeting in the Oval Office, DJT tweeted the following:
“Just had a very good meeting with Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov and representatives of Russia. Discussed many items including Trade, Iran, North Korea, INF Treaty, Nuclear Arms Control, and Election Meddling. Look forward to continuing our dialogue in the near future!”
Lavrov stressed that Moscow’s “correspondence (with the US) will show that we were prepared to cooperate on any issue that had to do with the US suspicions about our interference in elections, but the Obama administration rejected that vehemently.”
Russia repeatedly denied interfering in US or other foreign elections. No credible evidence refutes its assertion because none exist. Yet the Big Lie won’t die because hostile establishment media keep repeating it.
Lavrov said
“(t)here are no facts that would support (Russian US election meddling accusations). We did not see these facts. No one has given us this proof because, simply, it does not exist.”
He stressed that “Congress…is doing everything to destroy (Russian/US) relations.” Citing congressional efforts to obstruct completion of two Russian gas pipelines to Europe, he said:
“I can assure you that neither Nord Stream 2 nor Turk Stream will be halted” — both projects in their final stages of construction, to be operational early in the new year.
During a joint press conference with Lavrov, Pompeo falsely claimed “we’ve shared plenty of facts to show what happened in the 2016 election with our Russian counterparts (sic). We don’t think there’s any mistake about what really transpired there (sic).”
He turned truth on its head, claiming “(o)n Syria, we are committed to working though UN Security Council Resolution 2254 to find a political solution to the crisis there…”
The US agenda under both right wings of its war party is all about endless war for regime change — using ISIS and likeminded jihadists as imperial foot soldiers, polar opposite Pompeo’s false claim that the Trump regime “want(s) to assure that Syria never again becomes a safe haven for ISIS and other terrorist groups (sic).”
The country remains infested with tens of thousands of heavily armed US-supported terrorists — mainly in Idlib province bordering Turkey.
On Venezuela, Pompeo lied claiming “(t)he longer that Nicolas Maduro hangs on to power, the deeper the misery of the Venezuelan people (sic),” adding:
“We’ve asked the Russian Government to support the aspiration for democracy and the legitimacy of…Guaido (sic) and the call that we have made for free and fair presidential elections (sic).”
Russia strongly opposes Trump regime economic terrorism on the Bolivarian Republic that’s all about wanting its social democracy eliminated, along with gaining control over its world’s largest oil reserves.
Clearly, no Kremlin help is forthcoming to help the US achieve its imperial aims in the country, nowhere else either.
Ukraine was discussed, said Pompeo, ignoring the Obama regime’s 2014 coup, replacing the country’s democratic governance with Nazi-infested putschist rule.
Pompeo:
“I reiterated to Foreign Minister Lavrov that Crimea belongs to Ukraine (sic) and that the resolution of the conflict in eastern Ukraine begins with adherence to commitments made under the Minsk agreements (sic).”
Fact: Crimea is sovereign Russian territory.
Fact: Russia and Donbass authorities fully observed Minsk ceasefire principles — flagrantly breached by the US-installed Kiev puppet regime on orders from Washington.
Lavrov said it’s “useful to talk to each other…” (T)alking to each other is always better than not talking to each other” — even though US hostility toward Moscow is unrelenting for its sovereign independence, opposition to US aggression, and multi-world polarity advocacy, he failed to explain.
Lavrov did say that
“(i)t’s an open secret that we have different views on different things, and it would be naive to think that overnight we could achieve mutual understanding on key issues…”
“We understand that our joint work was hindered and continues to be hindered by the wave of suspicions that has overcome Washington.”
“(W)e have offered multiple times, and we reminded about that today, to put on paper the mutual obligations on noninterference in domestic affairs of each other…”
“We are prepared to do practical work on the whole range of issues that are of mutual interest.”
Lavrov stressed the importance of saving the JCPOA nuclear deal with Iran the Trump regime wants eliminated, its position based on Big Lies in deference to Israeli and its own imperial interests.
On Venezuela, Lavrov stressed that “Russia consistently promotes the idea that it should be Venezuelan-led and the people should define their future” with no foreign interference — Moscow’s position in dealings with all nations.
Washington’s longstanding policy calls for transforming all sovereign independent countries it doesn’t control into US vassal states — notably Russia, China and Iran.
Naked aggression, color revolutions, old-fashioned coups, and other hostile actions are its favored tactics.
That’s what the scourge of imperialism is all about — what’s crucial for humanity to challenge and defeat.
*
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.”
Comments Off on Russia’s Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov’s “Timely Visit” to Washington. Coincides with House Impeachment Procedure. Discusses “Russiagate” with Trump in Oval Office
As expected, the Dems impeached Trump for winning an election he was supposed to lose, for wanting improved relations with Russia, and other issues unrelated to phony charges against him.
His real high crimes of war and against humanity were ignored. The same goes for betraying the public trust by serving monied interests exclusively at the expense of ordinary people.
Why? Because the vast majority in Congress share guilt, so Dems invented phony politicized reasons to charge him.
On Tuesday, two articles of impeachment were introduced. Excluded were charges of bribery, extortion, campaign finance violations, and obstruction of justice.
Article I: Abuse of power, falsely claiming he sought foreign interference from Ukraine in the US 2020 presidential election.
Last week, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky refuted the claim, saying there was no Trump blackmail threat, no quid pro quo, no conspiracy, nothing discussed about withholding US aid for political reasons.
House Judiciary Committee counsel Barry Berke falsely claimed “evidence is overwhelming that the president abused his power” by seeking help from Ukraine to aid his reelection campaign.
No credible evidence was presented that proves the above charge because none exists.
Article II: Obstruction of Congress, falsely claiming he “directed the unprecedented, categorical, and indiscriminate defiance of subpoenas issued by the House of Representatives pursuant to its sole Power of Impeachment,” adding:
“(W)ithout lawful cause or excuse, President Trump directed Executive Branch agencies, offices, and officials not to comply with those subpoenas. President Trump thus interposed the powers of the Presidency against the lawful subpoenas of the House…”
On Tuesday, Law Professor Jonathan Turley said charges against Trump fall “considerably short of the record needed to support (House Judiciary Committee) claims for a submission to the Senate,” adding:
“The problem with (charges against Trump) is not their constitutional basis but their evidentiary record.”
“This is the thinnest record created in the shortest time of any modern presidential impeachment.”
Dems “are moving to submit an incomplete and undeveloped record to the Senate.”
“…I believe this impeachment is premature and half-formed…(T)he case against Trump (is) one-sided and undeveloped. It is a case that will not withstand Senate scrutiny.”
During December 4 House Judiciary Committee testimony, Turley’s remarks included the following:
“I am concerned about lowering impeachment standards to fit a paucity of evidence and an abundance of anger.”
The case against Trump is proceeding “with the thinnest evidentiary record, and the narrowest grounds ever used to impeach a president.”
“(T)he incomplete record is insufficient to sustain an impeachment case…”
“This misuse of impeachment has been plain during the Trump administration.”
The case against Trump lacks “clear criminal act and would be the first such case in history if the House proceeds without further evidence.”
No evidence proves “a viable impeachable offense.”
“(W)e have never impeached a president solely or even largely on the basis of a non-criminal abuse of power allegation.”
By standards Dems are pursuing, virtually all Trump’s predecessors should have been impeached and removed from office. The same goes for most congressional members.
House Judiciary members are expected to vote on the articles of impeachment this week, a full House vote before yearend.
The case against Trump by Dems is all about seeking a political advantage in November 2020 presidential and congressional elections.
It may backfire for lack of credible evidence and clear majority support — aiding Trump and the GOP at the expense of Dems.
A new Quinnipiac University poll released Tuesday showed 51% of registered voters surveyed oppose impeachment, 45% in favor, the results largely along party lines.
Lacking majority public support to remove Trump from office further weakens the Dems’ agenda.
All along, it’s been a sham witch-hunt with no legitimacy, targeting him for the wrong reasons, ignoring the right ones.
*
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.”
Two years ago Friday, President Donald Trump formally recognised Jerusalem as Israel’s capital. We knew then that this was an irresponsible and cruelly insensitive act that would do grave harm to the rights and well-being of Palestinians and put an end to any pretense that the United States could help negotiate an end to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. What we did not know was that this dangerous move was only the beginning of the damage Trump would do to Palestinian rights and the prospects for peace.
During the past two years, the Trump administration has: Closed the US Consulate in East Jerusalem, closed the Palestinian consular office in Washington, DC, suspended aid to the Palestinians and to American non-governmental organisations working in the West Bank and Gaza, denied funding to UNWRA, the United Nations agency that provides essential services to Palestinian refugees, removed the designation “occupied” from all official publications and statements referring to the occupied territories; declared that in its view Israeli settlements in the West Bank are not “illegal”; and even gone so far as to deny that Palestinians should qualify as refugees. While each of these acts presents problems on their own, added together the toll they may take on the Palestinian people can ultimately be as devastating as a second Nakba.
In the short span of only two years, President Trump and his administration have attempted to undo all of the gains Palestinians have won during the past seven decades. Because the US has shuttered the Palestine Liberation Organisation office and denied that Palestinian refugees are, in fact, refugees and therefore part of the Palestinian community, the US is saying that it no longer sees Palestinians as a national community deserving of recognition and the right to self-determination. Because the US has repeatedly given carte blanche to every Israeli whim, regarding Jerusalem, refugees, and settlements, they have left Palestinians particularly vulnerable to more extreme Israeli measures, annexation, massive land seizures and even expulsion. And because the US has flaunted its contempt for the rule of law and international norms of behaviour, they have created a far more dangerous and precarious world in which any regional power backed by the US can act with impunity and suffer little or no repercussions for their behaviour.
I sometimes wonder if this is what the the “Deal of the Century” is supposed to look like. Maybe, all along, it was intended to be nothing more than what they have been doing for the last two years, creating a nihilistic order in which the Israelis are free to act out their most extreme fantasies while vulnerable Palestinians are forced to inhabit a dystopian world in which they have no rights and no recourse open to them. It is for this reason I suggest that the cumulative impact of what Trump has done has created the conditions for a second Nakba.
There are, of course, avenues open before us that provide ways to avoid such a disaster. While the US has created this mess on its own, each and every one of its moves have been rejected by the Arab States and the overwhelming majority of the nations of the world. For example, only a smattering of minor US dependencies have considered joining the US in moving their embassies to Jerusalem; last month, by a vote of 170 to 2, the United Nations reaffirmed its support for UNWRA; and then there were the denunciations issue by the Arab States and the Europeans to the new US position on Israeli settlements.
The problem is that while the Trump Administration has become increasingly politically isolated by its reckless behaviour, they have not been effectively challenged. To change the current downward spiral dynamic that is unfolding in the Israel-Palestinian arena is a bold confrontation of both the US and Israel. Statements or resolutions will not suffice, since they are routinely dismissed and ignored. What is required is that other nations say “enough is enough” and tell the US that its days of hegemonic control over the “peace process” have come to an end. Israel too must be confronted and made to pay a price for its lawless behaviour and gross systematic violations of Palestinian human rights.
Of course, a unified Palestinian response utilising a campaign of non-violent resistance would also be important, but I hesitate to place emphasis on this factor for two reasons. First, the burden of doing the heavy lifting should not rest on the most vulnerable party to the conflict. And even if the Palestinians were to rise up, as they have before, unless the nations of the world were ready to challenge both the US and Israel, their resistance would come to a bloody end.
We are running out of time. If action is not taken soon, we may well see a second, and potentially more devastating, Nakba. If it occurs, the responsibility for this tragedy will fall not only on the Israelis who carry it out and the US that aided and abetted them, it will also fall on the nations of the world who failed to act in time to stop this tragedy from occurring.
*
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: Human rights activists, including Canadian Michaela Lavis, before being arrested by Israeli authorities in Khan Al-Ahmar
A future without independent media leaves us with an upside down reality where according to the corporate media “NATO deserves a Nobel Peace Prize”, and where “nuclear weapons and wars make us safer”
.
.
If, like us, this is a future you wish to avoid, please help sustain Global Research’s activities by making a donation or taking out a membership now!
James Le Mesurier was found dead on November 11 in suspicious circumstances after falling off a two-story apartment building in downtown Istanbul. He was alleged to have committed suicide by jumping off the second floor of the building, though the latest findings cast aspersions over the suicide theory, as the circumstances of the inexplicable death indicate likely homicide.
More than two centuries after our ancestors went to war over their abused property rights, we’re once again being subjected to taxation without any real representation, all the while the government continues to do whatever it likes—levy taxes, rack up debt, spend outrageously and irresponsibly—with little concern for the plight of its citizens.
Because the government’s voracious appetite for money, power and domination has grown out of control, its agents have devised other means of funding its excesses and adding to its largesse through taxes disguised as fines, taxes disguised as fees, and taxes disguised as tolls, speeding tickets and penalties.
Work was finally completed in 2010 on China’s Yiwan Railway, a route paralleling the lake formed by the Three Gorges dam, a 380 km East – West line running through beautiful but challenging mountainous terrain from Wuhan, the capital of Hubei Province, and Yichang (the site of the Three Gorges Dam), to Wanzhou City, just East of Chongqing.
The route was originally proposed by Sun Yat-Sen in 1903 to shorten the rail journey between the mountainous regions in the southwest and eastern parts of China. The project initially began in 1909, but was repeatedly abandoned from insurmountable technological problems due to the difficult natural environment, until the central government decided to relaunch it in 2003.
Western historians who condemn the USSR for the deaths under Stalin’s dictatorship should shed a spotlight on the millions who died under British rule, including those in engineered famines across the Indian subcontinent.
The UK general election is a week away and a significant chunk of the country’s media, three-quarters of which is reportedly owned by a few billionaires, is hard at work digging up dirt on Jeremy Corbyn to prevent a Labour Party victory at all costs. However, this uphill task is becoming harder as recent polls show the frequently cited Conservative lead over Labour is rapidly decreasing. The possibility that Mr Corbyn will be Britain’s next prime minister, perhaps at the head of a minority government, is now grudgingly acknowledged.
The majority of Uyghur people are Muslims. They have their own, ancient, specific culture and most of them are, of course, very decent human beings. Northwest China is their home.
The “problem” is that Urumqi, Xinjiang, are located on the main branch of BRI (The Belt and Road Initiative) – an extremely optimistic, internationalist project which is ready to connect billions of people on all continents. The BRI is infrastructural as well as cultural project, which will soon pull hundreds of millions of people out of poverty and under-development.
According to the corporate media, revisions to the USMCA demanded by Democrats since the initial agreement was reached with Mexico a year ago, have been agreed to by Trump, Pelosi, and the president of Mexico, Lopez-Obrador. The revisions reportedly mean more protections for US labor in particular. However, all we have at the moment is what’s reported in the corporate and mainstream media about the revisions. We’ll have to wait to read the final print of the actual agreement. But even the media reports are not much more than vague generalities about the terms and conditions of the revisions. The much heralded improvements to US labor interests in particular don’t appear that different from Trump’s originally negotiated deal a year ago.
President Bashar al-Assad said that Syria is going to come out of the war stronger and the future of Syria is promising and the situation is much better, pointing out to the achievements of the Syrian Arab army in the war against terrorism.
The President, in an interview given to Italian Rai News 24 TV on November 26, 2019 and was expected to be broadcast on December 2nd and the Italian TV refrained from broadcasting it for non-understandable reasons, added that Europe was the main player in creating chaos in Syria and the problem of refugees in it was because of its direct support to terrorism along with the US, Turkey and many other countries.
*
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.
Speculation is rife in the local Turkish media that the founder of the White Helmets, James Le Mesurier, might have been running away from someone before he fell or was pushed to his death in a case that was initially ruled as a suicide.
“The biggest question is why Le Mesurier committed suicide from a height of 7 meters and after walking for 10 meters on a lean-to roof. A possible answer is he was running away from someone who broke into his house and tried to leap on the roof of a building across the street.”
James Le Mesurier was found dead on November 11 in suspicious circumstances after falling off a two-story apartment building in downtown Istanbul. He was alleged to have committed suicide by jumping off the second floor of the building, though the latest findings cast aspersions over the suicide theory, as the circumstances of the inexplicable death indicate likely homicide.
The report further states:
“Security camera footage from the last hours of Le Mesurier as he was shopping, the first photos from the scene and contradicting statements of his wife Emma Winberg may change the course of the investigation.
“Winberg said she looked for her husband inside the house and saw his lifeless body when she looked out of the window. Police are investigating now how she was able to wake up about half an hour after she took a sleeping pill and why she stacked a large amount of money inside the house into bags immediately after Le Mesurier’s body was found.”
Despite his “humanitarian credentials,” the founder of the White Helmets, James Le Mesurier, was a shady character, alleged to be a covert British MI6 operative by Russia’s foreign ministry spokesperson Maria Zakharova days before his death.
Before taking up the task of training Syrian volunteers for search and rescue operations in 2013, Le Mesurier was a British army veteran and a private security contractor from 2008 to 2012 working for Good Harbor [2], run by Richard Clarke, the former Bush administration counter-terrorism czar.
Much like Erik Prince of the Blackwater fame, Le Mesurier’s work included training several thousand mercenaries for the United Arab Emirates (UAE) oil and gas field protection force, and designing security infrastructure for the police state of Abu Dhabi – a job description that helped him recruit Syrian volunteers from refugee camps in Turkey willing to do dirty “humanitarian work” in enclaves carved out by militant factions in Syria’s war zones.
In this line of work, one is likely to make powerful enemies, including intelligence agencies and militant groups. He could have been killed by anyone of them. In particular, the White Helmets operate in al-Nusra Front’s territory in Syria’s northwestern Idlib province and are known to take orders from the terrorist outfit.
The assassination of James Le Mesurier should be viewed in the backdrop of the killing of the Islamic State’s chief Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi on October 27 in a US special-ops raid. It’s important to note in the news coverage of the killing of al-Baghdadi that although the mainstream media was trumpeting for the last several years that the Islamic State’s fugitive leader was 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 in a special-ops raid five kilometers from the Turkish 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. Unsurprisingly, the White Helmets area of operations is also Idlib governorate in Syria where they are permitted to conduct purported “search and rescue operations” and “humanitarian work” under the tutelage of al-Qaeda’s Syrian affiliate.
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 [3], on October 30, a couple of days after the special-ops night raid, that the Islamic State paid money to al-Nusra Front for hosting al-Baghdadi in Idlib.
The morning after the special-ops night raid, the Syrian Observatory for Human Rights reported [4] on 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 has 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 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.
It’s worth noting that although the Idlib governorate in Syria’s northwest has firmly been under the control of Hayat Tahrir al-Sham (HTS) led by al-Nusra Front since 2015, its territory was equally divided between Turkey-backed rebels and al-Nusra Front.
In a brazen offensive in January, however, al-Nusra Front’s jihadists completely routed Turkey-backed militants, even though the latter were supported by a professionally trained and highly organized military of a NATO member, Turkey. And al-Nusra Front now reportedly controls more than 70% territory in the Idlib governorate.
The reason why al-Nusra Front was easily able to defeat Turkey-backed militants appears to be that the ranks of al-Nusra Front were swelled by highly motivated and battle-hardened jihadist deserters from the Islamic State after the fall of the latter’s “caliphate” in Mosul in Iraq and Raqqa in Syria.
In all likelihood, some of the Islamic State’s jihadists who joined the battle in Idlib in January were part of the same contingent of thousands of Islamic State militants that fled Raqqa in October 2017 under a deal brokered [5] by the US-backed Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF).
The merger of al-Nusra Front and Islamic State in Idlib doesn’t come as a surprise, though, since the Islamic State and al-Nusra Front used to be a single organization before a split occurred between the two militant groups in April 2013 over a leadership dispute. In fact, al-Nusra Front’s chief Abu Mohammad al-Jolani was reportedly appointed [6] the emir of al-Nusra Front by Abu Bakr al Baghdadi, the deceased “caliph” of the Islamic State, in January 2012.
Al-Jolani returned the favor by hosting the hunted leader of the Islamic State for months, if not years, in a safe house in al-Nusra’s territory in Idlib, before he was betrayed by an informant within the ranks of the terrorist organization who leaked the information of the whereabouts of al-Baghdadi to the American intelligence, leading to the killing of the Islamic State chief in a special-ops raid on October 27.
Finally, regarding the death of the founder of the White Helmets, James Le Mesurier, in downtown Istanbul, it’s worth pointing out that Turkey has been hosting 3.6 million Syrian refugees and myriad factions of Ankara-backed militant proxies.
It’s quite easy for the jihadists of al-Nusra Front and the Islamic State to intermingle with Syrian refugees and militants in the Turkish refugee camps, and no town or city in Turkey, including the capital Ankara and the metropolis Istanbul where James Le Mesurier was murdered, is beyond the reach of Turkish-backed militant factions and Syrian jihadists, particularly the fearsome and well-connected al-Nusra Front that has patrons in the security agencies of Turkey and the Gulf States.
Plausibly, one of the members of the White Helmets operating in al-Nusra’s territory in Syria’s Idlib could have betrayed his patrons for the sake of getting a reward, and conveyed crucial piece of information regarding the whereabouts of al-Baghdadi to the founder of the White Helmets, Le Mesurier, who then transmitted it to the British and American intelligence leading to the October 27 special-ops raid killing al-Baghdadi.
Could the assassination of the founder of the White Helmets have been an act of revenge for betraying the slain chief of the Islamic State? What lends credence to the theory is the fact that according to local media reports, a turf war has begun in Idlib governorate after the killing of al-Baghdadi in the October 27 special-ops raid and several militant leaders of al-Nusra Front have been killed by jihadists affiliated with the Islamic State.
*
Note to readers: please click the share buttons above or below. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.
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: FILE – In this image taken from file video, showing James Le Mesurier, founder and director of Mayday Rescue, talks to the media during training exercises in southern Turkey, March 19, 2015. Turkey’s state-run news agency report Monday Nov. 11, 2019, that a former British army officer who helped found the “White Helmets” volunteer organisation in Syria, has been found dead in Istanbul. (AP Photo, FILE)
On December 9, Russian forces entered the city of Raqqah for the first time since the start of their anti-terrorism operation in 2015. A unit of the Russian Military Police set up a temporary humanitarian point and provided locals with aid. According to the Russian side, such humanitarian actions will be a regular practice.
A series of firefights erupted between the Kurdish-led Syrian Democratic Forces and Turkish-led forces to the southeast of Ras al-Ayn. Nonetheless, no side carried out offensive actions. Local sources links the recent clashes with individual initiative of some field commanders.
Iraq’s Popular Mobilization Units have deployed large reinforcements near the Syrian-Iraqi border, west of Mosul.
According to the PMU statement, the 8th Brigade deployed in the Jazira Al-Hadr area after it had received information that large number of terrorists were preparing attacks on security forces in the border area. The report once again emphasized that the PMU is deployed along the Syrian-Iraqi border in order to prevent ‘infiltration’ of terrorists.
The ISIS threat is an important factor influencing the security situation in western Iraq. Despite this, some sources linked this with the recent escalation in the Syrian border area of al-Bukamal. During the past week, alleged ‘Iranian targets’ in al-Bukamal were repeatedly hit by supposed Israeli strikes.
Most likely, the PMU leadership expects that this situation may be used by ISIS to increase its activity in the region. The terrorist group may try to exploit the instability on the border to carry out attacks on both Iraqi and Syria targets in the region. So, the PMU is preparing to repel these attacks.
*
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.
“Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victim may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron’s cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated, but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience.”—C.S. Lewis
When the Beatles finally started earning enough money from their music to place them in the top tax bracket, they found the British government only-too-eager to levy a supertax on them of more than 90%.
Here in America, things aren’t much better.
More than two centuries after our ancestors went to war over their abused property rights, we’re once again being subjected to taxation without any real representation, all the while the government continues to do whatever it likes—levy taxes, rack up debt, spend outrageously and irresponsibly—with little concern for the plight of its citizens.
Because the government’s voracious appetite for money, power and domination has grown out of control, its agents have devised other means of funding its excesses and adding to its largesse through taxes disguised as fines, taxes disguised as fees, and taxes disguised as tolls, speeding tickets and penalties.
With every new tax, fine, fee and law adopted by our so-called representatives, the yoke around the neck of the average American seems to tighten just a little bit more.
Everywhere you go, everything you do, and every which way you look, we’re getting swindled, cheated, conned, robbed, raided, pickpocketed, mugged, deceived, defrauded, double-crossed and fleeced by governmental and corporate shareholders of the American police state out to make a profit at taxpayer expense.
We have no real say in how the government runs, or how our taxpayer funds are used, and no real property rights, but that doesn’t prevent the government from fleecing us at every turn.
Think about it.
Everything you own can be seized by the government under one pretext or another (civil asset forfeiture, unpaid taxes, eminent domain, so-called public interest, etc.).
That house you live in, the car you drive, the small (or not so small) acreage of land that has been passed down through your family or that you scrimped and saved to acquire, whatever money you manage to keep in your bank account after the government and its cronies have taken their first and second and third cut…none of it is safe from the government’s greedy grasp.
And then you have all of those high-handed, outrageously manipulative government programs sold to the public as a means of forcing compliance and discouraging unhealthy behavior by way of taxes, fines, fees and programs for the “better” good.
Surveillance cameras, government agents listening in on your phone calls, reading your emails and text messages and monitoring your spending, mandatory health care, sugary soda bans, anti-bullying laws, zero tolerance policies, political correctness: these are all outward signs of a government—i.e., a societal elite—that believes it knows what is best for you and can do a better job of managing your life than you can.
This is tyranny disguised as “the better good.”
Indeed, this is the tyranny of the Nanny State: marketed as benevolence, enforced with armed police, and inflicted on all those who do not belong to the elite ruling class that gets to call the shots.
So-called “sin taxes” have become a particularly popular technique used by the Nanny State to supposedly discourage the populace from engaging in activities that don’t align with the government’s priorities (consuming sugary drinks, smoking, drinking, etc.).
Personally, I don’t think the government really cares how its citizens live or die: they just want more of the taxpayers’ money, and they figure they can rake it in by using sin taxes to appeal to that self-righteous segment of every society that sees nothing wrong with imposing their belief systems on the rest of the populace.
The faulty logic behind these sin taxes seems to be that if you make it cost-prohibitive for poor people to pursue unhealthy lifestyle choices, they’ll stop doing it.
Study after study shows that while sales of sugary drinks decreased sharply in cities with a soda tax, sales figures spiked at stores located outside the city. In other words, people just shopped elsewhere.
Folks, this right here is everything that is wrong with the power-hungry jackals that aspire to run the government today: by hook or by crook, they’re working hard to frogmarch the citizenry into complying with their dictates, because they believe that only they know what’s best for you.
It’s the same mindset that supports the government’s efforts to compile a growing list—shared with fusion centers and law enforcement agencies—of ideologies, behaviors, affiliations and other characteristics that could flag someone as suspicious and result in their being labeled potential enemies of the state.
It’s the same mindset that has government agents spinning a sticky spider-web of threat assessments, behavioral sensing warnings, flagged “words,” and “suspicious” activity reports using AI eyes and ears, social media, behavior sensing software, and citizen spies to identify potential threats.
And it’s the same mindset that allows squadrons of AI censors to shadowban individuals for expressing their unfiltered, politically incorrect opinions and beliefs on social media: all in an effort to keep them in line.
Rounding out this dystopian campaign to impose a chokehold on the populace is a technology sector that has been colluding with the government to create a Big Brother that is all-knowing, all-seeing and inescapable. It’s not just the drones, fusion centers, license plate readers, stingray devices and the NSA that you have to worry about. You’re also being tracked by the black boxes in your cars, your cell phone, smart devices in your home, grocery loyalty cards, social media accounts, credit cards, streaming services such as Netflix, Amazon, and e-book reader accounts.
Clearly, those helping to erect the prison walls that now enclose us purportedly for our own good are not people that understand the concept of freedom or individual rights.
Unfortunately, this is what happens when you empower the government and its various agencies, agents and corporate partners to act in loco parentis for an entire nation.
All of the incremental bricks that have been laid over the years as part of the police state’s prison wall—the invasive surveillance, the extremism reports, the civil unrest, the protests, the shootings, the bombings, the military exercises and active shooter drills, the color-coded alerts and threat assessments, the fusion centers, the transformation of local police into extensions of the military, the distribution of military equipment and weapons to local police forces, the government databases containing the names of dissidents and potential troublemakers—have helped to acclimate us slowly to a life in prison.
Funded with our taxpayer dollars and carried out in broad daylight without so much as a general outcry from the citizenry, these prison walls have been sold to us as a means of keeping us safe behind bars and out of reach of danger.
Even so, how did we go from enacting laws to make our world safer to being saddled with a government that polices our social decisions? As with most of the problems plaguing us in the American police state, we are the source of our greatest problems.
As journalist Gracy Olmstead recognizes, the problem arose when we looked “first to the State to care for the situation, rather than exercising any sort of personal involvement… These actions reveal a more passive, isolated attitude. But here, again, we see the result of breakdown in modern American community—without a sense of communal closeness or responsibility, we act as bystanders rather than as stewards.”
Olmstead continues:
[Communitarian libertarian Robert] Nisbet predicted that, in a society without strong private associations, the State would take their place — assuming the role of the church, the schoolroom, and the family, asserting a “primacy of claim” upon our children. “It is hard to overlook the fact,” he wrote, “that the State and politics have become suffused by qualities formerly inherent only in the family or the church.” In this world, the term “nanny state” takes on a very literal meaning.
Unfortunately, even in the face of outright corruption and incompetency on the part of our elected officials, Americans in general remain relatively gullible, eager to be persuaded that the government can solve the problems that plague us, whether it be terrorism, an economic depression, an environmental disaster, how or what we eat or even keeping our children safe.
We have relinquished control over the most intimate aspects of our lives to government officials who, while they may occupy seats of authority, are neither wiser, smarter, more in tune with our needs, more knowledgeable about our problems, nor more aware of what is really in our best interests.
Yet having bought into the false notion that the government does indeed know what’s best for us and can ensure not only our safety but our happiness and will take care of us from cradle to grave—that is, from daycare centers to nursing homes—we have in actuality allowed ourselves to be bridled and turned into slaves at the bidding of a government that cares little for our freedoms or our happiness.
The lesson is this: once a free people allows the government inroads into their freedoms or uses those same freedoms as bargaining chips for security, it quickly becomes a slippery slope to outright tyranny.
Nor does it seem to matter whether it’s a Democrat or a Republican at the helm anymore, because the bureaucratic mindset on both sides of the aisle now seems to embody the same philosophy of authoritarian government, whose priorities are to remain in control and in power.
Modern government in general—ranging from the militarized police in SWAT team gear crashing through our doors to the rash of innocent citizens being gunned down by police to the invasive spying on everything we do—is acting illogically, even psychopathically.
When our own government no longer sees us as human beings with dignity and worth but as things to be manipulated, maneuvered, mined for data, manhandled by police, conned into believing it has our best interests at heart, mistreated, and then jails us if we dare step out of line, punishes us unjustly without remorse, and refuses to own up to its failings, we are no longer operating under a constitutional republic.
Instead, what we are experiencing is a pathocracy: tyranny at the hands of a psychopathic government, which “operates against the interests of its own people except for favoring certain groups.”
So where does that leave us?
Having allowed the government to expand and exceed our reach, we find ourselves on the losing end of a tug-of-war over control of our country and our lives. And for as long as we let them, government officials will continue to trample on our rights, always justifying their actions as being for the good of the people.
Yet the government can only go as far as “we the people” allow.
Therein lies the problem: we have suspended our moral consciences in favor of the police state.
The choice before us is clear, and it is a moral choice. It is the choice between tyranny and freedom, dictatorship and autonomy, peaceful slavery and dangerous freedom, and manufactured pipedreams of what America used to be versus the gritty reality of what she is today.
Most of all, perhaps, the choice before us is that of being a child or a parent, of obeying blindly, never questioning, and marching in lockstep with the police state or growing up, challenging injustice, standing up to tyranny, and owning up to our responsibilities as citizens, no matter how painful, risky or uncomfortable.
As author Erich Fromm warned in his book On Disobedience, “At this point in history, the capacity to doubt, to criticize and to disobey may be all that stands between a future for mankind and the end of civilization.”
As I make clear in my book Battlefield America: The War on the American People, if you have no choice, no voice, and no real options when it comes to the government’s claims on your life, your movements, your property and your money, you’re not free.
Personally, I’d rather die a free man having lived according to my own dictates (within the bounds of reasonable laws) than live as a slave chained up in a government prison.
*
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.
Western historians who condemn the USSR for the deaths under Stalin’s dictatorship should shed a spotlight on the millions who died under British rule, including those in engineered famines across the Indian subcontinent.
The UK general election is a week away and a significant chunk of the country’s media, three-quarters of which is reportedly owned by a few billionaires, is hard at work digging up dirt on Jeremy Corbyn to prevent a Labour Party victory at all costs. However, this uphill task is becoming harder as recent polls show the frequently cited Conservative lead over Labour is rapidly decreasing. The possibility that Mr Corbyn will be Britain’s next prime minister, perhaps at the head of a minority government, is now grudgingly acknowledged.
When Corbyn launched Labour’s manifesto at the end of November, he pledged to conduct a formal enquiry into the legacy of the British Empire “to understand our contribution to the dynamics of violence and insecurity across regions previously under British colonial rule” and set up an organisation “to ensure historical injustice, colonialism, and role of the British Empire is taught in the national curriculum.”
The idea of teaching a population about the unsavoury aspects of its history, and in Britain’s case revealing how several of today’s geopolitical crises are rooted in the past folly and avarice-fuelled actions of its ruling class, is commendable.
It would be prudent to inform UK citizens about the British Empire’s divide and conquer tactics across the Indian subcontinent and Africa, the stirring up of Hindu-Muslim antagonism in the former, or the impact of the Sykes-Picot agreement that precipitated instability across the Middle East which continues to the present day. Doing so might enable the public to gain a better understanding of how past actions affect present realities, in turn making them more eager to hold contemporary politicians to account so past mistakes are not repeated. As Spanish philosopher George Santayana said: “Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.”
Some right-wingers may be quick to dismiss Corbyn’s manifesto promise as self-indulgent politically-correct onanism. Brexit Party leader Nigel Farage commented: “I don’t think I should apologise for what people did 300 years ago. It was a different world, a different time.” Yet, some of the violence perpetuated in the name of protecting the empire’s interests is not exactly ancient history, having occurred within living memory for some. The Malayan Emergency, Kenya’s Mau Mau uprising, the Suez Crisis, or the deployment of British troops to Northern Ireland are a few examples.
Segments of the intelligentsia may also feel unease at Corbyn’s manifesto promise, namely those academics who still view the British Empire as the UK’s legacy and ‘gift’ to the world. This includes those who, by extension, consider modern Britain (and the West in general) as bestowed with a cultural superiority that makes it the unchallenged arbiter of global affairs and the indisputable defender of ‘human rights’ and ‘democracy’, regardless of what these laudable terms have been corrupted into justifying. The invasion of Iraq, the destruction of Libya, and the civil wars in Syria and Ukraine are a few manifestations of Western intervention.
Some Western historians fall over themselves condemning the USSR for the millions who died under the dictatorship of Stalin, with a significant proportion of these victims perishing during famines. The people of the former Soviet Union need to come to terms with their history, just like any other country. In the meantime, Western historians should shine a spotlight closer to home. Engineered famines across the Indian subcontinent reportedly killed up to 29 million in the late 19th century and a further 3 million in 1943.
The Indian subcontinent was only one of the regions under British rule and the deaths mentioned above do not include those violently killed by occupying forces. Unlike the USSR, which kept oppression confined within its borders and those of neighbouring countries under its sphere of influence, Britain together with the American Empire (to which it handed over the baton of imperialism after WWII) has interfered on pretty much every continent except Antarctica. In modern times we see the UK, now a vassal of the US-led NATO empire, condemn nations that refuse to submit to Western hegemony.
Apologists for Empire claim it brought ‘progress’ such as railways, infrastructure, education, cricket, as well as free trade and order (i.e. Pax Britannica). Irrespective of whether such ‘gifts’ were appreciated by occupied nations, this line of reasoning opens up a dangerous precedent. For example, supporters of Stalin overlook his despotism by crediting him with rapidly industrializing an underdeveloped nation that later played a major role in defeating Nazism, bestowing upon him an honour that instead belongs to millions of rank and file soldiers, officers, and commanders of the Red Army.
During the time of the British Empire, as was the case with other European empires and many dictatorships, the majority of working people were not personally enriched by the plunder of imperialism and their descendants are not to blame for the actions of the former ruling class. Nevertheless, learning one’s history is the first step to understanding the present, ensuring today’s leaders are held to account, and preventing the same mistakes from being repeated.
*
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.
December 10, 2019, on this day 71 years ago the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) was launched by the United Nations. The Declaration reflected the agreed-upon principles that were expected to usher in a new period in which this new global institution would be committed to recognizing the inherent dignity and equal and “inalienable rights of all members of the human family.”
Therefore, December 10th is recognized and celebrated as International Human Rights Day in various parts of the worldbut, unfortunately, with little acknowledgement or celebration in the United States. Over 90% of the U.S. public has never heard of the UDHR and even fewer of the existence of Human Rights Day.
However, as internationalists, the Black Alliance for Peace (BAP) takes the occasion of Human Rights Dayseriously and attempts to educate the U.S. public on its existence. BAP is celebrating Human Rights Day this year by visiting the U.S. Congress to deliver a letter from a Black member of the Movement for Socialism in Bolivia (MAS) that is calling on members of the Congressional Black Caucus (CBC) to oppose the U.S. supported coup in Bolivia.
BAP is calling upon the CBC to reassume its traditional opposition to U.S. interventionism and warmongering. A delegation of BAP members will visit the offices of CBC representatives, including CBC Chairperson Karen Bass. The delegation will also visit the co-chairs of the Congressional Progressive Caucus (CPC) calling on both of the caucuses to become stronger opponents of the increasing lawlessness of U.S. state in the form of murderous sanctions, support for coups, illegal wars, military agreements and anti-democratic destabilization campaigns in nations across the planet. These actions represent a massive assault on the dignity and fundamental human rights of peoples and nations across the planet, resulting in unimaginable sufferings and the ultimate violation of human rights – the right to life, as millions of deaths have been recorded just over the last two decades.
BAP believes that the lack of awareness of Human Rights Day, and more importantly human rights principles, accounts for the lack of accountability for U.S representatives in relationship to the U.S. public and the ability of the U.S. officials to take the position of upholding human rights. Consequently, the U.S. public is unaware of the extent of the U.S. state’s failure to recognize, protect and fulfill the human rights of its own citizens and residents, while many in the world see the U.S. state as the number one human rights violator on the planet.
This is why human rights education is key for the Black Alliance for Peace and why the Alliance is committed to the radical Black human rights tradition that upholds a vision of human rights that is comprehensive and not centered on states as guarantors of human rights but on organized people as the only effective guarantors. This is an essential principle of the “people(s)-centered human rights framework (PCHRs).
In BAP’s view,the human rights idea must be liberated from the narrow and reactionary framework of U.S. policymakers. On this day, BAP is calling on all people of conscience to reject the liberal, legalistic and state-centered framework that reduces the human rights idea to an instrument of Western imperialist expression in the form of “humanitarian interventionism.”
On this day, BAP reiterates that human rights are never given but must be fought for. BAP stands in solidarity with the people of this planet who are in struggle to realize their collective human rights and self-determination and say without any equivocation that resistance to oppression is a human right from Baltimore to Bolivia.
*
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.
“Primarily, I am a prose writer with axes to grind, and the theatre is a good place to do the grinding in. I prefer comedy to ‘serious’ drama because I believe one can get the ax sharper on the comedic stone.” – Gore Vidal
“The theatre was created to tell people the truth about life and the social situation.” – Stella Adler
“When the play ends, what begins? Seeking conscientization: awareness leading to action” – Sarah Thornton
Introduction
The importance of theatre is demonstrated by the prevalence and variety of forms it takes both locally and globally in society today. Indeed, over the centuries theatre has played an important sociological and ideological role. It has been used both by communities and elites to propagate and spread ideas for the consolidation of society (Morality plays), for social improvement (Neo-Classical plays) as well as instigating and promoting revolutionary ideas (Brechtian theatre).
In many places theatre is funded by states through state theatres – playing national repertoires as well as showing international plays translated and/or modernised. However, it will be argued that as political and economic crises grow, so does the widening gap between two forms: community and state theatre. The global economic crisis has seen theatre once more developing into a useful community tool for highlighting important local issues (e.g. policing) and global issues (e.g. climate change) in many different ways (such as mass demonstrations and public squares). It will also be argued that, in general, the state deals with any upsurge in popular resistance by attempting to appropriate radical working class culture into preexisting structures to neutralise opposition. As with other art-forms, the influence of Enlightenment and Romantic ideas can still be felt today.
I will look at the development of general movements in theatre from the seventeenth century: beginning with neoclassical theatre as an Enlightenment reaction to Restoration bawdiness, the influence of Romanticism, the rise of Realism, political theatre of the 1930s leading to the Documentary theatre of recent decades, and the contrasting ideology of state and community theatres of contemporary society.
Village feast with theatre performance, artist from the circle of Pieter Bruegel the younger – central part of painting by unknown Flemish master
15-18th Centuries – Neo-Classicism v Medievalism
Medieval theatre was mainly religious and moral in its themes, staging and traditions, emerging around 1400 and developing until 1550. Theatre was an ideal way to solve the difficulties of spreading the faith to a largely illiterate population. Certain biblical events were dramatised for feast days and performed by priests. In England there were many mystery plays such as the York Mystery Plays, the Chester Mystery Plays and the Wakefield Mystery Plays.
Around the middle of the sixteenth century began English Renaissance theatre which was based on the rediscovery and imitation of classical works. Playhouses were established and became the sites for the production of plays by playwrights such as William Shakespeare (1564–1616), Christopher Marlowe (1564–1593) and Ben Jonson (1572–1637). Genres of the period included the history play, tragedy and comedy, including satirical comedies.
All a far cry from biblical stories and Christian morality: the classical influence bringing the subject matter down to earth.
Reconstruction of the theatre of Dionysus in Athens, in Roman times.
This period lasted until the ban on theatrical plays enacted by the English Parliament in 1642.
This ban, effected by the Puritans, lasted 18 years and ended in 1660 and the theatres were reopened. The strict moral codes of the Puritans were upended and comedies became the predominant mark of Restoration plays. These plays were a form of social commentary – recurring themes were cuckolding, shaming, seduction and the inversion of wealth, class and property. However these themes also represented the upper class who tended to make up the typical audience (unlike the Morality plays) especially as most ordinary people could not afford the price of admission.
Restoration comedies were seen by many as bawdy, and neoclassical theatre was a reaction to the decadence of these Charles II era productions. Neoclassical writers advocated a return to the values and conventions of classical Greek drama. They believed that previous styles put far too much emphasis on emotions and the individual and looked to the classical style for inspiration on how to get people to see society in a more positive, collective manner by encouraging virtuous behavior. The Neo-Classical attitude could be seen in the humanism of the plot lines which encouraged the audience to empathise with the characters rather than laugh at them. The rise of sentimental comedy reflected the Enlightenment idea that without emotion, imagination and sympathy people would not be able to have the moral feelings that lead to our general ideas of justice and virtue.
The Neo-Classicists developed a set of guidelines for the theatre, for example, they:
“included five basic rules: purity of form, five acts, verisimilitude or realism, decorum and purpose. Play houses generally rejected scripts or productions that did not meet these requirements. Playwrights and actors in the Neoclassical period officially recognized just two types of plays: comedy and tragedy. They never mixed these together, and the restriction led to use of the now well-known pair of happy and sad masks that symbolize the theatrical arts. […] Comedies, which were either satires or comedies of manners, tended to focus on the lower ranks of society, while tragedies portrayed the complex and fateful lives of the upper classes and royals.”
19th Century – Romantic reaction and the rise of Realism
The growth of Romanticism in Germany and France eventually affected writing for the theatre as romantic nationalism and a growing interest in a return to medievalist faith in feeling and instinct as a guide to moral behavior. These two opposing philosophies of Neo-Classicism (Enlightenment ideas rooted in science and reason) and Romanticism (based on feeling and faith) eventually clashed in France where the Comédie Française maintained a strong Neo-classical hold over the repertory.
The tensions between the two opposing outlooks eventually resulted in conflict. On the night of the premiere of the drama Hernani by Victor Hugo (1802–1885) in 1830, riots erupted. They became known as the “battle of Hernani“, whereby:
“The large crowd that attended the premiere was full of conservatives and censors who booed the show for disobeying the classical norms and who wanted to stop the performance from going forward. But Hugo organized a Romantic Army of bohemian and radical writers to ensure that the opening would have to go ahead. The resulting riot represented the rejection in France of the classical traditions and the triumph of Romanticism.”
Hugo’s Romantic army of writers and artists attacked Classicist positions and called for “Down with theories and systems! Let us tear away the old lath-and-plaster hiding the face of art! There are neither rules nor models; or, rather, no rules but the general laws of Nature!”
Premiere of the drama Hernani by Victor Hugo in 1830
This triumph of Romanticism meant move away from structure and realism and the rise of a more personalised, individualistic philosophy looking inwards to the self, not to mention an irrational rejection of progress and a return to medieval ideas of faith and hierarchy.
By the 1870s political events and social reforms led to the popularity of the Realist movement and a rejection of Romantic idealism. The Realist movement began in the mid-19th century as a reaction to the irrationalism of Romanticism. However, it was also a reaction to neoclassicism which had become elitist and aristocratic in its assumption of knowledge of Greek and Roman history and myth. The Realists returned to basic ideas of equality, influenced by the French revolution and the Utopian Socialists. Realist ideas had a profound affect on both the theatre and its audiences:
“The achievement of realism in the theatre was to direct attention to the social and psychological problems of ordinary life. In its dramas, people emerge as victims of forces larger than themselves, as individuals confronted with a rapidly accelerating world.”
Henrik Ibsen (1828–1906), the Norwegian playwright, is known as the “Father of Realism” and he wanted a theatre that was closer in style to real life on the stage. Ibsen attacked middle class society’s values and his plays were based on unconventional subjects, e.g., euthanasia, the role of women, war and business, and syphilis. In A Doll’s House, Ibsen questions the roles of men (main provider of the family, public image) and women (limited education) in marriage and society, as well as showing poverty and failed relationships. Realism offered a new type of drama, one in which the public and society could relate to. Ibsen developed the form of the Well-Made play:
“1. Soliloquies and asides were discarded
2. Exposition in the plays was motivated
3. Causally related scenes
4. Inner psychological motivation was emphasized
5. Recognition of environmental influences
6. Acknowledgement of socio-economic milieu”
He encouraged a style of dialogue which would be more realistic and easier to understand. However, what Realism did have in common with Neo-Classicism was the desire to make theatre more useful in the progressive development of society:
“The mainstream theatre from 1859 to 1900 was still bound up in melodramas, spectacle plays (disasters, etc.), comic operas, and vaudevilles.[…] Technological advances were also encouraged by industry and trade, leading to an increased belief that science could solve human problems. But the working classes still had to fight for every increase in rights: unionization and strikes became the principal weapons workers would use after the 1860s—but success came only from costly work stoppages and violence. In other words there seems to be rejection of Romantic idealism; pragmatism reigned instead. The common man seemed to feel that he needed to be recognized, and people asserted themselves through action.”
Other writers in the Realistic form include George Bernard Shaw (1856-1950) in England and Anton Chekhov (1860-1904) in Russia. Shaw made fun of society’s norms for the purpose of educating and changing society. He used witty humor to present contemporary views and the showed their consequences putting forward his own ideas. Chekhov’s plays concentrated on psychological reality showing people trapped in social situations and having hope in hopeless situations.
20th Century and Modernism
The influence of Realism continued into the twentieth century where it morphed into different forms such as Naturalism and Socialist realism. Meanwhile the Romantic influence on Modernism could be seen in the characteristic emphasis on an internal life of dreams and fantasies in Symbolist theatre and in the subjective perceptions of reality in Expressionist theatre in Germany.
Realism, on the other hand, flourished in Russia where Konstantin Stanislavski (1863–1938) and Vladimir Nemirovich-Danchenko (1858–1943) founded the Moscow Art Theatre in 1897. Both were committed to the idea of a popular theatre. Stanislavski developed “psychological realism” which differed from his own Naturalistic early stagings:
“Naturalism, for him, implied the indiscriminate reproduction of the surface of life. Realism, on the other hand, while taking its material from the real world and from direct observation, selected only those elements which revealed the relationships and tendencies under the surface. The rest was discarded.”
Stanislavski and Olga Knipper as Rakitin and Natalya in Ivan Turgenev’s A Month in the Country (1909).
The revolt against theatrical artifice with Realism and later Naturalism produced a new type of theatre which made Stanislavski famous and his theatre very successful. Later in the 1930s Stanislavski’s method would become an important element in the Socialist Realist ideology introduced by the USSR Union of Writers in the mid 1930s. The aim of Stanislavski’s method was ultimately to absorb the audience completely in the fictional world of the play.
The contemporary playwright, Bertolt Brecht (1898–1956) in Germany, reacted to this method which he believed was ‘escapist’ as he felt that any radical content would be blunted, that catharsis would leave the audience complacent. However, Stanislavski believed the audience would observe and learn from the action on stage (using the dialectics of thesis/antithesis/synthesis) in an updated politicised Neo-Classicism. If action proceeded from awareness then the audience would not be complacent but would achieve catharsis through political action instead.
Brecht, in the Modernist fashion, developed what he called Epic theatre which sought to historicize and address social and political issues. He used innovative techniques, one of which he called the Verfremdungseffekt (translated as ‘defamiliarization effect’, ‘distancing effect’, or ‘estrangement effect’). To do this, “Brecht employed techniques such as the actor’s direct address to the audience, harsh and bright stage lighting, the use of songs to interrupt the action, explanatory placards, the transposition of text to the third person or past tense in rehearsals, and speaking the stage directions out loud.”
The contrast between the Stanislaviski’s and Brecht’s methods show very differing attitudes to the audience capacity for understanding and assimilating the content of a play. Charlie Chaplin (1889–1977) used this effect by speaking directly to the audience at the end of his film The Great Dictator, which some believe led to a decrease in his popularity. The audience may feel that the actors are speaking down to them, or insisting on radical action without first knowing and understanding all aspects of the issue being presented. It has to be questioned whether it is necessary to ‘knock people out of their complacency’ and to give an audience credit for their ability to understand the message solely from the action on stage. The Modernist experimentation with forms also led to elite forms of culture such as James Joyce’s (1882–1941) Finnegans Wake as the ultimate indigestible example.
Photograph of Mother Courage and the dead Kattrin (Internationalist Theatre)
As the century wore on other types of political theatre emerged such as the differing forms of Documentary theatre of the 1960s and 1970s. This style of theatre “uses pre-existing documentary material (such as newspapers, government reports, interviews, journals, and correspondences) as source material for stories about real events and people, frequently without altering the text in performance. The genre typically includes or is referred to as verbatim theatre, investigative theatre, theatre of fact, theatre of witness, autobiographical theatre, and ethnodrama.”
While the presentation of pre-existing material may seem dry and undramatic, it was the partisan interpretation and presentation of the material which gives it its artistic power. In other words, its Realist, rather than Naturalist, interpretation made all the difference to what may appear to be a Naturalist form (i.e. using material verbatim).
Another type of alternative theatre which emerged in the late twentieth century (though in some countries it has been around a lot longer) is Community theatre. It refers to a style of theatre which exists in the community itself and can be created entirely by the community, as a collaboration between the community and professionals or put on by professionals especially for that community. Ideologically it can have a vary wide outreach and can be seen:
“to contribute to the social capital of a community, insofar as it develops the skills, community spirit, and artistic sensibilities of those who participate, whether as producers or audience-members. It is used as a tool for social development, promoting ideas like gender equality, human rights, environment and democracy. Most of the community theatre practices have been developed based on the philosophy of education theorist Paulo Freire’s approach of critical pedagogy in theatre and implementation techniques built by Augusto Boal, known as Theatre of the Oppressed.”
Paulo Freire’s (1921–1997) method was to promote social change by getting the audience to participate in critical thinking through dialogue, identifying concerns, solutions and examining different perspectives. The plays would be performed “on streets, public places, in traditional meeting spaces, schools, prisons, or other institutions, inviting an alternative and often spontaneous audience to watch.”
Freire’s approach attempted to stimulate social change by encouraging the audience to build capacities for critical thinking through participation in active dialogue. The participants would identify issues of concerns and discuss possible solutions, with an enhanced tolerance for different perspectives with regard to the same problem. Such plays are then rarely performed in traditional playhouses but rather staged “on streets, public places, in traditional meeting spaces, schools, prisons, or other institutions, inviting an alternative and often spontaneous audience to watch.”
Augusto Boal’s (1931–2009) approach also breaks down the ‘invisible wall’ between actors and audience but the difference being that the audience determines the action on stage not the playwright. For example, Boal writes:
“The spectators feel that they can intervene in the action. The action ceases to be presented in a deterministic manner, as something inevitable, as Fate. Man is Man’s fate. Thus Man-the-spectator is the creater of Man-the-character. Everything is subject to criticism, to rectification. All can be changed, and at a moment’s notice: the actors must always be ready to accept, without protest, any proposed action; they must simply act it out, to give a live view of its consequences and drawbacks.” [1]
Augusto Boal presenting his workshop on the Theatre of the Oppressed. Riverside Church, May 13, 2008.
21st Century – State Theatre v Community Theatre
In the twenty-first century State Theatre and Community Theatre exist side by side but as the global economic crisis deepens the traditional repertoire of the State theatre may seem to become out-dated and distant from social issues.
Community theatre is a form which, like the ballad form in music, is capable of tackling and analysing contemporary issues in a very short period of time. However, the tendency of the state is to try to absorb all opposition into its own conservative narrative and ‘de-fang’ it. This tendency is discussed by the poet Fran Lock in detail:
“This matters, because the people traditionally holding the purse strings, controlling the presses; the people responsible for funding us and publishing us, are the same power elites who decide what constitutes a valid working-class voice, and an acceptable working-class identity. Arts Council England, for example, has nothing to gain from supporting people and projects who challenge or threaten their traditional business model, and most major publishers are wary of a working-class poetics that openly and explicitly acknowledges the politics of its own oppression. To have your work “out there” in any meaningful sense, to secure the invaluable financial assistance by which a creative project lives or dies, is to accept that your work, and that you, as a person, will be mediated, filtered and enmeshed, by and in the machinery of a grossly unequal hierarchy. By this method we are compromised. We tailor and shape our voices and ourselves to fit their image of us, and our working-classness is depoliticised and de-fanged through an act of caricature. By this mechanism is the triumph of working-class representation transformed into the tool by which working-class participation in the arts is edited, eroded and policed.”
A street play (nukkad natak) in Dharavi slums in Mumbai.
Another important aspect which she alludes to is the problem of monolithism (‘shape[ing] our voices and ourselves to fit their image of us’) which is the way dissent can be silenced by portraying minority groups as being made up of similar people all sharing similar views. As Kenan Malik writes:
“Multiculturalists tend to treat minority communities as if each was a distinct, singular, homogenous, authentic whole, each composed of people all speaking with a single voice, each defined primarily by a singular view of culture and faith. In so doing, they all too often ignore conflicts within those communities. All the dissent and diversity gets washed out. As a result, the most progressive voices often gets silenced as not being truly of that community or truly authentic, while the most conservative voices get celebrated as community leaders, the authentic voices of minority groups.”
These are the kinds of difficulties community theatre faces, in particular, problems which are more accentuated where access is provided by a State theatre. However, in the streets, manipulation or outright censorship/rejection is much more difficult. And like the original Morality plays, the community theatre may have an ideological aspect which is equally difficult to moderate.
The Romantic/Modernist influence can still be seen in ‘mainstream’ [non-community theatre] in the emphasis on (formal) experimentation over (sociopolitical) content in projections of the future of theatre, for example:
“We can see the seeds of theatre’s future coming from three directions. Firstly, in the experimental works in the new theatre groups and companies, which may we call; off the existing established theatres. Secondly, in the rise of theatrical movements originated from the experimental works were done in the last century. Thirdly, in the works of few established theatres – and here we stress the word ’few’ – these works mainly done by some daring directors.”
However, not all writers are blind to the growing sociopolitical and economic crises developing globally, as one writer notes:
“The future predictions of trends in theatres. Well, it is true that technology has really affected theatres in terms of audience attendance and also changes in the overall appearance of the live performances in order to attract more audiences but will there be changes in the 21st-century trends in the cinema industry? Well, experts project the following changes in future: Need for community and people interactions will lead more people to the theatres. The increase in smaller theatres located in all parts of the country to attract more people to the theatres. Younger directors and actors will ensure more performances in the smaller theatres and the main focus will be on issues, news, and concerns of the immediate community.”
Thus, it can be seen there are mixed opinions on the future of ‘official’ theatre based in large and small theatres. It could be speculated that the ‘small theatre’ end and community-based theatre would be set for conflict as the professional and the amateur clash over what is to be portrayed and how, particularly if the issues raised and their resolution are perceived from widely differing ideological perspectives.
Conclusion
Throughout the last four centuries theatre has been pushed and pulled in many directions. It has been used by cliques for their own class entertainment. It has been forced many times in the direction of benefiting the greater good and dragged back again to serve elite agendas. However, the importance of theatre for examining social, political and more recently animal and climate issues, in an immediate and negotiable way, will ensure that theatre as a mirror of society will be a difficult form for the state to control.
*
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.
Caoimhghin Ó Croidheáin is an Irish artist, lecturer and writer. His artwork consists of paintings based on contemporary geopolitical themes as well as Irish history and cityscapes of Dublin. His blog of critical writing based on cinema, art and politics along with research on a database of Realist and Social Realist art from around the world can be viewed country by country here. He is a Research Associate of the Centre for Research on Globalization.
Note
[1] Theatre of the Oppressed, Augusto Boal (Pluto Press: London, 1998), p.134.
Today the Trump administration, with Democrats & AFLCIO leaders in tow, announced new final revisions and deal with Mexico on the new NAFTA 2.0 free trade agreement called the USMCA.
According to the corporate media, revisions to the USMCA demanded by Democrats since the initial agreement was reached with Mexico a year ago, have been agreed to by Trump, Pelosi, and the president of Mexico, Lopez-Obrador. The revisions reportedly mean more protections for US labor in particular. However, all we have at the moment is what’s reported in the corporate and mainstream media about the revisions. We’ll have to wait to read the final print of the actual agreement. But even the media reports are not much more than vague generalities about the terms and conditions of the revisions. The much heralded improvements to US labor interests in particular don’t appear that different from Trump’s originally negotiated deal a year ago.
The official media story line is that the new revisions provide protections for American workers now that did not exist previously during the 20+ years of NAFTA 1.0. During that period, easily 4-5 million US jobs were diverted to Mexico.
At issue during negotiations on revisions to NAFTA–now called the USMCA–was whether US inspectors would be allowed access to Mexico factories and businesses to ensure that the new labor terms of the revised USMCA trade deal were being enforced. Lopez Obrador and Mexican business have been adamantly opposed to allowing US inspectors access to Mexican factories, which suggests they had something to hide. (Mexico and AMLO both are in agreement on this issue). THey demanded that, instead of inspectors, there would be a joint US-Mexican panel to arbitrate labor disputes. But the issue is independent inspection, not a panel to rule on disputes that may never rise due to absence of inspection. What good is a panel of any kind ruling on a dispute that doesn’t get raised because there’s no independent inspection in the first place? Also important is whether the inspectors inspect unannounced, or whether they have to give a pre-notice before they inspect (that phony arrangement is how the US OSHA law has functioned with little effect for decades). Moreover, if there’s panel, how is it determined and what is its composition? If it’s equal US-Mexico representation, it might never come to a final decision.
In other words, if the final terms and conditions in print for the USMCA provide only for panels, in lieu of unannounced inspectors, then the so-called great labor protections touted by Democrats as part of a final deal are really just another fig leaf of labor protection.
While the mainstream media and Democrats talk up the labor revisions in today’s final deal, the real substance of the recent revisions–sought by Trump and US corporations and bankers–has had more to do with protecting the interests of US big pharma companies and US oil and bankers.
Big pharma has always wanted NAFTA-USMCA to include what it wanted in the Trans Pacific Partnership (TPP) deal it didn’t get in 2017: i.e. protections on pricing of its drugs in Mexico at levels closer to its price gouging levels in the US. The fine print in the USMCA will tell whether it got this, or at least got a big change from Mexico’s current rules that keep the price of drugs lower in Mexico than in the US.
Another reported big concession by Mexico in the recent revisions apparently addresses the protection of US oil and energy, telecom and banker interests. Since assuming the Mexico presidency, Lopez-Obrador (AMLO) has been moving toward re-nationalizing Mexico’s PEMEX oil company that had come increasingly under financial control in recent decades by US investors and banks. AMLO wants to restore it to its former Mexican government ownership, or at least to control by Mexican banks and capital. Legislation has been drawn up by the AMLO adminstration to enable re-nationalization. US bankers and oil interests in response have wanted changes in the NAFTA-USMCA (NAFTA 2.0) to protect them from re-nationalization. They apparently have gotten it. Reportedly language in the USMCA now exempts oil, gas, power, transport, cement, banks and telecom from any potential future Mexican re-nationalization.
Free trade treaties are always more about money capital flows (from the US into the host country) than about goods flows across borders, even though the goods flows is what’s mostly reported in the media and press. NAFTA has been no different. Free trade–whether the original NAFTA 1.0 or the current 2.0 revisions called the USMCA–is about financing the relocation of US business and manufacturing from the US to the host country.Then about allowing US companies thereafter doing business in the host country to ship their lower cost goods back into the US market without having to pay tariffs. US corporations make greater profits, not only from cheaper production costs and absence of tariffs, but from continuing to charge higher prices in the US when they ship them back, tariff free, as well. But this is all greater profits from production and goods flows.
Free trade provides even greater profits for US investors and bankers who ‘grease the wheels’, so to speak, of the money capital flows in the first place. The money flows are what make profits from production of goods flows all possible int he first place. Banks charge the interest on the loans, and big fees on mergers and acquisitions by US business in the host country, now allowed by the free trade treaty. Banks also buy up the banks in the host country and make more money from lending to host country businesses. Offshore production and lending also allow US multinational corporations to engage in what’s called ‘intra-company’ price manipulation which permit them to reduce taxes on lower reported profits in the US. The offshored, foreign subsidiary operations ‘book’ all the profits–kept offshore and reduced in the US by means of intra-company price manipulation. Profits are still further boosted as now, under Trump, US multinational corporations get to avoid virtually all taxes on their offshore operations, as a result of Trump’s 2018 multi-trillion dollar tax cuts for multinationals.
Yet Trump, the Democrats, and the US corporate media would have us think the USMCA revisions are all about protecting US workers’ interests by introducing dispute panels. The five million US workers who have lost their jobs under NAFTA gained nothing, and paid everything in lost jobs, under NAFTA 1.0. And that’s not changing one iota under NAFTA 2.0, e.g. USMCA by introducing panels–or even if actual independent inspections were allowed. Under Trump no jobs have come back to the US due to any of his trade wars; and none will after USMCA revisions are signed off either.
Free trade is about enriching bankers and investors who ‘grease the wheels’ of US corporate foreign direct investment into the host country, now permitted by the free trade deal. Free trade is about raising profits and stock prices of US multinational corporations once they set up operations or buy up companies in the host country. Free trade is about politicians in both wings of the Corporate Party of America (aka Democrats and Republicans) fooling workers that they are somehow protecting their interests.
So why the closing of the USMCA deal and revisions now? After a year of stalemate in Congress? Likely because Democrat leaders are desperate to show their impeachment proceedings against Trump are not preventing them from passing legislation otherwise. But does anyone think that Trump, his Trumpublicans in Congress, i.e. Mitch McConnell and other Republican political sycophants, would likewise sign a deal if they were in the Democrats place? No, they’d play hardball and continue to refuse to agree to anything right up to the 2020 election.
Trump has recently softened his USMCA position as well in an attempt to close a USMCA deal with Congress and Mexico. Why now? Because Trump’s trade war with China has stumbled and stalled. It appears, per the Wall St. Journal today, that Trump will postpone his scheduled December 15 additional tariffs on China as a concession to get China to buy more of US farm goods. Trump needs to show something from his 18 months of trade wars. The US trade deficit has barely shifted at all during the period, still running near $50b a month. He desperately needs the USMCA deal–any deal–given that the China-US ‘mini’ trade deal is going nowhere and may not even get signed next year. (And it won’t if Trump does not agree in 2020 to further cut US tariffs if he wants more China farm purchases).
Trump’s recent re-imposition of tariffs on Brazil-Argentina steel should also be viewed as part of the mix of trade events in recent weeks. as the China mini-deal stalled, he had to look tough somewhere. Re-imposing steel tariffs was also a not so veiled threat to Brazil-Argentina (which hardly import any steel to the US at all) that they should think twice about increasing sales of wheat and soybeans to China. Trump’s tariffs on their steel is a shot across their trade bow. Both Trump’s concessions on USMCA and his re-imposing of steel tariffs on Brazil-Argentina are indications of his failing trade policy and his weakening bargaining position on such policy as the US 2020 election grows nearer.
Both he and the Democrats want to ‘look good’ for 2020 election purposes: Trump wants to show (and later exaggerate) what he achieved in the revisions to USMCA. Pelosi-Shumer want to argue (and will also exaggerate) the phony labor protections they achieved in the revised USMCA.
But US workers will get, as they have been getting, nothing out of the USMCA or any Trump trade deal so far, more lost jobs and higher prices on imported goods– to be exact $42 billion more in higher prices, according to the NY Fed, and $1000 per month in reduced household income due to the higher import prices, according to estimates by Chase Bank research.
*
Note to readers: please click the share buttons above or below. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.
This article was originally published on the author’s blog site, Jack Rasmus.
Jack Rasmus is author of the just released book, ‘The Scourge of Neoliberalism: US Economic Policy from Reagan to Trump’, Clarity Press, January 2020, which is now available for purchase at 20% discount from his blog, jackrasmus.com, and website, http://kyklosproductions.com. (Chapter 8 addresses the origins and evolution of US trade negotiations under Trump in further detail).
Featured image: President-elect Donald J. Trump and U.S. Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi smile for a photo during the 58th Presidential Inauguration in Washington, D.C., Jan. 20, 2017. More than 5,000 military members from across all branches of the armed forces of the United States, including reserve and National Guard components, provided ceremonial support and Defense Support of Civil Authorities during the inaugural period. (DoD photo by U.S. Air Force Staff Sgt. Marianique Santos)
Interim Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu committed again on Sunday that his government will steal the entire Jordan Valley from the Palestinians. He had floated this plan two months ago but now seems to be determined to move ahead. It makes up 25% of the Palestinian West Bank. Israel is forbidden to annex militarily occupied territory by the 1949 Geneva Convention and by the charter of the United Nations, which were enacted to forestall a repeat of Nazi atrocities. Netanyahu would also annex the 5% of Palestinian territory on which Israeli squatter settlements have been built on land stolen from its Palestinian owners.
Netanyahu is in a world of trouble. He has been indicted on criminal offenses. The only thing that might keep him out of jail is to stay in office and tinker with the law for his own benefit. But he can’t remain prime minister because he lost the last election and hasn’t been able to form a government.
You don’t need to be a really suspicious person to see this announcement as a form of wagging the dog by Netanyahu in hopes of making himself so popular in Israel that he can manage to find a way to fix the system and stay out of jail. Of course, he has made this pledge before, and he nevertheless couldn’t win the election and form a government.
It is rumored that Trump will announce his support for Netanyahu’s massive piece of grand larceny. Trump made waves of his own Sunday, addressing a Jewish audience and telling them that they are “not nice people” but that they will vote for him because they care about money above all else and will reject Elizabeth Warren’s plan to raise taxes. He also insisted that Jewish Americans must give Israel their blind support. He managed to hit all the highlights of anti-Semitism, from caricatures of Jews as money-grubbers with no thought for the public weal to inaccurate charges of dual loyalty.
Israel may well go to the polls again for a third time in a year this spring. The electorate is divided between the far-far-right Likud Party of Netanyahu and the center-right Blue and White coalition of Benny Gantz. So it keeps returning a hung parliament. Gantz refuses to form a government of national unity with Netanyahu. Actually, either of the two blocs could form a government if they allied with the largely Palestinian-Israeli Joint List, but the racist rules of Israeli politics do not permit allowing persons of Palestinian heritage into the cabinet.
If Netanyahu loses again, it is possible that his party will dump him or that his enemies will form a government without him, leaving him in the dragnet of the police.
I explained earlier two of the cases against him:
In one case, Netanyahu allegedly accepted a couple hundred thousand dollars in bribes from an Australian businessmen in return for favorable treatment of his business and attempting to get him a US visa.
In the other case, Netanyahu is alleged to have offered a deal to Arnon Mozes, the publisher of Israel’s biggest-circulation newspaper, Yedioth Ahronoth. Netanyahu supporter and shady casino billionaire Sheldon Adelson had begun a free pro-Netanyahu newspaper, Yisrael Ha-Yom, and it obviously was eating into the profits of the other newspapers in the country. (How this is not illegal as “dumping” baffles me.) Netanyahu allegedly told Mozes that he could persuade Adelson to reduce the publication run of Yisrael Ha-Yom, which would help his bottom line. In return, Mozes should report more favorably on Netanyahu.
This second case really is about destroying freedom of the press and entirely undermining what little is left of Israeli democracy.
Israel never had a claim on the Palestinian West Bank or the Gaza Strip. In 1967 Israel invaded these areas and occupied them even though the Palestinians took no role in the 1967 War. Nearly 3 million Palestinians now live in the West Bank under Israeli military control. Another 2 million live in the Gaza Strip, which is occupied via blockade. Violating international law, Israel long since annexed some of this Palestinian territory and added it to the Israeli district of Jerusalem, settling some 350,000 Israelis on this stolen Palestinian land. Israel has also sent 400,000 squatters to take property away from Palestinian families in what is left of the West Bank.
Now Netanyahu is brazenly planning to steal a quarter of all the land in the Palestinian West Bank, forever ending any chance of a Palestinian state.
The US Congress, which tacitly supports Israeli colonization efforts, has clung to a fig leaf of an imaginary peace process and a two-state solution for decades during which far right wing Israeli governments have energetically worked to forestall any such thing.
*
Note to readers: please click the share buttons above or below. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.
President Bashar al-Assad said that Syria is going to come out of the war stronger and the future of Syria is promising and the situation is much better, pointing out to the achievements of the Syrian Arab army in the war against terrorism.
The President, in an interview given to Italian Rai News 24 TV on November 26, 2019 and was expected to be broadcast on December 2nd and the Italian TV refrained from broadcasting it for non-understandable reasons, added that Europe was the main player in creating chaos in Syria and the problem of refugees in it was because of its direct support to terrorism along with the US, Turkey and many other countries.
President al-Assad stressed that since the beginning of the narrative regarding the chemical weapons, Syria has affirmed it didn’t use them.
The President affirmed that what the OPCW organization did was to fake and falsify the report about using chemical weapons, just because the Americans wanted them to do so. So, fortunately, this report proved that everything we said during the last few years, since 2013, is correct.
Video: English (with Arabic subtitles)
Following is the full text of the interview:
Question 1: Mr. President, thanks for having us here. Let us know please, what’s the situation in Syria now, what’s the situation on the ground, what is happening in the country?
President Assad: If we want to talk about Syrian society: the situation is much, much better, as we learned so many lessons from this war and I think the future of Syria is promising; we are going to come out of this war stronger.
Talking about the situation on the ground: The Syrian Army has been advancing for the last few years and has liberated many areas from the terrorists, there still remains Idleb where you have al-Nusra that’s being supported by the Turks, and you have the northern part of Syria where the Turks have invaded our territory last month.
So, regarding the political situation, you can say it’s becoming much more complicated, because you have many more players that are involved in the Syrian conflict in order to make it drag on and to turn it into a war of attrition.
Question 2: When you speak about liberating, we know that there is a military vision on that, but the point is: how is the situation now for the people that decided to be back in society? The process of reconciliation, now at what point? Is it working or not?
President Assad: Actually, the methodology that we adopted when we wanted to create let’s say, a good atmosphere – we called it reconciliation, for the people to live together, and for those people who lived outside the control of government areas to go back to the order of law and institutions. It was to give amnesty to anyone, who gives up his armament and obey the law. The situation is not complicated regarding this issue, if you have the chance to visit any area, you’ll see that life is getting back to normal.
The problem wasn’t people fighting with each other; it wasn’t like the Western narrative may have tried to show – as Syrians fighting with each other, or as they call it a “civil war,” which is misleading. The situation was terrorists taking control of areas, and implementing their rules. When you don’t have those terrorists, people will go back to their normal life and live with each other. There was no sectarian war, there was no ethnical war, there was no political war; it was terrorists supported by outside powers, they have money and armaments, and they occupy those areas.
Question 3: Aren’t you afraid that this kind of ideology that took place and, you know, was the basis of everyday life for people for so many years, in some ways can stay in the society and sooner or later will be back?
President Assad: This is one of the main challenges that we’ve been facing. What you’re asking about is very correct. You have two problems. Those areas that were out of the control of government were ruled by two things: chaos, because there is no law, so people – especially the younger generation – know nothing about the state and law and institutions.
The second thing, which is deeply rooted in the minds, is the ideology, the dark ideology, the Wahabi ideology – ISIS or al-Nusra or Ahrar al-Cham, or whatever kind of these Islamist terrorist extremist ideologies.
Now we have started dealing with this reality, because when you liberate an area you have to solve this problem otherwise what’s the meaning of liberating? The first part of the solution is religious, because this ideology is a religious ideology, and the Syrian religious clerics, or let’s say the religious institution in Syria, is making a very strong effort in this regard, and they have succeeded; they succeeded at helping those people understanding the real religion, not the religion that they’ve been taught by al-Nusra or ISIS or other factions.
Question 4: So basically, clerics and mosques are part of this reconciliation process?
President Assad: This is the most important part. The second part is the schools. In schools, you have teachers, you have education, and you have the national curriculum, and this curriculum is very important to change the minds of those young generations. Third, you have the culture, you have the role of arts, intellectuals, and so on. In some areas, it’s still difficult to play that role, so it was much easier for us to start with the religion, second with the schools.
Question 5: Mr. President, let me just go back to politics for an instant. You mentioned Turkey, okay? Russia has been your best ally these years, it’s not a secret, but now Russia is compromising with Turkey on some areas that are part of Syrian area, so how do you assess this?
President Assad: To understand the Russian role, we have to understand the Russian principles. For Russia, they believe that international law – and international order based on that law – is in the interest of Russia and in the interest of everybody in the world. So, for them, by supporting Syria they are supporting international law; this is one point. Secondly, being against the terrorists is in the interest of the Russian people and the rest of the world.
So, being with Turkey and making this compromise doesn’t mean they support the Turkish invasion; rather they wanted to play a role in order to convince the Turks that you have to leave Syria. They are not supporting the Turks, they don’t say “this is a good reality, we accept it and Syria must accept it.” No, they don’t. But because of the American negative role and the Western negative role regarding Turkey and the Kurds, the Russians stepped in, in order to balance that role, to make the situation… I wouldn’t say better, but less bad if you want to be more precise. So, in the meantime, that’s their role. In the future, their position is very clear: Syrian integrity and Syrian sovereignty. Syrian integrity and sovereignty are in contradiction with the Turkish invasion, that is very obvious and clear.
Question 6: So, you’re telling me that the Russians could compromise, but Syria is not going to compromise with Turkey. I mean, the relation is still quite tense.
President Assad: No, even the Russians didn’t make a compromise regarding the sovereignty. No, they deal with reality. Now, you have a bad reality, you have to be involved to make some… I wouldn’t say compromise because it’s not a final solution. It could be a compromise regarding the short-term situation, but in the long-term or the mid-term, Turkey should leave. There is no question about it.
Question 7: And in the long-term, any plan of discussions between you and Mr. Erdogan?
President Assad: I wouldn’t feel proud if I have to someday. I would feel disgusted to deal with those kinds of opportunistic Islamists, not Muslims, Islamists – it’s another term, it’s a political term. But again, I always say: my job is not to be happy with what I’m doing or not happy or whatever. It’s not about my feelings, it’s about the interests of Syria, so wherever our interests go, I will go.
Question 8: In this moment, when Europe looks at Syria, apart from the considerations about the country, there are two major issues: one is refugees, and the other one is the Jihadists or foreign fighters coming back to Europe. How do you see these European worries?
President Assad: We have to start with a simple question: who created this problem? Why do you have refugees in Europe? It’s a simple question: because of terrorism that’s being supported by Europe – and of course the United States and Turkey and others – but Europe was the main player in creating chaos in Syria. So, what goes around comes around.
Question 9: Why do you say it was the main player?
President Assad: Because they publicly supported, the EU supported the terrorists in Syria from day one, week one or from the very beginning. They blamed the Syrian government, and some regimes like the French regime sent armaments, they said – one of their officials – I think their Minister of Foreign Affairs, maybe Fabius said “we send.” They sent armaments; they created this chaos. That’s why a lot of people find it difficult to stay in Syria; millions of people couldn’t live here so they had to get out of Syria.
Question 10: In this moment, in the region, there are turmoil, and there is a certain chaos. One of the other allies of Syria is Iran, and the situation there is getting complicated. Does it have any reflection on the situation in Syria?
President Assad: Definitely, whenever you have chaos, it’s going to be bad for everyone, it’s going to have side-effects and repercussions, especially when there is external interference. If it’s spontaneous, if you talk about demonstrations and people asking for reform or for a better situation economically or any other rights, that’s positive. But when it’s for vandalism and destroying and killing and interfering from outside powers, then no – it’s definitely nothing but negative, nothing but bad, and a danger on everyone in this region.
Question 11: Are you worried about what’s happening in Lebanon, which is really the real neighbor?
President Assad: Yes, in the same way. Of course, Lebanon would affect Syria more than any other country because it is our direct neighbor. But again, if it’s spontaneous and it’s about reform and getting rid of the sectarian political system, that would be good for Lebanon. Again, that depends on the awareness of the Lebanese people in order not to allow anyone from the outside to try to manipulate the spontaneous movement or demonstrations in Lebanon.
Question 12: Let’s go back to what is happening in Syria. In June, Pope Francis wrote you a letter asking you to pay attention and to respect the population, especially in Idleb where the situation is still very tense, because there is fighting there, and when it comes even to the way prisoners are treated in jails. Did you answer him, and what did you answer?
President Assad: The letter of the Pope was about his worry for civilians in Syria and I had the impression that maybe the picture in the Vatican is not complete. That’s to be expected, since the mainstream narrative in the West is about this “bad government” killing the “good people;” as you see and hear in the same media – every bullet of the Syrian Army and every bomb only kills civilians and only hospitals! they don’t kill terrorists as they target those civilians! which is not correct.
So, I responded with a letter explaining to the Pope the reality in Syria – as we are the most, or the first to be concerned about civilian lives, because you cannot liberate an area while the people are against you. You cannot talk about liberation while the civilians are against you or the society. The most crucial part in liberating any area militarily is to have the support of the public in that area or in the region in general. That has been clear for the last nine years and that’s against our interests.
Question 13: But that kind of call, in some ways, made you also think again about the importance of protecting civilians and people of your country.
President Assad: No, this is something we think about every day, not only as morals, principles and values but as interests. As I just mentioned, without this support – without public support, you cannot achieve anything… you cannot advance politically, militarily, economically and in every aspect. We couldn’t withstand this war for nine years without the public support and you cannot have public support while you’re killing civilians. This is an equation, this is a self-evident equation, nobody can refute it. So, that’s why I said, regardless of this letter, this is our concern.
But again, the Vatican is a state, and we think that the role of any state – if they worry about those civilians, is to go to the main reason. The main reason is the Western role in supporting the terrorists, and it is the sanctions on the Syrian people that have made the situation much worse – and this is another reason for the refugees that you have in Europe now. You don’t want refugees but at the same time you create the situation or the atmosphere that will tell them “go outside Syria, somewhere else,” and of course they will go to Europe. So, this state, or any state, should deal with the reasons and we hope the Vatican can play that role within Europe and around the world; to convince many states that you should stop meddling in the Syrian issue, stop breaching international law. That’s enough, we only need people to follow international law. The civilians will be safe, the order will be back, everything will be fine. Nothing else.
Question 14: Mr. President, you’ve been accused several times of using chemical weapons, and this has been the instrument of many decisions and a key point, the red line, for many decisions. One year ago, more than one year ago, there has been the Douma event that has been considered another red line. After that, there has been bombings, and it could it have been even worse, but something stopped. These days, through WikiLeaks, it’s coming out that something wrong in the report could have taken place. So, nobody yet is be able to say what has happened, but something wrong in reporting what has happened could have taken place.
President Assad: We have always – since the beginning of this narrative regarding the chemical weapons – we have said that we didn’t use it; we cannot use it, it’s impossible to be used in our situation for many reasons, let’s say – logistical reasons.
Intervention: Give me one.
President Assad: One reason, a very simple one: when you’re advancing, why would you use chemical weapons?! We are advancing, why do we need to use it?! We are in a very good situation so why use it, especially in 2018? This is one reason.
Second, very concrete evidence that refutes this narrative: when you use chemical weapons – this is a weapon of mass destruction, you talk about thousands of dead or at least hundreds. That never happened, never – you only have these videos of staged chemical weapons attacks. In the recent report that you’ve mentioned, there’s a mismatch between what we saw in the video and what they saw as technicians or as experts. The amount of chlorine that they’ve been talking about: first of all, chlorine is not a mass destruction material, second, the amount that they found is the same amount that you can have in your house, it exists in many households and used maybe for cleaning and whatever. The same amount exactly. That’s what the OPCW organisation did – they faked and falsified the report, just because the Americans wanted them to do so. So, fortunately, this report proved that everything we said during the last few years, since 2013, is correct. We were right, they were wrong. This is proof, this is concrete proof regarding this issue. So, again, the OPCW is biased, is being politicized and is being immoral, and those organisations that should work in parallel with the United Nations to create more stability around the world – they’ve been used as American arms and Western arms to create more chaos.
Question 15: Mr. President, after nine years of war, you are speaking about the mistakes of the others. I would like you to speak about your own mistakes, if any. Is there something you would have done in a different way, and which is the lesson learned that can help your country?
President Assad: Definitely, for when you talk about doing anything, you always find mistakes; this is human nature. But when you talk about political practice, you have two things: you have strategies or big decisions, and you have tactics – or in this context, the implementation. So, our strategic decisions or main decisions were to stand against terrorism, to make reconciliation and to stand against the external meddling in our affairs. Today, after nine years, we still adopt the same policy; we are more adherent to this policy. If we thought it was wrong, we would have changed it; actually no, we don’t think there is anything wrong in this policy. We did our mission; we implemented the constitution by protecting the people.
Now, if you talk about mistakes in implementation, of course you have so many mistakes. I think if you want to talk about the mistakes regarding this war, we shouldn’t talk about the decisions taken during the war because the war – or part of it, is a result of something before.
Two things we faced during this war: the first one was extremism. The extremism started in this region in the late 60s and accelerated in the 80s, especially the Wahabi ideology. If you want to talk about mistakes in dealing with this issue: then yes, I will say we were very tolerant of something very dangerous. This is a big mistake we committed over decades; I’m talking about different governments, including myself before this war.
The second one, when you have people who are ready to revolt against the order, to destroy public properties, to commit vandalism and so on, they work against their country, they are ready to go and work for foreign powers – foreign intelligence, they ask for external military interference against their country. So, this is another question: how did we have those? If you ask me how, I would tell you that before the war we had more than 50,000 outlaws that weren’t captured by the police for example; for those outlaws, their natural enemy is the government because they don’t want to go to prison.
Question 16: And how about also the economic situation? Because part of it – I don’t know if it was a big or small part of it – but part of it has also been the discontent and the problems of population in certain areas in which economy was not working. Is it a lesson learned somewhere?
President Assad: It could be a factor, but definitely not a main factor. Some people talk about the four years of drought that pushed the people to leave their land in the rural areas to go to the city… it could be a problem, but this is not the main problem. They talked about the liberal policy… we didn’t have a liberal policy, we’re still socialist, we still have a public sector – a very big public sector in government. You cannot talk about liberal policy while you have a big public sector. We had growth, good growth.
Of course, in the implementation of our policy, again, you have mistakes. How can you create equal opportunities between people? Between rural areas and between the cities? When you open up the economy, the cities will benefit more, that will create more immigration from rural areas to the cities… these are factors, that could play some role, but this is not the issue. In the rural areas where you have more poverty, the money of the Qataris played a more actual role than in the cities, that’s natural. You pay them in half an hour what they get in one week; that’s very good for them.
Question 17: We are almost there, but there are two more questions that I want to ask you. One is about reconstruction, and reconstruction is going to be very costly. How can you imagine to afford this reconstruction, who could be your allies in reconstruction?
President Assad: We don’t have a big problem with that. Talking that Syria has no money… no, actually Syrians have a lot of money; the Syrian people around the world have a lot of money, and they want to come and build their country. Because when you talk about building the country, it is not giving money to the people, it’s about getting benefit – it’s a business. So, many people, not only Syrians, want to do business in Syria. So, talking about where you can have funds for this reconstruction, we already have, but the problem is that these sanctions prevent those businessmen or companies from coming and working in Syria. In spite of that, we started and in spite of that, some foreign companies have started finding ways to evade these sanctions and we have started planning. It’s going to be slow, without the sanctions we wouldn’t have a problem with funding.
Question 18: Ending on a very personal note, Mr. President; do you feel like a survivor?
President Assad: If you want to talk about a national war like this, where nearly every city has been harmed by terrorism or external bombardment and other things, then you can talk about all the Syrians as survivors. I think this is human nature: to be a survivor.
Intervention: And you yourself?
President Assad: I’m a part of those Syrians. I cannot be disconnected from them; I have the same feeling. Again, it’s not about being a strong person who is a survivor. If you don’t have this atmosphere, this society, or this incubator to survive, you cannot survive. It’s collective; it’s not a single person, it’s not a one-man show.
Journalist: Thank you very much, Mr. President.
President Assad: Thank you.
*
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.
One of the many groups taking part in the massive general strike in France this week, and joining forces with the year-long Yellow Jackets movement, are the country’s public school teachers. The “coup de grâce” for teachers was the Macron administration’s proposed teacher pension reform, in which retirement payments would be calculated based upon salaries earned throughout a teacher’s career rather than their last paychecks.
In other words, a teacher’s earnings as a new graduate and during the years they gained experience and possibly pursued advanced training or specializations would carry equal weight in calculating the amount they would receive upon retiring from service in public education years and decades later.
One teacher’s union put it this way. A retiree with a 40 year career in teaching might have finally attained a salary of 3,200 euros a month. Right now, they would retire with 2,281 euros a month, but after the reforms, that would decrease to 1,803 euros.
All in all, it’s a disingenuous way for a neo-liberal government to claw back the final thanks offered to yet another group of civil servants in the name of budgets and saving costs. But it is also another example of neoliberalism’s war on public education.
“While teacher salaries [in France] are below the average of OCDE countries, this regressive retirement plan is yet another example of the lack of recognition for those who on a daily basis devote themselves to the success of all their students throughout the country,” decries Yannick Trigance, regional council member for the Socialist Party’s National Higher Education Secretariat. According to the council’s calculations, a retired teacher could lose between 300 and 900 euros a month after years of teaching.
Trigance goes on to describe the deleterious effects of the new policy upon public education in general. Citing figures demonstrating decreased applications for teaching positions of as much as 20% in certain fields, Trigance asks, “Who would embark upon a career in which working conditions, salary and retirement are flagrantly disregarded by both political leaders and society at large?”
The effects are already evident in the country’s less well off neighbourhoods. In Paris’ poor northeastern suburbs where the population is primarily composed of immigrants and children of immigrants, 10% of teachers are contractors who may not be qualified. And often classes are simply not held. According to Trigance, pupils in that region have lost 20% of their class hours due to a lack of substitute teachers.
The September suicide of a northeastern suburb public kindergarten principal is still fresh on the minds of striking teachers. Citing isolation and exhaustion, the 58 year old ended her 30 year career in education over the weekend of 22 September 2019.
In an email and 15 posted letters, she wrote, “The succession of inspectors who come to [the school] don’t realize just how exhausted everyone is.” She expressed how educators feel alone in their situations due to lack of support when they are pitted between government policy and student needs.
The authorities claim the letter and emails are evidence for the police and warned teachers not to reveal their contents. However one teacher did speak about the letter anonymously, explaining that he thought “she wanted it to be known, and for her act to mean something.”
“She put words to what we are experiencing. In her letter, she describes our daily routine. The tasks that mount up that we never get relief from. The reforms that accumulate, going this way and then that way… we’re always on the front line for everybody. In front of the board, the city, colleagues that we have to help and support with changing teams that often need training… They’re sending us more and more contractors who have absolutely no training or even a diploma, who can’t handle the children and we have to help them.
“I understand what she did. The teaching profession is very consuming, it takes an enormous toll on our lives. When you are under an avalanche of things to do, it’s hard to step back and be able to say, ‘Ok, it’s not my fault, I can’t do everything that they’re asking of me.’ It’s difficult and a lot of colleagues crack.
“The department of education is rarely there to support us. My colleague talked about that in her letter. This feeling of powerlessness that we all feel. In my school, for example, many children don’t have a place to sleep, their families are on the street. That’s also the reality we’re faced with, without any support.”
Recently, educators were asked to become moral arbiters who should refuse to allow mothers wearing hijab from assisting on school field trips. In 2017, the Ministry of Education announced the formation of “secular units” in schools to ensure their freedom from religion, and in September, the minister declared his intention to increase their scope. Already forbidden from wearing veils or religious symbols themselves for the last 15 years, teachers and principals desperate for help from the community find themselves the subject of ire from all sides, confronted by anti-Islamic conservatives, secular liberals, and humiliated parents, as they negotiate yet another assault on their ability to complete their mission as educators.
Common Dreams: Our work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 License. Feel free to republish and share widely
*
Note to readers: please click the share buttons above or below. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.
Danica Jorden is a writer and translator of French, Spanish, Portuguese, Italian and other languages.
Featured image: Protesters clash with French riot police during a demonstration against pension reforms in Paris, France, 05 December 2019. (Photo: Alexandros Michailidis/Shutterstock.com)
The international struggle for military supremacy in the Arctic has just risen to absurd new heights.
Following the collapse of the arms control regime that for decades aided the US’s tenuous grip on power in the region, the US, Russia and China are now engaged in a winner-takes-all struggle for control of territory north of the Arctic Circle.
And as Russia moves to defend its territory (Russia and Canada have the most territory inside the Arctic Circle), the Russian army is reportedly preparing to upgrade the equipment on the anti-aircraft regiment of its Northern Fleet with its new state-of-the-art S-400 missile defense systems.
The upgrades will create what RT described as a “missile defense dome” able to stop a flurry of NATO missiles.
And that’s not all: Russian anti-aircraft troops and members of the radio corp. are in the Arctic undergoing what has been described as a “radical retraining” regimen. Ultimately, all military units will be equipped with Russian-made S-400 anti-aircraft missiles. These are the same missiles that Turkey recently agreed to purchase from the Russians, engendering some ill-will with other NATO members (like France) which saw Turkey’s decision to buy the S-400s as a kind of betrayal.
Of course, the Trump Administration slapped tariffs and sanctions on the Turkish economy, as well as businesses and certain senior government officials (Two months ago, Trump ended trade talks with Turkey in a huff (while raising tariffs on Turkish steel to 50%).
A visit to the White House last month by President Recep Tayyip Erdogan “took a dark turn” in the middle of a morning meeting when Erdogan forced everybody in the Oval Office (including President Trump) to watch a propaganda about the Kurds.
For years now, Russia has been boosting its military presence in the Arctic, building and repairing bases and airfields, while deploying its newest hardware and holding military drills, which it claims are organized in response to increased NATO training activity in the area.
*
Note to readers: please click the share buttons above or below. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.
The US’ new stance on “Israeli” settlements is condemnable from both the legal and ethical standpoints, but it doesn’t change the reality that Tel Aviv’s colonial policy won’t be curtailed unless the international community summons the political will to impose real costs upon the self-professed “Jewish State”, which doesn’t appear likely anytime soon.
There’s been near-universal outrage all across the globe except from “Israel” and some of Trump’s supporters over the US’ new stance on “Israeli” settlements after Pompeo declared last month that his government now believes that “the establishment of Israeli civilian settlements in the West Bank is not, per se, inconsistent with international law”. This overt backing of the self-professed “Jewish State’s” colonial policy of preparing the groundwork for its potentially long-planned annexation of part or all of occupied Palestine is likely meant to facilitate the forthcoming unveiling of the political dimensions of Trump’s so-called “Deal of the Century”, which have been kept secret pending the formation of the next “Israeli” government. After all, it’s been previously reported that this proposal will see the US suggesting “Israel’s” annexation of the colonially settled areas along the lines of what it did several decades ago with the entire occupied Golan Heights, so it’s not exactly far-fetched to interpret this latest development as conforming to that possible scenario.
One of the reasons for the world’s vocal opposition to the US’ new stance on the settlements issue is because it literally contradicts international law, to say nothing of it being completely unethical in principle for many, both Muslims and non-Muslims alike. That said, there’s nothing that they can do to convince the US to reverse its recent policy shift, especially seeing as how the lack of any tangible pushback regarding its earlier decision to recognize Jerusalem as the capital of “Israel” two years ago in December 2017 likely emboldened its latest move. There was a loud outcry at the time and many Palestinians did indeed protest, but everything eventually quieted down exactly as the Trump Administration predicted that it would because the “inconvenient truth” is that there are practically no forces apart from Iran, Hezbollah, Hamas, and Syria (mostly in the past tense regarding the latter nowadays after the ongoing conflict decimated that country’s ability to challenge “Israel”) that have the political will to impose real costs on the self-professed “Jewish State” for what it’s doing in Palestine.
Whether it’s establishing settlements, killing civilians, or imposing a modern-day system of apartheid on the indigenous population there, few forces are willing to proverbially “put their money where their mouth is” and prove that they truly stand with the Palestinians. Practically everyone else apart from those four-mentioned actors (and excluding activist groups like BDS of course) just pay lip service to the Palestinian cause at the UN or in dramatic statements by their representatives elsewhere but don’t do anything to support it other than that. Even Turkish President Erdogan, who’s been portrayed by some media outlets as one of the most passionate supporters of the Palestinian cause, still retains his country’s multibillion-dollar trade ties with “Israel”. Whether Palestine’s supporters agree with it or not, the objective truth is that Turkey and the over 160 countries like it have their own self-interested reasons in doing so, which isn’t to endorse their decisions but just to point them out in order to counteract the Alt-Media Community‘s wishful thinking which oftentimes imagines that the world is rising up against “Israel”.
It’s not, and that’s precisely the problem that the Palestinian cause faces. It doesn’t matter whatsoever in any significant sense what countries vote on at the UN General Assembly when those same states that condemn “Israel’s” actions in Palestine aren’t willing to cut, or at least curtail, their ties with it until the issue is finally resolved. To the contrary, more countries are establishing relations with “Israel” and expanding their preexisting ones than ever before, especially in Africa, so the trend is actually that the international community is increasingly de-facto “legitimizing” it despite still “de-jure” sticking to its position that some of its most notorious actions such as settlements are worthy of condemnation. There’s little that can be done at the moment to change that since all of the world’s leading powers are on extremely close terms with “Israel” and would likely look unfavorably upon those below them in the international power hierarchy who buck this trend for principle’s sake, and some of the most zealous among them might even exert different forms of pressure upon those potentially “iconoclastic” states to reverse their decision the moment that it’s made.
As such, it can be said that most of the world actually accepts the reality of “Israeli” settlements in occupied Palestine even if they don’t endorse it at international fora, with the US being the only one willing to openly “call an ace an ace and a spade a spade”. International law means nothing unless violations are credibly enforced, and since practically no force of significance has the political will to impose costs upon “Israel” for its settlements and other illegal activities, the self-professed “Jewish State” basically gets off scot-free doing whatever it wants. This naturally means that its possible annexation of the colonially settled territories per the reported suggestion of Trump’s “Deal of the Century” will probably proceed apace pending an official decision in this respect since nobody except for the previously mentioned four actors have anything approaching the political will to meaningfully oppose it. What the US therefore did was once again expose the hypocrisy of the international community for condemning “Israel” but rarely taking any serious actions to punish it, thus showing that most of the world is de-facto “legitimizing” its actions whether they realize it or not.
*
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.
Boris Johnson’s election on December 12 hinges on the British prime minister’s promise to leave the European Union. Johnson has remade the Conservative Party, pushing out longtime party members wary of a firm break from the EU, to cast the election as a chance to build a parliamentary majority focused on finalizing Brexit.
The original Brexit referendum that passed in June 2016 pitted populists against the establishment, with banks funneling huge amounts of money to oppose the referendum, which was cast as a measure to return taxes and power to local British citizens, while restoring the sovereignty of the U.K.’s borders against what was cast asunfair trade anduncontrolled migration.
But the politics of the deal have shifted over time, with hard-liners gaining power within Tory leadership and demanding a radical break from the EU. Corporate lobbyists now see an opportunity to use Johnson’s proposed swift exit from the EU as a way to forge bilateral trade deals, including one between the U.S. and the U.K, that would outsource local authority to rules set by an array of international business interests. A wide range of industries are primed to take advantage of the deal to evade EU consumer safeguards and drug pricing rules. Representatives from American pork to Silicon Valley and everything in between are trying to influence the negotiations.
Departing the EU could mean that British consumers would no longer be protected by broad EU-wide regulations on chemicals, food, and cosmetics, among other products. Several international corporate groups have pushed to ensure that in the event of Brexit, such safeguards are abandoned in exchange for a regulatory standard that conforms to the norms of the U.S.
Consultants working directly on the Brexit deal in London and in Washington, D.C., have asked to limit the ability of British regulators to set the price for pharmaceutical drugs, lift safety restrictions on pesticides and agricultural products, and constrain the ability for the U.K. to enact its own data privacy laws.
In January, a lengthy hearing hosted by trade officials from both countries provided a forum in D.C. for industry to lay out its agenda on what should happen after Brexit. Before the hearing, two major industry groups sent letters outlining their agendas for the Brexit negotiations in 2019.
The Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America, the lobby group that represents the largest drugmakers in the world, insisted that any U.S.-U.K. deal “must recognize that prices of medicines should be based on a variety of value criteria.” PhRMA called for changes in the way the U.K.’s National Health Service sets price controls through comparative effectiveness research, an effort to control the costs of drugs using clinical research.
The Biotechnology Innovation Organization, a lobby group for the biopharmaceutical industry, made similar demands in a letter to trade officialsfor the U.K., calling to do more in “shouldering a fair share of the costs of innovation.” BIO suggests that in order to ensure fair treatment for drugmakers, companies should have the right to petition an “independent body” to overrule decisions made by the NHS.
At the hearing, Craig Thorn, a lobbyist representing the U.S.’s National Pork Producers Council, told the Trump administration that the proposed U.S.-U.K. deal present a “historic opportunity,” citing his client’s desire to continue trade with the U.K. by evading EU restrictions on certain feed additives and antibiotics used widely on American pork. Similarly, Floyd Gaibler, a representative of the U.S. Grains Council, said that the deal provides a window for American agriculture to avoid the EU restrictions on pesticides that have been or will soon be banned.
Silicon Valley, similarly, views Brexit as a chance to bypass EU-wide limits on data collection, or even new U.K.-based rules. Several technology lobbyists have pushed to provide trade provisions between the U.S. and U.K. that outlaw so-called data localization requirements. Some regulators have looked at the need for technology firms to store consumer data in local servers, to ensure that it is not resold or abused in any way.
It’s not just U.S.-based interest groups seeking to retool corporate standards through a hard Brexit. The Institute of Economic Affairs, a major conservative think tank in London, has met repeatedly with Conservative Party leaders and American trade officials to shape a new U.S.-U.K. trade deal that mirrors the demands of industry groups.
Peter Allgeier, a former U.S. trade official, testifying on behalf of the Institute of Economic Affairs at the hearing earlier this year, called for rules that relax regulatory standards and bring the U.K. in line with an American approach to business.
“In areas such as food safety and automobile standards, rigid prescriptive EU standards have stifled innovation and impeded U.S. exports,” said Allgeier.
Allgeier has worked closely with Shanker Singham, a consultant known as the “Brexiteers’ Brain” for his expansive influence over Tory trade strategy and Johnson’s approach to Brexit. Singham holds a position with the Institute of Economic Affairs as the organization’s director for trade policy.
The two men are also consultants to business interests while they help guide the direction of Brexit. In an email to The Intercept, Allgeier said that his “list of clients is proprietary information.” Singham, who did not respond to a request for comment, works with the European lobbying firm Grayling, which represents pharmaceutical firms such as AbbVie, Bayer, and Johnson & Johnson, according to EU disclosures.
The potential for a Brexit deal to serve as a corporate Trojan horse became a campaign issue last month when Labour Leader Jeremy Corbyn highlighted documents detailing ongoing negotiations between representatives from the U.K.’s Department for International Trade, trade officials from the Trump administration, and industry, discussing the ongoing U.S.-U.K. trade agreement.
“We are talking here about secret talks for a deal with Donald Trump after Brexit,” Corbyn declared, citing the potential for higher drug costs and privatization of the NHS.
Dean Baker, a senior economist with the Center for Economic and Policy Research, noted in an email to The Intercept that such regulatory demands by industry are “always part of trade deals.” Baker said that U.S. trade to the U.K. is relatively trivial, at around 2.5 percent of GDP, making incentives for rushing a trade agreement relatively small.
“On the other hand,” Baker wrote, “paying higher prices for drugs and being unable to regulate the Internet is likely to impose very substantial costs.”
“A government weighing these factors carefully would almost certainly refuse a deal, but a Johnson government that made Brexit front and center is likely to feel strong political pressure to have a deal with the hope few people will pay much attention to the content,” Baker noted. “Johnson could tout the deal as a big success. People would only see the negative effects years down the road.”
*
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 revised U.S.—Mexico—Canada Agreement (USMCA), announced today by House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and endorsed by the AFL-CIO, represents a significant improvement on the draft agreement first released in 2017. Negotiators for labor and House Democrats strengthened the provisions on labor rights, environmental standards, and the enforcement of these rules, and also removed costly and egregious new protections for corporations, including giveaways by the Trump administration to pharmaceutical companies.
But the changes embodied in the USMCA still constitute Band-Aids on a fundamentally flawed agreement and process. Powerful multinational corporations have used and controlled the negotiation of trade and investment deals to facilitate offshoring and the deregulation of the U.S. and global economy, as noted by the Machinists Union, which has announced its opposition to the USMCA. The original North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) resulted in the loss of at least 680,000 U.S. jobs due to growing trade deficits with Mexico alone. It also caused downward pressure on the wages of nearly 100 million U.S. workers and the devastation of manufacturing communities across the United States, especially in the industrial Midwest and battleground states—with far-reaching social and electoral consequences.
The USMCA will result, at best, in roughly 51,000 new manufacturing, mining, and farming jobs over the next six years, according to the U.S. International Trade Commission, and it will add a few tenths of one percent to gross domestic product (GDP) growth over this period. On the other hand, the International Monetary Fund (IMF) predicts that the United States, and the auto sector in particular, will be a net loser from this agreement. Thus, these projections are not at all robust. The benefits are tiny, and it’s highly uncertain whether the deal will be a net winner or loser, in the end.
As a result, the USMCA will in no way offset or reverse the massive devastation caused by the original NAFTA agreement. Nor is the deal a “model for future trade agreements.” The United States should pursue a freeze on all trade negotiations until strategies and policies are put in place to raise living standards, especially for working Americans, as proposed by former EPI President Jeff Faux.
Despite these concerns, the USMCA may yield benefits for workers in a few industries, such as glass and steel. And it may result in significant improvements in labor rights for Mexican workers, which could help them in the long-run. But those changes will have virtually no measurable impacts on wages or incomes for U.S. workers, as shown (unintentionally) by the United States International Trade Commission’s USMCA report. Supporting the USMCA is better than having President Trump withdraw from NAFTA, which would pitch North America into economic turmoil, especially for Mexico and Canada. At the end of the day, the USMCA is the best of a set of bad choices. And only concessions obtained through tough negotiations by labor, environment, and consumer activists made it any better than the status quo. As a result, it is better than the alternatives.
*
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.
Na Cimeira de Londres, os 29 países da NATO comprometeram-se a “garantir a segurança das nossas comunicações, incluindo a 5G”. Por que razão esta tecnologia da quinta geração da transmissão móvel é tão importante para a NATO?
Embora as tecnologias anteriores fossem destinadas a fabricar ‘smartphones‘ cada vez mais avançados, a 5G foi concebida não só para melhorar o seu desempenho, mas principalmente para ligar sistemas digitais que precisam de grandes quantidades de dados para funcionar de modo automático. As aplicações mais importantes da 5G serão realizadas, não no campo civil, mas no campo militar.
Quais são as possibilidades oferecidas por esta nova tecnologia, explica-as o relatório Defense Applications of 5G Network Technology, publicado pelo Defense Science Board, uma comissão federal que fornece consultoria científica ao Pentágono:
“A tecnologia 5G emergente, comercialmente disponível, oferece ao Departamento da Defesa a oportunidade de usufruir a baixo custo, os benefícios desse sistema pelas próprias necessidades operacionais”. Por outras palavras, a rede comercial 5G, construída por empresas privadas, será usada pelas Forças Armadas dos EUA com uma despesa muito inferior àquela que seria necessária, se a rede fosse construída apenas para fins militares.
Os especialistas militares prevêem que a 5G desempenhará um papel determinante no uso de armas hipersónicas: mísseis, armados, também, com ogivas nucleares, que viajam a velocidades superiores a Mach 5 (5 vezes a velocidade do som). Para guiá-los em trajectórias variáveis, mudando o curso numa fracção de segundo para escapar aos mísseis interceptores, é necessário recolher, processar e transmitir enormes quantidades de dados muito rapidamente. O mesmo é necessário para activar as defesas em caso de ataque com essas armas: não havendo tempo para tomar uma decisão, a única possibilidade é confiar nos sistemas automáticos 5G.
A nova tecnologia também desempenhará um papel fundamental na battle network (rede da batalha). Sendo capaz de ligar, simultaneamente, numa área circunscrita, milhões de equipamentos receptores e transmissores, permitirá aos departamentos, e aos militares individualmente, transmitir entre si e praticamente em tempo real, mapas, fotos e outras informações sobre a operação em curso.
Extremamente importante, será a 5G para os serviços secretos e para as forças especiais. Tornará possíveis sistemas de controlo e de espionagem muito mais eficazes do que os actuais.
Aumentará a mortandade dos drones assassinos e dos robôs de guerra, dando-lhes a capacidade de identificar, seguir e atacar determinadas pessoas, com base no reconhecimento facial e noutras características.
A rede 5G, sendo um instrumento de guerra de alta tecnologia, tornar-se-à também, automaticamente, num alvo de ataques cibernéticos e de acções bélicas efectuadas com armas da nova geração. Além dos Estados Unidos, esta tecnologia é desenvolvida pela China e por outros países. Portanto, a disputa internacional sobre a 5G não é só comercial.
As implicações militares da 5G são quase completamente ignoradas porque, mesmo os críticos dessa tecnologia, incluindo vários cientistas, concentram a sua atenção nos efeitos nocivos para a saúde e para o meio ambiente, devido à exposição a campos electromagnéticos de baixa frequência. Empenho esse, da máxima importância que, por conseguinte, deve ser combinado com o uso militar dessa tecnologia, financiada indirectamente pelos utentes comuns.
Uma das principais atracções, que favorecerá a difusão dos ‘smartphones‘ 5G, será a de poder participar, pagando uma assinatura, em jogos de guerra de realismo impressionante, em transmissão contínua (in streaming), com jogadores de todo o mundo. Desse modo, e sem se aperceberem, os jogadores financiarão a preparação da guerra – da guerra real.
NdT: Embora tenha visto mencionado em vários artigos da especialidade ‘o 5G’, traduzo ‘a 5G’ porque esta sigla refere-se à Tecnologia ou à Rede da Quinta Geração. Assim sendo, esses vocábulos (Tecnologia, Rede, Quinta, Geração) são substantivos do género feminino, portanto, o artigo que os precede tem de estar em concordância com os mesmos.
The Julian Assange drama drags on. Though he continues to sit in a top security British prison awaiting developments in his expected extradition to the United States, the Spanish High Court has been given permission to interview him. Assange is claiming that the Spanish company contracted with by the Ecuadorean government to do embassy security in London spied on him using both audio and video devices. The recordings apparently included conversations with Assange’s lawyers outlining his defense strategies, which is an illegal activity under Spanish law. The prosecution has also indicted the company director, former military officer David Morales, on associated criminal charges of bribing a government official and money laundering. Morales has said that he is innocent.
Aware that he might be monitored by the British government as well as by other interested parties, Assange would often meet his legal team using a white noise machine or in women’s bathrooms with the water running, but the firm, UC Global, anticipated that and planted devices capable of defeating the countermeasures. It planted microphones in the embassy fire extinguishing system as well as in numerous other places in the building. The recordings were reportedly streamed, undoubtedly encrypted, to another nearby location, referred to in the trade as a listening post. The streamed material was also reportedly transcribed and copied at the UC Global offices in Andalusia, but hard copies of the material were made as well on CDs and DVDs to be turned over directly to the client.
The Spanish newspaper El Pais, which has seen much of the evidence in the case, also mentioned how UC Global fixed the windows in the rooms actually being used by Assange so they would not vibrate, making it possible to use laser microphones from a nearby line of sight building to record what was being said. Presumably the listening post also served as the line-of-sight surveillance point.
The British government willingness to let the interview take place is apparently due in part to the Spanish judiciary’s claims that it has obtained an overwhelming amount of documentary and other evidence that demonstrates that Assange is basically telling the truth.
And there is inevitably more to the story. David Morales, who managed the project, reportedly returned from a trip to the United States and told colleagues that the UC Global would henceforth be doing some work “for the dark side” at “another league” level. According to the New York Times, which has examined the documents obtained by El Pais and accepted that they are authentic,
“In the court filing, the prosecution asserts that Mr. Morales returned from a security fair in Las Vegas in 2015… He signed a contract with Las Vegas Sands, the casino and resort company of Sheldon Adelson, and the prosecution contends that Mr. Morales passed information about Mr. Assange to security officials at the company, saying it acted as a go-between with the C.I.A.”
Sheldon Adelson is, of course, the single largest source of funding for the Republican Party and is also widely regarded to be a confidant of the Israeli government and of Benjamin Netanyahu personally. UC Global subsequently worked for Adelson, including managing the security of his yacht whenever it was in the Mediterranean.
According to employees of UC Global, details of the Ecuadorean Embassy operation were tightly held inside the company. Morales would make secret trips to the United States once or twice every month and it was assumed that he was carrying material relating to the recordings, but UC Global staff were advised never to mention his travels to the Ecuadorean staff in the embassy.
The obvious candidate for spying on Assange would be, as both the Spanish government and the New York Times speculate, the Central Intelligence Agency (C.I.A.), as Washington intends to try Assange prior to locking him away for the rest of his life. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, while director of C.I.A., once referred to Assange and WikiLeaks as a “hostile intelligence service,” so one should have no illusions about what will be done to him if he ever arrives in the U.S.
In one instance cited by El Pais, the U.S. Embassy in London clearly knew what was discussed at a private meeting that had taken place in the Ecuadorean Embassy the day before. And if Washington truly wanted inside information it would have made sense from an espionage point of view to employ the very firm doing security for the embassy as one’s mechanism for doing the spying.
But the rest of the story as elaborated on by the New York Times doesn’t make sense. It is equally or possibly even more likely that the Ecuadorean government would want to know what Assange was up to since it was taking considerable heat from Washington and London to terminate his asylum so he could be arrested and extradited. The fact that Morales did not want the Ecuadoreans to know about his travels suggests that they already knew about the surveillance. What they did not know was that Morales was sharing the take with someone else.
And then there are the British themselves as possible initiators of the surveillance through some kind of arrangement with Morales. They would most definitely would like to know what was being planned in Assange’s defense and going through UC Global would be the easiest way to obtain the needed information.
One might point out that there is another obstacle to the C.I.A. “dunnit” speculation, which is that as a general rule Washington does not spy on London and London does not spy on Washington. As the two countries have been for decades major intelligence partners, it is a guideline that is, believe it or not, generally observed. The British would have noticed any attempt to set up an American listening post within line-of-sight of the Ecuadorean Embassy and it would have created a major rift between C.I.A. and MI6, which suggests that the British, Americans and Ecuadoreans might all have been spying on Assange and possibly even sharing the information.
And then there is the Adelson angle, which brings the Israelis into the mix. It appears to be true that Adelson’s casinos in China were venues used for targeting corrupt Chinese officials by the C.I.A. as far back as 2010, but it is not imaginable that today’s Agency would use the Las Vegas billionaire as a conduit for passing information and arranging payments to Morales. As one former Agency field officer commented, “This is not the way the C.I.A. constructs an operation, too many moving parts.”
If he were indeed a C.I.A. asset, Morales could have used a dead drop or passed his material directly to an Agency officer under cover in Spain before being paid directly for his services. The C.I.A. officer would also be able to monitor and direct the operation through the meetings as is usually the case, which would not be possible if the connection were through Las Vegas Sands security.
One might also add that using a trip to Las Vegas as a cut out to conceal espionage activity makes no sense at all, particularly as Morales would have to be crossing international borders carrying on him highly sensitive information that could come to the attention of security concerned about the frequency of his trips. Morales might indeed have believed that he was working for C.I.A. because that is what he was told by Adelson, but that could easily have been a lie.
It is also unimaginable that C.I.A. would use Adelson as he is recognized by the U.S. intelligence services as an Israeli government asset. His loyalty to the U.S. is questionable. He is famous for having said that he regretted serving in the U.S. Army in World War 2 and wishes he had served in the Israeli army instead. He wants his son to grow up to “be a sniper for the Israel Defense Force (IDF).”
That means that anything going through Adelson will wind up in Israel, which suggests that if Adelson is actually involved the whole exercise just might be an Israeli false flag operation pretending to be the C.I.A. Israel does not hate Assange with the fervor of the U.S. government but it certainly would consider him an enemy as he has had a tendency to expose sensitive material that governments would not like to make public. Israel would be particularly vulnerable to having its war crimes exposed, as was the case when WikiLeaks published the material revealing American crimes in Iraq provided by Chelsea Manning.
So, there is a choice when it comes to considering who might have commissioned the spying on Julian Assange, or it might even have been a combination of players. The sad part of the story is that even if David Morales is convicted in a Spanish court, sources in Britain believe the violation of Assange’s rights will have no impact on the move to extradite him to the United States. That will be decided narrowly based on the charge against him, which is exposing classified information, a violation of the Espionage Act of 1917. As the Espionage Act is infinitely elastic and as the preferred U.S. Court for the Eastern District of Virginia has a very high conviction rate, there is little doubt that Julian Assange will soon be on his way to the United States where he will undoubtedly be sentenced to life in prison.
*
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].
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!
The European Statistical Office revealed that from January to September trade between the EU and Iran was at €3.86 billion, a massive 74.92% drop compared to the same period in 2018. The report revealed that Germany (€1.23 billion), Italy (€734.78 million) and the Netherlands (€376.73 million) were Iran’s top three trading partners in EU while trade with Greece (€32.08 million), Luxembourg (€506,316), Spain (€207.36 million), France (€296.5 million) and Austria (€102.11 million) had plunged by 97.13%, 91.38%, 91.17%, 86.79% and 82.38% respectively.
Igor Kolomoysky, the Ukrainian oligarch who financed Neo-Nazi Azov Battalion in Donbas, told the New York Times last month that Ukraine could potentially join a “New Warsaw Pact”, but his dramatic words should be seen through the prism of a disgruntled billionaire who has an axe to grind with the West for personal reasons but who also finally realized that he can leverage his country’s geostrategic status as an American proxy state against Russia in pursuit of maximum gains for all of his countrymen.
A hundred years from now, Donald Trump’s looming impeachment and Syria’s unending travails will be long forgotten. But just as we still celebrated the 150th anniversary of the completion of the Suez Canal in 1869 without remembering who ruled Egypt at the time (Isma’il Pasha), China’s relentless and historically significant push to establish new trading links between East and West—links that promise to revolutionize the world trading system no less than the Suez Canal—will come to define our era.
Two recent developments highlight how the new world is being invented by the Chinese—and how it will affect the Middle East and central Asia.
15 days after Bolivian President Morales was overthrown in a US backed military coup d’état and granted asylum in Mexico on November 12, American President Trump announced his intention to wage war against Mexico. As soon as Morales arrived in Mexico City the Americans reacted by openly supporting the coup, even denying it was a coup but an advance for democracy and condemning Morales. The Mexican President, Luis Obrador, countered by rejecting US claims that that the US was supporting “democracy” and affirmed that the events in Bolivia constituted a military coup and were a severe blow to democracy in Latin America.
Is Russia changing her position in the Middle East? – Not likely. To the contrary, Russia is ascertaining her role in the Middle East and assuring her allies of Russia’s full and alert presence.
When reading a recent article in the Anadolu Agency (AA) News, Ankara (screenshot below) one would have the impression of witnessing a growing love affair between President Vladimir Putin and Israeli PM Benjamin Netanyahu. This is deceiving. And it is important to be pointed out, because of transparency vis-à-vis Russia’s partners and allies in the Middle East.
Despite an inadequate performance last week by Constitutional law experts before the House Judiciary Committee, Chair Jerrold Nadler released a unilateral committee report on Saturday entitled “Constitutional Grounds for Presidential Impeachment.” The Report came the day after Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s press conference in which she directed the formation of Articles of Impeachment.
So far the Canadian Labour Congress (CLC) denunciation of the coup has taken the form of co-signing the moderate Trade Union of the Americas (TUCA) statement which does not even mention Evo Morales by name: “The CLC supports the TUCA position condemning the coup in Bolivia and expressing solidarity with the Bolivian peoples, trade unions, and social organizations.”
We will see in the future how the CLC reacts to the OFL resolution to take a stand based on the OFL stance, as it declares, in “the same sense” as its resolution which goes far beyond their US counterparts.
*
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.
Al Summit di Londra i 29 paesi della Natosi sono impegnati a «garantire la sicurezza delle nostre comunicazioni, incluso il 5G». Perché questa tecnologia di quinta generazione della trasmissione mobile di dati è così importante per la Nato?
Mentre le tecnologie precedenti erano finalizzate a realizzare smartphone sempre più avanzati, il 5G è concepito non solo per migliorare le loro prestazioni, ma principalmente per collegare sistemi digitali che hanno bisogno di enormi quantità di dati per funzionare in modo automatico. Le più importanti applicazioni del 5G saranno realizzate non in campo civile ma in. campo militare.
Quali siano le possibilità offerte da questa nuova tecnologia lo spiegail rapporto Defense Applications of 5G Network Technology, pubblicato dal Defense Science Board, comitato federale che fornisce consulenza scientifica al Pentagono: «L’emergente tecnologia 5G, commercialmente disponibile, offre al Dipartimento della Difesa l’opportunità di usufruire a costi minori dei benefici ditale sistema per le proprie esigenze operative». In altre parole, la rete commerciale del 5G, realizzata da società private, sarà usata dalle forze armate statunitensi con una spesa molto più bassa di quella che sarebbe necessaria se la rete fosse realizzata unicamente a scopo militare. Gli esperti militari prevedono che il 5G avrà un ruolo determinante nell’uso delle armi ipersoniche: missili, armati anche di testate nucleari, che viaggiano a velocità superiore a Mach 5 (5 volte la velocità del suono). Per guidarli su traiettorie variabili, cambiando rotta in una frazione di secondo per sfuggire ai missili intercettori, occorre raccogliere, elaborare e trasmettere enormi quantità di dati in tempi rapidissimi. Lo stesso è necessario per attivate le difese in caso di attacco con tali armi: non essendoci il tempo per prendere una decisione, l’unica possibilità è quella di affidarsi a sistemi automatici 5G.
La nuova tecnologia avrà un ruolo chiave anche nella battle network (rete di battaglia). Essendo in grado di collegare contemporaneamente in un’area circoscritta milioni di apparecchiature ricetrasmittenti, essapermetterà ai reparti e ai singoli militari di trasmettere l’uno all’altro, praticamente in tempo reale, carte, foto e altre informazioni sull’operazione in corso.
Estremamente importante sarà il 5G anche per i servizi segreti e le forze speciali. Renderà possibili sistemi di controllo e spionaggio molto più efficaci di quelli attuali. Accrescerà la letalità dei droni-killer e dei robot da guerra, dando loro la capacità di individuare, seguire e colpire determinate persone in base al riconoscimento facciale e altre caratteristiche. La rete 5G, essendo uno strumento di guerra ad alta tecnologia, diverrà automaticamente anche bersaglio di ciberattacchi e azioni belliche effettuate con armi di nuova generazione.
Oltre che dagli Stati uniti, tale tecnologia viene sviluppata dalla Cina e altri paesi. Il contenzioso internazionale sul 5G non è quindi solo commerciale. Le implicazioni militari del 5G sono quasi del tutto ignorate poiché anche i critici di tale tecnologia, compresi diversi scienziati, concentrano la loro attenzionesugli effetti nocivi per la salute e l’ambiente a causa dell’esposizione a campi elettromagnetici a bassa frequenza. Impegno questo della massima importanza, che deve però essere unito a quello contro l’uso militare di tale tecnologia, finanziato indirettamente dai comuni utenti. Una delle maggiori attrattive, che favorirà la diffusione degli smartphone 5G, sarà quella di poter partecipare, pagando un abbonamento, a war games di impressionante realismo in streaming con giocatori di tutto il mondo. In tal modo, senza rendersene conto, i giocatori finanzieranno la preparazione della guerra, quella reale.
Over recent weeks, the mass media has highlighted large-scale human rights violations carried out by China’s government in the country’s far north-west. The press attention on this occasion focused on seemingly plausible details, which relate mostly to Uyghur communities in Xinjiang, the largest region in China.
It would surely be unwise to suggest that Beijing has not been guilty of human rights abuses here, at the expense of impoverished and isolated minority groups. Tellingly, autocrats like Saudi Arabia’s Mohammed bin Salman earlier this year supported Beijing’s crackdown, when he said that, “China has a right to carry out anti-terrorism and de-extremisation work for its national security”. When a country receives public backing from Saudi Arabian leaders on issues relating to “anti-terrorism”, it is not a good sign.
Beijing’s actions in Xinjiang have been defended by other despotic oil rich states like Kuwait, the UAE and Qatar – all of which are Western allies, it may also be added, with tens of thousands of American soldiers today stationed in the above Middle East countries.
It can be recognised too that the territory of Xinjiang is of high strategic importance to Beijing. Xi Jinping’s government has legitimate concerns here within the nation’s own frontiers.
Xinjiang is a focal point for China’s vast financial and industrial programs, like the Belt and Road Initiative (BRI). The BRI was implemented from 2013, and has a planned completion date for 2049, exactly a century after the revolution which deposed United States-backed forces. Prior to 1949, the Chinese nation was exploited for decades by imperial powers like Britain and America. This encroachment into east Asia was a central factor in stoking tensions with China’s close neighbour, Japan, who was finding its access to natural resources increasingly cut off.
Xinjiang is a critical area pertaining to oil and gas pipelines, through which raw materials pour into China from Central Asian states like Turkmenistan and Kazakhstan.
It may also be apt to place the West’s criticism of China in a broader context. For instance Saudi Arabia, through the decades, has committed much more serious human rights breaches than can be levelled at China, including summary executions, torture, long prison sentences for minor misdemeanours, and so on. Women in Saudi Arabia were not granted the right to vote until 2015, and they continue experiencing fewer freedoms and opportunities than Saudi men.
It is rare that Western establishment rebukes the Saudis in anything like a similar manner to that of China. The reason being that Saudi Arabia remains a great friend while China is a designated enemy, and herein lies the old double standards. Saudi Arabia has been an ally of America and Britain dating to World War II, mainly because this large Middle East country contains one of the biggest oil reserves on earth.
The Saudi Arabian dictatorship has long been benevolent to American and British business interests, while the country is a major purchaser of Western arms. Riyadh has spent billions on modern weaponry sent from America, Britain, France, etc., and which has allowed them to conduct a brutal war in neighbouring Yemen for almost the past five years.
An international outcry against the Saudis fully emerged only after the premeditated assassination of author Jamal Khashoggi, in October 2018. This was partly due to the fact that the Saudi-born Khashoggi had ties to the West, and was a columnist for the Washington Post. That the killing of one man provoked a bigger uproar, in comparison to thousands of deaths and great suffering in Yemen, reflected poorly indeed on moral standards.
Israel, another key US ally in the Middle East, has also experienced paltry criticism in comparison to China. Israeli policies, which are enjoying even stronger support by the Trump administration, have among other things turned the Gaza Strip into an open-air prison. The Gaza Strip consists of a piece of territory less than 400 kilometres squared in size, and almost two million Palestinians are crammed into it, living in abject conditions.
Meanwhile, in Xinjiang province in north-west China, Beijing has been interning Uyghur natives and members of other minority groups such as ethnic Kazakhs. The Uyghur people originated from central and eastern Asia, and there are about 12 million of them in existence today. Of these, around 11 million Uyghurs call Xinjiang home, and they are for the large part believers in the Sunni branch of Islam.
It has been reported in liberal media that more than one million people, primarily Uyghurs, are held in what Beijing describes as “re-education camps”. Due to the often secretive nature of Chinese internal affairs, it is difficult to ascertain for complete certainty that the number of those detained comprises over a million people. This proportion of Uyghurs, if accurate, consists of about 10% of their population in China.
There has been a recent history of terrorism which can be traced to ethnic Uyghurs in Xinjiang. China’s hosting of the 2008 summer Olympic Games was overshadowed by a terrorist attack on 4 August 2008, in the city of Kashgar, Xinjiang, which killed 16 Chinese policemen and injured another 16. This atrocity occurred just four days before the Olympics commenced and was executed by two men, aged in their late 20s and early 30s, who were members of Xinjiang’s Uyghur community. They had called for a “holy war against China”.
The two perpetrators were mentioned as belonging to Uyghur separatist groups, like the Turkistan Islamic Party, which was founded in Xinjiang over 30 years ago. The Turkistan Islamic Party is deemed a terrorist organisation not only by China and neighbouring Pakistan, but also by the United States, Russia and the European Union. In late July 2011, separate terrorist attacks took place once more in Kashgar which killed a number of civilians, and was committed by Uyghur extremists.
There have been other terrorist assaults in China linked again to Uyghur separatists, such as the March 2014 Kunming attack which occurred in south-west China; when over 30 people were killed at a railway station by knife-wielding assailants.
Thousands of Uyghur men have, in preceding years, joined terrorist organisations like Al Qaeda, ISIS and the Taliban. These groups have received ideological backing and funding recently from Western allies like Saudi Arabia. CIA activities have also been linked to these issues, without a great deal emerging in the way of hard evidence.
Since the notorious Guantanamo Bay prison was opened under the George W. Bush administration in 2002, Washington incarcerated 22 ethnic Uyghurs there. The Uyghurs at Guantanamo, some of whom were imprisoned for 12 years, were held despite being “not convicted of any crime”. Much of this is forgotten.
In addition, terrorist organisations like ISIS and Al Qaeda were, in effect, spawned as a result of Washington’s foreign policies of the past four decades directed against the Middle East, and the Soviet Union.
The Pentagon has wielded its hammer most notably against Iraq on repeated occasions – from the 1991 Gulf War to the invasion of Iraq early this century – and also upon Afghanistan, where almost 15,000 American soldiers are today embroiled in an 18-year long war. Military actions, such as these, have inevitably resulted in serious direct and indirect consequences.
In May 2017 Syria’s ambassador to China, Imad Moustapha, said that thousands of Uyghurs were fighting in northern Syria, some belonging to groups like ISIS; but also others “under their own banner” to promote their independent ethnic cause.
There are most likely separate underlying reasons for the rise in terrorism originating from Xinjiang. There has, as stated, been suppression committed against the Uyghur people by Beijing. Repression leads to discontentment and can result indirectly in extremism. This has damaged the Chinese government’s reputation, regardless of slanted mainstream reporting.
On the other side of China, in the south-east, social unrest continues apace in Hong Kong, which is an important commercial centre with trade and cultural links to the West. Hong Kong has over seven million inhabitants, and it is one of the most affluent areas of China. The average person in Hong Kong earns just under $60,000 per year, which is almost four times what a typical citizen in mainland China can expect to take home annually.
For well over a century until 1997 Hong Kong was part of the British Empire. Western culture and capitalist influence abounds in Hong Kong, and many of the marchers are aligned closer ideologically to the West than Beijing. Some have been seen of late waving American flags along the streets, and also in front of the US consulate in Hong Kong.
The National Endowment for Democracy (NED), an Orwellian-titled organisation which is funded mainly by the US Congress, has since 2014 been financially backing the Hong Kong protests with many millions of dollars. This represents a clear interference in China’s domestic policy from a foreign power, considerably more serious than the accusations laid at Russia’s door regarding Donald Trump’s election victory three years ago. The NED, which was founded under the Reagan administration, has an unseemly history of infringing upon the sovereignty of independent countries, from Venezuela and the Ukraine to Cuba.
Joshua Wong, one of the most prominent of Hong Kong’s dissidents, has recently visited Washington and New York to seek political support from the White House, US Congress, and other elite American circles. The 23-year-old Wong in the past was sentenced to imprisonment for “unlawful assembly”. However, he has willingly become a tool in Washington’s power game with China, a country which is America’s principal rival in the global arena.
Wong’s decision to pursue US sponsorship is both naive and ill-judged, as it wipes away any shred of legitimacy he previously had on the Chinese mainland. Wong’s appearance in America, moreover, undermines the protesters’ cause to be viewed as an independence movement acting on its own initiative. It adds substance to Beijing’s position, and its argument, that the Hong Kong rallies are propped up by external forces.
Three months ago, Wong met with high profile American politicians like Speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi, along with Florida’s Republican Senator Marco Rubio; Wong can be seen shaking hands, smiling and talking with them in photographs. These occurrences did not escape the attention of an irate Beijing, with foreign ministry spokesman Geng Shuang urging Washington “to respect China’s sovereignty”.
In mid-September 2019, Wong spoke to the US Congress at the Capitol Building in Washington, and he asked them to pass legislation known as the Human Rights and Democracy Act, which overtly interferes in Chinese affairs. This new law “requires Washington to monitor Beijing’s actions in Hong Kong”. The US government would, no doubt, look unkindly on Beijing reviewing their policies, say, in Miami.
The Human Rights and Democracy Act was signed into law by president Donald Trump in late November, which prompted China’s foreign ministry to react angrily once more. Beijing has threatened to enact “firm counter-measures” against the US, while they summoned America’s ambassador to China, Terry Branstad, to demand that Washington cease intervening in Chinese internal policy.
*
Note to readers: please click the share buttons above or below. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.
Shane Quinn obtained an honors journalism degree. He is interested in writing primarily on foreign affairs, having been inspired by authors like Noam Chomsky. He is a frequent contributor to Global Research.
Despite the European Union attempts to save the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, which saw Iran reduce its low-enriched uranium by 98% and eliminate its stockpile of medium-enriched uranium in return for economic relief, JCPOA is hanging by a thread because of Washington’s withdrawal from the deal in October 2017.
The European Statistical Office revealed that from January to September trade between the EU and Iran was at €3.86 billion, a massive 74.92% drop compared to the same period in 2018. The report revealed that Germany (€1.23 billion), Italy (€734.78 million) and the Netherlands (€376.73 million) were Iran’s top three trading partners in EU while trade with Greece (€32.08 million), Luxembourg (€506,316), Spain (€207.36 million), France (€296.5 million) and Austria (€102.11 million) had plunged by 97.13%, 91.38%, 91.17%, 86.79% and 82.38% respectively.
Although Iran’s trade with Cyprus at €6.25 million and Bulgaria at €64.97 million increased by 85.12% and 29.24% respectively year-on-year— the highest among EU states — it still does not offset the massive decline in trade with Greece, Luxembourg, Spain, France and Austria. The major decline in trade is attributed due to European companies’ unwillingness to risk losing business with the U.S. for the sake of the much smaller Iranian market. Effectively, U.S. President Donald Trump’s economic war with Iran is to diminish Iranian-EU trade so that for the U.S. may reap benefits from boosting its own oil and other commodities. However, this is set to change.
With this dramatic downturn in trade with the EU, Iran is now pushing to diversify its economy even further to overcome a reliance on oil and take a number of measures in an attempt to counter U.S. economic aggression, including increasing taxes, cutting energy subsidies and to borrow money from friendly states. Iranian President Hassan Rouhani explained on Sunday in parliament that oil revenues are expected to drop by at least 70% and that Iran’s budget next year “is designed to resist against sanctions and to announce to the world that we run this country despite sanctions.”
The Iranian president explained that the new budget will reach $115.3 billion because of the reduction of oil exportation from 2.8 million barrels of oil a day before Trump’s May sanctions to 500,000 barrels a day. In addition, Iran will sell more bonds in the domestic market and plans to increase revenues from taxes by 13%, but these changes come as the International Monetary Fund has already forecasted that the Islamic Republic will have a reduction of its economy of about 9.5% this year.
This “budget of resistance,” as described by Rouhani, is “contrary to what the Americans thought. With the pressure of sanctions, our country’s economy would encounter problems, thank God we have chosen the correct path… and we are moving forward.”
Iran’s Deputy Foreign Minister Abbas Araqchiannounced on Monday that the European signatories to the JCPOA will not activate the “trigger mechanism” for the time being that could see the return of sanctions against the Islamic Republic. It is unlikely that the EU or Iran will withdraw from what remains of JCPOA as they attempt to bypass U.S. sanctions which can see the besieged country improve its economy through increased trade with Europe.
Not only has the EU pledged to maintain its nuclear deal commitments, in a joint statement late last month, Belgium, Denmark, Finland, the Netherlands, Norway and Sweden said they will attain shares in Instrument in Support of Trade Exchanges (INSTEX), that was launched by Britain, France and Germany in January to allow European companies to trade with Iran without using U.S. dollars so they could be protected from U.S. sanctions.
“In light of the continuous European support for the agreement and the ongoing efforts to implement the economic part of it and to facilitate legitimate trade between Europe and Iran, we are now in the process of becoming shareholders of INSTEX, subject to the completion of national procedures.”
This is also a part of a wider move to counter strong U.S. efforts to muscle in on the European oil market as U.S. sanctions have scared buyers from acquiring Iranian and Venezuelan crude. The so-called hydro-fracking and shale revolution that began a few years ago has seen the U.S. aggressively seek to export its oil to new markets. It is now unsurprising that earlier this year U.S. crude shipments to Europe reached new records, behind Russia but still more than Nigeria and Libya who are important OPEC members.
Therefore, a major reason for the false allegations by Trump that Iran was violating the JCPOA was to force Iran out of the European market to push on the U.S. entrance. It appears that Trump’s plan has failed. Not only has Iran formulated its “budget of resistance,” but with Belgium, Denmark, Finland, the Netherlands, Norway and Sweden becoming shareholders INSTEX, they are prepared to continue their economic relations with Iran while being protected from U.S. repercussions. Effectively, although the U.S. has achieved a short-term reduction in European-Iranian trade, it will not only recover, but also be strengthened as new mechanisms are being made to bypass U.S. banks and dollars.
*
Note to readers: please click the share buttons above or below. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.
This article was originally published on InfoBrics.
Paul Antonopoulos is a Research Fellow at the Center for Syncretic Studies.
Igor Kolomoysky, the Ukrainian oligarch who financed Neo-Nazi Azov Battalion in Donbas, told the New York Times last month that Ukraine could potentially join a “New Warsaw Pact”, but his dramatic words should be seen through the prism of a disgruntled billionaire who has an axe to grind with the West for personal reasons but who also finally realized that he can leverage his country’s geostrategic status as an American proxy state against Russia in pursuit of maximum gains for all of his countrymen.
From Neo-Nazi Financier To Russian Ally?
Ukrainian billionaire oligarch Igor Kolomoysky shocked the world when he told the New York Times (NYT) in an exclusive interview last month that his country could potentially join a “new Warsaw Pact”, but his dramatic words should be taken with a grain of salt. Kolomoysky is widely regarded as the “gray cardinal” in Kiev after his former employee, Volodymyr Zelensky, was elected President of Ukraine earlier this year.
Prior to that, the oligarch was one of the chief financiers of the Neo-Nazi Azov Battalion that waged a Hybrid War of Terror on the people of Donbas, so he’s far from “Russian-friendly” by any objective description. Rather, he’s an entirely self-interested but extremely pragmatic player who finally realized that he can leverage his country’s geostrategic status as an American proxy state against Russia in pursuit of maximum gains for both himself and his countrymen. It should be noted that the NYT reminded its readers several times about Kolomoysky’s problems with the West after the IMF and Western diplomats pressured former President Poroshenko to seize the billionaire’s bank “amid allegations of a multibillion-dollar embezzlement”, so he certainly has an agenda in “rebelling” against them since he would naturally prefer for current President Zelensky (over whom he’s speculated to have considerable influence) to return his company back to him despite the outrage that this would engender from his country’s current foreign patrons.
The Words That Shocked The World
That’s one way of interpreting his “anti-Western revolt”, though the other is more selfless and can be seen as the intent of a sincere Ukrainian patriot to correct the geopolitical mistakes that were made over the past half decade since the spree of urban terrorism popularly described as “EuroMaidan” succeeded in overthrowing his country’s democratically elected government and subsequently transforming the state into a Western proxy against Russia which hasn’t received any tangible benefits in exchange for sacrificing itself for its new “partners”. After all, the following statements that Kolomoysky made in the interview strongly say as much:
“We have to improve our relations (with Russia). People want peace, a good life, they don’t want to be at war. And you (America) are forcing us to be at war, and not even giving us the money for it.”
“You all (NATO) won’t take us. There’s no use in wasting time on empty talk. Whereas Russia would love to bring us into a new Warsaw Pact.”
“(The West wants) war with Russia to the last Ukrainian.”
“Give it five, 10 years, and the blood will be forgotten (with Russia). I showed in 2014 that I don’t want to be with Russia (but) I’m describing, objectively, what I’m seeing and where things are heading.”
“We’ll take $100 billion from the Russians. I think they’d love to give it to us today. What’s the fastest way to resolve issues and restore the relationship? Only money.”
“If (the Democrats win and) they get smart with us, we’ll go to Russia. Russian tanks will be stationed near Krakow and Warsaw. Your NATO will be soiling its pants and buying Pampers.”
“If I put on glasses and look at myself like the whole rest of the world, I see myself as a monster, as a puppet master, as the master of Zelensky, someone making apocalyptic plans. I can start making this real.”
Some of what he said is clearly rational, such as questioning why Ukraine should continue fighting a proxy war in Donbas at the West’s behest without receiving any financial, military, and institutional benefits in return, but other parts are clearly hyperbolic such as the creation of a “new Warsaw Pact” (possibly inaccurately referring to Ukraine’s possible membership in the CSTO), Russia willing (or even able to provide for the matter) $100 billion to Ukraine, and that “Russian tanks will be stationed near Krakow and Warsaw” if his proposed/”threatened” rapprochement with Moscow is a success. That last half of his comments are his attempt to skillfully manipulate the US’ anti-Russian hysteria in order to receive his requested tangible benefits from the West.
American Domestic Political Context
Kolomoysky’s sharp anti-Western criticisms shouldn’t be seen separately from the US’ Ukrainegate conspiracy theory and the subsequent pressure that’s been put upon Trump. The oligarch knows that there’s no better time for him to seek concessions from the US than now since the President is compelled to prove that he didn’t allegedly withhold aid to Ukraine for supposedly corrupt reasons. In fact, Kolomoysky actually said in the interview that he believes that his government should have taken Trump up on his suggestion and carried out an extensive investigation into the corrupt activities that Hunter Biden is accused of being involved in, so he’s by no means an anti-Trumper, especially not after openly saying that he’d defy a future Democratic president who “gets smart” with Ukraine by having his country pivot towards Russia instead. These aren’t the words of a madman, but of a strategic genius who’s playing a high-stakes gamble in pursuit of maximum national and personal gains, the first of which relates to improving his country’s overall situation while the latter refers to his desire to have his seized assets returned to him without the West personally sanctioning him and/or pushing for regime change against Zelensky in response.
Bibi Behind The Scenes
The trump card likely emboldening Kolomoysky isn’t just the US’ domestic political context and his awareness that he can leverage his country’s geostrategic status as one of the premier Western proxy states against Russia, but the behind-the-scenes role that “Israeli” Prime Minister Benjamin (“Bibi”) Netanyahu is playing in promoting a Russian-Ukrainian rapprochement. He reportedly discussed this during his visit to Kiev in August, during which time he met with the only other Jewish President and Prime Minister in the world outside of “Israel”. There are deep socio-political connections nowadays between Ukraine and “Israel” as a result of the former’s rich Jewish heritage, the presence of many Ukrainian Jewish migrants/refugees in “Israel”, and the closeness that both of their leaders feel towards one another as a result of their religious commonalities. For what it matters, Kolomoysky himself is also Jewish and had previously left for “Israel” after Poroshenko seized his bank. None of this, however, is to imply whatsoever that there’s a so-called “Jewish conspiracy” at play, but just to point out some of the reasons why Bibi is so interested in mediating between Ukraine and Russia.
The other reasons are purely geostrategic and have to do with a speculative quid pro quo between Russia and “Israel”. The reader should be made aware that those two are actually allies, not the “foes” that the Alt-Media Community deliberately misportays them as for reasons that only those guilty outlets and influencers can account for if they were ever publicly challenged to do so, which the author explained in his comprehensive analysis for Global Research two months ago titled “Russia’s Middle East Strategy: ‘Balance’ vs. ‘Betrayal’?” In exchange for Russia ensuring that Iran doesn’t violate the “buffer zone” that Moscow carved out 140 kilometers beyond the occupied Golan Heights at Tel Aviv’s request in summer 2018, “Israel” probably agreed to do whatever it could to help broker a “New Detente” between Moscow and the West, beginning with Ukraine and possibly eventually going as high up as to ultimately include the US, the latter of which was hinted at following the historic Jerusalem Summit between the Russian, “Israeli”, and American National Security Advisors back in June. In the context of the present analysis, Kolomoysky might be actively involved in the “Israeli”-backed Russian-Ukrainian dimension of Tel Aviv’s grander “New Detente” efforts.
Concluding Thoughts
Kolomoysky’s sudden “anti-Western rebellion” took practically all observers off guard, though it becomes more understandable in hindsight why he’s doing what he is. Some degree of personal motivations definitely drove the billionaire oligarch to say some of the dramatic things that he did during his exclusive interview with the NYT, though it can’t be ignored that a lot of what he said makes sense and was probably inspired by this Ukrainian patriot sincerely feeling dejected by the West after his country’s so-called “partners” made promises that it evidently never intended to keep.
Kolomoysky realized that he could exploit his country’s geostrategic status as a frontline Western proxy against Russia in order to reap more advantages from its current foreign patrons, though he objectively seems to be leaning towards a rapprochement with Moscow, one that could very well be brokered by Bibi behind the scenes. The West is now in a serious dilemma because it had earlier lionized him for his financial support of Neo-Nazi death squads in Donbas so he can’t be simply smeared as a “Russian puppet”, nor can they recklessly criticize him because their own society’s “political correctness” makes it taboo to harshly condemn anyone of Jewish heritage. For these reasons, Kolomoysky is quickly turning into the West’s worst nightmare, one that will likely continue haunting them in the coming months.
*
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.
The collapse of an entire nation is as spectacular as it is rare. For a nation to simply cease to exist it must suffer such absolute defeat across the entire spectrum of what constitutes a nation; economically, militarily, culturally, socially and politically.
What is much more common is a transition from existing, prevailing socioeconomic, political and military orders to new ones driven by new, emerging special interests. It can happen quickly and violently, or take place as a long-term process with ups and downs and both constructive and destructive processes intertwining.
For the United States, a massive nation with the third largest population on the planet, the largest military and still currently the largest economy, for it to suffer such full-spectrum defeat is impossible.
What is not impossible is for the small handful of special interests currently directing US policy foreign and domestic, to find itself displaced by a new order consisting of entirely different kinds of special interests and, hopefully, special interests that better reflect the best interests of the United States as a whole and function more sustainably among the nations of the world rather than hovering above them.
It is a process that is already ongoing.
America’s Prevailing Order is Fading
The current special interests driving US foreign and domestic policy are centered around Wall Street and Washington and represent an increasingly unrealistic, unsustainable, archaic network based on traditional banking, energy and manufacturing monopolies.
Many of the tools used by these special interests to maintain and expand their power and influence including mass media, extensive lobbying, networks dedicated to political subversion abroad and political distractions at home find themselves increasingly ineffective as both the American people and nations around the globe become increasingly familiar with them and as they begin developing effective countermeasures.
While US special interests dedicate a seemingly immense amount of time countering “Russian” or “Chinese” “propaganda,” it is primarily alternative media from the United States and its partner nations that have done the most to expose and diminish the unwarranted influence wielded from Wall Street and Washington. Wikileaks is a prime example of this.
As America’s elite and their networks weaken, alternatives continue to grow stronger.
An unsustainable socioeconomic and political model, coupled with equally unsustainable military campaigns abroad along with a political and media strategy that is no longer even remotely convincing even to casual observers demarks what is an irreversible decline of America’s current, prevailing order.
America’s Elite Face Challenges from Within as Well as From Abroad
The topic of Chinese corporations out-competing long-established US monopolies has become an increasingly common topic across global media. It is indeed this process that has precipitated the seemingly pointless and futile US-led trade war against China, a futile exercise that seems to only highlight the decline of America’s established elite rather than address it.
Corporations like Huawei, despite facing serious setbacks owed to US sanctions and efforts to undermine them, still move forward, while their US competitors continue to struggle. This is because despite setbacks, Huawei is built upon a solid foundation of business and economic fundamentals, while its American counterparts, despite their initial advantages owed to a lack of competition, have neglected and continue to neglect such fundamentals.
But Chinese corporations aren’t the only challengers America’s established elite face.
Within the US itself some of the most innovative and disruptive companies in the world are cropping up, challenging not only foreign competition but also long-established monopolies based in the US.
Electric vehicle manufacturer Tesla is a perfect example of this. Its breakneck pace of innovation, high-profile successes and the disruptive impact it is having on traditional car manufacturing is setting back the American car industry first and foremost. It also poses a serious threat to the petroleum-centric energy model the US has adopted and propagated globally for over a century.
American car manufacturing monopolies have spent decades developing a model of planned obsolescence and marketing gimmicks as a stand-in for genuine consumer value and innovation. The industry has become a means of simply making as much money as possible and to increase profits each year, with “making cars” merely the means through which this money and the influence it buys is being accumulated.
Tesla has for years now been growing both in terms of business and in terms of sociopolitical influence. US car manufacturing monopolies have attempted to ape the most superficial aspects of Tesla’s appeal, but have entirely failed to examine or replicate the substance that drives the new company’s success.
Just as the US elite have attempted to use what could be described as “dirty tricks” rather than direct competition to deal with competitors like Huawei abroad, similar “dirty tricks” have been employed against disruptive companies within the US itself like Tesla. Attempts by faux-unions to complicate Tesla’s US-based factories are one example of this.
US-based aerospace manufacturer SpaceX is another example of an American-bred competitor directly challenging (and threatening) long-established US monopolies, in this case aerospace monopolies like Lockheed Martin, Boeing and Northrop Grumman.
SpaceX is not only driving aerospace innovation forward at breakneck speeds, it is driving down the overall cost of access to space at the same time. It is doing this at such impressive rates that established aerospace monopolies like Lockheed, Boeing and Northrop, even with their immense lobbying networks, are unable to dissuade SpaceX customers (including the US government itself) from purchasing rides on its rockets.
Bloated monopolies who have become overly reliant on maintaining profits through lobbying and political games have little means to overhaul their massive organizations in the face of real competition as it emerges. Because of this, the prevailing order driving US policy faces an insurmountable obstacle that already appears to have resulted in terminal decline and displacement.
Those doing the displacing stand to assume the position at the levers of American power and influence, with an opportunity to set an entirely new course into the future that will have a fundamental impact on both the American nation and its people, and the nations of the world it will interact with.
America’s New Order May Seek Genuine Competition and Collaboration
Tesla and SpaceX are prominent examples, but by no means the only examples of the ongoing transition that is increasingly evident within America. There are emerging innovations and companies threatening virtually every area America’s current elite dominate. From the alternative media targeting the deeply rooted corporate media of America, to a growing movement of local organic farmers chipping away at America’s massive agricultural monopolies, there are already many tangible examples of a transition taking place; a positive transition that those interested in truly addressing the negative aspects of America’s current role globally can invest in or contribute toward.
In what is perhaps a hopeful sign of the new America that might emerge as this process continues forward is the fact that emerging disruptors like Tesla are not afraid of collaborating with other nations, seeking to simply do business rather than construct a global spanning network aimed at dominating others. Tesla’s massive Gigafactory going into operation in Shanghai, China takes place as the US attempts to sever China’s access to the economic benefits of doing business with the US for purely political and hegemonic purposes.
Despite the apparent hostilities between the US and nations like Russia and China, the consensus in nations targeted by America’s current prevailing order is one of simply wanting to do business on equal terms. Whatever hostility may exist is reserved not for America as a nation or as a people, but toward the handful of special interests obstructing constructive competition and collaboration between these nations and the US.
In the near to intermediate future, this process will continue to resemble a bitter struggle as US special interests attempt to maintain their grip on power, fighting against inevitable decline and displacement, and against competitors both abroad and within the US itself.
Beyond that, there is a hopeful future where the US finds itself a constructive member of a multipolar world, constructively competing against and collaborating with nations rather than attempting to assert itself over them.
Because of this, it is important for nations and peoples to refrain from unnecessary, broad hostilities and to instead patiently weather current efforts emanating from Wall Street and Washington. It is important to establish ties and relations with US interests genuinely interested in true competition and collaboration and who represent America’s future, and to distinguish them from deeply rooted US interests that represent America’s abusive past and and are responsible for America’s current decline.
The foreign policies of Moscow, Beijing and even of many emerging and developing nations may seem overly passive or appeasing, but around the capitals of the world many are aware of the transition taking place in America and are attempting to position themselves advantageously for the fall of the American Empire so they can do business with those who assume the levers of power in America once it does.
*
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.
Ulson Gunnar is a New York-based geopolitical analyst and writer especially for the online magazine “New Eastern Outlook”.
In the mass media lately—and in presidential tweets—China has often come off poorly, due in part to the Chinese government’s authoritarian stance on human rights, its trade practices, its reliance on heavy-handed surveillance of its population, and its recent history of suppressing debate.
But in at least one area, the Chinese government shines: nuclear security.
In fact, when it comes to nuclear security policies and practices, as well as laws, regulations, management, monitoring, and the structure of emergency response, the country is unusually transparent—and readily meets international standards. As a result, China is poised to play a leading role in global nuclear risk reduction efforts in the coming decades, at home and abroad. This trend can be seen by China’s many commitments within the Nuclear Security Summit process, its cooperation in bilateral nuclear security structures with the United States, and its efforts to remove highly enriched uranium from a Nigerian research reactor (that China itself played a role in building).
But what do recent Chinese nuclear security efforts reveal about how China will approach setting the agenda for the future? And how is China’s approach likely to evolve in the coming decades as arms control becomes less prominent, China becomes a larger exporter of nuclear technology and materials, and China asserts its own priorities in other forums?
Though China was active in all of the summits, it was not until the 2016 summit that Chinese nuclear security commitments and activities grew sharply—when it signed six joint statements. The evolution of its level of commitment from the first summit to the last one also indicates Beijing’s cautious approach to the issue: It waited to see whether the momentum behind global nuclear security efforts would grow before fully committing itself.
Though China’s nuclear program was developed in a closed political environment where discussion and debate was suppressed, China has been unusually transparent about its nuclear security policies and practices—which, not coincidentally, has led to greater confidence about China in this area from the international community. This level of transparency can be credited to both the Nuclear Security Summits and, to a certain extent, the Nuclear Threat Initiative’s Nuclear Security Index—a ranking of nuclear security conditions worldwide, that began in 2012 and takes place every other year.
Each iteration of the Nuclear Security Index assesses the security of a country’s handling of some of the world’s deadliest materials—specifically, highly enriched uranium and plutonium, which can be used to build nuclear weapons. Moreover, each index analyzes the security of the nuclear facilities which contain these materials—and which, if sabotaged, could release dangerous levels of radiation. All the reports are written and produced by the nonprofit and nonpartisan Nuclear Threat Initiative.
Among other things, each biennial index assesses the risk of theft of some of a given country’s weapons-grade nuclear material for use in building a nuclear device—technically known as “theft-ranking.” (More details can be found at this FAQ.) In the very first index, China’s overall theft-ranking score was 52 out of 100, with 100 being the highest possible score for nuclear security and 1 being the lowest, or most vulnerable to theft. China’s score at that time placed it in the bottom tier—27th out of 32 countries with significant quantities of weapons-usable materials. But in the most recent iteration, China’s theft-ranking score shot up 19 points to a score of 71. (At the very top were Switzerland and Australia.) Since the index began reporting in 2012, China was the second most-improved country in theft-ranking, just behind Japan.
There was also China’s public pronouncement of its “three no’s policy” in the early 1980s, where it pledged no advocating, encouraging, or engaging in nuclear proliferation. This policy continues to be the cornerstone of Chinese policy at international events; for example, Fu Cong, head of the arms control department at the Chinese Foreign Ministry, announced that China firmly opposes nuclear proliferation in whatever forms, and called for political resolution of regional nuclear proliferation issues in a responsible manner. China continues to advocate for the preservation of the NPT’s three pillars, and repeatedly calls on the United States and Russia to take the lead in making “drastic and substantive reductions in their nuclear weapons.” And at the same time, China is also increasingly willing to spread technologies for the peaceful use of nuclear energy around the world,
China’s proclamations on nuclear risk reduction are likely motivated by two factors: First, its long-standing nuclear weapons history. And second, its self-image as the most responsible of the nuclear powers, as opposed to one that is dangerous and expansionist. China became a nuclear weapon state in 1964 and has stuck by its strategic doctrine of no-first-use ever since, providing security assurances to non-nuclear weapon states, and affirming its commitment to the spread of nuclear energy only for peaceful purposes. Consequently, China’s behavior in the realm of nuclear security is a logical continuation of its approach to nuclear risk reduction in general.
What kind of agenda might China put forward? As China assumes greater global leadership on nuclear security efforts, its approach to nuclear security policy making since 2010 will likely serve as a blueprint to its future priorities and actions. China is likely to build off of its past accomplishments by strengthening international nuclear security cooperation in two main ways: by continuing in areas of Chinese-US cooperation, and by building on the capabilities of its State Nuclear Security Technology Center. Let us consider each of these approaches in turn:
Continuing Sino-US cooperation. Cooperation between China and the United States has been a staple of international nuclear security. Since 2006, the two countries have conducted and engaged in exercises pertaining to nuclear protection and other related cooperative activities. Since nuclear security is a common interest of both countries, their partnership on these issues has the potential to play an important role in Chinese leadership. A good first step would be to institutionalize the annual dialogue on nuclear security that both countries agreed to at the 2016 National Security Summit. This annual event provides an important forum for both countries to discuss and strengthen their nuclear security cooperation. To date, China and the United States have held three annual nuclear security dialogues—in 2016, 2017, and 2018—but a meeting in 2019 has not yet been publicly scheduled, and there are not many days left in the year.
Build on China’s State Nuclear Security Technology Center capabilities.Because this facility—jointly built by China and the United States in 2016, in Beijing—is one of China’s most prominent contributions to national and regional security, it makes sense that China would rely on it to take the lead in developing regional cooperation in the future. And China could use this facility—also known as the National Security Center of Excellence—to more firmly establish itself as a regional leader in training others on best practices for nuclear security; and expand exchanges and cooperation with other countries and international organizations. In particular, China can use its expertise as a platform to assist other countries with nascent nuclear security capabilities and enhance nuclear security within the Asia-Pacific region and globally—a growing concern as countries within East, Southeast, and Central Asia focus on expanding their nuclear power programs.
Together with its progress on nuclear security, China has outlined specific policies on nuclear nonproliferation, including within the export control regime and civilian nuclear cooperation. These actions suggest that Chinese leadership within the broader global nuclear risk reduction system would prioritize international cooperation and engagement, affirming China’s role as a responsible nuclear great power.
The United States and others should be prepared to welcome Chinese leadership in nuclear security, especially at a time when there is not much agreement between China and the United States on nuclear (and other) issues. Even though China continues to modernize and expand its nuclear arsenal—and, to a certain extent, provides cover for North Korea’s nuclear weapons program—its leadership role in nuclear security efforts should be encouraged.
*
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.
Sara Z. Kutchesfahani is director of the N Square DC Hub, and a research associate at the Center for International & Security Studies at Maryland (CISSM), where she works in both a teaching and research capacity.
Featured image: AP1000 reactors at the Sanmen nuclear power plant in China. Image courtesy of SNPTC
Imagine that President Trump spent his phone call with the Ukrainian president threatening to withhold military aid unless the Ukrainian government agreed to use the money to purchase weapons from a US manufacturer. Does anyone seriously think that foreign service professionals and deep state operatives would be so shocked and offended by Trump’s request that they would launch efforts to impeach him? Would Congress view this as “high crimes and misdemeanors” or applaud Trump for carrying out one of modern presidents’ supposedly most important jobs — acting as salesmen for the American military-industrial complex?
This hypothetical shows that impeachment is not about President Trump’s abuse of power. Instead, it is an attempt to make sure President Trump, and all future presidents, confine their abuses of power to items that advance the agenda of the political establishment.
President Trump’s most consequential abuses of power have been met with the full approval of the majority in Congress, the mainstream media, and the deep state. For example, when President Trump launched military action in Syria without obtaining a congressional declaration of war there were no calls for his impeachment. Instead, most members of Congress were perfectly happy to let stand unchallenged President Trump’s claim that the 2001 authorization for use of military force —a limited grant of authority to act against those responsible for the September 11, 2001 attacks — gave him the authority to launch military action against a government that had nothing to do with the September 11th attacks. The only times Congress rebukes President Trump’s foreign policy is when he speaks favorably about pursuing peaceful relations with Russia or ending US involvement in no-win military conflicts.
This hypocrisy extends beyond foreign policy. Many Democrats who claim that President Trump is both a fascist and mentally unhinged are eager to ensure President Trump can continue to conduct warrantless surveillance on every American by reauthorizing Section 215 of the PATRIOT Act.
Trump-opposing progressives in Congress are also eager to give President Trump new authority to violate the Second Amendment. Even those progressives who say they believe Trump is a deranged fascist did not object when he endorsed “red flag” laws that give the government power to, as President Trump put it, “take the guns first, go through due process second.”
Perhaps the most sickening example of Trump’s congressional opponents’ hypocrisy is how many of those fretting about the safety of the Urkrainegate ”whistleblower” are silent about, or supportive of, the Trump administration’s complicity in the inhumane treatment of WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange. They are also silent about the US government throwing Chelsea Manning back into jail because she refuses to help the US prosecution of Mr. Assange.
All modern presidents have exceeded constitutional limitations on their power and thus could have, and maybe should have, been impeached. The reason they were not impeached is that a majority of Congress members support allowing presidents to wage war abroad and destroy liberty at home without being “hamstrung” by Congress. The only real dispute among the political class is which party should wield the levers of power.
Restoring constitutional limits on government power and thus protecting liberty depend on spreading ideas and building a movement. Our lost freedom will only be restored when presidents and members of Congress fear being “impeached” at the ballot box for committing high crimes and misdemeanors against peace, prosperity, and liberty.
*
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.
Journalists revealed to me the tactics they use to sell stories painting Venezuela as a socialist dystopia. One described himself as a “mercenary,” explaining how he aims to please his employer’s funders.
***
It is clear that mainstream US media correspondents are no fans of the Venezuelan government. But rarely do you hear them speak so openly about their biases.
One Caracas-based correspondent now working for the New York Times told me on the record that he employs “sexy tricks” to “hook” readers on dubious articles demonizing the socialist government of Venezuela.
Anatoly Kurmanaev made this revealing comment and many more to during an interview I conducted with him for my PhD and book on the media coverage of Latin America.
At the time, he was a correspondent for Bloomberg, and had just published a very dubious story on how condoms supposedly cost $750 per pack in Venezuela. The misleading article was pickedupandrepeatedacrossthemedia.
Describing himself and his colleagues as “mercenaries,” Kurmanaev was unabashed, boasting on tape that he essentially grossly exaggerates stories in the media.
“A couple of times from my experience you try to use, I wouldn’t call them ‘cheap tricks’, but yeah, kind of sexy tricks. Just last week we had a story about condom shortages in Venezuela. At the official exchange rate condoms were at like $750 dollars or something and the headline was something like ‘$750 dollar condom in Venezuela’ and everyone clicks it, everyone is like ‘Jesus, why do they sell it for like $750?’” he said.
Kurmanaev emphasized that his goal was to “hook” readers into a larger story about Venezuela’s purported demise under socialism.
The New York Times’ Anatoly Kurmanaev discussing Venezuela on France 24
“Once you click,” the reporter said, “the average reader is hooked and he’ll read about really important issues like HIV problems in Venezuela, teenage pregnancies, the social impact of lack of contraception, the public health impact, things that I do feel are important to tell the world. But you have to use sexy tactics for it.”
We like to think of journalists as plucky truth-tellers standing up to power. But this notion is horribly antiquated; in reality, most journalists are parts of enormous corporate machines with their own political interests and agendas, often directly linked to those of the US government.
And where Washington has skin in the game, a way to quickly advance in the field is to parrot American government positions, regardless of the facts.
One example of this is Venezuela, where the embattled socialist government of Nicolás Maduro is attempting to govern in the face of crushing US sanctions that are estimated to have killed more than 40,000 civilians from 2017 to 2018 alone.
The corporate media has dutifully ignored the US role in the country’s economic woes, laying the blame squarely at the feet of Maduro, omitting crucial political context on Venezuela’s economic crisis while keeping up a constant flow of content presenting the country as a socialist hellhole.
Don’t you know a hamburger costs $170 there? Well, no, that story was retracted. But condoms cost $750! Also no — we don’t learn until the ninth paragraph of Kurmanaev’s article that a pack of condoms actually cost about the same as it did in the US at the time.
That latter piece of pseudo-news is based on deliberate distortions of the country’s admittedly byzantine currency regulations and has the effect of demonizing the government and socialism in general, advancing the idea that “something must be done” to help them.
Are we to believe that the journalists who deploy these “sexy tricks” don’t know exactly what they are doing?
From Venezuelan prophylactic to whitewashing Bolivia’s coup
On the back of his coverage of Venezuela, Anatoly Kurmanaev has risen rapidly through the ranks of his industry to a post at the supposed newspaper of record, the New York Times, whose editorial board recently applauded the US-backed military coupin Bolivia that ousted Evo Morales.
In the New York Times, Kurmanaev soft-pedaled those events as Morales’ “resignation” – not the military coup that had unfolded in plain sight. According to the correspondent’s narrative, which conveniently echoed Washington’s official line, the ouster of Morales left a “power vacuum” that a reluctant Añez was forced to fill with a “transitional government.”
As the Bolivian junta cuts down and jails its opponents in droves, the Times has resorted to increasingly contorted language to avoid using the apparently forbidden term: “coup.”
“Violent protests over a disputed election that he claimed to win, and after he had lost the backing of the military and the police,” was the reporter’s most recent attempt to characterize the events that forced Morales from power.
In whitewashing a putsch and subsequent campaign of repression waged by avowedly racist, right-wing forces, Kurmanaev was far from alone. Across the mainstream spectrum, media outlets have welcomed the coup, framing the military’s ouster of an elected head of state as a “resignation” while downplaying the massacres as merely “clashes.”
As The Grayzone contributor Wyatt Reed reported from La Paz, a crowd of journalists harassed and detained an independent reporter, handing him over to the death squads that have been terrorizing the country for the last two weeks, in retaliation for his refusal to tow the junta’s line.
Reed called this “a complete betrayal of what it is supposed to mean to be a journalist.”
Wow. The whole time I've been in Bolivia I've heard about the "prensa vendida," aka the sellout press. Watch here as they harass an independent journalist, keep him from doing the job they *should* be doing, then hand deliver him to the army! Anyone who shows this gets shut down. pic.twitter.com/wY5dwgu4lS
In Venezuela the local media actually led the coup attempt against President Hugo Chávez in 2002. “Not one step backwards!” read the front page headline of El Nacional, one of the country’s most important newspapers. The headquarters of the putsch was at the mansion of Gustavo Cisneros, owner of the Venevisión TV network.
One coup leader appeared on television after what appeared to be a successful operation saying, “We were short of communications facilities and I have to thank the media for their solidarity and cooperation.”
“We had a deadly weapon: the media. And now that I have the opportunity, let me congratulate you.”
How US media recruits opposition activists
Due to budget cuts, the corporate press has outsourced their Latin America reporting to a collection of unabashed opposition activists.
Francisco Toro, for example, resigned from the New York Times claiming, “Too much of my lifestyle is bound up with opposition activism” that he “can’t possibly be neutral.” Yet Toro is now charged with providing commentary on Venezuela and Bolivia for the Washington Post.
Another local Washington Post contributor was Emilia Diaz-Struck, who founded the website Armando.info, an investigative news outlet that runs a constant stream of stories slamming the socialist government and advancing the opposition’s line.
These local reporters, who act as anti-government activists first and journalists second, greatly color the atmosphere of the newsroom, leading to a highly partisan hive mind where supposedly unbiased and neutral journalists unironically refer to themselves as the “resistance” to the government.
Those who do not run with the pack are generally made to feel unwelcome. Bart Jones, who covered Venezuela for the Los Angeles Times, told me that he felt he had to temper what he wrote because he knew exactly what his editors wanted.
“There was a clear sense that this guy [Chávez] was a threat to democracy and we really need to be talking to these opponents and get that perspective out there,” Jones recalled. One even told him “we have to get rid” of the government.
Matt Kennard, who covered Bolivia and Venezuela for the Financial Times (FT), explained how the political slant imposed by mainstream outlets forced even critical-minded journalists into submission:
“I just never even pitched stories that I knew would never get in. What you read in my book would just never, ever, in any form, even in news form, get into the FT. And I knew that and I wasn’t stupid enough to even pitch it. I knew it wouldn’t even be considered. After I got knocked back from pitching various articles I just stopped… It was complete self-censorship.”
‘You are a mercenary in a sense’
“Every journalist has an audience he caters for and in my case, it’s the financial community,” Anatoly Kurmanaev explained. “You are a mercenary in a sense. You’re there to provide information to a particular client that they find important and it’s not good or bad, it’s just the way it is.”
With pressure from all sides to serve as stenographers for right-wing opposition movements, many Western correspondents exist in a cultural bubble, almost entirely isolated from the poor and working-class populations that support leftist governments across Latin America.
Western reporters almost universally live and work in the richest areas of capital cities from Venezuela to Mexico, often in gated communities surrounded by armed guards, and rarely venture into the poorer areas where the majority of people live.
Some of the corporate media’s top correspondents confided to me that they could not even speak Spanish for months after they got there, and were therefore unable to converse with the bottom 90 to 95 percent of the population. They are essentially parachuted in to opposition strongholds to work with opposition activists and naturally take that side in the debate.
With all of these factors in mind, the cheerleading across the US press for regime change in Bolivia and Venezuela can hardly be seen as an accident. Too many journalists at corporate media outlets tend to see themselves as the ideological shock troops in an information war against supposedly tyrannical socialist governments.
Passing off regime-change propaganda as unbiased news is all in a day’s work for those embracing their role as servants of the empire.
*
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.
Alan MacLeod is an academic and journalist. He is a staff writer at Mintpress News and a contributor to Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting (FAIR). He is the author of Bad News From Venezuela: Twenty Years of Fake News and Misreporting.
A hundred years from now, Donald Trump’s looming impeachment and Syria’s unending travails will be long forgotten. But just as we still celebrated the 150th anniversary of the completion of the Suez Canal in 1869 without remembering who ruled Egypt at the time (Isma’il Pasha), China’s relentless and historically significant push to establish new trading links between East and West—links that promise to revolutionize the world trading system no less than the Suez Canal—will come to define our era.
Two recent developments highlight how the new world is being invented by the Chinese—and how it will affect the Middle East and central Asia.
Last month, while Congress busied itself with impeachment hearings, a mammoth Chinese cargo train arrived in Turkey en route to the heart of Europe. It will be remembered as the first freight train to pass from China across central Asia and under the Bosphorus Strait, using the Marmaray tunnel as part of China’s historic Belt and Road Initiative (BRI).
Like the Suez Canal in its day, this “Iron Silk Road” through central Asia is a time saver, with the added bonus of circumventing sea routes now controlled by the West. It will reduce the transportation time between China and Turkey from one month to 12 days, while the entire journey from Xi’an to Prague in the heart of Europe will take only 18 days, half the time of a similar journey by sea and at similar cost.
The Chinese revival of a 21st-century Silk Road reflects the emerging transformation of the central Asian nations along this route, which have long been eclipsed by a Western trading and commercial system that China is now challenging.
Turkey has become a central link in this “middle corridor,” which connects its eastern terminus Beijing to central Europe and ultimately London.
While celebrated in China and Turkey, its inauguration received little attention elsewhere, including in an inward-looking United States hypnotized by its own travails.
This lack of interest was certainly not the case on November 17, 1869, when the wife of Napoleon III, Princess Eugenie, journeyed to Egypt to celebrate the opening of a canal. This historic shortcut reduced the maritime route between Europe and India by 7,000 kilometers, linking what was popularly understood as Mediterranean civilization to the Far East. The Canal revolutionized international trade and secured for its Western patrons—notably England—a century of imperial domination. It has been said, incorrectly it turns out, that Verdi composed an opera to memorialize the event. Even so, just the suggestion of such a linkage betrays the popular recognition of the significance of the new route.
When the Canal opened, China was the world’s largest economy. By 1890, the United States topped the list. India, then a British colony, was second, and the mother country itself, which had never been counted among the world’s richest nations, was third. This latter achievement was due in no small part to Suez, so important to Britain’s fortunes as a maritime colonial and commercial power that in 1875 it seized control of the company operating the Canal before occupying the entire country itself in 1881. Britain was ousted from its control of Suez only in 1956, when Russia and the United States joined an ultimatum that an exhausted London could not defy.
Less than a week after the train’s arrival last month in Istanbul, Chinese president Xi Jinping was in Greece, where Beijing’s flagship investment in the port of Piraeus—the Mediterranean terminal point of China’s quickly expanding “Maritime Silk Road”—was the centerpiece of a visit meant to advance a growing alliance between Beijing and Athens. China’s ownership of the port and its growing operations reflects its determination to make the once sleepy locale the largest maritime facility on the continent and the European anchor for China’s global network of trade and commerce.
China also sees its expanding relationship with Greece as a model for broader political and regional cooperation with what it calls the Central and eastern European Countries (CEECs).
“China will never ever seek hegemony and does not agree to a you-win-I-lose zero-sum game,” promised Xi—assertions that Greece is advised to believe at its own peril.
Already two years ago, Greece, for the first time, blocked a European Union statement at the United Nations criticizing China’s human rights record. When asked about Greece’s actions, Chinese foreign ministry spokesman Geng Shuang said: “We express appreciation to the relevant EU country for upholding the correct position.” He added:“We oppose the politicization of human rights and the use of human rights issues to interfere in other countries’ domestic affairs.”
These developments, and a host of similar Chinese initiatives around the globe, are not without their problems. The critiques of China’s lending practices and its corruption ring true, all the more so because, like the Belt and Road Initiative itself, China is treading a path blazed numerous times throughout history by nations on the make. The complaints from Western capitals about the perils of being seduced by China’s promises and cash may well be legitimate. Indeed it is only prudent to beware strangers—hailing from East or West—bearing gifts. The warnings issued by Secretary of State Mike Pompeo come clearly to mind in this context.
But such complaints, however valid, have the distinct odor of sour grapes from those whose reign is now being challenged by Beijing.
Indeed, while China is spending trillions to revolutionize and expand global trade, Washington, with Europe following, is mesmerized by policies that restrict and criminalize such trade. In its campaign against the foundations of an international trading system that’s enabled its own preeminence, Washington has even even set its sights on Suez and the long honored policy memorialized in the treaty of Constantinople guaranteeing unmolested passage through the Canal to all ships.
No nation has ever become great or cemented that greatness by destroying the foundations of the international system that enabled its ascendance. If this is to be Washington’s legacy, then the 100th anniversary of China’s Iron Silk Road will indeed be celebrated.
*
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.
Geoffrey Aronson is chairman and co-founder of The Mortons Group, and a non-resident scholar at the Middle East Institute.
“The Afghanistan Papers — A secret history of the war. At War With the Truth,” saying:
“US officials constantly said they were making progress. They were not, and they knew it.” More on this below.
***
In its 19th year, endless unwinnable US war in Afghanistan is all about wanting the country used as a land-based aircraft carrier against Russia, China and Iran.
Potentially worth trillions of dollars, it’s about plundering Afghan mineral riches, including its barite, chromite, coal, cobalt, copper, gold, iron ore, lead, enormous amounts of highly-valued lithium and other rare earth metals vital for high tech products, natural gas, oil, precious and semi-precious stones, potash, salt, sulfur, talc and zinc.
It’s about Washington’s strategic plan to control Central Asia’s vast oil and gas resources.
It’s about control sought over Eurasia, what Zbigniew Brzezinski once called the “center of world power extending from Germany and Poland in the East through Russia and China to the Pacific and including the Middle East and Indian subcontinent.”
It’s about drugs trafficking. Afghanistan is the world’s largest opium producer, used to produce heroin and other illicit opioids.
These drugs produce hundreds of billions of dollars in annual revenues – a US government-supported bonanza for corrupt regime officials, the CIA, organized crime and Western financial institutions, heavily involved in money laundering.
Planned long before 9/11, US war in Afghanistan was lost years ago. In 2012, US Lt. Col. Daniel Davis spent weeks in the country.
His unclassified report, no longer available online, said the following:
“How many more men must die in support of a mission that is not succeeding.”
“Senior ranking US military leaders have so distorted the truth when communicating with the US Congress and American people in regards to conditions on the ground in Afghanistan that the truth has become unrecognizable.”
“This deception has damaged America’s credibility among both our allies and enemies, severely limiting our ability to reach a political solution to the war in Afghanistan.”
His classified report was more damning, saying:
“If the public had access to these classified reports, they would see the dramatic gulf between what is often said in public by our senior leaders and what is actually true behind the scenes.”
“It would be illegal for me to discuss, use, or cite classified material in an open venue, and thus I will not do so.”
He collected firsthand information from US commanders, subordinates, and low-ranking soldiers.
He spoke at length with Afghan security officials, civilians and village elders. What he learned bore no resemblance to official rosy scenario accounts.
Insurgent forces control “virtually every piece of land beyond eyeshot of a US or International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) base,” he said.
Everywhere he visited, “the tactical situation was bad to abysmal.”
Afghanistan’s government can’t “provide for the basic needs of the people.” At times, local security forces collude with insurgents.
He “witnessed the absence of success on virtually every level.” Yet endless war continues to this day, despite US/Taliban no-peace/peace talks.
The US doesn’t negotiate. It demands all nations and groups like the Taliban bend to its will, how hegemons operate — part of its imperial aim for unchallenged global dominance.
Col. Davis and WaPo exposed the illusion of a military solution in Afghanistan.
Yet from Bush/Cheney to Obama to Trump, pretending otherwise shut out reality — willfully deceiving the public, permitting trillions of dollars to be poured down a black hole of endless waste, fraud and abuse.
Extensive firsthand evidence collected by WaPo “bring(s) into sharp relief the core failings of the war that persist to this day,” it said.
It belies years of Big Lies by US officials that progress on the ground was being made. Polar opposite is true.
WaPo: “A confidential trove of government documents obtained by The Washington Post reveals that senior US officials failed to tell the truth about the war in Afghanistan throughout the 18-year campaign, making rosy pronouncements they knew to be false and hiding unmistakable evidence the war (was) unwinnable.”
Material collected includes “more than 2,000 pages of previously unpublished notes of interviews with people who played a direct role in the war, from generals and diplomats to aid workers and Afghan officials.”
WaPo got information it revealed from a Freedom of Information Act “three-year legal battle” it won.
It contains interviews with “more than 400 insiders (that) offered unrestrained criticism of what went wrong in Afghanistan and how the United States became mired in nearly two decades of warfare.”
Lt. General Douglas Lute was quoted, saying:
“We were devoid of a fundamental understanding of Afghanistan. We didn’t know what we were doing,” adding:
“What are we trying to do here? We didn’t have the foggiest notion of what we were undertaking.”
The American people know nothing about “the magnitude of this dysfunction. Who will say this war was in vain?
WaPo: “Since 2001, more than 775,000 US troops have deployed to Afghanistan, many repeatedly. Of those, 2,300 died there and 20,589 were wounded in action,” citing war department figures, likely way understated.
Col. Bob Crowley was quoted, saying:
“Every data point was altered to present the best picture possible.”
How much longer will state-sponsored deception continue about the Afghan war?
How many more lives will be lost — notably Afghan civilians in harm’s way?
How much longer will endless unwinnable war continue?
How much more will be spent on “the grand illusion of the American cause” — what the CIA long ago called US defeat in Southeast Asia?
*
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.”
On Monday, so-called Normandy Four leaders Putin, Merkel, Macron, and Ukraine’s Zelensky met in Paris to discuss a ceasefire in Donbass, a prisoner exchange, and related issues after five-and-a-half years of US-orchestrated war.
Despite Russia’s good faith conflict resolution efforts, Kiev breached Minsk I and II agreements straightaway.
US military aid to Kiev is unrelated to national security. It’s all about waging endless war in Donbass, along with maintaining instability along Ukraine’s long border with Russia.
It’s for using Ukraine as a dagger threatening Russia’s heartland. It’s for maintaining fascist Kiev rule, along with endless war and instability in central Europe.
Zelensky is a weak political neophyte leader. Ukraine is a US vassal state, the country infested with fascist hardliners.
They and policymakers in Washington want Crimea and Donbass reintegrated into Ukraine, what clearly won’t happen.
According to Ukrainian Prime Minister Aleksiy Goncharuk:
“Plan A is to resolve the conflict through diplomacy in order to move towards peace while defending national interests,” adding:
“There can in principle be no compromise in rejecting territorial integrity, sovereignty. Crimea and Donbass they are Ukrainian territories, and Ukrainians live there.”
On Monday, new EU foreign policy chief Josep Borrell said:
“We hope (the Normandy Four) meeting…will be able to continue work and move towards a peaceful and sustainable resolution of the Ukrainian conflict. This is one of the most important priorities we have to address in the EU.”
Almost five years ago, Quartet members agreed on implementing Minsk ceasefire and reconciliation provisions — conflict resolution yet to be achieved because bipartisan US hardliners reject it.
Given this reality, is peace in Donbass possible — regardless of positive-sounding remarks by leaders involved in Monday Paris talks?
Will agreement on ceasefire by yearend and a prisoner exchange hold? Or will US pressure force Kiev to continue endless conflict?
Was Macron overly optimistic, saying:
“A big progress has really been achieved today. There was the first meeting of President Putin and President Zelensky,” adding:
“And I would like to thank (Ukraine’s president) for this real determination and courage that he showed in settling the conflict in his country.”
Merkel said
“(i)t is very important to ensure an immediate ceasefire, maintain (it and) implement the political points of the protocol.”
Zelensky “insisted on…control over” Ukraine’s borders, and that “elections in (what he called) the disputed territories be held in accordance with Ukrainian law and in compliance with OSCE standards and Copenhagen criteria.”
Saying he’s uncertain about how to enforce ceasefire in Donbass shows his limited power.
“We will not allow changes in the Constitution of Ukraine regarding federalization. We will not allow any influence on the political governance of Ukraine,” he added.
He won’t meet with Donetsk and Lugansk Donbass leaders, he stressed, calling their governments “unlawful…in the temporarily occupied territory.”
Putin expressed optimism following Monday talks, saying he believes a “thaw” was achieved, adding:
There was agreement on “an exchange of held persons that’s already been done.”
“We have achieved a disengagement of forces at three locations, that’s done.”
“Now we have met in the Normandy format and discussed a very important spectrum of issues and have reached progress on many of them.”
“This has been achieved and all this gives us grounds to assume that the process is developing in the right direction.”
He stressed that conflict resolution depends on “direct dialogue” between both sides. They need to meet and agree with each other.
All conflicts are resolved this way, this one no different. As long as Zelensky yields to US and internal pressure not to engage with Donbass leaders and insists on other unacceptable demands, conflict resolution will be more illusion than reality.
On Monday in Kiev’s Maidan square, scene of the Obama regime’s staged violence in late 2013/early 2014, culminating in the mid-February coup, installing fascist tyranny in Ukraine, thousands rallied against compromise with Moscow and Donbass.
One speaker warned Zelensky to maintain current policy toward the LDNR (Donetsk and Lugansk republics) and Crimea, saying otherwise “(y)our flight will be not from Paris to Kiev, but from Paris to Rostov(-on-Don, Russia in exile) — if not “tomorrow then…a bit later.”
The above threat and heavy pressure from Washington shows what Zelensky up against.
If he goes his own way and does the right things in pursuit of conflict resolution with staying power, he could be toppled and replaced with hardline fascist rule.
*
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.”
The 2021 presidential elections are already gaining momentum in Iran, and some prominent officials have already made their plans to take part in them. Whoever the next president may be, they have a lot riding on their shoulders following Rouhani’s eight years, throughout which Iran was at its closest to the U.S when the JCPOA was signed, and at its farthest with fears of an impending U.S-Iran war during the summer. Iran also saw its fair share of unrest with the 2016-2017 protests, followed by this month’s riots.
The last elections saw the introduction of a new runner, Ayatollah Raisi, who was the head of Astan Quds Razavi at the time, and was appointed in March 2019 as Chief Justice, and began making sweeping reforms and pursuing corruption since assuming his position. At the time, in his first time running for President, Raisi managed to garner almost one third of the vote, an impressive feat.
However, with a median age of 30.8 years, Iran is a young country, and this has largely not been reflected in Iranian politics, not seriously anyway, but this year the youth movement in Iran has begun. Different governmental organizations and institutions have begun to facilitate the employment of a young workforce, while increasing youth employment. Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei has also stressed the importance of increasing youthfulness in government positions and political office. In February 11th 2019, on the revolution’s 40th anniversary, he announced the second phase of the revolution, saying that the young are to shoulder the burden of the revolution’s future
“The continuation of this path—which is most probably not as demanding as the past—must be traveled with the willpower, vigilance, swiftness, and innovation of you, the young ones.”
A few months later in May, in a meeting with university students and representatives of student associations, he urged them to work towards a brighter future, especially in the country’s management in government, stressing that they must “Prepare the grounds for the formation of a young and pious government”
This youthfulness is now seeping into politics, and this is apparent as far as parliamentary candidates go for this year’s elections (youth registration for the elections this year was very high). Following this trend, the next presidential elections will feature a number of young candidates, with some already working on polishing their image and gaining media exposure. These candidates are not only young, but from different political affiliations as well, the most prominent of which are Sorena Sattari, Mehrdad Bazrpash, and Mohammad Javad Azari Jahromi. A look at their profiles might help shed light on what we stand to see in the future.
Azari Jahromi, the young “star” minister of the Rohani administration, is the first minister from the post-revolution era at 37 years of age. He is using Internet and Communications Technology (ICT) in Iran as a means to achieve his end in the elections, while appealing to the youth, doing so through the creation of jobs in startups and digital marketing and through his use of and focus on social media. However, his past in intelligence has made some somewhat wary of him, but so far he has been able to avoid great criticism vis-à-vis his background.
Azari Jahromi was doing well at first but began to do poorly as of late. He and his team have been accused of misusing public funds, thus damaging much of the popularity he stood to gain among the youth. The accusations include a private plane being rented for him by telecommunications operator Hamrah Avval, his procurement of 200 laptops for the Iranian presidency through his connections with the same company and procuring insurance for his sister-in-law by way of telecommunications company RighTel, on whose board of directors he had served before. Jahromi has also begun advertising for himself, an example of which includes the Foreign Policy article where he was branded the “Islamic Republic’s Emmanuel Macron”. Vaezi, the President’s first aide, is also aiding Jahromi and their relationship dates back years, as when the former was ICT minister, Jahromi was in fact his aide. When Vaezi became the President’s Chief of Staff, he was the one who introduced Jahromi to Rohani.
The second candidate is Sorena Sattari, a 47-year old scientist who graduated from Iran’s prestigious Sharif University of Technology with a PhD in Mechanical Engineering. Sattari is an Iran-educated scientist who was opposed to Ahmadinejad during the 2009 elections. Following Rouhani’s victory in the 2013 elections, he was appointed Vice President for Science and Technology.
Sattari’s focus at the moment is on the development of startup ecosystems and supporting knowledge-based firms, a business that has proven to be very successful in Iran. These types of firms raked in a revenue of $14.2 billion in 2017-2018. He is also working on developing and implementing smart technologies in Iran to develop smart cities and infrastructure, creating additional jobs for talented youth.
Sattari has so far proven to be a well-loved candidate among the youth. By focusing on the aforementioned business model, he has helped establish a healthy relationship between the government and startup companies. Like Azari Jahromi, he is known to be a technocrat who has, for the most part, been able to avoid political branding. However, since they work in such close fields, Azari Jahromi naturally sees him as a competitor with both of them targeting a similar demographic, and has been trying to hone in on startups in order to undermine him.
Jahromi and Sattari also have another challenger, Mehrdad Bazrpash. Bazrpash used to hold the position of Presidential Aide during the Ahmadinejad administration. At age 28, he managed some financial powerhouses, such as automotive manufacturer SAIPA between 2006-2008, a period during which he introduced new car models to the industry and brought success to the brand, whose market share exceeded its competitor’s Iran Khodro, for the first time.
A principlist, Bazrpash was elected to parliament in 2012 for a four-year term, wherein he was also voted by MPs to be part of the parliament’s governing committee. Being younger than the others, and having had such a full resume for someone his age, Bazrpash has his fair share of supporters in the principlist camp. Compared to the others Pazrpash has a more extensive political background, but since he has been relatively inactive in the political landscape in the past few years, after being pushed aside by Ahmadinejad (under the influence of Mashaei, it seems) he hasn’t had much media coverage, and has more work to do than his peers in the coming two years. Bazrpash is a very probable candidate for the presidential elections, and can even be a worthy contender if he increases his exposure in light of the absence of young principlist/conservative candidates.
The 2020 parliamentary elections in February will allow us to sense how things will go for the 2021 presidential elections. Things are bound to be very interesting, as the first generation of post-revolution Iranian is finally stepping onto the scene. We are witnessing the turning of a new page in the Iranian political landscape forty years after the revolution.
*
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.
Karim Sharara is a Lebanese PhD student who has been living in Iran since 2013, majoring in Iranian Affairs at Tehran University.
15 days after Bolivian President Morales was overthrown in a US backed military coup d’état and granted asylum in Mexico on November 12, American President Trump announced his intention to wage war against Mexico. As soon as Morales arrived in Mexico City the Americans reacted by openly supporting the coup, even denying it was a coup but an advance for democracy and condemning Morales. The Mexican President, Luis Obrador, countered by rejecting US claims that that the US was supporting “democracy” and affirmed that the events in Bolivia constituted a military coup and were a severe blow to democracy in Latin America.
The Mexican authorities expressed hope that the decision to grant asylum to President Morales, the legitimate President of Bolivia, would not draw a hostile reaction from the US, and that, since Morales’ life was in danger they had a duty to protect him. But their hope has turned to alarm as the New York Times quickly labelled Mexico a “haven for leftists, socialists and communists over the past century”, and President Trump turned an offer of help in solving the drug cartel problem in Mexico he made on November 6 into a virtual declaration that Mexico does not exist as a sovereign country and that the US may wage war against it in order to clear out what Trump now labels “terrorists.”
He claimed that the United States has the right to designate a criminal group in a foreign country as subject to its jurisdiction and action, which means that as far as the United States is concerned, Mexico is not sovereign nation but an American province and if the Mexicans resist this claim then they face war; and not for the first time.
We remember the war of 1846 in which the US invaded Mexico and, after a brutal war, seized and occupied huge swathes of its territory and then illegally incorporated those areas into the US by forcing down the throats of the Mexicans, at the point of American bayonets, a “treaty” to justify their occupation of Mexican lands.
In 1859 US military forces invaded Mexico to go after Mexican nationalist and guerrilla leader Juan Cortina, an important rancher who never accepted the “treaty” signed by Mexico, and who attempted to defend Mexicans in Texas from abuses and crimes, including swindling them of their land, by the Anglos who had moved in after the 1846-48 war.
Between 1873 and 1896 American troops crossed the Mexican border numerous times in pursuit of thieves and bandits without asking permission of Mexico and in 1914-1917, US forces, under General Pershing, were ordered to enter Mexico to chase down Mexican revolutionary Pancho Villa, an opponent of a Mexican leader the US supported, Venustio Carranza. The US had taken part in the preparations and assisted Carranza’s forces in an attack on Villa’s forces near the US border and Villa took action against both in revenge. So President Wilson ordered the US Army to enter Mexico and hunt down Villa. They never succeeded and, after several skirmishes with Villa’s forces withdrew in 1917.
The pattern of treating Mexico’s borders as just lines on a map when it suits the US is an old one, as old as the birth of that aggressive, militaristic nation. And it must not be forgotten that in 1812 the first target of the US aggression, aside from their extermination of indigenous peoples, was their invasion of Canada in order to seize it from British control. Even then their propaganda claimed it was to bring “democracy’ to Canadians but the people of Canada did not want their “democracy” and resisted. The combined forces of British regulars, Canadian militia, and Iroquois warriors defeated them and pushed them back across the border. Now the US controls Canada though economic means.
We see the same arrogance with President Trump’s sudden visits to an American base in Afghanistan this Thanksgiving when he visited his occupation troops without so much as a “may I” sent to the puppet government and then bragged about the American invasion and destruction of that country. His ever-loyal troops, lacking any sense of law or morality, clapped and laughed at his antics, like so many deadly buffoons.
Trump’s threat to declare Mexican criminal drug groups as “terrorists” has serious ramifications for Mexico and its sovereignty and security. There have been a series of reports over the past few years that the US government itself is supplying the weapons being used by the drug gangs to attack each other and Mexican police and army units; that leaders of some of the gangs are US assets who have made deals with the US to receive weapons in return for sending large amounts of drugs into the US through CIA and DEA channels resulting in huge profits, which are then used to fund other covert operations of these agencies.
So while Trump complains about the “growing violent behaviour” of Mexican drug cartels and other criminal gangs, Joaquin Guzman’s “El Chapo,” Sinaloa cartel, with US supplied weapons, proved itself strong enough to besiege Mexican army units in the northern city of Culiacán in October, forcing soldiers to back down after they briefly detained one of Guzmán’s sons. This is the gang, the Sinaloa gang, that the Central Intelligence Agency and Drug Enforcement Agency were involved with in the US government’s Operation “Fast and Furious” set up to send American weapons to Mexican drug cartels while simultaneously working with other agencies to facilitate the flow of narcotics drugs over the border. There is some speculation that this was done to oppose a group called Los Zetas which, it has been claimed, were prepared to mount a rebellion against the right-wing government of the time which the US wanted to prevent.
According to reports in various US journals from the Washington Times to the Los Angeles Times, the CIA-DEA gun running into Mexico was a plot to ensnare higher echelons of the cartels but some reports cite former CIA officials and even the ex-Drug Enforcement Administration boss Phil Jordan, that Los Zetas had prepared to disrupt and possibly even subvert Mexico’s 2012 national election and that many leaders of the criminal gangs supposedly threatening the existence of the Mexican government were actually trained in the U.S. at the infamous military training center known as School of the Americas.
Whatever the truth of the matter there is a lot of smoke indicating that the fires of gang violence in Mexico are fanned by US intelligence and the objective is not only drug profits but also political influence, to subvert the Mexican government.
Now Mexico has a new leftist nationalist leader President Obrador, who not only will not pay for Trump’s border wall as Trump demanded, but opposes US policy in Latin America, supports Maduro in Venezuela, supports Cuba and is now providing safe haven to Evo Morales, the President of Bolivia a declared enemy of the US. And it is after Obrador offers help to Morales, that Trump’s offer of “cooperation” to deal with the drug gangs turns into a threat of invasion.
Luis Obrador, a long time leftist activist, who won a landslide election victory in 2018, supports the indigenous rights movement of Morales and wants a better deal for Mexico in the US-Canada-Mexico free trade negotiations, is against violence to solve the drug problem, favouring more help for the poor, and has vowed to defend Mexicans residing or working in the US. He openly condemned the OAS, Organisation of American States, a US dominated group of Latin American nations, as servile and hypocritical when they backed the coup in Bolivia and failed to support Morales and democracy. By backing President Morales, and so openly defying the US, he has drawn the ire of Donald Trump.
One can almost see Trump in his Oval Office, turning red in the face at the news of Obrador’s actions as he issues the order, “Bring me the head of Evo Morales and then bring me the head of Luis Obrador.”
On December 7th Trump stated, after talks with Obrador that his plan was put on hold but could be implemented at any time, leaving the sword dangling over Obrador’s head.
This threat of war against Mexico is another repudiation of the UN Charter, of civilized behaviour, of the principles of national sovereignty, of the respect for nations that are the central principles of the UN Charter.
Yet the threat went without much comment in the western media nor was it condemned by any of the US allies. Canada, to its shame, joined Trump in hailing the coup in Bolivia and had nothing to say opposing US military intervention in Mexico. The announcement that the US will declare drug groups it supports in Mexico as “terrorists,” something it has done around the world with proxy forces who are used as pretexts for aggression, means logically that the US could then declare Mexico a supporter of international terrorism. We know what pressures and actions that brings against a country. And we cannot ignore the fact that the reactionary elements in Bolivia who mounted the coup have declared Morales a “terrorist” simply because the majority of the Bolivian people refuse to accept the coup, are resisting and losing their lives doing so. Morales has to wonder whether he will be safe even in Mexico, or even his friend Obrador, as the US once again uses its fake “war on terror” to intimidate and terrorise another Latin American country with a popular leftist government.
*
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.
Is Russia changing her position in the Middle East? – Not likely. To the contrary, Russia is ascertaining her role in the Middle East and assuring her allies of Russia’s full and alert presence.
When reading a recent article in the Anadolu Agency (AA) News, Ankara (screenshot below) one would have the impression of witnessing a growing love affair between President Vladimir Putin and Israeli PM Benjamin Netanyahu. This is deceiving. And it is important to be pointed out, because of transparency vis-à-vis Russia’s partners and allies in the Middle East.
This rightwing news-outlet, AA, also falsely talks about the Syrian ‘civil war’ – “Syria has been locked in a vicious civil war since early 2011 when the Bashar al-Assad regime cracked down on pro-democracy protests with unexpected ferocity.” The article goes on saying, “Since then, hundreds of thousands of people have been killed and more than 10 million others displaced,” – fraudulently implying that the killing and displacing of the people happened at the hands President Assad’s. When in reality the mass-killing, destroying of infrastructure and entire cities was the result of US, UK, French, Israeli and Saudi air strikes.
Yes, President Putin has accepted an invitation to visit Israel in January 2020. In addition to attending together with French President Emmanuel Macron the International Holocaust Remembrance Day in Jerusalem, there will, for sure, be other items on the Russian – Israeli agenda, including cooperation in Syria. And, who says Syria, must also say Iran and Hezbollah.
Let’s not forget, Russia has vital interests in Syria, not only because of Russia’s involvement in and fight against the Western War on Syria – and that by invitation of President Bashar al-Assad – but also because of Russia’s military bases in Syria, i.e. Russia’s naval facility at Tartus, and the Hmeimim airbase in the Syrian province of Latakia. Israel’s hundreds if not thousands of Syrian airspace violations present a permanent danger for Russia’s military bases and for thousands of Russian troops stationed in Syria.
Earlier this month Russian war planes intercepted Israeli jets over southern Syria. According to the Russian publication Avia.Pro, the Israeli jets were intent on attacking Syria’s T-4 Airbase in the western province of Homs. There are also constant threats by Israel on Iran – including threats of nuclear attacks. Russian planes have repeatedly stopped Israeli war jets from outright attacking Damascus. The Russia also helped the Syrian air force intercepting Israeli drones aiming at Syrian strategic military installations or cities. Russia has repeatedly condemned Israeli airstrikes in Syria.
Mr. Netanyahu is well aware that thanks to Russian intervention in the western war (western = US / NATO, French, UK, Israel, Saudis) on Syria since 2015, ISIS / IS and affiliated western-funded and armed proxies and terrorist groups have been defeated. If there is a reemergence of ISIS / IS / Daesh, it is due to the fact that the west, especially Washington, will not let go, and will keep reviving these terror groups until they achieve regime change in Damascus. Mr. Putin is well aware of this and will not quit the region – even if falsely tempted to do so by President Trump’s back and forth lies and deceptions about the US leaving Syria.
Since western media closes both eyes on whatever Israel does, the common western citizen would never know about Israel’s breaches of all international laws and human rights. – And this is not even mentioning the ongoing Israeli massacre against Palestine, largely driven by the ultra-rightwing Likud party led by Netanyahu, making Netanyahu the instigator of mass-murder – which after 60-plus years of relentless Israeli aggression might be called genocide on an impoverished and locked-up people. – Not exactly an endearing feat for Israel.
A case in point about ultra-biased western mainstream media against Syria, presents this current story, following a Statement from the Political and Media Office of the Syrian Presidency:
“On 26 November 2019, President al-Assad granted an interview to (Italian) Rai CEO, Monica Maggioni.
It was agreed that the interview would air on 2 December on both Italian Rai News 24 and Syrian national media outlets. Early on the morning of 2 December, we received a request, on behalf of Rai News 24, to delay the broadcast with no clear explanation. This was later followed by two further requests to delay, with no date set for when the interview will air and no further explanation.
This is another example of Western attempts to hide the truth on the situation in Syria, and its ramifications on Europe and the international arena. If Rai News 24 continue to refuse to air the interview, the Political and Media Office of the Syrian Presidency will broadcast the interview in full, on Monday 9 December 2019 at 9pm Damascus time.”
A few days ago, the hawkish Israeli Foreign Minister, Israel Katz, threatened to launch “hundreds of Tomahawk missiles” against Iran, and that with the help of the US, the Saudis and the UAE. Russia has also close relations with Iran and, therefore, an equally strong reason to seriously talk to Israel. These are strategic conflict-preventing diplomatic talks, not honeymoon talks.
On 6 December the online “National Interest” quipped, “Yes, Nuclear War Between Russia and Israel Is Not Unthinkable.” This, I believe, is a largely exaggerated statement, but it shows that there is not much love left between the two countries. Diplomacy which Putin masters brilliantly, is not to be confused with friendship. Its conflict prevention.
There is indeed no ‘honeymoon’, between the two leaders. When Netanyahu flew to Sochi in September 2019 to meet with Vladimir Putin, Netanyahu was made to wait for nearly three hours to see Putin, allegedly because the Russian leader was late returning from an event in Dagestan. Netanyahu’s political rivals were quick in pointing out, “In Russia, nothing happens by chance. Everything there is planned to the smallest detail. When they keep the prime minister of Israel in a waiting room for nearly three hours, this is probably not by accident.” They might be right.
Given the current pressure Netanyahu is under – from fighting prison on charges of corruption and facing new elections – the third within a year – in which he will most likely not win, it is understandable that he looks for prominent amigos wherever he can, to strengthen his case at home and abroad. Twisting the news in a way as to make them appear that a super friendly rapprochement between President Putin and PM Netanyahu is rapidly evolving, is also understandable, but not to be confused with reality.
It looks like Mr. Putin is playing his card well, as usual. His goal is to bring stability to the embattled population of the Middle East. In the process of doing so, he also assures Russian allies that Russia remains committed to help bring stability, harmony and eventually PEACE to the 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.
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.
As many acknowledge, we have a once in a lifetime opportunity this Thursday to elect a left-led Labour government. The thought of waking up on Friday morning with Boris Johnson and his hard-right cabal celebrating victory is too much to contemplate.
But why is Scottish Labour doing so poorly in the polls?
Scottish Communists at our recent congress acknowledged the lies and distortions Jeremy Corbyn has had to contend with over the last few years, never mind the backlash a Corbyn transformational government would face from the class enemy should they actually win.
From social media, and discussions with trade union and community activists, it can be seen that many working-class people in Scotland still feel betrayed by Labour, especially by the Better Together blunder when Labour joined with the Tories in the independence referendum.
Despite the change in the Labour Party leadership, the term Red Tory still gets used. A vote for the SNP and an independent Scotland is still seen as an escape from the Tories and a step towards socialism, despite the SNP record at Holyrood and in local authorities.
The position Labour finds itself in in Scotland after long-term dominance has been caused by decades of collaboration by the previous right-wing leaderships. It lost the position of leadership earned through the struggles of the 1970s when the broad labour movement, under left influence and leadership, spoke for our class.
During this period extraparliamentary struggle was the key — with major Scottish and British-wide disputes gaining solidarity across these islands and beyond.
It is important to remember these lessons when we face the possibility of another independence referendum. In the 1970s there was a unity of class and political organisation that carried forward the Scottish tradition of fighting for a just society.
Communists recognised then, as now, that the class enemy organises at British state level. This is where it wields its economic and political power.
Unfortunately this reality has been lost on many in working-class areas with a proud tradition of militancy such as Glasgow, Fife, Dundee, Clydebank, and the Vale of Leven. They now see the nationalism of the SNP as providing an avenue towards a socialist Scotland.
It is continually said, and often with some arrogance, that we just need to get independence first, then we can build a socialist society, a socialist Scotland.
Yet the reality is that 10 years of SNP rule have seen an unparalleled destruction of local services with the loss of 40,000 jobs as they meekly pass on Tory cuts. Local democracy has been eroded. There has been a consistent move to central control.
The toll that has been taken on the education system, especially further education, on health, especially mental health, is shocking. Levels of homelessness and drug deaths shame us all.
At a general election hustings in West Dunbartonshire, a local authority where the SNP council tried to cut trade union facility time, the SNP candidate was asked why trade unions did not get a mention in the SNP manifesto? We were told there would be a mini manifesto on trade union rights coming out “hopefully” in the next few days. Less than a week to the general election. How serious is that!
Compare this with Labour’s policy commitments, drafted by the Institute of Employment Rights, which includes full rights from day one of employment.
It is easy to be supportive of organised workers in such solid working-class areas but the SNP candidate had no answer when it was put to him that his parliamentary leader, a millionaire former investment banker and businessman, would not be sharing his rhetoric.
One line for the industrial belt. Another for the shires. The SNP has never sought to mobilise the collective strength of the working class against the ruling class.
Compare that to the left’s position that a Scottish Parliament must be a workers’ parliament with real economic powers to intervene. If we are to challenge the stranglehold of big business, the Scottish Parliament needs the powers to do so: the ability to negotiate public ownership, state aid, public procurement and trade union rights.
Such delegation of powers, in Scotland, Wales and regional assemblies in England, is what is required to mobilise the collective strength of our class and in doing so build wider alliances, always seeking to bring workers and their communities into struggle through a mass movement of resistance, arguing for a left and progressive alternative.
Too often many on the left ignore the fact that the Labour Party is different from European social democratic parties. This is because of its organic link with the trade union movement. It is a vital and important link. In 2016 it helped make possible a Corbyn victory. But its progressive potential depends on the level of political mobilisation.
If today Corbyn’s position on Nato and the EU has been undermined, it reflects that position and our joint failure to mobilise for such progressive policies within this wider labour movement, one that unites six million working people.
The needs of the hour are therefore: vote Labour on Thursday and then build mass extraparliamentary struggle, whoever wins.
*
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.
Tom Morrison is Scottish secretary of the Communist Party.
Despite an inadequate performance last week by Constitutional law experts before the House Judiciary Committee, Chair Jerrold Nadler released a unilateral committee report on Saturday entitled “Constitutional Grounds for Presidential Impeachment.” The Report came the day after Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s press conference in which she directed the formation of Articles of Impeachment.
As has become apparent to any objective observer; that is one who prefers facts over fiction, the Democrats remain locked in an imaginary world struggling to maintain a relevance, a stature of standing that no longer exists. Presumably with no Quid Pro Quo, no allegation of criminal conduct, no legally substantial evidence or factual basis and no bipartisan support, in defiance of previous impeachment norms, the Democrats are hell bent on making public jackasses out of themselves.
In a hearing with Constitutional legal experts expected to score big legal points in support of impeachment, the witnesses instead turned out to be smug, hyper partisan activists as they were consistently unpersuasive and unimpressive. All three displayed not a wit of objectivity or neutrality while touting their own personal political agenda with a foreign policy ax to grind, leaving the unmistakable impression that their testimonies were nothing short of conflated.
Condescending as if pontificating to a class of mediocre law students, Professor Noah Feldman had suggested in 2017 that Presidential tweets could be grounds for impeachment, indicative of the depth of his thinking as he repeatedly impressed himself with his own rhetoric. Professor Pamela Karlanopened with a shrillness that grew into a hyperbole spewing divisiveness among the American people and went on to revisit the Russiagate and foreign electoral influence myth ad nauseam. Those dim witted Democrats on the committee repeated the mantra as if held in a spellbound trance whenever “Russiagate” was mentioned. There was no mention of Israel interference in US elections. Testimony of Professor Michael Gerhardt.
Stating that he had not voted for Trump in 2016, GWU Law Professor Jonathan Turley who is a registered Democrat (as is yours truly) opened with a brilliant statement as he set the tone for an extraordinarily compelling testimony throughout the day, carefully explaining to the Democrats why they had not met a credible legal threshold for impeachment. Factually concise with rational, impartial explanations, Turley effectively disputed Democratic claims that an abuse of power stemming from a presumedeffort to help one’s own re-election is “inferred” and does not constitute proof of intent or direct knowledge of what was in the President’s mind.
However, it did not appear that any of the Democrats had the acute sensibility to understand Turley’s point as there is an edge of lunacy to the collective Democratic mind these days. What the Democrats fail to grasp is the double-standard that every politician makes decisions based on what is best for their reelection just as the Dems are hoping to benefit electorally in 2020 with the farcical impeachment.
“Before I finished my testimony, my home and office were inundated with (death) threatening messages and demands that I be fired from GW.”
While it was surprising that there was no Democratic Star on either the Intel or Judiciary Committees who stepped forward to make a credible, cogent case for impeachment, it was somewhat surprising that the Republicans had an energetic array of participating Members not limited to Intel ranking member Devin Nunes (Calif), Judiciary ranking minority Rep. Doug Collins (NC), Rep. Jim Jordan (Oh), Rep. John Ratcliffe (Texas) and Rep. Mark Gaetz (R-Fla) all of whom can be expected to continue their Bulldog approach as the Committee begins preparing Articles of Impeachment.
For instance, Rep. Martha Roby (R-Ala) asked the defining question regarding the purpose of the hearing with “no fact witnesses” via a process that has been “insufficient, unprecedented and grossly inadequate.” Roby pointed out that the Dems had apparently not considered: that a constitutional law panel should come “only after specific charges have been made known and underlying facts presented in full due to an exhaustive investigation. How does anyone expect a panel of law professors to weigh in on legal grounds for impeachment prior to knowing what the grounds brought by this Committee are going to be?
At her news conference the day after the Judiciary committee hearing, Pelosi was asked by a reporter “Do you hate President Trump?” Pelosi responded with a shaky false piety as if she knows the votes are not there:
“We don’t hate anybody. Not anybody in the World. And as a Catholic, I resent your using the word ‘hate’ in a sentence that addresses me. I don’t hate anyone. I was raised in a way that is full – a heart full of love and always pray for the president, And I still pray for the president. I pray for the president all the time, So don’t mess with me when it comes to words like that.”
It is a curiosity that with the 2020 election a scant twelve months away, the Democrats have not made the case for the urgency of why impeachment needs to occur right now, immediately, before the Christmas holidays when the Spirit of Good Cheer, Universal Love and Peace for all Americans should take precedence over the Democrat’s divisive animosity, pitting one American against another.
In 2018, thirty one new Democrats were elected to the House; predominately from districts that voted for Trump in 2016 assuring a tough 2020 re-election campaign.
Let’s assume that every one of those 31 newbies have been paying very close attention to the Intel and Judiciary committee hearings with two questions in mind:
Is there sufficient legal evidence to convince my constituents to support Articles of Impeachment and is this flawed impeachment campaign worth losing my seat in Congress?
House Majority Whip James Clyburn (D-0SC) has already indicated that he does not intend to ‘whip” the Dems in preparation for an Impeachment vote on the House floor and that the Dems “expect to lose some votes.“
Let’s do the math: With 233 Dems and 197 Republicans, if 18 of the 31 House newbies do not vote to impeach, the Democratic Motion to approve Articles of Impeachment will fail with a tie of 215 votes. Whether the Dems lose 18 votes or less, the damage will be irreversible.
As the Democratic party appears to have lost whatever is left of its sanity and integrity, the question remains why are the Democrats willing to sacrifice losing some of those 31 House seats in 2020?
*
Note to readers: please click the share buttons above or below. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.
Renee Parsons has been a member of the ACLU’s Florida State Board of Directors and President of the ACLU Treasure Coast Chapter. She has been an elected public official in Colorado, an environmental lobbyist with Friends of the Earth and staff member in the US House of Representatives in Washington, DC. She can be found on Twitter @reneedove31. She is a frequent contributor to Global Research.
Featured image: President-elect Donald J. Trump and U.S. Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi smile for a photo during the 58th Presidential Inauguration in Washington, D.C., Jan. 20, 2017. More than 5,000 military members from across all branches of the armed forces of the United States, including reserve and National Guard components, provided ceremonial support and Defense Support of Civil Authorities during the inaugural period. (DoD photo by U.S. Air Force Staff Sgt. Marianique Santos)
Over 100 Syrian and Russian airstrikes hit positions, weapon depots and infrastructure belonging to Idlib militant groups during the past few days. According to reports, most of the strikes were delivered in the surroundings of Kafr Nabl, al-Bara, Ehsim, Baluon, Maarzita and Talmenes. An intense aerial campaign against infrastructure and forces of Hayat Tahrir al-Sham and other radicals allowed the Syrian Army to stabilize the frontline in southern Idlib and repel militants’ all attempts to advance there.
Deputy Chief of Russia’s General Staff and the head of Russian forces in Syria Lieutenant General Alexander Chaiko has inspected the northeastern ‘safe zone’ area in Syria, according to a video released by Zvezda TV on December 8. The visit took place in the framework of a joint Russian-Turkish patrol along the M4 highway. According to the Zvezda TV report, the patrol inspected the ongoing de-mining efforts in Alia and Tell Tamr, as well as the reconstruction works at the electric substation near the Mabrouka camp for displaced people west of Ras al-Ayn. Another point of the joint patrol and inspection was to confirm the withdrawal of Kurdish armed groups from the area.
Earlier, Lieutenant General Chaiko discussed with the head of the Kurdish-led Syrian Democratic Forces, Mazloum Kobani, the implementation of the second phase for the ‘safe zone’ agreement. According to Kurdish sources, the second phase will include the deployment of Syrian Border Guard units along the border from Kobani to Semelka. Previously, the SDF and Russia agreed on the deployment of Russian troops in Amuda, Tell Tamir and Ayn Issa.
ISIS keeps a noticeable presence on along the eastern bank of the Euphrates, in the area where US troops are deployed.
On December 7, ISIS members attacked an SDF convoy near the town of Haijn reportedly killing 3 SDF members. In response to the attack, US-led coalition and SDF units raided the village of al-Shheell arresting two men.
On December 6, reports surfaced that unknown gunmen attacked the US-controlled Omar oil fields. The incident coincided with the arrival of US military convoy there. Then, pro-SDF sources said that artillery strikes in the area were just a part of some live fire drills.
During the past months, US and SDF forces conducted over a dozen of anti-ISIS raids across the Euphrates’ eastern bank. Nonetheless, this did not allow them to put an end to the ISIS presence in there.
ISIS cells also active on the western bank of the Euphrates. On December 6, an IED attack targeted a convoy of pro-government militia Liwa al-Quds near al-Mayadin. A single Liwa al-Quds member was killed.
Early on December 8, unidentified warplanes reportedly carried out a new round of strikes on positions of alleged Iranian forces in the al-Bukamal area. Pro-Israeli sources claimed that at least 5 Iranian-backed fighters were killed. This remains unconfirmed.
*
Note to readers: please click the share buttons above or below. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.
On November 27, at the Ontario Federation of Labour Congress (OFL- representing one million workers) held in Toronto, the following resolution was adopted:
“Emergency Resolution #1 Coup d’état in Bolivia.
WHEREAS democratically elected Evo Morales, the first Indigenous President in the history of the Indigenous majority in Bolivia, was forced to resign on November 20, 2019….”
After citing governments, political personalities and other trade union federations that have condemned the coup, the resolution continues:
“THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the OFL condemn the coup in Bolivia, and
THEREFORE, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the OFL write a public statement that denounces Canada’s support for this coup and calls for our government to support the restoration of democracy and the safe return of Evo Morales, and
THEREFORE, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the OFL call on the CLC to oppose the coup and write a similar statement public statement.”
This latest important buildup of the movement in Canada came about as a result of the Durham Region Labour Council, representing members of the many affiliated unions in this Ontario city, tweeting on November 14, that it “will be submitting an emergency resolution to be discussed at the @OFLabour #ElMundoConEvo #GolpeDeEstadoBolivia.” This is what it did, and the emergency resolution was passed.
So far the Canadian Labour Congress (CLC) denunciation of the coup has taken the form of co-signing the moderate Trade Union of the Americas (TUCA) statement which does not even mention Evo Morales by name: “The CLC supports the TUCA position condemning the coup in Bolivia and expressing solidarity with the Bolivian peoples, trade unions, and social organizations.”
We will see in the future how the CLC reacts to the OFL resolution to take a stand based on the OFL stance, as it declares, in “the same sense” as its resolution which goes far beyond their US counterparts.
In any case, as indicated in the previous articles in this series on the impact of Evo/Bolivia on the Canadian trade union scene, this movement is very significant. We have CUPE (680,000 workers), CUPW (54,000 workers), OFL (one million workers), UNIFOR (300,000) and now the CLC (3 million members, which includes the one million in the OFL). This means virtually the entire trade union movement in Canada is opposed to the Trudeau government’s position in support of the coup.
However, how is this reflected in the Canadian corporate media? A google search on the main Canadian media shows that not a single article reported on this union movement in Canada, which represents millions of workers.
The mainstream media articles on Bolivia and Evo immediately before the October 20, 2019 elections, and ever since, all basically echo the talking points of the Trudeau/Trump narrative in support of the coup.
However, it is continuously repeated in Western mainstream media that in a country such as Cuba, the media is “state controlled,” whereby all media reports and analyzes in the “same way.”
Nevertheless, investigation over the last two decades shows that in Cuba there is a wide variety of views among the official and non-official press and alternative revolutionary bloggers. Apart from Venezuela, there are very few countries in the world where there is so much debate and controversy in the press and on the streets, workplaces and educational institutions, as in Cuba.
This was evident once again in 2018-2019 during the public debate on the new Cuban Constitution. For example, there were openly conflicting opinions on television, in the print press and among revolutionary bloggers as to the inclusion of “communism” as the long-term ideal or goal of the Cuban Revolution. “Communism” was enshrined in the original constitution but was deleted by the Parliament in the draft version of the new constitution sent to the entire population for its input. However, the desire to maintain the long-term goal of communism enshrined in the constitution was so strong that the second draft included it, as well as hundreds of other citizen-driven changes, in which the Cuban media also played an active role. It was then sent to the population in a referendum approved by the overwhelming majority of voters.
However, in a capitalist country such as Canada, the mainstream media IS “state controlled” and repeats the same views as the government, as the example of Bolivia shows. If this were not the case, how is it that not one single article was published in the mainstream media on the Canadian trade union movement’s views on Bolivia and Evo, which contradicts the Trudeau government’s position in support of the coup?
If just one major article in one important corporate press outlet reported on this workers’ movement in Canada, quoting extensively from the trade unions, it would have been like a bombshell erupting onto the Canadian political scene. Trudeau would have been publicly put on the spot as being in contradiction with millions of Canadians.
Comparing to Cuba once again, the so-called epitome of “state-controlled media,” this journalist can very vividly recall the initial reactions coming from revolutionary bloggers such as Iroel Sanchez in support of reinserting “communism” in the new constitution. It was like a minor earthquake, and then the ripple effect carried on until the final victory of ideas at the time of the actual referendum.
Bolivia was and is the Canadian “moment” to show the world that Canadian mainstream media is not state-controlled. However, it did not deviate one inch, as in the case of Venezuela.
Canadian mainstream media is therefore very much state-controlled. To take one more example: during the Mike Pence/Trudeau public press appearance on May 30, 2019 in Ottawa, only a few weeks after the Trump activation of the Helms-Burton Title III Act, all the Canadian journalists present took their cue from Trudeau. Like him, they did not publicly raise the issue of the further tightening of the criminal blockade against Cuba, even if it involves interference in Canada’s internal affairs and may affect Canadian businesses in Cuba. What was the other talking point in addition, of course, to antagonism toward China? You guessed it: opposition to Maduro in Venezuela.
This experience from Bolivia teaches the Canadian workers and trade unions an important lesson: to not only support the alternative media in Canada, but also get involved in widening the union audience by actually writing for these outlets and submitting its own statements for publication, for example on Bolivia. One cannot rely on mainstream media. It is a pleasure for this journalist to quote extensively from these many inspiring anti-US/Canada imperialist stands from union statements in articles submitted to alternative media (which, by the way, enjoys a much larger audience than is commonly believed). However, it would be better if the unions were also directly involved with the alternative media.
This would help prevent the Canadian population from falling prey to all national and international imperialist pressure. This consists of trying to crush the anti-imperialist sentiment of Canadian workers and in its place, convert it into being an apologist for the Trudeau foreign policy in Latin America. This writer declares: Never! What do you say?
*
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.
According to US Secretary of State, Mike Pompeo, the US will help “legitimate governments” in Latin America, in order to prevent protests from “morphing into riots”.
From what we are seeing this “legitimization” may be expanded to rest of the world. Because Washington instigated destabilizing unrest goes on throughout the world. We may as well call it “Operation Condor 2.0 – Expanded”. It promises to become devastating, oppressive and murderous on all Continents. A transformation from whatever ‘freedom’ may have existed to neoliberal dictatorships bending towards neofascism.
The original “Operation Condor” was a campaign by the United States to bring ‘order’ into her backyard, i.e. Latin America. In other words, it was a repressive move that started in 1968 and concluded around the time of the fall of the Berlin Wall. We are talking about more than 20 years of right-wing repression, especially but not exclusively directed on the Southern Cone of South America.
It included such military dictators like Jorge Rafael Videla in Argentina. He came to power in 1976 by a US supported military coup, deposing Isabel Martinez de Perón. Comandante Videla stayed in power during five years until 1981, period in which he brutally oppressed Argentinians, especially the opposition. It is reported that during this period more than 30,000 people ‘disappeared’ – never to return. They were tortured and killed. Some of the dissidents were dropped from helicopters into the Rio de Plata.
Another, better known dictator was Augusto Pinochet, who was directly helped by the CIA and then President Nixon’s National Security Adviser, Henry Kissinger – to overturn the democratically elected government of Salvador Allende in a bloody coup on 11 September 1973. Pinochet introduced as a first in Latin America neoliberal economics through a group of economists from the Economic School of Chicago, the so-called “Chicago Boys”. The resulting austerity brought extreme poverty and famine to Chileans. The ensuing 17 years were a horror, with over 40,000 people ‘disappeared’ or outright murdered.
Other countries that went through one or several “Operation Condor” cleansings, included Ecuador, Colombia, Brazil, Bolivia, Uruguay, Paraguay, Guatemala, Honduras, El Salvador and possibly others. It was a despicable and deadly period for Latin America. In all, an estimated 80,000 to 100,000 people were killed and some 400,00 taken as political prisoners.
Secretary Pompeo’s words could not be clearer. He added that protests in Bolivia, Chile, Colombia and Ecuador reflect the “character of legitimate democratic governments and democratic expression. We’ll work with legitimate governments to prevent protests from morphing into riots and violence that don’t reflect the democratic will of the people.”
Not to forget any invented villains, he added, the US will “continue to support countries trying to prevent Cuba and Venezuela from hijacking those protests.” He went on accused Russia of “malign” influence in Latin America and of “propping up” the democratically elected Venezuelan government of Nicolas Maduro.
Such remarks come after the US-led November 10 military coup in Bolivia. Amazing that nobody dares stand up and answer him. Are all afraid?
And this especially in the light of having in Bolivia now an opposition dictator, the self-declared interim President (much like Venezuela’s Juan Guaidó), Jeanine Añez, who acts with impunity following fascists and racist orders from Washington – indiscriminately killing her own country-women and men – who happen to be indigenous people. Although she promised new elections, Añez has not set a date, but rather is undoing almost everything Evo Morales has achieved for the people of Bolivia, by privatizing public assets and services, as well as abolishing social safety nets by decree.
Pompeo concluded by saying there remains an “awful lot of work to do” in the region, meaning Latin America as the US’s “back yard.” He also warned against “predatory Chinese activities” in the region, which he claimed can lead countries to make deals that “seem attractive” but are “bad” for citizens.
The new repression that we see in Latin America is not homogenous. In Chile at the surface it looks like the protests started over a metro-fare hike of the equivalent of 4 cents (US-dollar cents) – and then expanded violently to oppose political and economic injustice in Chile, directed against Chile’s neoliberal President, Sebastian Piñera. In Bolivia protests are against an US-induced military coup; in Ecuador they are directed against an austerity-inflicting IMF loan, in Colombia, they appeared suddenly against the corruption and injustice of the Iván Duque presidency; and in Brazil, against the neofascist austerity reforms by Jair Bolsonaro. Copy cats? What’s good for our neighbors, is good for us? – I don’t think so.
It looks much more like a concerted effort by the US to enhance and bolster protests from whatever side they come, to be able to install fully repressive governments, of course, with the help of the US and her secret services – funded by the usual NED (National Endowment for Democracy) and other NGOs that would help install within the respective governments strong 5th Columns, so as to detect early warning signals and crackdown in time on any opposition.
“Operation Condor 2.0 Expanded” – Expanded refers to similar violent protests going on in other parts of the world – practically simultaneously. Take Lebanon, Iraq, Iran, Ukraine, Afgnaistan, and now France – no matter from which side they come – repression and state of siege, if necessary, are of the order – total repression, that is. All with the help of the US – and, not to forget NATO. This is certainly a key justification to keep NATO alive – to avoid opposition to spread and to risk abolishing the faltering US hegemony.
We are, indeed, in the midst of a new “Operation Condor”; or “Operation Condor 2.0 – Expanded”. Full repression worldwide. In preparation of the next planned global recession, planned by the US-led western banking and financial sector. A recession that will likely outdo whatever we have known in the recent past, and make the 2008 /09 downfall look like a walk in the park. The repression now, it is hoped, will prevent people from going on the barricades when they suffer the next cut in salaries, pensions and other social services, already at an unlivable level. Authoritarianism and tyranny must be efficient and total with a para-military police, enhanced by the armed forces, if necessary. It’s going to be another transfer of assets and social capital from the bottom to the top.
This has been sensed perhaps intuitively by the French – who have been protesting in the form of Yellow Vests against Macron’s regime for more than a year – and now in the form of a CGT- syndicate organized open-ended general strike. Repression is massive – an estimated 1.5 million people in the streets of the major French cities, all public transportation disrupted. There have even been rumors that the police forces may also join the strike, because they realize they are part of the oppressed and abused by Macron’s neoliberal austerity policies. This is reflected by the four times higher suicide rates among police officers, as compared to the average French.
China and Russia beware. The rogue nation and bulldozer won’t stop necessarily in front of your borders. To the contrary, they may seek any entry they can get – as they are already doing in China with Hong Kong, not letting go despite the various concessions already made by HK’s Chief Executive, Carrie Lam, supported by Beijing; and also in the autonomous Region of Xinjiang, with the mostly Muslim Uyghur people, many of whom are being recruited by the CIA across the border from Afghanistan, trained and funded to cause destabilizing unrest.
In view of all of this, President Putin’s recent overture to Israel, especially to PM Netanyahu, is worrisome. Netanyahu is by all accounts part of the repressive wave engulfing our Mother Earth, and, in addition, with his cruel policies against Palestine, he may be considered a mass-murderer.
*
Note to readers: please click the share buttons above or below. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.
Peter Koenig is an economist and geopolitical analyst. He is also a water resources and environmental specialist. He worked for over 30 years with the World Bank and the World Health Organization around the world in the fields of environment and water. He lectures at universities in the US, Europe and South America. He writes regularly for Global Research; ICH; RT; Sputnik; PressTV; The 21st Century; Greanville Post; Defend Democracy Press, TeleSUR; The Saker Blog, the New Eastern Outlook (NEO); and other internet sites. He is the author of Implosion – An Economic Thriller about War, Environmental Destruction and Corporate Greed – fiction based on facts and on 30 years of World Bank experience around the globe. He is also a co-author of The World Order and Revolution! – Essays from the Resistance. He is a Research Associate of the Centre for Research on Globalization.
Recently, I was in Homer, Alaska, to talk about my book The End of Ice. Seconds after I had thanked those who brought me to the small University of Alaska campus there, overwhelmed with some mix of sadness, love, and grief about my adopted state — and the planet generally — I wept.
I tried to speak but could only apologize and take a few moments to collect myself. It’s challenging for me, even now, to explain the wash of emotions and thoughts that suddenly swept over me as I stood at that podium on a warm, windy, rainy night on the southern Kenai Peninsula among a group ready to learn more about what was happening to our beloved Earth.
“Sorry for that,” I finally said after a few more breaths, as my voice cracked with emotion, “but I know you’ll understand. You live in this state and you know as well as I do that once Alaska gets in your blood, it stays there. And I love this place with all my heart.” Most of the listeners in that room were already nodding and at least one person had begun to cry.
I lived in Alaska for a decade, starting in 1996, and it’s been in my blood since the year before that when I first laid eyes on Denali National Park and the spectacular Alaska Range. In fact, five of the nine chapters of my new book are set in Alaska and its mournful title is a kind of bow to my abiding love for this country’s northernmost state. That moment in 1995 when the clouds literally parted to reveal Denali’s lofty summit and its spectacular spread of glaciers proved to be love at first sight. In fact, most summers thereafter I would visit that range as well as others in Alaska, volcanoes in Mexico, the Karakorum Himalaya of South Asia, or the South American Andes.
Then, in the summer of 2003, several months after the Bush administration’s invasion of Iraq, I listened to radio reports on the beginning of the grim American occupation of that land from a tent on Denali while volunteering with the Park Service. It was there as well, strangely enough, that I first felt the pull of Iraq — or rather of the gaping void in the mainstream media when it came to what that occupation was doing to the Iraqi people. I then decided to travel from ice to heat, from Denali to the Middle East, to find out what was happening there and report on it.
That strange mountainside call led me into a career in journalism that pulled me away from my beloved Alaska whose vastnesses, largely devoid of a human presence, I’ve never experienced elsewhere. And as far as I traveled from its unique landscape, the feeling that the climate was already being disrupted in dramatic ways there stuck with me through my years of war reporting. The thought of the ever-receding glaciers in my former home state pained me and somehow drew me from America’s forever wars to another kind of war — on the planet itself — and into nearly a decade of climate reporting.
I told the audience all of this, occasionally pausing so as not to cry again thanks to a sadness born in part from the convulsions of wildfires, droughts, rapidly thawing permafrost, native coastal villages melting into the seas, and fast-shrinking glaciers. And don’t forget a Trumpian lapdog of a governor who, just like his darling president, seems unable to cut services fast enough or work hard enough to open yet more of this great state to drilling, logging, and pollution (despite his growing unpopularity).
The evening before, November 20th, I’d spoken at the University of Alaska in Anchorage and it was 48 degrees Fahrenheit (and raining, not snowing), a full 20 degrees warmer than the normal high temperature for that month. And that’s a reality that has become ever more the new normal there, even though the top third of the state lies inside the Arctic Circle. That, in turn, reflects another new reality: “Arctic amplification,” which means that the higher latitudes of this planet are warming roughly twice as fast as the mid-latitudes. In other words, Alaska is in the crosshairs of climate disruption.
Put another way, the audiences I was speaking to that month and all of my friends in Alaska are now living in what feels like a chronic state of shock as things unravel in their state at warp speed.
Alaska, the New Norm
It’s no secret that vast numbers of climate scientists are now grieving for the planet and humanity’s future, with some even describing their symptoms as a climate-change version of Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder, or PTSD. Several of the scientists I interviewed for my book said as much. Dan Fagre, who works for the United States Geological Survey at Glacier National Park, was typical. When I asked him what he felt like while watching the glaciers (for which that park was named) disappear — they are expected to be gone by 2030 — he responded, “It’s like being a battle-hardened soldier, but on a philosophical basis, it’s tough to watch the thing you study disappear.”
And it’s not just climate scientists like him. Others living near areas where the changes are happening most dramatically seem to be experiencing such symptoms as well. “You wouldn’t believe what it was like to be in Anchorage last summer,” my friend Matt Rafferty told me when we met in that city on the morning I returned from Homer. “We saw 90 degrees on July 4th and then, later in the summer, the wildfire smoke was so thick on some days you literally could not see across the street downtown.”
An environmentalist who has long been working to protect Alaska from the extraction vultures, Matt is, like me, in love with the natural beauty of the place. I’ve traveled with him to the remote Alaskan backcountry and think of him as upbeat and indefatigable when it comes to his work, whatever the odds of success. But listening to him describe the climate convulsions wracking his home state recently, I couldn’t help but think of interviews I had done with family members in Iraq who had lost loved ones to U.S. military attacks. People with PTSD — and I know this from my own personal experience with it — tend to repetitively tell stories about the trauma they’ve experienced. It’s our way of trying to process it.
And this was exactly what Matt, normally not a guy given to overemphasis, was doing that morning, which shocked me. “We had rivers in south-central Alaska that were so warm the salmon were dying of heart attacks,” he continued, barely stopping to take a breath. “The river water reached 80 degrees in some of them! The water was 80 degrees! Can you believe that? There were literally tens of thousands of dead salmon floating belly up in many of the rivers. I did a pack-raft trip in the Talkeetna Mountains wearing nothing but a t-shirt and shorts! That is absurd! You know how cold the water usually is in the rivers here. It literally got so hot in the sun we had to pull out and sit underneath a tree in the shade!”
He recounted much that I already knew, including that Arctic sea ice had melted away at record speed and that, by the fall, permafrost was thawing at rates not predicted for another 70 years. On the coast of the Arctic Ocean in northern Alaska, whaling towns that traditionally used permafrost cellars to store, age, and keep their subsistence food cool throughout the year — the Inupiat use them for tons of whale and walrus meat — now find them pooling with water and sprouting mold thanks to the thawing permafrost.
By that September, Matt told me, he was struggling with depression. “I lost all hope, as it truly felt apocalyptic here,” he continued more slowly and quietly now, rubbing one of his arms in what I imagined was a sort of self-consoling gesture. Spending more time meditating, doing yoga, and finding helpful spiritual podcasts has, he added, become mandatory for him — and he’s far from alone in that among Alaskans as southern weather is visibly migrating north.
That day in Anchorage, I stopped at my favorite bookstore to check out the latest volumes on the state. One of them, Alone at the Top: Climbing Denali in the Dead of Winter, caught my eye. Arctic explorer Lonnie Dupre had made history in 2015 by summiting Denali in January… solo. It was an incredible feat that he writes about in his book, but the moment I won’t forget was when he described being trapped in his tent on that mountain at 11,200 feet during a storm that raged for days. At one point, he heard what sounded like small rocks pelting the tent, unzipped the door, poked his head out, and was shocked to find that, on December 31st, it was sleeting, not snowing. We’re talking about a moment when the average temperature for that elevation should have been something like 35 degrees below zero.
It hurt my heart to know that such weather paroxysms were afflicting even Denali, a mountain, standing so high and so near the Arctic Circle, that changed my life by drawing me to Alaska when I was in my twenties. Despite everything I now know, it still stunned me.
And here I am, like my close friends in that state, telling this story to anyone who will listen. I know this will sound over the top to non-Alaskan readers, but even writing this brings tears to my eyes. It’s simply not supposed to be this way. Just about nothing that’s happening there, climatologically speaking, today is what we once would have thought of as “natural,” even though it’s now the new norm.
Hearing so many of these stories while visiting proved too much to take in, as did knowing what’s now starting to happen to salmon, bears, moose, and other wildlife of all sorts. Thanks to chaotic climatic shifts, such creatures are beginning to migrate from what once were their home territories due to lack of familiar food. And all of it is, in its own way, traumatizing.
During a recent lecture at the University of Alaska, Anchorage, Rick Thoman, a climate specialist at the Alaska Center for Climate Assessment and Policy, presented a grim overview of radically changed conditions across our northernmost state. In his 30 years with the National Weather Service in Alaska, Thoman has watched as the climate in his home state was disrupted by the anthropogenic climate crisis. Originally from Pennsylvania, he told the audience how reading about such a different world in works that ranged from Jack London’s turn-of-the-twentieth-century short story “To Build a Fire” to Barry Lopez’s book Arctic Dreams had led him to Alaska. London, for instance, had written about a place in which minus 70 degree temperatures were part of everyday life. “But the fact of the matter is,” he told us grimly, “the environment described in these books doesn’t exist anymore.” He added, “That’s really hard. But it’s what we’ve got, it’s what we live in.”
Thoman spoke of how, thanks to radically warming waters, the Bering Sea is literally experiencing a mass exodus of marine life, while the state itself is, like a beloved friend, in the midst of a health crisis that no one in power is truly trying to treat.
No wonder all of this leaves me with a feeling of utter impotence. Each new weather shock feels like another body blow. Or yet further evidence of how I’m losing a loved one. Alaska, in other words, is suffering climate death by a thousand cuts, while I struggle daily to accept the new reality: that the state is already irreparably changed.
Rainbow Peak
Deep waves of love and sadness had already begun coursing through me as my flight descended into Anchorage when this trip began. And such feelings only continued during the time I spent there. Time with old climbing buddies proved bittersweet, as it was never long before we couldn’t help but speak of the changes already occurring, even as we planned future forays into Alaska’s mountains.
The last full day, I knew I needed to be alone in those mountains. I’d brought the necessary gear with me for late-November hiking temperatures, or at least for the way I remembered them from the years when I lived there: crampons, an ice axe, extra layers of warm clothing for deep snow and mountain temperatures that should have been in the teens (even without taking the wind-chill factor into account).
Before sunrise that day, I headed south from Anchorage on the Seward highway as it dropped down beside the waters of Turnagain Arm. I was heading for a trail that would take me into the Chugach Mountains, one of my old stomping grounds.
Delicate pastel blues and soft buttery yellows illuminated the sky ahead as the lazy winter sun rose. While snow still covered the tops of the surrounding mountains, lower down the colors on them faded from bright whites to browns and greens — hardly a surprise, since temperatures here have been so warm and snow so scarce in this year’s disrupted lead-up to winter.
I passed several areas where, in the mid-1990s, I would already have been ice-climbing atop frozen waterfalls at this time of year. Now, they were visibly bone dry with temperatures too warm for ice to form.
After arriving at my trailhead, I hiked alone toward a nearby peak. Out of habit, I began with a heavy jacket on, but soon removed it, along with my gloves, in temperatures well above freezing. I wasn’t used to this and it felt abidingly strange to alter my old habits as I climbed.
I gained elevation quickly. Within a couple of hours, I was in something that finally seemed Alaskan to me, genuine winter conditions as I post-holed through the snow — which means having your legs regularly break through the surface snow to perhaps knee- or mid-thigh-height — making my way toward the summit. I paused from time to time to breathe in the smell of the trees and watch the occasional snow flurry flutter down into the valley below.
The summit ridge was blanketed in snow. As I arrived there, I suddenly realized that I had been chasing winter — that is, my own past life and dreams — up these mountains on this last full day of my visit, seeking to find an Alaska that no longer was.
I marveled at the grand 360-degree view, taking photos of the snowy peaks around me, drinking it all in, before I had to descend and head back to my home in Washington State and back to a climate-changed present on a burning planet where I would continue to dream of the Alaska I had once known. I knew I would be planning future ascents here, while at least some of it remains as it once was.
Shortly before boarding my flight home from the Anchorage airport, the cloud cover to the north cleared, revealing Denali’s still majestic white silhouette against a dark blue backdrop. I stood there, transfixed, for nearly half an hour unable to take my eyes off that mountain. Only when it began to grow dark and Denali was no longer visible could I allow myself to walk off, even as I wiped away more tears.
*
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.
Dahr Jamail, a TomDispatch regular, is a recipient of numerous honors, including the Martha Gellhorn Award for Journalism for his work in Iraq and a 2018 Izzy Award for Outstanding Achievement in Independent Media. His newest book, The End of Ice: Bearing Witness and Finding Meaning in the Path of Climate Disruption, was published this year. He is also the author of Beyond the Green Zone and The Will to Resist. he is a frequent contributor to Global Research
As a follow-up to the report by the Director of International Relations Mohamad Alsadi regarding his fact-finding meeting with Evo in Mexico on November 17, the President of the union on behalf of its 300,000 members, issued an unusual and original challenge. In his November 25th letter to the Canadian Minister of Foreign Affairs François-Philippe Champagne, the president of the union Jerry Dias writes:
“In an effort to understand the current and evolving situation, Unifor dispatched its Director of International Department, Mohamad Alsadi, to Mexico City in order to meet with President Morales directly. This meeting helped to solidify our support and solidarity with the people of Bolivia. …
We also encourage you to visit and dialogue with Evo Morales directly, as we have done, to receive a firsthand account on what has transpired in Bolivia and areas in which Canada can provide support. Canada cannot proclaim to support democracy while also enabling a repressive military dictatorship to unfold and go unchallenged. We trust you and your government will reverse course and stand by the people of Bolivia.”
In the letter, with a copy to Prime Mister Justin Trudeau, the union president reiterates its stand:
“We are dismayed that the Canadian Federal government has chosen to support the interim leadership of Jeanine Áñez Chávez – a representative from a party that received only 4% of the vote in the latest October elections, and whose support is derived largely from the backing of the Bolivian police and military. We are also troubled given Áñez’s hostile and discriminatory anti-Indigenous remarks, especially in a country where more than half the population is Indigenous.
“Unifor urges the Federal government to publicly condemn the coup and reject Áñez’s illegitimate interim position. We demand the safe passage and return of Evo Morales to his home country, and to let Bolivians exercise their own democratic right in choosing a government through a new round of elections – elections Morales himself initially agreed to before being forced into exile…”
The union not only represents the Canadian workers, but the vast majority of the strongly anti-imperialist Canadian people, when it writes:
“We have seen how actions of independent states with socialist policies often provoke the ire of corporate interests and Western countries such as the United States, which has a long history of Latin and South American government intervention and ousting democratically elected leaders by way of violent military coups.”
This is the 3rd major union to take a stand, the first two being the CUPE (680,000 workers) and CUPW (54,000 workers).
However, as to be expected in Canada, this anti-imperialist movement so far has not been reported upon the by the Canadian monopoly press. Yet, it does not miss the opportunity to the repeat U.S. media narrative on Bolivia and the person of Evo Morales.
This in itself further contributes to the anti-imperialist sentiment building up over the last few years. Nothing is more frustrating to witness the Canadian press being but an image of their American counterparts.
*
Note to readers: please click the share buttons above or below. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.
Originally published in the Cuban trade union central (CTC) newspaper Trabajadores in Spanish.
Mark Taliano: Why is the truth about Syria important?
Vanessa Beeley: It is important because in Syria the “humanitarian” hybrid war strategy of the Globalist powers in the so-called civilised “global north” is being exposed real time as Syria sweeps to a military victory against the heavily financed proxy invasion of their country, orchestrated by the US alliance that includes aligned Gulf States, Turkey and Israel. By pushing back against the dominant establishment narrative on Syria, we, as journalists and activists, are effectively defending international law which is being violated by our own rogue states. We are standing in solidarity with an unprecedented resistance against global terrorism which has also enabled the formation of an axis of resistance that has turned the tide of neoconservative hegemony in the region. We are defending the right of the Syrian people to decide their own future without foreign meddling. The precedents being set by this externally imposed conflict and its outcome will define the future of global security for all Humanity – what more important principle is there to defend?
MT: Why are people trying to “de-platform” you? Who is trying to de-platform you?
VB: People – all aligned media, think tanks, UN agencies – are trying to de-platform me because diverging views, including those of the “disappeared” Syrian people, challenge and confront their fabricated narrative that has “manufactured consent” for the US Coalition criminal aggression against Syria for nine years. The revelations provided by many independent voices exposes the corruption and corrosion of established institutions that should be ensuring world peace and who are, instead, promoting, sponsoring and enabling world instability in order to provide resource scavenging opportunities for the plutocrats who reign over us. Freedom of speech, thought and expression is being eroded and this is the principle we should all be defending or we are ALL Julian Assange – tortured, oppressed by the pseudo “free world”.
MT: Should Canadians believe the White Helmets? Amnesty International? Human Rights Watch?
VB: Canadians should use international law as their yardstick to determine truth, the violators of international law are their own government which is a vassal state of the US and UK. The White Helmets, AI and HRW are all compromised organisations which are sponsored and were established by the same governments as part of their smart power complex – an integral and now crucial part of their hybrid war strategy which are established to infiltrate prey nation society, always on the side of the US Coalition foreign policy agenda – predominantly to ensure the vilification of the target government or leader in order to provide justification for proxy or direct military intervention or economic terrorism under the guise of sanctions.
MT: When Syria wins this war, the world will be a safer place. Why?
VB: As I have explained above, the victory of Syria over global terrorism will benefit humanity. Syria has had a policy of containing these terrorist groups within Syrian borders in order to prevent the same fate befalling the EU, UK and US citizens with the inevitable return or flow of these radicalised extremist factions to those regions. Syria and her allies have adhered to international law both from a military and a diplomatic perspective, thus ensuring a stable future for mankind. Syria’s victory will ensure that history is written by the targeted nation – exposing the destructive hegemony of the US alliance in the region and globally.
MT: What should Canadians do to spread the truth about the war on Syria?
VB: Canadians must fight for freedom of speech and against the de-platforming of diverging views. They should join genuine anti-war movements and defend the principles of international law which have been cynically abused and abandoned by the UK, US and France on the security council.
*
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.
Vanessa Beeley is an independent journalist, peace activist, photographer and associate editor at 21st Century Wire. Vanessa was a finalist for one of the most prestigious journalism awards – the 2017 Martha Gellhorn Prize for Journalism – whose winners have included the likes of Robert Parry in 2017, Patrick Cockburn, Robert Fisk, Nick Davies and the Bureau for Investigative Journalism team. Please support her work at her Patreon account.
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.
French President Macron spoke of the “brain death” of NATO, others called it “moribund.” Is this military alliance, without a head of its own, crumbling as a result of internal fractures? The disputes at the [Dec. 3-4] London Summit seem to confirm this scenario. A look at the substance, at the real interests that the allies share, provides a different view.
In London U.S. President Donald Trump and French President Emmanuel Macron argued on camera. In Niger in West Africa, with little publicity, United States Army Africa (USARAF) carried on its cargo planes thousands of French soldiers and their weapons from various outposts in West and Central Africa for “Operation Barkhane.” Paris deployed 4,500 soldiers for this assault, mostly special forces, and U.S. special forces supported them even in combat actions.
At the same time, the Reaper armed drones, supplied by the USA to France, operate from Air Base 101 in Niamey (Niger). From the same base the Reapers of the U.S. Air Force Africa take off. These drones are now relocated to the new base 201 in Agadez in the north of the country, continuing to operate in concert with the French military.
The example is iconic. Transnational corporations based in the United States, France and other European powers compete for markets and raw materials. But they unite when their common interests are at stake.
Consider, for example, those corporations that possess a wealth of raw materials in the Sahel: oil, gold, coltan, diamonds and uranium. Now, however, both popular uprisings and the Chinese economic presence jeopardize these corporate interests in this region, where poverty rates are among the highest. Hence the U.S.-French Operation Barkhane which, presented as an anti-terrorist operation, engages the allies in a long-lasting war with drones and special forces.
The strongest link that holds NATO together is the common interests of the military industrial complex on both sides of the Atlantic. This is reinforced by the London Summit. The Final Declaration provides the main motivation for a further increase in military spending: “Russia’s aggressive actions pose a threat to Euro-Atlantic security.”
The Allies commit not only to raising their military spending to at least 2 percent of GDP, but to allocating at least 20 percent of it to the purchase of armaments. This objective has already been achieved by 16 out of 29 countries, including Italy. For this purpose, the U.S. is investing over $200 billion in 2019.
We can see the results. On the same day as the NATO Summit opened, General Dynamics signed a $22.2 billion contract with the U.S. Navy, extendable to $24 billion, for the supply of nine Virginia class submarines for special operations and attack missions including Tomahawk missiles with nuclear warheads (40 for submarines).
Accusing Russia (without any evidence) of having deployed intermediate range nuclear missiles and thus burying the Intermediate Nuclear Forces (INF) Treaty, the Summit decided “to further strengthen our ability to defend ourselves with an appropriate mix of both conventional and nuclear anti-missile capabilities, which it will continue to adapt: as long as there are nuclear weapons, NATO will remain a nuclear alliance.”
In this framework of military expansion, the Summit’s recognition of space as the fifth operational field falls. In other words, the NATO Summit announced a very expensive military space program. It is an open check the NATO powers unanimously gave to the military industrial complex.
For the first time, with the Summit Declaration, NATO speaks of the “challenge” coming from China’s growing influence and international politics, underlining “the need to face it together as an Alliance.” The message is clear: NATO is more necessary than ever for a West whose supremacy is now being challenged by China and Russia.
Immediate result: the Japanese government has announced that it has bought for $146 million the uninhabited island of Mageshima, 30 km from its shores, to use it as a training site for U.S. fighter-bombers deployed against China.
*
Note to readers: please click the share buttons above or below. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.
This article appeared Dec. 6 in the Italian web newspaper, Il Manifesto. Translation: John Catalinotto.
Manlio Dinucci is a Research Associate of the Centre for Research on Globalization.
Even though the charges against him were just dropped, the thuggish arrest of investigative journalist Max Blumenthal by the DC police in late October on months-old charges of allegedly “assaulting” a counter-protester who forcibly prevented him and others from delivering food to anti-coup activists occupying the Venezuelan Embassy earlier in the year proved that not even the scions of famous families are safe from the long arm of the “deep state” if they dare to draw attention to its illegal activities abroad.
Max Blumenthal is a well-known investigative journalist within the Alt-Media Community who earned his respect by challenging the narratives of his former Mainstream Media partners after traveling to Syria, Venezuela, and elsewhere to report the truth about how those countries have become victims of American foreign policy. Blumenthal has also actively campaigned against “Israel‘s” occupation of Palestine and is an outspoken anti-Zionist. It’s already commendable enough that he’s bravely challenging the establishment, but it’s even more worthy of respect that he comes from a famous family and therefore never had to do any of this unless he truly believed in it. His father is Sidney Blumenthal, former confidant of Hillary Clinton, and Max could have easily relied on his father’s connections to live a comfortable life free from controversy or strife, but he instead chose to stand up for the ideals that he truly believes in with the hope that his work could eventually have a positive impact on everyone who comes across it.
Because of his family’s standing and the widespread attention that his work has formerly received in the Mainstream Media and nowadays in the Alternative one, Blumenthal is considered by his country’s “deep state” to be a threat to their narrative control over the world, hence why they’ve recently targeted him in one of the most thuggish ways possible so as to intimidate him into self-censoring and ultimately discontinuing his work. He was arrested in late October by a team of DC police officers who ominously took up positions around his place of residence in the early morning of 25 October in a clear hint that they were prepared to carry out a SWAT-style raid if he didn’t peacefully surrender himself on months-old charges of allegedly “assaulting” a counter-protester who forcibly prevented him and others from delivering food to anti-coup activists occupying the Venezuelan Embassy earlier in the year, thus proving that not even the scions of famous families are safe from the long arm of the “deep state” if they dare to draw attention to its illegal activities abroad.
Blumenthal insisted that the charges against him were 100% false and politically motivated by his work, which was now proven to have been the case after they were just dropped. Standard procedure doesn’t dictate that a team of police officers prepare for a SWAT-style raid against a suspect accused of simple assault, let alone against one who clearly wouldn’t be regarded by any sensible person as being armed, dangerous, or likely to forcefully resist arrest. The whole intent in carrying out that stunt was to make him believe that he could be shot and killed if he didn’t go along with them that very instant, conveying the message that very powerful forces want him to shut up or else. One would naturally think that the scandalous circumstances in which the warrant was served would have attracted widespread media attention in and of themselves, to say nothing of the fact that he’s the son of a famous figure, though the Mainstream Media neglected to report on what happened. This is extremely unusual for the reasons that were mentioned, suggesting that a coordinated media blackout was imposed upon them.
Blumenthal is left-leaning just like the vast majority of the US’ Mainstream Media outlets, but they don’t regard him as “one of their own” who’s worthy of their protection because his reporting exposed how these same supposedly leftist platforms are peddling neo-imperialist propaganda that goes against everything that their ideology is supposed to stand for. The very fact that a prominent leftist activist-journalist such as Blumenthal would so loudly rise up against them reinforces their perception and that of their “deep state” backers that his work constitutes a threat which must be suppressed by all means possible, ergo his thuggish arrest on false charges that was conducted in such a dangerously irresponsible way meant to intimidate him. Had Blumenthal not been blessed with the instinct to instantly go along with what was happening, there’s a credible possibility that he might have ended up injured or worse just to send a message to anyone else that they should think twice before trying to follow in his footsteps.
Although that thankfully didn’t happen in this case, the heavy-handed approaches employed by the state against dissidents such as Blumenthal — to say nothing of their attempts to frame activist-journalists like him on trumped-up charges — usually end up backfiring by making the victim a martyr for the cause and further delegitimizing the establishment. Blumenthal can rely upon his vast network of contacts in the Alt-Media Community to spread the truth about happened to him, which makes an even more powerful impact on their audience because of the fact that none of the Mainstream Media are allowed to publicly acknowledge what he recently went through. This dystopian backdrop can’t help but fill his followers with dread, though at the same time it also inspires them to continue sharing his work because they all realize just how scared the “deep state” is of it, which proves that Blumenthal is a real hero of our time who rightly earned his respect and is on the path to fulfilling his life’s mission to make a positive difference in this world.
*
Note to readers: please click the share buttons above or below. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.
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.
Kalamata Council has decided to block further development and operation of the 5G network program, which is currently being piloted in the Peloponnesian city.
The council held a meeting and considered the radiation of the mobile network upgrade to be dangerous and most councilors voted in favor of halting testing, adding that the network should only operate in Kalamata when corresponding networks were in place in the rest of Greece. The proposal to terminate the contract by the end of the year was voted in by 16 members.
The decision calls for the termination of cooperation with Wind network “until such technology passes from the experimental stage to the full implementation stage,” announced the Council.
In the text read by representatives of the city council, the radiation of 5G from the 2G, 3G and 4G networks were referred to as “dangerous”.
According to reports, an official from the municipality of Kalamata provided data of the scientific measurements, claiming the radiation from the antennas is much lower than the safety limits, but consultants didn’t take this data into consideration.
At the meeting, it was argued, among other things, that applying high levels of radiation would be detrimental to the health of locals and could also “cause infertility,” with reports claiming many locals considered they were being used as “guinea pigs” and it could have a very negative effect in the future with locals becoming “sterile”.
Kalamata Mayor Thanasis Vassilopoulos suggested that the contract with the mobile carrier should not be renewed before new measurements were taken and he suggested an open discussion should take place in January and if there was no scientific evidence to back the claim, the pilot program should resume.
Kalamata, together with Trikala and the municipality of Zografou, were the three municipalities where 5G technology was to be piloted.
*
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 shoreline of a Detroit, Michigan property contaminated by uranium and other chemicals dating back to the 1940s collapsed into the Detroit River during the Thanksgiving holiday weekend. The public was not alerted to the existence of the toxic spill until a report was published this week by the local paper in Windsor, Ontario.
The property known today as the Detroit Dock was previously owned by Revere Copper and Brass, Inc., a provider of uranium rods for US nuclear weapons development during and after World War II.
According to a report in the Windsor Star on Thursday, the property has been listed by both the US Department of Energy and the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) as a contaminated site for decades. It has also been listed by the Wall Street Journal as one of the country’s forgotten nuclear legacy “waste lands” where “potential exists for significant residual radiation.”
The WindsorStar report said,
“The riverbank apparently collapsed under the weight of large aggregate piles stored at the site by Detroit Bulk Storage which has a long-term lease on the property for such use.”
The Star report also said the collapse of the site—which is adjacent to the property of the historic colonial-era Fort Wayne and the narrowest stretch of the Detroit River between the US and Canada—“initially remained unknown to many responsible state and federal environmental regulatory agencies” because of the holiday weekend.
Responding nearly a week after the incident, a spokesman for Michigan’s primary environmental agency issued a statement, “Any time the Michigan Department of Environment, Great Lakes, and Energy (EGLE) learns of incidents such as the one at the Revere Copper site in Detroit, staff is greatly concerned about the impact on water quality and the public.”
The official added,
“EGLE staff will evaluate what is known about the conditions onsite, look into whether there are any environmental concerns, and determine what, if any, obligations the property’s owner has, before we decide our next steps.”
Meanwhile, representatives of the US EPA were unaware of the collapsed shoreline when contacted by the Windsor Star. The agency officials said that federal responsibility for the former Revere Copper and Brass site “belongs with the U.S. Department of Energy which was tasked decades ago with oversight of dangerous properties that feature nuclear or radiation histories across the US—especially those connected with war-related equipment.”
Initially, representatives of Detroit Bulk Storage did not respond to media inquiries although heavy equipment was seen moving crushed stone around near the collapsed bulkhead on the waterfront. Subsequent reports said that Noel Frye, owner of Detroit Bulk Storage, claimed he was unaware of the environmental history of the property until the shoreline collapse.
Among the major concerns about this alarming event is the impact it will have on Detroit’s water supply. The city has water intake lines a short distance downriver from the Detroit Dock collapse.
As pointed out by Derek Coronado of Windsor’s Citizen’s Environmental Alliance, aside from the uranium, beryllium and thorium in the contaminated soil that fell into the river, the disturbance of the sediment on the bottom of the Detroit River is a major concern. Coronado told the Star,
“Sediment in that area is loaded with a cocktail of chemicals that include mercury, PCBs and PAHs which all have negative health implications for humans, wildlife and the water.”
Coronado added,
“But the volume of stuff (aggregate) that went into the river would cause resettlement of the contaminated sediment which is really not good. Moving that stuff around will spread contamination and cause greater destruction to what’s in the water.”
Michigan government environmental officials moved in quickly on Friday to test the water in the Detroit River and down play the risks from the spill. A report in the Detroit News said,
“State testing at the site of a southwest Detroit dock collapse found radiation levels that fell below what is considered naturally occurring levels in Michigan, indicating there is no danger to public health, according to the state environmental agency.”
The News also reported,
“The Great Lakes Water Authority believes the two intake sites several miles upstream and several miles downstream of the collapse are in no danger of contamination from the incident. ‘… the intake is located on the Canadian side of the Detroit River and is not in the direct flow stream of the river where the land collapsed,’ the authority said.”
Other experts have been quoted saying that the risks of harmful radiation exposure from the uranium is very low. The News reported,
“Uranium generally is harmful when ingested in large amounts, which could affect kidney function. It’s unlikely that’s the case for this incident.”
However, with Detroit residents already on alert from the experience of lead contaminated water in Flint, Michigan beginning in 2014, no one is going accept the word of environmental officials that Detroit water is safe and that no one should worry about radiation poisoning.
Canadian officials have expressed concerns about the handling of the situation by state of Michigan and US government officials. New Democratic Party politician Brian Masse, the member of parliament who represents much of Windsor, has called for an “immediate binational investigation” of the collapse that includes both national governments.
Revere Copper and Brass was a subcontractor for the Manhattan Project—the secret US program for the development of the atomic bomb—and extruded and machined uranium and thorium rods for nuclear weapons development in the 1940s and 1950s. Between 1943 and 1944, 1,220 tons of uranium was extruded at the site and Revere abandoned the site in 1985.
The Detroit riverfront property collapse—with its connections to US-Canada relations, the failure of government oversight of environmental safety and the history of American industry going back to the heyday of its technological, economic and military supremacy in the era of World War II—is a microcosm of the crisis facing the working class across the country under capitalism.
While billions of dollars are being invested in Detroit by real estate speculators and the auto corporations with the expectation that enormous financial returns will be realized, the conditions of life for the city’s working class population are becoming ever more precarious and deadly.
*
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 Israeli military has reportedly tested a propulsion system used for carrying nuclear-capable and other missiles, with the occupying entity’s media billing the alleged display as “a show of force aimed at Iran.”
The test was carried out at Palmachim Airbase south of Tel Aviv on Friday, Israeli television channel i24 News reported.
The military “conducted a launch test a few minutes ago of a rocket motor system,” Israel’s Ministry for Military Affairs said in a statement, the channel said. “The test was scheduled in advance and was carried out as planned,” the statement added.
The involved system, it added, could be used to carry interceptor missiles, such as the Arrow 3, “or attack missiles like the Jericho 3, said to have a range of 2,000 kilometers, capable of carrying nuclear warheads.”
Footage aired by i24 showed a white trail shooting up across the sky over the greater Tel Aviv area after the alleged test, of which, the channel said, residents had not been “warned in advance.” The reported test also disrupted the normal pattern of takeoffs and landings at Ben Gurion airport.
The television’s correspondent Jonathan Regev said the propulsion system could carry the projectiles it is fitted with “even above the atmosphere.”
Israel is the only possessor of nuclear weapons in the Middle East, but its policy is to neither confirm nor deny having atomic arms. Former US president Jimmy Carter and various high-profile newspaper and media reports have, however, verified the regime’s ownership of the non-conventional arms. Estimates show that the regime is currently in possession of 200 to 400 atomic warheads.
The regime is also believed to possess the capability to deliver its nuclear warheads in a number of methods, including by aircraft, on submarine-launched cruise missiles, and the Jericho series of intermediate to intercontinental range ballistic missiles.
The United States, Israel’s most dedicated and biggest ally, has invariably cast its veto against the United Nations’ measures seeking to hold the regime to account for its various grave actions, including its refusal to join the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.
In November, both Washington and Tel Aviv avoided the Conference on the Establishment of a Middle East Zone Free of Nuclear Weapons and Other Weapons of Mass Destruction’s first session at UN Headquarters in New York.
Speaking at the conference, Iran’s UN envoy Majid Takht-e Ravanchi called the duo the main obstacles to ridding the region of nuclear arms.
“Their irresponsible policies and actions to proliferate WMD should not be acceptable to the international community,” he added.
Later on Friday, Iran’s Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif reacted on Twitter to the report about the Israeli test.
“E3 (UK, France, and Germany) & US never complain about the only nuclear arsenal in West Asia—armed with missiles actually DESIGNED to be capable of carrying nukes,” he tweeted in reference to the Israeli regime.
Israel today tested a nuke-missile, aimed at Iran.
E3 & US never complain about the only nuclear arsenal in West Asia—armed with missiles actually DESIGNED to be capable of carrying nukes—but has fits of apoplexy over our conventional & defensive ones. https://t.co/r4EqXkhcCN
Nevertheless, the foursome states have ”fits of apoplexy over our conventional & defensive ones,” Zarif added.
The quartet has continually sought to have the Islamic Republic attend talks over its defensive missile capability. Tehran, however, has roundly rejected any such prospect, asserting that its defensive might is beyond all negotiation.
The Islamic Republic has also avowed, on countless occasions, that its missile arsenal comprises projectiles that can reach the occupying entity, and that Tehran would not hesitate to deploy them in the event Tel Aviv perpetrated a blunder.
*
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: File photo provided by Wikipedia shows Israel’s nuclear-capable Jericho II missile carrying the Shavit rocket, which is used for launching satellites into orbit.
We often receive words of encouragement from our readership, praising our comprehensive coverage and our efforts to inform without trying to divide. We appreciate the moral support all the more so in the face of the current online trend to “crack down” on independent news sites such as GlobalResearch.ca, hampering our visibility and therefore also our finances.
Moral support goes a long way, but, examining our current monthly cash deficit, financial support would also greatly be appreciated.
As we enter the final month of 2019, our goal is still to raise $25,000 before the end of the year to help us cover the website’s running costs for 2020. We started this campaign in October and we still need a lot of support if we are to meet our target. If you value the uniquely broad perspective we bring to world events every day (for free!), please donate or become a member now by clicking below.
We understand that times are tough for everyone. If you cannot make a financial contribution but you would like to help out, please see below for details on becoming a Global Research Volunteer…
With measures being put in place to reduce our reach (such as tacit online censorship of independent media) there are a number of ways you can help us make sure that the questions we ask continue to be heard:
Establish an email list of some fifty friends and family and forward the Global Research Newsletter and/or your favourite Global Research articles to this list on a daily basis.
Use the various instruments of online posting and social media creatively to “spread the word”. Click the “like” and “share” buttons on our article pages for starters.
Post one or more Global Research articles to internet discussion groups and blogs to build a dialogue around the subject matters we cover.
Do you have friends who would benefit from our articles? Consider signing them up for our daily newsletter.
Are you part of a community group or organized discussion group? Submit a topic we have covered or a specific article from our website for discussion at your next meeting.
Thank you for your contribution to independent media!
Olympism and other major international sports events are all about profiteering, exploiting athletes, scandalous wheeling, dealing, collusion, and bribery, marginalizing the poor, other disenfranchised groups, and affected communities, sticking taxpayers with the bill, and providing nothing in return but hype and the illusion of amateur athletics at their best.
International sports competition is also highly politicized.
In December 2017, the International Olympic Committee (IOC), complicit with US hostility toward Moscow, banned Russian athletes from participating under their nation’s flag — despite no evidence of state-sponsored doping.
The practice occurs in amateur and professional sports, athletes on their own using performance enhancing drugs.
Banning clean athletes from countries for actions of rules violators breaches the letter and spirit of international sports competition.
On Monday, Tass reported the following:
“The Executive Committee of the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) has approved recommendations of the Compliance Review Committee (CRC) to strip Russia of the right to participate in major international sports tournaments, including the Olympics and World Championships, for the period of four years” — citing a WADA press statement, adding:
“WADA has also banned Russian state officials, ROC and RPC officials, from attending global sports tournaments.”
They include the Olympics, Paralympics, and FIFA World Cup. RT reported that Russian athletes not accused of doping will be allowed to compete as “neutrals.”
Union of European Football Associations (UEFA) championships games scheduled for St. Petersburg and the 2021 EUFA Champions League final in the city aren’t affected by the ban.
Russia’s Foreign Ministry slammed WADA for “squeez(ing) Russia out of international sports,” a politicized action.
Last month, WADA’s Compliance Review Committee called for punitive actions against Russia’s Anti-Doping Agency (RUSADA), along with banning the country from hosting major international sporting events for four years.
Individual athletes should be held accountable for their actions, along with personal trainers or others if found to be complicit – not entire teams or nations without what’s known as evidentiary standards and burdens of proof required in credible legal proceedings.
These standards require “clear and convincing evidence,” beyond a reasonable doubt, the highest evidentiary standard.
Arbitrarily banning Russia from participating in major international sports competition is a politicized move, unrelated to legal standards — part of unacceptable US-sponsored Russia bashing.
In 2016, WADA claimed over 1,000 Russian athletes were involved in state-sponsored doping – credible evidence proving the allegation not provided.
WADA’s latest politicized action is further evidence of international sports competition’s dark side, polar opposite the spirit of amateur athletics at their best.
*
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.”
As should be expected, the government is attempting to stage-manage the shooting at the Pensacola Naval Base. The Pentagon said sailors killed by a Saudi student reportedly angry over the serial murder of Muslims by the US government “showed exceptional heroism and bravery in the face of evil.”
The alleged shooter, Mohammed Alshamrani, shot dead by police, was a Saudi national said to be enrolled in pilot training the Florida naval base. It is the same naval base linked to the supposed 9/11 hijackers.
Sources told ABC News that investigators are working to determine if the shooter was acting out because of religious or ideological reasons or if there was some sort of problem or hostility that developed in the course of the training at Pensacola.
We certainly can’t expect in-depth and omission-free reporting from ABC News and the rest of the state’s propaganda corporate media. It can be said without a doubt Alshamrani had “ideological reasons” for killing Americans. He was a 2nd Lt., an aviation officer in the Saudi military. Although we are told Saudi Arabia is now in the process of modernization, it still clings to its medieval religion, Wahhabism.
Since the fall of the Ottoman Empire at the end of the First World War and the rise of Ibn Saud, essentially an agent working for British imperial interests in the Middle East, radical Sunni Wahhabism, and its variants have spread around the world, often with the assistance of the CIA. The Saudi people have been relentlessly indoctrinated, not only in regard to fellow Muslims failing to follow the puritanical Wahhabi creed, but also includes non-believers, including Christians and secular Westerners.
The US national security state exploited Saudi Wahhabism as part of its anti-Soviet fear campaign during the so-called Cold War. “Due to its anti-atheistic and pro-capitalist tenets, Islam in general and Saudi Islam (Wahhabism) in particular became an effective tool in US foreign policy in combating pro-Soviet and anti-Western secular and nationalistic ideologies in the Middle East and the Muslim world at large,” writes the Middle East Institute.
In pursuing its Cold War agenda in the Middle East, the United States supported the creation of ideologically motivated regional groupings such as the Muslim World League in 1962 (to replace the ill-fated Baghdad Pact), the Organization of Islamic Countries (OIC) in 1969, and the Islamic Development Bank in 1976—all headquartered in the Saudi province of Hijaz, the home of Islam’s holiest sites. The United States also supported the importation en masse into Saudi Arabia of a large number of Islamist political activists, including members of the Muslim Brotherhood and its offshoot, hizb al-tahrir (the Party of Liberation), who had fled the secular, pro-Soviet regimes in Egypt, Syria, Iraq, and Algeria. The late Saudi King Faysal, the main architect of the pro-Western Islam-inspired policy in the Middle East, put these Muslim émigrés, assisted by some influential scholars from Pakistan, in charge of all levels of the Saudi educational system.
Meanwhile, the corporate propaganda media would have us believe Alshamrani was “self-radicalized” online, never mind education and public life in Saudi Arabia are dominated by fanatical Sunni Muslims as described and emphasized above.
This narrative was posted at The New York Times. “U.S. officials are reportedly investigating whether the shooting was an act of terrorism. An official told the Times that Alshamrani did not appear to have any ties to international terror groups and seemed to have self-radicalized,” Daily Beast reported.
Saudi Arabia is the nexus of international Islamic terrorism, a fact you will not see mentioned in The New York Times, a newspaper infamous for telling lies about Saddam Hussein’s nonexistent WMDs and responsible in part for the murder of a million and a half Iraqis.
The pattern here is a well-tread path through the carnage of false flag terrorism. The alleged perp was killed by the cops, while other Saudis documenting the murders—visions of dancing Israelis filming the 911 inferno—were arrested and are now under investigation, that is if we can take a twisting and lying corporate propaganda media at its word.
Recall the hush-hush flights of Saudis out of the country within two days of the 9/11 attacks. The neocon-infested Bush administration refused to answer questions on why possible suspects in the deadliest terror attack on US soil were not held and investigated. Prince Ahmed bin Salman was among them. He was best known, prior to his untimely demise, as a horse racing aficionado and owner of the Kentucky Derby winner War Emblem. He was also connected to al-Qaeda, the US-Saudi-Pakistani nurtured group that got the lucrative—for the military-industrial complex—endless war on manufactured terror rolling.
The handpicked 9/11 commission, of course, gave the Bush neocons a free pass, stating that they had properly handled the evacuation of the “six chartered flights that rushed scores of Saudi citizens out of the United States after the attacks,” according to The New York Times.
President Trump allowed Saudis to wriggle off the hook. “King Salman of Saudi Arabia called President Donald Trump to express his condolences over the attack at the Naval Air Station in Pensacola, Florida, the president said Friday,” reported USA Today.
King Salman of Saudi Arabia just called to express his sincere condolences and give his sympathies to the families and friends of the warriors who were killed and wounded in the attack that took place in Pensacola, Florida….
Trump’s initial remarks are a routine formality of the sort we hear in the wake of terror attacks and mass shootings. A subsequent tweet, however, truly entered the realm of the bizarre.
….The King said that the Saudi people are greatly angered by the barbaric actions of the shooter, and that this person in no way shape or form represents the feelings of the Saudi people who love the American people.
If we consider the above—Saudi society has been indoctrinated in hate for non-believers, including Americans, for nearly a hundred years—then it makes perfect sense large numbers of Saudis not only hate Americans but are “radicalized” to the point they want to kill them, just like they are killing Zaidi sect Shias in Yemen.
According to the SITE Intelligence Group, a staunchly pro-Zionist “nonprofit” linked to Israeli intelligence, a “manifesto” was posted prior to the attack.
Investigators have found what purports to be an online screed written by the shooter and are working to determine if it is legitimate. In it, the writer expresses hatred toward Americans because of crimes against Muslims and humanity as well as US support for Israel.
As the narrative shapes up, Mohammed Alshamrani will be portrayed as a lone wolf terrorist, the six Saudis subsequently arrested will be forgotten, and missing Saudi nationals supposedly connected to the event and reportedly on the radar of the FBI will disappear from a permutational news cycle designed to indoctrinate and distract.
There appears to be but a lone voice in government calling out Saudi Arabia. The state is now in the process of making certain this “isolationist” never sees the inside of the Oval Office.
Why is Trump acting as the spokesperson for Saudi Arabia? It is a disgrace that the office of the presidency is being used for the interests of the theocratic extremist Saudi Arabian Kingdom, the #1 exporter of the radical Islamist ideology that fuels jihadists like al-Qaeda/ISIS pic.twitter.com/6WaesMR1Sb
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.
There was international jubilation when Montenegro seceded from its union with Serbia in 2006 after a controversial referendum. The Referendum Law prevented Montenegrins living and registered in Serbia from voting in the referendum, ensuring that tens of thousands of Montenegrins, in a country of only 622,000, who would have voted to remain the union could not vote in favour of maintaining it.
It must be remembered that state-paid workers like teachers and police were told by the Democratic Party of Socialists (DPS) leader Miodrag Vuković before the referendum May 2006, that someone “cannot work for the state and vote against it,” something objectively untrue. The pressure for independence was strong and in 2007, Jovan Markuš, a politician, journalist and historian, published a 1,290-page document that revealed the irregularities of the referendum.
There is little doubt that the dislocation of Montenegro from its Serbian motherland is part of a wider and continued effort to surround and isolate Serbia for its continued defiance against NATO and maintaining strong relations with Russia. This is why the Prime Minister of occupied Kosovo, Agim Çeku, announced that Kosovo would follow Montenegro’s example to achieve independence, saying “This is the last act of the historic liquidation of Yugoslavia.” Kosovo ultimately declared on February 17, 2008 in its pursuit of a Greater Albania.
Immediately the people of the Serbian-majority autonomous Republika Srpska in Bosnia and Herzegovina demanded their own referendum for independence or union with Serbia. However, this was ultimately withdrawn because according to Milorad Dodik, the prime minister of Republika Srpska, there was significant international pressure and opposition, demonstrating that Serbia is always to be isolated and pressurized, so long as it continues its close relations with Russia.
Although Montenegro became independent in 2006, it took only until December 2009 for the country to reach the final process of becoming a NATO member, the Membership Action Plan, before officially becoming a full-fledged member on June 5, 2017. This was a rapid process that has not been afforded to other aspiring members like Georgia. This is on top of working towards the goal of becoming a European Union member. It appears peripherally that everything is going well in integrating Montenegro into Atlanticist and European interests and projects, particularly those against Russia. But the country has been embroiled in constant political turmoil since 2015 with strong anti-government protests and corruption cases.
The protests were spearheaded by the opposition Democratic Front, demanding a transitional government which would organise next parliamentary elections, to end corruption and the resignation of then Prime Minister Milo Đukanović, who has held leadership positions, either as prime minister or president, in an authoritarian manner since 1990. The anti-government movement finally culminated into anti-NATO protests, with the wider anti-government movement continuing into 2016.
Đukanović and his proxies refused to submit to the anti-NATO movement and on October 16, 2016 on the day of the parliamentary elections, launched a mass arrest of Serbian and Montenegrin citizens on the accusation that they were planning a coup d’état, in which Russian individuals, without evidence as has become standard in Western anti-Russian rhetoric, were allegedly involved. By February of the following year, Montenegrin officials accused Russia of orchestrating the supposed coup attempt that allegedly had the goal of assassinating Đukanović. This was immediately rejected by Moscow.
Although Đukanović left his post in late 2016, a reconciliation between the government and opposition has not been achieved as he continued to chair the DPS, controlling the party with an iron fist. Unsurprising since Đukanović is alleged to have strong links to the mafia and was listed in 2010 as one of the richest world leaders, who is “mysteriously wealthy” with an estimated £10 million. There was little surprise when the Organized Crime and Corruption Reporting Project announced Đukanović as ‘Person of the Year in Organized Crime’ in 2015 as he “built one of the most dedicated kleptocracies and organized crime havens in the world” despite portraying “himself as a progressive, pro-Western leader who recently helped his country join NATO and is on track to join the European Union.”
Although he ruled out the possibility of running as President in 2018, claiming the DPS had strong candidates, he of course lied, and was elected President in April 2018, allowing him to continue his corrupt practises like smuggling, organized crime, privatizations that go to his family like the Prva Banka. It is for this reason that a 2018 Freedom House report classified Montenegro as a Semi-Consolidated Democracy and Received A democracy Score of 3.93 out of 7.
For this reason, the independence of Montenegro is rather just a creation of a mafia state, similarly to neighboring Kosovo. This demonstrates that NATO does not care for authoritarianism and corruption, and rather, its current manifestation is just a continuation of anti-Russianism that is being continued nearly 30 years after the collapse of the Soviet Union. Đukanović had created the Adriatic seaside state into his own personal fiefdom and has never ventured far from complete ownership over Montenegro. NATO, and clearly the EU, simply do not care.
*
Note to readers: please click the share buttons above or below. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.
This article was originally published on InfoBrics.
Paul Antonopoulos is a Research Fellow at the Center for Syncretic Studies.
For several weeks now, much of the Lebanese population has turned on the country’s traditional political leaders and wrought havoc on the corrupt domestic political system. Those who have ruled the country for decades have offered little in the way of reforms, have paid little attention to the infrastructure, and done little or nothing to provide job opportunities outside the circle of their clients. The protestors were also driven into the street by the US measures strangling the Lebanese economy and preventing most of the 7-8 million expatriates from transferring financial support (around $8 billion per year) to their relatives back home. This is how the US administration has conducted its policy in the Middle East in its failed attempt to bring Iran and its allies to their knees. The US seems to believe that a state of chaos in the countries where the “Axis of the Resistance” operates may help curb Iran and push it into the US administration’s arms. The US seeks to break Iran’s back and that of its allies and impose its own conditions and hegemony on the Middle East. What has the US achieved so far?
In Lebanon, since the beginning of protests, the price of merchandise has gone sky-high. Medicines and goods are lacking from the market and the Lebanese Lira has lost more than 40% of its value to the US dollar. Many Lebanese have either lost their jobs or found themselves with a salary reduced to half. Lebanon came close to civil war when pro-US political parties closed the main roads and tried mainly to block the Shia link from the south of Lebanon to the capital, around the suburb of Beirut and from Beirut to the Bekaa Valley.
War was avoided when Hezbollah issued a directive instructing all its members and supporters to leave the streets, asking its members to stop and persuade any ally members to come off the streets and to avoid using motorcycles to harass protestors. The instructions were clear: “If anyone slaps you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also.”
Hezbollah understood what the corners of Beirut are hiding: an invitation to start a war, particularly when for over a month the Lebanese army refused to open the main roads, allowing not only legitimate protestors but also thugs to rule.
The situation today has changed: the Lebanese President is using the constitution to his advantage, equally to the practice of the Prime Minister who has no deadline in forming a government. President Michel Aoun gave the Christians what they have lost after the Taif Agreement: he refused to ask a Prime Minister candidate to form a new government unless he offers a successful and harmonious cabinet membership that pleases all political parties and has strong chances of success.
Aoun was about to offer the mandate to a new candidate, Samir al-Khatib, had the caretaker the Sunni Saad Hariri – who nominated al-Khatib initially – avoided to boycott him at the last moment or did not ask the ex-prime Ministers, the religious Sunni authority and political parties who support him to nominate Hariri in person. The nomination of the Prime Minister is most likely postponed to an unknown date.
However, the protestors have not achieved much because the traditional political parties will hold onto their influence. The new government, once and if formed, will not be able to lift US sanctions to relieve the domestic economy. On the contrary, the US administration is willing to resume its sanctions on Lebanon and impose further sanctions on other personalities, as Secretary Mike Pompeo sated a couple of months ago.
Today, no Lebanese citizen is able to dispose of his own saving or company assets in banks due to restrictions on withdrawals, effective “capital controls”. Only small amounts are allowed to be delivered to account holders–around $150-300 per week in a country where cash payments prevail. No one is allowed to transfer any amount abroad unless for university fees or special demands of goods import of first necessities.
However, Hezbollah, the US-Israel main target, was not affected directly by the US sanctions and by the new financial restrictions. Militants were paid, as is the case monthly, in US dollars with an increase of 40% (due to the local currency devaluation) with the compliments of “Uncle Sam”.
Hezbollah not only has avoided civil war but also has managed to boost the position of its allies. President Aoun and the leader of the “Free Patriotic Movement” (FPM) the foreign Minister Gebran Bassil were in a confused state in the first weeks of the protests. Hezbollah leadership played a role in holding on to his allies and supporting them. Today, the situation is back under control and the President and the FPM leader are holding the initiative over their political opponents.
Hezbollah will be part of the new government with new personalities and perhaps one traditional minister. The “Axis of the Resistance” believes if “Hezbollah’s presence in the new government disturbs the US administration, then why it should comply and leave? Quite the opposite. It should stay or appoint Ministers on its behalf”.
The “Axis of the Resistance” is convinced that the exit of Hezbollah from the cabinet would trigger further US demands. It is Hezbollah’s legitimate right to be represented in the government since it holds a large coalition in the Parliament. Besides, who will stop any attempt by the US to allow Israel to annex the disputed Lebanese water borders? Who will campaign for the return of Syrian refugees back home? What about the US request to deploy UN forces on the borders with Syria?
Hezbollah enjoys large amount of popular support and this from a society that is behind it and that suffers as much as everybody else from the country of the corrupted Lebanese system. Notwithstanding its poverty, the society of Hezbollah stands with the “Axis of the Resistance” against the US sanctions and attempts to corner it.
The US administration failed to achieve its objectives, even when riding the wave of protestors’ legitimate demands. It has also failed to drag Hezbollah to street fighting. It is about to fail to exclude Hezbollah and its allies, determine to be part of the new government regardless of the names of individual ministers. The US failed to corner Hezbollah – as was possible with Hamas – because Lebanon is open to Syria and from it to Iraq and Iran. Lebanon has also the seafront on the Mediterranean open to the outside world to import much needed goods. However, the “Axis of the Resistance” has asked its friends and supporters to cultivate the land in order to soften the increase of prices of food.
The “Axis of the Resistance’ also has lines open to Russia and China. Hezbollah continues trying to convince political parties to diversify the resources and cease depending on the US and Europe only. Russia is proving itself on the political international arena – even if still not enjoying influence in Lebanon – and is able to stand firm against US hegemony. Europe is also happy to see Hezbollah and its allies in power, afraid of seeing millions of Syrian and Lebanese refugees flocking to the old continent. China is willing to open a bank in Lebanon, collect and recycle the bins, offer drinkable water and construct electricity generators. The total of what China is ready to invest in Lebanon is close to $12.5 billion, much more than the $11 billion offered by CEDRE that is linked to the privatisation of Lebanese infrastructure.
Doors in Lebanon are open for an alternative to the US. Therefore, the more Washington is willing to corner the Lebanese government and its inhabitants, the more certainly they move towards Russia and China.
The Lebanese have lost much since the protests began. The US has gained a society ready to keep at a distance whihc is further from its hegemony and its allies have failed to trap Hezbollah. However, protestors did manage to sound an alarm and warn politicians that their corruption can’t continue forever and that they may someday be brought to justice. Once again, the agents of chaos have failed and the “Axis of the Resistance” has the upper hand in Lebanon.
*
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 have made some progress in our campaign to meet our running costs and put an end to our monthly deficit, but we still need your help. As grateful as we are to those who have given so far, the total number of donations and membership subscriptions we have received over the past year still only amounts to a very small fraction of the tens of thousands of people who read our website on a daily basis. If you can make a contribution to help secure the future of GlobalResearch.ca, please click below.
The cause of the Holocaust, Bush suggested, was “evil.” For the US president, the word “evil” serves to cover up a multitude of sins. He has used it repeatedly to describe the Islamic fundamentalist group that carried out the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks. On numerous occasions he has referred to the leader of Al Qaeda as “the evil one.” This particular expression serves a very immediate political purpose, since it avoids naming Osama bin Laden and thereby calling to mind the longstanding business association between the Bushes and the wealthy bin Laden family of Saudi Arabia.
A new study by Indian and American researchers confirm how Winston Churchill caused the Bengal Famine and starved over 3 million Indians to death. Glorified as the “Saviour of the World” in the west and dubbed the “Butcher of Bengal” by Indians, the streets of eastern Indian cities were lined with corpses as a direct result of Churchill’s policies. Yet, the story of this Indian Holocaust remain unspoken to this day.
Donald Trump has offered to intervene in Mexico, i.e. “to go after the Drug Cartels” following “the brutal killing of an American family in Mexico”. The Mexican president has turned down Trump’s generous offer.
In a recent interview, President Trump confirmed that his administration is now considering categorizing “drug cartels” as “terrorists”, akin to Al Qaeda (with the exception that they are “Catholic terrorists”).
The Bush family links to Nazi Germany’s war economy were first brought to light at the Nuremberg trials in the testimony of Nazi Germany’s steel magnate Fritz Thyssen. Thyssen was a partner of George W. Bush’s grandfather Prescott Bush:
From 1945 until 1949 in Nuremberg, one of the lengthiest and, it now appears, most futile interrogations of a Nazi war crimes suspect began in the American Zone of Occupied Germany.
In June of this year we examined why the United States will not attack Iran subsequent to raised tensions in the region. Six months later on the cusp of 2020, the United States has not attacked Iran militarily … yet. However, Defense Secretary Esper just threatened to deploy 14K more US mercenary[1] troops to the Middle East. So, let’s examine current US / Israeli intent regarding Iran again by looking at individual tactical elements which may contribute to an overall strategic picture.
On Thursday afternoon, the Washington Post sent out a news alert headlined “John Kerry Endorses Biden in 2020 Race, Saying He Has the Character and Experience to Beat Trump, Confront the Nation’s Challenges.” Meanwhile, in Iowa, Joe Biden was also touting his experience. “Look,” Biden said as he angrily lectured an 83-year-old farmer at a campaign stop, “the reason I’m running is because I’ve been around a long time and I know more than most people know, and I can get things done.”
On November 15, a wave of protests engulfed over 100 Iranian cities as the government resorted to an extremely unpopular measure: a fuel tax hike of as much as 300%, without a semblance of a PR campaign to explain the reasons.
Iranians, after all, have reflexively condemned subsidy removals for years now – especially related to cheap gasoline. If you are unemployed or underemployed in Iran, especially in big cities and towns, Plan A is always to pursue a second career as a taxi driver.
*
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.
To Tony Hall, Director General of the BBC cc: Fran Unsworth and Tracey Henry
URGENT – “Is the BBC Antisemitic?”
We need to register with you our deep concern that, once again, and in the closing stages of an acrimonious election campaign, the BBC’s coverage of antisemitism charges against the Labour Party has been both unbalanced and uncritical. Your reporting today of the Jewish Labour Movement (JLM)’s repetition of its flimsily-based charges against the Party that it used to support falls disastrously short of the Corporation’s own formal standards of accuracy and balance.
This represents what we can only call a flagrant breach, and of all times during a general election campaign, of the BBC’s legal commitment to due impartiality and fairness.
Over recent months, and with no remission during the election campaign, coverage of allegations of Labour antisemitism has featured repeatedly in the BBC News, and often as the lead item. In news programmes the allegations have been reported as quasi-factual, with no indication that they are fiercely contested. In more discursive formats such as the Today programme or Newsnight, presenters have consistently adopted a negative, attacking stance towards anyone who questions the basis of the allegations. In complete contrast, those making the allegations, usually based on hearsay rather than personal experience, are supplied with leading questions and softball follow-up.
Jews are as diverse as any other substantial group in society. Yet people whose representative status is highly doubtful are routinely presented by the BBC as ‘representatives of the Jewish community’. Surely you can ensure that your broadcasting staff know the facts and convey them appropriately. The Board of Deputies, for example, has no supervised electoral process – and in any case its synagogue-based membership covers no more than one third of the UK’s Jewish population. Secular Jews make up at least 50% of British Jews and have no voice through the Board of Deputies.
In particular the voices of the large numbers of Jews who are Party members, who know how atypical the quite rare examples of antisemitic behaviour in the party are, and who are enthusiastic supporters of a Corbyn-led Labour government have been almost entirely ignored. The BBC has allowed itself to be used as a megaphone for deeply contested charges.
The BBC’s Guidelines state that when a partisan political position is put forward, an opposing one, if it exists, should be broadcast too. The Labour Party does have many Jews who support it and who are prepared to speak out, notably in the organisation Jewish Voice for Labour. Our many requests to be able to present our experience and our perspective are routinely ignored, and in the rare exceptions have never been given equal weighting with the negative voices.
The BBC’s coverage of the JLM’s release of its evidence to the Equalities and Human Rights Commission’s inquiry (into any discrimination in Labour’s processes for handling complaints of antisemitism) is a prime example of the BBC’s systematic imbalance. This deliberately-timed attempted destabilisation of the Labour Party’s position by JLM has appeared in virtually every main news bulletin today, including live coverage – uncontested – of the JLM news conference on BBC News Channel.
The evidence that Jewish Voice for Labour gave to the EHRC inquiry was made public at the time and is publicly available on our web-site. This evidence is directly relevant to your news item but was not even mentioned in today’s extended BBC coverage. It seems that the BBC is treating us as the ‘wrong sort of Jew’.
All Jews are not the same. Asserting that they are is an aspect of antisemitism. The BBC should be ashamed of its record in openness to the multiple voices of British jewry.
By behaving in the way that it has (and today’s JLM coverage is only the latest example) the BBC has, constructively, been contributing to an assiduously promoted anti-Labour agenda.
We look forward to immediate corrective action.
This letter will be published on our website.
Sincerely,
Leah Levane and Jenny Manson, co-chairs JVL
*
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.
Vanessa Beeley: It is important because in Syria the “humanitarian” hybrid war strategy of the Globalist powers in the so-called civilised “global north” is being exposed real time as Syria sweeps to a military victory against the heavily financed proxy invasion of their country, orchestrated by the US alliance that includes aligned Gulf States, Turkey and Israel. By pushing back against the dominant establishment narrative on Syria, we, as journalists and activists, are effectively defending international law which is being violated by our own rogue states. We are standing in solidarity with an unprecedented resistance against global terrorism which has also enabled the formation of an axis of resistance that has turned the tide of neoconservative hegemony in the region. We are defending the right of the Syrian people to decide their own future without foreign meddling. The precedents being set by this externally imposed conflict and its outcome will define the future of global security for all Humanity – what more important principle is there to defend?
